dismissed EB-1C Case: Dairy Sanitation

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Imm igration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: JAN 1 5 2015 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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 review 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 not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
I 
� \Vl\ 
Ron osenbe� 
Chie Administrative Appeals Office 
j 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Nebraska Service Center Director denied the preference visa petition. The 
matter 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 )(1 )(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, a Minnesota corporation, is engaged in the "development, manufacture [and] supply of 
dairy sanitation [and] udder hygiene." The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the position 
of Sales Director. 
On May 16, 2014, the director denied the immigrant petition, finding the petitioner had failed to 
establish that the beneficiary had been and would be employed 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, the petitioner 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.F.R. § 204.5G)(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 DECISIO!v 
(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. 
In addition, 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 
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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
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, USCIS 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. 
II. THE ISSUES ON APPEAL 
A. Employment Abroad in a Managerial or Executive Capacity 
The first issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
1. Facts 
In a letter dated June 12, 2013, the petitioner explained that the beneficiary's most recent role with 
the foreign company was Business Unit Manager for and his duties were as follows: 
As Business Unit Manager for [the beneficiary] played a pivotal role 
in building the company's presence in Europe. He was responsible for developing 
and implementing commercial strategies for new business growth for the sale of feed 
and industrial minerals in the business unit. In 2009, under [the 
beneficiary's] management, the Unit reached a sales volume in excess of $3 
million. 
As Business Unit Manager for _ [the beneficiary] was responsible for 
overseeing the overall Sales & Marketing operations of [the foreign company's] 
products. Specifically, he directed and supervised the Sales & Marketing 
Departments throughout including two district sales managers. [The 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
beneficiary's] ultimate objective was to accomplish the effective and efficient 
discovery, contact, negotiation and continued support of [the foreign company's] 
magnesia customers to ensure maximum dollar sales volume in the most profitable 
way possible. 
The petitioner submitted an organizational chart of the foreign company that indicated the 
beneficiary as _ 
_ 
who in turn supervises two The 
organizational chart is not in English and the petitioner did not provide a translation. Because the 
petitioner failed to submit certified translations of the documents, we cannot determine whether the 
evidence supports the petitioner's claims. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, the evidence is 
not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
On November 25, 2013, the director sent a request for additional 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 including the names of all departments, 
employees, employees' titles, a clear description of their job duties, educational level, salary and 
whether they worked part-time or full-time. The director also requested a description of the foreign 
company's products and services, including the exact production and administrative tasks necessary 
to produce the product and services, and who performs those tasks, and tasks related to goal-setting, 
policy-making, and discretionary decision-making. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a letter from the Director of Trading of the foreign company, 
dated February 7, 2014, indicating the beneficiary's duties abroad as follows: 
Management and development of the sales areas, including margin, volumes, 
and market share (20%)[:] 
Specific tasks include: 
• Negotiate and implement sales agreements with main customers in Europe; 
• Establish budgets/forecasts; 
• Manage customer relationships in Europe; 
Report to upper management and corporate departments within the company[:] 
Specific tasks include: 
• Report at monthly Sales Meetings; 
• Represent business unit at Quarterly Quality Meeting and annual Corporate 
Convention; 
Manage market research for new potential markets and products to expand [the 
foreign company's] revenue and profit (15%): 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
Specific tasks include: 
• Oversee staff responsible for market studies; 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
• Meet with potential business partners: distributors and suppliers; 
Participate in industry events and professional conferences (10%)[:] 
Specific tasks include: 
• Prepare materials to present and represent company; 
Develop relationships and coordinate supply chain with internal production and 
external raw materials suppliers (15%)[:] 
Recruit, Coach, Manage the Commercial Team/Market Managers in charge of 
Markets for [the foreign company] (30%)[:] 
Market Managers are: 
• 
• 
• 
Market manager for 
Market Manager for 
.____----�- Market Manager for 
The petitioner also provided an organizational chart of the foreign company in English. The chart 
shows that the beneficiary was the Business Unit Manager Western Europe who in tum supervised 
three market managers. The petitioner also provided a job description for the position of market 
manager for the foreign company. 
The director denied the petition, in part, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
2. Analysis 
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. 
§ 204.5(j)(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), ajj'd, 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 conducted, and any other facts contributing to a 
comprehensive understanding of the beneficiary's actual role within the foreign 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
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. 
