dismissed EB-1C Case: Facade Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV . 14, 2023 InRe : 28455174 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, a fac;ade design and detailing company, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as 
its general manager under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or 
managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign 
employee to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that (1) the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer; (2) the 
Beneficiary had been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity; and (3) the Beneficiary 
would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter ofChawath e, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de 
novo. Matter ofChristo 's, Inc. , 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will 
dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act makes an immigrant visa available to a beneficiary who, in the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition, has been employed outside the United States for at least one year in a 
managerial or executive capacity, and seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render 
managerial or executive services to the same employer or to its subsidiary or affiliate. 
The Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker , must include a statement from an authorized 
official of the petitioning United States employer which demonstrates that the beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding 
the filing of the petition, that the beneficiary is coming to work in the United States for the same employer 
or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer, and that the prospective U.S. employer has been doing 
business for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3). In addition, a petition for a multinational 
manager or executive must be accompanied by evidence that the prospective United States employer has 
the ability to pay the proffered wage from the time the petition 1s filed and continuing through 
adjudication. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The primary issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in a managerial capacity in the United States. 1 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
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; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(44)(A). 
If a petitioner establishes that the offered position meets all four elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, the petitioner must then prove that the beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial 
duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the petitioner's other employees. See 
Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). In determining whether the beneficiary's 
duties will be primarily managerial, we consider the description of the job duties, the company's 
organizational structure, the duties of the beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other 
employees to relieve the beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, 
and any other factors that will contribute to understanding the beneficiary's actual duties and role in 
the business. 
A. Duties 
On the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, and in a cover letter accompanying the 
petition, the Petitioner indicated that it sought to employ the Beneficiary as its associate director, 
noting that he would be responsible for managing, directing, overseeing the company's j I 
project. The Petitioner described the Beneficiary's proposed duties as follows: 
Project Management (25%) 
• Direct the execution of project act1v1t1es such as engmeenng, cladding, and 
installation as per the agreed schedule. 3% 
• Oversee the execution of assigned project as per technical specification that 
includes identifying and segregating the scope of project into cladding, skylight, 
and curtain wall within the envisaged timeframe, quality, and cost. 2% 
• Monitor the operational budget, staff cost and other financial measures. 2% 
1 The Petitioner did not claim that it seeks to employ the Beneficiary in an executive capacity. 
2 
• Manage the preparation and submission of correct data, including the data entailed 
under the established quality management system in coordination with the team. 
2% 
• Direct overall departmental objectives, assess and identify discrepancies, variation, 
personal training/technical needs. 2% 
• Review work orders before start of production, assess and establish the bifurcation 
of project scope in relation to aluminum/glass covering (cladding, curtain walling 
system etc.) and ensure timely back and forth submission of technical data, 
drawings and programmers etc. for necessary processing. 1 % 
• Establish quality management system and project method statement, quality plan, 
safety plan and risk assessment accordingly to the project requirements and 
specifications. 2% 
• Oversee bids management to ensure assignment of bid to the respective subordinate 
managers, on time completion of bids, responses for RFl's (request for 
information), revisions of estimates and the compiling and sending of elements of 
bid to the respective customers. 2.5% 
• Act as the escalation point of contact between the Client's representative, and [the 
Petitioner], ensuring the desired project objectives are delivered. 1.5% 
• Responsible for adhering to an appropriate and effective project management 
framework for facade projects. 1.5% 
• Manage the project team and supply chain to deliver the facade element of the 
project to time, cost, quality targets and standards. 2% 
• Manage design team in the planning, coordination and development of practical 
technical details and oversee the timely submission of drawings and materials for 
approval. 2% 
• Review feasibility of design ideas, based on factors, modify drawings to match with 
circumstances, confer with engineering, production, or sales departments, modify 
designs to conform with customer specifications, production limitations, or changes 
in design trends. 1.5% 
Client Requirements Management (25%) 
• Lead the design and architecture discussions with the clients, documenting 
processes, and requirements for the projects. 4.5% 
• Represent [the Petitioner] in all customer communications that requires technical 
expertise and pertinent to [the Petitioner] technical expertise on the fa9ade 
concepts. 3.5% 
• Responsible to conduct architecture specification workshop for clients. 1.5% 
• Responsible for the technical part of the bid preparation; design/architecture; effort 
estimates, and scope of work. 2% 
• Present offered design/architecture to customers and verify/adapt it during 
realization phases. 1.5% 
• Drive architectural and technical discussions for security, privacy, and compliance 
for proposed facade solutions. 2.5% 
• Collaborate with the sales team to represent the solution offering to the clients. 2% 
• Recommend client value creation initiatives and industry best practices. 2% 
3 
• Understand and propose the appropriate solution in line with client's expectations. 
