dismissed EB-1C Case: Freight Air Transportation

MATTER OF AMEE- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 18,2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a freight air transportation service company, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its Vice President under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational 
executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(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, Nebraska Service Center; denied the petition. The Director concluded that· the 
evidence of record did not establish that the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer or that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeaL In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that it has met all requirements for eligibility. After initial review, we issued two notices of 
intent to dismiss in order to advise the Petitioner of derogatory information, obtained from outside 
the record of proceedings, which pertained to whether the Benefici~ry was employed by the claimed 
foreign employer for at least one year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. The 
Petitioner's responses have been incorporated into the record. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. 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 
Matter of AMEE- Inc. 
employed for at least 1 year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate 
or subsidiary thereof and the alien 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. 
A United States employer may file Form I-140 to classifY a beneficiary under section 203(b)(l)(C) of 
the Act as a multinational executive or manager. 
II. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The first issue addressed by the Director is whether the Petitioner established that it has a qualifYing 
relationship with the Beneficiary's claimed foreign employer. 
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. 
one entity with "branch" offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See 
generally section 203(b)(l)(C) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5G). 
The pertinent regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5G)(2) define the relevant terms as follows: 
Affiliate means: 
(A) One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same 
parent or individual; 
(B) One of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of 
individuals, each individual owning and controlling approximately the same 
share or proportion 6f each entity; or 
(C) In the case of a partnership that is organized in the United States to provide 
accounting services, along with managerial and/or consulting services, and 
markets its accounting services under an internationally recognized name 
under an agreement with a worldwide coordinating organization that is owned 
and controlled by the member accounting firms, a partnership (or similar 
organization) that is organized outside the United States to provide accounting 
services shall be considered to be an affiliate of the United States partnership 
if it markets its accounting services under the same internationally recognized 
name under the agreement with the worldwide coordinating organization of 
which the United States partnership is also a member. 
Subsidiary means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent owns, 
directly or indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, 
directly or indirectly, half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of AMEE- Inc. 
indirectly, 50 percent of a 50-50 joint venture and has equal control and veto power 
over the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, 
less than half of the entity, but in fact 
controls the entity. 
A. Evidence of Record 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-140 on December 16, 2013. In a letter dated December 10, 2013, 
the Petitioner identified the Beneficiary's foreign employer as and 
stated that it is a subsidiary of this company. 
The Petitioner submitted a copy of its Articles of Incorporation filed with the California Secretary of 
State on which indicate that the company is authorized to issue 1,000 shares of stock. 
The Petitioner also provided a partial copy of its 2012 IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax 
Return. The Petitioner marked "no" at Schedule K where asked to indicate whether any foreign or 
domestic corporation owns directly 20% or more, or owns, directly or indirectly, 50% or more of the 
total voting power of all classes of the corporations' stock. The Petitioner did not submit any other 
evidence related to its ownership and control or its claimed qualifying relationship with the foreign 
entity. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) on June 16, 2014. The Director requested, in part, 
additional documentation to establish that the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's foreign employer have 
a qualifying relationship. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner reiterated its statement that it is a subsidiary of 
The Petitioner also submitted an unsigned statement attributed to its 
president, which states: "[The Petitioner] is the U.S. branch office of . 
[The Petitioner] (formerly was established in 
by who is also the founder of 
The Director denied the petition on October 6, 2014, concluding that the evidence of record did not 
establish that the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's claimed employer in 
Taiwan. The Director emphasized that Petitioner had provided conflicting claims regarding the 
nature of the qualifying relationship and had not provided any legal documents to establish the 
ownership and control either entity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that it is an affiliate of the foreign entity. In support of this claim, 
the Petitioner submits a "Corporation Change Registration Form" filed by 
in June 2012.1 This document includes a "List of Board Directors, shareholders or other directors" 
which identifies as the majority owner of the foreign entity. There are three other 
shareholders listed, including 
1 The corporate identification number shown on this document matches that provided on a corporate tax return filed by 
and we assume that these two names refer to the same Taiwanese company. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of AMEE- Inc. 