Here, the evidence does not establish 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 entity that fails to demonstrate what the beneficiary did on a day-to-day basis. For 
example, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary was responsible for "management and 
development of the sales areas, including margin, volumes, and market share;" and, "recruit, Coach, 
Manage the Commercial Team/Market Managers in charge of Western Europe Markets for [the 
foreign company]." This description provides little insight into what the beneficiary primarily did on a 
day-to-day basis and did not explain the foreign company's operational goals and strategies for sales and 
marketing. 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 sufficient 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. 
The job description also includes several non-qualifying duties such as the beneficiary would 
"negotiate and implement sales agreements with main customers in Europe;" "establish 
budgets/forecasts;" "manage customer relationships in Europe;" "meet with potential business 
partners: distributors and suppliers;" and, "prepare materials to present and represent company." 
According to the job description for the beneficiary's subordinates, it appears that they assisted with 
finding customers, negotiations and market research, but it appears that the beneficiary still handled 
a large portion of sales, negotiations, budgeting, and forecasting for the company. Thus, it appears 
that the beneficiary provided the services such as finding customers, negotiating sales agreements, 
meeting with buyers, and preparing sales materials. An employee who "primarily" performs the 
tasks necessary to produce a product or provide a service 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 
Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I & N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). 
In the denial decision, the director noted that the beneficiary's employment history with the foreign 
company was inconsistent between the information provided in the I-140 supporting documentation 
and from the Form G-325A. Specifically, the director noted that the January 16, 2014 letter of 
support indicated that the beneficiary's position abroad was as a Market Manager from 
February 2006 until January 2009, and then as a Business Unit Manager beginning 
January 2009. However, the director also noted that the Form G-325A, Biographic Information, 
signed and submitted by the beneficiary, stated that the beneficiary was employed abroad in the 
position of Business Unit Manager from February 2006 until June 2010. Thus, the information on 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
Form G-325A is not consistent with the information provided in support of the current I-140 
petition. 
On appeal, the petitioner states that the "error on the G-325A was not material to the beneficiary's 
eligibility under Section 203(b )(1 )(C). The petitioner further stated that the beneficiary was 
employed with the foreign company in the position of Marketing Manager from 2006 to January 
2009, and that the "Beneficiary held the qualifying position, Business Unit Manager, continuously 
for more than one year abroad from January 2009 until June 2010 as required under 8 CFR 
204. 5(j)." However, the petitioner did not sufficiently explain why the I -140 supporting 
documentation and the Form G-325A contained inconsistent information regarding the beneficiary's 
employment abroad. The petitioner does not sufficiently explain why it categorized the positions of 
Market Manger and Business Unit Manager as two separate positions when the 
beneficiary stated that he held one position, Business Unit Manager, while employed abroad. It is 
incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective 
evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the 
petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of 
course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in 
support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
The petitioner states that the beneficiary managed an essential function. 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 to be 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.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). 
In addition, the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the 
beneficiary manages the function rather than performs 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. INS, 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 evidence that the beneficiary managed an essential 
function. 
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. In light of the foregoing discussion, the 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
B. U.S. Employment in a Managerial or Executive Capacity 
The second issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner established that it will employ the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
1. Facts 
The petitioner has offered the beneficiary the position of Sales Director. In a letter of 
support, dated June 12, 2013, the petitioner provided a job description for the proffered position that 
states the following: 
In his current capacity, [the beneficiary] is responsible for planning, developing, 
establishing and implementing company strategies and objectives relating to the 
magnesia business objectives, organizational policies to coordinate functions and 
operations and establishing responsibilities and procedures to obtain business 
objectives in North America. It is imperative that [the beneficiary's] extensive 
understanding of the products and services, marketing experience and 
management skills continue to be available to [the petitioner] in the U.S. so that he 
can continue to evaluate the value and profitability of the market for products 
in North America. 
As Sales Director for North America, [the beneficiary] is responsible for 
identifying and implementing emerging markets in the U.S. for [the petitioner] to 
expand and diversify our products and services to accentuate the dynamism of our 
parent company offerings. Since his transfer to the United States in June 2010, we 
have significantly grown the product line in the U.S. We now have 9 
magnesium products being marketed in more than 16 states. products are 
being sold to animal feed manufacturers, fertilizer manufactures and [the beneficiary] 
is currently working on developing the market into the chemical industries. The 
company realized $8.7 million dollars in sales in 2012. 
