dismissed EB-1C Case: Information Technology Consulting

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S . Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Date: 
JUL 2 9 2013 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
l/tL ~on Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, revoked the approval of the preference visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as a multinational executive or manager pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C). The petitioner, a 
California corporation founded in 1998, is in the business of information technology consulting. It is the 
parent company of the beneficiary's foreign employer, (the foreign entity), located 
m Argentina. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its Senior Recruiter. 
The director initially approved the petition on June 8, 2012. After issuing a notice of intent to revoke and 
reviewing the petitioner's rebuttal, the director revoked the approval of the petition on November 6, 2012 
concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary 
was employed abroad in a managerial capacity, specifically, as a 
functional manager. 
I. The Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part (with emphasis added): 
(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. 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(j)(3) states: 
(i) Required evidence. A petition for a multinational executive or manager must be 
accompanied by a statement from an authorized official of the petitioning United 
States employer which demonstrates that: 
(A) If the alien is outside the United States, in the three years immediately 
preceding the filing of the petition the alien has been employed outside the 
United States for at least one year in a managerial or executive capacity by a 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
firm or corporation, or other legal entity, or by an affiliate or subsidiary of 
such a firm or corporation or other legal entity; or 
(B) If the alien is already in the United States working for the same employer or 
a subsidiary or affiliate of the firm or corporation, or other legal entity by 
which the alien was employed overseas, in the three years preceding entry as 
a nonimmigrant, the alien was employed by the entity abroad for at least one 
year in a managerial or executive capacity; 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155, states: "The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for 
what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under 
section 204." 
Regarding the revocation on notice of an immigrant petition under section 205 of the Act, the Board of 
Immigration Appeals has stated: 
In Matter of Estime, ... this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa petition is 
properly issued for "good and sufficient cause" where the evidence of record at the time the 
notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial of the visa petition 
based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of proof. The decision to revoke will be 
sustained where the evidence of record at the time the decision is rendered, including any 
evidence or explanation submitted by the petitioner in rebuttal to the notice of intention to 
revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988)(citing Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 1987)). 
With respect to managerial capacity, section I 01 (a)( 44) of the Act defines the term as follows: 
(A) The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization m 
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 
(b)(6)
Page4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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. 
II. Statement of Facts and Procedural History 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary was employed abroad 
in a qualifying managerial capacity, specifically, as a functional manager.1 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on January 27, 2012. In a letter 
accompanying the initial petition, the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary was previously employed abroad 
by the foreign entity in a functional managerial capacity as a Recruiter , in which capacity she was 
"responsible for seeking out, pre-screening and completing the recruitment process for candidates." 
The director issued a request for evidence (RFE), requesting the petitioner to submit, inter alia, a more 
detailed description regarding the beneficiary's job duties abroad and a detailed organizational chart for the 
foreign entity showing the beneficiary's position. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner provided a detailed description of the beneficiary's job duties abroad as 
a Recruiter. In this document, the petitioner described the position's mission as "to generate leads for 
recruitment services sales and for potential candidates" and to "[generate] demand of recruitment services by 
calling potential customers, identifying areas of opportunity, giving presentation s and assisting a Regional 
Manager in closing a contingency placement or recruitment process outsourcing deal." The petitioner listed 
the following main tasks/activities for the position: 
1. Seek out potential client companies within target location assigned to the team while 
maintaining a high call volume of 80+ calls per day, 400 per week with at least 70 
documented conversations (40%); 
2. Call the companies' executives, starting from CEO and moving down the organizational 
structure, introduce our recruitment services and assess their 
recruitment needs by following a 
pre-qualification script ( 40% ); 
3. Prepare and coordinate presentations for potential clients that are concise but complete and 
targeted to the needs that were previously assessed (10%); 
4. Maintain an updated record of all relevant client information including phone or email 
exchanges, pre-qualification data, etc. in company database (1 0% ). 
1 The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity as a functional manager. 
The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary was employed in an executive capacity. Therefore, the 
AAO will only analyze the beneficiary's employment in a managerial capacity as a functional manager. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
The petitioner further described the Recruiter as reporting to the Recruiting Supervisor, and having authority 
over two main types of decisions: determining if a lead is qualified and within the scope of the company's 
services, and determining if a contact is a suitable candidate. The petitioner described the Recruiter's 
working conditions as spending six months working "under the direction of a Senior Recruiter who will 
provide mentoring and closure to their sales efforts," and the Recruiter's potential career path as "Senior 
Recruiter, Recruiting Supervisor, Regional Manager, Director of Staffing." 
