dismissed EB-1C Case: Hospitality

(b)(6)
DATE:APR 0 8 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Service� 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
t(__ t1r--Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a multinational corporation operating luxury hotels worldwide. The petitioner seeks to 
employ the beneficiary in the United States in the position of residential director of outlets. Accordingly, the 
petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a multinational 
executive or manager. 
In a decision dated January 17, 2014, the director denied the petition based on the finding that the petitioner 
failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the petitioner disputes the director's adverse findings and submits a supplemental brief discussing 
the beneficiary's former position with the foreign employer. 
I. TheLaw 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. --Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
* * * 
(C) Certain Multinational Executives and Managers. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding the time of the alien's application for 
classification and admission into the United States under this subparagraph, has been 
employed for at least 1 year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or 
subsidiary thereof and who seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render 
services to the same employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is 
managerial or executive. 
The language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only those executives and managers who 
have previously worked for a firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary of that entity, 
and who are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its affiliate or subsidiary. 
A United States employer may file a petition on Form I -140 for classification of an alien under section 
203(b)(1)(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. No labor certification is required for this 
classification. The prospective employer in the United States must furnish a job offer in the form of a 
statement which indicates that the alien is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity. Such a statement must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the alien. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
/ 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
The term "managerial capacity" means 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 �f 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. 
II. Factual Background and Procedural History 
The record shows that the petition was filed on March 19, 2013. The petition was accompanied by supporting 
corporate and financial documents as well as the petitioner's supporting statement, dated March 4, 2013, 
signed by vice president of the human resources. stated that the beneficiary's 
former position as room service manager based with the petitioner's group in Ireland involved oversight of 
twelve employees, including four assistant managers and subordinate supervisors. She also provided a list of 
the beneficiary's key responsibilities: 
• Oversaw the selection, training, evaluation and discipline of all employees in the Hotel's 
Room Service Department to ensure that established cultural and core standards were 
met; 
• Directed the responses to and handling of guest, client and group contract complaints, 
concerns, and special requests in order to maintain good public relations; 
• Liaised with the Assistant Director of Food and Beverage, Director of Food and 
Beverage, Executive Chef and Sous chef to design quality products at a fair price for 
guests; 
• Participated in regular meetings to ensure effective coordination and cooperation between 
departments; 
• Ensured the provision of and availability of information regarding high quality food 
items, ingredients as well as wine and spirts that were available to guests for in-room 
dining and in-room private bar services on a 24 hour a day basis; 
��- -� - --- ----------------------------------
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
• Controlled departmental labor and operating expenses through effective scheduling, 
budgeting, purchasing decisions and inventory and cash control; and 
• Monitored physical conditions of the facilities and equipment utilized by departmental 
staff to ensure hotel standards and guest expectations were met. 
The petitioner submitted an organizational chart for the Ireland hotel depicting the beneficiary as 
room service manager with two direct subordinates with the job title "room service supervisor." The chart 
showed that these employees supervised two "ad hoc supervisors/coordinators" who, in turn, supervised a 
staff of eight "room service servers/private bar attendants." 
On September 13, 2013, the director issued a request for evidence (RFE), in which the petitiOner was 
instructed to provide a detailed description of the
. beneficiary's former position listing the beneficiary's daily 
job duties and the percentage of time allocated to each of his assigned tasks. The director also asked the 
petitioner to provide: (1) the foreign entity's organizational chart with sufficient d@tail to adequately illustrate 
the beneficiary's former position relative to other employees; and (2) the names and detailed job descriptions 
of the beneficiary's immediate supervisor and subordinate employees at his former position abroad. 
