dismissed EB-1C Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9183868 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 8, 2020 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, describing itself as a transportation, import, and export logistics company, seeks to 
permanently employ the Beneficiary as its comptroller in the United States 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). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United 
States. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the submitted evidence sufficiently demonstrates that the 
Beneficiary would be employed as a function manager. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, 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 employer 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 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. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5U)(3). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The sole issue to address is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would be employed 
in a managerial capacity in the United States. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary would 
be employed in an executive capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary 
would be employed in a managerial capacity. 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
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; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A). 
When examining the managerial 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 a managerial 
capacity. 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(5). 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. 
A. Duties 
To be eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, the Petitioner must show that 
the Beneficiary will perform the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition at 
section 101(a)(44)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act. If the record does not establish that the offered position meets 
all four of these elements, we cannot conclude that it is a qualifying managerial position. 
If the Petitioner establishes that the offered position meets all elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial 
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). In determining whether a given 
beneficiary's duties will be primarily managerial, we consider the Petitioner's description of the job 
duties, the company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, 
the presence of other employees to relieve the 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. 
The Petitioner indicated that it is a "freight transport company serving in all states in the U.S." moving 
"around 5] 00 ship
1
ments annually" with a fleet of "tractor trucks" and "40 independent owner 
operated.. trailers." In response to the Director request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner 
provided the following duties for the Beneficiary as its comptroller: 
Accounting and Financial Controls-25% 
I Responsible for managing the financial information provided by the accounting 
department and other departments, 
I Review and analyze the financial status of accounts receivable, accounts payable 
and payroll to ensure the ratios are profitable, 
2 
I Plays a critical role in upholding financial controls and audits, 
I Perform random audits of payroll and expenses submitted by the accounting 
department to ensure that verification and authorization controls are enforced in 
reconciling driver logbooks and reimbursable expenses, and 
I Calculate the different pay scales for local drivers by salary or mileage, including 
differing pay rates for mileage, downtime and trailer unloading which are submitted 
for review to the executive officers and stockholders. 
Financial Risk Management-10% 
I Analyze the financial needs of [the Petitioner] to recommend preferable financial 
options and address financial risks, 
I Perform cost-benefit analysis on capital investments and inventory to determine 
whether to run an in-house maintenance department or outsource truck and trailer 
maintenance, 
I Negotiate partnership agreements with fuel suppliers, 
I Compare and ensure the best rates and make sure [the Petitioner] has the right type 
and amount of insurance, and 
I Review and analyze fleet operations, expenses, staffing levels, equipment 
investment and inventory. 
Analyze and Manage Costs-10% 
I Develop logistics best practices and procedures which is a step forward toward 
effective cost control, 
I Create loading and unloading best practices and establishing optimal driving routes, 
and 
I Analyze load delivery performance reports, as it affects the financial impact of 
unloading hold-ups at the destination and recommend streamlining of process and 
efficiencies to be applied to improve customer service delivery time and load 
tracking. 
Delivery Logistics Data Analysis-10% 
I Analyze and review data input from the different logistics points and departments 
to improve and facilitate best practices to improve profitability, 
I Audit and analyze how, when and where goods are packaged, trucked and 
delivered, alternate route calculations, etc., 
I Factor in cycle time, lead time and insurance needs and coordinate with distribution 
centers and trucking hubs, travel routes, fueling stops, determine approaches that 
allow drivers to maximize time and space accommodations, and 
I Develop standard operating procedures to be implemented when maintenance, 
repairs or delays are necessary. 
Budgeting and Oversight-15% 
I Develop revenue forecasts and analysis and report to the executive directors, 
I Responsible for budgetary planning, goals, outcomes, cost projections and general 
financial oversight, 
3 
I Ensure that overhead operating costs are maintained and reduced and that the 
company is staying on track with order fulfillment, meeting deadlines, and 
customer satisfaction, and 
I Ensure financial operating parameters are maintained and improved. 
General Financial Reports-20% 
I Generate regular financial reports detailing company cash flow, accounts payable 
and accounts receivable as well as assets capital improvements, inventory and 
liabilities to be reviewed by executives and stockholders, and 
I Analyze and audit any bank transactions for financial forecasting as needed. 
Liaison with US and Mexico 
I Liaise and cooperate with other divisions within the company and its affiliates to 
ensure smooth financial operations, and 
I Propose and promote to the executive team and stakeholders streamlining of 
processes or technology/software improvements across departments.1 
However, now on appeal, the Petitioner submits a materially different duty description, leaving 
uncertainty as to the Beneficiary's actual proposed duties. For instance, the new duty description 
indicates that the Beneficiary would devote 30% of his time to "analyz[ing] and manag[ing] costs," 
whereas the previous description reflected he would spend only 10% of his time on this task. Likewise, 
the appeal duty description emphasizes that the Beneficiary would devote 25% of his time to 
"accounting and financial controls," while the previous one stated he would spend 30% of his time on 
this responsibility. Lastly, the RFE duty description stated that the Beneficiary would spend 10% of 
his time on "financial risk management," yet the newer description indicates he would devote only 
20% of his time to this duty. 
