dismissed EB-1C Case: International Exhibitions

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF I-P-E- INC. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 3, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an international exhibitions company, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary 
as its president under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or 
managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act)§ 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(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, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the Petitioner 
did not establish: (1) that the Beneficiary was employed by the Petitioner's Chinese parent company 
in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and (2) that the Petitioner will employ the 
Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity in the United States 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred in his decision and did not properly consider all of the evidence 
submitted. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
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 
Matter of 1-P-E-Inc. 
render services to the same employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity 
that is managerial or executive. 
The language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision only to those executives and managers 
who have previously worked for a firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary of 
that entity, and who are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its affiliate or 
subsidiary. 
A United States employer may file Form I-140 to classify a beneficiary under section 203(b)(l)(C) of 
the Act as a multinational executive or manager. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(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. 
II. EMPLOYMENT IN A QUALIFYING MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAP A CITY 
The issues to be addressed are whether the Beneficiary was employed in a qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity abroad, and whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a qualifying managerial 
or executive capacity in the United States. 
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. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-P-E-lnc . 
Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" 
as 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. 
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 of the organization. Section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
A. Managerial or Executive Capacity Abroad 
1. Facts 
The Petitioner filed Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on October 27, 2014. The 
Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary was employed by the Petitioner's parent company, 
, as a deputy manager and manager. 
The Petitioner submitted a letter, dated October 8, 2014, signed by the Petitioner's 
Vice President. stated: "for the most 12 years immediately preceding the transfer to the 
current position he holds, the beneficiary had been employed at the parent's headquarters in 
first as deputy manager and then promoted to the position of manager in charge of the overall 
business management, human resource management and public relations of the entire company." 
The initial filing also contained a notarial certificate and translation dated March 11, 2014, that 
stated that the Beneficiary worked for "Comprehensive Department of 
which is under as - -
vice manager, manager (vice administrative supervisor, supervisor) from November 1, 2002 to 
February 28, 2014. 
The Petitioner submitted the following job description for the foreign entity's general manager 
position: 
• Develops policies and strategic planning for the Parent's business management, 
operational, personnel management and public relations; 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-P-E- Inc. 
• Oversees and supervises the subordinate management teams in the Parent's 
operational entities with regarding to business management, operational, personnel 
and public relations at the Parent company; 
• Organizes and directs the overall operation of business management at subordinate 
subsidiaries and affiliates through the managers at such subsidiaries and affiliates to 
maximize efficiency and profits in respect to business, human resource and public 
relations; 
• Designs organizational policies and goals and supervised the implementation of such 
policies and goals through the supervision and direction of subordinate personnel; 
• Analyzes and develops budgeting plans and request to identify issues and allocates 
the operating budget; and, 
• Consults with and reports to the chief executive officer and the board of directors of 
the Parent company. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) on April 28, 2015. The Director requested 
"evidence to establish that the beneficiary has at least one full year of full-time employment in a 
managerial or executive capacity immediately preceding [his] entry as a nonimmigrant." The 
Petitioner submitted a response on May 19, 2015, stating that the Beneficiary was employed by 
and that he spent the following time on each of the previously 
enumerated duties. 
• Develops policies and strategic planning for the Parent's business management, 
operational, personnel management and public relations (15%); 
• Oversees and supervises the subordinate management teams in the Parent's 
operational entities with regarding to business management, operational, personnel 
and public relations at the Parent company (25%); 
• Organizes and directs the overall operation of business management at subordinate 
subsidiaries and affiliates through the managers at such subsidiaries and affiliates to 
maximize efficiency and profits in respect to business, human resource and public 
relations (20%); 
• Designs organizational policies and goals and supervised the implementation of such 
policies and goals through the supervision and direction of subordinate personnel; 
(15%) 
• Analyzes and develops budgeting plans and request to identify issues and allocates 
the operating budget (15%); and 
• Consults with and reports to the chief executive officer and the board of directors of 
the Parent company (10%). 
The Petitioner also submitted an organizational chart for that is 
not dated. The chart depicts the Beneficiary as the "Administration Department Manager" reporting 
to the General Manager (President & CEO) and the "Board of Director of There are 
department heads and employees depicted subordinate to the Beneficiary; however, the chart does 
not include any specifics including employee names. The Beneficiary's name is the only name listed 
on the chart. The Petitioner also submitted general position descriptions for several of the job titles 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-P-E- Inc. 
listed on the organizational chart such as "general manager," "deputy manager," and varwus 
"department managers." 
