dismissed EB-1C Case: Parking Management

MATTER OF V-P- USA CORP. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 18,2015 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a parking management and valet parking company, seeks to classify the beneficiary as 
an immigrant multinational manager or executive. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 
203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(l)(C). The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The 
Petitioner filed an appeal, which we initially rejected as improperly filed. We have reopened the 
matter sua sponte in order to consider the merits of the Petitioner's appeal. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(5)(ii). The appeal will be dismissed. 
The Petitioner states that it is an affiliate of the Beneficiary's prior employer located in Mexico. It 
seeks to employ the Beneficiary as its President and CEO. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish: (1) that it will 
employ the Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and (2) that the foreign 
entity employed the Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
The Petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did 
not consider the fact that the Beneficiary is the chief executive and majority owner of both the 
Petitioner and its Mexican affiliate and overlooked substantial evidence which establishes his 
executive and managerial role with both companies. 
I. THELAW 
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 
Matter of V-P- USA Corp. 
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. 
The language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only those executives or managers 
who have previously worked for the firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or 
subsidiary of that entity, and are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its 
affiliate or subsidiary. 
Additionally, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i) state that the petitioner must provide the 
following evidence in support of the petition in order to establish eligibility: 
(A) If the alien is outside the United States, in the three years immediately 
preceding the filing of the petition the alien has been employed outside the 
United States for at least one year in a managerial or executive capacity by a 
firm or corporation, or other legal entity, or by an affiliate or subsidiary of 
such a firm or corporation or other legal entity; or 
(B) If the alien is already in the United States working for the same employer or a 
subsidiary or affiliate of the firm or corporation, or other legal entity by which 
the alien was employed overseas, in the three years preceding entry as a 
nonimmigrant, the alien was employed by the entity abroad for at least one 
year in a managerial or executive capacity; 
(C) The prospective employer in the United States is the same employer or a 
subsidiary or affiliate of the firm or corporation or other legal entity by which 
the alien was employed overseas; and 
(D) The prospective United States employer has been doing business for at least 
one year. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" 
as 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; 
2 
Matter of V-P- USA Corp. 
(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), defines the term "executive capacity" 
as an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(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. 
Finally, if staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a 
managerial or executive capacity, USCIS must take into account the reasonable needs of the 
organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. Section 
101(a)(44)(C) ofthe Act. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT 
The first issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
A. Facts 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-140 on February 26, 2010. It described its business as "Parking 
management, valet parking, vending" and stated that it has 17 employees and gross annual income of 
$400,000. 
The Petitioner submitted a signed ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment 
Certification which described the Beneficiary's proposed duties as follows: "As President/CEO he 
runs the US Company with oeverall [sic] responsibility for its operation and success. Coordinates 
human resources and financial resources. Negotiates and bids on parking management services." 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of V-P- USA Corp. 
The Petitioner provided an organizational chart which depicted a total of 15 employees and 
contractors working under the Beneficiary in the United States. The employees and contractors 
identified by name included a secretary, two accountants, two attorneys, an operations manager and 
four parking lot attendants. The chart also lists a valet special event supervisor, and other valet 
special event staff including an attendant, a part-time attendant, a golf cart shuttle driver and a 
watchman. None of these workers were identified by name. 
The Petitioner's initial evidence included the following documentation: copies of its IRS Form 
1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, for the years 2006 through 2008; copies of its IRS Form 
941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, for all four quarters of 2008 and the first two 
quarters of 2009; and advertising materials and invoices related to its valet parking services. The 
Petitioner also submitted a copy of its lease agreement with for a 
parking lot known as ' " which had a term of January 1, 2009 through 
December 31, 2009. The most recent Form 941 submitted showed that the Petitioner paid $16,166 
in salaries and wages to six employees during the second quarter of2009. 
