dismissed EB-1C Case: Travel Services

(b)(6)
u.s .. Depiu1nu!nt of Horm!litnd ·Security 
U.S. Citiz~nship a_nd Immigratim:rServiq:s 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
ServiCes 
PATE: 
NOV 211013 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: immigrant Petition for Alien Work.er ;;tS a MultinationaJ Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
EnCloSed please find tb.~ decision ofthe Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is .a non-precedent ·decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or 
policy to yout case ot if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider 
or a motion to reopen, respectively. Arty motion rtmst. be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 
I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form 1•290B i~stt11ctions ~t 
http://www .uscis.gov/forrns for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements • 
. See q.lso 8 C.F:R. § 103S Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
~t.~ 
Chief, Administrative ~ppeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based imniigrant 
visa petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeaL The 
appeal will be disrnisse<l. 
The petitioner is a travel services company incorporated i_n Califoroia that claims to be a branch of 
_ , the beneficiary's former employer located in the United Kingdom. The 
petitioner is seeking to employ the beneficiary as its president. Accordingly, the petitioner 
endeavors to classify the beneficiary' as an employment-'based immigrant Pl1rsuant to section 
203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C), as a 
multinational executive or mMager. 
The director denied the petition on April 9; 2013 concluding that the petitioner failed to est.ablish 
that the benefici.ary would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
Specifically, the director found that the beneficiary is responsible for many of the day~to-day 
activities for the business and that the record indicates that a majority of the beneficiary's duties 
would be non"'qualifying. 
On appeal, counsel disputes the director's findings and submits a legal brief asserting that tbe 
evidence submitted establishes the benericiary' s eligibility for the requested immigrant 
classification . . 
I. The Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. ""'" Visas s.h~l 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 of other legal entity of an 
affiliate or subs.idiary 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 i_s specific in limiting this provision to only those executives and 
managers who have previously wofk~d for a firm, corporation or other legal entity; or an affiliate or 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
P~ge 3 
subsidiary of that entity, and who are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its 
affiliate or subsidiary. · 
A United States employer m~y file a petition on Form 1-140 for classification of an alien under 
section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act as a tnultillational executive . or manager. No labor certification is 
req11ired for this classification. The prospective employer in the United States rn~st furnish a job 
offer in the form of· a state.rnept 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 
perfoJlJl.ed by the alien. · 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § ll01(a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "r.nanagerial <;apaCity'' means an assignment within ail 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 departme11.t or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has 
the authority to hire and fire or · reCOII]lilend those as well as other 
personnel actions (such as promotion and leave authorization), or if 
no other employee is directly supervised, f!mctioils 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 c.onsidered to be acting in a managerial capacity r.nerely by 
virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties Unless the em.ployees 
supervised are professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(44)(B.), provides: 
The term "exec11tive capacity" means 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; ' · 
(b)(6)
Page4 
(ii) 
(iii) 
(iv) 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
I 
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 ftom higher level 
executives, the boMd of dire~tors, or stockholders of the organization . 
. II. The Issues oli Appeal 
A. Employment in a Managerial or Executive C~p~city 
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. 
1. Facts 
In Sl1PPOrt of the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition fot Alien Worker, the petitioner submitted 
documents inclt1ding a letter dated June 19, 2012, describing the petitioner's qualifying relationship 
with the foreign employer and the beneficiary's continuing duties abroad and proposed duties for 
the U,S. petitioner. The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary is the president artd managing ditectot 
for both the foreign employer and the U.S. petitioner. Both companies provide travel services for 
the film and media industry. 
On the Form 1-140, the petitiom~r stated that the beneficiary's duties will include: ''Negotiating with 
airlines and hotels ·for high volume contract r::ttes, promoting services to fil.!ll production and studio 
executives~ overseeing full service travel business dedicated exclusively to film production stl!dios, 
development of new branches through the U.S.'i ·ln its accompanying letter, the petitioner provided 
a gertetal desctiptiort of the beneficiary's duties, il) part, stating that the ben~ficiary would "cultivate 
business relationships, meet with studio executiVes on a regular basi.s and be available to 
accommodate 
their often immediate needs, comnioil for the entertainment industry." The petitioner 
s4\ted thiit the company is staffed by three employees, including the beneficiary, a travel 
coordinator/office manager, and; a travel consultant. The petitioner noted that it intends to add 
employees as the business grows. 