[The beneficiary] is responsible for training and managing the Sales 
Mangers in the marketing of the range of products. He currently oversees 
two sales managers and an Administrative Assistant. He analyzes resource needs and 
market demand to plan and assess the feasibility of the commercial and financial 
development of product ranges; executes marketing strategies for emerging markets 
by building operational relationships, negotiation and optimization of commercial 
terms (volume, price); assesses unmet customer needs and market opportunities by 
making use of market research data and determines strategies to capitalize on the 
opportunities in local, regional and national areas to determine potential sales of 
diversified and expanded company products and services; performs fmancial 
projections including feasibility and profitability at retail and wholesale levels; 
identifies markets, licensing opportunities, and determines the feasibility of product 
development; creates overall market entry strategies; attends staff conferences to 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
provide senior management with information and proposals; is responsible for 
profitability (net results, cash management); and develops and disseminates 
information on a continuous basis to all pertinent parties concerning the fulfillment of 
project goals and objectives. 
The petitioner submitted an organizational chart that indicates that a VP/CEO supervises the 
beneficiary, who in tum supervises two sales Managers and one Administrative Assistant. The 
organizational chart also shows a Regional Manager , a Regional Manager 
, and four Tech/Service 
In an RFE, the director requested additional information regarding the beneficiary's duties for 
proffered position. In response, the petitioner provided the following description of the beneficiary's 
duties: 
Responsible for planning, developing, establishing and implementing company 
strategies and objectives in North America (15% ): 
Specific Tasks: 
• Budget, Forecast; 
• Manage relationship between product US business unit and headquarters 
m 
• Organizing the US/Canada Sales office[.] 
Identify and implement potential markets in the U.S. for [the petitioner] to 
expand and diversify its products and services (15% ): 
Industries of interest: 
• Animal Feed; 
• Fertilizer; 
• Chemical and Building industries[;] 
• Environmental application: waste water treatment[.] 
Recruit, train, coach and manage the commercial and administrative team 
(20%); 
• Market Managers; 
• 
_ 
_j , Customer Service, Administrative Assistant; 
• 2 open positions for a market manager and a logistics coordinator[.] 
Visit customers, negotiate with national accounts including 
etc., & manage supply agreements with main 
customers in North America (15% ): 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Coordinate supply chain, and establish the adequate logistics and distribution 
network in order to service customers in North America (15% ): 
• Oversee the import of raw material into the US and organization of custom 
clearance; 
• Establish warehousing agreements with third party logistics; 
• Contract transport with carriers and trucking companies [.] 
Develop relationships and purchase from internal and external raw material 
suppliers (15% ); and 
Attend Trade Shows, Conferences and participate in Professional Associations 
events (5% ): 
• Prepare promotional materials and represent company. 
The director denied the petition, in part, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity. 
2. Analysis 
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 proposed job duties. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(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), aff d, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The AAO 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 would be relieved from having to primarily perform the operational tasks. 
In the present matter, upon review of the totality of the record, the evidence does not support a 
finding that the beneficiary would allocate his time primarily to the performance of tasks that are 
within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
On review, the petitioner provided a vague and nonspecific description of the beneficiary's duties 
that fails to demonstrate what the beneficiary will do on a day-to-day basis. For example, the 
beneficiary will be "responsible for planning, developing, establishing and implementing company 
strategies and objectives relating to the business objectives, organizational policies to 
coordinate functions and operations and establishing responsibilities and procedures to obtain 
business objectives in North America;" and, "identifying and implementing emerging markets in the 
U.S. for [the petitioner] to expand and diversify our products and services to accentuate the 
dynamism of our parent company offerings." This description provides little insight into what the 
beneficiary primarily will do on a day-to-day basis and did not explain the petitioner's company strategy 
and objectives for the magnesia business objectives, and did not explain the diversification of the 
petitioner's products. 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 sufficient 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. 
