dismissed EB-1C Case: Management Consulting

(b)(6)
DATE: 
NAR 1 9 2014 
OFFICE : TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE : Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immi gration Servio 
Administrativ e Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave . N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petiti on for Alien Worker as a Multination al Executive or Manager Pursuant 
to Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationalit y Act , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Encl ose d please find the decision of the Administrative App eals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agen cy policy through non-precedent decisions. If you beli eve the AAO incorrectly applied curr ent law 
or policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to 
recon side r or a motion to reopen, respectivel y. Any moti o n must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or 
Moti on (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B 
instructions at http: //www.uscis.gov /forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and 
other requirements. See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Tha 
Ron Rose nbe 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Virginia corporation engaged in "management, consulting, investment," and it 
seeks to employ the beneficiary as vice president. Accordingly , the petitioner endeavors to 
classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b )(l)(C) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1)(C), as a multinational 
executive or manager. 
The director denied the immigrant petition, finding: (1) the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary's employment abroad was within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and, 
(2) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary ' s proposed employment with the U.S. 
entity would be within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal , counsel for the petitioner states that 
that the "petitioner has submitted substantial 
documentation " establishing that the beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive capacity. 
Counsel asserts that the issue of whether the beneficiary was employed abroad for one year in a 
managerial or executive capacity was already resolved when the beneficiary obtained L-1A 
status. In addition, counsel states that the record establishes that the beneficiary has been 
"exclusively performing executjve duties in the petitioning entity since 2006 ." Counsel submits 
a brief and additional evidence in support of the appeal. 
I. THE 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 who seeks to enter the United 
States in order to continue to render services to the same employer 
or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is 
managerial or executive. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
The language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only 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 a petition on Form I-140 for classification of an alien under 
section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. No labor certification is 
required for this classification. 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 a statement must clearly describe the duties to 
be performed by the alien. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means 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. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which 
the employee primarily--
(b)(6)
Page 4 
(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. 
II. MANAGERIAL OF EXECUTIVE CAPACITY WITH THE FOREIGN COMPANY 
A. Facts 
The petitioner stated on the Form I-140 that the beneficiary was employed by the foreign 
company in the position of Director. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from the pre sident of the beneficiary's employer abroad that 
stated the duties performed by the beneficiary as Director were as follows: 
[The beneficiary] oversees and manages Accounts, Finance, Sales and Operations 
departments. [The beneficiary] has been a very successful management 
executive. He takes decisions on hiring as well as firing of the managers. He 
coordinates activities by scheduling work assignments, setting priorities, and 
directing the work of subordinates. He evaluates and verifies manager's 
performance through the review of completed work assignments and work 
techniques. He operates at a senior level. He directs and participates in the 
development, interpretation, evaluation, and recommendation of goals, policies, 
procedures, and rules for the effective operation of the company. He has broad 
authority in company's decision making process. He has complete authority over 
departmental managers. He receives only general supervision from the company 
president. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the beneficiary's employer abroad submitted a 
letter from the president, stating that it was a gas substation and "suppliers and distributors of 
gasoline and other automotive oils/lubricants." The president stated that the beneficiary's 
primary role fell into "five broad categories: Shape and develop departmental strategy and 
organization; Advise the companies Partners on strategic business development and key 
corporate planning issues that relate and impact the operations of the company; Lead managers 
to evaluate and take actions that are consistent with the company's overall strategy; and, set 
goals and policies tailored to each department." The president also stated that the beneficiary 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
"oversaw the work" of three managers: an Accounts Manager, a Logistics and Operations 
Manager, and a Sales Manager. 
The petitioner also submitted an organizational chart for the foreign company. The chart 
indicated a President who supervised three directors, one of which was the beneficiary's 
position. The beneficiary supervised three managers who each had one or two employees under 
their supervision 
The director sent a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), requesting a detailed job description of the 
beneficiary's specific tasks on a normal business day including the percentage of time spent on 
each task when employed by the foreign company. 
In response, the petitioner stated that although the foreign company is a gas station, it is not the 
same as operating a gas station in the U.S. The petitioner stated that "besides general day-to-day 
petroleum production distribution, we also supply gas, petrol and diesel to many smaller dealers, 
and at our location we had exclusive contracts with big distributors of many types of consumer 
products. " 
The petitioner also submitted a new description and percentage breakdown of the duties 
performed by the beneficiary with the foreign company as follows: 
[The beneficiary] oversaw and managed Accounts, Finance, Sales and Operations. 
