dismissed EB-1C Case: Wholesale Trade

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigrati on Servict 
Office of Administrative Appeal s 
20 Massachuset ts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Was hington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
·APR 1 8 2014 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational 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 the decision of the 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 your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to 
reconsider or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must 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 I-290B 
instructions at http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and 
other requirements. See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO . 
Thank you, 
£ /:___ ponRot:tf 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker , to classify the beneficiary as 
an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C . § 1153(b)(1)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The petitioner. a Florida 
corporation, is engaged in the wholesale trade of tropical fruits and is a subsidiary of the 
beneficiary's former employer in Ecuador. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its general manager. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that it will employ 
the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and (2) that the beneficiary's 
employment abroad was within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the denial 
of the petition was in error based on the evidence and facts presented. The appeal consists of counsel's 
brief and additional documentary evidence. 
I. TheLaw 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
* * * 
(C) Certain Multinational Executives and Managers. -- An alien is 
described in this subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding the 
time of the alien's application for classification and admission into the 
United States under this subparagraph, has been employed for at least 1 
year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or 
subsidiary thereof and who seeks to enter the United States in order to 
continue to render services to the same employer or to a subsidiary or 
affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial or executive. 
The language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only those executives and managers 
who have previously worked for a firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or 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 may file a petition on Form 1-140 for classification of an alien under section 
203(b)(1)(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. No labor certification is required for 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
this classification. The prospective employer in the United States must furnish a job offer in the fon:n 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 alien. 
Section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means 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. 
Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive 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; 
(ii) establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or 
function; 
(iii) exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
I. The Issues on Appeal 
The issues to be addressed in this matter are whether the petitioner established: (1) that the beneficiary 
will be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and (2) that the 
petitioner's foreign parent company employed the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding his admission to the United States as a 
nonimmigrant. 
A. U.S. Employment in a Managerial or Executive Capacity 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-140 on October 9, 2012. The petitioner indicated on the petition that it is 
engaged in the wholesale trade of tropical fruit, with seven employees, and gross annual income 
exceeding $3.2 million. 
In a letter dated May 4, 2012, the petitioner described the beneficiary's duties as general manager fo1lows: 
The supervision of the current and future employees as may be hired by the company; 
training of Employees (hiring and firing of employees); managing the Sales and 
Finances; planning, developing and implementing company strategy; planning the future 
expansion of the business; developing and implementing policies and new procedures for 
sales company; determining mark-up percentages necessary to insure profit, based on 
estimated budget, profit goals and average rate of client acquisition; developing policies 
and procedures for procurement of services; oversee the negotiating of contracts with 
clients; authorizing purchase of contract services based on estimates; formulating pricing 
policies for sales; review statements, invoices, bills of lading and insurance certificates; 
supervising the contact with the different purchasers; coordinate and develop the public 
relations policies designed to improve the business's image and relations with customers , 
the community and the public; evaluate market for new profitable opportunities in order 
to attain established policies and objectives of the company; plan and implementing new 
operating procedures to improve efficiency and reduce costs; review activity reports and 
financial statements to determine progress and status in attaining objectives and revises 
objectives and plans in accordance with current conditions; direct and coordinate 
formulation of financial programs to provide funding of new or continued operations to 
maximize returns on investments and increase productivity; evaluate market for new 
profitable opportunities in order to attain established policies and objectives of the 
company. 
The petitioner indicated that the beneficiary will have supervisory authority over six employees , including 
two professionals with knowledge and experience in the international trade and financial fields. 
In a letter dated July 2, 2012, counsel for the petitioner stated that the beneficiary's subordinates include: 
a sales manager L ; a financial consultant ; a salesman 
two sales-administrative assistants and an administrative 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
assistant- secretary The petitioner provided copies of its federal and state quarterly tax 
returns confirming its employment of these employees, including the beneficiary, as June 2012. 
Counsel 's letter also included a slightly different overview of the beneficiary's duties as general manager. 