The petitioner's response included a statement, dated November 26, 2013, from The 
statement included a list of the beneficiary's former job duties and their respective time allocations. The 
petitioner supplemented the statement with the foreign entity's organizational chart and company generated 
job descriptions of the beneficiary's supervisor- director of food and beverage- as well as job descriptions of 
the beneficiary's position and those of the room service supervisor, room service coordinator/order taker, and 
room service server/overnight room service server. 
tasks: 
letter provided the following description of the beneficiary's core responsibilities and day-to-day 
• Oversaw selection, training, evaluation and discipline of Room Service Employees (Day­
to-day tasks included interviewing and reviews, and testing on core standards)- 10% 
• Exercised discretionary authority in directing subordinates in methods of responding to 
guest requests and handling guest complaints, concerns, and special requests. (Day-to­
day tasks included ensuring order taking and delivery were correct; ensuring meetings 
rooms were correctly set up)� 20% 
• Liaised directly with other senior-level Food and Beverage managers to develop quality 
products for guests at fair prices (Daily tasks included checking on food quality and 
bringing new products to the department offerings) -10% 
• Participated in hotel-wide manager meetings to discuss and implement effective 
coordination and cooperation strategies between departments (Day-to-day tasks included 
attending BEO, Labor, Board of Operations and Department meetings)- 20% 
• Monitored and analyzed guest preferences and activities so that quality [food] and 
beverage offerings and services were available for in-room dining and in-room private 
bar services. (Day-to-day tasks included weekly meeting with chef, liaison with group 
contacts, and liaison with vendors)- 20% 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
• Exercised discretionary authority to control departmental labor and operating expenses 
(Day-to-day tasks included preparing and checking schedules) - 10% 
• Manage subordfnate employees in the proper maintenance of equipment and facilities 
utilized by Room Services staff (Day-to-day tasks included training in department, 
coaching meetings, and standards tests) - 10% 
The internally-generated description of the Room Service Manager position listed the basic purpose of the 
position as to "plan, organize, control and direct the work of employees in the Room Service Department 
while ensuring guest satisfaction." The duty description listed eight "essential functions" as follows: 
1. Select, train, evaluate, lead, motivate, coach and discipline all employees in the Hotel's 
Room Service Department ... (20%) 
2. The ability to be visible in the operation, provide recognition, promote good public 
relations, and handle complaints, concerns or special requests for guests, clients, and 
group contacts. (20%) 
3. Describe and ensure quality of all food items, ingredients, and preparation methods, as 
well as provide knowledge of wine and spirits in an elegantly appointed environment ... 
(10%) 
4. The ability to work closely with the Assistant Director of Food & Beverage, Director of 
Food & Beverage, Executive Chef and Sous Chefs to design effective menu and amenity 
options while ensuring excellent product quality at a fair price and attend regular 
operational meetings .... (10%) 
5. Control labor and operating expenses through effective scheduling, budgeting, 
purchasing decisions, and inventory and cash control. (10%) 
6. Observe physical condition of facilities and equipment in the outlet and make 
recommendations for corrections and improvements as needed. (10%) 
7. Comply with [the company's] Category One and Category Two Work Rules and 
Standards of Conduct as set forth in Em,Pact. (10%) 
8. Work harmoniously and professionally with co-workers and supervisors. (10%) 
The description indicated that the Room Service Manager's "non-essential functions" included assisting with 
the service of food to guests and assisting with the cleaning of operational areas. 
The petitioner submitted a position description for the Room Service Supervisor position in the same format. 
The job description for this position indicated that the position's basic purpose is to "serve guest needs by 
providing exceptional knowledge of food & beverage menu items as well as information regarding 
preparation methods. " The essential duties of the room service supervisor include delivering food orders, 
checking completed kitchen orders with the order taker, transporting items to guestrooms, greeting guests and 
describing selected items, responding to requests for tray removal, breakdown and set-up of room service 
tables, and closing guest checks. The description indicated that the room service supervisor assigns tasks to 
servers and private bar attendants and checks work of employees assigned during his/her shift as "non­
essential functions." The description indicates that the number of employees supervised by this position is 
"None." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
After reviewing the petitioner's submissions, the director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that 
the beneficiary's position abroad was in a qualifying capacity. The director reviewed the information 
provided with regard to the beneficiary's former position, as well as the positions of his direct and indirect 
subordinates, and concluded that the beneficiary was a first-line supervisor of non-supervisory and non­
professional employees. The director also pointed to a discrepancy between the originally submitted 
organizational chart, which showed the beneficiary directly overseeing the work of two room service 
supervisors ·whose positions were depicted above two ad hoc supervisors/coordinators, and the chart 
submitted in response to the RFE, which showed the beneficiary overseeing two room service supervisors, 
who in turn were responsible for overseeing the work of two additional room service supervisors. 
