dismissed EB-1C Case: Customer Contact Technology

(b)(6)
DATE: OCT 3 0 2014 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF 
PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please .. revie .w the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do n9t file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rosen 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Texas Service Center Director denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, to classify the beneficiary 
as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The 
petitioner is engaged in "global provider customer contact." The petitioner seeks to employ the 
beneficiary in the position of Director of Implementation and Support. 
The director denied the petition on February 25, 2014, concluding that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary's employment abroad was within a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to us for review. On appeal, counsel submits a brief disputing the director's 
adverse findings. 
I. THE LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers.-- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
* * * 
(C) Certain Multinational Executives and Managers. -- An alien is 
described in this subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding the 
time of the alien's application for classification and admission into the 
United States under this subparagraph, has been employed for at least 
1 year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or 
subsidiary thereof and who seeks to enter the United States in order to 
continue to render services to the same employer or to a subsidiary or 
affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial or executive. 
The language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only those executives and 
managers who have previously worked for a firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or 
subsidiary of that entity, and who are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its 
affiliate or subsidiary. 
Additionally, the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i) state that the petitioner must provide the 
following evidence in support of the petition in order to establish eligibility: 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(A) If the alien is outside the United States, in the three years immediately 
preceding the filing of the petition the alien has been employed outside the 
United States for at least one year in a managerial or executive capacity by a 
firm or corporation, or other legal entity, or by an affiliate or subsidiary of 
such a firm or corporation or other legal entity; or 
(B) If the alien is already in the United States working for the same employer or a 
subsidiary or affiliate of the firm or corporation, or other legal entity by which 
the alien was employed overseas, in the three years preceding entry as a 
nonimmigrant, the alien was employed by the entity abroad for at least one 
year in a managerial or executive capacity; 
(C) The prospective employer in the United States is the same employer or a 
subsidiary or affiliate of the firm or corporation or other legal entity by which 
the alien was employed overseas; and 
(D) The prospective United States employer has been doing business for at least 
one year. 
II. THE ISSUE ON APPEAL 
A. Employment Abroad in a Managerial or Executive Capacity 
The issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily--
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the organization; 
(ii) supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the 
organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has 
the authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other 
personnel actions (such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no 
other employee is directly supervised, functions at a senior level 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function 
managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or 
function for which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor 
is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by 
virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees 
supervised are professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily--
(i) directs the management of the organization or a major component or 
function of the organization; 
(ii) establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or 
function; 
(iii) exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
Finally, if staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a 
managerial or executive capacity, US CIS must take into account the reasonable needs of the 
organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. Section 
101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
1. Facts 
In the initial petition, the petitioner did not explain the beneficiary's assignment with the foreign 
employer.- On May 20, 2013, the director sent a request for evidence ("RFE"). In part, the director 
requested a detailed job description of the beneficiary's specific tasks on a normal business day 
including the percentage of time spent on each task when employed by the foreign company. In 
addition, the director requested an organizational chart of the foreign company, including the names 
of all departments and teams, and the names and detailed description of the job duties for the 
beneficiary's immediate supervisor and subordinate employees. The RFE also stated that if the 
beneficiary did not supervise other employees, that the petitioner should specify the essential 
function within the organization the beneficiary managed. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
In a response letter dated August 16, 2013, counsel for the petitioner stated that "the beneficiary 
worked for the from 2003 to 2005 when he was transferred upon the 
approval of an L-1B visa on March 2005 and valid until 2/28/2008." Counsel for the petitioner also 
described the beneficiary's 
position abroad as follows: 
The beneficiary in this case . . . served as System Engineer for Installations and 
Support at the foreign company in . While serving as a System 
Engineer abroad he did not supervise any personnel. He was in charge of the 
Implementation (Installation and Configuration) of the new systems, Pre-Sales and 
Post Sale Support, Overseeing improvement of activities of different systems and 
optimization of their Operation for the following clients abroad: 
The petitioner also submitted a letter dated February 1, 2005 from the general manager of the foreign 
company, detailing the job duties performed by the beneficiary with the foreign company as follows: 
Up to this moment, [the beneficiary] has been doing the activities of System 
Engineering and maintenance and consultation for our actual clients and potential 
clients in the Dominican Republic; among the works done by him, are found the 
following: 
The installation and configuration of the Integration system CTI (Computer 
Telephone Integration) that permits to the users to the Call Center (Center of the 
attention to the client) to identifythe automatic form to the clients that call in order to 
request assistance, at the same time are supplied major information and agility in the 
service offered to said clients. 
