dismissed EB-1C Case: Import/Distribution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 16, 2025 In Re: 36077042 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Multinational Managers or Executives) 
The Petitioner, an importer and distributor of materials for the digital printing industry, seeks to 
permanently employ the Beneficiary as its operations 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 classification allows a U.S. employer to 
permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
that: (1) the Petitioner had a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer and (2) 
the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
The Petitioner later filed an appeal that we dismissed; however, we withdrew the Director's 
determination that it did not establish a qualifying relationship. The matter is now before us again on 
motion to reconsider. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon 
review, we will dismiss the motion. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii) . We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
In dismissing the appeal, we agreed with the Director's conclusion that the record contained 
unresolved ambiguities related to the Petitioner ' s staffing and organizational structure, the 
Beneficiary's areas of responsibility, and the nature of his day-to-day duties. We reasoned that the 
Beneficiary's duties included both managerial and non-managerial tasks and that the Petitioner did not 
sufficiently quantify the amount of time he would spend on each, and in tum, that he would primarily 
perform managerial duties. See IKEA US, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. ofJustice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 
1999). We further concluded that the Petitioner did not adequately explain changes made to the 
Beneficiary's job description, leaving question as to his asserted role when the petition filed. For 
instance, we emphasized that the Petitioner modified the Beneficiary's asserted position between 
manager of the entire commercial division and operations manager overseeing members of the 
purchasing team, warehouse, and drivers. 
Further, we determined the Petitioner did not establish that he was employed as a personnel manager 
overseeing subordinate managers, supervisors, or professionals as claimed. For instance, we pointed 
to the evidence reflecting that the Beneficiary had only one direct subordinate, the warehouse manager, 
and indicated that the provided RFE evidence reflected that he spent a relatively small portion of his 
time supervising this individual. As such, we concluded that he likely spent more than half of his time 
acting as a first-line supervisor to non-professional employees. We also emphasized that the 
Beneficiary's job duties included several non-managerial tasks, determining that this was insufficient 
to demonstrate that the warehouse manager and his staff were primarily relieving him from performing 
non-qualifying duties. We also observed that the provided evidence did not clearly corroborate the 
Petitioner's staffing levels when the petition was filed, this asserted number fluctuating between 11 
claimed employees at the time of filing, while elsewhere 14 positions, with only eight employees, 
beyond the Beneficiary, identified by name. Lastly, we noted that there was no evidence to 
substantiate wages paid to the Petitioner's employees during the first two quarters of 2023. 
On motion, the Petitioner contends we erred in not considering whether the Petitioner qualified as a 
function manager, asserting they were not required to specifically assert this claimed eligibility. The 
Petitioner states the provided evidence demonstrated that the Beneficiary was employed as a function 
manager supervising the activities of the sales team, an essential function of the organization. The 
Petitioner contests our prior conclusion that the Beneficiary was primarily responsible for non­
operational tasks such as keeping the warehouse organized, delivering products, dispatch, and making 
purchases, asserting that these tasks were performed by the subordinate warehouse manager, 
warehouse assistant, and drivers. The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary would have been 
employed as a function manager responsible for the company's sales and distribution and would not 
primarily participate in selling the company's products. The Petitioner states the evidence reflected 
that the Beneficiary held authority over the commercial division of the company and that he had 
responsibility for managerial level tasks such as monitoring sales team performance and goals, 
revising cancelled or voided orders and implementing solutions, and authorizing customer returns. 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary would spend more than 50% of his time overseeing the 
warehouse manager and exercising the managerial duties of an essential function. 
Upon review, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. we conclude that we did not err in concluding 
that the Beneficiary would not primarily act as a personnel manager. As discussed in our prior 
decision, the Beneficiary's duties included both managerial and non-managerial tasks and that the 
Petitioner did not consistently quantify the amount of time the Beneficiary spent on each, and in turn, 
that he would primarily perform personnel manager tasks. See IKEA US, Inc. v. US. Dept. ofJustice, 
48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). As noted, the Beneficiary was shown to have only one direct 
subordinate, the warehouse manager, and the RFE evidence indicated he spent a relatively small 
portion of his time supervising this individual. For instance, the Petitioner did not provide supporting 
documentation to substantiate the Beneficiary's personnel authority over this claimed subordinate 
warehouse manager or evidence of him primarily delegating non-qualifying operational tasks to this 
employee and his claimed subordinates. In fact, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary was 
responsible for the several apparent non-qualifying tasks such as completing purchasing reports, 
preparing quote requests, scheduling deliveries, ensuring timely fulfillment of orders, researching 
2 
potential vendors and suppliers, keeping records of goods ordered and received, and determining 
timing of deliveries. 
On motion, the Petitioner again emphasizes apparent non-qualifying operational tasks stating that he 
would be tasked with revising cancelled or voided orders and authorizing customer returns. The 
Petitioner does not supplement the record to sufficiently substantiate the Beneficiary's primary 
performance of qualifying managerial tasks, nor does it provide evidence of personnel actions he 
handled. The Petitioner also did not, and does not, provide documentation to substantiate wages paid 
to the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates near to the date the petition was filed, as we discussed in 
our prior decision. Therefore, we did not err in concluding the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish 
that the Beneficiary would be employed as a personnel manager under an approved petition. The 
Petitioner must establish that the Beneficiary is primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to 
operational activities alongside the company's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 
1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). 
The Petitioner also suggests on motion that we should have analyzed whether the Beneficiary qualified 
as a function manager, regardless of whether this was specifically asserted. We disagree. We note 
that in this proceeding, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Therefore, we were under no obligation to determine whether 
the Beneficiary would have qualified as a function manager without this being specifically asserted as 
a basis for eligibility. Regardless, now that this is being specifically claimed, we will consider whether 
the Beneficiary would have qualified as a function manager. 
The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the 
work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" 
within the organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a petitioner claims that a 
beneficiary will manage an essential function, it must clearly describe the duties to be performed in 
managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that "(1) the function is 
a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is 'essential,' i.e., core to the organization; (3) the 
beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to pe1form, the function; (4) the beneficiary will act at 
a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and (5) the 
beneficiary will exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day operations." Matter of G- Inc., 
Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
For similar reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would be employed as a 
function manager. The Petitioner did not sufficiently substantiate with supporting documentation that 
the Beneficiary would be primarily engaged in managing his function rather than performing it. As 
noted, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary was responsible for the several apparent non­
qualifying operational duties, which we discussed above. Upon motion, the Petitioner again 
emphasizes apparent non-qualifying operational tasks such as him revising cancelled or voided orders 
and authorizing customer returns. The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate 
that the Beneficiary primarily delegated non-qualifying tasks to subordinates. Due to this lack of 
evidence and the Beneficiary's stated duty description, it appears more likely than not that he was 
primarily performing non-qualifying operational tasks himself: or at the very least, performing them 
alongside his claimed subordinates. Therefore, the Petitioner has not sufficiently supported that the 
Beneficiary would be employed as a function manager under an approved petition. 
3 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, the motion will 
be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4