dismissed EB-1C Case: International Billing Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-S-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 30, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of international billing collections services, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its general manager under the first preference immigrant classification for 
multinational executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(1)(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 an executive or 
managerial capacity. 
The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petitiOn. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States or that she was 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in 
finding that the Beneficiary's job duties abroad and her job duties in the United States were not and 
would not be primarily in a managerial capacity. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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 
Matter ofC-S-A-
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 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, to classify a 
beneficiary under section 203(b)(1)(C) of the,Act as a multinational executive or manager. A labor 
certification is not required for this classification. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5G)(3) states: 
(3) Initial evidence--
(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 
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 
(C) The prospective employer in the United States is the same employer or a 
subsidiary or affiliate of the firm or corporation or other legal entity by 
which the alien was employed overseas; and 
(D) The prospective United States employer has been doing business for at least 
one year. 
II. EVIDENTIARY STANDRD 
As a preliminary matter, and in light of the Petitioner's references to the requirement that we apply 
the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, we affirm that, in the exercise of our appellate review 
in this matter, we follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in the controlling 
precedent decision, Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-376 (AAO 2010). In pertinent part, 
that decision states the following: 
2 
Matter of C-S-A-
!d. 
Except where a different standard is specified by law, a petitioner or applicant in 
administrative immigration proceedings must prove by a preponderance of evidence 
that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought. 
The "preponderance of the evidence" of "truth" 1s made based on the factual 
circumstances of each individual case. 
Thus, in adjudicating the application pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence 
standard, the director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative 
value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the 
evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true. 
Even if the director has some doubt as to the truth, if the petitioner submits relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is 
"more likely than not" or "probably" true, the applicant or petitioner has satisfied the 
standard of proof. See INS v. Cardoza-Foncesca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 (1987) 
(discussing "more likely than not" as a greater than 50% chance of an occurrence 
taking place). If the director can articulate a material doubt, it is appropriate for the 
director to either request additional evidence or, if that doubt leads the director to 
believe that the claim is probably not true, deny the application or petition. 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. In doing so, we apply the preponderance of the 
evidence standard as outlined in Matter of Chawathe. Upon our review of the present matter 
pursuant to that standard, however, we find that the evidence in the record of proceeding does not 
support the Petitioner's contentions that the evidence of record establishes eligibility for the benefit 
sought. · 
III. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that: (1) the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a mq_nagerial or executive capacity; and (2) the Beneficiary has 
been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that the 
Beneficiary will be or has been employed in an executive capacity. Therefore, we restrict our 
analysis to whether the Beneficiary will be or has been employed in a managerial capacity. 
3 
Matter ofC-S-A-
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(5) requires the Petitioner to submit a statement which indicates 
that the Beneficiary is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The statement must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" 
as "an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily": 
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the organization; 
(ii) supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the 
organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the 
authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel 
actions (such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee 
is directly supervised, functions at a senior level within the organizational 
hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or 
function 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. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must take into account 
the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of 
the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(C) ofthe Act. 
A. U.S. Employment in a Managerial Capacity 
1. Evidence of Record 
The Petitioner filed Form I-140 on March 23,2015. On the Form I-140, the Petitioner indicated that 
it had 22 current employees in the United States and a gross annual income of $2,107,300. In 
support of the petition, the Petitioner submitted a cover letter claiming that it currently employs four 
U.S. citizens on a full-time basis and relies on the services of 25 independent contractors. The 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a direct subordinate to the top-most position 
within the company. The Petitioner provided two job descriptions for the Beneficiary's proposed 
position. The first job description contains a list of job duties with no time allocations, while the 
4 
Matter ofC-S-A-
second job description lists the four elements that comprise the statutory definition of "managerial 
capacity" and includes a percentage breakdown assigned to each of the four elements. 
The first job description included a list of the following job duties assigned to the Beneficiary's 
proposed position: 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Direct and administrate all the daily operations, including-
o facility management and oversight; 
o customer service and relations; 
o licensing; 
o project orders and completion; 
o quality control; 
o equipment management. 
[S]upervise and direct the daily duties and services of all employees and independent 
contractors,. which include-
o allocation of workforce; 
o assignment of duties; 
o employee relations/problem resolution. 