He took 
decisions on hiring as well as firing of the managers. He coordinated 
activities by scheduling work assignments, setting priorities, and directing the 
work of subordinates. He evaluated and verified manager's performance through 
the review of completed work assignments and work techniques. He directed and 
participated in the development, interpretation, evaluation, and recommendation 
of goals, policies , procedures , and ruled for the effective operation of the 
company. He had broad authority in company 's decision making process. He 
had complete authority over managers. He received only general supervision 
from the company president. 
Daily Duties: 
Discuss sales, operations and accounting reports with manager to address any 
discrepancy when compared to projections and past history. (25%) 
Discuss any corrective actions in terms of delivery of petroleum or payment 
situations. (15%) 
Schedule work assignment of managers based on work shifts and staffing. 
Discuss priority items on tasks list for them . (15%) 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
Study the petroleum market and opportunities and pitfalls and plan any course of 
action and strategy as required. (20%) 
Plan and draft (new and changes to) company goals, policies and procedures. 
(10%) 
Communicate with management any critical issues and plan of action. (5%) 
Communicate with government agencies, local businesses, vendors, suppliers 
and/or dealers (10% ). 
In his decision, the director noted that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner 
states that the petitioner has submitted substantial documentation establishing that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive capacity. Counsel also states that this issue 
"was already resolved by the USCIS when his status was changed from B-2 to L-1A and he was 
granted his new L-1 A status." 
B. Analysis 
In general, when examining the executive or managerial capacity of a given position, USCIS 
reviews the totality of the record , starting first with the petitioner's description of the 
beneficiary's job duties. The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5G)(5) expressly states that the 
petitioner must provide a job offer that clearly describes the job duties the beneficiary would be 
required to perform. Additionally, the beneficiary 's job description will be considered in the 
context of other relevant information, including the qualifying entity's organizational hierarchy, 
the nature of the business operation, and the number of employees the entity has during relevant 
time periods. When considering the beneficiary 's former employment abroad, the focus is on the 
job duties the beneficiary performed for one year during the three years prior to his entrance to 
the United States to work for same employer or an affiliate, parent, or subsidiary of the 
beneficiary 's proposed employer in the United States. 
Due to the overly general information included in the percentage breakdown, the AAO is unable 
to gain a meaningful understanding of how much time the beneficiary spent performing 
qualifying tasks versus those that would be deemed non-qu alifying while employed by the 
foreign company. 
For instance, in describing the beneficiary's position with the foreign company, the petitioner 
stated that the beneficiary "oversees and manages Accounts, Finance, Sales and Operations 
departments; " "takes decisions on hiring as well as firing of the managers;" "coordinates 
activities by scheduling work assignments, setting priorities, and directing the work of 
subordinates;" "discu ss sales, operations and accounting reports with manager to address any 
discrepancy when compared to projections and past history; and, "discuss any corrective actions 
in terms of delivery of petroleum or payment situations." The beneficiary's position description 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
is too general and broad to establish that the preponderance of his duties were managerial or 
executive in nature. Reciting the beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business 
objectives is not sufficient; the regulations require a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily 
job duties. The petitioner has failed to provide sufficient detailsabout the beneficiary's activities 
in the course of his daily routine. 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) , affd, 905 
F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Furthermore, the job description includes several non-qualifying duties such as the beneficiary 
would "communicate with government agencies, 
local businesses, vendors, suppliers and/or 
dealers" and , "study the petroleum market and opportunities and pitfalls and plan any course of 
action and strategy as required." The petitioner did not state that the beneficiary would supervise 
subordinates that would handle the market research, and contract negotiations. It appears that the 
beneficiary is performing duties inherent in operating a business rather than supervising 
subordinate employees who perform these duties. An employee who "primarily" performs the 
tasks necessary to produce a product or provide a service is not considered to be "primarily" 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See sections 10l(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act 
(requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); see also 
Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I & N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm . 1988). 