The Director denied the petition on July 9, 2015, concluding that the Petitioner had not established 
that the Beneficiary was employed by the foreign company in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity. The Director concluded that the Petitioner had provided a set of broad job responsibilities 
that did not convey an understanding of what the Beneficiary actually did on a daily basis. 
The Director also states that the record lacks independent documentary evidence which establishes 
that the foreign company has numerous departments as well as multiple subsidiaries and affiliates. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that users did not take into proper consideration, or misinterpreted 
or disregarded evidence including detailed statements by both petitioner and the parent. The 
Petitioner also asserts that the job duties are specific and detailed, clearly depicting the Beneficiary's 
tasks as a top level manager. 
2. Analysis 
Upon review, and for the reasons stated below, we find that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
foreign entity employed the Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
First, we note that the Petitioner has not established which company employed the Beneficiary 
overseas. Throughout the initial filing and RFE response the Petitioner has stated or provided 
evidence to reflect that the Beneficiary was employed by directly, by 
· and by the which is a 
subsidiary of It is unclear which company actually employed the Beneficiary or how these 
companies may be related. The inconsistent depiction of the Beneficiary's employer abroad raises 
questions as to the accuracy of the information submitted. 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 r&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BrA 1988). 
Notwithstanding these concerns we have reviewed the job description provided. When examining 
the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, users will look first to the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. See 8 e.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 either in an executive or managerial capacity. !d. A detailed job description is crucial, as 
the duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the beneficiary's employment. Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. eir. 1990). We will 
then consider this information in light of other relevant factors, including (but not limited to) job 
descriptions of the beneficiary's subordinate employees, the nature of the business conducted, the 
size of the beneficiary's subordinate staff, and any other facts that may contribute to a 
comprehensive understanding of the beneficiary ' s actual role in the organizational hierarchy of the 
entity in question. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-P-E- Inc. 
The Petitioner submitted a lengthy description of the Beneficiary 's duties in response to the RFE 
which included a number of duties that would reasonably be associated with the management of a 
business; however, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not provided a detailed 
explanation of the duties that the Beneficiary performed in the position of either "deputy manager" 
or "manager" 
with the foreign entity that addresses the question of what the Beneficiary did on a day 
to day basis at the foreign company. Statements such as "organized and directed the overall 
operations of the business management," "designed organizational policies," and "developed 
policies and strategic planning" do not indicate how these duties were carried out within the foreign 
entity's specific business model, nor do they indicate how such duties translated into the 
Beneficiary's daily work tasks and responsibilities. Without further detail that explains the tasks and 
responsibilities that the Petitioner performed, we are unable to determine whether the position 
abroad was a qualifying managerial position. Conclusory assertions 
regarding the beneficiary 's 
employment capacity are not sufficient. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations 
does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 
1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner , 
1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
Moreover, in the RFE response, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary worked for 
performing duties that indicate the Beneficiary spends 40 percent of his time 
devoted to the activities of the "parent" company, It is unclear why the Beneficiary, as an 
employee of a claimed subsidiary, would be responsible for "[d]evelop[ing] policies and strategic 
planning for the Parent's business management, operational, personnel management and public 
relations" and for"[ o ]verse[ing] and supervis[ing] the subordinate management teams in the Parent's 
operational entities with regarding to business management, operational, personnel and public 
relations at the Parent company." The Petitioner has not submitted an explanation of this stated 
structure of control, whereby the subsidiary is managing the parent company's operations, or 
provided evidence that such an arrangement exists. Without such evidence, we do not find the 
description of the Beneficiary's duties to be credible. 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. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
Additionally, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary spends another 20 percent of his time 
"[ o ]rganiz[ing] and direct[ing] the overall operation of business management at subordinate 
subsidiaries and affiliates through the managers at such subsidiaries and affiliates to maximize 
efficiency and profits in respect to business, human resource and public relations." However, the 
Petitioner has not identified or provided evidence to substantiate the existence of these subsidiaries 
and affiliates of the foreign employer. The record also does not contain evidence that the 
Beneficiary directed the operations of these yet unidentified entities. As noted above, without such 
evidence, we do not find the description of the Beneficiary's duties to be credible. 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. !d. 
