dismissed EB-1C Case: International Trade

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF J-I- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 26, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, describing itself as an international trading company, seeks to permanently employ 
the Beneficiary as its president under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational 
executives or managers. Immigration and Nationality Act (the. Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. 
~ 1153(b)(l)(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified 
foreign employee to the United States to work in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did 
not e_iaablish, as required, that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director used "inappropriate standards" to deny the 
petition, asserting that it has the organizational complexity to support the Beneficiary in a 
managerial or executive position. 
Upon de ,wvo review, we find that the Petitioner has not overcome the basis for denial. Therefore, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
An immigrant visa is available to a beneficiary who, in the three years preceding the filing of the 
petition, has been employed outside the United States for at least one year in a managerial or 
executive capacity, and seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render managerial or 
executive services to the same employer or to its subsidiary or affiliate. Section 203(b )(l )(C) of the 
Act. 
The Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, must include a statement from an authorized 
official of the petitioning United States employ~r which demonstrates that the beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition, that the beneficiary is coming to work in the United States for the 
Matter of 1-1- Inc. 
same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer, and that the prospective U.S. 
employer has been doing business for at least one year. 1 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5U)(3). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
In its initial supporting statement, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary would be employed in 
an executive capacity. Through its various submissions, the Petitioner indicated that it intends to run 
t~ree distinc_t businesses - the import and e~port of farming equi~ment, the wholesale of sm.all 
kitchen appliances and apparel, and the operat10n of a grocery store.- Although the record contams 
repeated references to the Beneficiary's position, as "managerial or executive," the Petitioner did not 
specifically claim that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity. Therefore, we 
will only address the Petitioner's original claim that the Beneficiary would be employed in an 
executive capacity. 
"Executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization; 
establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; exercises wide 
latitude in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction from 
higher-level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization.· Section 
101(a)(44)(8) of the Act. 
When examining the executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. 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 an executive 
capacity. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). Beyond the required description of the job duties, we examine 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. 
Accordingly, we will discuss evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of 
the nature of the Petitioner's business, its staffing levels, and its organizational structure. 
1 The record contains inconsistencies concerning the issue ~f the Petitioner's ownership. The initial supporting statement 
indicated that the Petitioner and the foreign entity have a parent-subsidiary relationship. In the denial decision, however, 
the Director referred to the two entities as affiliates that are both ow~ed by the Beneficiary. Although the Petitioner 
objects to the Director's reference of the two entities as affiliates and contends that it is wholly owned by the foreign 
entity, Schedule E of the Petitioner's 2016 tax return identifies the Beneficiary as owner of 100% of its stock. Based on 
the information in the 2016 tax return, the Director accura'tely referred to the relationship between the Petitioner and the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer as that of two affiliates. See 8 C.F.R. 204.50)(2) (for definitions of ajfifiare and 
subsidiary). The Petitioner has not provided independent, objective evidence to resolve the noted ownership 
inconsistency. Matter of Ho, 19 J&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
2 Although the record contains multiple documents pertaining to the purchase of inventory to stock the grocery store, 
there is little evidence to show that the wholesale business was fully operational at the time of filing and no evidence at 
all to show any business activity, past or present, pertaining to the purchase and sale of agricultural equipment. 
' 
2 
Matter ofJ-1- lnc. 
A. Duties 
Based on the statutory definition of executive capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the 
Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 
1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). The Petitioner must also prove that the 
Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in executive duties, as opposed to ordinary operational 
activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 
1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
In order to establish eligibility, the Petitioner must provide a job description that clearly describes 
the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in an 
executivecapacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). 
In a supporting cover letter, the Petitioner provided a job duty breakdown in which it assigned a 
percentage of time in the following manner: 
(1) 25% to determining the "company's rnission," goals and policies, establishing "standards 
and procedures" for meeting those goals, "setting up [a] management system," directing 
the development of the organization, and making decisions regarding "major issues"; 
(2) 20% to determining "the internal organizational mechanism" for implementing the 
business plan by establishing and removing· departments and modifying their respective 
functions as necessary; 
(3) 15% to improving the petitioner's ''financial system" through forecasting and budget 
formulation and approving expenditures when "significant funds" are required; 
(4) 15% to hiring and firing and evaluating performance of subordinate managers, and 
making decisions regarding the Petitioner's staffing; 
(5) 15% to assigning departmental tasks to ensure "operational efficiency," overseeing 
product research and development projects, and determining if product functions meet 
client needs; and 
(6) 10% to communicating with "high-level managerial personnel" abroad and ensuring that 
the Petitioner's managerial staff implements the foreign company's decisions. 