[P]urchasing and management of all equipment, and oversee the acquisition of 
contracts; 
[O]versight and direction of all forecast design and sales, including setting and 
fulfillment of sales/collection and promotional goals; 
[D]irection of all promotional projects and campaigns; 
[S]upervision and direction of all contracts; 
[A]dministrate, direct and manage all financial operations of the company's business, 
including-
o accounts receivable; 
o accounts payable; 
o taxes and fiscal regulation; 
o budgetary management; [sic] payroll; 
o regulation of expenses. 
The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary directs the collection services of the business, which 
includes training and overseeing an on-site manager and additional staff, investigating collection 
laws and regulations, directing collection activities, consulting with clients, overseeing accounts 
payable, directing advertising campaigns, communicating with clients in Mexico, reviewing 
collection software, and managing legal compliance documents. 
In the second job description the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would allocate 30% of her 
time to the first element - managing an organization or department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the organization- with the primary focus being the Petitioner's "specialized collection 
contracts." Namely, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would be responsible for determining 
the demand and collection schedules based on current and future projects, screening and selecting 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-S-A-
independent contractors, negotiating contracts, managing operations, and ensuring compliance with 
state and federal laws. Regarding the second element- supervising other supervisory, professional, 
or managerial employees, or managing an essential function - the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary would allocate 30% of her time to creating a schedule for completing projects, 
projecting the hiring of additional personnel, training seasonal and temporary employees, 
determining projected payroll needs based on staffing, and ensuring that sub-contractor agreements 
reflect those needs. Next, regarding the third element of "managerial capacity" - having the 
. authority to hire and fire personnel and taking and/or recommending ot~er personnel actions - the 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would allocate 1 0% of her time to serving as a senior manager 
at the top of the organizational hierarchy, coordinating activities, and hiring, firing, and training up 
to 20 subordinate employees, depending on the needs of a particular project. Lastly, the Petitioner 
stated that 30% of the Beneficiary's time would be allocated to the fourth element of "managerial 
capacity" - exercising discretion over the company's daily operation - which would include 
receiving and distributing contract orders by geographic location and coordinating collection efforts, 
determining project timelines, ensuring timely completion of projects, directing final project 
summaries and presentations, and coordinating fund transfers from the debtors to the service 
providers, and directing quality control and customer satisfaction. 
The Petitioner also provided the IRS Form W-2 and Form 1099-MISC statements issued to its 
contractors and employees in 2014, showing six employees and two contractors. It is noted that one 
individual- -received both a Form W-2 and a Form 1099-MISC, therefore 
· indicating that he was compensated as both an employee and as a contractor. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) on August 3, 2015, instructing the Petitioner to 
submit evidence that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the 
United States. The Director instructed the Petitioner to provide a list of the Beneficiary's proposed 
daily job duties and to assign a percentage of time to be allocated to each duty. The Director asked 
that the Petitioner refrain from grouping tasks together. ·The Director also asked the Petitioner to 
provide a copy of its organizational chart naming the employees and/or contractors within the 
Beneficiary's department or team, to list their respectivejob duties and educational credentials, and 
to indicate whether they work on a part- or full-time basis. La~tly, the Director asked the Petitioner 
to describe the products or services it offers, to disclose the productive and administrative tasks 
involved in the provision of such products or services, and to indicate who would perform those 
underlying productive and administrative tasks. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a statement, which contained the same two job 
descriptions as the ones that were submitted in the original supporting statement. The Petitioner also 
submitted a statement clarifying that it currently has four employees, which is up from the three 
employees it had at the time of filing. The Petitioner provided two separate organizational charts. 
The first is a comprehensive organizational chart comprised of the Petitioner and its U.S. and foreign 
affiliates. The information pertaining to the Petitioning entity includes a list of four employees and 
22 contractors. The second organizational chart depicts a hierarchy that pertains specifically to the 
Petitioner. It shows the company's president, at the top of the hierarchy, 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-S-A-
followed by the Beneficiary as his immediate subordinate in the position of general manager 
overseeing an internal accountant, an accounts manager overseeing six company contractors and one 
. individual contractor, an account executive overseeing two company employees and two individual 
contractors, and a transportation coordinator overseeing a driver. In a separate list, the Petitioner 
provided the names of 29 service providers and four payroll employees . Of the four employees, the 
Petitioner indicated that one employee was employed by the Petitioner until July 2014. The 
Petitioner also provided its quarterly wage report for the 2015 second quarter , which followed the 
filing of the petition. The report lists three total employees, whom the organizational chart depicts as 
the company's president , accountant executive, and one individual who was not included in the 
chart. 