In addition, the two duty descriptions include substantial other differences that leave further question 
as to the Beneficiary's claimed duties. For example, the appeal duty description states that the 
Beneficiary would dedicate 10% of his time to "regulatory compliance, including monitored 
operations thru the Safety Coordinator to ensure that staff members comply with administrative 
policies and procedures" as well as coordinate "with the Safety Dept. and IT to have monthly and 
quarterly reports." However, the Beneficiary's former duty description did not mention this 
coordination with the safety or information technology departments, but only indicated that he would 
verify the timely filing of regulatory paperwork with the accountant. The Petitioner also stated that 
the Beneficiary would spend 10% of his time on "financial decisions at [the] senior level." However, 
the Beneficiary's earlier duty description does not reflect this level of senior discretionary authority, 
stating only hat he would develop revenue forecasts and other recommendations and report to the 
company's executive directors. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies and discrepancies in the 
record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N 
Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Furthermore, the Beneficiary's duty descriptions included several apparent non-qualifying operational 
tasks leaving uncertainty as to whether he would devote a majority of his time to qualifying managerial 
1 We note that the percentages allocated to the Beneficiary's duties amount to only 90%. 
4 
duties. For instance, the Beneficiary's RFE duty description indicated he would be tasked with 
reviewing and analyzing accounts receivable and payable, performing random audits of payroll and 
expenses, and calculating pay scales for local drivers. Similarly, the Petitioner also stated that the 
Beneficiary would be responsible for performing cost-benefit analysis on capital investments and 
inventory, creating loading and unloading best practices and driving routes, and auditing and analyzing 
how goods were packaged, trucked, and delivered. It also explained the Beneficiary would be 
responsible for avoiding regulatory fines and penalties, monitoring and tracking operating costs, 
generating financial reports for executive and stockholder review, and analyzing and auditing bank 
transactions. Overall, these duties reflect more of an operational and advisory role on the part of the 
Beneficiary, rather than one where he would exercise discretionary authority over an essential 
function. To illustrate, the Beneficiary's RFE duties reflected that he would calculate pay scales for 
drivers, develop revenue forecasts and financial reports, propose streamlining of processes and 
technology, and submit this information to managers tasked with deciding these issues. The duties 
were further indicative of a duty to review, track, and analyze, rather than receive information from 
others and exercise discretionary authority. 
In contrast, the new duty description provided on appeal appears modified to emphasize more 
managerial functions, such as the Beneficiary "overseeing" budgetary planning, operating costs, and 
reports from an accountant manager, as well as him providing strategic guidance to the payroll 
department. However, the Beneficiary's first duty description indicated that the Beneficiary would be 
directly performing these analysis, auditing, and data collection functions, rather than overseeing 
others performing these tasks. Further, the Beneficiary's duty description provided on appeal also 
lists several apparent operational tasks, indicating his direct involvement in performing cost benefit 
analyses on truck lending and purchasing, "selecting the best equipment according to rates and 
functionality," evaluating "e-log devices," monitoring compliance with safety regulations, and 
ensuring that license plates and permits are renewed. In sum, the Beneficiary's appeal duty description 
also suggests that the Beneficiary would primarily act in an operational and advisory role, rather than 
a managerial capacity, including reviewing and analyzing reports and "KPls" and sharing this 
information with "the Company owners and the Terminal Manager." 
Whether the Beneficiary is a managerial employee turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained its 
burden of proving that their duties are "primarily" managerial. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Here, the Petitioner does not document what proportion of the Beneficiary's duties would be 
managerial functions and what proportion would be non-qualifying. The Petitioner I ists the 
Beneficiary's duties as including both managerial tasks and administrative or operational tasks but 
does not quantify the time he spends on these different duties. For this reason, we cannot determine 
whether the Beneficiary would primarily perform the duties of a manager. See IKEA US, Inc. v. U.S. 
Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the organization, the fact that he will 
manage or direct a portion of the business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification 
as a multinational manager within the meaning of section 101(a)(44){A) of the Act. The Beneficiary 
may exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of 
authority with respect to discretionary decision-making; however, the position description alone is 
insufficient to establish that his actual duties would be primarily managerial in nature. 