The Director issued a notice of intent to deny (NOID) the petition on September 2, 2010, advising 
the Petitioner, in part, that the initial evidence did not establish that it would employ the Beneficiary 
in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. The Director advised that the Petitioner did not 
sufficiently describe the Beneficiary's day-to-day duties, the amount of time he will allocate to 
specific tasks, or the number and types of employees he will supervise. The Director requested a 
current organizational chart and evidence of wages paid to employees listed on the chart. 
In response, the Petitioner provided the following description of the Beneficiary's "daily duties": 
• Overseen [sic] daily operations, interact with manager(s) I Supervisor(s) 
• Making certain that daily reports' information is current and accurate 
• Assuring monies are been [sic] deposited and recorded correctly 
• Be on standby ready to solve an unexpected situation 
• Visit the places of service 
• Interact with customers "Customer Service-Care Program" 
• Revise the correct operational function of the Equipment 
• On-Line banking (monitor transactions: Checks, deposits etc) 
• Promote the business (word of mouth in the community) 
• Purchase on line/on site working supplies (when needed) 
The following are done immediately as soon as they arise or when due dates are up: 
• Leadership, goal and strategic planning 
• Administrative, Financial, Marketing, Sales, Accounting and Legal Strategies 
• Business development growth and productivity strategies 
• Commercial relationships 
• Local and foreign operations 
4 
Matter of V-P- USA Corp. 
• Safety policies and procedures 
• Commercial Relation with service providers such as Insurance Agent 
• Resources management 
• Annual budget 
• Review and approval of financial and accounting statements 
• Evaluation and performance of officers and staff 
• Public affairs, relationships with local chambers of commerce, service and charity 
organizations ... 
• Network with governmental agencies and private entities 
• Preside board meetings 
• Development and approval of Company Policies 
• Negotiation of contracts and agreements 
• Business presentation for new opportunities 
• Review and approve daily and monthly reports 
• Oversee employees' welfare, working conditions 
• Purchasing of working and capital equipment 
• Customer service and development at the executive level with other business executives 
or owners 
The Petitioner approximated that the Beneficiary allocates his time as follows on an annual basis: 50 
percent to business development, growth and operations; 15 percent to development of projects; 10 
percent to strategic planning (financing/marketing); 10 percent to customer relationships; 10 percent 
to "Administrative/Management/Reports" and 5 percent to "Others/unexpected." The Petitioner 
explained that the position does not have a set schedule, as "the work has to be done and delivered 
with the highest quality and on time, regardless of any circumstance." 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary, as of September 2010, was supervising "20+" internal 
employees, including an operations manager and cashiers based at the company's paid parking lot 
and an operations supervisor and operators responsible for valet parking events. 
The Petitioner also provided a new organizational chart showing essentially the same structure 
depicted on the previous chart. The company's accountant, attorney and legal counsel are depicted 
as external service providers, and the Petitioner explained that the company secretary "recently 
received her working card" and will be assigned work "as needed." The chart shows a parking 
operations manager and a valet special events supervisor who report to the Beneficiary. According 
to the chart, there are four parking lot attendants who are each paid $15,000 to $16,500 annually, the 
parking operations manager is paid $16,500 to $18,000 annually, the valet special events supervisor 
is paid $25 per hour, and the other valet special event staff are paid $8.00 per hour. The Petitioner 
again did not provide the names of the subordinate valet special events staff. The Petitioner 
provided a description of duties for its external advisors (accountant, attorney, immigration counsel), 
and for its parking operations and valet operations staff. 
The Petitioner's response to the NOID including copies of its IRS Forms 941 for the last two 
quarters of2009 and the first two quarters of2010, along with its Texas Quarterly Wage Report for 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of V-P- USA Corp. 
the same time periods . During this time, the number of employees paid in any given month ranged 
from five employees in August and September 2009 to 20 employees in February 2010, the month in 
which the petition was filed. The Petitioner had nine employees in January 2010, the month before 
the petition was filed, and six employees at the end of the second quarter of2010. The Petitioner did 
not submit evidence in support of its claim that the Beneficiary supervised "20+" employees in 
September 2010. 
