dismissed EB-1C Case: Home Remodeling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-U-G- CORP 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 26,2017 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in kitchen and bath remodeling and closet installation, seeks to 
pennanently employ the Beneficiary as its manager under the first preference immigrant classification 
for multinational executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). This classilication allows a U.S. employer to 
pem1anently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in an executive or 
managerial capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that: (I) the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial 
capacity; and (2) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. The Director also 
questioned the full-time status of the Beneficiary's proposed employment based on his ownership of a 
separate corporate entity in Florida. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that the Beneftciary has been and would be 
employed in a managerial capacity. The Petitioner lists the Beneficiary's duties with the foreign 
employer and contends that the Beneficiary has the experience to manage the U.S. entity where he 
would perform similar job duties. The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's employment would 
be on a full-time basis and objects to the Director's reliance on the Beneliciary's relationship with a 
separate corporate entity. 
Upon de novo review, we find that the Beneficiary's incorporation of an entity separate from the 
Petitioner does not adversely impact the Petitioner's claim that it would employ the Beneficiary on a 
full-time basis and we therefore withdraw the Director's finding on that specific issue. However, we 
find that the Petitioner has not overcome the two remaining grounds for denial. Therefore, 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 who 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 atriliate. Section 203(b)(l )(C) of the Act. 
J'vlaller ofC-U-G- Corp 
A United States employer may file Fom1 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, to classify a 
beneficiary under section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. A labor 
certification is not required for this classification. 
The Form 1-140 must be accompanied by a statement from an authorized otlicial 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 tor 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3) 
II. EMPLOYMENT IN MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
As indicated above, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 
has been and would be employed in a managerial capacity. 1 
The term "managerial capacity" is defined 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 
tor which the employee has authority. 
Section IOI(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A). Further, "[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." !d. 
1 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad, or would be employed in the United States, in 
an executive capacity. 
2 
Matter ofC-U-G- Corp 
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) of the Act. 
A. U.S. Employment 
The first issue we will address is whether the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to establish that 
it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity. 
1. Duties 
When examining whether a Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity, we will look first 
to the petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). Based on the statutory 
definition of managerial capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the Beneficiary will perform 
certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 1991) 
(unpublished table decision). Second, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary will be 
primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the 
Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCJS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); 
Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner identified the nature of its business on the Forml-140 as "import, export, retail sales" 
and claimed that the Beneficiary would manage a retail store, whose gross and annual income was 
not specilied. In a corresponding support letter, the Petitioner claimed to have "accomplished 
important goals since its inception and now is participating in services for introduction of additional 
specialized services in large public works in Brazil and other countries .... " The Petitioner did not 
specify any "specialized services" or identify which "large public works" its business would affect. 
It appears that the Petitioner operates a showroom offering kitchen, bathroom, and closet home 
design products and services. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary, as operational manager, would "organize and oversee all 
administrative matters," be in charge of hiring, firing, and training employees, make decisions to 
ensure profitability, and coordinate departments and workers within the company. The Petitioner 
claimed that the Beneficiary's education, experience, and ability to speak three languages- English, 
Spanish, and Portuguese - make him an ideal candidate to manage the U.S. entity. The Petitioner 
provided the following description of the Beneficiary's proposed position (note: errors in the 
original text have not been changed): 
[T]his position handles all policy and business decisions such as negotiations of 
contracts to provide for services, purchases, sales pricing, banking insurance and 
· credit terms and its employees. He is also responsible for insuring that sales and 
profit goals of each quarter, has the discretionary authority to reduce costs as she sees 
lit. His senior level is established since his functions within the organization includes 
3 
Maller ofC-U-G- Corp 
the decision making authority over salary increases, hiring and firing, tra1mng of 
staff, budgetary concerns, capital expenditures, negotiation of pricing for freight, 
government fees. He has authority to bind the company contractually in any matters. 
The Petitioner also provided a percentage breakdown, stating that 20% of the Beneficiary's time 
would be allocated to directing ongoing development of new projects; 40% to establishing business 
relationships with customers, distributors, "and others" and negotiating contracts; 10% to managing 
and directing marketing; and 30% to "[a]ssigning sales, setting goals, and analyzing sales statistics" 
to make inventory decisions. 