The petitioner submitted the foreign entity's organizational 
chart of the recruitment department, which 
depicted Vice President of Human Resources, at the too. Directlv below Mr. 
was Recruiting Manager, ITC USA West. Below Mr. wal Recruiting 
Supervisor, ITC Buenos Aires. Below Ms. was the beneficiary, Recruiter, ITC Buenos Aires. 
The beneficiary's position is depicted as being in the lowest tier of the department's organizational hierarchy. 
The petitioner also submitted the Executive Vice President's position description. In this document, the 
petitioner described one of the Executive Vice President's primary missions as being "responsible for driving 
recruitment through state of the art applicant tracking systems, social networking, the use of social media, 
employee referrals and a highly skilled recruitment team." In particular, one of the position's main 
tasks/activities is recruitment, which includes the following duties: filling ITC positions; hiring, training and 
managing recruitment teams globally; interviewing candidates and ensuring suitability/quality of candidates; 
and participating in defining compensation level. The position's direct reports include the company's 
recruiting manager and recruiters. 
The director initially approved the petition on June 11, 2012. On August 27, 2012, the director issued a 
notice of intent to revoke advising the petitioner that the beneficiary does not appear to have been working in 
an executive or managerial capacity abroad based upon her job duties, the percentage breakdown of her 
duties, and her position within the foreign entity's organizational hierarchy. 
In response to the notice of intent to revoke, counsel for the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary's position 
as a Recruiter was that of a functional manager. The petitioner asserted that the position of Recruiter was 
"essential to the overall business and essential to the HR Department. [The beneficiary] was functioning at a 
senior level and, as the only person handling that function, she was exercising complete authority over the 
recruitment operation." Counsel conceded that the beneficiary "did not supervise subordinate employees." 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Executive Vice President, seeking to clarify the nature of 
the beneficiary's managerial duties abroad. In this letter, Mr. explained that recruiting is an essential 
function because the company relies on recruiters "to seek out highly specialized technology experts to fulfill 
our client's system 
implementation objectives,'' and within the IT industry in general, recruitment is an 
essential function which can dictate the success, failure, and growth of a company. Mr. further 
explained that the previous job description submitted for the beneficiary "does not accurately reflect the 
importance of this position." Mr. stated: 
From 2007-2009, [the beneficiary] was solely responsible for managing the recruitment 
process of the company for the Eastern Division of the United States. From Buenos Aires, 
she worked directly with the USA senior executives including the VP of Sales and Managing 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Director in order to scope the staffing needs of our Eastern USA implementation projects. 
She was responsible for the creation and execution of a staffing plan including budgeting and 
pricing responsibilities. She had decision making authority over the selection process of 
candidates considered for our company and managed the interviewing process, background 
verification, and salary offering. She was responsible for managing a hiring budget of over 
$4 Million for the years 2007-2009 which in turn led to approximately $6.5 million in project 
revenue directly dependent upon her managerial deliverables. 
Additional managerial responsibilities included the analysis and selection of vendors for the 
company. She set up the criteria for evaluating vendors and actively managed the selection 
and contract negotiation process. These responsibilities carried budgetary responsibilities of 
$2.5 Million over this time period. She was on the selection committee for recruitment 
vendor products such as which amounted to $55K for the periods of 
2007-2009. 
During the period [the beneficiary] was working from our Buenos Aires office, she worked 
independently with the US-based executives in order to fulfill the company staffing needs. 
She had minimal supervision of her day-to-day activities and a high degree of autonomy in 
seeking out innovative methods to meet the objectives of the company. She did not have 
direct reports but carried management level responsibilities. 
The director revoked the approval of the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The director concluded 
that the beneficiary primarily performed non-qualifying administrative, sales, or other operational tasks, and 
therefore could not qualify as a functional manager or be otherwise employed in a primarily managerial or 
executive capacity. 
The petitioner filed the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner 
asserts: 
[The beneficiary's] position as a Recruiter in Buenos Aires from 2007-2009 was that of a 
functional manager. The fact that she reported up to more senior HR personnel is 
insignificant in this case because she was managing an "essential function" of the business. 
[The beneficiary's] duties and responsibilities during the two-year period in question meet the 
standard as set out at INA Section 101 (a)( 44 )(A) and 8 C.P.R. 204.5(j)(3), to qualify as a 
"functional manager." 
The position of "recruiter" at ITC in Buenos Aires from 2007-2009 was essential to the 
overall business and essential to the HR Department. [The beneficiary] was functioning at a 
senior level and, as the only person handling that function, she was exercising complete 
authority over the recruiting operation. 