The Director denied the petition on December 8, 2015, concluding, in part, that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United 
States. In denying the petition, the Director observed that the Petitioner had only three employees at 
the time of filing and found that the Petitioner did not specify the operational and administrative 
tasks of its operation, nor explained who would perform those tasks, as instructed in the RFE. The 
Director further found that the Petitioner did not provide evidence showing that it employs 
independent contractors, as claimed. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief disputing the Director's conclusion. The Petitioner asserts 
that it "provided concrete evidence of [six] pay-rolled employees, and nearly a dozen field 
contractors." The Petitioner further states that its U.S. affiliate , provides it with 
all administrative and payroll support. The Petitioner contends that the evidence it provided earlier 
is sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary will not allocate more than 50% of her time to the 
company's administrative or operational tasks. 
2. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, including materials submitted in support of 
the appeal , we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be employed 
in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look first to 
the petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). The Petitioner's description 
of the job duties must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary and indicate 
whether such duties are in a managerial or executive capacity. Jd. In the matter at hand, the 
Petitioner has consistently maintained the claim that the Beneficiary would be employed in a 
managerial capacity. However, we are unable to conclude that the Beneficiary would more likely 
than not perform job duties that are primarily of a managerial nature based on the job descriptions 
the Petitioner provided. Looking to the first job description, we find that the Petitioner was vague in 
discussing the Beneficiary's actual role with regard to various operational and administra!ive tasks. 
First, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would "direct and administrate" the Petitioner's 
daily operations with respect to facility management and oversight, customer service and relations, 
Matter ofC-S-A-
licensing, completion of project orders, quality control, and equipment management. However, the 
Petitioner did not specify what actual tasks the Beneficiary would be performing with respect to 
these daily functions or explain who, if someone other than the Beneficiary, would carry out the 
underlying operational tasks associated with these functions. For instance, the Petitioner did not 
specify what tasks are involved in managing the facility, what licensing is required or how the 
Ben~ficiary directs and administers the licensing, what actions the Beneficiary takes to ensure 
quality control, and what equipment the Petitioner has for the Beneficiary to manage. The Petitioner 
also did not explain what tasks the Beneficiary would perform in directing all contracts or how the 
Beneficiary would manage the finances through accounts payable and receivable, taxes, and payroll. 
The Petitioner also indicated that the Beneficiary would direct the collection services, which would 
involve performing primarily operational tasks, including investigating U.S. collections laws and 
regulations and collections software, as well as consulting with clients in the United States and 
Mexico. While the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary's role with respect to promotional and 
advertising campaigns would be directorial, the Petitioner did not identify anyone within its 
organization who would actually carry out the underlying marketing functions so that the 
Beneficiary's role would be truly limited to overseeing the Petitioner's marketing rather than being 
directly involved in creating promotional and marketing materials to increase the client base. As the 
Petitioner did not comply with the Director's request to assign time constraints to the individual job 
duties, we are unable to determine how much time the Beneficiary would devote to carrying out 
tasks in a managerial capacity and how much she would allocate to the non-managerial tasks. While 
no beneficiary is required to allocate 100% of their time to managerial- or executive-level tasks, the 
petitioner must establish that the non-qualifying tasks the beneficiary would perform are only 
incidental to the proposed position. 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. 1988). Merely establishing that the Beneficiary 
performs tasks at a professional level is not sufficient unless those tasks rise to the level of 
managerial capacity. 