The Petitioner stated that in 2016 it plans to select five pieces of agricultural equipment "and more 
than 20 parts" to be exported to China and that in light of this goal the Beneficiary will review 
marketing reports, make product selections, and negotiate with product suppliers. The Petitioner 
also claimed that it plans to "recruit the higher arid senior positions" and expand its grocery store and 
wholesale businesses. It projected increasing the types of goods it offers, opening more stores, and 
forging business relationships with local buyers in order to distribute its exported goods. The 
Petitioner also provided photographs of its business premises, including its office, warehouse space, 
and grocery store, along with photocopied brochures of the items it seeks to distribute as part of its 
wholesale business. 
Matter of J-1- Inc. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided a business plan stating that it expected to "fully devote[]" its 
business to promoting the sale of advanced U.S. farm equipment and parts in China and that it would 
"concurrent[Iy ]" sell "light industrial products", to be supplied by the foreign parent entity. The 
Petitioner stated that its warehouse space would, be used to store the farming equipment it plans to 
sell abroad and the industrial goods it plans to distribute in the U.S. market as a wholesaler. 
ln a request for evidence (RFE), the Director noted that the Petitioner's initially submitted 
statements were vague and lacked specific information about the Beneficiary's job duties. The 
Director therefore instructed the Petitioner to provide a detailed description of the Beneficiary's 
specific daily tasks and the percentage of time he would allocate lo the performance of each duty. 
For further clarification, the Director also asked the Petitioner to provide a description of its products 
and services and to list the productive and administrative tasks necessary to provide the services it 
offers. · 
In respons~, the Petitioner stated that it has conducted '"comprehensive research" on farming 
equipment. in the United States since 2015 and that the Beneficiary "has determined two business 
types" - one involving the recommendation : of new equipment to be developed or existing 
equipment to be upgraded and the other in which the Petitioner would negotiate with U.S. companies 
and buy equipment that would be shipped to the parent entity for sale in China. The Petitioner 
explained that the first business type will require cooperation between the U.S.- and foreign-based 
technology departments to assist with the design· and testing of equipment that will be sold in China. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will lead the research effort in the United States while the 
foreign entity "will handle the main part of techno_logical design, manufacture, and sales of the 
newly developed products in China" and pay the Petitioner 30% of the net profit in sales. Although 
the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary "has chosen several related companies" with which it 
plans to do business, it has not provided evidence of any business communications between the 
Beneficiary and the selected companies, est~blished that the Beneficiary made any product 
selections, or documented any farming equipme'nt sales overseas for which the Petitioner has been 
allocated its due commission. Further, the Petitioner did not establish, nor is it apparent, that 
engaging in sales negotiations for farming equip[!lent is an exec~tive-level task. 
The Petitioner also stated that it owns a grocery store and operates a wholesale business that focuses 
on small kitchen appliances and knitwear clothirig;· it noted that the Beneficiary made the decision to 
purchase a grocery store business pursuant to "c~mprehensive market feasible research." ll did not, 
however, state who conducted the research or specify the Beneficiary's role in the daily operations 
of the grocery store. The Petitioner highlighted the Beneficiary's role with respect to the wholesale 
business, stating that the Beneficiary sets long- and short-term sales goals, negotiates "with related 
business partners," determines the products to be sold, determines product pricing, and assigns daily 
tasks to staff in the wholesale division. The Petitioner did not establish that negotiating with 
suppliers, determining products to sell, and pricing the products are executive-level job duties, nor 
did it establish that the Beneficiary is relieved from participating in the operational tasks associated 
with establishing distribution channels through which to sell these wholesale products . 
. 4 
Matter of J-1- Inc. 
In addition, the Petitioner added a "daily tasks" segment to the original job duty breakdown. 