On September 25, 2012,t,the director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE) instructing the 
petitioner to provide, in part, the following: ( 1) a detailed description of the beneficiary's proposed 
duties, including specific' day-to-day tasks and the percentage of time to be dedtcated to each task; 
(2) a detai_led org'anizational chart reflecting the structure of the company as of the date of filing; 
and (3) names and detailed job descriptions for the beneficiary's subordinate employees. · 
In a response letter dated. October 24, 2012, the petitioner explained t}lat wh.ile employed in the 
U.S., the beneficiary 1would continue to work for the foreign employer when needed, typically 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. The petitioner stated that the beneficiary's anticipated 
work schedule for u.s. activities would be 9:00 a.ni. to 8:00 p.m. with required availability on the 
weekends and any other time, as needed, to deal with "urgent logistical challenges and travel 
emergencies which oftentimes can only be handled by [the beneficiary]." The petitioner stated that 
the beneficiary's typical day-to-day duties would include the following: . 
1. Face-to-f~ce meetings with existing and new Production Company clients based in 
Hpllywood for budgeting their movies' international and national travel 
-, considerations [Percentage: 30%] 
2. Negotiating special promotional ratys witl1 airlines and executing airlines contracts 
for the travel needs of Production companies. In obtaining lA TA·ARC for [the 
petitioner] in the US, [the beneficiary] has a significant business advantage to be able 
to negotiate with Airlines in the U.K. and U.S. and was able to set up an account 
With .more than 80 Airlines, especially with major airlines like L:ufthMsa, Unjted 
Airlines, Virgin Atlantic, Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific, South African 
Airways, and Emirates Airlines which cover most of film production shooting 
locations presently. He also negotiates with airlines in the U.S. to increase the 
company's commissions once we establish a new production office and start booking 
flights. [Percentage: 20%] 
3. Employee search and interviewing for increasing the local staffing as demand has 
increased dramatically. [Percentage: 5%] 
4. Meeting daily, weekly, and monthly with the US Travel Coordinator & Sales office 
for their marketing feedback; analyzing sales and setting goals. [Percentage: 15%] · 
5. Negotiating with hotels based in L.A. for special promotional rates for production 
companies bringing European Producers, Directors, and actors to L.A. while visiting 
the loc~l Stl!dios , [Percentage: 10%] 
6. Negotiating with private jet companies based in the U.S. for special promotional 
rates to accommodate the production companies for scouting new shooting locations. 
[Percentage: 5%] 
7. Meeting with [the petitioner's] L.A. accountants, going over the L.A. office's 
monthly and quarterly Management Accountexpenses, and budgeting the company's 
quarterly expenses. [Percentage: 5%] 
8. .Directing the L.A .. office team with managing flight waiting lists when problems 
arise fotbooked 6ights and the Production Company can't accommodate their entire 
, crew on flights or with complicated reservations packages. [Percentage: 5%] 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
9. flying to Production locations, negotiating with local suppliers, including hotels, car 
rental companies and Hmousine service to reduce the price for the production 
company while scouting for new shooting locations. [Percentage: 5%] 
In order to be able to man~ge travel services for 26 Film Production Companies at the 
same time, [the beneficiary] needs to be available ~t ~11 times of the day and night in 
order to provide the attention demanded by the entertaiilrfient 
client. 