Further, while the second job description includes time constraints for each of four elements that 
comprise the definition of the term "managerial capacity," the content of that job description is also 
deficient and does not provide a comprehensive account of the Beneficiary's actual job duties or 
establish that the Beneficiary's time would be allocated primarily to tasks within a managerial 
capacity. Rather, the job description contains vague statements that do not convey a meaningful 
understanding of specific job duties that the Beneficiary would perform. For instance, the Petitioner 
broadly stated that the Benefi~iary would ensure that all activities are in line with state and federal 
laws. However, the Petitioner did explain how the Beneficiary would go about meeting this 
responsibility or who would assist her with any underlying operational tasks. While the Petitioner 
also made several references to the Beneficiary's involvement in creating schedules and timelines 
for project completions, it is unclear how this fits within the context of the Petitioner's business, 
which focuses on assisting medical service providers to collect unpaid debt from consumers. It is 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-S-A-
unclear what logistical factors are at play or who would assist the Beneficiary in gathering the 
information necessary to create schedules for debt collection. Given that the Petitioner provides its 
clients with debt collection services, we question the applicability and relevance of the Petitioner's 
reference to "order statuses" when discussing the Beneficiary's role in directing and determining 
timelines. Lastly, while the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would assume a 
role in ensuring 
that the service providers receive the funds collected from their respective debtors, the specific 
nature of that role is entirely unclear, as the Petitioner did not explain who would serve as the liaison 
between the Petitioner's clients and their debtors. In light of the number of ambiguities surrounding 
the Beneficiary's job description, we are unable to conclude, based on the job description alone, that 
the time to be allocated to managerial job duties would outweigh the time to be spent performing the 
Petitioner's operational and administrative tasks, particularly since the Petitioner neglected to 
provide a list of its operational and administrative needs or identify which employees, other than the 
Beneficiary, would carry these non-managerial tasks. While the Petitioner indicates on appeal that 
its U.S.-based affiliate would handle administrative and payroll matters, the record does not contain 
evidence to corroborate this claim. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of So.ffici, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (quoting Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 
190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
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 company's 
organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other 
employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, 
and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a 
business. 
In the present matter, a review of the factors listed above also precludes us from making a favorable 
finding. First, we note that the record contains several inconsistencies and anomalies with regard to 
the Petitioner's support staff. While the Petitioner claimed 22 employees at Part 5, No .. 2.c. of the 
petition, information which was corroborated in one of the organizational charts provided in 
response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner claimed a total of 29 staff members, including four 
full-time employees and 25 independent contractors, in its original supporting statement, which was 
submitted at the time of filing the petition. In an effort to clarify an inconsistency, the Petitioner 
provided a statement in response to the RFE claiming that while it currently has four employees, it 
had only three employees at the time of filing. However, the Petitioner provided yet another 
representation of its staffing structure in the RFE response exhibit labeled "List of Current Payroll 
and Independent Contractors/Project Managers," which named a total of 29 individual and corporate 
service providers and named four payroll employees, one of whom -
was not employed by the Petitioner after July 2014 and thus was not the Petitioner's employee at the 
time of filing, thereby leaving us to believe that the Petitioner had a total of three payroll employees 
rather than four, as claimed in the petition and in the organizational chart described above. 
9 
Matter ofC-S-A-
We further note that the Petitioner's second quarterly wage report for 2015 is consistent with the 
above-described RFE response exhibit to the extent that the report also names only three payroll 
employees. While we acknowledge that the second wage report has limited probative value in that it 
does not account for the first quarter of 2015 during which the instant petition was filed, the record 
does not contain evidence to support the claim that the Petitioner had four employees on its payroll 
at the time of filing, thereby indicating that one of the Petitioner's original claims was inaccurate. 
As previously stated, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSo.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Furthermore, we note that in the list of the Petitioner's claimed service providers, the Petitioner 
neglected to: (1) disclose the job duties and educational credentials of the Beneficiary's 
subordinates; (2) list the productive and administrative tasks involved in the provision of services to 
its clientele; or (3) indicate who would perform the productive and administrative tasks. Failure to 
submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the 
petition. 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(14). Here, the Petitioner neglected to provide critical information that 
is highly relevant to the issue of whether it has the ability to relieve the Beneficiary from having to 
allocate her time primarily to the provision of non-managerial tasks. While the Petitioner's RFE 
response includes an organizational chart listing employees and contractors, the chart does not 
appear to reflect the Petitioner's organizational structure at the time of filing, as indicated by the fact 
that three of the positions listed in the chart, including an accounts manager, and account executive, 
and a transportation coordinator, were not listed in the Petitioner's initial supporting statement, 
where the Petitioner claimed that at the time of filing it employed an executive assistant, an in-house 
accountant, and "an individual who specializes in Sales and Marketing." The Petitioner has not 
resolved these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
See, Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591-92 (BIA 1988). 