Counsel stated that the beneficiary allocates 45% of his time to "the management, supervision and control 
of the corporate activities," 25% of his time to personnel supervision activities, 20% of his time 
compiling trade and consumer research, and 10% of his time traveling and promoting the business 
through direct visits to customers, phone calls and internet use. 
The director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE) on December 21, 2012. The director 
requested, in part, the petitioner's organizational chart and a copy of its Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 
Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, for the third quarter of 2012. 
In response, the petitioner submitted an organizational chart identifying the beneficiary as general 
manager superv1smg - Business Manager, - Accounting & Finance, and 
-Administrative Manager. The chart depicts two employees subordinate to 
namely -Logistics & Quality, and - Sales & Market Research. The 
chart further depicts , Administrative Assistant reporting to In addition, the 
beneficiary is shown to supervise a legal consultant as well as an "agent associate" identified as Hispanic 
Products, Distribution & Services. Finally, the chart indicates that the business manager , has 
indirect supervisory authority over The petitioner 
provided copies of its IRS Forms 941 for the last two quarters of 2012, indicating that it paid seven (7) 
employees 
in each quarter. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary 
would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity . In denying the petition, the director 
determined that the beneficiary's duties were described in vague terms that failed to specify what he 
actually does on a day-to-day basis. Further, the director found insufficient evidence that the 
beneficiary's subordinate employees relieve him from involvement in the operational tasks inherent to 
operating the petitioner's wholesale fruit export business. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the evidence establishes that the beneficiary holds the senior position 
in the company with the associated level of authority and performs indispensable functions related with 
the development of the business activities." The petitioner maintains that the evidence submitted 
establishes that the beneficiary does not perform basic tasks such as manufacturing a product or providing 
services, as these tasks are executed by his subordinate employees , and that the beneficiary 's duties are 
primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
In support of the appeal, the petitioner submits evidence of educational credentials for three of the 
beneficiary's subordinates, and copies of business correspondence and other business documents related 
to the beneficiary's offered position. Counsel emphasizes that USCIS recently approved the petitioner 's 
request to extend the beneficiary's L-1A nonimmigrant status based ,on similar facts and evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
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. 
When examining whether the beneficiary will be employed in an executive or managerial capacity, we 
will look first to the petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(5). 
The petitioner submitted a broad overview of the beneficiary's duties which outlines his authority for 
setting policies and procedures, planning for business expansion, developing and implementing the 
company's strategies, hiring, supervising and training all employees, managing sales and finance, and 
formulating financial programs. While these duties reflect that the beneficiary exercises the appropriate 
level of authority over the company and its operation, the petitioner has not described what specific tasks 
the beneficiary performs or how much time he allocates to such tasks. Reciting the beneficiary's vague job 
responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the regulations require a detailed 
description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. The petitioner has failed to provide any detail or 
explanation of the beneficiary's activities in the course of his daily routine. The actual duties themselves 
will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, l108 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajfd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Further, other duties 
included in the beneficiary's job description, such as evaluating the market, 
overseeing contract negotiations, authorizing purchases, reviewing statements, invoices, bills of lading, 
and supervising contact with purchasers, suggest the beneficiary's more direct involvement in the 
company's sales, marketing, purchasing and logistics functions. 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) of the Act. Here, the 
petitioner fails to document what proportion of the beneficiary's duties would be managerial functions and 
what proportion would be non-managerial. The petitioner lists the beneficiary's duties as including both 
managerial and administrative or operational tasks, but fails to quantify the time the beneficiary spends on 
them. This failure of documentation is important because several of the beneficiary's described above do 
not fall directly under traditional managerial duties as defined in the statute. For this reason, the AAO 
cannot determine whether the beneficiary is primarily performing the duties of a manager. See IKEA US, 
Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). The record contains only a broad 
breakdown of the beneficiary's duties that is insufficient to establish how much time the beneficiary 
spends on qualifying tasks. 