2% 
• Manage high and critical priority technical calls raised by the clients and supervise 
the process oflow to medium priority matters. 3.5% 
Resource Management (25%) 
• Manage the work activities of staff including subordinate managers and advise 
accordingly by providing them with operational guidelines and direction. 5% 
• Coordinate the involvement of different resources including support, service, and 
management resources, in order to meet project performance objectives and 
customer expectations. 2% 
• Detail out each project deliverables vs. staff's target completion while keeping in 
mind optimal resource utilization. 1.5% 
• Ensure a healthy collaboration between subordinate managers and project teams. 
2% 
• Identify and resolve issues and conflicts within project teams. 2% 
• Keep subordinates abreast of company's goals and client's expectations or changes. 
1.5% 
• Identify staff training needs and advise on training sessions. Staff the programs 
with lead managers and team members. 3% 
• Conduct project-based performance appraisal and annual performance appraisal of 
team members. 2% 
• Discuss area of improvement and suggest promotions and salary increases based 
on staff performance. Collaborate with project resources to define their goals. 2% 
• Responsible to hire the project staff and interview candidates for respective projects 
( contractors and staff). 2% 
• Conduct daily project progress status review meetings and facilitate issue 
management and requirements clarification from business team. 2% 
• Assess grievances and seek resolution from relevant departments. Collaborate with 
subordinate managers to make sure attrition levels are within agreed to limit. 2% 
Operations Management (25%) 
• Support capability building for [the Petitioner] in the areas of expertise. 2% 
• Develop and promote architectural best practices and standards. 2% 
• Stays abreast with the current affairs like leading packages and vendors, 
forthcoming architectures and trends, and existing and forthcoming standards. 2% 
• Identify areas of focus and games expertise through research period 2% 
• Share personal knowledge through coaching and mentoring, in addition to 
participating and running knowledge sharing sessions and community building 
activities. 3% 
• Acts as a bridge between the technical architecture team and management m 
translating the organizational strategy & vision into solution design. 2% 
4 
• Integrate knowledge of own discipline with knowledge of other disciplines in order to 
develop integrated solutions and help in setting organizational road-map. 2% 
• Responsible for providing technical leadership throughout the project life-cycles. 3% 
• Evaluate emerging technologies and the evolution of current technologies to define a future 
vision road map for optimal application of technology to meet business needs. 3% 
• Spearhead innovation by exploring, investigating, recommending, benchmarking, and 
implementing technologies for business solutions. 2% 
• Ensure knowledge up-graduation and work with new technologies to ensure that facade 
solutions are current and meets the quality standards. 2% 
The Petitioner farther claimed that the Beneficiary would be managing a team of 35 managerial and 
professional employees. 
In a request for evidence, the Director found that the initial position description did not sufficiently 
identify the Beneficiary's proposed duties as the Petitioner's associate director. The Director farther 
noted that the Petitioner's claim to employ 35 subordinate managerial and professional employees was 
not supported by the record and was contradicted by the Petitioner's claim on the Form I-140 petition 
that it employed only three individuals. The Director requested farther evidence to supplement the 
record and resolve the noted discrepancies in staffing. 
In response, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary would report directly to the company's 
president, and would directly oversee a project coordinator, a business and projects coordinator, a 
senior project lead, and two project leads. Regarding staffing, the Petitioner claimed that the 
Beneficiary would manage "multiple sets of teams at onsite U.S. and offshore India locations." The 
Petitioner submitted an organizational chart, indicating that the only U.S. employees, in addition to 
the Beneficiary, were the project coordinator and the business and projects coordinator. The chart 
farther indicated that the senior project lead and two project leads were based abroad. 
The Petitioner provided payroll records for its project coordinator and business and projects 
coordinator, demonstrating that they were on the U.S. company's payroll in May and June of 2022. 
The Petitioner also submitted copies of diplomas as well as April 2022 payroll records for its senior 
project lead and project leads demonstrating that they were employed abroad during that period. 
Regarding the Beneficiary's position, the Petitioner resubmitted the previously submitted description 
of duties. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's 
duties did not adequately identify what he would actually be doing in his role as associate director. 
The Director farther noted that the duties as described did not explain how he would interact with his 
claimed managerial and professional subordinates, or how they would relieve his from performing 
non-qualifying duties. The Director concluded that the generic description of duties, coupled with the 
discrepancies regarding the Petitioner's staffing levels, did not support the assertion that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director failed to apply the preponderance of the evidence 
standard and contends that it is clear that the Beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial 
capacity because he will "manage the organization and his specific department, supervise and control 
5 
the work of thirty-five professional employees, have the authority to perform personnel actions over 
employees, and supervise the day-to-day operations of the functions he has authority over." However, 
the Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter 
ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. For the reasons outlined below, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that the Beneficiary's role will be primarily managerial in nature, as the job description the Petitioner 
offered contains generalities that preclude a meaningful assessment of the Beneficiary's actual tasks 
in the course of the Petitioner's daily operation. 
