dismissed EB-1C Case: Telecommunications

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF E-I- CORP. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 28,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a telecommunications solutions company, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its Telecommunications Sales Manager under the first preference immigrant 
classification for multinational executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) § 203(b )(1 )(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(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, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The Director determined that the evidence 
of record did not establish that the Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial 
or executive capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's 
conclusion was based on an erroneous conclusion of fact and that the Director failed to address and 
analyze evidence establishing that the Beneficiary is employed as a function manager. 
After a preliminary review on appeal, we issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) advising the 
Petitioner of potentially derogatory information we obtained regarding the identity of the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer which appeared to be inconsistent with the information provided in 
support of the petition. We received the Petitioner's response on December 16, 2015, and will 
address both the Beneficiary's foreign and U.S. employment in this decision. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. THELAW 
A U.S. employer may file a petition on Form I -140 for classification tJf 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. 
Matter of E-1- Corp. 
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. 
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 beneficiary. 
Here, the Petitioner consistently explains that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial 
capacity rather than an executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the 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; 
(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. 
2 
Matter of E-1- Corp. 
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 IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The sole issue addressed by the Director is whether the Petitioner established that it will employ the 
Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
A. Facts 
The Petitioner filed the petition on May 14, 2014. The Petitioner stated on the Form I-140 that it is a 
telecommunications solutions company with four employees and a gross annual income of 
$10,002,893. It seeks to employ the Beneficiary as its Telecommunications Sales Manager. The 
Petitioner described the Beneficiary's proposed duties as follows: 
[C]ontinue to be managing the sales of the company's telecommunications products 
in Latin America including negotiation of multimillion dollar contracts, direct 
staffing, training and performing evaluations, as well as develop and control sales 
programs. He will also be in charge of coordinating sales distribution by establishing 
sales territories, quotas and goals, reviewing market analysis to determine customer 
needs, volume potentials and price schedules, as well as, plan, develop and monitor 
sales campaigns to accommodate company's goals. The Sales Manager for our 
Telecom Division will review sales reports showing sales volume and potential sales, 
as well as analyze sales statistics to forecast future sales trends in the 
telecommunications industry. [The Beneficiary] will represent the company at 
international trade association meetings and before the company's Latin American 
customers and strategic partners with authority over the assigned sales territory in 
Latin America including the markets in Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua, Honduras, El 
Salvador, and Guatemala, overseeing the daily operations and sales activities of the 
company in those countries. As our Telecom Division Sales Manager, [the 
Beneficiary] will report directly to the President of the company. 
As our Telecommunications Sales Manager, [the Beneficiary] will be 
expected to work with existing partners and establish new partnerships in the assigned 
region, develop strong relationships with partners and proactively co-sell with our 
strategic partners to support and drive higher value transactions; aggressively drive 
existing and new partners to maximize sales and total partnership potential through 
sales best practices training and support; work with marketing to develop and execute 
channel marketing programs; manage a complex, enterprise solution sale with [the 
Petitioner's] partners; attend and participate in sales meetings, product seminars and 
3 
Matter ofE-1- Corp. 
trade shows; provide weekly reporting of pipeline and forecasting; conduct contract 
negotiations; as well as close sales and achieve quarterly sales quotas. 
The Petitioner also submitted a copy of the Beneficiary's resume, in which he states that he performs 
the following duties as the Petitioner's "sales manager": 
• Successful selling of the company Telecommunication product and services. 
Getting and exceeding the sales quota every quarter. 
• Create the entire sales tools in the telecommunication division. 
• Hire and supervise all the sales force in Florida. 
• Coordinate the relationship between [the Petitioner] and the sister companies in 
Latin America. 
• Training to the sales force. 
• Evaluate new technologies to be included in the portfolio of [the Petitioner]. 
• Manufacturers and providers relationship. Canalize and Sign agreements. Analyze 
product services and new technologies. 
• Planning Sales strategy and find niches in Latin America. 
• Relationship with Government regulatory entities 
• Support in Marketing and sales. 
• Create the operating structure to manage the project in Latin America. 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart showing four employees. The chart depicts the 
Beneficiary, the Administrative Manager, and the Purchasing and Logistics Manager all reporting to 
the General Manager, and shows that the General Manager reports to the Board of Directors. The 
Petitioner did not provide evidence of its staffing levels at the time of filing, but instead provided 
evidence of wages paid to its employees in 2012. 