This implementation makes up the integration of one of the products of our 
distribution, Business Edition, to the actual systems of the bank. At the 
same time that the distribution of the screens of the integration with the final users or 
representatives of the center. 
The implementation of the systems of predictive dialing (Predictive Dialer) for the 
area of Call Center, said system facilitates and improve in some 90% of the contracts 
with the clients that for some reason called by the bank for the offering of the new 
products and services, due diligence of collecting, etc.; at the same time for the 
attention of the calls in coming. 
- - - - - ----· 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
These installations require the integration with their respective telephone systems 
L 
, in order to obtain the distribution of all of the calls to the diverse points 
of the center according to the specifications of the clients. After they there fsicl was 
realized the actualization (upgrade) to the version 5.x of the product for and 
at present there is being plan[ n Jed the actualization of the 
(6.x). 
After the installation of these systems, there is done [sic] the consultation to the 
_ with the finality of the improvement of their systems of 
quality or metering of the representatives in their centers of attention to the client. 
The same had as results the creation of new reports of metering of the parameters of 
telephone attention and the process of acquisition of a digital recording system, for 
the purpose of assuring of the quality as legal implications. 
In these institutions dedicated to the sale of services of attention of the call centers 
(outsourcing Call Center) for clients in the Dominican Republic 1 and in the 
United States and Puerto Rico _ . . [The beneficiary] has shown himself as a 
consultant for the design of personalized reports and optimization of the distribution 
and attention of calls; and support of the hard ware of the digital recording. ---~ 
The petitioner also submitted a description that states the obligation of the post as follows: 
"Implementation (Installation and Configuration) of the new systems; Pre-Sales and Post Sales 
support; Consultations to the clients for the improvement of their activities and the optimization of 
their operations." 
The petitioner failed to provide a percentage breakdown of the beneficiary's duties abroad or an 
organizational chart of the foreign company, or information regarding the essential function 
managed by the beneficiary since he did not supervise any subordinates. Failure to submit requested 
evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(14). 
The director denied the petition on February 25, 2014, concluding that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
In denying the petition, the director determined that the petitioner provided a vague job description 
that failed to convey an understanding of what the beneficiary primarily did on a day-to-day basis. 
The director concluded that the beneficiary did not submit evidence to establish that he supervised a 
staff comprised of subordinate managerial, supervisory or professional employees, or that he was 
otherwise relieved from primarily performing non-managerial and non-executive functions 
----- --- - -··-····--···· ----
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
associated with the operation of the foreign company's business. The director also noted that the 
beneficiary was initially admitted into the U.S. in L-1B nonimmigrant classification which may 
suggest that the beneficiary was not employed abroad as a manager but instead was operating in a 
specialized knowledge or technical capacity. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner states that the director erred in denying the petition since the 
"Service failed to take into consideration the true nature of the position of manager occupied by [the 
beneficiary] at the Dominican Republic because he not only had the specialized knowledge of the 
interworking procedures and products of in Dominican Republic but also was the sole 
director of the local office in Dominican Republic." Counsel further states that the "multi-national 
nature of the company allowed him to fully control and administer the office in with the 
assistance of Engineers and other staff from the other offices in Brazil, Colombia and Puerto Rico." 
Counsel also contends that the director erred in "denying this petitions solely because the beneficiary 
entered in to the USA with the L-1B." 
