dismissed EB-1C Case: Visual Communication

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF W-1-S- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 3, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner , describing itself as engaged in visual communication, seeks to permanently employ the 
Beneficiary as its U.S. operations manager under the first preference immigrant classification for 
multinational executives or managers. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to 
permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in an executive or 
managerial capacity. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity in his 
former position abroad. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional foreign duty descriptions for the Beneficiary and broadly 
contends that he qualified as a personnel manager overseeing professionals, a function manager 
supervising an essential function, and an executive. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
An immigrant visa is available to a beneficiary who, in the three years preceding the filing of the 
petition , has been employed outside the United States for at least one year in a managerial or executive 
capacity, and seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render managerial or executive 
services to the same employer or to its subsidiary or affiliate. Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act. 
The Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, must include a statement from an authorized 
official of the petitioning United States employer which demonstrates that the beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding 
the filing of the petition, that the beneficiary is coming to work in the United States for the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer , and that the prospective U.S . employer 
has been doing business for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(j)(3) . 
Matter of W-I-S- LLC 
II. DEFINITIONS 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or 
manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
"Executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization; 
establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; exercises wide latitude 
in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. Section 101 (a)( 44 )(B) of the 
Act. 
III. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAP A CITY 
The sole issue we will address is whether the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary acted in a 
managerial or executive capacity abroad. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5) requires the Petitioner to submit a statement that clearly 
describes the duties performed by the Beneficiary abroad. Beyond the required description of the 
foreign job duties, we review the totality of the evidence when examining the claimed managerial or 
executive capacity of a beneficiary abroad, including the foreign employer's organizational structure, 
the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees abroad, the presence of other employees to relieve 
a beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the foreign business, and any other 
factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business abroad. 
Accordingly, our analysis of this issue will focus on the Beneficiary's duties as well as the foreign 
employer's business activities and staffing levels. 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary performed certain high-level responsibilities abroad 
consistent with the statutory definitions of managerial or executive capacity. Champion World, Inc. 
v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). In addition, the Petitioner must 
prove that the Beneficiary was primarily engaged in managerial or executive duties, as opposed to 
ordinary operational activities alongside the foreign employer's other employees. See Family Inc. v. 
USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner stated that its foreign parent company based in Brazil was established in 2009 and 
indicated that it is "a global leader in Audio & Video conferencing systems." The Petitioner explained 
that the Beneficiary's former foreign employer "has assisted over 1,200 unique clients in 
2 
Matter of W-I-S- LLC 
implementing successful communications strategies over 5,000 locations by offering comprehensive 
equipment and services portfolio," including "design, configuration, project management and 
implementation, installation, testing, training, and outgoing support." The Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary was the chief executive officer of the foreign employer from 2008 to January 2011 where 
he "came to possess a body of managerial and proprietary knowledge of [the foreign parent's] 
products, projects and services .. .latest techniques, products, and tools." 
In a support letter provided with the petition, the Petitioner submitted some of the following duties for 
the Beneficiary in his former role abroad: 
• conducting interviews, hiring and training employees, 
• assigning and directing work, 
• appraising performance, 
• rewarding and disciplining employees, 
• addressing complaints and resolving problems, 
• delegating work assignments, 
• setting expectations and monitoring delegated activities, 
• defining and articulating the organization's vision and developing strategies to 
achieve that vision, 
• creating annual operation plans that support strategic direction and correlating them 
with annual operating budgets for approval, 
• developing future leadership, 
• overseeing design, marketing, promotion, delivery and quality of programs, 
products and services, 
• recommending yearly budgets for owner approval and prudently managing the 
organization's resources, and 
• assuring the organization and its mission, products and services are consistently 
presented in a strong, positive image. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director stated that the foreign duties submitted by the Beneficiary 
were broad and ambiguous and requested that the Petitioner submit a clear description of his specific 
daily tasks abroad. In response, the Petitioner provided the same duties listed above, but farther stated 
that the Beneficiary was "also engaged in directing the marketing [ of] our service[ s] and was 
responsible for overseeing its expansion in the global market." It farther added the following 
additional duties for the Beneficiary: 
• supervision and management of the entire business administration in carrying out 
our entire activities, 
• oversee the sales operations of the company, 
• developed and implemented Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to coordinate 
functions and marketing operations between departments, 
• establish responsibilities and procedures for obtaining departmental objectives, 
• set course of actions, 
• develop marketing and sales strategies, 
3 
Matter of W-I-S- LLC 
• discuss with marketing staff in order to communicate the findings of market 
research and instruct representatives regarding preferred course of action, 
• develop, communicate and execute annual sales and marketing plan and strategies, 
• grow the company and increase profitability through new account acquisition, 
• manage sales and execution of orders, 
• coordinate product development and suggest new marketing trends and strategies, 
and 
• responsible for performance appraisals and interviewing new staff candidates. 