However, the "daily tasks" segment conveyed ·no new information about the Beneficiary's daily 
activities and was primarily comprised of vague and repetitive claims that did not add to our 
understanding of the Beneficiary's respective roles in the Petitioner's farming equipment, wholesale, 
and grocery store operations. For instance, in discussing the Beneficiary's responsibility to 
determine the company's mission, goals, and policies, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
"should exercise wide latitude [in] discretionary decision-making on the major issues" and again 
stated that the Beneficiary will determine the co~pany's mission, policies, goals, and standards and 
procedures. Although the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary must maintain an awareness of "both 
external and internal competitive landscape," target customers, and market conditions, it did not 
define what is meant by "external and internal ~competitive landscape" or identify daily tasks that 
establish how the Beneficiary would maintain an:_awareness of these aspects within the context of the 
Petitioner's various business operations. · 
The next "daily tasks" segment pertains to the '.second listed job duty - determining "the internal 
organizational mechanism" for implementing the business plan. The Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary "should keep analyzing and adjusting the needs of the company's overall operation and 
specific projects_, and set up proper departments and divisions," set goals, "major policies and hiring 
standards for departmental managers and major professional staff," design an internal reporting and 
supervision system to keep track of employee work progress, and "determine the hierarchical levels 
in each department by setting up different positions with specific requirements." Here, too, the 
Petitioner did not list specific daily activities and instead focused on the Beneficiary's discretionary 
authority and his intermittent decision•making responsibilities in terms of setting goals, making 
policies, hiring staff, and altering the Petitioner's organizational hierarchy. The Petitioner also did 
not identify "spec_ific projects" that the Beneficiary would work on or describe specific "major 
policies" the Beneficiary plans to set. 
The "daily tasks" segments for the remaining jo_b' duties were also deficient in their broad focus on 
the Beneficiary's "discretional authority" over staffing decisions, evaluation of employee monthly 
and yearly performances, setting company goals; and assessing "major projects" and the company's 
ability to meet client needs. Although the Petitione_r stated that the Beneficiary would conduct 
conference calls with "high-level managerial pe~sonnel" at the parent company, this was described 
as a monthly, rather than a daily or even weekly task. 
In the denial decision, the Director determined that the· job descriptions in the record are vague and 
generalized and concluded that the deficient evidence does not establish that the Beneficiary would 
be employed in an executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner did not further elaborate on the Beneficiary's job duties or acknowledge 
that his duties with respect to an existing grocery store are likely different from the duties he would 
perform within the scope of a wholesale operation or a farming equipment export business. Instead, 
the Petitioner argues that we must take into account the specific circumstances of the Petitioner's 
operating status, referring to the Petitioner's "healthy financial condition" and plans for future 
5 
Matter of 1-/- Inc. 
investments, notwithstanding its "early stages" of development. While we acknowledge that a 
variety of factors may affect the types of job duties the Beneficiary will have to perform and that job 
· duties often depend on the Petitioner's organizational needs, the Petitioner maintains the burden of 
establishing that the Beneficiary would primarily perform duties of an executive nature, regardless of 
these various factors. The Beneficiary's direction of the management of the business does not 
necessarily establish eligibility for classification as a multinational executive in an executive 
capacity within the meaning of section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. By statute, in order to meet the 
definition of executive capacity, the duties of the assigned position must be "primarily" executive in 
nature. Sections 101 (A)( 44)(B) of the Act. Even if the Petitioner is able to demonstrate that the 
I • 
Beneficiary exercises discretion over its day-to-_day operations and possesses the requisite level of 
authority with respect to discretionary decision-making, these elements alone are not sufficient to 
establish that the Beneficiary's actual duties would be primarily executive in nature. The actual 
duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), qff'd, 90:5 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). As such, a detailed job 
description is critical to a determination of whether the Beneficiary would be employed m an 
executive capacity. 
Here, the Petitioner claims that its business is comprised of three distinct components that operate 
independently of one another. Although the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's position is at the 
top of the organization's hierarchy and that he has ultimate discretion over the grocery store and the 
Petitioner's wholesale and farming equipment operations, it did not specify the duties the 
Beneficiary would perform with respect to each of these business components. As previous! y noted, 
despite providing a business plan that highlig~ts its plan to focus primarily on the Petitioner's 
research and export of farming equipment, there is no evidence in the record to show that the 
Petitioner has. taken steps to develop this aspect of the business plan or that the Beneficiary was 
ready to carry out duties that pertain to this business component at the time this petition was filed. 
The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). The Petitioner has provided no evidence 
of any communications with farming equipment companies, nor is there evidence of completed 
research that could serve as a basis for the Beneficiary's selection of specific farming equipment that 
could ·be exported. to the foreign parent entity. Rather, most of the evidence of the Petitioner's 
business activities relates directly to its operation of a grocery store, which was staffed with a 
manager and two cashiers at the time of filing. 
It is unclear what services, aside from generai oversight of the grocery, the Beneficiary would 
provide to the Petitioner, given the lack of evidence of other types of business activity at the lime of 
filing. The Petitioner was equally unclear as io the Beneficiary's duties within the scope of the 
wholesale operation. We recognize that the Petitioner provided job descriptions that were general 
enough to apply to the three business operations'. that \3/ere d_iscussed in the initial business plan; we 
also recognize that sales is common to all three business types. We find, however, that there is little 
else that these businesses have in common - from the clients they target to the vendors that would 
supply the equipment and merchandise the Petitioner plans to distribute or export. The Petitioner 
does not make this critical distinction and proyides job descriptions that are broad and generally 
:6 
Matter of.I-I- Inc. 