The Petitioner also re-submits its articles of incorporation filed on 
petitioner submits a document titled 
This document states: 
In addition, the 
It is resolved that the Articles of Incorporation of be amended in 
accord with the proposed Certification of Amendment of Articles of Incorporation, a 
copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 
Date 
08-16-06 
08-18-06 
08-22-06 
Number of Outstanding 
Shares Held by Each 
Twenty (20) Percent 
Twenty (20) Percent 
Sixty (60%) Percent 
Shareholder 
(Illegible signature) 
(Illegible signature) 
The Petitioner has not provided a copy of the referenced Certification of Amendment to its Articles 
of Incorporation. The Petitioner also submits copies of its stock certificates, which indicate the 
following information: 
Certificate No. 
1 
2 
3 
Number of Shares: Issued to: 
3 
1 
1 
Date: 
October 7, 2002 
October 7, 2002 
October 7, 2002 
The Petitioner asserts that the two companies are affiliates as both companies are owned and 
controlled by the same group of individuals. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review, and for the reasons discussed herein, the evidence of record does not establish that the 
Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. 
The regulation and case law confirm that ownership and control are the factors that must be 
examined in determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and foreign 
entities for purposes of this visa classification. See Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 
I&N Dec. 593 (Comm'r 1988); see also Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 
(Comm'r 1986); Matter ofHughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm'r 1982). In the context of this visa 
petition, ownership refers to the direct or indirect legal right of possession of the assets of an entity 
with full.power and authority to control; control means the direct or indirect legal right and authority 
to direct the establishment, management, ahd operations of an entity. Matter of Church Scientology 
International, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of AMEE- Inc. 
As general evidence of a petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship, stock certificates alone are not 
sufficient evidence to determine whether a stockholder maintains ownership and control of a 
corporate entity. The corporate stock certificate ledger, stock certificate registry, corporate bylaws, 
and the minutes of relevant annual shareholder meetings must also be examined to determine the 
total number of shares issued, the exact number issued to the shareholder, and the subsequent 
percentage ownership and its effect on corporate control. Additionally, a petitioning company must 
disclose all agreements relating to the voting of shares, the distribution of profit, the management 
and direction of the subsidiary, and any other factor affecting actual control of the entity. See Matter 
of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 1632. Without full disclosure of all relevant 
documents, users is unable to determine the elements of ownership and control. 
Here, the Petitioner initially claimed to be a subsidiary of the Beneficiary's foreign employer, and 
now claims on appeal that the two companies are affiliates. As there is no evidence suggesting that 
the foreign entity owns any shares in the petitioning company, we find that there is no parent­
subsidiary relationship. Further, the evidence submitted in support of the appeal is not sufficient to 
establish the current actual ownership of the petitioning company, and therefore does not support the 
claimed affiliate relationship with the foreign entity. 
The record shows that the Petitioner was incorporated in California in The Petitioner 
submitted resumes for its employees indicating that some of them have been working for the 
company since therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the company has been active since 
its establishment. In light of this evidence, it is unclear why the Petitioner's initial stock certificates 
numbered 1 through 3 would have been issued in 2002, rather than in when the company was 
established. Further, the Petitioner stated in response to the RFE that the company was established 
by who was not 
among the individuals named on the stock certificates. Both 
of these facts diminish the probative value of the submitted stock certificates as evidence of the 
Petitioner's ownership. The Petitioner has not resolved these inconsistencies with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). 
In addition, the "Written Consent of Shareholders of to Amend its Articles of 
Incorporation," signed in was not accompanied by the Petitioner's amended articles of 
incorporation referenced in this document. Without a copy of this document, we cannot determine 
whether the amendment resulted in a change in stock ownership or distribution. 
Finally, the Articles of Incorporation in the record show that the Petitioner is authorized to issue 
1,000 shares of stock. The Petitioner submitted stock certificates accounting for only five shares. 
Absent a stock ledger, we cannot determine whether the 2002 stock issuance accounts for all issued 
and outstanding shares of the Petitioner's stock. 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) (quoting Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCalifornia, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of AMEE- Inc. 
For these reasons, the evidence of record is insufficient to support the Petitioner's claim that both 
entities are currently majority owned by the same individual or both owned by the same group of 
individuals. The Petitioner has not established that it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign 
entity. 
III. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT 
The Director also denied the Petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary was employed by in a managerial or executive 
capacity. Upon de novo review, we found derogatory information that undermined the Petitioner's 
claim that the Beneficiary was employed by _ _ . at all in the three 
years preceding the filing of the Petition and issued a notice of intent to dismiss based on this 
additional ground of ineligibility. 