Further, the petitioner provided an organizational chart and a list of its employees and their duty 
descriptions. The petitioner's organizational chart placed the beneficiary at the top-of the hierarchy 
as managing director ~- president. The undated chart indicated that three employees would directly 
report to the beneficiary: travel and sales coordinator and manager, · travel and 
s::~.les c0ordi11ator; • , and senior travel consultant and account::~.nt; _ 
Notably, the IJetitioner _also indicated that _ _ is no longer with the company and 
is a new employee. Therefor€?, the individtJals employed at the time the petition was 
filed were and the beneficiary. The chart also inclqd,es ~vacancy for 
a new business development manager position. · 
In the employee list attached to the organizational chart, the petitioner stated tll:lt the benefiqiary 
works seven days per week, meets with new and existing clients, begins travel negotiations once a 
client agrees to a location, manages the company's overall openitions, and oversees the company's 
financial health. According to the duty description, works full time a,s a senior tr~vel 
consu.ltant who "deals" with travel contacts, "checks" on reports and booked services, and perfortns 
duties which support the a~count_ing department. Notably, there is no indication that the petitioner 
has a separate accounting department. The remaining employee, w::~.s identified as 
:l travel coordinator in the sales and marketing department rather than as a manager as previously 
indicated by the J?etitioner. 
The petitioner provided a copy of its IRS Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax. Return for 
the first qu~er of 2012, which corroborated that the petitioner had three employees as of Match 
2012. Th-e petitioner provided no additional Forms 941 for 2012 and did not indicate when · 
_ left the company. The petitio_ner did submit a business plan that anticipated the employment 
of five individuals in 2012 but the record shows only three employees a,s of June 2012 when the 
petition was filed. 
After reviewing the petitioner's evidence the director concluded that the petltloner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive c~pa,city. 
The director stated that the beneficiary would be personally responsible for many of the day-to-day 
activities and that the record indicated that the prepondera,nce of the beneficiary's duties will be 
directly providing the services of the business. Further, the director found that the petitioner had 
not shown that the beneficiary would be supervising a subordinate staff of professional, managerial, 
or supervisory personnel who would relieve him from perfortning non-qualifying duties. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DE?,CISION 
Page 7 
On appeal, the pet1t10ner cites to unpublished AAO decisions an<1 correctly asserts that the 
petitioner can establish eligibility if it demonstrates that mote than half of the beneficiary's tirne is 
allocated to · qualifying managerial or executive duties. The petitioner also asserts that the 
b~nefici~' s duties are · essential to the company and may not be performed by lower level 
employees in the United States or the United Kingdom. The petitioner disagrees with the director's 
chara:tteritatioil as to what amotmts to "providing the services of the business." · 
Specifjq:l}ly, the petitioner asserts that the actual services of the business are pelformed by the two 
additional employees l.l,Ild include making reservations, checking reports and handling other travel 
related issues. According to the petitioner, ~y non-qualifying duties· performed by the benefiCiary 
are ''onJy incidental to the managerial position." 'The petitioner acknowledges the small size of the 
business bUt requests consideration of the organization's reasonable needs in light ~f its overall 
purpose and stage of development. 
AdditionalJ y, i11 support of the appeal, the petitioner submits a statement from the beneficiary dated 
May 9, 2013 in which he further ~xplains his duties. 
2. 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. 
IIi examining the executive or Il1anagerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.P.R. § ;204.5(j)(5). Published case law clearly 
supports the pivotal role of a clearly defined job description, as the actual duties themselves reveal 
the true nature of the employrnent. Fedin ;Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 
. (E.b.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); see q;~so 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). USCIS reviews 
the totality of the record, which includes not only the beneficiary's job description; but also takes 
into account the nature of the petitioner's .business, the employment and remuneration of other 
employees, as well as the job descriptions of the beneficiary's subordinates, if any, and any other 
facts contributing to a complete understanding of a beQ.e[icil1fy's actual role within a given entity. · ' 
In th.is :r.natter, the beneficiary's proposed position in the petitioner's travel services business will 
involve his significant pa,rticipation in the day-to-day operation of the business. For example, the 
·beneficiary will spend 30% of his time meeting with both new and existing cllents and 35% of his 
time negotiating rates and coifirtlissions for air travel and hotels and executing contracts, all non­
qualifying duties. There are some tasks that are qualifying such as the 5% of time spent on 
employee search and interviewing, 15% on meetings with employees to analyze sales and set goals, 
a.nd 5% to review expenses and the budget but these tasks do not account for a majority of the 
bendidaty's time. The beneficiary's proposed duty description supports a finding that a majority 
of the beneficiary's time will be spent performing non-qualifying duties. Notably, the petitioner 
states that the benefici~ would be responsible for most of the day-to-day operations of the 
business. The petitioner further stated that "[the b,enefichrry] needs to be available at all times of the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
day and night in order to provide the attention demanded by the entertainment client'' and that the 
company's level of service requires the constant input of the beneficiary and he must be "involved 
in all levels of the operation to assure the clients that they are being given full first class service." 