Whether the Beneficiary is a managerial employee turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained its 
burden of proving that his duties are "primarily" managerial. See section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive 
or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the 
regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 
(2d. Cir. 1990). Here, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would "collaborate with the sales 
team to represent the solution offering to the clients" and "act[] as a bridge between the technical 
architecture team and management." However, the organizational chart submitted does not list a sales 
team or technical architecture team, nor is "management" clearly defined; rather, the chart indicates 
that the U.S. entity is composed solely of the Beneficiary, the project coordinator, and the business 
and projects coordinator. 2 Additionally, the organizational chart for the India office likewise identifies 
no such departments, and indicates that the project leads oversee engineers. It is incumbent upon the 
petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Matter of 
Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Likewise, tje job dycription broadly states that the Beneficiary will manage, direct, and oversee the 
company's project without elaborating on the tasks this responsibility would entail. Reciting 
a 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 actual duties 
themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 
at 1108, ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41. 
Further, despite providing a job duty breakdown with time allocations, the Petitioner did not clearly 
describe the Beneficiary's proposed position or convey a meaningful understanding of his actual daily 
tasks. The above discussed duties suggest the Beneficiary's direct involvement in the project 
management and engineering services of the U.S. entity and leave uncertainty as to whether he will 
primarily perform qualifying managerial duties. Again, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary 
will primarily engage in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the 
Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d at 1316. On appeal, the Petitioner 
does not directly address the Director's determination regarding the deficient position description and 
lack of information regarding the nature of his stated duties and their relationship with his claimed 
subordinate employees. Rather, the Petitioner emphasizes the Beneficiary's performance of 
managerial duties, and asserts that it is clear that the Beneficiary will be employed in a primarily 
2 We further observe that the Petitioner does not employ any administrative or bookkeeping staff that would perform the 
day-to-day operational tasks of the company. Moreover, despite claiming that the Beneficiary will "coordinate with 
[human resources] teams in making decisions pertaining to hiring, training of employees, and firing of employees," the 
Petitioner provides no evidence that it employs a human resources team. 
6 
managerial capacity. While we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary will 
continue to manage and supervise technical projects, supervise subordinate managers, and oversee 
subordinate professionals abroad who it claims will relieve him from primarily performing 
non-qualifying operational duties, the Petitioner has provided little supporting documentation to 
substantiate this assertion. 
Upon review, we agree with the Director's determination that the job description for the Beneficiary 
is insufficient. The record does not demonstrate the Beneficiary's claimed personnel authority over 
professional subordinates, his direction of them, and his delegation of non-qualifying duties to them. 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's role will be primarily managerial in nature, 
as the job description the Petitioner offered contains generalities that preclude a meaningful 
assessment of the Beneficiary's actual tasks in the course of the Petitioner's daily operation. 
Moreover, the Petitioner had not shown who would perform the non-managerial duties that are 
necessary to run the business. The Petitioner did not demonstrate that a subordinate staff was available 
at the time of filing to perform the non-qualifying operational and administrative duties of the business, 
nor does the submitted position description establish that the Beneficiary's duties are primarily 
managerial in nature. Again, the Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Without sufficient supporting 
evidence, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the Beneficiary will primarily engage in 
qualifying managerial tasks, as opposed to non-qualifying duties directly related to the U.S. entity's 
operations. 
B. Staffing 
Next, we will discuss the Petitioner's organizational hierarchy and staffing. If staffing levels are used 
as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial capacity, we take into account 
the reasonable needs of the organization in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of 
the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
The statutory definition of"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to primarily 
supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. Contrary 
to the common understanding of the word "manager," the statute plainly states that 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." Id. If a beneficiary directly 
supervises other employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire those 
employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner provided a general organizational chart related to the composition of the U.S. office as 
well as its foreign affiliate in India. As noted above, the U.S. organizational chart indicates that despite 
its incorporation in 2010, it had only three employees, including the Beneficiary, at the time of filing. 
The Petitioner further claimed that the Beneficiary will manage "multiple sets of teams at onsite U.S. 
and offshore India locations." 