A. One Year of Employment Outside the United States 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(j)(3)(i)(A) provides that the Petitioner must establish that in the 
three years immediately preceding the filing of the petition, the Beneficiary has been employed 
outside the United States for a least one year in a managerial or executive capacity by an entity that 
has a qualifying relationship with the U.S. petitioner. 
1. Evidence of Record 
The Petitioner has consistently claimed that the Beneficiary was employed by 
from July 2011 until the present. In its initial letter of support, the Petitioner stated 
that the Beneficiary had previously worked for from 1996 until June 2011. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter from dated August 1, 2013, and 
signed by _ as president. stated that the Beneficiary had served as the foreign 
entity's vice president from July 1, 2011. to the present. 
The record of proceedings also includes a Form G-325A, Biographic Information, completed and 
signed by the Beneficiary and submitted in support of her concurrently filed Form I-485, Application 
to Register or Adjust to Permanent Resident Status. On the Form G-325A, the Beneficiary stated 
that she was employed by as its Vice President since July 2011. 
She also stated that she continuously resided in · China from July 2000 until June 2013. 
is located m Taiwan, and claims to have affiliate offices in 
China. 
In our Notice oflntent to Dismiss, we advised the Petitioner that we had reviewed the Beneficiary's 
U.S. Department of State records and found that when she applied for and was granted a B1/B2 
nonimmigrant visa at the U.S. Consulate in m January 2013, she stated that she was 
employed by and did not identify 
as her current or former employer. 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of AMEE- Inc. 
We provided the Petitioner an opportunity to provide any additional evidence it deemed sufficient to 
address and explain the discrepancy noted and to provide supporting documentation to corroborate 
its claims. Specifically, we asked for additional documentary evidence of the Beneficiary's 
employment with the claimed foreign employer during the three-year period preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
In response to our notice of intent . to dismiss, the Petitioner submitted an affidavit from the 
Beneficiary and an amended Form G-325A dated July 31, 2015. 
In her affidavit, the Beneficiary asserts that she was employed by both and 
at the time she applied for a Bl!B2 visa at the U.S. Consulate 
in in January 2013, and therefore there is no inconsistency in the record. The Beneficiary 
states that "[i]n Taiwan and China, it is common for individuals to hold multiple 
jobs, especially in 
industries without enough qualified individuals." · 
The amended Form G-325A states that the Beneficiary was employed by 
from January 2006 until June 2013, and by 
the present time. 
from July 2011 until 
In a second notice issued October 29, 2015, we provided the Petitioner another opportunity to submit 
additional evidence of the Beneficiary's employment with _ We 
requested: an explanation of how the Beneficiary worked in Taiwan while residing in 
evidence of the Beneficiary's travel between and Taiwan; copies of the Beneficiary's 
paystubs or other personnel records from for the period July 2011 
through December 2013; copies of the Beneficiary's paystubs or other personnel records from 
for the same period of time; copies of the Beneficiary's individual tax returns 
for the· years 2011 to 2013; copies of any income or tax documents issued to the Beneficiary by both . . 
foreign employers in 2011, 2012 and 2013; a letter from an authorized representative of 
verifying the Beneficiary's dates of employment; and, a more detailed letter 
from 
In response, the Petitioner submitted an "Employment Certificate" from 
stating that the Beneficiary worked there from January 2006 until June 2013. 
The certificate further stated that the Beneficiary concurrently worked for 
starting in July 2011. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter dated January 8, 2016, from _ 
explains that the Beneficiary was hired to manage its branch 
companies in China, did not have to travel to Taiwan to work at the main office, and was able to 
communicate by telephone and video conferencing. states that the Beneficiary received a 
full-time salary "to reflect the potential difficulties ofworking for both and 
and states that she "was compensated in cash for her work with money that we 
wired first to Finally, she states that "[t]his situation, where an employee is shared 
(b)(6)
Matter of AMEE- Inc. 
amongst two companies both paying her afull-time salary is necessary when there is need of a 
highly capable professional with important relationships in the industry. 
2. Analysis 
Upon review, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has the required one year of 
employment with 
The Petitioner has explained that the discrepancies we noted do not exist as the Beneficiary was 
simultaneously employed on a full-time basis by both and 
Forwarding while residing in China, from July 2011 until June 2013, when she was 
admitted to the United States as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor. 