The Petitioner also provided its payroll summary for the period June 1, 2009 through September 11 , 
2010. During this time, it paid a total of $105,728 to 39 individuals . Of these, 20 individuals were 
paid a total of between $40 and $200 as "commission." During the first quarter of 2010, the 
Petitioner paid a total of 23 employees. Of these, nine individuals earned $40.00 and were not 
identified on either organizational chart. It paid an additional six individuals between approximately 
$300 and $600, and none of these individuals were listed on either organizational chart. The 
Petitioner paid the following wages to employees identified by name on its initial organizational 
chart during the first quarter of 2010: 
• (operations manager)- $3,870 
• (parking lot attendant) - $3,694 
• (parking lot attendant)- $3,531 
• (parking lot attendant) - $2,291 
• (parking lot attendant)- $2,362 
• The Beneficiary - $3,000 
Finally, the Petitioner paid $585 to the individual identified in its subsequent chart as the Valet 
Special Events Supervisor during the first quarter of 201 0. The payroll summary shows that he 
earns $7.25 per hour (not $25.00 per hour as stated on the organizational chart) and worked a total of 
424 hours between June 2009 and September 2010. 
The Director denied 
the petition on August 29, 2012, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish 
that the Beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. In denying 
the petition, the Director observed that the Petitioner did not establish that it has a support staff to 
assist the Beneficiary with many of the day-to-day operations ofthe business, such as administrative , 
financial, customer service, sales and marketing, purchasing and other functions. The Director 
found that the Beneficiary would perform non-managerial duties associated with these areas of the 
business. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Director "failed to consider that the applicant is the 
chief executive and majority owner" of the U.S. Company, and contends that it was "illogical " for 
the Director to conclude that the Beneficiary would allocate more than half of his time to non­
executive duties. The Petitioner further asserts that it is not possible to assign meaningful 
percentages to the Beneficiary's specific duties "without an impractical and immediately obsolete 
time and motion study or making stuff up." 
6 
Matter of V-P- USA Corp. 
Nevertheless, in support of the appeal the Beneficiary provides a position description indicating that 
he allocates 50 percent of his time to company development and growth, 20 percent of his time to 
administrative activities; 10 percent of his time to company performance, 5 percent of his time to 
off-site project support, 5 percent of his time to "other" duties, and 10 percent of his time to duties 
"not described specifically." The Beneficiary lists his duties under each area of responsibility. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review, and for the reasons discussed herein, the Petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary will be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
When determining whether a beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity, we 
look first to the petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5G)(5). 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 either in an executive or managerial capacity. !d. A detailed job 
description is crucial, as the duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the beneficiary's 
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). We will then consider this information in light of other relevant factors, 
including (but not limited to) job descriptions of the beneficiary's subordinate employees, the nature 
of the business conducted, and any other facts that may contribute to a comprehensive understanding 
of the beneficiary's actual duties and role in a petitioner's organizational hierarchy. 
Here, the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary is the senior employee of the company and 
spends part of his time performing qualifying managerial or executive duties in his role as CEO with 
responsibility for the overall operation of the company. However, the definitions of executive and 
managerial capacity have two parts. First, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary performs the 
high level responsibilities that are specified in the definitions. Second, the petitioner must establish 
that the beneficiary primarily performs these specified responsibilities and does not spend a majority 
of his or her time on day-to-day functions. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 
1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). 
Therefore, the fact that a beneficiary manages or directs 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 for this classification requires that the duties of a 
position be "primarily" of an executive or managerial nature. Sections 101 (A)( 44 )(A) and (B) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(44). While the Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the petitioner's 
day-to-day operations and possesses the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary 
decision-making, the Petitioner has not submitted a complete and detailed position description 
sufficient to establish that his actual duties, as of the date of filing, would be primarily managerial or 
executive in nature. 