Even if we were able to determine that the Beneficiary was primarily performing managerial tasks, 
the fact that the Beneficiary manages or directs a business does not necessarily establish eligibility 
Matter of 1-P-E-Inc. 
for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity within the 
meaning of section 101 (a)( 44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that 
the duties of a position be "primarily" of an executive or managerial nature. Sections 101(A)(44)(A) 
and (B) of the Act, 8 U.S. C. § 1101 (a)( 44 ). While the Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the 
foreign entity's day-to-day operations and possesses the requisite level of authority with respect to 
discretionary decision-making, the position description alone is insufficient to establish that his 
actual duties were primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and 
"function managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A)(i) 
and (ii). Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. Contrary to the common understanding of the 
word "manager," the statute plainly states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting 
in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the 
employees supervised are professional." Section 101(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5G)( 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. § 204.5G)(2). 
Although the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary had the authority to hire, fire, and recommend 
compensation adjustments as necessary for his claimed direct reports located with the company or 
parent company, the information provided by the Petitioner does not clearly identify the 
Beneficiary's subordinate personnel, nor does it provide evidence of this authority. The 
organizational chart lists Business Department Manager I & II, Financial Department Manager, and 
Human Resource Department manager, along with "employees," listed as subordinates under each 
"manager" branch. However, the Petitioner has not submitted documentary evidence of actual 
subordinate employees or their employment history or payroll records. Moreover, while the foreign 
company did include position descriptions for some subordinate positions, the descriptions lack 
specificity that would shed light upon how these subordinates relieve the Beneficiary from 
performing non-qualifying day-to-day functions of the business. Without specific job descriptions 
and documentary evidence of the employees performing non-qualifying functions, it is unclear 
exactly how the Beneficiary performed in primarily a managerial or executive role. 
Furthermore, the statutory definition of "managerial capacity," specifies that supervisory duties are 
not managerial unless the employees supervised are, themselves, supervisors, managers, or 
professionals. The Petitioner has stated, throughout this proceeding, that the foreign company's 
administrative manager and executive assistant are managers, executives, and/or professional 
employees whom the Beneficiary had supervised. 
In evaluating 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. Section 101(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(32), states that "[t]he term prqfession 
shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers 
in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." The term "profession" 
contemplates knowledge or learning, not merely skill, of an advanced type in a given field gained by 
Matter of 1-P-E- Inc. 
a prolonged course of specialized instruction and study of at least baccalaureate level, which is a 
realistic prerequisite to entry into the particular field of endeavor. Matter of Sea, 19 I&N Dec. 81 7, 
818 (Comm'r 1988); Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35, 36 (R.C. 1968); Matter of Shin, 11 I&N Dec. 
686, 687-8 (D.D. 1966). 
The Petitioner has not established that a bachelor's degree is actually necessary for the subordinate 
positions. In fact, no educational requirements are noted for any of the positions listed on the 
foreign organizational chart or in the position descriptions. Given the lack of detail regarding the job 
duties of the subordinates, we are unable to determine that these were managerial or supervisory 
positions. Therefore, we are unable to find that the Beneficiary was employed in a qualifying 
personnel manager position. 
The Petitioner has also not established that the Beneficiary was employed as a function manager. 
The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the 
work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" 
within the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(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. 
Here, the Petitioner indicates in the RFE response that the Beneficiary was "in charge of departments 
of overall business management," "human resource management," and "public relations of the entire 
company." The fact that the Beneficiary had managerial control over all aspects or functions of the 
business does not establish that he qualifies as a function manager. While such authority is 
consistent with the statutory definition of managerial capacity, it is not sufficient to establish that the 
Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity. Whether the Beneficiary was a "function" 
manager turns in part on whether the Petitioner has sustained its burden of proving that his duties are 
"primarily" managerial. The actual duties themselves 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). Here, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's actual duties are within a 
managerial capacity. The duties described as vague and offer little insight into the daily tasks of the 
Beneficiary. For example, the Beneficiary "organized and directed the overall operations," and 
"designs organizational policies and goals." These are vague descriptions that do not articulate a 
specific function managed by the Beneficiary, or describe how his daily duties reflect his 
management of that function. Furthermore, the record does not indicate that the foreign entity 
employed a sufficient staff to relieve the Beneficiary from performing the non-qualifying duties. For 
these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was employed as a function 
manager. 
0 
Matter of 1-P-E- Inc. 