In the present matter, the petitioner provided an extensive organizational chart of the foreign 
company. The chart indicated three directors, seven managers, and a large staff. It is not clear 
why a gas station would require so many directors and managers. The petitioner explained that 
this gas station is not like a gas station in the United States as it also supplies "gas, petrol and 
diesel to many smaller dealers , and at our location we had exclusive contracts with big 
distributors of many types of consumer products." However, the foreign company did not 
provide any contracts or information to explain the work the foreign company does above and 
beyond selling gas. In addition, the organizational chart does not indicate any cashiers or clerk 
positions for running the gas station. In addition, the petitioner did not provide any evidence that 
the positions listed on the organizational chart are actually employed by the foreign company , 
such as employee names, paystubs , payroll journal or tax returns . The petitioner has not 
provided sufficient evidence of the organizational structure of the foreign company and thus, it is 
impossible to determine if the beneficiary was employed in an executive capacity. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici , 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm 'r 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California , 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
The petitioner asserts on appeal that since USCIS approved an L-1A change of status petition 
that had been previously filed on behalf of the beneficiary , the issue of whether the beneficiary 
had been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity was already reviewed and 
accepted. The director's decision does not indicate whether he reviewed the prior approval of the 
other nonimmigrant petition. If the previous nonimmigrant petition was approved based on the 
same unsupported and contradictory assertions that are contained in the current record, the 
approval would constitute error on the part of the director. The AAO is not required to approve 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior 
approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matter of Church Scientology International, 
19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that USCIS or any agency 
must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 
F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship 
between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved 
the nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow 
the contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 
WL 282785 (E.D. La.), aff'd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
III. MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY IN THE UNITED STATES 
A. Facts 
The record shows that the petitioner filed the Form I -140, stating that the petitioner is engaged in 
"management consulting, investment," claiming 15 employees and a gross annual income of 
$623,352.00. The petitioner stated that the job offered to the beneficiary is vice president and 
the job duties include the "management of accounting, finance, sales, marketing, administration 
and operations department." 
In a letter of support, the petitioner explained that it has management contracts with four clients 
and "as per the consulting and management contracts we are in charge of selection, retention and 
supervision of employees , independent contractors and other professionals." The petitioner 
submitted four management agreements between the petitioner and separate companies whereby 
the petitioner will provide management and consulting services. 
The petitioner provided the following explanation of the duties to be performed by the 
beneficiary as vice president for the petitioner: 
1) Supervising a team of general managers who manage Finance, Marketing, and 
Operations & Administration and Information Technology departments. 
2) Complete managing the responsibilities of major operations in the United 
States which include the following: 
a) Supervising a team of top management personnel who manage the business 
operations of [the petitioner] in the United States. 
b) Providing key strategic management discretionary directives for the business 
operations to stay ahead in the business. 
c) Manage finance, accounts policies and marketing strategies. 
d) Set guidelines for accounting, financial and marketing management. 
3) Communicate company's financial status to top management and implement 
management recommendations regarding 
accounting and finance. 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
4) Makes hiring, discharging and promotion decisions for the Finance, 
Marketing, and Operations & Administration, and Information Technology 
Departments . 
The petitioner's organizational chart shows the beneficiary as vice president who in turn 
supervises a general manager of accounting and finance; a general manager of sales and 
marketing; a general manager of operations and administration; and, a general manager for 
information technology. Under the four managers, the other employees include a financial 
manager, accountant, bookkeeping clerk, sales and marketing manager, business development 
manager, sales/customer services staff, administrative assistant, human resources, administrative 
clerk, and network administrator. The petitioner also provided a brief job description for each 
position. The organizational chart does not indicate the names of the employees for each 
position. 
In response to the request for evidence, the petitiOner stated that the beneficiary 's 
executive/managerial duties are evident from following areas of responsibility: Human Resource 
Management Policy; Marketing Strategy ; Policy on Internal Controls, Financial Reporting, 
Document Retention and Auditing; Quality of Work Policy. The petitioner also provided 
additional duties to be performed by the beneficiary as follows: 
• Makes hiring , discharging and promotion decision for the Finance, Marketing, 
and operations & Administration, and Information Technology departments. 
• Provide direction for the company management regarding the staffing, 
customers, budget, company ' s assets and all other resources to make the best 
use of them and increase the company's profitability. 
• He will design, develop and implement the strategies which consist of setting 
up goals and policies for this company, in the most cost effective and time 
efficient manner. 
• He will have complete authority in making decisions. He plays authoritative 
leadership role for an organization and fulfills a motivational role for his 
management team and workers in addition to his more office-based word. He 
motivates and mentors members of the management team. Lead the company 
and develops the corporate culture for the organization. Received only 
general supervise from company's president. 
• Provide direction to general managers on managing every aspect of the 
business. 
