dismissed EB-1C Case: Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-A-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY22,2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer of tires and rubber products, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as a technical services manager under the first preference immigrant classification for 
multinational executives or managers. See 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 an executive or 
managerial capacity. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary is relieved from operational level duties by 
administrative support staff and that he qualifies based on his management of technical 
communication with Japanese original equipment manufacturers. 
Upon de novo 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 )(1 )(C) of the 
Act. 
The Form I-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 tiling 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. § 204.5(j)(3). 
Matter of B-A-, Inc. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The first issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary would 
act in a managerial capacity. 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 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(44)(A). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5) requires the Petitioner to submit a statement that clearly 
describes the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary. Beyond the required description of the job 
duties, we review the totality of the evidence when examining the claimed managerial capacity of a 
beneficiary, including the company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's 
subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing 
operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that will contribute to 
understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. Accordingly, our analysis of this 
issue will focus on the Beneficiary's duties as well as the company's business activities and staffing 
levels. 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities 
consistent with the statutory definitions of managerial capacity. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 
F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). In addition, 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); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner stated that it primarily produces "tires' for passenger cars, trucks, buses, and other 
wheeled vehicles ranging from .construction and mining vehicles to subway trains." The Petitioner 
indicated that the Beneficiary would act as a technical service manager tasked with overseeing and 
leading "all technical communication between [the Petitioner] and our Japanese Original Equipment 
("OE") manufacturing customers in support of engineering and technical negotiations." The 
Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary would also be responsible for "developing and managing 
the technical strategy to our OE customers," negotiating "complex customer issues," and developing 
management level relationships. It further stated that the Beneficiary "manages our tire testing and 
2 
Matter of B-A-, Inc. 
logistics, attends joint test sessions, and coordinates technical meetings in support of the tire standard 
approval process." It also indicated that the Beneficiary "is responsible for interpreting, clarifying, 
and recommending necessary engineering efforts to obtain full engineering approval of 0 E tires." 
The Petitioner submitted these same duties in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), 
despite the Director stating that the position description was vague and lacking "an explanation of 
the specific daily tasks" of the Beneficiary. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Beneficiary's duties were consistent with a 
"high level technical liaison" and not a manager. On appeal, the Petitioner again states that the 
Beneficiary is focused on "managing technical communication." The Petitioner also asserts that the 
Beneficiary is not performing this day-to-day technical communication, but overseeing 
communication performed by "bargaining representatives from its Original Equipment ("OE") 
manufacturing customers." Beyond this, the Petitioner largely reiterates the Beneficiary's 
previously asserted duties on appeal. 
The Petitioner has only provided a broad overview of the Beneficiary's general responsibilities and 
level of authority without identifYing the nature of his actual day-to-day tasks. The Petitioner 
provides vague statements regarding the Beneficiary's responsibilities, such as being tasked with 
overseeing communication between the Petitioner and OE manufacturing customers, "negotiating 
complex customer issues," and developing management-level relationships. However, the Petitioner 
does not detail what specific duties result from these responsibilities, such as what tasks would make 
up "overseeing communication," what complex customer issues he would negotiate and with whom, 
and what tasks he would undertake to "develop management level relationships." 
Likewise, the Petitioner vaguely states that the Beneficiary will manage tire testing logistics, attend 
joint test sessions, coordinate technical meetings in support of the tire standard approval process, and 
interpret and recommend "necessary engineering efforts to obtain full engineering approval of OE 
tires." Again, the Petitioner does not articulate the daily tasks that the Beneficiary would perform 
while managing tire testing logistics, attending joint test sessions, and coordinating technical 
meetings. This lack of detail and documentation is particularly noteworthy since U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) records indicate that the Beneficiary acted as an L-1 A 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee for approximately six months prior to the date of the petition. 
However, the Petitioner provided little detail or documentation regarding his actual daily tasks over 
these six months or customer issues he negotiated, relationships he developed, joint testing sessions he 
attended, or technical meetings he coordinated during this time. Conclusory assertions regarding the 
Beneficiary's employment capacity are not sufficient. Merely repeating the language of the statute 
or regulations does not satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. 
Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Assocs., Inc. v. 
Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
While the stated responsibilities suggest that the Beneficiary likely would have significant 
responsibilities, the provided description lacked meaningful information regarding what he would 
actually be doing as part of his day-to-day routine. Further, the Petitioner was afforded the 
3 
Matter of B-A -, Inc. 
opportunity to submit additional detail and ~upporting evidence, including a more detailed duty 
description, in response to the RFE and now on ap'peal, but declined to do so. A petitioner's 
unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally will be insufficient to carry its 
.burden of proof. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
To the extent that the Beneficiary provides detail regarding his daily tasks, these duties suggest 
typical engineering responsibilities, such as tire testing logistics, joint test sessions, technical 
meetings, and interpreting and recommending necessary engineering, rather than a manager 
overseeing personnel or a function. On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary does 
not perform operational level tasks himself, such as performing actual communications, but that he 
oversees communication between the Petitioner and its OE manufacturing customers who actually 
make phone calls, send emails, and send documents through mail. However, little evidence 
regarding the nature of these employees and customers and their communications was submitted 
which would allow an understanding of the Beneficiary's specific role, what he does on a daily basis 
in relation to these employees and customers, and how he is managing their communications. In 
sum, the Petitioner description of the Beneficiary's position is too vague to determine whether he is 
primarily focused on managerial level tasks rather than non-qualifying operational level duties. 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 capacity. See, e.g., sections 
IOI(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial 
or executive duties); Matter of Church Scientology Int 'I, 19 l&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm'r 1988). 