Finally, the evidence submitted does not establish that the Beneficiary served the foreign entity in an 
executive capacity. The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's 
elevated position within a complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or 
functions of the organization, and that person's authority to direct the organization. Section 
101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(44)(B). Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the 
ability to "direct the management" and "establish the goals and policies" of that organization. 
Inherent to the definition, the organization must have a subordinate level of managerial employees 
for the beneficiary to direct and the beneficiary must primarily focus on the broad goals and policies 
of the organization rather than the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. An individual will not be 
deemed an executive under the statute simply because they have an executive title or because they 
"direct" the enterprise as the owner or sole managerial employee. The beneficiary must also 
exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision making" and "receive only general supervision or 
direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization." 
!d. 
The Petitioner describes the Beneficiary's role as deputy manager and then manager, in charge of the 
overall business management, human resource management and public relations management of the 
entire company, reporting to the CEO. While the organizational chart submitted does indicate that 
the Beneficiary reported to the General Manager (President & CEO), the chart does not include any 
specific names, or other details that would support the Petitioners assertion. The chart depicts that 
the Beneficiary supervised four managerial departments and eighteen employee, but it does not 
provide names of employees, evidence of their educational background, their employment history or 
payroll records or any other evidence of their employment as subordinates of the Beneficiary. The 
Petitioner also asserts that the Beneficiary directed and managed elements of the foreign entity's 
parent company and the foreign entity's subsidiaries. However, as noted above, the record does not 
contain evidence to substantiate these assertions. Therefore, incorporating our discussion on the 
deficiencies of the job duties and the absence of evidence of subordinates to relieve the Beneficiary 
from performing non-qualifying duties, we find that the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive capacity. 
For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was employed in a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity with the foreign employer. For this reason, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
B. Managerial or Executive Capacity in the United States 
The Director also denied the petition finding that the Petitioner did not establish that it intends to 
employ the Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
1. Facts 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary had been employed as its President in L-1 A status and will 
continue to serve as President with the following duties: 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-P-E- Inc. 
• Oversees and supervises the petitioner's overall business operations, plans, 
organizes and directs the overall operations and strategic business expansion 
development of the company in order to obtain optimum efficiency and 
maximize profits; 
• Designs organizational policies and goals and implements same through 
supervision of subordinate administrative personnel; 
• Maintains and solidifies the real estate management and acquisition 
• Supervises business operations, planning or research and development, and 
coordinate such activities to achieve operational efficiency and economy; 
• Analyzes and develops budgeting plans and requests to identify issues and 
allocates operating budget; 
• Promotes the organization in trade associations; and, 
• Reports to the parent on the business operations of the company. 
The Petitioner stated on the Form I-140 that it had five employees when the petition was filed on 
October 27, 2014. An organizational chart submitted with the petition lists two positions 
immediately subordinate to the Beneficiary: a secretary and a vice president. The chart showed two 
positions subordinate to the vice president - managers along with 
"outside event coordinators," and "outside 
legal accounting & finance professionals." 
In the RFE issued on April 28, 2015, the Director requested evidence that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity. The Petitioner submitted a new job description and 
breakdown of the Beneficiary's duties as president: 1 
[The Beneficiary] 1 00% of his working hours on the oversight and supervision of the 
petitioner's overall business operation: developing and formulating policies and 
strategies for short term and long term development of the corporate business 
activities (1 0% ); directing and overseeing the operations of the business activities of 
the company (10%); reviewing and analyzing information collected and making 
policy decisions regarding the scale, method and focus of the company's business 
operations (15%); recruiting, reviewing the performance ofthe lower level managers 
(15%); supervising the vice president in managing the operations of the company in 
securing sources and customers for exhibitions throughout the US, managing the 
marketing efforts of the company to improve overall efficiency (15%); exercising 
discretionary decision-making authority in negotiating and concluding major 
contracts and transactions (10%); establishing and expanding network in the United 
States (5%); making all major financial, legal decisions regarding the company's 
business operations (10%); handling matters concerning the outside professionals 
including lawyers, accountants, shipping companies, independent contracts in sales, 
etc. in connection with negotiating agreements, performance review of these ' 
professionals/contractors, purchase and shipping matters (10%); and conferring with 
the senior management of the Parent company and the board members and sitting on 
the board of directors of the petitioner (1 0% ). 
