dismissed EB-1C Case: Paper Products

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V-I- INC. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 5, 2018 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a paper products export and import company. seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its president under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational 
executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(I )(C). 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l )(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to pem1anently transfer a 
qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in an executive 
capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director mischaracterized the proffered position despite the 
totality of the evidence demonstrating that the position is an executive position. 1 The Petitioner 
submits additional evidence and claims that it has established that the Beneficiary will primarily 
perform in an executive capacity. The Petitioner also refers to the previous five approved petitions it 
filed on behalf of the Beneficiary ~nd contends that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) has already determined that the Beneficiary is currently satisfying the four prongs of the 
definition of an executive. 
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 tiling 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. 
1 
The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary will perform duties primarily in a managerial capacity. Thus, we will 
restnct our analysis to the Beneficiary's claimed executive capacity. 
Matter of V-1- Inc. 
The Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, must include a statement from an authorized 
otlicial 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. § 204.5(j )(3 ). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's duties shows that he is 
primarily performing non-qualifying duties associated with marketing, sales, and sourcing of paper 
products. 
The Act defines the term "executive capacity"' as an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily directs the management of the organization or a major component or function 
thereof; 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)(B) ofthe Act: 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(44)(B). 
We will address both the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary"s intended duties as well as the 
Petitioner's staffing to determine whether the Petitioner has established this eligibility requirement. 
We note that when reviewing staffing levels as a factor in determining whether an individual is 
acting in a managerial or executive capacity. we must take into account the reasonable needs of the 
organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. ,)'ee 
section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
A. Duties 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of a beneficiary. we review a petitioner's 
description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). The definition of executive capacity has 
two parts. First, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary will perform certain high-level 
responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. 
July 30, 1991). Second, the petitioner must prove that the beneficiary will be primarily engaged in 
executive duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the petitioner's other 
employees. See. e.g., Family Inc. v. USCIS. 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006): Champion World, 
940 F.2d at 1533. 
The Petitioner initially described the Beneficiary's proposed duties in the United States without 
allocating his time amongst the various duties described. In response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a similar description indicating the Beneficiary would 
perform the following duties with the time allocated as follows (paraphrased): 
2 
Matter of V-1- Inc. 
• Manage the sourcing and procurement of pulp, paper, paper products, and other 
products from North America for the parent companies, their branch, subsidiary, and 
associate offices. This involves being in contact with the senior executives of [the 
Petitioner], and Managers, Executives of the foreign parent companies to know and 
understand their products and pricing requirements. Then to source and procure 
from North American companies which involves reaching out to Export Sales 
Managers/Executives of the manufacturing companies, paper mills, trading and 
stocking companies and sourcing and procuring from them - 15 percent; 
• Study, research, and analyze the US and international paper, paperboard. and paper 
products market information, pricing information by interacting with Executives. 
Managers of [the Petitioner's] customers, its parent companies and by studying 
industry intelligence reports and websites. This helps the Beneficiary source paper 
for exports at the right price and helps him provide correct US market report and 
pricing information to the management and Executives of the parent companies. 
This enables them to negotiate and purchase etTectively worldwide and sell to [the 
Petitioner] - 10 percent; 
• Update the parent companies on a regular basis, with offers of various products from 
all available sources and making those otTers viable tor the parent companies to buy 
- 8 percent; 
• Make financial decisions on behalf of the company, discussing company accounts 
with bank managers and discussing the company tinancials with its CPA - 2 percent; 
• Develop and strengthen business relationship with new and old customers/clients of 
[the Petitioner] by being in regular contact with the Executives and Managers of 
these companies via emaiL phone communications. and regular meetings. This 
involves sharing information and addressing concerns and questions - I 0 percent; 
• Market and sell imported paper, boards, and paper products to various paper 
merchants in the U.S. Research and identify the potential/prospective new 
customers (companies that can buy from [the Petitioner] and then reach out to their 
Purchasing Manager, Executive Vice Presidents, V.P. of Purchasing. President. 