The Petitioner did not explain how the above time allocations are to be applied to the proposed job 
duties. In a separate business plan, the Petitioner provided an "Executive Summary" in which it 
stated that the Beneficiary would be the "operational manager" who would serve as the point of 
contact for Brazilian manufacturers. The Petitioner did not clarify how much time the Beneficiary 
would allocate to this operational function. 
After reviewing the evidence, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), observing that the 
percentage breakdown, which we reiterated above, was vague and included non-managerial 
components. The Director instructed the Petitioner to list the Beneticiary's specific daily job duties 
and the percentage of time the Beneficiary would allocate to each individual duty. The Director 
advised the Petitioner against grouping tasks into categories. 
In response, the Petitioner did not comply with the Director's request for a list of the Beneticiary's 
proposed job duties and their respective time allocations. Instead. the Petitioner claimed that it 
previously provided "a very detailed statement" establishing that it would employ the Beneficiary in 
a managerial capacity and that his position would entail managing the organization, overseeing the 
work of a subordinate staff, and having the authority to hire and fire staff and take other personnel 
actions. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner provided a vague job description 
indicating that the Beneficiary would perform various non-managerial functions related to customer 
service, sales, and marketing. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates the broadly stated job description and percentage breakdown that 
it provided in the initial supporting statement and contends that the Beneficiary's proposed position 
is "fully managerial in nature" and is "limited to manager level activities." The Petitioner turther 
states that the Beneficiary "[ d]irects and coordinates promotion of products and services performed 
to develop new markets, increase share of markets, and obtain competitive position in industry 
[sic]." The Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision was arbitrary and capricious and an abuse 
of his discretion. 
We find that the Petitioner's argument does not address the relevant regulatory provision that 
expressly requires the Petitioner to provide a written job offer in which it "clearly describe[s] the 
4 
Maller ofC-U-G- Corp 
duties to be performed" by the Beneficiary. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5U)(5). Although the Director issued an 
RFE specifically itemizing the deficiencies in the record and allowed the Petitioner an opportunity to 
supplement the record with a more detailed job description listing the Beneficiary's proposed daily 
job duties, the Petitioner did not respond with the requested evidence. Failure to submit requested 
evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l4). The Director expressly noted that the Petitioner did not respond with the requested 
evidence and once again pointed to the deficiencies in the previously submitted job description, 
thereby establishing that there was a sound basis for the denial and that the denial was not arbitrary 
and capricious as the Petitioner contends. 
As indicated above, a detailed job description is a key component to establishing that the Beneficiary 
meets the statutory criteria of managerial capacity. Specifics are clearly an important indication of 
whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily managerial in nature; otherwise, meeting the definition 
would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co .. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 
1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), af["d, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). In this instance, the Petitioner 
provided an overly general percentage breakdown, which indicates that the Beneficiary would be 
directly involved in carrying out certain operational functions, including contacting customers, 
distributors, and "others" and marketing the Petitioner's products to increase profitability. Despite 
providing a separate list of duties to describe the Beneficiary's proposed position, that list is also 
comprised of vague statements which generally indicate that the Beneficiary will "establish the 
operations" and "oversee all administrative matters" without specifying what actual tasks the 
Beneficiary will perform to meet these broadly stated objectives. As previously indicated, the actual 
duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. !d. at 1 I 08. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will assume the role of a function manager with 
the goal of expanding the Petitioner's business in the United States and worldwide. Unlike a 
pers01mel manager, the term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not 
primarily 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. 
The term "essential function" is not defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims that a 
beneficiary will manage an essential function, a petitioner must furnish a written job offer that 
clearly describes the duties to be performed in managing the essential function, or more specifically, 
identify the function with specificity, articulate the essential nature of the function, and establish the 
proportion of a beneficiary's daily duties attributed to managing the essential function. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(j)(5). In addition, a petitioner's description of a beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate 
that the beneficiary will manage the function rather than perform duties related to the function. See 
lvfatter ofZ-A-.1nc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). 