In support of this claim, the Petitioner has offered an affidavit from the Beneficiary, a letter from 
and a letter from The Petitioner claims that the 
Beneficiary managed the foreign entity's operations in China and that it was not necessary for her to 
travel the 1,000 miles between The record shows that the foreign entity has 
branch or affiliate offices in China, both of which are hundreds of miles 
from The organizational chart submitted for the foreign entity shows the Beneficiary 
supervising three department managers and seven subordinate staff, none of which are identified as 
Chinese staff; the Petitioner represented her as the vice president of the Taiwanese company 
responsible for supervising three departments within that company. The Petitioner has not claimed 
to have any operations in and the Petitioner has not adequately explained how she was able 
to "manage daily business operations regarding purchasing, import/export, delivery scheduling and 
financing," as well as direct office management and inventory control, and hire local employees 
while working remotely in and simultaneously working full-time for another company. If 
users finds reason to believe that an asserted fact stated in the petition is not true, users may 
reject that assertion. See, e.g., Section 204(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b); Anetekhai v. INS, 876 
F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1989); Lu-Ann Bakery Shop, Inc. v. Nelson, 705 F. Supp. 7, 10 (D.D.C. 
1988); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
We specifically requested contemporaneous evidence of the Beneficiary's employment with the 
foreign entity, such as payroll records, tax statements, or other documentation that would show 
regular payments made to her by The foreign entity claims that it 
paid her salary through , perhaps suggesting that it cannot provide formal payroll 
or tax documentation issued to her by The Petitioner has not stated the amount 
of the Beneficiary's salary or provided evidence of wire transfers 
to as compensation for the Beneficiary's salary. 
The Petitioner has also not submitted evidence that would show the Beneficiary's performance of 
her claimed duties with such as business correspondence, employee 
reviews, contracts or other documents signed by her in her capacity as vice president, or any other 
documentation that would establish that she actually worked at for at least one 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of AMEE- Inc. 
year between July 2011 and her entry to the United States in June 2013. It is reasonable to expect 
that the foreign entity could provide something other than a letter as evidence of her employment if 
the Beneficiary did in fact work for them as a vice president for a period of more than two years. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden ofproofin these proceedings. Matter ofSojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(quoting Matter ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). The non­
existence or other unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.2(b )(2)(i). 
The adjudication in the current matter requires that we determine whether the Petitioner has 
established with a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary was employed by the claimed 
foreign employer for at least one year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. 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. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0) 
(quoting 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. Thus, in 
adjudicating the application pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard, we 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. !d. 
A petitioner's statements or assertions should be supported by documentary evidence. See Matter of 
Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 164-65 (Comm'r 1998) (finding the petitioner's claims regarding its source 
of funds were insufficient as they were not supported by documentation, such as a sales contract or 
deed establishing ownership and price). Moreover, USCIS may assign less weight to testimonial 
evidence, such as affidavits, particularly when they are contradicted by other evidence in the record 
of proceeding. See Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190, 194 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)). Here, we twice requested that the Petitioner submit documentary evidence of the 
Beneficiary's employment with in order to resolve a discrepancy 
regarding the identity of her foreign employer. 
Additionally, while affidavits and letters are always acceptable as a form of evidence, the weight 
they are to be afforded depends on the facts of each case. Here, there are inconsistencies in the 
record and minimal evidence of the Beneficiary's employment with 
The Petitioner has had multiple opportunities to supplement the record with additional 
objective evidence of the Beneficiary's employment and has not done so. Therefore, the Petitioner 
has not resolved the inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth 
lies. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. 
Accordingly, we must conclude that the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the Beneficiary was employed by for at least one 
9 
Matter of AMEE- Inc. 
year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. For this reason, the petition cannot be 
approved. 
B. Foreign Employment in a Managerial or Executive Capacity 
The remaining issue addressed by the Director is whether the Petitioner established that the 
Beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity in a managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) ofthe 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. 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of AMEE- Inc. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must 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) ofthe Act. 
1. Evidence of Record 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner provided an 
which included the following description of the Beneficiary's claimed duties as its 
Vice President: 
As Vice President, her duties include the job to manage daily business operations 
regarding purchasing, import/export, delivery scheduling and financing, direct 
corporate administrative matters regarding office management, inventory control and 
business operations procedures. Under the guidance of the President, she has the 
plenary power to make all business decisions, set up business short term and long 
term goals and objectives, hire and fire local employees, make evaluation reports of 
personnel, and recommend promotions. 