The fact that the Beneficiary will manage or direct business does not necessarily establish eligibility 
for classification as a multinational manager. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires 
that the duties of a position be "primarily" managerial in nature. Sections JOI(A)(44)(A) and (B) of 
the Act. Even though 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, 
the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that his actual duties would be primarily 
managerial in nature . 
. B. Staffing and Operations 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
capacity, the reasonable needs of the organization are taken into account in light of the overall 
purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section I 0 I (a)( 44 )(C) of the Act. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would have no subordinates in his proposed capacity in the 
United States, but that he would, as discussed, oversee and lead communication between the 
Petitioner and its Japanese OE manufacturing customers. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Beneficiary's Jack of subordinates left 
question as to who performed the day-to-day operational duties of his function. Based on this, the 
4 
Matter of B-A -, Inc. 
Director determined that the Beneficiary was primarily engaged in performing the function rather 
than managing it. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary is supported by two 
administrative employees who relieve him from non-qualifying tasks such as "translation, copying, 
mailing, answering phones, and other administrative tasks." Further, the Petitioner contends that the 
Beneficiary does not perform the duties of his function, namely "communication," but that this is 
performed "by the employees [of the Petitioner] and by its Japanese OE manufacturing customers." 
As we have noted, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary qualifies as a manager. The statutory 
definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function managers." 
See section I 0 I (a)( 44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to primarily 
supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. Since 
the Beneficiary was not offered a position as a personnel manager, he must qualify as a function 
manager to be eligible for classification as a multinational 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 IOI(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 "(!) 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." Mauer ofG- Inc., Adopted Decision 
2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
First, the Petitioner also has not properly described and documented the specific function the 
Beneficiary will manage. As discussed, the Beneficiary's duty description is vague and does not 
sufficiently detail the Beneficiary's day-to-day tasks. Without a sufficient description, it is difficult 
to properly understand the nature of the Beneficiary's function. For example, the Petitioner did not 
articulate the daily tasks that the Beneficiary would perform while managing tire testing logistics, 
attending joint test sessions, and coordinating technical· meetings. The Petitioner did not explain 
these logistics, test sessions, or technical meetings in detail; as such, the nature of the Beneficiary's 
function remains unclear. In addition, the Petitioner does not state why the Beneficiary's function is 
essential to the organization. Although the Petitioner generally makes reference to various Japanese 
automobile companies with which the Beneficiary would coordinate pursuant to managing 
"communication," it does not provide cogent reasons for why this function is essential to the ·' organization. 
Furthermore, although a function manager is not required to have subordinates, the Petitioner must 
establish that the Beneficiary is not primarily. engaged in performing the function. Again, the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how the Beneficiary would be relived from performing his 
asserted function. For instance, on appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary is 
supported by two administrative employees performing clerical duties. However, the evidence 
indicates that the Beneficiary's function does not only consist of clerical duties, but communication 
5 
Malter of B-A -, Inc. 
between the Petitioner and its Japanese OE manufacturing customers. Further, the Petitioner does 
not identify or substantiate the Beneficiary's asserted clerical staff or describe their duties in detail. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that the Beneficiary does not actually perform communication 
with customers, but that this is done by employees of the Petitioner and its Japanese OE 
manufacturing customers. However, given the Beneficiary's insufficient duties, we are not provided 
with an adequate picture of how he is delegating communication within his function to the 
Petitioner's and its customers' employees. Indeed, the Petitioner appears to suggest elsewhere on 
the record that the Beneficiary is performing this function stating in a support letter that the 
Beneficiary participates "face-to-face" in the joint testing of tires and discussion of technical issues 
with corporate customers. This discussion of the Beneficiary's role appears contrary to its assertion 
on appeal that the Beneficiary is only managing communication performed by the Petitioner's and its 
customers' employees. Further, the Petitioner does not describe or document its employees and their 
duties, or how the Beneficiary would direct their communications. 
It is also noteworthy that the Beneficiary's foreign duties are identical to his proposed duties in the 
United States. We note that his title abroad was technical liaison manager, compared to technical 
service manager in the United States. In short, it appt:ars likely that the Beneficiary would fulfill a 
nearly identical role in the United States as he did abroad. However, the Petitioner states that the 
Beneficiary is supported abroad by four technical liaison employees holding bachelor's degrees, 
while in contrast, he is supported by no professional-level employees in his proposed role in the 
United States. This only leaves further question as to whether the Beneficiary would primarily 
manage his function rather than perform it. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not clearly described the Beneficiary's duties or the function he would 
manage. The Petitioner has also not articulated the essential nature of the Beneficiary's proposed 
function, nor has it properly explained and documented how the Beneficiary would be primarily 
relieved from performing his function. As such, the Petitioner has also not established that the 
Beneficiary would act as a function manager. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in a managerial capacity. 
, III. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
Because we conclude that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would act in a 
managerial capacity in the United States, we need not address other issues evident in the record. 
That said, we will briefly identify an additional ground of ineligibility to inform the Petitioner that 
this issue should be addressed in future proceedings. 
The Petitioner has also not established that the Beneficiary acted in a managerial capacity with the 
foreign employer. As we have discussed, the Petitioner submits identical duties and similar position 
titles for the Beneficiary with respect to his role abroad and his proposed role in the United States. 
6 
Matter of B-A-, Inc. 
As we discussed in the previous section, the Beneficiary's stated duties in the United States are 
vague and do not properly convey his day-to-day tasks; as such, the same holds true for his identical 
foreign duties. Further, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary oversaw four technical liaison 
employees abroad holding bachelor's degrees. However, the Petitioner does not describe the duties 
of these employees, how the Beneficiary manages them, document their employment, or substantiate 
the existence and any details of their bachelor's degrees. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of B-A -, Inc., lD# 1222620 (AAO May 22, 20 18) 
7