( 
On appeal, the petitioner 'reasserts its prior claim that the beneficiary was charged with overseeing a 
department comprised of twelve employees, including two room service supervisors, whom the beneficiary 
managed directly. The petitioner focuses on the hierarchy of the room service department and contends that 
the director unduly focused on the company generated job descriptions that were provided with the RFE 
response without giving ample consideration to the beneficiary's own job description, which was included in 
response statement. 
Upon review, and for the reasons stated below, we find that the petitioner has failed to establish that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial capacity. 
III. The Issue on Appeal 
As indicated above, the primary issue to be addressed in this proceeding is whether the petitioner provided 
sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial capacity. 
The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary's position of Room Service Manager was in an executive 
capacity. 
In order to make this determination, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of the record, starting with review 
of the beneficiary's job duties, as the duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the beneficiary's 
employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 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 employing entity's 
organizational structure, as well as the job duties, educational credentials, and position requirements of the 
beneficiary's subordinates. 
In the present matter, while the petitioner's RFE response statement included a percentage breakdown of the 
beneficiary's job duties abroad, it is unclear why that job description is inconsistent with the company 
generated job description offered with regard to the same position. For instance, the RFE response statement 
indicates that 10% of the beneficiary's time was allocated to overseeing, selecting, and evaluating room 
service employees and that 20% was allocated to directing subordinates in responding to guest requests and 
handling customer complaints. However, the company generated job description indicates that 20% of the 
beneficiary's time was allocated to selecting, training, evaluating, and leading employees in the room service 
department and another 20% of his time was allocated to promoting good public relations, handling 
complaints, and addressing special requests for guests, clients, and group contacts. The latter description 
indicates that the beneficiary, rather than his subordinates, assumed the customer service-related job duties 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT.DECISION 
Page 7 
and is also inconsistent with the RFE statement description in terms of the amount of time that was allocated 
to oversight, selection, and evaluation of employees. Further, while the RFE response statement indicates that 
the beneficiary "[l]iaised directly with other senior-level Food and Beverage managers to develop quality 
products for guests," the petitioner did not clarify that this was synonymous with the company generated job 
description, which indicated that 10% of the beneficiary's time was allocated to describing and ensuring food 
quality and knowledge of wine and spirits. The petitioner did not establish that the operational tasks listed in 
the company-wide description are of a managerial or executive nature. 
In addition, the company generated job description did not indicate that the beneficiary allocated 20% of his 
time to participating in hotel-wide manager meetings and 20% to monitoring and analyzing guest preferences 
by attending weekly meetings with the chef and communicating with group contacts and vendors. While it 
appears that the job description that was contained in the RFE response statement addressed the director's 
request for a detailed list of the beneficiary's job duties, it is unclear why this job description is inconsistent 
with the one that was internally generated or why the petitioner would submit the internally generated job 
description if it contends that the latter is an inaccurate depiction of the beneficiary's former position. It is 
incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. 
Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits 
competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). 
On appeal, the petitioner requests that we focus on the job description provided by the HR vice president, but 
it fails to explain why the company generated job description is an inaccurate portrayal of the beneficiary's 
former employment. Therefore, the petitioner fails to resolve the inconsistencies between the two job 
descriptions pertaining to the beneficiary's former position with the foreign entity. The petitioner also failed 
to resolve inconsistencies between the organizational chart submitted originally in support of the petition and 
the chart submitted later in response to the RFE. As noted in the director's decision, the two charts were 
inconsistent with regard to the subordinate staff that comprised the food
.
and beverage department where the 
beneficiary assumed his position as room service manager. Although the petitioner's appellate brief focuses 
entirely on the organizational chart that the petitioner originally submitted, the petitioner fails to explain why 
the organizational chart that was submitted in response to the RFE conveyed information that was 
inconsistent with the originally submitted chart. See id. 