5 
B. Staffing and Function Manager 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
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 submitted an organizational chart reflecting that the Beneficiary, as comptroller, 
reported to the president and that he acted at a level within the organization equal to that of the terminal 
manager. Below the Beneficiary and the terminal manager, the chart reflected various managers, 
including "Northbound Dispatch," a customer service representative, "Southband Dispatch," a trailer 
mechanic, accountant manager, and a safety coordinator. These departments were shown to include 
various operational employees, such as drivers, an assistant mechanic, accountant assistant, a driver 
recruiter, and a safety assistant. The chart did not indicate that the Beneficiary directly supervised or 
oversaw any of these employees. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" al lows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. On appeal, the Petitioner exclusively asserts that 
the Beneficiary qualifies as a function manager. Therefore, since the Petitioner only contends that the 
Beneficiary qualifies as a function manager, we will not analysis whether he would qualify as a 
personnel 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. If a 
petitioner claims that a beneficiary will manage an essential function, it must clearly describe the 
duties to be performed in managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate 
that "(1) the function is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is 'essential,' i.e., core to the 
organization; (3) the beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the function; (4) the 
beneficiary will act at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function 
managed; and (5) the beneficiary will exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day 
operations." Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary manages an essential function of the organization; 
specifically, its "financial planning and analysis." The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's function 
is "critical for the organization in order to maintain and improve the service contracts and 
personnel, ... ensure that costs are managed, and [his] ability to oversee financial controls are essential 
for the company's sustainability and profitability." 
The Petitioner provided supporting documentation on the record leaving substantial uncertainty as to 
whether the Beneficiary acted, and would act, as a function manager, primarily relieved from 
performing non-qualifying operational tasks. For instance, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner 
submitted a support letter from its terminal manager stating that the Beneficiary "is in charge to 
supervise all administrative areas to be sure the proper functioning of the business be profitable." 
Again, similar to the Beneficiary's submitted duties, this support letter suggests that he acts in an 
advisory and operational role within the front office handling all manner of administrative matters 
within the business. In fact, the letter lists these operational tasks, such as the Beneficiary performing 
cost analysis, making projections, and sharing progress on "KPls;" and in turn, reporting this 
information to the terminal manager. Further, the Beneficiary's administrative role is also reflected 
6 
in provided supporting documentation. For instance, several documents dated near to the date the 
petition was filed2 list the Beneficiary as its "office manager" rather than comptroller, including a 
"monthly account holder agreement" from July 2018, two carrier agreements from September 2018, 
an "EFS OTR Business Account Application and Agreement" dated in September 2017, a "carrier 
profile" from June 2018, and a quote for staffing services dated in June 2018. Further, as we have 
discussed, the Beneficiary's duty descriptions include several non-qualifying operational tasks 
suggesting his wide engagement in performing a variety of administrative tasks within the Petitioner's 
front office, rather than his discretionary management of a specific function. In contrast, there is little 
supporting documentation on the record demonstrating the Beneficiary acting as the Petitioner's 
comptroller or reflecting his delegation of non-qualifying duties to others. 
As discussed by the Director, the evidence provided in this matter can be distinguished from the facts 
of Matter of G-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). In that matter, the Petitioner 
provided sufficient evidence to support that the beneficiary primarily developed and directed revenue 
forecasts and analysis for that petitioner's worldwide organization, led mergers and acquisitions, and 
oversaw strategic pricing analysis. In addition, that petitioner demonstrated with evidence that the 
beneficiary directed the work of various teams across its worldwide business units and that he oversaw 
a team processing and collecting financial data from delivery leads and global sales teams. In Matter 
of G-, the petitioner established that support staff relieved the beneficiary from performing day-to-day 
administrative and reporting tasks, allowing him to primarily manage his function rather than perform 
it himself. Id. at 5. 
However, in this matter, the Petitioner has provided little supporting documentation to substantiate 
that the Beneficiary is primarily relieved from performing non-qualifying operational tasks within its 
front office. In fact, as noted, the supporting documentation appears to indicate that the Beneficiary 
acts as its office manager and that he handles a wide variety of operational duties, such as cost-benefit 
analysis on capital investments and inventory, creating loading and unloading best practices and 
driving routes, auditing and analyzing how goods are packaged, trucked, and delivered, avoiding 
regulatory fines and penalties, monitoring and tracking operating costs, generating financial reports 
for executive and stockholder review, and analyzing and auditing bank transactions. However, the 
record includes no supporting evidence to corroborate that the Beneficiary is primarily overseeing and 
delegating these functions rather than performing them himself. This lack of supporting 
documentation is noteworthy as the Petitioner asserts the Beneficiary has been acting in his claimed 
role as a function manager with the Petitioner for approximately two years. As such, the Petitioner 
did not sufficiently establish that the Beneficiary would primarily manage a function, rather than 
perform it. Therefore, it has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary would be employed as a function 
manager. 
Lastly, the Petitioner has not clearly defined the Beneficiary's function, but only generically identifies 
it as "financial planning and analysis." The Beneficiary's duties and the supporting evidence reflect 
his involvement in a wide variety of administrative matters within the company's front office such as 
financial matters and analysis, dispatching, truck purchasing and leasing, regulatory and safety 
compliance, software, fuel pricing, insurance, amongst other tasks. As such, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently defined the Beneficiary's function and his discretionary authority. Indeed, the evidence 
2 The petition was filed on September 25, 2018. 
7 
indicates it is more likely that the Beneficiary is employed as an "office manager" supporting a wide 
range of administrative matters within the company, rather than managing a specific and clearly 
defined essential function. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary would be employed 
as a manager in the United States. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8