In denying the petition, the Director stated that the foreign duty descriptions provided for the 
Beneficiary were vague and generalized, that they were of limited evidentiary weight, and that they 
were not persuasive in demonstrating his managerial or executive capacity abroad. On appeal, the 
Petitioner provides additional duty descriptions specific to the Beneficiary's role abroad, indicating he 
was tasked with: 
• directing the foreign employer's operations, 
• developing, planning, and implementing long term goals and plans, 
• establishing and overseeing policies and strategies with respect to promotion, 
marketing and economic growth, 
• establishing marketing strategies and goals, 
• coordinating, interviewing, training, hiring and supervising managerial and support 
staff in sales and marketing, 
• assigning duties and responsibilities to subordinate managers and independent 
contractors, 
• reviewing customer relations and establishing business connections, 
• developing organizational policies to coordinate functions and marketing 
operations between departments, 
• establishing responsibilities and procedures for obtaining departmental objectives, 
• revising objective plans in accordance with current conditions, 
• developing and implementing strategic plans, 
• managing and supervising product development and marketing strategy, 
• implementing successful communications strategies in over 5,000 locations by 
offering comprehensive equipment and services portfolios, 
• supervising and coordinating with design team on necessary customer 
specifications, 
• instructing representatives regarding preferred course of action, 
• inspecting new products and established inspecting criteria, 
• securing offices, negotiating and signing operational agreements, 
• regulatory oversight, compliance review and certification, 
• coordinating the sales team to support group companies and sales agents, and 
• coordinating with procurement, production and logistics department. 
As noted, the Director requested in the RFE that the Petitioner submit a detailed description of the 
Beneficiary's daily tasks abroad; however, in response it provided additional high level and generic 
duties, such as noting his responsibility for overseeing "the sales operations of the company," 
4 
Matter of W-I-S- LLC 
establishing "responsibilities and procedures for obtaining departmental objectives," setting "courses 
of action," and developing, communicating and executing "annual sales and marketing plan and 
strategies." The Petitioner submitted few credible details and little supporting documentation to 
substantiate the Beneficiary's actual daily duties while employed with the foreign employer. As such, 
we concur with the Director's conclusion that the Beneficiary's foreign duties provided in response to 
the RFE were vague and generalized, of limited evidentiary weight, and not persuasive in 
demonstrating his managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does little to remedy this deficiency and again submits generic duties specific 
to the Beneficiary's capacity abroad. Although there is some overlap between the different foreign 
duty descriptions the Petitioner submits on appeal, it is not clear why the Petitioner provided four 
different foreign duty descriptions rather than one detailed and comprehensive description including 
the percentages of time the Beneficiary devoted to each daily task, as requested by the Director. 
Therefore, the Petitioner's submittal of four different foreign duty descriptions on appeal only leaves 
further question as to the actual nature of the Beneficiary's duties abroad. The Petitioner must resolve 
this discrepancies and ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Regardless, despite the number of duty descriptions provided, the Petitioner still submits little credible 
detail or supporting documentation to substantiate the Beneficiary's former duties abroad. The 
Petitioner submitted several vague foreign duty descriptions and little documentation to substantiate 
the Beneficiary's daily qualifying managerial and executive level tasks abroad. These duty 
descriptions include several generic duties that could apply to any manager or executive acting in any 
industry and they provide little insight into his actual day-to-day managerial or executive duties 
abroad. For instance, the Petitioner did not sufficiently detail or document specific operations the 
Beneficiary oversaw, organizational policies he developed, responsibilities or procedures he 
established, objective plans he revised in accordance with current conditions, or strategic plans he 
implemented. Likewise, it did not articulate or document new accounts the Beneficiary acquired, 
product development and marketing strategies he managed, communications strategies he put in place, 
or design or sales teams he supervised. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not detail or substantiate with supporting evidence the operational 
agreements the Beneficiary negotiated, financial budgets he supervised, global expansion he was 
responsible for, new business development he supervised, procurement, production, and logistics he 
coordinated, or appraisals or interviews he conducted. In fact, despite asserting that the Beneficiary 
was tasked with planning, assigning, and directing work and "delegating work assignments" to "a total 
of 32 employees and over 50 contractors," the record includes no specific examples of the tasks he 
delegated to these subordinates nor supporting documentation to corroborate this direction of a 
network of employees and contractors. This lack of detail and documentation is particularly notable 
since the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary acted in his asserted capacity abroad for approximately 
three years. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are 
primarily executive or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a 
matter ofreiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
5 
Matter of W-I-S- LLC 
The fact that the Beneficiary manages or directs business does not necessarily establish eligibility for 
classification as a multinational manager or executive. By statute, eligibility for this classification 
requires that the duties of a foreign position be "primarily" managerial or executive in nature. Sections 
10l(A)(44)(A) of the Act. Even though the Beneficiary may exercise discretion over some of the 
foreign employer's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to 
discretionary decision-making, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that his 
foreign duties are primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
B. Staffing and Operations 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial or 
executive capacity, the reasonable needs of the organization are taken into account in light of the 
overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel manager based on his 
supervision of professional subordinates. The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for 
both "personnel managers" and "function managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 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." Id. 