In this matter, the Petitioner has not specifically identified which essential function the Beneficiary 
would manage, nor specified which duties are indicative of managing that function. We note that 
broadly claiming that the Beneficiary will "establish the operation" of the Petitioner and oversee its 
"administrative matters" is not synonymous with identifying a specific function of the Petitioner's 
retail operation. The Petitioner does not specify how the Beneficiary will direct and coordinate 
5 
Maller ofC-U-G- Corp 
promotion of products and services or identify what services the Petitioner provides within the 
context of a business that sells kitchen, bathroom, and closet cabinets and other home decor and 
renovation products. The Petitioner also does not explain how the Beneficiary will "develop new 
markets" without directly engaging in marketing and promotion activities, which are akin to 
operational tasks rather than tasks that are indicative of managing an essential function. Likewise, 
the Petitioner has not established that negotiating banking, insurance, credit terms, and sales and 
purchase contracts, all of which are included in the Beneficiary's position description, qualify as 
managerial functions. 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 capacity. 
See, section 1 Ol(a)(44)(A) and of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated 
managerial duties); Maller of Church Scientology lnt '/., 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm'r 1988). 
Further, while the job description indicates that the Beneficiary would have discretionary authority 
over business and personnel matters, his level of authority is not sufficient to establish that the job 
duties he would perform within the context of the Petitioner's retail operation would be primarily of 
a managerial nature. Merely disagreeing with the Director's analysis of the submitted evidence is 
not sufficient to overcome the denial, particularly when our review of the record confirms the 
adverse findings. 
In light of the overall lack of a comprehensive job description specifying the Beneficiary's actual job 
duties, we cannot conduct a meaningful analysis of the proposed employment to determine that it 
would involve the performance of tasks that are primarily of a managerial nature. 
2. Staffing 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, we review the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed managerial capacity of a beneticiary, including the company's organizational 
structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to 
relieve a beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other 
factors that will contribute to an understanding of a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and 
"function managers." See section I 01 (a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers are 
required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees. The statute plainly states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be 
acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the 
employees supervised are professional." Section I 0 l (a)( 44 )(A)(iv) of the Act. If a beneficiary 
directly supervises other employees, the beneticiary must also have the authority to hire and fire 
those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. Section 
l0l(a)(44)(A)(iii) ofthe Act. While a function manager primarily focuses on managing an essential 
function rather than overseeing a subordinate staff, the Petitioner must nevertheless establish that the 
Beneficiary would not be required to allocate his time primarily to operational and administrative 
tasks. Inherent to both a function and a personnel manager is that the employing entity has the 
6 
Matter ofC-U-G- Corp 
necessary support staff to relieve the Beneficiary from having to primarily perform the 
organization's operational and administrative functions, 
We note that a company's size alone, without taking into account the reasonable needs of the 
organization, may not be the determining factor in denying a visa petition for classification as a 
multinational executive, See section 101 (a)(44)(C) of the Act However, it is appropriate for USCIS 
to consider the size of the petitioning company in conjunction with other relevant factors, such as the 
absence of employees who would perform the non-executive operations of the company, or a "shell 
company" that does not conduct business in a regular and continuous manner, See e,g, Family Inc, 
469 F,3d 1313; Systronics Corp, v, INS, 153 F, Supp, 2d 7, 15 (O,O,C, 2001), The size of a 
company may be especially relevant when USCIS notes discrepancies in the record and fails to 
believe that the facts asserted are true, See Systronics, 153 F Supp, 2d at 15, 
In the present matter, the Petitioner claimed to have seven employees at the time of filing and 
submitted an organizational chart that does not corroborate this claim, Rather, the chart indicates 
that the Petitioner used the services of four contractors and employed a total of six employees, 
including the Beneficiary, who was a B IIB2 nonimmigrant and thus did not have employment 
authorization at the time of filing, 
Further, there are discrepancies between the Petitioner's business plan and the submitted 
organizational chart The business plan states that the Petitioner employs a chief designer, an 
accountant a financial manager, an operational manager and two sales persons, The Petitioner's 
