dismissed EB-1C Case: Import/Export

MATTER OF PPMO- USA, LLC 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 29,2015 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an import/management company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as its president and 
chief executive officer (CEO) under the immigrant· classification of a multinational executive or 
manager. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). 
The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. - Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(C) Certain multinational executives and managers. An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding the time of the alien's application for 
classification and admission into the United States under this subparagraph, has been 
employed for at least 1 year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate 
or subsidiary thereof and the alien seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to 
render services to the same employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity 
that is managerial or executive. · 
A United States employer may file Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, to classify a 
beneficiary under section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5G)(5) states: 
No labor certification is required for this classification; however, 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 letter must clearly describe the. duties to be performed by 
the alien. 
Matter of PPMO- USA, LLC 
II. ISSUES ON APPEAL 
The Director denied the petition because the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence and 
information to establish both that the Beneficiary worked in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity abroad, and that he will work in such a capacity in the United States. 
Section 10l(a)(44) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(44), provides: 
(A) 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 of the activity or 
function for which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is not 
considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the 
supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are 
professional. 
(B) The term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in 
which the employee primarily-
(i) directs the management of the organization or a maJor component or 
function of the organization; 
(ii) establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or 
function; 
(iii) exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, 
the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of PPMO- USA, LLC 
Finally, 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 ofthe organization. See section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
The Petitioner, on appeal, does not significantly differentiate between the Beneficiary's past work 
abroad and his intended work in the United States, and therefore we will discuss these elements 
together in the analysis further below. 
A. Facts 
1. Managerial or Executive Capacity Abroad 
The Petitioner filed Form I-140 on February 7, 2014. The petition included an undated letter from 
. the Petitioner's finance and administration manager, which reads, in part: 
In his position as CEO [of the foreign parent entity], [the Beneficiary] set corporate 
policy and goals and identified and facilitated new business opportunities. [The 
Beneficiary] was responsible for developing strategic planning to enable the company 
to compete in the highly competitive import/export market. He evaluated national 
and global business environments in order to develop effective corporate 
strategies. . . . He was also responsible for establishing economic objectives and 
policies and overseeing and directing his immediate staff, which ... included the 
Operations Manager, Warehouse Supervisor and Labor Supervisor, all of whom in 
tum supervised the personnel responsible for the various day to day operations of the 
company. He had the authority to hire and fire staff, set up work and vacation 
schedules and approve bonuses and promotions .... 
The beneficiary spent approximately 90% of his time formulating the 
direction of [the foreign company], setting the goals of the foreign parent, the manner 
in which it was to achieve those goals, devising the company's long-term strategies 
and strategic partnerships, deciding on staffing, and salaries, fixing budgetary 
constraints and allocation of resources and implementing the directives of the Board 
of Directors. Approximately 10% of the beneficiary's time was spent on evaluating 
the employees under his supervision by evaluating performance against objectives or 
expectatimis. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) on September 30, 2014. The Director requested "a 
definitive statement from the foreign company which describes the beneficiary's job duties." In 
response, the Petitio.ner submitted a letter dated November 29, 2014 from president of 
Portions of this letter are identical to passages from 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of P P MO- USA, LLC 
earlier letter. provided the following breakdown of the Beneficiary's duties, with the 
approximate percentage of time devoted to each function: 
25% Oversaw overall business operations and developed organizational policies to 
coordinate functions and marketing operations, with an emphasis on sales and 
marketing. 
15% Reviewed activity reports and sales and financial statements to determine 
progress and status in obtaining objectives and revised plans according to 
present conditions. 
15% Explored opportunities to grow the company and increase profitability 
through new account acquisition (ie meeting and conferring with potential 
clients). 
10% Coordinated and consulted with outside marketing firm to review proposed 
methods of marketing strategies for both the short and long term. 
1 0% Coordinated and consulted with the Operations Manager to review and revise 
operating efficiency, product consistency, quality and on-time delivery. 
5% Supervised and participated in trade shows. 
10% · Negotiated contract terms and conducted follow up with clients. 
10% Formulated financial plans and oversaw 
preparation of the budget. 
An organizational chart for the foreign entity showed the following hierarchy: 
• Founder/Chairman 
• CEO [the Beneficiary] 
• Manager (also called Operations Manager) 
• Warehouse Supervisor 
• Ware house Labor Supervisor 
• 3 Labor Staff 
We will discuss the Director's decision further below. 
2. Managerial or Executive Capacity in the United States 
In the introductory letter submitted with the petition, stated: 
As President/CEO, [the Beneficiary] is responsible for planning, developing and 
establishing the policies and objectives for the sales and distribution of our products in 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of P P MO- USA, LLC 
the United States and overseas [sic] day to day operations of all functions of the US 
company. He develops organizational policies and establishes responsibilities and 
procedures for obtaining objectives for the US operation. He is responsible for 
expanding our market in the United States. [The Beneficiary] has the authority to hire 
and fire all staff for the US operation, set up work and vacation schedules and approve 
bonuses and promotions. He is managing the functions which are the very essence of 
our business and his position is the highest level of the United States operation. The 
beneficiary has complete discretion to set local policy (within the guidelines with the 
Board ofDirectors). 
