dismissed EB-1C Case: Financial Services

(b)(6)
U.S. Department ofHorneland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: DEC 3 0 2014 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
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 )(1 )(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:/Jwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Non-Precedent Decision 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Nebraska Service Center Director denied this preference visa petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner is a U.S. entity providing financial services and products. It seeks to employ the 
benefiCiary in the United States as a technical services director. Accordingly, the petitioner 
endeavors 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 director denied the petition, concluding ·that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, and (2) the 
beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity. 
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 or managers 
who have previously worked for the firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or 
subsidiary of that entity, and are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its 
affiliate or subsidiary. 
A United States employer may file a petition on Form I-140 for classification of an alien under 
section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. No labor certification is 
required for this classification. The prospective employer in the United States must furnish a job 
offer in the form of a statement that indicates that the alien is to be employed in the United States in 
(b)(6)
Non-Precedent Decision 
Page 3 
a managerial or executive capacity. Such a statement must clearly describe the duties to be 
performed by the alien. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" 
as 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. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" 
as 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. 
(b)(6)
Non-Precedent Decision 
Page 4 
II. 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 in the United States. 
1. Facts 
The record shows that the petition was filed on May 23, 2013 with a supporting statement that 
indicated that the beneficiary was employed abroad from August 19 87 through 2012 as a technical 
services director in the real estate operations and development departments of its affiliate i 
Canada. The petitioner stated that the beneficiary had been granted L1-A status since January 2005 
for "infrequent and intermittent" trips to the United States "to provide management services for our 
building operations and maintenance of real estate properties in the U.S." The petitioner further 
stated that the beneficiary's position was moved to the United States in January 2013. 
The petitioner provided a short description of the beneficiary's duties abroad which were divided 
into eight general areas1 of responsibility including ongoing building operations, initiating and 
ensuring proper administrative procedures, reviewing and evaluating drawings and specifications for 
conformance with building standards, and reviewing branch operating budgets. 
On September 23, 2013, the director issued a request for evidence (RFE), informing the petitioner 
that the record lacks sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary had been employed abroad 
in a managerial or executive capacity. The director noted that the petitioner provided only a brief, 
generalized statement regarding the beneficiary's duties; therefore, he requested a detailed job 
description of the beneficiary's specific tasks including the percentage of time spent on each task 
when employed by the foreign company. The director requested information including an 
organizational chart of the foreign company and all employees and contractor information. The 
director also requested a description of the products and services provided and personnel necessary 
to produce or perform them. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a new letter from the foreign entity, dated December 11, 2013, 
reiterating the beneficiary's general duties. The petitioner provided an undated organizational chart 
depicting the beneficiary as one of three directors of engineering and technical services, all of whom 
report directly to the managing director of asset engineering and technical services. The chart 
depicts no positions or employees subordinate to the beneficiary. 
In a decision dated January 23, 2014, the director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner 
failed to establish that the beneficiary had been employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or 
1 As noted by the petitioner on appeal, the director's decision included the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's 
duties; therefore, we will not repeat them here. 
(b)(6)
Non-Precedent Decision 
Page 5 
executive capacity. The director found that the petitioner failed to provide specific duty descriptions 
with a requisite allocation of time dedicated to the beneficiary's specific tasks as requested. The 
director found that the petitioner failed to respond with other requested information and failed to 
identify a specific function that the beneficiary managed abroad. 
The petitioner filed an appeal with a brief, asserting, in part, that the evidence submitted was 
sufficient to support its claim and that the director erred in concluding that the beneficiary's duty 
description was brief, generalized and vague. 
2. Analysis 
On review, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, we will look first to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner's description 
of the job duties must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate 
whether such duties are either in an executive or managerial capacity. /d. Here, the petitioner's 
description of the beneficiary's duties abroad is general and vague leaving us little insight into what 
the beneficiary did on a day-to-day basis. For example, one of the beneficiary's eight listed duties is 
his broad "responsibility for ongoing building operations for the Company's numerous properties." 
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. 199 0). 
In addition, the petitioner failed to document what proportion of the beneficiary's duties would be 
managerial functions and what proportion would be non-managerial. This failure is important 
because several of the beneficiary's duties, such as initiating and ensuring proper administrative 
procedures in building operations, providing technical assistance, and reviewing and evaluating 
tenant fit-up drawings and specifications do not fall directly under traditional managerial duties as 
defined in the statute. We note that despite the director's request, the petitioner resubmitted the 
same eight listed responsibilities in response to the RFE, and failed to provide a breakdown of time 
the beneficiary dedicated to any of the responsibilities. 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). 