On August 16, 2014, the Director issued a Request for Evidence (RFE), and asked for additional 
details regarding the Beneficiary's position in the United States, including the percentage of time 
that the Beneficiary will spend on each job duty, a more detailed organizational chart, and copies of 
IRS Form W-2s for each employee. The Director also stated that if the Beneficiary does not 
supervise other employees, the Petitioner should specify the essential function that the Beneficiary 
manages for the Petitioner. 
In response, the Petitioner provided a letter dated October 27, 2014 which included the following 
position description for the Beneficiary: 
• Manage the sales operations of the company's telecommunications products in 
Latin America including negotiation of multi-million dollar contracts, direct 
staffing, provide strategic selling techniques, training, and performing evaluations 
as well as develop and control sales programs. 
• Plan, direct and coordinate sales of our telecommunications products. 
4 
Matter of E-1- Corp. 
• Coordinate sales distribution by establishing sales territories to our sales 
representatives throughout Latin America, quotas and goals, reviewing market 
analysis to determine customers' needs, volume potentials and price schedules. 
• Plan, develop, and monitor sales campaigns to be implemented by our company. 
• Analyze sales statistics gathered by staff to determine sales potential and 
inventory requirements, and monitor the preferences of our customers. 
• Review the sales reports prepared by each sales representative showing sales 
volume and potential sales, as well as analyze sales statistics to forecast future 
sales trends in the telecommunications industry. 
• Prepare periodic sales reports showing overall sales volume and potential sales to 
be submitted to the company's CFO and Chairman for their review and approval. 
• Oversee regional and local sales managers in Latin America and their staff. 
• Determine price schedules and discount rates. 
• Coordinate and follow up the sales support needed for the prospects of the sales 
funnel. 
• Review and analysis of the sales funnel to compare the forecast of regional sales 
and prepare comparatives with the annual budget submitted to senior 
management. 
• Travel to regional offices in Latin America and attend meetings as a high level 
support for potential customers or sales. 
• Review, authorize and approve business trips expenses to the company's sales 
representatives. 
• Attend telecommunications shows in representation of the company to analyze 
new products and solutions and report findings to the CFO and the Chairman so 
that new products may be included in the company's products portfolio. 
The Petitioner also submitted a chart which listed the Beneficiary's duties and the percentage of time 
spent on each duty in an average week as follows: 
• Attend weekly meeting with the CFO and President to report sales. 7.5% 
• Attend weekly meeting of support of prospects of the sales funnel. 5% 
• Preside the coordination of offers meetings [sic] with regional sales supervisors 
where the company's offers to its customers are reviewed and approved by the 
Telecommunications Sales Manager. Plan, develop and monitor sales campaigns 
to be implemented by our company. 7.5% 
• Follow-up meetings and calls with providers in regards to the installation of new 
projects. 5% 
• Analyze and review the weekly sales funnel report prepared and submitted by the 
regional sales supervisors to follow up the sales forecasts and the comparisons 
with the annual budget presented to the company. 10% 
• Review the weekly . sales reports prepared by each regional sales manager 
showing sales volume and potential sales and attend meetings personally or by 
5 
Matter of E-1- Corp. 
teleconference with each regional sales manager to follow up the active accounts 
on the sales funnel. 15% 
• Prepare weekly sales report showing overall sales volume and potential sales to be 
submitted to the company's CFO and President for their review and approval at 
the weekly meeting. 5% 
• Travel to regional offices in Latin America to attend meetings as a high level 
support for potential customers or sales. 20% 
• Attend meetings as a high level support for potential customers or sales at the 
regional offices. 20% 
• Review, authorize, and approve business trips expenses to the company's sales 
representatives. 5% 
• Attend telecommunications shows in representation of the company to analyze 
new products and solutions and report findings to the CFO and the Chairman so 
that new products may be included in the company's products portfolio. 5% 
In addition, the Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary manages the Petitioner's sales function: 
The management of the sales function at [the Petitioner] is an essential business 
function because net sales through the sale of communications product and services 
and its resulting profit drive its business and affects the overall performance of the 
organization . . . the management of the sales function includes the planning, 
implementation, and control of sales programs, as well as recruiting, training, 
motivating, and evaluating members of the sales force. The fundamental role of the 
[Beneficiary] as the company's Telecommunications Sales Manager is to develop and 
administer a selling program that effectively contributes to the achievement of the 
goals of the overall organization. The management of the sales function at [the 
Petitioner] includes three different areas: the sales planning, the recruiting of the 
sales staff in Latin America, and the sales reporting. 