The petitioner explained that the beneficiary works 84 or more hours per week and ''must also be 
available week~Q.d~ and at any time needed for Production Comp4J1ies wi_tb. urgent logistical 
challenges and travel emergencies" that can be handled only by the beneficiary. The petitioner's 
other employees work standard office hours and are responsible for reviewing reports and "dealing" 
with hotels, a,i[lip.es, and other travel related entities, although the specifics and tbe extent of their 
duties ate not entirely clear based on the petitioner's description. 
Overall, t:l;l_e ben~ficiary' s indispensable, significant, and continuous involvemeQ.t i11 the day-to-day 
services and operations of the business' main function supports a conch.ision that the beneficiary 
would be primarily performing those crucial ta.sks necessary to provide travel related services, -all 
non-q~a1ifying duties. The actual duties themselves reveal the tru.e nature of the employment. 
Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990). An employee who "primarily" p~rforms the tasks necessary to produce a product or to 
provi<le services is not considered to be "primarily" employed in a m<mageria.l or e~ecutive capacity. 
See sections 101(a.)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the 
enumerated managerial or executive duties); see also Matter of Church Scientology Int'l., 19 I&N 
Dec. 593, 604' (Comm'r 
1988). 
On appeal, _ counsel for the petitioner djsagrees with the director's determination that the benefiCiary 
is actually ;'providing the services of the business." Specifically, counsel asserts that the staff will 
provide t:l;le services of the business while the beneficiary will procure, secure, expand and negoti_ate 
for contracts that create the opportunity to provide those services. Nevertheless, c.ounsel's 
· assertions are inadequate and inconsistent with the eaJ"lier descriptions of the beneficiary's duties. 
Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do rtot c_onstitute evidence. 
Matter ofObaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (6IA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 
1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Moreover, it is incumbent 
upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by irtd~pertdent objective evidence. 
Any attempt to explaiQ. or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner 
submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 
582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
The director also concluded, and the AAO agrees, that the record failed to establish that the 
beneficiary would be supervising a subordin_ate staff of professional, managerial, or supervisory 
persoDQ.el who would relieve him from perfon:iling non-qualifying duties. The statutory definition 
of "managerial capacity'' allows for both "personnel managers" and a "function managers." See 
section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii). Personnel 
man;:1gers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, 
professional, or managerial employees, Contrary to the common _ understanding of the word 
"ma.nager, '' the statute plainly states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting i_n a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
rtumagetial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's superVisory duties unless the employees 
supervised ate professional." Section 101(a)(44)(A)(ivf of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). If a 
beneficiary.directly supervises other employees, the benefici~y must also have the authority to hire 
and fire tbo~e employees, or recommend those actions, and take other pets01:mel actions. 
Specifically, the record 
established that the petitioner employed three individuals when the petition 
was filed; the benericiary, one office manager/travel consultant and a second travel consultant. The 
organizational chart submitted in response to the RFE altered the second employee's title to "senior 
travel consultant /accountant" but the duty description is inconsistent with this job title. While the 
petitiom~:r indicates that both of the travel consultants had some travel indu_stry trainjng, neither h~d 
educational degrees that would establish them as professionals, nor did the petitioner claim that 
. degrees were required in the 
positions it:l which they were employed. One employee held a 
''m~ager'' title but her duty description did not establish that she actqally rnapaged or superv.ised 
the only rewaining employee. Both employees appeared to report directly to the beneficiary. 
Therefore, the evidence of record does not establish that the petitioner's two remaining employees 
are professionals, managers or supervisors. If it is claimed-that the beneficiary's duties involve 
sup¢rvising employees, the petitioner must establish that the subordinate employees are supervisory, 
professional, or manageriaL See§ 101(a.)(44)(A)(ii)of the Act. 