Although the director addressed the deficiencies in the beneficiary's job description in the notice of 
denial, the petitioner has not provided a more detailed description of his daily duties on appeal. Rather, 
counsel asserts that director erred in finding the position description deficient' and states that "the 
functions detailed, in a 100%, correspond to the executive and managerial tasks, as you may find and 
consider and provide in multiple books or treaties about business and managerial administration." 
Counsel provides a copy of a non-precedent AAO decision in support of her assertion that the beneficiary 
will perform primarily qualifying duties. While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that AAO precedent 
decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
not similarly binding. Counsel's reliance on the definitions of managerial and executive duties found in 
unspecified books about business administration is similarly unpersuasive. 
Further, the documentary evidence submitted in support of the appeal confirms that the beneficiary does 
in fact allocate some portion of his time to non-qualifying duties that must be considered operational or 
first-line supervisory in nature. For example, the petitioner submitted an e-mail from the beneficiary to a 
client in which he states: "I've been instructed by my father to search for different products in the USA 
that you may need for your new warehouse in Tyrana, such as grains, sunflower, and corn oil and exotic 
fruits. I have already contact a couple of exporters that have reply to me their inquiries .. . . Please send 
me pictures, packing details, all the information available in order to obtain the precise product for your 
needs." The record also includes an e-mail from the beneficiary to his administrative subordinates in 
which he states that "one of my clients is demanding the following products" and requests their assistance 
in finding suppliers for the products. While the beneficiary undoubtedly delegates some tasks to 
subordinates, there is also evidence that he is directly involved in purchase and sales transactions and 
other customer interactions on a day-to-day basis. 
In sum, the position description and supporting evidence provided suggests that the beneficiary performs 
a combination of qualifying managerial and executive and non-qualifying operational duties and fails to 
adequately address how much time he allocates to managerial or executive functions. Beyond the 
required description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when examining the 
claimed managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, including the petitioner's organizational 
structure, the duties of the beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to 
relieve the beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the petitioner 's business, and any 
· other factors that will contribute to understanding the beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
The petitioner has consistently claimed to employ a total of seven employees including the beneficiary; 
however, it has provided inconsistent information regarding its employees' job titles. At the time of 
filing, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary's subordinates include a sales manager, financial 
consultant, a salesman, two administrative-sales assistants and an administrative assistant- secretary. In 
response to the RFE, the petitioner stated that these same employees hold the titles of business manager , 
accounting & finance, sales & market research, logistics & quality, and administrative assistant. The 
petitioner also identified an administrative management position, an "agent associate" and an external 
company, on its organizational chart, which were not identified at the time of filing. The 
only position descriptions offered for the beneficiary's subordinates correspond to the job titles submitted 
at the time of filing. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by 
independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain 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). Due to these unexplained inconsistencies, the petitioner has not 
provided evidence to establish what functions the beneficiary's subordinates and external contractors 
perform or to what extent they relieve the beneficiary from performing the non-qualifying duties 
associated with the day-to-day operation of its wholesale trade business. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "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 managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, 
professional, or managerial employees. Contrary to the common understanding of the word "manager," 
the statute plainly states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity 
merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional." 
Section 101(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. 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. Section 101(a)(44)(a)(iii) of the Act. 
The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's subordinates are managers or supervisors. As 
discussed, the petitioner provided inconsistent job titles for nearly all of its employees and did not provide 
position descriptions corresponding to the job titles submitted on its organizational chart. Therefore , 
while the chart depicts two employees subordinate to the business manager, his job title alone is 
insufficient to establish that he is a manager or supervisor. The other claimed managerial or supervisory 
employee, the administrative manager, was not identified among the petitioner's employees at the time of 
filing. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future 
date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set . of facts. Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). 
The petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence that one of its employees, the finance and accounting 
employee, has a bachelor's degree in economics and additional qualifications in accounting and is more 
likely than not performing in a professional capacity.
1 
However, the beneficiary's supervision of a single 
professional employee is insufficient to establish that beneficiary will primarily perform the duties of a 
personnel manager. The petitioner also submitted educational qualifications for the administrative 
manager, but did not establish that she was employed at the time of filing, and for an employee initially 
1 
In evaluating whether the 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. 