In addition, while the RFE response includes a list of the Petitioner's service providers, the 
Petitioner did not state which services each contractor provides, which would not only address a 
direct RFE request, but would also clarify how the Petitioner plans to support the Beneficiary in a 
managerial capacity within the scope of its given organizational structure. Based on the information 
provided, we are unable to ascertain what role each employee and service provider assumes within 
the scheme of the Petitioner's debt collection business or how these individuals and companies 
contribute to relieving the Beneficiary from having to carry out non-managerial tasks. While the 
Petitioner's RFE response includes invoices billing the Petitioner for services provided in 2014, we 
note that the invoices are partly in Spanish and were not accompanied by certified English 
translations, which may have clarified the specific services for which the Petitioner was being billed. 
Due to the lack of certified translations of the billing invoices, we cannot determine whether the 
evidence supports the Petitioner's claims. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, the probative 
value of the untranslated evidence will be accorded limited evidentiary weight in this proceeding. 
Lastly, while the organizational chart that the Petitioner provided in response to the RFE, along with 
other submissions, depict the Beneficiary at the top of the Petitioner's organizational hierarchy, 
10 
Matter ofC-S-A-
second only to the company's president, the Beneficiary's placement alone is not sufficient to 
establish that the Beneficiary will assume the role of either a personnel or a function manager. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and 
"function managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) ofthe 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. 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. § 204.5(j)(4)(i). 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. § 204.5(j)(2). 
To determine whether the Beneficiary manages professional employees, we must evaluate whether 
the subordinate positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of 
endeavor. Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining "profession" to mean "any occupation for which a 
United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry 
into the occupation"). Section 101(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(32), states that "[t]he term 
profession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, 
and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." 
In the present matter, there are deficiencies in the record that preclude a finding that the Beneficiary 
would be a personnel manager within the definition of managerial capacity. First, we note the lack 
of consistent evidence illustrating the Petitioner's organizational structure at the time of filing. As 
discussed above, not only has the Petitioner neglected to provide an organizational chart reflecting 
the critical time period in question, but the Petitioner has also provided evidence and statements that 
do not consistently establish whom the Petitioner employed and which service providers it retained 
at the time of filing, what tasks and services the employees and contractors provided, and which, if 
any, of the Petitioner's employees at the time of filing could be deemed as the Beneficiary's 
prospective supervisory, professional, or managerial subordinates. 
The Petitioner has not established, in the alternative, that the Beneficiary will be employed primarily 
as a "function manager." The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary's 
managerial role arises not from supervising or controlling the work of a subordinate staff but instead 
from responsibility for managing an "essential function" within the organization. See section 
101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The statute and regulations do not define the term "essential function." 
If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary will manage an essential function, that petitioner must clearly 
describe 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 dedicated to managing the essential function. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). 
In addition, a petitioner's description of a beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the 
beneficiary will manage the function rather than perform the duties related to the function. 
11 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-S-A-
In the present matter, the Petitioner does not claim nor provide evidence to establish that the 
Beneficiary would assume the role of a function manager. Not only has the Petitioner provided a 
deficient job description for the Beneficiary's proposed position, but the record contains no reference 
to or description of an essential function that the Beneficiary would manage. 
Based on the deficiencies and inconsistencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary will be employed in a 
managerial capacity in the United States. 
B. Foreign Employment in a Managerial Capacity 
If the Beneficiary is already in the United States working for the foreign employer 0r its subsidiary 
or affiliate, then the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5G)(3)(i)(B) requires the Petitioner to submit a 
statement from an authorized official of the petitioning United States employer which demonstrates 
that, in the three years preceding entry as a nonimmigrant, the Beneficiary was employed by the 
entity abroad for at least one year in a managerial or executive capacity. 