The job description also includes several non-qualifying duties such as the beneficiary "analyzes 
resource needs and market demand to plan and assess the feasibility of the commercial and financial 
development of product ranges;" "executes marketing strategies for emerging markets by building 
operational relationships, negotiation and optimization of commercial terms (volume, price);" 
"assesses unmet customer needs and market opportunities by making use of market research data 
and determines strategies to capitalize on the opportunities in local, regional and national areas to 
determine potential sales of diversified and expanded company products and services;" "performs 
financial projections including feasibility and profitability at retail and wholesale levels;" "identifies 
markets, licensing opportunities, and determines the feasibility of product development;" and, 
"creates overall market entry strategies." It appears that the beneficiary will provide the services 
such as market research, sales, negotiations, marketing, financial operations and budgeting, and 
customer service rather than overseeing other employees that will perform the day-to-day tasks of 
developing and implementing the sales and marketing operations. The beneficiary supervises two 
marketing managers and an administrative assistant. However, the petitioner submitted a new hire 
announcement that states one of the marketing managers is actually a junior market manager. Thus, 
it is not clear how one marketing manager, one junior market manager and one administrative 
assistant can handle all of the day-to-day tasks of developing and implementing a marketing and 
sales strategy for the company. Thus, it appears that the beneficiary is performing the duties 
inherent in running all of the sales and marketing operations. An employee who "primarily" 
performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or provide a service 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 Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I & N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). 
On appeal, the petitioner states that the "Service's assumptions are overly broad and ignore the 
capacity of the Petitioner's parent company and affiliates to provide support for the company's non­
qualifying administrative or operational tasks." However, the petitioner did not provide sufficient 
evidence to establish that other offices are assisting the beneficiary with sales, market research, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
negotiations and marketing development. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCa lifornia, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comin'r 1972)). 
The petitioner states that the beneficiary manages an essential function. 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 to be 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.F.R. § 204.50)(5). 
In addition, the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the 
beneficiary manages the function rather than performs 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. INS, 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 evidence that the beneficiary will manage an essential 
function. 
The petitioner has failed to provide a sufficiently detailed explanation, along with credible and 
probative supporting documentation, establishing the U.S. entity's overall organizational structure, 
staffing levels, and the scope of its business activities at the time of filing. The record is unclear as 
to the beneficiary's actual role will be, and as to the petitioner's actual staffing levels. Overall, the 
record is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or 
executive capacity. 
In the instant matter, the job description submitted by the petitioner provides little insight into the 
true nature of the tasks the beneficiary will perform. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit 
sought. See sec. 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1361; see also Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 
(BIA 1966). The petitioner must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the beneficiary is fully 
qualified for the benefit sought. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
The "preponderance of the evidence" standard requires that the evidence demonstrate that the 
applicant's claim is "probably true," where the determination of "truth" is made based on the factual 
circumstances of each individual case. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 3 76 (citing Matter of E­
M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989)). In evaluating the evidence, the truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Id. Thus, in adjudicating the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
application pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard, the director must examine each 
piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the 
context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true. 
Even if the director has some doubt as to the truth, if the petitioner submits relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is "probably true" or "more likely 
than not," the applicant or petitioner has satisfied the standard of proof. See US. v. Cardozo­
Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) (discussing "more likely than not" as a greater than 50 percent 
probability of something occurring). 
Here, the submitted evidence does not meet the preponderance of the evidence standard. As noted in 
the director's decision, the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish the petitioner 
meets the regulatory requirements to establish eligibility for the I-140 immigrant visa petition. 
C. Qualifying Relationship 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has not established a qualifying relationship with 
the entity where the beneficiary was employed abroad. To establish a "qualifying relationship" 
under the Act and the regulations, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary's foreign employer 
and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (i.e. a U.S. entity with a foreign office) or 
related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See generally § 203(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C). 
In the present matter, the petitioner claims to be an affiliate of the foreign company where the 
beneficiary was employed prior to coming to the United States to work for the petitioner. The 
petitioner claims that is the parent company of the petitioner and the beneficiary's 
foreign employer. The petitioner provided affidavits to indicate the ownership of the petitioner and 
the employer's foreign employer, and provided corporate documents such as articles of association, 
stock certificates and bylaws. However, the documentation is not complete and does not clearly 
establish that is the owner of the beneficiary's foreign employer and the owner of the 
company that owns the petitioner. 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 ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reason. In visa petition 
proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.