Market [the Petitioner] and relevant products to be sold to the potential/prospective 
customers and work towards making them [the Petitioner's] customers. Decide the 
selling and pricing strategy for [the Petitioner] and accordingly communicate to the 
Executives and Managers of [its] customers on a regular basis. Respond to any 
questions concerns from the Executives, Managers of [the Petitioner's] customers 
via email/phone discussions - 30 percent; 
• Enhance [the Petitioner's] presence and its products, services by attending industry 
conferences, seminars. expos, and events - 2 percent; 
• Research and identify the potential/prospective suppliers and clients (manufacturing 
companies, paper mills. trading and stocking companies) for export business. 
Establish communication with these companies and their executives. Project [the 
Petitioner] and its parent companies and work towards developing business 
relationships with them - 8 percent; 
.
Matter of V-1- Inc. 
• Be in regular contact with the Executive and Managers of the third party logistics 
companies to ensure that [the Petitioner] has the best logistics services and lowest 
costs. Intervene and discuss with the Executives /Managers of these companies 
wherever [the Petitioner] co-worker has any major issue- 5 percent; and 
• Monitor, oversee, and guide the work of the customer service/administrative 
assistant. Address any concerns, questions the assistant has, occasionally explain the 
work to be done as per the requirements of customers and company management -
10 percent. 
The Petitioner submitted numerous email transmissions between the Beneficiary and other companies 
to demonstrate the Beneficiary's involvement in: discussions with the parent companies and North 
American suppliers: answering questions of potential clients/customers; corresponding with logistics 
companies; and setting up meetings and attending conferences. 
The Director correctly concluded that the majority of the Beneficiary's duties as described demonstrate 
that he directly markets and sells products impor1ed from the parent company's organization and 
procures products for the foreign entity's global organization to sell. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits the same job description with the same allocation of time as provided 
in response to the Director's RFE. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary is performing duties 
associated 
with the development of the North American market for the international petitioning 
organization . [n a later submitted supplement to the appeal, the Petitioner submits a different version of 
the Beneficiary 's duties which divides the Beneficiary's duties between importing and exporting duties 
and re-allocates the Beneficiary ' s time amongst the various duties. The Petitioner contends that this 
version of the Beneficiary ' s responsibilities includes "greater and more concrete detail.'' The Petitioner 
also attaches an opinion prepared by Ph.D., which is based on the Petitioner' s 
revised description ofthe Beneficiary's duties. 
Each of the position descriptions in the record shows that the Beneficiary is the individual analyzing 
market and pricing information and providing the resulting market reports to the Petitioner's related 
organizations. Additionally, the Beneficiary is the individual who interacts with the Petitioner's 
customers , otiers them pricing and terms, and identifies potential customers for the foreign entity's 
paper products. Further, the Beneficiary sources and procures products from North American 
companies to be exported to its related foreign organizations. He negotiates with supplier companies 
and identifies potential suppliers and clients tor the export business. 
The position described requires the Beneficiary to perform market research, to market and sell the 
foreign entity's products, and to identify new clients and maintain existing clients for the foreign 
entity's products. The description also shows that the Beneficiary performs the necessary research and 
market analysis to find products to export to the foreign entity. Marketing and selling products , as well 
as procuring product to be sold, are operational duties. The Beneficiary's purpose is not directing the 
marketing, selling, and procurement of product, rather he is the individual perfonning the routine 
day-to-day tasks necessary to perform these functions. The Petitioner 's descriptions of the 
4 
.
Matter of V-1- Inc. 
Beneficiary's duties and the allocations of his time to those duties demonstrate that the Beneficiary will 
primarily perform operational tasks, not executive duties as required. 