1. Evidence of Record 
The Petitioner identified the Beneficiary''s foreign employer as and stated that the 
Beneficiary's position abroad involved responsibility for "coordinating medical care and 
personnel, . . . facility safety, and on-site operations, including health/quality control." The 
Petitioner described the Beneficiary's duties abroad for the three years preceding her entry as a 
nonimmigrant as follows: 
• Morning meetings (in person and via· teleconference) as a part of the Senior 
Management/Executive board, to determine current patient load, status of each patient 
care timeline, and predictions of future care based on seasonal cycles and reports 
(20%) 
• Direct and supervise the team-based daily medical and dental activities (includes all 
aspects of the actual patient care, both acute and routine, including personnel 
supervision and management) (40%) 
• Quality control and ongoing health-based inspections ( 10%) 
• Resolution of personnel and budgetary matters, including goal setting, seasonal 
employee fluctuations, and determinati~n ofproduction goals (10%) 
• As part of the company's senior management and executive board, conduct regular 
meetings and outreaches to determine and discuss overall company growth, goals, 
trends, and changes to the availability of and options for the provision of high-quality 
medical care (20%) 
In addition, as with the job description pertaining to the proposed position, the Petitioner also 
addressed each of the four elements of the statutory definition of "managerial capacity" in its 
description of the Beneficiary's employment abroad. In addressing the first element, which requires 
the Petitioner to establish that the Beneficiary managed the organization or a subset or 
function of 
12 
Matter ofC-S-A-
the organization, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary was in charge of the clinic's operations, 
including personnel and patient care, as well as the facility and its equipment. With regard to the 
second element, requiring the oversight of a supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or 
the management of an essential function, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary managed "several 
divisions" and supervised medical professionals, including doctors and nurses, as well as assistants 
and office staff. Next, the Petitioner addressed the Beneficiary's level of discretionary authority 
over personnel, claiming that the Beneficiary had "input into the final recommendation for all hires 
and terminations" and further stating that the Beneficiary had discretion over all staff through her 
oversight of the human resource manager. Lastly, with regard to the Beneficiary's discretion over 
day-to-day operations of the foreign entity, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary reported only to 
the company's medical board and the clinic's president, none of whom were located on-site, thus 
leaving the Beneficiary as the most senior on-site employee. 
In the RFE, the Director instructed the Petitioner to submit evidence to establish that she was 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity. As with the Beneficiary's proposed employment, 
the Petitioner was instructed to provide a list of the Beneficiary's daily job duties with time 
allocations assigned to each duty, the foreign entity's organizational chart, naming the employees 
and/or contractors within the Beneficiary's department or team, and listing their job duties and 
educational credentials and indicating whether they worked on a part-time or full-time basis. Lastly, 
the Director asked the Petitioner to describe the foreign entity's products or services, disclose the 
productive and administrative tasks involved in the provision of such products or services, and 
indicate who performed those underlying productive and administrative tasks. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a letter nearly identical in content to the letter that 
was originally submitted in support of the petition. The letter states that the foreign entity "offers 
services from basic preventative care, to lifesaving surgeries such as organ transplants and cancer 
treatments." The letter further indicates that the foreign entity has 16 full-time employees and 
approximately forty eight independent contractors. The letter referenced an attached organizational 
chart, which lists 16 employees under the foreign entity's name and depicts the Beneficiary as vice 
president of international operations, overseeing the foreign entity and two U.S. entities, including 
the Petitioner. The Petitioner provided a number of untranslated foreign documents, including what 
appear to be payroll reports and social security statements. 
The Director denied the petition concluding, in part, that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary had been employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad. In denying the 
petition, ·the Director found that the Petitioner did not provide a description of the non-qualifying 
operational or administrative tasks involved in the foreign company's operation or explain who 
performed those duties. The Director further pointed out that the Petitioner did not offer the 
requested evidence containing a more detailed description of the Beneficiary's former employment 
with the foreign entity or job descriptions of the Beneficiary's subordinates. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that its prior submissions included a "[v]ery detailed job 
description" along with payroll documents and an organizational chart indicating that the 
13 
Matter ofC-S-A-
Beneficiary's subordinates were first-line subordinate managers, including the purchasing and 
supply manager, medical staff manager, transportation coordinator, maintenance coordinator, and 
utilities and services manager. 
2. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, including materials submitted in support of 
the appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was employed in 
a managerial capacity in the United States. 
As previously stated, when examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, we 
will look first to the description of the Beneficiary's job duties. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.50)(5). The 
description of job duties must clearly describe the Beneficiary's duties and indicate whether such 
duties were performed in a managerial or executive capacity. !d. 