The petitioner has not submitted a brief or additional evidence in support of the appeal. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
III. Analysis 
Upon review of the record and for the reasons herein, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary 
was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 
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 IOI(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110I(a)(44)(A)(ii). The term "essential 
function" is not defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims that the beneficiary is managing an 
essential function, the petitioner must furnish a written job offer that clearly describes the duties to be 
performed in managing the essential function, i.e. identify the function with specificity, articulate the essential 
nature of the function, and establish the proportion of the beneficiary's daily duties attributed to managing the 
essential function. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(j)(5). In addition, the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's 
daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary manages the function rather than performs the duties 
related to the function. 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 (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial 
or executive duties); see also Matter of Church Scientology lnt'l., 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm'r 1988). 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(j)(5). Beyond the required description of the 
job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when examining the claimed managerial or executive 
capacity of a beneficiary, including the petitioner's organizational structure, the duties of the beneficiary's 
subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to relieve the beneficiary from performing 
operational duties, the nature of the petitioner's business, and any other factors that will contribute to a 
complete understanding of a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. In the case of a function 
manager, where the beneficiary does not directly supervise subordinates, these other factors may include the 
beneficiary's position within the organizational hierarchy, the depth of the petitioner's organizational structure, 
the scope of the beneficiary's authority and its impact on the petitioner's operations, the indirect supervision 
of employees within the scope of the function managed, and the value of the budgets, products, or services 
that the beneficiary manages. 
The petitioner's description of the beneficiary's duties submitted in response to the RFE reflects that she spent 
the majority, if not all, of her time performing the non-qualifying, day-to-day duties of the recruitment 
function rather than managing the function. In particular, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary spent 40% 
of her time seeking out potential clients via phone calls, and another 40% of her time calling other companies 
to introduce the foreign entity's recruitment services and assess their recruitment needs by following a pre­
qualification script. The beneficiary's remaining time was equally divided between preparing and 
coordinating presentations for potential clients, and maintaining an updated record of all relevant client 
information. While such duties are undoubtedly essential to the company's ability to sell its recruitment 
services to potential clients and reach potential candidates, they are not consistent with the management of the 
recruitment function. The petitioner has failed to explain which of the above listed duties would constitute 
managerial duties. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
In addition, the record reflects that the beneficiary had no subordinate employees abroad, and was the only 
person performing direct recruiting functions at the foreign entity. Further, the petitioner's description of the 
recruiter position included information regarding the position's placement within the recruiting organizational 
hierarchy, its decision making authority, and its working conditions. According to this information, the 
recruiter's decision-making authority is limited to determining whether a lead is qualified and determining if a 
contact is a suitable candidate . The petitioner 's description indicated that recruiters are expecting to work 
under the direction of a senior recruiter who provides mentoring for a period of six months, and the position is 
described as a role for ''current students or recent graduates of a 4-year Bachelor' s course." Finally, the job 
description indicates that the career path for a recruiter may include promotions to the positions of senior 
recruiter, recruiting supervisor, regional manager and director of staffing. The organizational chart indicated 
that the beneficiary reported to a recruiting supervisor, and that her supervisor reported to a recruiting 
manager. The duties of the position, as described in the RFE response, are consistent with a professional 
position at the lower end of the recruiting organization's hierarchy. 
Overall, the petitioner's initial evidence and its response to the RFE provided no support for a finding that the 
beneficiary performed primarily managerial duties , that she managed any aspect of the recruiting function, or 
that she was employed at a senior level in the organizational hierarchy as a whole or with respect to the 
recruiting function. Instead, the petitioner described a position that was primarily responsible for selling the 
company's recruiting services. 
In response to the notice of intent to revoke, the petitioner provided an amended description of the 
beneficiary's duties abroad that bore no resemblance to the position description provided in response to the 
RFE. In the amended description, the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary was solely responsible for 
managing the recruitment process of the company for the Eastern Division of the United States, and worked 
independently with the U.S.-based executives in order to fulfill the company staffing needs. The petitioner 
also asserted that the beneficiary had budgetary responsibilities worth over $10 million, and had managerial 
responsibilities over the analysis and selection of vendors for the company. · The petitioner and counsel 
provided an inadequate explanation for this complete amendment of the position's duties and level of 
responsibility. The petitioner stated that the position description submitted in response to the RFE "does not 
accurately reflect the importance of the position" during the beneficiary's period of employment abroad and 
offers no further justification for the material change s made. A petitioner may not make material changes to a 
petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirement s. See Matter of [zummi, 22 
I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc . Comm'r 1998). 