The Beneficiary's duties, as stated in the record, include a combination of qualifying, non-qualifying 
and poorly defined tasks that, taken together, do not establish that he performs primarily managerial 
or executive duties. For example, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary is responsible for on-line 
banking, purchasing equipment and supplies, making business presentations for new opportunities, 
7 
Matter ofV-P- USA Corp. 
customer service and relationships, procuring equipment and personnel for guests at special events, 
visiting places of service, and being on standby ready to solve problems as they arise. The 
Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary allocates 15 percent of his time to development of projects 
and the supporting documentation submitted shows that he is responsible for designing and 
presenting all proposals for potential customers, including feasibility and case studies, logistics 
plans, layouts, routes and safety controls. The Beneficiary's duty description also includes vague 
responsibilities such as "Business Development, growth and productivity," that are too broad to 
categorize as managerial or executive in nature. The Petitioner has not established how any of these 
duties qualifying as managerial or executive under the statutory definitions and does not clearly 
show how much of his time is allocated to qualifying duties and how much of his time is spent 
performing associated with the design, sale and marketing of the company's marketing services, 
customer communications, purchasing, on-site supervision of parking services, and day-to-day 
problem-solving and administrative tasks. 
Based on the statements provided in the record, we are unable to determine whether the claimed 
managerial and executive duties constitute the Beneficiary's primary duties, or whether the 
Beneficiary primarily performs non-managerial administrative or operational duties. Although 
specifically requested by the director, the Petitioner's descriptions of the Beneficiary's job duties 
does not sufficiently establish what proportion of the beneficiary's duties is managerial or executive 
in nature, and what proportion is actually non-managerial. See Republic ofTranskei v. INS, 923 P.2d 
175, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1991). 
As noted, beyond the required description of the job duties, we review the totality of the record when 
examining a beneficiary's claimed managerial or executive capacity, including such factors as the 
petitioner'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 petitioner's business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding the 
beneficiary's role and actual responsibilities. 
Here, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary's duties include supervision of a subordinate 
parking operations manager and a valet special event supervisor. The statutory definition of 
"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function managers." See section 
101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii). Personnel managers are 
required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees. Contrary to the common understanding of the word "manager," the statute 
plainly states that 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 )(A)(iv) of the Act; 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(B)(2). If a beneficiary 
directly supervises other employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire 
those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.P.R. § 
214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner has documented its regular employment of only one of the Beneficiary's claimed 
subordinates at the time of filing, specifically, the parking operations manager. The evidence of 
record is sufficient to show that this employee more likely than not acts as a first-line supervisor to 
8 
Matter of V-P- USA Corp. 
parking lot attendants/cashiers and shows regular payments to employees of its paid parking lot. 
However, the Petitioner has not corroborated its claim that it employs the claimed valet parking 
supervisor at the stated rate of $25.00 per hour or that it is paying any employees at this rate. 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 o.fTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
The Petitioner's payroll evidence suggests that it pays valet parking staff on a per event basis and 
has variable needs for these employees, but it does not support its assertions that it has a dedicated 
supervisor who works at all valet parking events. Accordingly, the evidence of record is sufficient to 
show that the Beneficiary supervises one subordinate supervisor and works with an external 
accountant and attorney. While the Beneficiary allocates some portion of his time to qualifying 
supervisory duties, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary is primarily managing a 
subordinate staff of supervisor, managers or professionals. Accordingly, the record does not 
establish that the Beneficiary qualifies for the benefit sought as a personnel manager. 
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 101(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B). 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 the beneficiary to direct 
and the beneficiary 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. The beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in 
discretionary decision making" and receive only "general supervision or direction from higher level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization." Id. 
Here, the Petitioner emphasizes that Beneficiary's role as CEO as evidence of his performance of 
qualifying executive duties. As discussed, the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's duties, 
considered within the totality of the evidence, does not support a finding that the Beneficiary 
primarily focuses on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than on its day-to-day 
operations. 