In the present matter, the job description offered with regard to the Beneficiary's foreign 
employment consists primarily of broad statements that convey a general sense of the Beneficiary's 
discretionary authority, but does not delineate the actual tasks the Beneficiary performed on a daily 
basis. While the Director requested a more detailed job description in the RFE, the Petitioner did not 
comply with the request and merely relied on the job description that was provided originally in the 
initial supporting statement. As noted earlier in this decision, failure to submit requested evidence 
that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(14). In reviewing the original job description, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
directed and supervised "the team-based daily medical and dental activities," including aspects of 
patient care. This statement is unclear as it suggests that the Beneficiary had oversight of the 
medical professionals, despite the lack of evidence indicating that the Beneficiary has a medical 
knowledge background to carry out such oversight. The Petitioner did not clarify what direction the 
Beneficiary provides or how someone without a medical background is qualified to oversee the work 
of doctors and nurses who provided medical care to the patients at the clinic where the Beneficiary 
was employed. Further, while the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary has a role in quality 
control and inspections, the job description does not specify what measures she takes to clarify how 
the Beneficiary ensured quality control. The Petitioner also did not clarify who conducted the 
health-based inspections. If the Beneficiary was assigned this task, it is unclear whether the spent 
conducting such inspections could be deemed as time spent in a managerial capacity. Without 
further information, we are unable to establish what degree of involvement the Beneficiary had with 
regard to the health-based inspections. Lastly, while the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary 
conducted meetings and outreaches in her capacity as a senior manager, the Beneficiary's specific 
role with regard to the company's goals, growth, trends, and changes is unclear, as this statement is 
vague and does not list the specific tasks the Beneficiary performed to ensure that the company met 
its business goals and attained the desired level of growth. 
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 company's 
14 
Matter ofC-S-A-
organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other 
employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, 
and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a 
business. 
In the present matter, while the Petitioner provided an organizational chart depicting a multi-tiered 
organizational structure, it did not comply with the RFE, which requested that the foreign entity 
provide a statement identifying the operational and administrative tasks it required to function and 
identify which of its employees were available to perform those tasks. In addition, the Petitioner did 
not offer job descriptions for. the Beneficiary's subordinates during her employment abroad. 
Lastly, while the Petitioner refers to previously submitted payroll documents on appeal, we note 
again that a large number of the documents pertaining to the Beneficiary's foreign employer and its 
foreign affiliate, including the referenced payroll documents, were provided without certified 
English translations. As such, we are precluded from being able to determine whether the foreign 
language documents support the Petitioner's claims. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The record also 
lacks sufficient evidence establishing that the foreign entity had forty eight contractors; nor does the 
record clarify what tasks the claimed contractors carried out. As indicated above, going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSojjici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
As previously discussed in our analysis pertaining to the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employment, 
the statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii). 
Regardless of whether the Beneficiary's former position would be categorized as a personnel or a 
function manager, we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary primarily performed tasks within a 
managerial capacity without a meaningful understanding of who performed the foreign company's 
administrative and operational tasks. In the case of a personnel manager this information is critical 
for the purpose of determining whether the Beneficiary's subordinates were primarily supervisory, 
professional, or managerial employees. This information is equally critical in the case of a function 
manager, as it helps to determine whether the foreign entity had the necessary support staff to relieve 
the Beneficiary from having to primarily carry out the non-managerial tasks that comprised the 
essential function she managed. Given that the record lacks corroborating evidence of the claimed 
forty eight contractors or their assigned job duties, we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary was 
employed either as a personnel or a function manager. 
In sum, the Petitioner neglected to cure the evidentiary deficiencies noted in the Director's RFE with 
regard to the Beneficiary's job description, the lack of job descriptions pertaining to the 
Beneficiary's subordinates, and the payroll documents intended to support the organizational 
hierarchy depicted in the foreign entity's organizational chart. Based on the deficiencies discussed 
above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity abroad. 
15 
Matter ofC-S-A-
IV. DOING BUSINESS 
Beyond the Director's decision, we find that the Petitioner did not establish that it has been doing 
business for at least one year prior to the date of filing the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(D). 
Specifically, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) defines that term as: 
Doing business means the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods 
and/or services by a firm, corporation, or other entity and does not include the mere 
presence of an agent or office. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner described its current business operations as a debt collection 
enterprise. Specifically, the Petitioner assists healthcare providers and facilities collect debts 
incurred when patients use the providers and/or facilities, but default on the debt incurred for the 
services provided. 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
established that it has been doing business for at least one year prior to the date of filing the petition. 
While the Petitioner provided evidence to show ongoing business activity from September through 
December 2014, these documents only account for four months out of the 12-month time period in 
question (March 2014 to March 2015). The record does not include evidence of business 
transactions prior to September 2014 or after December 2014. Therefore, we find that the Petitioner 
has not established that it has been doing business for at least one year prior to the date of filing the 
petition. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above reasons, with each considered as 
an independent and alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of 
proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been 
met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-S-A-, ID# 17493 (AAO June 30, 2016) 
16