In the RFE, the Director requested additional evidence pertaining to the Beneficiary's claimed 
position with the foreign entity, including a list of the specific daily tasks she performed, a detailed 
organizational chart for the foreign entity, and a list of employees and contractors the Beneficiary 
managed, along with information regarding their job duties, educational level and salaries. 
In response, the Petitioner re-submitted the same employment certificate from the foreign entity. It 
did not provide the requested organizational chart, but did state that the Beneficiary supervises four 
departments, including an operations department, marketing department, financial department, and 
warehousing department. The Petitioner provided names and brief job descriptions for the managers 
of each of these departments. Specifically, the Petitioner stated that the managers are 
(financial department), (operations department), (warehouse department), and 
(sales department). The managers' job descriptions refer to various subordinate staff, 
including an administrative secretary, a sales team, warehouse employees, and clerks. 
Further, the Petitioner added that the Beneficiary "is the highest managerial position in the company 
and must make all managerial decisions, which include setting business goals, strategies, personnel 
arrangement and future expansion plans." In addition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
reports only to the foreign entity's president and "directs all operations of the foreign company and 
supervises all employees of the company." The Petitioner stated that the position is in a managerial 
capacity. 
The Director concluded that the evidence of record did not establish that the Beneficiary was 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity. In denying the petition, the Director found that the 
11 
(b)(6)
Matter of AMEE- Inc. 
Petitioner's response to the RFE did not include the requested detailed description of the specific 
tasks the Beneficiary performs or the amount of time she allocates to each task. In addition, the 
Director acknowledged that the Petitioner identified some ofthe Beneficiary's foreign subordinates, 
but emphasized that it did not submit the requested organizational chart for the foreign entity. The 
Director determined that it was not possible based on the limited evidence submitted to conclude that 
the Beneficiary performs primarily managerial or executive duties for the Taiwanese company. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "the Beneficiary's position in Taiwan is managerial and/or 
executive." The Petitioner submits a revised statement regarding the Beneficiary's subordinates and 
now states that she supervises the managers of: the administrative department bachelor's 
degree in business management); the financial department bachelor's degree in 
accounting); and the sales department bachelor's degree in marketing). The 
Petitioner also submits an organizational chart for the foreign entity which shows a total of ten 
employees who report directly or indirectly to the Beneficiary. These include a secretary and an 
assistant who report to , an accounts payable employee and accounts receivable employee 
who report to and two sales representatives and an assistant who report to 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary has been employed in an executive capacity as she 
directed three different departments of the Taiwan parent company, set goals for the organization, 
and was subject only to the supervision of the president. In addition, the Petitioner states that she 
has been employed in a managerial capacity because she managed three managerial and professional 
employees, 
managed departments which perform the essential functions or the organization, had 
authority to hire and fire staff, and exercised control over the day-to-day operations of the parent 
company. 
As noted, in response to our subsequent notices of intent to dismiss, the Petitioner now claims that 
the Beneficiary has not been employed in Taiwan, but. rather has worked in assigned to 
oversee the company's branches in China. The Petitioner has not offered additional information 
regarding its staffing levels or organizational structure in China, nor has it provided any additional 
clarification regarding the Beneficiary's duties. 
2. Analysis 
As discussed in the previous section, we find that the evidence of record does not establish that the 
Beneficiary is or has been employed by Even if the Petitioner 
were able to overcome that adverse finding, it has not established that her claimed position as Vice 
President was in a managerial or executive capacity. 
In general, when examining the executive or managerial capacity of a given position, we review the 
totality of the record, starting first with the description of the beneficiary's proposed job duties with 
the petitioning entity. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(5). Published case law has determined that the duties 
themselves will reveal the true nature of the beneficiary's employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
12 
Matter of AMEE- Inc. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). We then 
consider the beneficiary's job description in the context of the petitioner's organizational structure, 
the duties of the beneficiary's subordinates, and any other relevant factors that may contribute to a 
comprehensive understanding of the beneficiary's actual duties and role within the petitioning entity. 
The definitions of executive and managerial capacity each have two parts. First, the Petitioner must 
show that the Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. 
INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). Second, the Petitioner must 
prove that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial or executive 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); Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner initially stated that the Beneficiary is responsible for managing "daily business 
operations" in the areas of purchasing, import/export, delivery scheduling, inventory control, office 
management, administrative matters, financing, and business operations procedures." Further, the 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary is authorized to make business decisions, set business goals, 
hire and fire employees, and make other personnel decisions. While such duties generally describe 
the scope of the Beneficiary's position, this description did not provide any insight into what the 
Beneficiary actually does on a day-to-day basis, such that we could determine whether her actual 
duties are primarily managerial or executive in nature. 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. 
In response to the Director's request for a list of the specific tasks the Beneficiary performs for the 
foreign entity, the Petitioner re-submitted the same brief and overly general description of the 
Beneficiary's duties. On appeal, the Petitioner simply cites portions of the statutory definitions of 
managerial and executive capacity and asserts that the Beneficiary performs duties consistent with 
those definitions. Therefore, despite repeated opportunities, the Petitioner has not provided a 
sufficiently detailed description of the Beneficiary's duties to establish that she has been employed 
in a managerial or executive capacity. 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 petiti<,mer has not provided any detail or explanation of the 
beneficiary's activities in the course of her daily routine. The actual duties themselves will reveal 
the true nature ofthe employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108. 
The record also contains inconsistent information regarding the structure of the foreign entity and the 
staff who are claimed to be subordinate to the Beneficiary. As noted, the Petitioner initially stated 
that the Beneficiary manages purchasing, import/export, delivery scheduling, inventory control, 
office and administrative matters, finance and business operations procedures. In response to the 
RFE, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary supervises department managers for marketing, 
warehouse, operations and financial departments. On appeal, the Petitioner now claims that the 
Beneficiary supervises three department managers responsible for sales, finances and administration. 
13 
(b)(6)
Matter of AMEE- Inc. 
As noted, the Petitioner has not provided an explanation for the changes in names and job titles for 
the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates. In fact, a number of responsibilities attributed to her, such 
as purchasing, import/export, delivery scheduling, and inventory control, do not· appear to be 
assigned to any subordinate department manager or employees depicted on the latest organizational 
chart. 
Adding to this confusion, the Petitioner initially stated on appeal that the Beneficiary's "position in 
Taiwan" is managerial and/or executive, and stated that she directed "three different departments of 
the Taiwan parent company." After we found no evidence that the Beneficiary had ever lived or 
worked in Taiwan, the Petitioner now states that the Beneficiary has been working from and 
was actually in charge of Chinese operations. However, it offered no 
additional clarification regarding her duties or any description of the nature, scope or structure of the 
Chinese operations. While the record does show that the Petitioner may have branches in China, 
these are located in Further, it is reasonable to believe that the 
persons identified on the organizational chart as the Beneficiary's subordinates are in fact employ~es 
who work in "three different departments of the Taiwan parent company," which is what the 
Petitioner stated in the letter accompanying the chart. Since the Petitioner now claims that her 
scope of her authority was in China and over the Chinese branches of the company, the credibility of 
the chart is in question. 
Due to the lack of details regarding the foreign employment and the numerous unresolved 
inconsistencies in the record, we cannot determine what duties the Beneficiary actually performed, 
the number or type of employees she supervised, or, as discussed above, whether she actually 
worked for Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (quoting Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg. Comm'r 1972)). Once again, the Petitioner has not resolved the inconsistencies in the record 
with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. at 591-92. 
These unresolved evidentiary issues prohibit any further analysis of whether the Beneficiary has 
been employed in a managerial or executive capacity, as we do not have reliable evidence of the 
Beneficiary's employment with a qualifying entity, her actual job duties, or the organizational 
structure within which she worked. As such, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
Beneficiary, as a personnel manager, has been primarily supervising a subordinate staff of 
professional, managerial, or supervisory personnel, or that she primarily managed an essential 
function. See section 101 (a)( 44 )(A)(ii) of the Act. Further, regardless of the Beneficiary's position 
title, the record is not persuasive that the beneficiary functioned at a senior level within an 
organizational hierarchy. Based on the limited documentation furnished, the Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
14 
Matter of AMEE- Inc. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. 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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of AMEE- Inc., ID# 12101 (AAO Apr. 18, 2016) 
15