7 
Although the Beneficiary is not required to supervise personnel, if it is claimed that his duties involve 
supervising employees, the Petitioner must establish that the subordinate employees are supervisory, 
professional, or managerial. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The Petitioner indicated that 
the Beneficiary will oversee a project coordinator and a business and projects coordinator in the U.S. 
office. The Petitioner did not provide a clear breakdown of the percentage of time the Beneficiary 
would devote to personnel management, but indicated that he would devote approximately 14% of his 
time to "manag[ing] the work activities of staff including subordinate managers," "identify[ing] staff 
training needs," "conduct[ing] project-based performance appraisal[s] and annual performance 
appraisal[s]," "discuss[ing] area of improvement and suggest[ing] promotions and salary increases 
based on staff performance," and "hir[ing] the project staff and interview[ing] candidates for 
respective projects." No farther details regarding the level of interaction with and supervision of staff 
was provided. Consequently, absent a clear breakdown of his supervisory duties and the percentage 
of time he would devote to each duty, we are unable to determine whether he will primarily supervise 
others in the capacity of a personnel manager. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it submitted sufficient documentary evidence, including copies 
of performance reviews and leave letters executed by the Beneficiary, to demonstrate his supervision 
of employees and that his position will be primarily managerial. Even if the Petitioner established that 
the Beneficiary's duties are primarily supervisory in nature, which it did not, it has not demonstrated 
that the Beneficiary would direct subordinate supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. The 
Petitioner's organizational chart, which shows a two-tiered structure, does not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's U.S. subordinates supervise subordinate staff members or manage a clearly defined 
department or function of the Petitioner, such that they could be classified as managers or supervisors. 
In evaluating whether a beneficiary manages professional employees, we must evaluate whether the 
subordinate positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining "profession" to mean "any occupation for which a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the 
occupation"). Therefore, we must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than 
the degree held by subordinate employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate 
employee does not automatically lead to the conclusion that an employee is employed in a professional 
capacity. Although the Petitioner claimed that the project coordinator holds a bachelor's degree in 
mechanical engineering, and that the business and projects coordinator holds a bachelor's degree in 
business management, the Petitioner did not corroborate the educational backgrounds of these 
individuals with documentary evidence. Nor has the Petitioner shown that either of these positions 
require a bachelor's degree in a specific relevant area of study, such that they could be classified as 
professionals. 
Moreover, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary will continue to supervise managerial and 
professional subordinates abroad and that he holds personnel authority over them, and submits 
evidence in support of the claimed foreign staffing such as pay stubs, position descriptions, and 
educational credentials for several claimed subordinates. The Beneficiary, however, cannot qualify 
as a personnel manager based on the oversight of subordinate managers or professionals abroad, as 
the provided foreign organizational chart is vague and does not reflect the manner in which they will 
support him. If a petitioner claims that it has a reasonable need for foreign staff to perform some of 
the operational tasks associated with its U.S. business, it has the burden of documenting those foreign 
8 
employees and the duties they perform for the U.S. entity. Matter of Z- A, Inc., Adopted Decision 
2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). Moreover, the brief statement of duties provided for the senior team 
lead and the two team leads does not articulate the manner in which the Beneficiary will be relieved 
from performing non-qualifying operational duties. 
The Petitioner also did not establish that the Beneficiary managed an essential function pursuant to 
section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 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 
10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary will manage an essential function, 
it must clearly describe the duties to be performed in managing the essential function. In addition, the 
petitioner must demonstrate that "(l) the function is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is 
'essential,' i.e., core to the organization; (3) the beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to 
perform, the function; (4) the beneficiary will act at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy 
or with respect to the function managed; and (5) the beneficiary will exercise discretion over the 
function's day-to-day operations." Matter ofG-Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
The Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary will be managing itsl !project, and claimed that he 
will manage this function as well as oversee the personnel based both in its foreign affiliate office and 
in the U.S. office. The Petitioner did not, however, establish that the Beneficiary's position would be 
at a senior level either within the organization or with respect to the function. It also did not establish 
that the Beneficiary would primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the function. See id. 
The Petitioner provided evidence ildicatinr the Beneficiary's performance of non-qualifying duties 
directly related to the company's project, such as "represent[ing] [the Petitioner] in all 
customer communications that requires technical expertise," "conduct[ing] architecture specification 
workshop for clients," and "present[ing] offered design/architecture to customers and verify/adapt it 
during realization phases." The Petitioner further indicated that the Beneficiary was responsible for 
the technical part of the bid preparation, design/architecture, effort estimates, and scope of work. 
Here, the Petitioner did not submit supporting documentation to substantiate that the Beneficiary was 
primarily engaged in managing a function rather than performing it. The Petitioner indicated that the 
Beneficiary will have direct interaction with clients and customers regarding project specifications and 
adaptations. Although the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary manages teams of professionals both 
in the U.S. and abroad, it provided little evidence to substantiate the Beneficiary's direction of these 
employees or his delegation of non-qualifying tasks to them, and provides no discussion of the roles 
and contributions of those employees. Therefore, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that 
the Beneficiary's function is well defined and that he has senior level discretionary authority over it. 
In light of the deficiencies described above, we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary will primarily 
allocate his time to performing managerial job duties. 
III. RESERVED ISSUES 
As noted, the Director also concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that it had a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer and that the Beneficiary has been employed 
9 
abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. Because the identified basis for denial is dispositive of 
the appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the 
remaining grounds for denial. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies 
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 
reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that it will employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity in the 
United States. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10