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 
(b)(6)
Non-Precedent Decision 
Page 6 
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. § 
204.50)(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 10l (a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one ·�primarily" perform the 
enumerated managerial or executive duties); see also Boyang, Ltd. v. l.N.S., 67 F.3d 305 (T able), 
1995 WL 576839 (9th Cir, 19 95)(citing Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 
593, 604 (Comm'r 1988)). In this matter, the petitioner claimed that the beneficiary managed an 
essential function but it did not provide sufficient evidence to establish the precise nature of that 
function. Further, the petitioner's assertion that the beneficiary had no employees or contractors 
who reported to him was corroborated by the foreign entity's organizational chart and raised the 
question of who would relieve the beneficiary from performing the duties of the function. 
On appeal, the petitioner's assertion that the foreign entity's four page letter describing the 
beneficiary's duties abroad should not be described as "brief" ignores the fact that much of the letter 
discusses the foreign entity's business and the beneficiary's history with the foreign entity rather than 
the beneficiary's actual duties. Further, the petitioner's assertion that the information that the 
director requested could not be provided because the beneficiary's overall responsibilities "cannot be 
quantified by percentages on a daily basis" does not relieve the petitioner from establishing that the 
beneficiary meets the requirements of this petition. 
The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary was employed abroad m a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity. Therefore, this petition cannot be approved. 
B. U.S. Employment in a Managerial or Executive Capa city 
1. Facts 
The petitioner submitted a letter in support of the initial petition, dated April 13, 2013, stating that 
the beneficiary's position as technical services director abroad was moved to the United States on 
January 1, 2013 and was expanded to include management of designated branch office operations in 
the United States, Canada, and Asia. The petitioner stated that the petitioning company "offers 
clients a diverse range of financial protection products and wealth management services" and the 
beneficiary would be responsible for preparing and maintaining operational and development 
performance standards within the U.S., Canada, and Asia by providing direction on technical matters 
to consulting engineers, and senior staff. 
The petitioner listed seven general areas of responsibility for the beneficiary including such duties as 
providing engineering support for designated branch office operations, managing total energy and 
utility use and performance, directing the design of new building development projects, monitoring 
(b)(6)
Non-Precedent Decision 
Page 7 
or implementing major building service agreements for outside contractors, and implementing 
company environmental policy. The petitioner explained that the beneficiary performed the same 
duties abroad but the company moved the position to the United States for increased oversight and 
effectiveness. The petitioner indicated that it employed 26,400 employees in the United States. 
The director's RFE informed the petitioner that the record lacks sufficient evidence to establish that 
the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. The 
director noted that the petitioner provided only a brief, generalized statement regarding the 
beneficiary's duties; therefore, he requested the following: 1) specific daily tasks with a percentage 
of time spent on each task; 2) list of employees and contractors along with their duties, educational 
level, salary and part-time or full-time status; 3) a description of products and services and the tasks 
and personnel necessary to produce them; 4) an organizational chart demonstrating each company's 
structure to include the beneficiary's position; and 5) payroll documents. The director also requested 
the petitioning company's tax documents. 
The petitioner responded to the RFE with a letter, dated December 13, 2013, stating that the 
beneficiary's proposed job title was changed to "Director [of] Engineering [and] Technical Services, 
[of U.S.] properties" to fully describe his area of responsibility. The petitioner stated that, in this 
role, the beneficiary "is responsible for preparing and maintaining cost effective and environmentally 
compliant operational and development performance standards for the U.S. Real Estate portfolio." 
The petitioner's letter also stated that the beneficiary's position is essential to managing the complex 
technical service operations and engineering functions for the company's real estate holdings in the 
United States. The petitioner further described the beneficiary's proposed duties including the 
following: 1) reviewing proposals; 2) monitoring building system improvements or retrofits for U.S. 
properties; 3) evaluates the purchase of major building equipment and services; 4) provides financial 
analysis for implementation and installation of major building equipment and services; 5) directs 
efficiency evaluations; 6) monitors or implements major building service agreements for 
outside contractors; 7) implements environmental policy and ensures due diligence compliance; 8) 
directs design of new building development projects with outside consultants; monitors all 
applicable building codes, regulations, and statutes; 9) advises company investment project 
managers on technical and engineering viability of potential new property; 10) reviews ·existing 
property condition reports and environmental reports in coordination with the investment project 
managers; 11) develops the program requirements for overall building design for architects and their 
consultants; and 12) reviews construction progress and issues deficiency reports. The petitioner 
stated that the beneficiary "meets with the property management firms, building managers and senior 
building operating staff to provide direction on engineering support for issues that arise on a day to 
day basis." The petitioner further stated that "[t]his interface involves supporting approximately 125 
employees, property managers, consultants and others related to the overall operations of each 
property." 