Next, with regard to the director's finding that the beneficiary's subordinate staff was not comprised of 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, the petitioner asserts that the director placed "undue 
emphasis" on the company generated job descriptions, claiming that these are "standard company job 
descriptions," whose focus is on "'service' tasks" rather than on an employee's supervisory or managerial role. 
This explanation, however, is insufficient and is not supported by any corroborating evidence. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof 
in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft 
of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Furthermore, the record shows that the director was clear in requesting that the petitioner provide detailed job 
descriptions pertaining to the beneficiary's subordinates. The director had no choice but to consider the only 
job descriptions that the petitioner provided in the RFE response with regard to the beneficiary's subordinates. 
(b)(6)
- y 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
If, as claimed on appeal, the "generic corporate job descriptions" did not constitute an accurate depiction of 
the actual job duties the beneficiary's subordinate employees performed during his employment abroad, it is 
unclear why the petitioner did not provide more accurate job descriptions or why the petitioner provided the 
allegedly inaccurate company generated job descriptions to begin with. More<?ver, the petitioner failed to 
explain why the standard, company-wide job descriptions were not accurate portrayals of the positions within 
the foreign entity's organizational hierarchy. 
While the petitioner offered organizational charts that generally depicted the beneficiary's former position at 
the top of a departmental hierarchy with at least two levels of supervisory employees in positions that were 
subordinate to the beneficiary, we cannot focus entirely on two inconsistent organizational charts and exclude 
the job descriptions that the petitioner provided in the RFE response, which failed to corroborate the 
information that the petitioner attempted to convey in either chart. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and a "function 
managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii). Personnel 
managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees. Contrary to the common understanding of the word "manager," the statute plainly 
states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of 
the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional." Section 
101(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(4). If a beneficiary directly supervises other employees, the 
beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or recommend those actions, and 
take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(2). As previously stated, the petitioneE failed to provide 
sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary's subordinate staff consisted of supervisory, professional, 
or managerial employees. The position descriptions submitted for the subordinate room service supervisors 
and coordinators reflected that these employees had only nominal supervisory duties, such as assigning tasks, 
among their "non-essential functions" and were not considered to have subordinate employees. 
Further, the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary's former position meets the requirements of both a 
personnel and a functional manager is inconsistent with the intended application of the latter term, which 
generally applies when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead 
is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" within the organization. See section 
101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A)(ii). Here, the petitioner provided two organizational 
charts and made claims in an effort to establish that the beneficiary is a personnel manager. Further, for the 
reasons discussed above, the petitioner has not submitted consistent description of the beneficiary's duties 
sufficient to establish that the beneficiary performed primarily managerial duties associated with the room 
service function. In fact, the information provided in the petitioner's statement in response to the RFE 
indicated that the beneficiary spent 50% of his time on personnel matters such as interviewing, testing, 
training, coaching, overseeing performance of duties, and preparing and checking employee schedules, duties 
which must be considered non-qualifying in the absence of evidence that the beneficiary supervised 
subordinate managers, supervisors or professionals. While we do not doubt that he exercised discretion over 
room service matters and personnel, the record does not reflect that he performed primarily managerial duties. 
The entirety of the record shows that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to resolve the 
inconsistency between two differing organizational charts or to establish that the beneficiary's employment 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
abroad consisted primarily of tasks within a qualifying managerial capacity. The petitioner also offered 
inconsistent job descriptions for the beneficiary's own position. While the petitioner asks that we focus on the 
job description contained within the statement provided by its HR vice president, the petitioner provided no 
explanation as to why the company itself would choose to issue job descriptions that fail to properly disclose 
the beneficiary's key tasks and responsibilities. In light of the significant deficiencies highlighted in this 
decision, we find that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a 
qualifying managerial capacity and on the basis of this adverse finding, this petition cannot be approved. 
IV. Conclusion 
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 of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
Here, in light of the findings issued in the director's decision and the additional finding issued by this office, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.