We also note that the Petitioner stated on the Form I-140 that it had four full-time employees when it 
filed the petition in May 2014. The organizational chart submitted by the Petitioner in response to 
the RFE lists six employees. This inconsistency was noted by the Director in the RFE. In response, 
the Petitioner explained that "the organization underwent a series of executive changes in the Board 
of Directors positions in the year 20 14," however, the specific changes were not explained. The 
record also contains several tax documents for the Petitioner including IRS Form 941, Employer's 
Quarterly Federal Tax Returns, and 2013 IRS Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statements, for three 
employees. 
On March 18, 2015, the Director denied the petition stating that the evidence of record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director stated that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence that the company's staffing 
is of sufficient size and composition to support an executive or managerial position. The Director 
noted in particular that the Beneficiary would be traveling two days per week to Latin America and 
Matter of E-1- Corp. 
would be out of the U.S. office and therefore, would not be able to perform primarily managerial 
duties with such limited time spent in the U.S. office. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the denial decision impermissibly makes the assumption that 
because the Beneficiary will travel to regional offices of the Petitioner in Latin America to negotiate 
multi-million dollar contracts for telecommunications products, he is unable to primarily perform 
managerial duties. The Petitioner contends that the Director failed to address and analyze the 
evidence submitted supporting the Beneficiary's role as a function manager for the company. 
In a brief submitted in support of the appeal, Petitioner states that "the personnel that Beneficiary 
will direct and manage are not direct employees of the U.S. Petitioner, but of the Petitioner's 
affiliates operating in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, Chile, Panama and Mexico, but who report 
to the Petitioner's Sales Telecommunications Manager as the sales they make are part of the 
Petitioner's sales of products." Petitioner submits an organizational chart for the "sales team" of the 
Petitioner in Latin America. There are eight employees listed as "Sales Manager" for Colombia, 
Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, Chile, Panama, and Mexico. The chart reflects that these employees report to 
the Beneficiary, along with a "Sales Administrator" based in Venezuela. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's job descriptions submitted previously showed that he 
"will manage and direct the sales staffing of the Petitioner's regional offices in Latin America." The 
Petitioner explains that "the international sales team is composed by Regional Sales Managers of the 
different countries and the employees who are in charge of performing the sales function at the 
Petitioner's business, and who will report to Beneficiary, as opposed to manage the sales function, 
which will be entrusted to the Beneficiary." 
The Petitioner submits printouts of e-mails (written primarily in Spanish) among the sales managers 
and the Beneficiary regarding the status of sales operations in the United States and Latin America 
and a copy of "a presentation illustrating the remote tools that Beneficiary is required to use to 
manage the sales function ofthe company." 
B. Analysis 
Upon review, and for the reasons discussed herein, the Petitioner has not established that it will 
employ the Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. In this case, the Petitioner 
specifically asserts that the Beneficiary will be employed as a function manager. Therefore, we will 
restrict our analysis to this issue. 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, USCIS will look first to 
the Petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(j)(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. Id. 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 
Matter of E-1- Corp. 
(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, the size of the Beneficiary's subordinate staff, and any other facts that may 
contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the Beneficiary's actual role in the organizational 
hierarchy of the entity in question. 
Here, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary will be employed as a function manager. 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. 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. 
The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the 
work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" 
within the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(44)(A)(ii). 
The term "essential function" is not defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims that the 
beneficiary is managing an essential function, the petitioner must furnish a written job offer that 
clearly describes the duties to be performed in managing the essential function, i.e. identify the 
function with specificity, articulate the essential nature of the function, and establish the proportion 
of the beneficiary's daily duties attributed to managing the essential function. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.50)(5). In addition, the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's daily duties must 
demonstrate that the beneficiary manages the function rather than performs the duties related to the 
function. 