1 We note that the percentages provided total 110%. 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-P-E- Inc. 
The Petitioner's response also included brief job descriptions for the president, vice president, 
secretary and two managers. The secretary and one of the manager 's descriptions indicate "some 
college;" however, it is unclear whether that is a reference to the level of education attained by the 
individual in the subordinate role or if that is a requirement of the position. 
The Petitioner's response also included IRS Form W-3 Transmittal of Wage and Tax Statements for 
2014 indicating that it paid 5 employees a total of $127,700 in employee wages for that year. IRS 
Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statements for 2014 were submitted for the Beneficiary, and four 
additional employees. The record also included copies of its Form 941 Employer's Quarterly 
Reports showing wages paid to employees for the second and fourth quarters of 2013 and for the 
first three quarters of 2014.2 
In the February 13, 2015, denial notice, the Director stated that the Petitioner had provided a set of 
broad job responsibilities which did not convey an understanding of what the Beneficiary would 
actually be doing on a daily basis. Observing that the Petitioner had claimed only four employees in 
the United States, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that it has sufficient 
staffing to relieve the Beneficiary from having to perform primarily non-qualifying tasks, or that the 
Beneficiary will primarily perform qualifying duties. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the job duties submitted are clear, detailed and specific both 
in terms of content and time. The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary supervises a vice president 
and is assisted by a secretary along with two event managers. The Petitioner also s.tates that the 
actual daily operations and logistics are actually carried out by event coordinators/service providers 
outside of the organization. Petitioner also asserts that the Director did not address all of the 
evidence submitted including business reports, agreements and corporate minutes that establish the 
Beneficiary's managerial role. 
2. Analysis 
For the reasons discussed below, we find that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's 
proposed position is in a managerial or executive capacity. 
As noted above, when examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, USCIS 
will look first to the petitioner 's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(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 either in an executive or managerial capacity. !d. A 
detailed job description is crucial, as the duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the 
beneficiary's employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), 
aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). We will then consider this information in light of other relevant 
2 ln the denial, the Director incorrectl y stated that all of these forms were signed by the Beneficiary as "VP, Managing 
Director. " We note that the forms for the second and fourth quarter of2013 and the forms for the first two quarter s of 
2014 were signed by as "VP". Only the third quarter of2014 was signed by the Beneficiary with 
"Managing Director " handwritten next to the VP notation. 
11 
Matter of 1-P-E- Inc. 
factors, including (but not limited to) job descriptions of the beneficiary's subordinate employees, 
the nature of the business conducted, the size of the beneficiary's subordinate staff, and any other 
facts that may contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the beneficiary's actual role in the 
organizational hierarchy of the entity in question. 
In this case, the job description provided with the initial petition is materially different than the 
description provided in response to the RFE. Initially, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
"[m]aintains and solidifies the real estate management and acquisition," "[a]nalyzes and develops 
budgeting plans and requests to identify issues and allocates operating budget," [ d]esigns 
organizational policies and goals and implements same through supervision of subordinate 
administrative personnel," and "[p]romotes the organization in trade associations." These duties, 
which do not appear to be managerial or executive, are notably absent from the job description 
provided with the RFE response. One of the duties omitted from the RFE response, maintaining and 
solidifying real estate management and acquisition, does not appear to relate to the Petitioner's 
stated business. Moreover, while the original description only includes "supervision of 
administrative personnel" as the only duty related to managing or supervising employees, the RFE 
description states that the Beneficiary will now be responsible for "recruiting, reviewing the 
performance of the lower level managers," and "supervising the vice president in managing the 
operations of the company ... " In fact, of the seven enumerated initial duties, only three remain in 
the amended job description. The initial description appeared to have the Beneficiary doing more of 
the actual operational work, while the second iteration of the job has the Beneficiary managing more 
of the work done in the Petitioner's operation. · 
The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further information that clarifies whether 
eligibility for the benefit sought has been established. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). When responding to a 
request for evidence, a petitioner cannot offer a new position to the beneficiary, or materially change 
a position's title, its level of authority within the organizational hierarchy, or its associated 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. 248, 249 (Reg. Comm'r 1978). If significant changes are made to the initial 
request for approval, the petitioner must file a new petition rather than seek approval of a petition 
that is not supported by the facts in the record. 