organizational chart shows that the company is headed by a general manager who supervises an 
accountant, a back office department employee, and the Beneficiary's proposed operational manager 
position, The chart shows two employees- a chief designer and "Project"- as the Beneficiary's 
subordinates and lists three subcontractors as subordinates of the "Project" employee and a design 
service as subordinate to the chief designer; it does not include the tinance manager or two sales 
people mentioned in the business plan, As the Petitioner did not provide information about the job 
duties or educational credentials of the individuals who are depicted as the Beneficiary's 
subordinates, we cannot conclude that these subordinates are supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees, See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act Nor can we conclude that the 
Beneficiary would primarily allocate his time to overseeing subordinate employees based on the 
deficient job description that the Petitioner provided, 
Further, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided its quarterly federal tax return for the fourth 
quarter of 2015 during which the instant petition was filed, However, the total number of employees 
the Petitioner claimed during this relevant time period is tive, rather than seven, as originally 
claimed in the petition, or six, as indicated in the organizational chart The Petitioner must resolve 
these discrepancies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth 
lies, Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec, 582, 591-92 (BTA 1988), Here, the Petitioner did not provide 
consistent, objective evidence establishing the actual number of employees it had, the positions they 
filled, or the job duties the support staff performed when the petition was filed, Therefore, it did not 
provide sufficient evidence to establish that it had the stafting structure in place to relieve the 
7 
Matter of C- U-G- Corp 
Beneficiary from having to be directly involved in its sales, marketing, and other non-managerial 
functions that are inherent to the Petitioner's retail and service-oriented business. 
While the Beneficiary is not required to allocate I 00% of his time to managerial-level tasks, the 
Petitioner must establish that any operational or administrative functions the Beneficiary would 
perform are only incidental to the proposed position. As previously indicated, 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. Given that the Petitioner provided inconsistent information as to 
its staffing composition, we cannot determine whether the Petitioner was adequately staffed at the 
time of filing such that it was able to relieve the Beneficiary from having to allocate his time 
primarily to non-managerial functions. 
Based on the deficiencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that at the time the instant 
petition was filed, it had the ability to employ the Beneliciary in a position in which he would perform 
primarily managerial duties. 
B. Employment Abroad 
Next, we will examine the record to detem1ine whether the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 
1. Duties 
Similar to the analysis of the Beneficiary's proposed employment, we look to the Beneficiary's 
assigned job duties to detetmine whether the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial 
capacity. In the initial supporting statement, the Petitioner provided the following description of the 
Beneficiary's employment with the li:Jreign entity (note: errors in the original text have not been 
changed): 
The beneficiary's duties abroad involved supervtston of function managers in 
international shipments, inventory preparation, accuracy, language, responsibility, 
specialty services, equipment, inspections, weighing procedures, safety and quality 
control. In greater detail, his job involved analysis of project cargo characteristics; 
analysis of import and export of products to the United States and Latin America; 
Analysis of study export options, quotes, timing & routing; complete analysis of custom 
processing and costs; evaluation of final section of equipment; final pricing, customs 
preliminary paperwork and transportation; selection of commodity description for 
ti:Jreign custom purposes; project leader li:Jr the execution of project transportation of 
special equipment and parts commanding crew and organizing use of special equipment 
fur logistics purposes; on a day-to-day basis, the beneficiary was in charge of the 
establishment of operational objectives and work plans, as well as the delegation of 
assigm11ent to subordinate managers; was in charge to develop contracts with existing 
8 
Maller ofC-U-G- Corp 
negotwtwns of sales contracts, including tenns, pncmg and volume, technical 
proficiency and consults with prospective clients regarding the use of a company 
products; investigation of potential product improvements; managing clients profits and 
loss; expenses and performances to quota; investigating and evaluating new business 
opportunities pertaining to alternative channels, and customers; marketing intelligence to 
sales management and participation in the development of sales forecast and strategies. 
Investigating and evaluating new business customers; marketing intelligence to sales 
management and participation in the development of sales forecast and strategies. 