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.F .R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(B)(3) 
The Petitioner indicated in support of the petition that the Beneficiary "managed a total of about 32 
employees and over 50 contractors sell and network division overall operation of the company [sic]." 
In the RFE, the Director requested that the Petitioner submit a list of employees in the Beneficiary's 
immediate division or department along with detailed job descriptions, educational levels, and salaries 
along with an organizational chart showing the company's structure and staffing levels. The Petitioner 
did not submit this supporting evidence. We note that 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 
Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). 
The Petitioner now submits one foreign organizational chart and lists of foreign employees on appeal 
specific to each year of the Beneficiary's asserted employment abroad from 2008 to 2011. The chart 
from 2011, closest to the date of the petition, indicated that the Beneficiary supervised a "financia 
CFO," a "buying vendors" manager, and a "customer hand" manager. The chart further indicated that 
the buying vendors manager supervised a "buyer" and a "buyer decisional" employee. In addition, 
the chart showed that the CFO oversaw a product quality employee supervising a seller, an accounting 
employee overseeing a seller, a customer service employee, a human resources employee, and a "head 
sell officer." Meanwhile, the customer hand manager was shown to oversee a "head office project" 
employee supervising a designer and a buyer relationship/business product employee overseeing a 
vendor service employee. 
6 
Matter of W-I-S- LLC 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary qualified as a 
personnel manager abroad. First, the Petitioner submitted an organizational chart including 17 
employees beyond the Beneficiary and no identified contractors; while, elsewhere it stated throughout 
the record that he "managed a total of about 32 employees and over 50 contractors." This material 
discrepancy leaves question as to the foreign employer's asserted organizational structure. Again, the 
Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 582, 591-92. 
In addition, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient duty descriptions for the members of the foreign 
employer's asserted foreign organizational chart, including the Beneficiary's claimed subordinate 
managers. For instance, the Petitioner submitted a list of foreign employees which included a section 
titled "job duties." However, these job duties appear to only be ambiguous job titles, including those 
provided for the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates such as "buying vendors," "financia CFO," and 
"customer hand." In each case, these subordinate 'job duties" shed little light on these employees' 
actual roles and do little to substantiate their asserted positions. For instance, the Petitioner included 
several additional ambiguous job titles/duties below the Beneficiary's claimed supervisory 
subordinates including "buyer relationship business product," "creator vendors services," "head office 
project," "quality product," and "buyer decisional." These confusing job titles/duties did not 
sufficiently corroborate the positions listed in the foreign organizational chart. Beyond this, it is also 
noteworthy that the Petitioner provided little supporting documentation to demonstrate the Beneficiary 
acting in his role, supervising his claimed subordinates, or delegating tasks to them. Therefore, the 
Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary qualified as a personnel 
manager based on his supervision of subordinate managers as indicated in the foreign employer's 
asserted organizational chart. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also emphasizes that the Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel manager based 
on his management of subordinate professionals. To determine whether a beneficiary manages 
professional employees, we must evaluate whether the subordinate positions require a baccalaureate 
degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining 
"profession" to mean "any occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent 
is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation"). Section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, states that 
"[t]he term profession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, 
surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary supervised subordinate professionals in his 
former position abroad. As noted, the foreign organizational chart submitted on appeal reflects that 
the Beneficiary oversaw three subordinates, employees titled "buying vendors," "financia CFO," and 
"customer hand." The Petitioner also listed educations for these subordinates, indicating that the 
customer hand had "no degree," while reflecting that the financia CFO holds a degree from the 
I I and the buying vendors employee earned a degree from the.__ ____ ___, 
I I However, we must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the 
degree held by the subordinate employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate 
employee does not automatically lead to the conclusion that an employee is employed in a professional 
capacity. The Petitioner has not established that bachelor's degrees are actually necessary to perform 
the duties of the positions subordinate to him. Therefore, even if the Petitioner had indicated what 
7 
Matter of W-I-S- LLC 
degrees were held by the financia CFO and the buying vendors employee or documented these degrees, 
it has not described in detail why these positions require a bachelor's degree nor provided sufficient 
duty descriptions to demonstrate that they are professional positions. Further, the same can be said 
for the positions subordinate to the Beneficiary's claimed supervisory subordinates; namely, the 
Petitioner does not submit sufficient duty descriptions for these positions, explain why these positons 
are professional and require bachelor's degrees, nor does it document the degrees of these claimed 
foreign employees. As such, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary supervised 
professional subordinates in his former capacity abroad. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner contends on appeal that the Beneficiary managed an essential function 
abroad thereby acting as a function manager. The term "function manager" applies generally when a 
beneficiary did not supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead was primarily 
responsible for managing an "essential function" within the organization. See section 
10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary managed an essential function, it 
must clearly describe the duties performed in managing the essential function. In addition, the 
petitioner must demonstrate that "(l) the function was a clearly defined activity; (2) the function was 
'essential,' i.e., core to the organization; (3) the beneficiary primarily managed, as opposed to 
performed, the function; (4) the beneficiary acted at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy 
or with respect to the function managed; and ( 5) the beneficiary exercised discretion over the 
function's day-to-day operations." Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 
2017). 
