dismissed EB-1C Case: General Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 15959266 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 28, 2021 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, a company stating that it is engaged in the "general aviation" industry, seeks to 
permanently employ the Beneficiary as its president in the United States under the first preference 
immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers . Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did establish, 
as required, that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad prior to 
his entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant. The Petitioner later filed a motion to reopen and 
a motion to reconsider. The Director dismissed the motions and left the previous denial undisturbed. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director erred by analyzing whether the Beneficiary was 
employed in a managerial capacity and not in an executive capacity. The Petitioner contends the 
Director required it demonstrate that the Beneficiary oversaw subordinate supervisors and 
professionals abroad and asserts this is not required to qualify as an executive . The Petitioner also 
states that the Director improperly did not request additional evidence related to the Beneficiary's 
foreign employment in the request for evidence (RFE) . 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
An immigrant visa is 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. Section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act. 
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). 
II. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
We note that our review of this matter is limited to whether the Director was correct to dismiss the 
Petitioner's previous motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. We agree with the Director's 
decision to dismiss the Petitioner's previous motion to reopen, as it did not submit new evidence in 
support of this motion. 1 
Therefore, our review here is limited to whether the Director was correct in dismissing the Petitioner's 
motion to reconsider, specifically whether it demonstrated the prior decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at that time. 8 C.F.R . 
§ 103.5(a)(3). The Director may have only granted the motion if it satisfied these requirements and 
demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. As such, the sole 
issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary was employed in an 
executive capacity abroad prior to his entry into the United States a nonimmigrant. The Petitioner 
does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity abroad. Therefore, we 
restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary was employed in an executive capacity. 2 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director violated 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(8) by failing to request further evidence related to the Beneficiary's asserted executive 
employment abroad before denying the petition. The cited regulation states that, "[i]f the record 
evidence establishes ineligibility, the benefit request will be denied on that basis." Id. A director is 
not required to issue a request for further information on every issue in all cases. If a director 
determines that the initial evidence supports a decision of denial with respect to an issue, the cited 
regulation does not require solicitation of further documentation. 
Furthermore, even if the Director had committed a procedural error by failing to solicit further 
evidence related to the Beneficiary's foreign employment, it is not clear what remedy would be 
appropriate beyond the motion or appeal process itself. However, despite claiming that it was 
prejudiced by the Director not requesting additional evidence as to the Beneficiary's asserted foreign 
employment in the RFE, the Petitioner did not supplement the record on motion with additional 
1 A motion to reopen is based on factual grounds and must (I) state the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding; 
and (2) be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
2 We acknowledge that United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) records indicate that the Beneficiary 
was previously approved for L-lA intracompany transferee nonimmigrant visas specific to the Petitioner , a category 
largely mirroring the immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers . However , each 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 . 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(l6)(ii). The Director's decision does not indicate whether he reviewed the prior approvals of the other 
nonimmigrant petitions. If the previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same evidence contained in 
the current record, their approval would constitute an error on the part of the Director. We are not required to approve 
applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated , merely because of prior approvals that may have 
been erroneous. Matter of Church Scientology Int '!, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). 
2 
documentary evidence specific to the Beneficiary's foreign employment, nor does it do so on appeal. 
Therefore, it would serve no useful purpose to remand the case simply to afford the Petitioner the 
opportunity to supplement the record with new evidence. We will provide a de nova review of the 
evidence submitted on the record and determine whether the Director was correct in concluding that 
the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive capacity 
prior to his entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant. 
The statute defines an "executive capacity" as an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of 
the organization; establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or 
direction from higher-level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5) requires the Petitioner to submit a statement that clearly 
describes the duties performed by the Beneficiary abroad. 
A. Duties 
To be eligible immigrant classification as a multinational executive, the Petitioner must show that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad in a position involving the high-level responsibilities set forth in 
the statutory definition at section 101(a)(44)(B)(i)-(iv) of the Act. If the record does not establish that 
the foreign position meets all four of these elements, we cannot conclude that it was a qualifying 
executive position. 