Here, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's actual duties are primarily within a 
managerial capacity. Rather, he record includes some explanations of the Beneficiary's duties that 
clearly describe a sales position, and not a managerial role. For example, the record contains a letter 
from the Petitioner submitted with the initial petition which states that the Beneficiary will be 
expected to work with existing partners and establish new partnerships in the assigned region, and to 
"proactively co-sell with our strategic partners to support and drive higher value transactions." He 
will also be required to work with marketing to develop and execute channel marketing programs 
and attend and participate in sales meetings, product seminars and trade shows as well as "close 
sales and achieve quarterly sales quotas." The Beneficiary included similar non-managerial duties in 
his resume, where he stated that he is responsible for "successful selling of the Telecommunication 
product and services," creating sales tools," evaluating new technologies to be included in the 
Petitioner's portfolio, and providing "support in marketing and sales." These duties are not 
managerial and rather, confirm that the Beneficiary is performing non-managerial tasks on a regular 
basis. 
In addition, the Beneficiary's resume states that he "hires and supervises all the sales force in 
Florida," however, the organizational chart does not depict a sales force located in Florida and it is 
Matter of E-1- Corp. 
unclear if the Beneficiary himself may be responsible for duties assigned to this sales force. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner's initial job description indicated that the Beneficiary has "authority over 
the assigned sales territory in Latin America including the markets in Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua, 
Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala." However, the Petitioner has not identified subordinates 
responsible for some of these markets. Also, the Petitioner's claimed subsidiaries in Latin America 
are located in Venezuela, Ecuador, Mexico, Columbia and Panama. It's not clear who employs the 
various sales managers he is claimed to oversee (some of which have different country 
responsibilities), or how much time the Beneficiary devotes to overseeing these claimed 
subordinates. Based upon the job description, we are unable to determine how much of the 
Beneficiary's time is allocated to overseeing the sales team and how much of his time is actually 
spent performing sales duties and other non-managerial tasks. Therefore, we cannot conclude that 
the Beneficiary is employed as a personnel manager or that he primarily manages the sales function. 
Whether the beneficiary is a managerial or executive employee turns on whether the petitioner has 
sustained its burden of proving that his duties are "primarily" managerial or executive. See sections 
101(a)(44)(A) and (B) ofthe Act. 
The Petitioner also submitted a lengthy description of the Beneficiary's duties in response to the 
RFE which included a number of duties that would reasonably be associated with managing sales for 
a company. However, this description also included duties that have not been shown to be 
managerial in nature. For example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary spends 40 percent of his 
time attending meetings with potential customers, 5 percent of his time attending "weekly meeting 
of support of prospects of the sales funnel," and 5 percent of his time preparing weekly sales reports. 
Based on this job description the Beneficiary spends half of his time performing duties that would be 
typical of a sales representative, not a sales manager. 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), ajj'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
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 position 
description alone is insufficient to establish that his actual duties, as of the date of filing, would be 
primarily managerial or executive in nature. As discussed above, many of the Beneficiary's stated 
duties require him to attend weekly sales meetings, meet with potential customers and prepare sales 
reports on active accounts. The Petitioner indicates that these duties require at least half of the 
Beneficiary's time, and therefore, we cannot conclude that he primarily performs managerial duties 
associated with the petitioning organization's sales function. 
Furthermore, while the Petitioner asserts that the sales representatives that are working for the 
company's Latin American affiliates perform the day to day sales functions of the organization, their 
role has not been sufficiently established by the evidence contained in the record. The only evidence 
of the sales representatives that is presented is an organizational chart entitled, "International Sales 
Organizational Chart," submitted by the Petitioner. This chart lists eight individuals reporting 
directly to the Beneficiary, one from each of eight Latin American countries. There is little evidence 
to support their role as sales representatives or their revenue, daily tasks, or relationship to the 
9 
Matter of E-1- Corp. 