< 
I 
lacking in relevant content about the Beneficiary's actual job duties. This la~k of critical 
information precludes a meaningful understanding of his respective roles in the Petitioner's three 
distinct business endeavors. As the Petitioner has not provided a detailed job description stating 
precisely which services the Beneficiary would provide to each of its three business components, we 
cannot conclude that he would primarily carry o~t job duties of an executive nature. 
B. Staffing 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, we also examine the company's organizational 
structure, the duties of the Beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to 
relieve the Beneficiary from performing operational duties, and the nature of the business along with 
any oth_er factors that will contribute to understanding the Beneficiary's actual duties and role within 
the petitioning organization. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in an executive 
capacity, we take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of its overall purpose 
and stage of development. See section 101(a)( 44)(C) of the Act. 
The Petitioner claimed eleven employees at the time of filing and provided an organizational chart in 
support of this claim. The chart depicted the Be!"}eficiary at the top of a hierarchy comprised of four 
departments - finance, technology, administration, and business development. With the exception of 
the business department, which depicts a grocery manager and a wholes&le specialist at the top of the 
department's hierarchy and two cashiers supporting the grocery manager, each of the three 
remaining departments is comprised of a manager and one support employee. Namely, the chart 
depicts an accountant as subordinate to the fi~ancial manager, a technical support specialist as 
t 
subordinate to the technical support manager, arid an administrative specialist as subordinate to the 
administrative manager. · 
The Petitioner also provided job descriptions for each position depicted in the organizational chart 
and indicated that all employees are full-time. The evidence must substantiate that the Beneficiary's 
duties and those of his subordinates corresporid to their placement in the Petitioner's structural 
hierarchy; artificial tiers of subordinate employees and inflated job titles are not probative and will 
not establish that an organization is sufficiently complex to support an executive position. We find 
that the job descriptions of several of the listed employees are not corroborated by the evidence. Fo~ 
instance, the job duties of the technical department manager indicate that he oversees a "technical 
team," reviews research reports, provides "technical improvements suggestions," regularly selects 
agricultural equipment to be sold in the U.S. market, and addresses "technical problems" that arise 
within that department. However, the record lacks evidence of any research reports, includes no 
details about "technical improvements" or "technical problems," and contains no documentation 
pointing to the existence of a "technical. team." The job description of the technical support 
specialist similarly includes job duties that the record does not corroborate, including the claim that 
the employee occupying this position regularly collects and analyzes farming equipment data and 
captures that data in research reports, provides "technical advice and customer services to clients 
I 
'7 
f• 
Matter of.I-I- Inc. 
concerning machine_ry products," initiates communications with ·"potential cooperating companies," 
and is responsible for the logistical components~of the import and export process. As we observed 
above, the record contains no research reports to show that data is regularly collected and analyzed, 
nor does the record contain evidence of any sales or shipping transactions or communications with 
customers or "potential cooperating companies" to show that farming equipment has been purchased 
or sold tb anyone, either in the United States or abroad. , 
Likewise, the job duties of the employees in the .~tdministrative department are similarly problematic 
in that they refer· to a staff that has not been documented and list uncorroborated activities that 
indicate ongoing ordering, purchasing, and· shipJ:iing activities outside the scope of the grocery store. 
For instance, the administrative manager's listed job duties include recruiting and managing an 
"administrative staff." However, the record inqicates that the administrative department has only 
employee aside from the administrative manager; there is no evidence of recruiting an administrative 
"staff." The manager's job duty breakdown also indicates that this position is responsible for 
preparing and reviewing operational reports and schedules and planning and admi_nistering budgets 
for ordering equipment and supplies. However; the Petitioner did not clarify the subject mailer of 
the operational reports, explain what specific activities are being scheduled, or specify the types of 
equipment and supplies that are subject to the budget control. Likewise, the administrative 
specialist's duties are said to include greeting walk-in visitors and scheduling appoints with clients 
and customers. However, the record does not establish that the Petitioner operates a business where 
walk-in visitors are part of its daily operations, nor is there evidence of clients or customers. The 
business evidence submitted shows that the Petitioner has been doing business primarily as a grocery 
store, which, according to the organizational chart, was staffed with one manager and two cashiers at 
the time of filing. · 
As noted earlier, the Petitioner must support i~s assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. Further, if we find reason to believe that an assertion 
stated in the petition is not true, we may reject that assertion. See, e.g., Section 204(b) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1 "154(b); Anetekhai v. INS, 876 F.2d
1
_ 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1989); Lu-Ann Bakery Shop, 
Inc. v. Nelson, 705 F. Supp. 7, 10 (D.D.C. 1988); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 
(D.D.C. 2001). Given that the record contains l_ittle evidence to support the job descriptions of the 
administrative and technical departments' emp16yees, it-is unclear what functions these employees 
actually perform within the Petitioner's organization or how they would work to relieve the 
' Beneficiary from having to allocate his time priniarily to performing non-executive job duties. 