If the Petitioner establishes that the foreign position meets all elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary was primarily engaged in executive duties 
abroad, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the foreign employer's other 
employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). In determining whether 
a given beneficiary's foreign duties were primarily executive, we consider the description of the 
foreign job duties, the foreign employer's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's 
subordinates employees abroad, the presence of other employees to relieve the beneficiary from 
performing operational duties, the nature of the foreign business, and any other factors that will 
contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business abroad. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's initial qualifyin
9 
foreign emp)oyment abroad prior to his 
entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant was with I I from October 2004 until 
November 2014. However, it also indicated that this foreign employer was later dissolved in 
November 2014. The Petitioner explained that following a corporate restructuring the Beneficiary 
worked abroad for I I as president from January 2013 until his 
arrival in the United States as a L-lA nonimmigrant in June 2014. As such, it appears the Petitioner 
asserted that the Beneficiary worked simultaneously as president for two separate companies abroad. 
In each case, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's foreign employer was engaged in "non-
trans ortation commercial airline services roviding air services fo~ 1 I 
.__ ________________ ___., and other related services." The Petitioner submitted 
the following foreign duty description for the Beneficiary related to both his claimed foreign positions: 
3 
Planning, developing, and establishing goals, policies, and obiectives of [the foreign 
employer! in accordance with board directives (15%. about 6 hours per week): 
• Develop strategic plans and policies to advance the company's mission and 
objectives to promote revenue, profitability, and growth as an organization, 
• Decides the direction the company is taking and makes the prudent business 
decisions on the specific methods of achieving such goals, 
• Develops strong working relationships with many related companies, government 
bureaus and research centers, and 
• Formulates efficient working methods, effectively combining the research, 
manufacturing, marketing and sales. 
Reviewing activity reports and financial statements to determine the progress and 
status o{company (10%, about 4 hours per week): 
• Direct the management of the company in order to guide [it] through difficulties 
and achieve financial success in the field, 
• Review activity reports prepared by each department manager and make 
judgements regarding the specific performance of each department, 
• Instruct managers on how to make progress and improve performance, 
• Point out questions in the operation of the company and direct each department 
manager on the method to overcome the challenges, 
• Forming the development strategy in order to further the company, and 
• Decide whether or not a department is in need of expansion or downsizing. 
Attaining and revising obiectives, planning in accordance with current conditions 
(10%. about 4 hours per week): 
• Adjust the company's growth strategy, 
• Stay up to date with different market changes as well as regulation updates and 
direct the company to make new objectives, 
• Make sure the foreign employer is at the forefront of the field and to make most of 
each newly emerged opportunity, and 
• Leads the company to comply with~I ----~I industry regulation. 
Identirying potential investment opportunities and direct research in that given area, 
Evaluating and approving proposals to undertake new investment opportunities (15%, 
about 6 hours per week): 
• Expanded the business to Korea, Vietnam, and other countries in Asia and gained 
a great reputation in these countries, 
• Achieved positive regards by directing the marketing research and representing [the 
foreign employer] in the contract negotiations as well as various government bids, 
and 
• Instructed marketing analysis, directed the research groups, and guided the 
distribution. 
4 
Planning and developing industrial, labor, and public relations policies to improve the 
company's network and to enhance the industrial standard (10%, about 4 hours per 
week): 
• Acting as the representative of the foreign employer at industrial conferences, 
events held by government bureaus and company affiliates. 
Evaluating performance of executives for compliance with established policies and 
obiectives of the company and their contributions in attaining obiectives (10%, about 
4 hours per week): 
• Oversaw two deputy general managers, one executive assistant, and five 
departments, and 
• Established the structure of the company and retains the authority to evaluate the 
performances of the personnel and their departments. 
Being responsible for the process of hiring and firing personnel (10%, about 4 hours 
per week): 
• Instructs the interviewing of new recruits and makes the final hiring decision, 
• Instructs the General Department to establish a personnel budget and make 
employment offers to newly hired employees, 
• Approves the assigned specific jobs to the new employees, and 
• Reviews the performance report provided by each department manager and makes 
the hiring or firing decision. 
Negotiating and making decision on various VIP customers and contracts (15%, about 
4 hours per week): 
• Due to the Beneficiary's efforts, the foreign employer's products were widely 
distributed and used in 20 provinces in China and in other Asian countries as well, 
• Keeps close business relationships with directors of different companies in related 
fields, 
• Reached out to potential vendors, and 
• Starts the negotiation, then directs the marketing department to prepare the specific 
strategy and continue the detailed negotiation. 