The petitioner's claim that the beneficiary was "solely responsible for managing the recruitment process of the 
company for the Eastern Division of the United States" is not consistent with the evidence in the record. The 
petitioner's initial description of the Recruiter's job duties did not indicate that the beneficiary had sole 
responsibility over managing the recruitment process for the Eastern Division of the United States or any other 
particular geographical area. Instead, the petitioner's initial position description 
specifically stated that the 
Recruiter "assist[s] a Regional Manager in closing a contingency placement or recruitment process 
outsourcing deal (emphasi s added) ." The position description also stated that the position "contributes to 
generating demand of recruitment services" and "contributes to the supply of suitable candidates (emphasis 
added)." The petitioner's use of the words "assists" and "contributes" undermines its claims that the 
beneficiary was solely responsible for managing the recruitment process. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
Moreover, the petitioner's initial position description indicated that the Recruiter reported to a Recruiting 
Supervisor, and worked under the direction of a Senior Recruiter. The foreign entity's organizational chart 
depicted the beneficiary's position as Recruiter at the bottom of the hierarchy, directly supervised by a 
Recruiting Supervisor, then a Recruiting Manager, and ultimately, the Vice President of Human Resources. In 
fact, the petitioner's position description for the vice president position stated that this position was in fact 
directly responsible for the recruitment process, including managing the "recruitment team" of which the 
beneficiary was a part. Based upon all of the above factors, the record supports the conclusion that the 
beneficiary was not solely responsible for managing any aspect of the recruitment process, contrary to the 
petitioner's claims. 
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). Furthermore, when responding to the director's notice of intent to revoke, the petitioner cannot 
materially change the beneficiary's stated job responsibilities or her level of authority within the organizational 
hierarchy. The petitioner must establish that the position offered to the beneficiary when the petition was filed 
merits classification as a managerial or executive position. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 
249 (Reg. Comm'r 1978). The petitioner offered no supporting evidence in response to the notice of intent to 
revoke to substantiate the material changes made to the position's duties and level of authority. The petitioner's 
unsupported claim that the information initially provided in support of the petition was simply inaccurateis not 
persuasive. 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'r 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
The AAO observes that the beneficiary does state in her resume that she "[r]eceived two promotions within 18 
months and became the sole recruiter for the East Coast territory." The position that the beneficiary held after 
receiving two promotions within the organization was that of a recruiter based in New York, her initial 
position in the United States. In fact, the organizational chart submitted at the time of filing indicated that the 
beneficiary reported indirectly to a U.S. recruitment manager for the West region during her employment 
abroad. 
Even assuming arguendo that the beneficiary was solely responsible for managing the recruitment process of 
the company for the Eastern Division of the United States as claimed, the petitioner failed to establish what 
proportion of the beneficiary's duties were spent on this particular duty, as opposed to her other duties. 2 
Whether the beneficiary can be considered a managerial employee turns on whether the petitioner has 
sustained its burden of proving that her duties were "primarily" managerial in nature. See section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Since the petitioner failed to document what proportion of the beneficiary's total 
duties were spent on this particular function, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was primarily 
2 The petitioner's initial position description for the Recruiter position accounted for 100% of the 
beneficiary's time. Again, doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, 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. at 591-92. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
performing the duties of a function manager. See IKEA US, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 
(D.D.C. 1999). Furthermore, if the beneficiary was also the sole employee who provided direct recruitment 
services for the Eastern Division of the United States, then she cannot be considered a function manager, 
notwithstanding any claims that she concurrently managed this particular function. Again, 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. Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
The petitioner's assertion that the beneficiary had managerial responsibilities over the analysis and selection 
of vendors for the company will not be considered, as these responsibilities were not listed in the petitioner's 
initial position description for the beneficiary. As stated above, when responding to the director's notice of 
intent to revoke, the petitioner cannot materially change the beneficiary's stated job responsibilities. The 
petitioner must establish that the position offered to the beneficiary when the petition was filed merits 
classification as a managerial or executive position. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. at 249. 
Finally, the AAO acknowledges the petitioner's assertions that the beneficiary worked independently with the 
US-based executives, had budgetary responsibilities worth over $10 million, and had "a high degree of 
autonomy." As stated above, the detailed position description submitted in response to the RFE indicated that 
the beneficiary had limited decision-making authority, worked under the direction of a mentor, and had no 
budgetary responsibilities. However, even if supported by the evidence of record, these aspects of the 
beneficiary's employment do not, and cannot, overcome the petitioner's failure to establish that the 
beneficiary primarily performed managerial duties abroad, as opposed to primarily performing non-qualifying 
duties abroad. Again, the AAO emphasizes that 
whether the beneficiary can be considered a managerial 
employee, including a function manager, turns on whether the petitioner has sustained its burden of proving 
that the beneficiary's duties were "primarily'' managerial in nature. See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Here, the petitioner has not established this fundamental element of eligibility. 
Based on the above, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a primarily 
managerial capacity and the approval of the petition was properly revoked. For this reason, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
IV. Conclusion 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 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, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.