Despite claiming that the Beneficiary supervised function managers, the list of corresponding functions 
lacks sufficient information about the context within which functions such as "accuracy, language, 
responsibility, regulations, specialty services, [and] equipment" would be can·ied out. The Petitioner 
did not state how many managers the Beneficiary supervised, nor did it specify how the various 
functions were apportioned among the Beneficiaty's subordinates. Likewise, the Petitioner did not 
provide a context within which we can assess the degree of the Beneficiary's involvement in analyzing 
cargo characteristics, products to be imported or exported, expmt options, and customs processing and 
costs. On its face, conducting analysis of these various components indicates that the Beneficiary was 
carrying out operational tasks necessary for shipping, importing, and exporting merchat1dise, the nature 
of which the Petitioner did not disclose in its enumeration of his job duties. The Petitioner listed other 
elements as part of the Beneficiary's work assignment, but did not specify the nature of his involvement 
with various non-managerial functions, including preliminary paperwork and transpmtation and 
selecting a product description for customs purposes. It is unclear whether the Beneficiary himself was 
responsible for completing the paperwork and transportation logistics or whether he was overseeing 
others who perfom1ed these operational duties. 
Also, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's role in negotiating contracts, consulting with 
prospective clients, investigating the potential to improve certain products, seeking out new clients and 
business opportunities, providing marketing intelligence, and sales forecasting was indicative of 
someone who was employed in a managerial capacity. Similarly, managing client profits and losses 
also appears to be an operational task indicative of providing a service to the foreign entity's client. 
That said, it is unclear how the latter job duty relates to whatever type of merchandise the foreign entity 
sold and exported. While this job duty appears to be inconsistent with the retail nature of the foreign 
entity's business, the initial statement lacked sufficient information about the specific nature of the 
business to make a sound detem1ination as to how the various components related to the products or 
services the foreign entity provided to its clients. The Petitioner must resolve this apparent ambiguity in 
the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Maller of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. at 591-92. 
The Petitioner also provided a percentage breakdown indicating that the Beneficiary allocated his time 
in the following manner: 30% supervising subordinates and "reviewing with creative staff' to ensure 
best results; 20% developing contacts with potential clients and maintaining contacts with 
"manufacturer partners" and "third patty associates"; 30% providing financial analysis and cost control 
options and establishing a company budget; and 20% reviewing contracts and analyzing budgets and 
9 
Malter ofC-U-G- Corp 
reports. As with the U.S. job description, the Petitioner did not explain how the above time allocations 
are to be applied to the list of job duties the Beneficiary was assigned in his fonner position with the 
foreign entity. 
In the RFE, the Director addressed the evidence pertaining to the Beneficiary's emplo;~11ent abroad, 
noting his confusion about the lack of contextual infonnation regarding the nature of the foreign entity's 
business and the Beneficiary's role within the business. The Director asked the Petitioner to clarifY the 
Beneficiary's job duties abroad by providing a statement from the foreign entity specifically describing 
the Beneticiary's tasks and assigning a quantitative component to indicate how much time the 
Beneficiary allocated to each of his assigned job duties. 
Instead of providing the requested evidence, the Petitioner submitted another statement, which 
contained restated portions of the original job description and added new elements, several of which 
were listed in present tense, thereby leading us to question whether the new elements pertained to the 
Beneficiary's position with the foreign employer where he is currently no longer employed. 
Specifically, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary performed the following (note: errors in the 
original text have not been changed): 
In Addition, he develops, manages and set development plan to identify sales targets for 
the account executives; provides leadership to manage, motivate, mentor and drive 
revenue building activities for the sales team including setting monthly and quarterly 
goas; drive all ongoing relationship management activities between the team and their 
respective customers; create key sales metrics which define and measure the sales 
process to develop benchmark for growth; manage the preparation of proposals and 
contracts for services as needed with sales team including the negotiation of pricing and 
services offered. 
The Petitioner added that this analysis "re-affirms" that the Beneficiary was employed in a 
managerial position "where he managed a function of the organization" and "supervised and 
controlled the work of lower level staff." In other words, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
was employed as both a function and a personnel manager without specifying whether the 
Beneficiary primarily managed a function or primarily supervised a subordinate staff. The Petitioner 
also did not assign time constraints to the job duties that were included either in the original 
supporting statement or in the RFE response statement. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner provided a deficient job 
description that was vague and did not adequately elaborate on the Beneficiary's specific tasks as 
they related to various non-managerial functions, such as sales and customer service. The Director 
further noted that the Petitioner did not submit the requested statement from the foreign entity 
regarding the Beneficiary's job duties abroad or the requested information about the job duties and 
educational credentials of the Beneficiary's former subordinates. 