Presiding over [the! board of directors (5%, about 2 hours per week) 
The Beneficiary's foreign duty description does not sufficiently demonstrate that he primarily devoted 
his time to qualifying executive-level duties abroad. Despite asserting that the Beneficiary acted in an 
executive capacity abroad from 2004 until his entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant in 2014, 
there is little detail and no supporting documentation to substantiate his performance of executive­
level duties abroad. The Beneficiary's asserted foreign duties are generic and could apply to any 
executive acting in any company or industry. For example, the Petitioner did not detail or document 
the strategic plans or policies the Beneficiary developed, missions or objectives he advanced, "prudent 
business decisions" he was involved in, or "efficient working methods" related to "research, 
manufacturing, marketing and sales" he formulated. Likewise, the Petitioner did not specifically 
articulate or submit supporting evidence to substantiate "company difficulties" the Beneficiary guided 
the foreign employer through, directions he provided to subordinate managers to "overcome 
5 
challenges," development or growth strategies he created or adjusted, contract negotrnt10ns he 
directed, personnel budgets he established, or business partners or vendors he worked with. Specifics 
are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive in nature, 
otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter ofreiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. 
Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
To the extent the Petitioner attempted to provide specifics regarding the Beneficiary's duties and 
activities abroad, these were vague and lacked credible detail. For instance, the Petitioner emphasized 
that the Beneficiary devoted his time to leading compliance with I I regulations in China. 
However, there was little explanation as to how the Beneficiary led these efforts, the specific tasks 
this entailed, nor was there supporting documentation to corroborate his performance of these duties. 
Similarly, the Petitioner discussed the Beneficiary expanding its business to Korea, Vietnam, and other 
Asian countries, but there was little credible detail, including what tasks this entailed or the marketing 
efforts he directed. Again, the Petitioner also did it provide supporting evidence to substantiate these 
claimed duties related to the expansion of the foreign employer in the Asian marketplace. Beyond 
this, the Petitioner only noted the Beneficiary's proposed expansion into the United States, arguably 
not duty directly related to his foreign qualifying foreign employment. Likewise, it submitted little 
detail and documentation to corroborate any of the foreign "projects" he worked on. The Petitioner 
further stated elsewhere in the Beneficiary's duties that he supervised two deputy managers and one 
executive assistant, but the submitted foreign organizational chart reflected that he oversaw only a 
vice president. The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistencies and ambiguities in the record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-
92 (BIA 1988). 
Although we do not expect the Petitioner to detail and document all the Beneficiary's executive-level 
tasks abroad, it is reasonable for require it to submit sufficient detail and supporting documentation to 
substantiate his actual qualifying tasks abroad. For instance, the Petitioner provided several foreign 
contracts and a few bid notices, however, all but one of these was dated well after the time of the 
Beneficiary's foreign employment while he was claimed to have been employed in the United States. 
Further, these contract documents only generically listed the Beneficiary as the company's "legal 
representative" and it provided no context as to his actual involvement in, or his duties related to, these 
transactions. The Petitioner did not credibly explain the Beneficiary's duties in the context of the 
foreign employer's asserted aviation andl I business. 
The fact that the Beneficiary managed or directed a portion of the foreign business does not necessarily 
establish eligibility for classification as a multinational executive. By statute, eligibility for this 
classification requires that the duties of a foreign position be "primarily" executive in nature. Sections 
10l(A)(44)(B) of the Act. Even though the Beneficiary may have exercised discretion over some of 
the foreign employer's day-to-day operations and possessed some authority with respect to 
discretionary decision-making, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that his 
foreign position was primarily executive in nature. 
B. Staffing and Operations 
6 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual was acting in an executive 
capacity, the reasonable needs of the foreign organization are taken into account in light of the overall 
purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. 