; 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided 1 statement in which it reiterated prior claims about 
the technology department's role regarding the qevelopment and sale of agricultural equipment and 
also discussed its objective to foster a cooperative relationship with the foreign entity's technology 
department to design new agricultural equipme~t and upgrade existing equipment. The Petitioner 
also reiterated the Beneficiary's research initiative, which purportedly resulted in his decision to 
"develop five kinds of agricultural equipment." The Petitioner did not, however, provide evidence 
to show that any business activity had taken place as a result of the research initiative or the 
Beneficiary's selection of specific kinds of agricultural· equipment. Although the Petitioner provided 
r 8 
Matter of.I-I- Inc. 
five invoices showing its sale of pots and pans .as part of its wholesale business initiative, all five 
invoices were issued during various months in 2017, after the filing of the ·petition in May 2016. 
The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been 
satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 CF.R. § l03.2(b)(I ). As 
the 2017 invoices reflect business activity that look place months after the petition was filed, they do 
not demonstrate that the wholesale business was fully operational at the time of filing. As such, we 
question the true function of the administrative department within the scope of the organization and 
its level of operation at the time the petition was filed. 
The Petitioner also provided an updated organizational chart showing additional employees in the 
business development department. Namely, the chart shows two additional grocery store employees 
- a grocery associate subordinate to the grocery manager and a handyman subordinate lo the grocery 
associate - and a wholesale representative suboldinate to the wholesale specialist. The Petitioner 
resubmitted the job duty breakdowns for the employees listed in the original organizational chart and 
added job descriptions for the three new employees. However, the Petitioner's May 2016 payroll 
summary indicates that the new employees were not part of its staffing composition when the 
petition was filed; therefore, they will not b~ considered for the purpose of determining the 
Petitioner's eligibility. · .. 
The statutory definition of the term "executivei 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 10l(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direcHhe 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 a·beneficiary to direct and they 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. A 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." Id. · 
In the present matter, the Director erred by applying the definition of managerial capacity to the 
Beneficiary's subordinates; the statutory definition of managerial or executive capacity should only 
be applied to the Beneficiary of the instant petition. Whether the Beneficiary's subordinates 
themselves meet the statutory definition of managerial or executive capacity is not relevant for the 
purpose of determining whether the Benefici~ry himself meets the criteria of the applicable 
definition. In any event, the Director correctly qmtemplated the Petitioner's organizational 
hierarchy and determined that the Petitioner lacked the organizational complexity to relieve the 
Beneficiary from having to spend his time primarily performing non-qualifying job duties. 
On appeal, the Petitioner puts forth irrelevant claims that the Beneficiary's subordinates meet the 
statutory definition of managerial capacity and t~at they earn salaries that are not com.mensurate with 
~ . 
·9 
Matter of.I-I- Inc. 
those of professional employees. As these argm-ilents are not relevant to a determinalion of whether 
the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity, they will nol be addressed in this 
decision. The Petitioner is, however, correct 'in observing that we must take into account the 
reasonable needs of the organization as well as its purpose and stage of development in determining 
whether the Beneficiary would be employed in ~n executive capacity. See section 101(a)(44)(C) of 
the Act. That said, the Petitioner's reasonable' needs will not supersede the requirement that the 
Beneficiary must be "primarily" employed in a'n executive capacity, spending the majority of his 
time on executive duties. See sections 101(a)(44)(8) of the Act. 
In light of the Beneficiary's deficient job description and the ambiguities surrounding the type and 
scope of the Petitioner's business activities at the time of filing, we cannot determine the Petitioner's 
reasonable needs or its ability to meet those needs with the staffing composition that was in place at 
the time this petition was filed. As noted above, a number of the subordinates' job duties are not 
corroborated in the record. As such, it is unclear how the Beneficiary's support staff would relieve 
him from having to allocate his time primarily to non-executive job duties. · 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we find that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
will be employed in the United States in an executive capacity. The appeal will be dismissed for this 
reason. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of 1-1- Inc., ID# 1415436 (AAO Ji:IY 26, 2018) , 
10