A company's size alone, without taking into account the reasonable needs of the organization, may 
not be the determining factor in denying a visa to a multinational manager or executive. See § 
101(a)(44)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(C). However, it is appropriate for USCIS to 
consider the size of the petitioning company in conjunction with other relevant factors, such as a 
company's small personnel size, the absence of employees who would perform the non-managerial 
or non-executive operations of the company, or a "shell company" that does not conduct business in 
a regular and continuous manner. See, e.g. Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 2006); 
Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
9 
-----~-------------------------------------
Matter ofV-P- USA Corp. 
The Petitioner claimed to have 17 employees at the time of filing and "20+" employees at the time it 
responded to the NOID; however, a review of its payroll records and quarterly reports shows that 
many of its employees are intermittent, hired on a per-event basis, and earn minimal wages. The 
record supports a finding that the Petitioner maintains a dedicated staff of one manager and several 
attendants for its paid parking garage only. The evidence also shows that the Petitioner hires hourly 
or commissioned staff for its valet parking projects and events. However, the Petitioner has not 
established that it employs anyone to design, market and sell its valet parking and event services, to 
customers, perform day-to-day administrative matters and customer communications associated with 
these services, or supervise these parking projects. Further, the Petitioner's description of the 
Beneficiary's duties, and supporting evidence such as project proposals, contracts and 
correspondence, show that the Beneficiary himself is performing these non-managerial and non­
executive duties. 
Here, given the overly broad breakdown of the Beneficiary's duties, the prevalence of non­
qualifying duties in his position description, and the lack of subordinate staff to perform many 
essential day-to-day functions of the company, the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance 
of the evidence that the Beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
III. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT 
The remaining issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary was 
employed by its Mexican affiliate in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity for one year in 
the three years preceding his admission to the United States. 
A. Facts 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner stated that the foreign entity also operates a paid parking lot and 
valet parking business, but it did not provide a description of the duties the Beneficiary performed 
for the foreign entity prior to his admission to the United States. 
The Petitioner provided a current organizational chart for the foreign entity, as well as un-translated 
payroll tax records from 2009. The organizational chart shows that the foreign entity employs a 
general director, administrative manager, operations manager, sales manager, and a secretary, as 
well as parking lot and valet supervisors, two valet parking attendants, four parking lot attendants, 
and a car wash employee. The Petitioner also provided the foreign entity's un-translated wage and 
tax records for July through September 2009 which appear to show that the company had 20 to 
twenty-two employees during this time. 
The Beneficiary stated on his concurrently filed Form G-325A, Biographic Information that he has 
resided at the same address in Texas since October 2002. USCIS records show that he was initially 
approved for L-IA status in September 2003 and had been maintaining this status for over six years 
when the petition was filed. The Beneficiary indicated on the Form G-325A signed in October 2009 
that he had worked for the Mexican affiliate from July 1998 until the present time. 
10 
----------------------------
Matter of V-P- USA Corp. 
In the NOID, the Director advised that Petitioner that it did not submit a description of the 
Beneficiary's daily duties and the amount of time he spent on specific tasks, his dates of 
employment, or information regarding the number and types of employees he supervised. 
In response, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's daily duties while employed by the foreign 
entity included the following: 
• Leadership, goal and strategic planning 
• Administrative, Financial, Marketing, Sales, Accounting and Legal Strategies 
• Business development, growth and productivity strategies 
• Commercial relationships 
• Local and foreign operations 
• Safety policies and procedures 
• Employee relations 
• Resources management 
• Annual budget 
• Review and approval of financial and accounting statements 
• Evaluation and performance of officers and staff 
• Public affairs, relationships with local chambers of commerce .... 