The information provided by the Petitioner in its response to the Director's RFE did not clarify or 
provide more specificity to the original duties of the position, but rather added new generic duties to 
the job description. This material change to the proffered position precludes us from determining the 
true nature of the position. As the Petitioner has not established what the actual duties of the 
proffered position are, we cannot analyze whether or not the duties are primarily managerial or 
executive in nature. 
The Petitioner states on appeal that the Beneficiary will "spend all his working hours on the policy 
decisions, business planning, personnel decisions and critical legal, financial and operational issues 
concerning the business operations of the company." However, the fact remains that the record 
presents inconsistent claims regarding the Petitioner's business and the Beneficiary's proposed 
position, such that we cannot find that the Beneficiary would be employed in a qualifYing 
managerial or executive capacity. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies 
12 
Matter of I-P-E-Inc. 
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). Here, the Petitioner has 
not provided an explanation or evidence to establish what the proffered position will actually entail 
and has not reconciled the disparate descriptions of the Beneficiary's duties. 
As noted by the Petitioner, a company's size alone, without taking into account the reasonable needs 
of the organization, may not be the determining factor in denying a visa to a multinational manager 
or executive. See § 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(C). In reviewing the 
relevance of the number of employees a petitioner has, federal courts have generally agreed that 
USCIS "may properly consider an organization's small size as one factor in assessing whether its 
operations are substantial enough to support a manager." Family Inc. v. US Citizenship and 
Immigration Services 469 F. 3d 1313, 1316 (91h Cir. 2006) (citing with approval Republic of 
Transkei v. INS, 923 F 2d. 175, 178 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Fedin Bros. Co. v. Sava, 905 F.2d 41, 42 (2d 
Cir. 1990)(per curiam); Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25, 29 (D.D.C. 2003)). 
Furthermore, it is appropriate for USCIS to consider the size of the petitioning company in 
conjunction with other relevant factors, such as a company's personnel size, the absence of 
employees who would perform the non-managerial or non-executive operations of the company, or a 
"shell company" that does not conduct business in a regular and continuous manner. See, e.g. 
Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
In this case, we base our finding not on the size of the company but on the absence of an objective 
and consistent depiction of the job duties, supported by evidence of the Beneficiary's role within the 
organization. In light of the various evidentiary deficiencies described above, we find that the 
Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to support the claim that the Beneficiary's proposed 
position in the United States would consist primarily of tasks within a qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity. For this additional reason the appeal must be dismissed. 
III. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
Beyond the decision of the Director, we find that the Petitioner has not established that it has a 
qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.50)(2) states in pertinent part: 
Affiliate means: 
(A) One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same 
parent or individual; 
(B) One of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of 
individuals, each individual owning and controlling approximately the same 
share or proportion of each entity; 
Subsidiary means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent owns, 
directly or indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, 
13 
(b)(6)
Matter of I-P-E- Inc. 
directly or indirectly, half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or 
indirectly, 50 percent of a 50-50 joint venture and has equal control and veto power 
over the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, less than half of the entity, but in fact 
controls the entity. 
The Petitioner indicates in a letter dated May 19, 2015, that it is a majority owned subsidiary of 
As was noted above, at different times 
throughout these proceedings, the Petitioner has stated that the Beneficiary worked for 
, and 
While it appears these entities may be related to one another, the Petitioner must 
state the true facts of the Beneficiary's prior employment and provide evidence that it has a 
qualifying relationship with the foreign employer. Because the Petitioner has inconsistently 
identified the Beneficiary's foreign employer, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner possesses the 
requisite qualifying relationship with the foreign employer. 
The Petitioner stated in the RFE response that the Beneficiary was employed by 
, which the Petitioner claims is a subsidiary of the its parent, However, 
the record does not contain information or evidence regarding the ownership of 1 
such that we could conclude it is an affiliate or otherwise qualifying related 
entity. The Petitioner also submitted a notarial certificate stating that the Beneficiary worked for the 
which is under 
Here again, if this is the Beneficiary's 
true employer, the Petitioner did not submit evidence regarding the ownership of the 
such that we could conclude it is 
an affiliate or otherwise qualifying related entity. Without full disclosure of all relevant documents, 
users is unable to determine the elements of ownership and control and therefore unable to 
determine that the requisite qualifying corporate relationship exists. 
For this additional reason, the appeal will be dismissed. An application or petition that does not 
comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by us even if the service center 
does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003). 
IV. 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 ofi-P-E- Inc., ID# 15733 (AAO Mar. 3, 2016) 
14