In denying the petitiOn, the director concluded that the petitiOner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. The director 
(b)(6)
Non-Precedent Decision 
Page 8 
determined that the petitioner failed: to provide specific duty descriptions, and a corresponding 
allocation of time dedicated to the beneficiary's specific tasks, as requested. The director found that 
the petitioner failed to identify a specific function that the beneficiary managed in the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's job duties were not vague and that they were 
related to an essential function. The petitioner further asserts that the beneficiary's position is 
essential to manage the function that "is a complex process involving directing and implementing all 
goals, policies and the overall objectives of senior executive management for its real estate assets." 
The petitioner states: 
[T]he Beneficiary's position entails authority for overseeing the overall technical 
services operations for this immense real estate portfolio, including all decision 
making authority in the areas of building maintenance, energy ·efficiency, capital 
expenditures, assessment of new major acquisitions, hiring external contractors and 
architects, negotiation and implementation of major building service agreements, · 
compliance with Canadian and U.S. building codes, and hiring of building mangers 
for 90 properties. 
The petitioner asserts that its overall complexity, value, structure and size demonstrate that the 
function discussed above is essential and requires the services of a manager. The petitioner asserts 
that the beneficiary is a function manager "in the overall technical services operations of $5.1 billion 
U.S. Real Estate holdings." The petitioner further asserts that the beneficiary's duty descriptions are 
sufficient to establish its claim. The petitioner refers to the "6-page detailed and highly specific job 
description" provided in the record and claims that the beneficiary manages an essential function. 
The petitioner asserts that the nature of the beneficiary's position involves "responding to a 
constantly changing agenda" and "requires the incumbent to quickly respond to highly variable day­
to-day issues." Moreover, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's position "requires planned and 
unplanned travel for meetings with building managers and senior staff, interviews, negotiations, 
review/approval of work proposals and other items which need to be reviewed onsite sometimes on a 
critical and immediate basis." 
2. Analysis 
Upon review, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary would be employed m a 
managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
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 
(b)(6)
Non-Precedent Decision 
Page 9 
of the beneficiary's daily duties attributed to managing the essential function. See 8 C.P.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. l.N.S., 67' F.3d 305 (Table), 
1995 WL 576839 (9th Cir, 19 95)(citing Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 
593, 604 (Comm'r 1988)). 
In this matter, the petitioner claimed that the beneficiary was a function manager, charged with 
oversight of the petitioner's real estate properties but the petitioner did not clearly describe the 
essential function to be managed by the beneficiary. For example, the petitioner initially stated that 
the beneficiary would be responsible for preparing and maintaining operational and development 
performance standards yet, in response to RFE, the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary was 
primarily responsible for preparing and maintaining cost effective and environmentally compliant 
operational and development performance standards. On appeal, the petitioner describes the 
essential function as "a complex process involving directing and implementing all goals, policies and 
the overall objectives of senior executive management for its real estate assets." This description is 
vague; therefore, the petitioner has not articulated the essential nature of the function with sufficient 
specificity. 
As previously noted, the record initially indicated that the beneficiary would prepare and maintain 
operational and development performance standards in the U.S. and abroad by periodic reporting 
and providing direction to consulting engineers, senior head office, and branch office staff. In its 
response to the director's RFE, the petitioner changed the job title and stated that it expanded the 
beneficiary's duties to more fully describe his responsibilities. The purpose of the request for 
evidence is to elicit further information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has 
been established. 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(8). When responding to a request for evidence, a petitioner 
cannot offer a new position to the beneficiary, or materially change a position's title, its level of 
authority within the organizational hierarchy, or its associated job responsibilities. The petitioner 
must establish that the position offered to the beneficiary when the petition was filed merits 
classification as a managerial or executive position. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 
249 (Reg. Comm'r 1978). If significant changes are made to the initial request for approval, the 
petitioner must file a new petition rather than seek approval of a petition that is not supported by the 
facts in the record. The information provided by the petitioner in its response to the director's 
request also provided additional information relating to the beneficiary's duties but it is not clear 
whether the additional job duties were applicable at the time this petition was filed. Certainly, the 
beneficiary's job title has been changed since the petition was filed therefore the analysis of this 
criterion will be based on the job title submitted with the initial petition. We also note that a review 
of the record indicates that the beneficiary initially had the responsibility for oversight of 74 real 
estate properties though, on appeal and without explanation, the petitioner now claims it to be 90 
properties. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by 
(b)(6)
Non-Precedent Decision 
Page 10 
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). 