In an opinion letter, repeats the revised position description and concludes that the 
Beneficiary will be responsible for "managing the overall operations of the company" and for 
"managing the entire marketing and selling operations of [the Petitioner] and related companies." 
however, does not elaborate on how the Beneficiary will manage these functions. Rather, 
appears to rely on the Beneficiary's title of president in opining that the Beneficiary will 
be "functioning in an Executive position as President for [the Petitioner]:' However, the textbook or 
common understanding of business terms will not supersede the statutory definitions; the applicable 
definition of executive capacity is contained in the statute at sections 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
Although also repeats portions of the position description as falling within the 
parameters of each element of the definition of executive capacity, he offers no analysis of the duties 
or explanation on how he determined that the duties involved managing functions instead of 
performing them. 
We may, in our discretion, use as advisory opmwns statements fi·Otn universitH.:s, professional 
organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. However, where an 
opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to 
accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter l~{ Caron lnt 'l, 19 T&N Dec. 791 (Comm 'r 
1988). conclusion lacks a substantive foundation and analysis of the Beneficiary's 
duties; therefore, the opinion offered is of limited value. 
The fact that the Beneficiary will manage or direct a business does not necessarily establish 
eligibility for classification as a multinational manager or executive within the meaning of section 
10l(a)(44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility tor this classification requires that the duties of a 
position be "primarily" executive or managerial in nature . Sections 10 I (A)( 44)(A) and (B) of the 
Act. While 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 executive in 
nature. 
B. Staffing 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, we review the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed executive 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. 
The Petitioner notes that it employs only the Beneficiary and the customer service/administrative 
assistant. The Petitioner provides a description of the customer service/administrative assistant's 
duties, which include clerical duties relating to receiving purchase orders, coordinating with the 
Matter of V-1- Inc. 
logistic companies, ensuring deliveries, invoicing customers, and updating inventory reports for the 
Beneficiary. The Petitioner points out that it also contracts with two companies that provide 
warehousing, transloading, customs, freight, and logistic services, as well as three companies that 
provide trucking services. 2 In a letter submitted with the supplemental brief, the Petitioner discusses 
the support the Beneficiary receives in his day-to-day duties from other staff within the Petitioner's 
global organization. The Petitioner identities a busines~ development manager at one of the related 
foreign organizations (in India) who coordinates with the paper mills in Asia. This individual 
provides the Beneficiary with the milrs pricing and delivery terms and also works with the customer 
service/administrative assistant. The Petitioner identifies a second individual, an assistant operations 
manager (in Singapore), who arranges shipping and freight forwarding services and coordinates with 
the U.S. logistics companies for deliveries in the U.S. In the Petitioner's revised description of the 
Beneficiary's duties, the Petitioner notes that its customer's technical issues are resolved with the 
support of employees in Singapore. The Petitioner does not further expand on the Beneficiary's 
interactions with employees in the foreign organization. 
The duties of the Beneficiary's U.S. subordinate and the duties of the two foreign employees relate 
to clerical tasks and the logistics involved in shipping paper products to and from the United States. 
The duties described do not demonstrate that these individuals relieve the Beneficiary from 
performing the Petitioner's marketing and sales tasks, maintaining and developing customer 
relationships, and procuring products from third-party suppliers. Similarly the subcontracting 
logistics and transportation companies are not involved in the marketing, sales, and procurement of 
paper products. Moreover, it has not been shown that the Beneficiary would have authority to direct 
or supervise the employees of the third-party contractors. 3 The record does not include sufficient 
evidence to establish that the employees referenced and the third-party contractors relieve the 
Beneficiary from performing the non-qualifying duties involved in marketing, sales, and 
procurement of paper products. 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position 
within a complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the 
organization, and that person's authority to direct the organization. Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" and "establish 
the goals and policies" of that organization. Inherent to the definition. the organization must have a 
subordinate level of managerial employees for 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 
2 
The Petitioner's organizational chart also lists 17 customers under the Beneficiary's direction. Although the 
Beneficiary may interact with customers to sell or procure products, it is unreasonable to believe that he will direct, 
manage, or supervise these customers or that they will report to him for his direction. 
' The Petitioner also appears to allocate only live percent of the Beneficiary's time to overseeing and monitoring the 
logistics and transportation companies. 
6 
Matter of V-1- Inc. 
receive only "general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or 
stockholders of the organization."' !d. 