• Ensuring that the Business is properly licensed and registered with the 
appropriate local, State and Federal authorities 
• Creation of corporate objectives and company policies for operations. 
• Formulating and implementing the company ' s marketing plans and 
advertising strategies including promotion of the businesses to the 
surrounding area. 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
• Develops financial and business operating plans and capital expenditure plans 
that are consistent with the overall strategic positioning of the businesses and 
contributes ideas for growth and expansion. 
• Monitors hotel and motel operations to determine proper strategies with 
regards to: pricing, quality, marketing, price/value perceptions, customer 
satisfaction and employee training and development. 
• Assists with the development of quality control procedures and ensures 
procedures are followed. 
• Monitors direct report managers ' performance standards and provides 
counseling and training to enhance performance. 
• Following up and maintaining operation and labor cost control methods and 
procedures and meeting the attendance guidelines and adheres to regulatory , 
departmental and company policies. 
• Recruit and hire Management to staff hotel and motel position with "A" 
players , as well as to maintain a bench for future growth. Day-to-day direct 
supervision of the general managers and indirect supervision of all other staff; 
decision marking authority over daily problems brought to him by managers. 
• Review and analyze financial statements and the financial corporate 
documents in order to stay informed of the company's financial situation and 
progress status. 
• Research, identify, and examine other potential business opportunities for 
acquisition and mergers in order to expand the business. 
In response to the director 's request for evidence, the petitioner again stated that the petitioner 
provides management services for five companies that ow The petitioner also provided 
Forms W-2 for 2008 for all 57 employees. Most of the employees were paid less than $7000.00 
for the entire year and several were even paid less than $1000.00. 
The director sent a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) and noted that although the petitioner stated 
that it has entered into five agreements with companies to provide management services, all of 
the documentation submitted by the petitioner related to only one establishment, a 
located in Virginia. In a response letter to the NOID, the petitioner stated that 
the "management contracts we entered into with the above listed entities , were agreed to, but 
never fulfilled." The petitioner explained that it owns a Virginia and 
in 2008 it "took over operations and began leasing" two other and 
Virginia. The petitioner also stated the following: 
Both of the above listed hotels, although not owned by [the petitioner], report full 
revenue and incur all expenses for operations at these locations. [The petitioner] 
pays a monthly lease to each owner of those properties, and then handles all 
aspects of business operations. Once we undertook those significant 
responsibilities of running all 3 we were unable to fulfill our 
commitments to the other companies. The Business Tax Returns for [the 
petitioner] reflect the increase in revenue when these companies were taken over. 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
The petitioner also provided two documents entitled, "Commercial Lease Agreement. " The first 
agreement wa:s made on January 1, 2008 between (Landlord) and 
the petitioner (tenant). The agreement states that the leased premise is a ' located 
at The term of the lease is from January 1, 
2008 until December 31, 2008. The second commercial lease agreement is between 
_ (landlord) and the petitioner (tenant). The leased premise is a ' 
located at The term of the lease is from April 
15, 2008 until April 14, 2009. Both leases are signed by the same landlord, 
-~------' 
The NOID also noted that "a review of the 2009 and 2009 W-2s show that the beneficiary is the 
only member of the staff that is being paid full-time wages." The petitioner did not respond to 
this issue. 
The director denied the petitiOn, finding that the pet1t10ner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary's proposed employment with the U.S. entity would be within a qualifying managerial 
or executive capacity. On appeal , counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner provided 
sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary has been employed in an executive capacity. 
Counsel also states that the "petitioner's 2008 tax return showed gross revenue of $1,560,228 , 
with a payroll of$265,018, under the executive leadership of the beneficiary ." 
On appeal, the petitioner provided addition al explanation of the duties to be performed by the 
beneficiary as follows: 
Profit Management Department 
• Meets or exceeds budgeted for the hotel. 
• Prepares departmental budget that correctly reflects 
the hotel's business plan. 
• Forecasts occupancy fluctuations and directs selling activities to maximize 
revenues. 
• Knows the hotel's demand segments , sources of business for each, and balances 
market segments according to supply and demand. 
• Knows the principal competition for each market segment and takes advantage of 
hotel's strengths against each competitor. 
• Accurately forecasts occupancy changes 
based on changing market conditions 
(additions to supply and demand, etc.) 
General Services Department 
• Supports guest service as the hotel's driving philosophy. 
• Personally demonstrate s a commitment to guest service by responding to guests' 
needs. 