2. Analysis 
As a preliminary manner, counsel on appeal states that the Service erred in "denying this petition 
solely because the beneficiary entered into the USA with the L-1B." However, upon review of the 
director's decision, the director did not deny the petition based on the fact that the beneficiary 
entered the U.S. in L-1B nonimmigrant classification. The director only stated that the beneficiary's 
previous L-1B classification "suggests that he had not been employed as a manager abroad but was 
operating in a specialized knowledge or technical capacity." The director also outlined the lack of 
evidence to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, we review the totality of 
the record, starting first with the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.50)(5). A detailed job description is crucial, as the duties themselves will reveal the true 
nature of the beneficiary's foreign and proposed employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. 
Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), atfd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). We will then consider this 
information in light of other relevant factors, including job descriptions of the beneficiary's 
subordinate employees, the nature of the business that is conducted, the petitioner's subordinate 
staff, and any other facts contributing to a comprehensive understanding of the beneficiary's actual 
role within the petitioning entity. While an entity with a limited support staff will not be precluded 
from the immigration benefit sought herein, it is subject to the same burden of proof that applies to a 
larger entity with a moderate or large subordinate staff. In other words, regardless of an entity's size 
or support staff, the petitioning entity must be able to provide sufficient evidence showing that it has 
the capability of maintaining its daily operations such that the beneficiary was relieved from having 
to primarily perform the operational tasks. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
In the present matter, upon review of the totality of the record, the evidence does not support a 
finding that the beneficiary allocated his time primarily to the performance of tasks that are within a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
On review, the petitioner provided a vague and nonspecific description of the beneficiary's duties 
with the foreign company that fails to demonstrate what the beneficiary did on a day-to-day basis. 
For example, the petitioner stated vague duties such as the beneficiary was responsible for 
"Implementation (Installation and Configuration) of the new systems;" "Pre-Sales and Post Sales 
support;" and, "consultations to the clients for the improvement of their activities and the 
optimization of their operations." The petitioner also provided a few examples of specific projects 
the beneficiary was a part of but they were also vague and general. The description provides little 
insight into what the beneficiary primarily did on a day-to-day basis and did not explain the details of 
the implementation of new systems and pre and the post-sales support process. Furthermore, reciting 
the beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the 
regulations require a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. The petitioner has 
failed to provide any detail or explanation of the beneficiary's activities in the course of his daily 
routine. The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. 
Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108. 
In addition, the director requested in his RFE a percentage breakdown of the duties performed by the 
beneficiary, an organizational chart of the foreign company, and a detailed job description for the 
beneficiary's subordinates at the foreign company or information of the essential function managed 
by the beneficiary if he did not manage personnel; however, the petitioner failed to provide any of 
this evidence. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be 
grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.P.R.§ 103.2(b)(14). 
In the instant matter, the job description submitted by the petitioner provides little insight into the 
true nature of the tasks the beneficiary performed abroad. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
In response to the director's RFE, counsel for the petitioner stated that "while serving as a Systems 
Engineer abroad he did not supervise any personnel." The term "function manager" applies 
generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead 
is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" within the organization. See section 
101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A)(ii). The term "essential function" is not 
defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims that the beneficiary is managing an essential 
function, the petitioner must furnish a written job offer that clearly describes the duties performed in 
managing the essential function, i.e. identify the function with specificity, articulate the essential 
nature of the function, and establish the proportion of the beneficiary's daily duties attributed to 
managing the essential function. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5G)(3)(i)(5). In addition, the petitioner's 
description of the beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary managed the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
function rather than performed the duties related to the function. An employee who "primarily" 
performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be 
"primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of 
the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); see 
also Boyang, Ltd. v. J.N.S., 67 F.3d 305 (Table), 1995 WL 576839 (9th Cir, 1995)(citing Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm'r 1988)). In this matter, the 
petitioner has. not provided any evidence that the beneficiary managed an essential function for the 
foreign company or any evidence of the organizational structure and hierarchy of the foreign 
company. Again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
In light of the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the 
burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). The petitioner 
has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.