Here, the Beneficiary does not have a subordinate level of managerial employees to direct and he 
does not focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization, but rather the day-to-day 
marketing, sales, and procurement operations of the organization. In the Petitioner's descriptions of 
the Beneficiary's duties, the Petitioner repeatedly refers to the Beneficiary's interactions with 
executives and managers of its customers, suppliers, and the related companies within the 
organization. However, the Petitioner does not explain how interacting with other individuals with 
executive or managerial titles results in the Beneficiary's "executive capacity.'' The Petitioner does 
not support its conclusion that the Beneficiary's responsibility "for managing and directing two 
major components of the Petitioner" automatically requires a finding that the Beneficiary is an 
executive as that term is defined in the Act. The record, including the Petitioner's descriptions of 
duties and the numerous emails submitted showing the Beneficiary's marketing. sales, and 
procurement discussions, demonstrates the Beneficiary's routine performance of primarily 
non-qualifying duties. 
We have considered the reasonable needs of the organization in light of the overall purpose and 
stage of development of the organization, including related entities within the qualifying 
organization. To establish that the reasonable needs of the organization justify a beneficiary's job 
duties, a petitioner must specifically articulate why those needs are reasonable in light of its overall 
purpose and stage of development. The Petitioner is a seven-year-old company that employs the 
Beneficiary and a customer service/administrative assistant. The Petitioner also uses the services of 
third-party logistics and transportation services as well as two foreign employees who perform 
administrative and logistics coordination: however, the record does not include credible evidence 
establishing that the Petitioner could operate with the staff in place without the Beneficiary 
performing primarily non-qualifying duties. The Petitioner has not explained how the reasonable 
needs of the petitioning enterprise justify the Beneficiary's performance of non-executive duties. A 
petitioner's unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally will be insufficient to 
carry its burden of proof. See Matter (~l Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
Furthermore, the reasonable needs of the Petitioner will not supersede the requirement that the 
Beneficiary must be "primarily'' employed in a managerial or executive capacity, not spending the 
majority of his or her time on non-qualifying duties. See sections I 01 (a)( 44)(A) and (B) of the Act. 
In this matter, the record includes voluminous documentation showing the Beneficiary· s 
involvement in marketing and selling the global organization's products and procuring products for 
the global organization to re-sell. The Petitioner does not identify any individual or company that 
performs the duties required to obtain, market, and sell the global organization's products. The 
Petitioner does not discuss who performs the marketing and sales duties necessary to develop the 
North American market other than the Beneficiary. Although the Beneficiary does not perfom1 the 
administrative, clerical, and logistics tasks of moving the product from one place to another. the 
current record demonstrates that the Beneficiary performs the marketing and selling duties necessary 
to support the global organization's North American business activity. The record establishes that it 
Matter of V-1- Inc. 
is more likely than not that the Beneficiary performs the Petitioner's selling, marketing, and 
procurement operations. The Petitioner has not established that the proposed position is an 
executive position as defined by the Act; thus, the Petitioner has not overcome the Director's 
determination on this issue. 
Ill. PRIOR APPROVALS 
The Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary has been approved for L-1 A status in each of the five 
nonimmigrant petitions filed on his behalf. The Petitioner acknowledges that there are differences 
between eligibility for approval of an L-1A petition and the I-140C petition, but points out that the 
requirements for the two visa classifications are substantially similar. The Petitioner asserts that the 
similarity of requirements should render similar results. However, if the previous nonimmigrant 
petitions were approved based on the same evidence contained in the current immigrant petition 
record, the approvals would constitute error on the part of the Director. We are not required to 
approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of 
prior approvals that may have been erroneous. Matter of Church Scientolozy lnt L 19 I&N Dec. 
593, 597 (Comm 'r 1988). It would be unreasonable for USC IS or any agency to treat acknowledged 
errors as binding precedent. Sussex EnJ(g. Ltd v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 
1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. I 008 (1988). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the Petitioner. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofV-1- Inc., ID# 878902 (AAO Feb. 5, 2018) 
8