• Network with governmental agencies and private entities 
• Preside board meetings 
• Development and approval of Company Policies 
• Negotiation of contracts and agreements 
• Business presentations for new opportunities 
• Review and approve daily and monthly reports 
• Oversee employees' welfare, working conditions 
• Purchasing of working and capital equipment 
• Customer service and development at the executive level with other (Business 
executives and owners) 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary supervised "200+/-" employees, including a general 
director, a "manager (administrative, operations & HR)" supervisors for on-site parking lots and 
valet service, as well as cashiers, drivers and watchmen. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
has been employed by the foreign entity since 1984 and that he allocated 50 percent of his time to 
the company's development and growth, 20 percent of his time to administrative duties, 1 0 percent 
ofhis time to company performance, 10 percent of his time to customer relationships, five percent of 
his time on off-site project support and five percent of his time to other, unspecified duties. 
The petitioner also submitted a slightly revised organizational chart showing the current structure of 
the Mexican entity. The chart depicts the general director, administration manager, secretary­
assistant, parking lot and valet parking supervisors, parking lot attendants and valet parking 
attendant and watchman. 
11 
(b)(6)
Matter ofV-P- USA Corp. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that the foreign 
entity employed the Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. In denying the 
petition, the Director found that the Petitioner did not provide specifics regarding what the 
Beneficiary did on a day-to-day basis. Further, the Director observed that the record did not show 
that the foreign entity had sufficient personnel to relieve the Beneficiary from duties such as 
marketing, purchasing, customer networking, public affairs, contract negotiation and other 
responsibilities attributed to him. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director had no basis to conclude that the Beneficiary 
allocated more than 50 percent of his time to non-qualifying duties, and emphasizes that the 
Beneficiary is the "owner and full time chief executive" of both companies. The Petitioner submits 
the foreign entity's Mexican annual corporate tax return for the years 2010 through 2014, and a 
statement from the Beneficiary in which he claims that he performs "the same management tasks for 
my company in Mexico as I do for my company here." The Beneficiary explains that he continues 
to oversee the Mexican operations by using mobile radios and is in constant communication with his 
managers m 
B. Analysis 
Upon review, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was employed by the foreign 
entity in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
The Petitioner has consistently stated that the Beneficiary performs the same duties in the United 
States as he did in Mexico and that the Petitioner and the Mexican company operate the same type 
of business with similar staffing levels and a similar organizational structure. 1 
As with the U.S. position, the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's duties included both 
managerial and administrative or operational tasks, but did not adequately quantify the time the 
Beneficiary spent on them. This lack of specificity is important because several of the Beneficiary's 
daily tasks, as discussed in the previous section, did not fall directly under traditional managerial 
duties or executive duties as defined in the statute. For this reason, we cannot determine whether the 
Beneficiary is primarily performing the duties of a manager or executive. See IKEA US, Inc. v. US. 
Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
Again, the fact that a beneficiary manages or directs a business does not necessarily establish 
eligibility for classification as a multinational manager or executive within the meaning of section 
101(a)(44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a 
position be "primarily" of an executive or managerial nature. Sections 101(A)(44)(A) and (B) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44). 
Moreover, we are unable to review the position description for the Beneficiary's position in Mexico 
within the context of the totality of the evidence because the Petitioner provided evidence related to 
1 
Although the Petitioner stated in response to the NOlO that the Beneficiary supervises "200+" employees in Mexico , 
the submitted foreign organizational chart and Mexican payroll records suggest that this number is actually "20+." 
12 
Matter of V-P- USA Corp. 
the Mexican entity's current operations only. In order to determine whether the Beneficiary 
qualifies for the benefit sought, we need to review evidence of his duties, and documentation of the 
foreign entity's staffing levels and organizational structure, during the three year period preceding 
his admission to the United States in 2003. While the Petitioner states that the foreign entity 
currently employs a general director, administration manager, operations manager, as well as 
supervisors for its valet parking and parking lot operations, it has not provided any evidence 
pertaining to the relevant time period. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSo.fjici, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
As the record does not contain evidence of the foreign entity's staffing levels and organizational 
structure during the relevant time period, and as the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's 
duties with the foreign entity alone is insufficient to establish his eligibility, the Petitioner has not 
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial 
or executive capacity in Mexico. For this additional reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative 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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofV-P-U-, Corp., ID# 13828 (AAO Sept. 18, 2015) 
13