Marketing and Sales Department 
• Develops /assists with development of the hotel ' s marketing and sales plan based 
on the hotel's position and strengths within each market segment. 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
• Implements hotel's marketing and sales plan. 
• Analyzes and understands the competition ' s strengths and weaknesses for each 
market segment and successfully directs marketing activities against each. 
• Identifies and maintains constant communications with the hotel's key accounts. 
• Actively sells room nights through outside sale calls, telemarketing, tours, etc. 
• Actively sells to in-house guests (greeting tours, talking with guests at continental 
breakfast to surface additional leads, etc.). 
• Knows the competition well. In addition , is familiar with all "business" in the 
market, where that "business" stays and why. 
• Uses the resources available in the Brand manual to surface, call on, and track 
potential business. 
B. Analysis 
In the present matter, an analysis of the record does not lead to affirmative conclusion that the 
beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity. 
With regard to the positiOn in the U.S., the petitiOner provided a vague and general job 
description such as the beneficiary will be responsible for "supervising a team of general 
managers who manage Finance , Marketing, and Operations & Administration and Information 
Technology departments;" "providing key strategic management discretionary directives for the 
business operations to stay ahead in the business;" "manage finance, accounts policies and 
marketing strategies; " "set guidelines for accounting, financial and marketing management ;" 
and, "makes hiring, discharging and promotion decisions for the Finance, Marketing, and 
Operations & Administration, and Information Technology Depm1ments." It is unclear which 
specific tasks actually fall within these broad categories and whether the supervisory tasks the 
beneficiary performed were of a qualifying nature. Reciting the beneficiary's vague job 
responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the regulations require a 
detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. The petitioner has failed to provide any 
details about the beneficiary's daily activities. 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), ajfd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The petitioner's vague and general description of the 
beneficiary's position does not identify the actual duties performed , such that they could be 
classified as managerial or executive in nature. 
In addition , the petitioner stated that it will provide management services to four clients as 
evidenced by agreements provided with the initial petition. In response to the RFE, the 
petitioner continued to state that it would provide services to the companies listed in the 
agreements. Only in response to the director ' s NOID, did the petitioner state that the 
"management contracts we entered into with the above listed entities , were agreed to, but never 
fulfilled." The petitioner also explained that it could not fulfill the contracts submitted with the 
petition because the petitioner entered into an agreement to lease three and 
handle the management services of the three motels. The petitioner also submitted two lease 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
agreements indicating that the petitioner is the new tenant of two The leases are 
signed in 2008 when the current petition was filed; thus, it is not clear why the petitioner failed 
to mention this change in business operations earlier and waited till the response to the NOID. 
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 ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
Furthermore, the lease agreements signed by the petitioner are for leases that end on December 
31, 2008 and April 14, 2009. There is no evidence that the petitioner renewed these leases and 
continues to rent the Virginia. In addition , the 
petitioner did not provide any agreement to provide management services to the two motels. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
In addition, the petitioner's organizational chart does not reflect an organizational structure of a 
company that manages motels. The chart indicates a vice president who in turn supervises a 
general manager of accounting and finance; a general manager of sales and marketing; a general 
manager of operations and administration; and, a general manager for information technology. 
The general managers supervise other employees including a financial manager , an accountant, a 
bookkeeping clerk, a sales and marketing manager, a business development manager, 
sales/customer services staff, an administrative assistant, a human resources assistant, an 
administrative clerk, and a network administrator. The chart does not indicate any positions that 
are typical of a motel operation such as housecleaning, maintenance, front office manager, front 
office staff, and reservations staff. Furthermore, upon review of the Forms W -2 for the 
petitioner's employees in 2008, most of the employees received salaries of less than $7,000.00 
for the year, and several received less than $500.00. It is unclear what positions were held by 
these employees. The petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence of the organizational 
structure of the company and thus, it is impossible to determine if the beneficiary was employed 
in an executive capacity. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Ibid. 
As discussed above, the petitioner has not identified employees within the petitioner's 
organization, subordinate to the beneficiary, who would relieve the beneficiary from performing 
routine duties inherent to operating the business. An employee who "primarily" performs the 
tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be "primarily" 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act 
(requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); see also 
Matter of Church Scientology Intn 'l., 19 I&N at 604. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec . at 165. 
In summary, the petitioner has failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the 
beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity; and therefore, the instant petition cannot be approved. 
(b)(6)
Page 14 
V. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed 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, that burden has not 
been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.