More specifically, managerial decisions made by the beneficiary include the 
direction the company will take and, and [sic] after setting the goals of the company, the 
manner in which it will achieve those goals. He works on the company's long-term 
strategies aild strategic partnerships, decides on staffing, salaries, fixes budgetary. 
constraints and allocation of resources and implementing the directives of the Board of 
Directors. Approximately 85% of [the Beneficiary's] time is spent performing the 
following functions. In addition, the beneficiary evaluates the employees under his 
supervision by evaluating performance against objectives or expectations set earlier, the 
manner in which the employee has worked towards these objectives (ie. has he/she 
followed the strategy outlined by the beneficiary?), feedback from subordinate staff and 
external contacts and a combination of verbal and written communication. 
Approximately 15% of the beneficiary's time is spent on those duties. 
On Form 1-140, the Petitioner stated that it currently employed 15 workers in the United States. 
introductory letter listed these 15 employees by name and title. The titles are as follows: 
• President/CEO 
• Finance and Administration 
Manager 
• Vice President (VP) of Operations for Hotel/Motel Management 
• Operations Manager 
• Marketing Manager 
• Bookkeeper 
• Sales Assistant 
• Sales Representative 
• Shipping Clerk 
• Human Resource Associate 
• Two Warehouse Clerks 
• Secretary 
• Hotel/Motel Associate 
• Hotel/Motel Bookkeeper 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of P P MO- USA, LLC 
The Petitioner added that "[t]here are 4 subordinate supervisors and/or professional employees under 
the beneficiary's management," specifically a finance and administration manager; marketing manager; 
operations manager; and VP of operations for hotel/motel management. 
An organizational chart showed the following 14-person hierarchy: 
President/CEO [the Beneficiary] 
Marketing Mgr. Operations Mgr. Finance/ Admin. Mgr. VP Hotel/Motel Ops. 
I I I I 
Sales Representative Shipping Clerk Bookkeeper Human Resources Assoc. 
I I I I 
Sales Assistance Driver/Labor Administrative Aide 2 Administrative Clerks 
A copy of the Petitioner's then most recent IRS Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, 
showed 11 employees as of December 12, 2013, two months before the petition's filing date. 
In the RFE, the Director requested evidence to show that the Beneficiary will primarily perform 
managerial or executive duties for the Petitioner, including additional information and evidence 
relating to the Beneficiary's subordinate employees. 
In response, in a second undated letter, provided the following breakdown of the 
Beneficiary's duties, with the approximate percentage oftime devoted to each function: 
25% Developing, planning and implementing long term goals and plans and 
establishing and overseeing policies and strategies with respect to promotion, 
marketing and economic growth. 
5% Training and supervising managerial and support staff in sales and marketing. 
15% Reviewing customer relations and establishing business connections. 
20% Reviewing activity reports and sales and financial statements to determine 
progress and status in attaining objectives and revising objective plans in 
accordance with current conditions. 
25% Growing the company and increasing profitability through new account 
acquisition, horizontal integration of new businesses and improved efficiency. 
1 0% Negotiation and execution of contracts. 
In the RFE, the Director also instructed the Petitioner to submit IRS Forms W-2, Wage and Tax 
Statements, "for each employee." The Petitioner's 
response to the RFE included copies of four 2013 
IRS Forms W-2. stated that these forms correspond to the managers and supervisors 
6 
Matter of P P MO- USA, LLC 
working under the Beneficiary, as shown on the organizational chart. The Petitioner did not explain 
why it did not submit IRS Forms W-2 for all of its employees as the Director had requested. 
The Petitioner also submitted a copy of its IRS Form 941 for the second quarter of 2014, showing 10 
employees as of June 12 of that year. The Petitioner also resubmitted a copy of the same 
organizational chart, showing 14 positions. The Petitioner did not specify which, if any, of those 
positions were vacant. 
The Director denied the petition on April 7, 2015, stating that the Petitioner had not established that 
the Beneficiary had served, or will serve, in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. The 
Director noted that the Petitioner "did not provide W2s for the support staff," and submitted 
inconsistent information regarding the company's staffing and the exact nature of its business. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that it "has demonstrated in detail that the beneficiary will 
manage the function rather than perform the duties related to the function." The Petitioner submits 
copies of materials submitted previously, both in this proceeding and in support of other petitions 
that the Petitioner has filed. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review, and for the reasons stated below, we find that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
. Beneficiary's past or intended future work meets the requirements of a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, we will look first to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(5). Reciting the beneficiary's 
vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the regulations require 
a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. The petitioner did not provide any detail 
or explanation of the beneficiary's activities in the course of his daily routine. The actual duties 
themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. 
Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
The definitions of executive and managerial capacity have two parts. First, the petitioner ~ust show 
that the beneficiary performs the high level responsibilities that are specified in the definitions. 
Second, the petitioner must prove that the beneficiary primarily performs these specified 
responsibilities and does not spend a majority of his or her time on day-to-day functions. Champion 
World, Inc. v. INS, _940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that it had already met its burden of proof, both through its initial 
submission and its responses to "three repetitive RFEs dated as December 17, 2012, September 30, 
2014 and then October 2, 2014."1 For the most part, the appellate brief does not distinguish between 
1 USCIS issued only one RFE in this proceeding, on September 30, 2014. The other identified RFEs pertain to 
7 
Matter of PPMO- USA, LLC 
the Beneficiary's employment abroad and his later employment in the United States, and when it 
does, it is with regard to the Beneficiary's present duties with the Petitioner in the United States. 
The Petitioner states: "almost all portions of the beneficiary's duties meet the requirements of the 
'managerial capacity' and for some of them 'executive capacity' definitions of the requirements for 
multinational executives and managers." The Petitioner does not state any specific claim that the 
Beneficiary primarily performed executive duties. Instead, the Petitioner states that it has 
established the Beneficiary's "managerial capacity," and that the Beneficiary "is therefore qualified 
to be accepted as a multinational manager." The statute and regulations do not provide for hybrid 
"executive/managers," and therefore we need not consider the claim that the Beneficiary partially 
satisfies the requirements for an executive. 
The Petitioner states: "The beneficiary ... has been employed ... by the petitioner since 1995 to 
date which is more than enough time to establish one in his/her managerial and executive 
capacities." At issue here is what the Beneficiary has been doing, rather than how long he has been 
doing it. Length of experience does not establish or imply eligibility. 
The Petitioner contends that it has provided sufficient details about the Beneficiary's duties, but 
offers no specific rebuttals within this general assertion. In a new affidavit, the Beneficiary stated: 
In the capacity of CEO, I set corporate policy and goals; exercised discretion 
over the day-to-day operations of the company's activities; identified and facilitated 
new business opportunities and reviewed activity reports produced by other staff 
members of the company to verify progress and status in attaining the objectives; 
supervised and controlled the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees engaged in market studies of competitive companies; managed the 
company's essential functions by supervising and managing the activities of 
Operations Manager, Warehouse Supervisor, Labor Supervisor who, in their turn, 
were responsible for supervising and overseeing day-to-day activities of immediate 
staff members [.] 
Portions of the above paragraph derive directly from the statutory definition of "managerial 
capacity." Repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's 
burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1108. Apart from the passages that 
quote or paraphrase the statute, the Beneficiary states that he "identified and facilitated new business 
opportunities and reviewed activity reports." This does not provide a sufficient level of detail to 
allow a finding in the Petitioner's favor. 
nonimmigrant petitions filed by this same Petitioner. This proceeding does not concern those nonimmigrant petitions, 
and therefore we need not address materials related to those petitions that the Petitioner has submitted on appeal. The 
2012 RFE predates the filing of the present petition by more than a year. The other two RFEs were issued within days of 
one another, but by two different Service Centers; the RFEs do not represent redundant requests by the same adjudicator. 
The nonimmigrant filings are not part of the record of proceeding now before us at the AAO. 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of P P MO- USA, LLC 
In the same way, the job descriptions provided by and include broad 
assertions such as "developing, planning and implementing long term goals and plans" and 
"establishing business connections" that shed little light on what, exactly, the Beneficiary does for 
the company. stated that the Beneficiary devotes 25% of his time to "new account 
acquisition and horizontal integration of new businesses," but the record does. not document the 
company's growth in this way. 
The Petitioner has provided inconsistent information regarding its staffing. The titles shown on the 
organizational chart do not fully match the job titles listed by The appeal includes tax 
and payroll documentation from late 2013 and early 2014, possibly submitted in response to the 
October 2014 RFE issued with regard to another nonimmigrant petition filed by the Petitioner. A 
quarterly payroll report for the fourth quarter of 2013 listed 14 active employees. Two of the listed 
names do not appear on list of 15 employees. had stated that all 15 
employees work full-time, but six of the employees earned less than $14,000 in 2013. An 
"Employee 
Earnings Record" for the first six months of2014lists 17 names. Twelve of those names 
also appeared on list of employees. 
Of the 17 names shown on the employee earnings record, only five are listed as the Petitioner's 
employees. The other 12 names are shown as employees of (discussed further below), 
although individuals identified as employees received IRS Forms W-2 from the Petitioner 
for 2013. The five names listed as the Petitioner's employees correspond to the president/CEO, 
operations manager, finance and administration manager, bookkeeper, and sales manager on 
original list. 