Petitioner. Specifically, the Petitioner did not identify the ent1t1es that employ the claimed 
subordinates, describe their job duties, or provide evidence that the Petitioner pays a commission or 
fees to these sales representatives or their employers. While the Petitioner has submitted some 
evidence of email correspondence between the Beneficiary and the sales representatives, we are 
unable to determine the nature of the relationship between them, or determine the role of the sales 
representatives, based on these emails alone. We acknowledge that there appears to be some 
direction provided to these sales representatives, however, based upon the limited evidence 
provided, we cannot conclude what percentage of time the Beneficiary spends overseeing the sales 
function verses performing the sales function. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
ofSojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCal~fornia, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
As noted by the Petitioner, 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). In reviewing the 
relevance of the number of employees a petitioner has, federal courts have generally agreed that 
USCIS "may properly consider an organization's small size as one factor in assessing whether its 
operations are substantial enough to support a manager." Family Inc. v. US Citizenship and 
Immigration Services 469 F. 3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing with approval Republic of 
Transkei v. INS, 923 F 2d. 175, 178 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Fedin Bros. Co. v. Sava, 905 F.2d 41, 42 (2d 
Cir. 1990)(per curiam); Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25, 29 (D.D.C. 2003)). 
Furthermore, it is appropriate for USCIS to consider the size of the petitioning company in 
conjunction with other relevant factors, such as a company's 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. 
Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
All companies, regardless of size, require leaders or individuals who plan, formulate, direct, manage, 
oversee and coordinate activities. However, the record should support a finding that someone other 
than the Beneficiary is available to perform the company's non-managerial sales tasks. Here, our 
finding is not based on the number of employees working for the petitioning company, but rather on 
evidence showing that the Beneficiary performs a significant number of non-managerial duties and 
insufficient evidence to document and explain the duties performed by the Beneficiary's claimed 
foreign subordinates. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be employed in 
a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-1- Corp . 
III. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
Beyond the Director's decision, we find that the evidence of record is insufficient to establish that 
the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity with a qualifying foreign entity 
for one year in the three years preceding his admission to the United States. See 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5U)(3)(i)(B). 
As noted, we issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on November 13, 2015, to attempt to 
resolve a discrepancy regarding the identity of the Beneficiary's foreign employer. In the instant 
petition, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary was employed as Managing Director of · 
located in Spain, from August 2010 to October 2011. However, U.S. 
Department of State records indicate that when the Beneficiary applied for an H-1B visa in 
September 2011, he stated on his visa application that he was employed by 
Venezuela as a Latin American Regional Director. 
In response to our NOID, the Petitioner submits a statement indicating that in 2010, 
entered into a service agreement with to provide services relating to the installation 
of energy backup systems. The Petitioner explains that the Board of Directors of 
required the Beneficiary to oversee the company operations in execution of the contract. The 
Petitioner states that the Beneficiary remained employed by In support of the 
response, the Petitioner submits a translated copy of the contract for services between 
and along with a statement signed by Director of 
The statement repeats that the Beneficiary was assigned to a account and charged with 
executing the contract of behalf of The Petitioner also submits four handwritten 
pay receipts dated September 2010, February 2011, April2011 , and June 2011. 
In this case, the evidence submitted does not establish the Beneficiary's employment with the 
foreign entity through October 2011 and merely confirms the existence of a contract for services 
between the foreign entity and "[I]t is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve the 
inconsistencies by independent objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 
1988). Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner 
submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. ld. at 591-92. 
The Petitioner provided detailed descriptions of the Beneficiary' s duties with . at the 
time of filing and in response to the RFE. Neither description mentioned the Beneficiary 's 
assignment to a project or account in Venezuela, nor did they mention Rather, the 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary was the Managing Director responsible for the overall oversight 
and direction of the foreign entity. It is unclear how the Beneficiary simultaneously worked in 
Venezuela on one customer account or contract and also, as stated by the Petitioner throughout the 
record, served as the top managerial position within the Spanish company's organizational hierarchy. 
If the Beneficiary was in fact assigned to the client account, and not performing the duties described 
in the record for then we must conclude that we do not have an accurate 
description of the actual duties he performed during his 14 months of claimed employment with 
1 I 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-1- Corp. 
As such, we cannot conclude that he was employed in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity. Again, 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 
(citing Matter ofTreasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Therefore, we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity in a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity for the requisite period. 
For this additional reason, the 
petition cannot be approved. 
IV. 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 of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of E-1- Corp., ID# 14437 (AAO Mar. 28, 2016) 
12