The Petitioner submitted a foreign organizational chart reflecting that the Beneficiary supervised a 
vice president, while the vice president was shown to oversee an "executive deputy general manager" 
and an executive assistant. Further, the chart showed that the executive deputy general manager 
supervised managers of safety, marketing, and "general" departments. The marketing department was 
shown to consist of a "project designer," a "project service" employee, and two "project staff' and the 
general department included a business manager, marketing director, and two "business staff" In 
addition, the chart indicated that the aforementioned executive assistant oversaw "project operation" 
and financial departments. The project operation department was shown to include an "office admin" 
employee, an "office staff' employee, and a purchasing agent and the financial department consisted 
of an accountant and a teller. 
As discussed, the Petitioner only asserts that the Beneficiary was employed in an executive capacity 
abroad. The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated 
position. Under the statute, a beneficiary must have had the ability to "direct the management" and 
"establish the goals and policies" of an organization or major component or function thereof Section 
10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. To show that a beneficiary "direct[ed] the management" of an organization 
or a major component or function of that organization, a petitioner must show how the organization, 
major component, or function was managed and demonstrate that the beneficiary primarily focused 
on its broad goals and policies, rather than the day-to-day operations of such. An individual will not 
be deemed an executive under the statute simply because they have an executive title or because they 
"direct[ ed]" the organization, major component, or function as the owner or sole managerial 
employee. A beneficiary must have also exercised "wide latitude in discretionary decision making" 
and received only "general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of 
directors, or stockholders of the organization." Id. 
First, the duties provided for the Beneficiary's immediate subordinates were generic and included 
discrepancies, and did not credibly corroborate these asserted positions it claims supported him in an 
elevated executive-level position. For example, the foreign organizational chart showed a vice 
president subordinate to the Beneficiary who was also listed in the duty descriptions as a "deputy 
general manager." Further, the duties of this claimed subordinate manager were only listed as "varied, 
by instruction." The duties of the executive deputy manager were similarly vague and did not credibly 
demonstrate this subordinate position, only stating that this managerial level employee was tasked 
with "daily operations and management," coordination between departments, and "ensuring the 
conduct of normal business activities." Meanwhile, the duties of the "executive" working at this same 
level within the organizational chart were also ambiguous, stating that this subordinate manager was 
responsible for "personnel affairs," "selection of talent," and "management of overseas operations." 
In fact, questionably, the organizational chart did not reflect that the executive assistant supervised the 
department responsible for personnel or human resources tasks, the "general department" discussed in 
the Beneficiary's duties. 
The duty descriptions submitted for the next tier of claimed foreign department managers were also 
vague and included several material discrepancies. For instance, the members of the claimed 
7 
"marketing department" were shown to have duties not apparently related to marketing, such as the 
"overseeing project operations," while the "project" staff was stated to be involved in "construction" 
designs, equipment, and sites, with little apparent relation to the foreign employer's claimed aviation 
activities. Meanwhile, the members of the claimed "general department," a department previously 
explained as tasked with personnel and other administrative functions, was shown to include apparent 
marketing employees responsible for managing marketing, coordinating "customer relations," 
"advertising," amongst other similar functions. In addition, the asserted "project operations 
department" was listed as including all administrative staff such as the "office administrator" and a 
"deputy office administrator." Lastly, it is also notable that the provided organizational chart was 
undated, giving little context as to whether it demonstrated the Beneficiary's executive-level position 
during the time of his foreign employment. In sum, the various discrepancies and ambiguities included 
within the claimed foreign organizational structure and the duties of the Beneficiary's asserted foreign 
subordinates leaves substantial uncertainty as to whether he acted in a qualifying executive-level 
capacity abroad. Again, the Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies and ambiguities in the record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 582, 
591-92. 
The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed in an executive capacity abroad. 
As noted, the Petitioner submitted a generic foreign duty description for the Beneficiary that does not 
credibly demonstrate he was primarily performing executive-level duties while employed abroad. 
Further, there is little supporting documentation to substantiate the Beneficiary's performance of 
executive-level duties abroad, such as documentation reflecting his setting of broad goals and policies 
for the organization and his oversight of subordinate supervisors and managers as reflected in his duty 
description and the foreign organizational chart. In fact, it is inconsistent of the Petitioner to claim on 
appeal that the Director improperly required it to establish the Beneficiary's subordinate supervisors 
abroad, while also submitting a foreign organizational chart reflecting these very subordinate 
employees. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary acted in an executive 
capacity abroad. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8