The names appear in the 2013 and 2014 
payroll records, but not on list. Three names on list -
-do not appear in the payroll documents for 2013 or 2014. 
These discrepancies cast doubt on the reliability of statements. This issue is 
significant because also provided the Beneficiary's job description. Doubt cast on any 
aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the 
remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 
(BIA 1988). We are under no obligation to consider description of the Beneficiary's 
job to be more reliable than his list of the Petitioner's employees as of early 2014. 
Compounding the lack of detail about the Beneficiary's actual duties and responsibilities, the record 
creates some confusion regarding the nature of the business. The Petitioner's printed letterhead 
stationery showed two addresses: and the other on 
The Petitioner's initial submission included copies of utility, tax, and 
insurance documents, showing the and various documents relating to 
shipments of spices and other goods to The 
Petitioner has not explained its relationship with There is no evidence that the 
two names belong to the same company, with one being its legal name and the other its "doing 
business as" name. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of P P MO- USA, LLC 
In the RFE, the Director requested further evidence "to confirm [the] company/organization's 
official name and address." In response, the Petitioner submitted a copy of a lease for the 
property effective from March 1, 2009 through May 31, 2014, and a lease extension 
effective through May 31,2019. Paragraph 6 ofthe lease, "Use ofProperty," stated that the "Tenant 
may use the Property as a medical office for the provision of radiology and nuclear medicine 
services and for no other purpose, and shall use the Property on a regular basis for such purpose." 
The Director mentioned this in the denial notice, but the Petitioner has not addressed it on appeal. 
stated that the Petitioner "maintains a warehouse location on 
which appears to be a reference to the property, but the Petitioner submitted no 
direct evidence to show that it controls or occupies the property. 
With respect to hotel management, letter in response to the RFE included the 
following job description for the VP of hotel and motel operations: 
Directs and coordinates our newly developing hotel/motel management operation. 
Duties include, but are not limited to: recruitment and retention, analyzing and 
deploying staff, ensuring competency of staff through regular evaluation; implement 
and oversee human resource issues and financial goals and objectives consistent with 
corporate strategies; develop and promote measures to stay within budget; oversee 
marketing and day-to-day center operations to maximize revenues and ensure 
franchise compliance. The Site Manager operates runs [sic] the motel we have 
purchased, with the assistance of 3 clerical/support staff, and reports to the 
beneficiary. 
It is not clear whether the "Site Manager" and the VP of hotel and motel operations are one and the 
same, but the Petitioner's organizational chart does not show a site manager. 
The Director, in the denial notice, noted that the Petitioner claims to employ hotel management and 
staff, but the Petitioner's initial submission and RFE response did not contain any information showing 
the Petitioner's management of any hotel, or identifying the hotel. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a 
copy of a September 22, 2010 contract between the Petitioner and 
" 2 The contract stated that the Petitioner "shall provide management 
services and shall be responsibility [sic] for the day to day operations of the located at 
Missouri." 
The 2010 contract with does not show that the Petitioner continued to manage the 
in 2014. The contract specified that "the General Manager and all other 
personnel [at the hotel] shall be employees of [the Petitioner] and [the Petitioner] shall be responsible 
for payroll and all tax and withholding requirements," but there is no evidence that the Petitioner had 
2 We note that the 2010 management contract identifies the president of 
also identifies as the president of the Petitioner's foreign parent entity. 
10 
as whom the record 
(b)(6)
Matter of PPMO- USA, LLC 
any employees in or near at the time of filing. The 2013 IRS Forms W-2 show residential 
addresses in or near for all of the Petitioner's employees, including the three employees 
for whom . had specified hotel-related job duties. Therefore, the Petitioner's own evidence 
suggests that the 2010 hotel management contract was no longer in effect in 2013. 
Also, the 2010 contract does not indicate that the Petitioner owns the it is a contract "to 
provide management and personnel services in the hotels operated by " Therefore, the 
does not appear to be what called "the motel we have purchased." The Petitioner 
has not identified any other hotel or motel under its control, or documented its purchase of any hotel or 
motel. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown that it was actively engaged in hotel management at the 
time of filing in 2014, such that the Petitioner would have the need to employ management and support 
personnel for that purpose. 
As the above discussion shows, the Beneficiary's past and present job descriptions lack critical details. 
Where the Petitioner has made specific claims, the record often lacks important evidence that would 
support those claims. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)). 
For the above reasons, we find that the Petitioner has not met its burden of proof to establish that the 
Beneficiary has worked, or will work, in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. Therefore, 
USCIS cannot approve this petition. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We will dismiss the appeal for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofPPMO- USA, LLC, ID# 15149 (AAO Dec. 29, 2015) 
11