10 
Afatler ofC-U-G- Corp 
On appeal, the Petitioner compares the Beneficiary's former employment to his proposed position in 
the United States, claiming that the two sets of job duties are similar. The Petitioner does not clarify 
the ambiguities noted in the Director's decision or expand on the information that was previously 
provided. Instead, the Petitioner adds to the confusion by restating some job duties and adding new 
job duties that were not listed in either of the previously submitted job descriptions. Namely, the 
Petitioner now claims that the Bendiciary was also responsible for "participating in the preparation 
of business plan, campaigns, and special services development plans"; analyzing "the operational 
system and destination of products and specialized services, technology around the world markets"; 
evaluating the" final section of equipment, standard operational procedures t{Jr the whole import and 
export activities"; "elaboration and supervision of products transportation, selection of commodity 
description for foreign customs purposes"; and making sales presentations, which includes contract 
negotiations. The Petitioner does not elaborate on what was involved in preparing a business plan or 
expand on the types of"campaigns" the Beneficiary helped create or the kinds of special services the 
foreign entity offered. The Petitioner also does not explain what is meant by "operational system" or 
"technology around the world markets'' within the context of the foreign business operation, nor 
does it clarify what specific role the Beneficiary assumed with respect to these components. 
In sum, rather than clarifying the Beneficiary's duties within the context of the foreign business 
operation, the Petitioner provides a lengthy, yet confusing job description that overlaps somewhat, 
but not entirely with previously submitted job descriptions. The Petitioner does not expand on the 
previously provided job descriptions, which also lacked clarity as to the nature of the tureign entity's 
business operation and did not establish the underlying operational components of that operation or 
the Beneficiary's role in managing the operation, an essential component of that operation, or its 
staff. \-lerely claiming that the Beneficiary had discretionary authority over the foreign entity's staff 
and business operation is not sufficient for the purpose of establishing what achral job duties the 
Beneficiary performed on a daily basis or the nature of such duties. While the Petitioner claims that 
the Director's denial resulted in a violation of due process, the record lacks evidence to support this 
contention. Moreover, the Director issued an RFE, which contained a cohesive list of evidentiary 
deficiencies and listed the types of evidence the Petitioner could submit to overcome those 
deficiencies. We cannot overlook the fact that the Petitioner did not respond with the requested 
evidence and instead continued to supplement the record with deficient job descriptions that 
confused, rather than clarified, the Beneficiary's role with the tureign organization. 
The new infonnation offered on appeal does not resolve the ambiguities associated with the 
previously provided job descriptions, which lack suC!icient information and do not establish that the 
Beneficiary's employment abroad consisted primarily of managerial job duties. 
2. Staff 
Finally, aside from considering the Beneficiary's job duties with his employer abroad, we reviewed 
the available evidence regarding the foreign company's organizational structure, the employees that 
comprise that structure, their respective job duties, and the likelihood that the foreign organization 
II 
Maller ofC-U-G- Corp 
had the capacity to relieve the Beneficiary from having to allocate his time primarily to that entity's 
operational duties. 
Although the Petitioner responded to the RFE by providing the foreign entity's organizational chart, 
all of the position titles listed in the chart were in a foreign language and the chart was not 
accompanied by a certified English translation. Any document in a foreign language must be 
accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The translator must 
certify that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. !d. 
While we are able to acknowledge the Beneficiary's placement in the foreign entity's organizational 
hierarchy despite the lack of an English translation, we are unable to determine which positions were 
superior and which were subordinate to that of the Beneficiary. As such, we are precluded from 
being able to determine whether the information in the chart supports the claims made in the 
Beneficiary's job descriptions in terms of his "team" of subordinates, whom we cannot identify 
using the foreign entity's untranslated organizational chart. Thus, despite illustrating an 
organizational hierarchy that appears to be more complex than that of the Petitioner, we do not have 
the supporting evidence that would lead us to conclude that the foreign entity had the requisite 
support staff to relieve the Beneficiary fi'om allocating his time primarily to the number of non­
managerial tasks that were enumerated in the various lists of his job duties. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence submitted does not establish that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad or that he would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Malter ofC-U-G- Cm]J, ID# 350552 (AAO May 26, 2017) 
12