Looking to the beneficiary's duties, we note that the petitioner lists the beneficiary's duties as 
managerial, but it fails to quantify the time the beneficiary spends on them. This failure of 
documentation is important because several of the beneficiary's responsibilities such as evaluating 
purchases, making recommendations, implementing policies, overseeing equipment replacements, 
reviewing reports, consulting/advising, and directing others indicate that he is performing the duties 
of a function rather than managing a function and do not fall directly under traditional managerial 
duties as defined in the statute. Absent a clear and credible breakdown of the time spent by the 
beneficiary performing his duties, we cannot determine what proportion of his duties would be 
managerial or executive, nor can we deduce whether the beneficiary is primarily performing the 
duties of a function manager. See IKEA US, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 
(D.D.C. 1999). Further, we find that although the director specifically requested a breakdown of the 
beneficiary's time related to his duties, the petitioner failed to provide it. Rather than provide the 
information requested, the petitioner asserted that the record supported the petitioner's claim and that 
the nature of the beneficiary's work did not make such a calculation possible. 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). On appeal, the petitioner states that the beneficiary's job "cannot be 
quantified by percentages on a daily basis." The petitioner further asserts that the beneficiary's 
"decision-making job functions, by their very nature, involve responding to a constantly changing 
agenda based on high level priorities of the properties under management or consideration of 
acquisition." Notably, this assertion does not lend support to its claim. Instead, the assertion 
highlights that the beneficiary is essentially "on call" with little control over his own agenda as he 
exercises the daily functions. We recognize the beneficiary's substantial accomplishments in his 
role, but the petitioner's assertion that the beneficiary only manages this function while relying on 
other unnamed individuals to perform the actual functions is not supported by the record. 
We note that the petitioner referred to branch operations in the beneficiary's duty description but 
there is no discussion as to who, other than the beneficiary, would perform these non-qualifying 
duties. The petitioner has not clearly set out the beneficiary's daily tasks and we are unable to discern 
to whom the beneficiary is directing to carry out the operational tasks associated with the functions 
claimed. We note that the petitioner states that many of the beneficiary's duties and responsibilities 
result in the work by others but the petitioner has provided insufficient evidence to establish the 
claim. Moreover, the petitioner claims that the beneficiary will direct, advise, and oversee others but 
provides no documentation to establish that the beneficiary has the authority to do so since the 
petitioner claims no employees or contractors subordinate to the beneficiary. 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)). On appeal, the petitioner 
asserts that the beneficiary has no employees because he is primarily responsible for asset 
management. The fact that the beneficiary has managerial control over all aspects or functions of 
(b)(6)
Non-Precedent Decision 
Page 11 
the business does not establish that he qualifies as a function manager. While such authority is 
consistent with the statutory definition of managerial capacity, it is not sufficient to establish that the 
beneficiary is employed in a managerial capacity. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not provided sufficient, comprehensible evidence to conclude that 
the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily functional managerial capacity. The descriptions of 
the beneficiary's job duties are general and fail to sufficiently describe his actual day-to-day duties. 
The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily functional 
managerial capacity. 
Accordingly, the petition cannot be approved and the appeal will be dismissed. 
We acknowledge that USCIS had approved an L-lA classification petition filed on behalf of the 
beneficiary prior to denying the instant immigrant petition. Each visa petition filing is a separate 
proceeding with a separate record and a separate burden of proof. In making a determination of 
statutory eligibility, USCIS is limited to the information contained in that individual record of 
proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(16)(ii). 
We note that I-140 immigrant visa petitions are frequently denied after USCIS approves prior 
nonimmigrant visa petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 
2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999 ); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Examining the consequences of an approved petition, 
there is a significant difference between a nonimmigrant L-lA visa classification, which allows an 
alien to enter the United States temporarily, and the present immigrant E-13 visa petition, which 
would permit the beneficiary to apply for permanent residence in the United States and, if granted, 
ultimately apply for naturalization as a United States citizen. Cf §§ 204 and 214 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. §§ 1154 and 1184; see also§ 316 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1427. Because USCIS spends less 
time reviewing I-129 nonimmigrant petitions than I-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant L­
lA petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; 
see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1 )(14)(i)(requiring no supporting documentation to file a petition to extend 
an L-lA petition's validity). 
Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court 
of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant 
petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, we would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of 
a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), aff'd, 248 
F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
In the present matter, the director reviewed the record of proceeding and concluded that the 
petitioner was ineligible for this immigrant visa petition based on the petitioner's failure to establish 
eligibility. In both the request for evidence and the final denial, the director clearly articulated the 
objective statutory and regulatory requirements and applied them to the case at hand. If previous 
(b)(6)
Non-Precedent Decision 
Page 12 
petitions were approved based on the same minimal evidence of the beneficiary's eligibility, the 
approval would constitute gross error on the part of the director. 
The petitioner refers to an unpublished decision in which we determined that the beneficiary met the 
requirements of serving in a managerial and executive capacity for L-1 classification even though he 
was the sole employee. The petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the 
instant petition are analogous to those in the unpublished decision. While 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(c) 
provides our precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the 
Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. 
Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004)(noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. 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. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.