In this matter, the Petitioner has not described or provided evidence that the Beneficiary managed an 
essential function abroad. First, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary acted as the chief 
executive officer of the company, not as a manager of a specific essential function of the foreign 
employer. The Petitioner has not articulated the specific function that the Beneficiary managed or 
how it was essential, only vaguely asserting that "his function is that of development and management 
of the Brazilian company." Further, as we discussed at length, the Petitioner submitted several vague 
and generalized duty descriptions for the Beneficiary with few credible details and it provided little 
supporting documentation to substantiate his management of a specific function of the organization. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the Beneficiary acted as a function 
manager abroad. 
In addition, the Petitioner farther contends that the Beneficiary qualified as an executive in his former 
capacity abroad. The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's 
elevated position within a complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions 
of the organization, and that person's authority to direct the organization. Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of 
the Act. Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" and 
"establish the goals and policies" of that organization. Inherent to the definition, the 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. A 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. 
8 
Matter of W-I-S- LLC 
The Petitioner has not provided adequate evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary acted in an 
executive capacity abroad. Once again, the Petitioner submitted generic foreign duty descriptions for 
the Beneficiary which set forth few specific examples of his daily executive-level duties and it did not 
provide supporting documentation substantiating his executive-level tasks and decisions abroad. 
Further, as we have discussed, the Petitioner provided insufficient duty descriptions for the 
Beneficiary's subordinates and the other asserted members of its claimed foreign organizational chart 
which do not properly corroborate these positions. Indeed, as mentioned, the Petitioner makes 
conflicting statements on the record as to how many employees were in its foreign organizational 
structure. The Petitioner also provides little evidence reflecting the Beneficiary delegating duties and 
tasks to his claimed subordinate managers and the other members of its asserted foreign organizational 
structure. Therefore, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary acted in an elevated 
position within a complex organizational hierarchy and that he was primarily tasked with directing the 
management and establishing the goals and policies of the foreign employer. 
Lastly, it is also noteworthy that the Petitioner submitted little evidence to substantiate the foreign 
employer's asserted operations during the Beneficiary's employment; therefore the evidence does not 
demonstrate that the foreign employer's operations were sufficient to support him in his claimed role. 
For instance, the Petitioner stated several times on the record that the foreign employer is "a global 
leader in Audio & Video conferencing systems" and that it "has assisted over 1,200 unique clients in 
implementing successful communications strategies over 5,000 locations by offering comprehensive 
equipment and services portfolio." However, the Petitioner provides little documentation to 
corroborate that the foreign employer had this claimed level of operations. For instance, the Petitioner 
submits several invoices it claims the foreign employer issued from 2008 through 2011; however, the 
nature of these services is not clear, as these invoices only vaguely refer to services such as "VOiP" 
or "Teleservices." In addition, there is no explanation or documentation to establish the foreign 
employer's finances during the period of the Beneficiary's employment or other evidence to reflect 
that it had the substantial network of services it claims. As such, the Petitioner did not provide 
adequate evidence to establish the foreign employer's claimed operations abroad to demonstrate that 
they were sufficient to support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary acted in a managerial 
or executive capacity with his former foreign employer. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 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. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of W-1-S-LLC, ID# 5193493 (AAO Sept. 3, 2019) 
9