The petitioner asserts for the first time on appeal that the foreign company and the petitioning 
company create a globa.l organization and therefore the director erred in failing to consider the 
combined staff in detet:i:fiining whether the beneficiary's proposed position would be in a 
rna.nagerial or executive capacity. However, the petitioner presented insufficient evidence to 
establish that the foreign company's 
employees relieve the beneficiary from performing non~ 
. qualifying duties associated with the U.S. company's day-to-day operations. the petitioner's initial 
letter accompanying the Form I-140 indicates that the petitioning company w<~,s incorporated a.s a 
separate legal entity in California and was staffed by three individuals with a plan tO hire additional 
employees as the business expanded. The petitioner did not claim to supplement its U.S. workforce 
with employees from the foreign employer. Additionally, according to the benefiCiary's curriculum 
vitae, the U.S. petitioner was established, in part, to provide support "outs'ide the Eu~opean work 
hours" suggestip.g that workers with the foreign employer could not meet the needs of the 
petitioning company . . 8oth tbe foreign employer and the petitioning company are engaged in the 
same travel related services catering to the entertainmem industry but nothing in the employee duty 
descriptions suggest that ~e foreign employer's employees ate assisting the petitioner in its day-to~ 
day dut.ies sufficient to establish that the foreign employees should be considered as part of the 
petitioner's staff. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel 
will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Lciuteano, 
19 I&N Dec. 1 (IHA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
The petitioner correctly asserts that the petitioner's small size should not, itself, be the determining 
factor in the dire.ctor's decision. As required by section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act, if staffing levels 
are used as a. facto.r in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial ·or executive 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page' lO 
c~pacity, USCIS must take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the 
over~ll ·purpose and sta,ge of development of the organization. To establish that the reasonable 
needs of the organization justify the beneficiary's job duties, the petitioner must specifically 
articulate why those needs are reasonable in light of its overall purpose and stage of development. 
· In the present m~tter, the director based his findings on the beneficiary's duties rather than the size 
of the petitioning company. Furthermore, the rea_sonable needs of the petitioner will not Sl!persede 
the reqt1irement that the beneficiary be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity 
as required by the statute. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the_ Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44). 
The reasonable needs of the petitioner may justify a beneficiary who alloc~tes 51 percent of his 
duties to managerial or executive tasks as opposed to 90 percent, but those needs will not excuse a 
beneficiary who spends the majority of his or her time on non-qualifying duties. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary would be employed for the 
petitioner in a primarily managerial or executive capacity, as required by section 203(b)(l)(C) of the 
Act,.and the appeal will be dismis-sed. · · 
B. Foreign employment in a managerial or executive capacity 
Beyond the decision of the director, the record contains insufficient evidence to establish that the 
beneficiary worked for the foreign employer in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
According to the beneficiary's duty description, he spent 35% of his time engaged in negotiations 
with travel suppliers, 15% resolving operational problems and completing complicated reservations, 
and 10% of his time meeting with clients and suppliers. These non-qualifying tasks are consistent 
with the . types of a~:tivitjes one would expect of an employee providing the actual services for a 
travel-related business. It appears that the beneficiary was performing the majority of these 
essential services in order to obtain and maintain company clients. While other employees may 
have been. a,vailable to perform the services of the business to relieve the beneficiary from 
performing nort-'qualifying duties, the evidence does not support that conclusion, The actual duties 
themselves reveal the true nature of the employ·ment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 
1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
An employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or provide services 
is not considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See sections 
l0l(a)(44)(A) and (B) of · the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated 
maAageri<ll or executive duties); See also Matter of Church Scientology Intn 'l., 19 I&N Dec. 593, 
604 (Comm'r 1988). Thus, the petitioner has not established that the beneficia,ry was primarily 
performing in a managerial or executive capacity while employed with for'eign employer. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be · 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision. See Spen~er Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 2.29 ESupp. 2d 1025, l043 (B.D. 
Cal. 200i), affd. 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004)(noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
III. Conclusion 
The app~al will be dismissed fot the above stated reasons, with e~ch considered as an independent 
and altemate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the ililiUigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
MatterofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec.127, 128 (BIA 2013)~ Here, that burden has not been met. 
·oRDER: The appeal is dismissed.