Section 101(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(32), 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 term "profession" contemplates knowledge 
or learning, not merely skill, of an advanced type in a given field gained by a prolonged course of 
specialized instruction and study of at least baccalaureate level, which is a realistic prerequisite to entry 
into the particular field of endeavor. Matter of Sea, 19 I&N Dec. 817 (Comm ' r 1988); Matter of Ling , 13 
I&N Dec. 35 (R. C. 1968); Matter of Shin, 11 I&N Dec. 686 (D .D. 1966). 
Therefore, we focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree held by 
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 as that term 
is defined above. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
identified as a salesman, but did not provide sufficient evidence of his job duties to support a finding that 
he will be employed in a professional capacity. 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position within a 
complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the organization, and that 
person's authority to direct the organization. Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 
1101(a)(44)(B). Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" and 
"establish the goals and policies" of that organization. Inherent to the definition, the organization must 
have a subordinate level of managerial employees for the beneficiary to direct and the beneficiary must 
primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than the day-to-day operations 
of the enterprise. An individual will not be deemed an executive under the statute simply because they 
have an executive title or because they "direct" the enterprise as the owner or sole managerial employee. 
The beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision making" and receive only 
"general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of 
the organization." !d. 
As discussed, the record establishes that the beneficiary has the appropriate level of authority and 
indicates that his duties will include establishing the organization's goals and policies. However, due to 
the lack of specificity in the beneficiary's job description, his performance of non-qualifying duties, and 
the petitioner's failure to provide consistent information regarding the roles of the beneficiary's 
subordinate staff, the record as a whole fails to support a conclusion that the beneficiary would be 
performing primarily executive duties, or a conclusion that the beneficiary's subordinates relieve him 
from involvement in the day-to-day operations of the business. 
A company's size alone, without taking into account the reasonable needs of the organization, may not be 
the determining factor in denying a visa to a multinational manager or executive. See§ 101(a)(44)(C) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(C). However, it is appropriate for USCIS to consider the size of the 
petitioning company in conjunction with other relevant factors, such as a company's small personnel size, 
the absence of employees who would perform the non-managerial or non-executive operations of the 
company, or a "shell company" that does not conduct business in a regular and continuous manner. See, 
e.g. Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 2006); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 
(D.D.C. 2001). The size of a company may be especially relevant when USCIS notes discrepancies in 
the record and fails to believe that the facts asserted are true. See Systronics, 153 F. Supp. 2d at 15. 
Here, the petitioner introduced discrepancies in the record with respect to the company 's organizational 
structure. While the company's size is not dispositive in this matter, it is reasonable to expect a petitioner 
with seven employees to consistently identify its employees' job titles and roles in support of its assertion 
that those subordinates relieve the beneficiary from involvement in non-qualifying duties such as first-line 
supervision of lower-level staff, sales, marketing, and other operational functions associated with the 
business. The evidence must substantiate that the duties of the beneficiary and his or her subordinates 
correspond to their placement in an organization's structural hierarchy; artificial tiers of subordinate 
employees and inflated job titles are not probative and will not establish that an organization is 
sufficiently complex to support an executive or managerial position. Based on the deficiencies addressed 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
above, the petitioner has not established that it has a reasonable need for the beneficiary to perform 
primarily managerial or executive functions. 
Counsel asserts that USCIS has approved L-1A nonimmigrant petitions filed on behalf of the beneficiary 
based on similar facts and evidence. It must be noted that many I-140 immigrant petitions are denied after 
USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant I-129 L-1 petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS , 293 
F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin 
Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Examining the consequences of an 
approved petition, there is a significant difference between a nonimmigrant L-1A visa classification, 
which allows an alien to enter the United States temporarily, and an immigrant E-13 visa petition , which 
permits an alien to apply for permanent residence in the United States and, if granted, ultimately apply for 
naturalization as a United States citizen. Cf §§ 204 and 214 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1154 and 1184; see 
also§ 316 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1427. Because USCIS spends less time reviewing I-129 nonimmigrant 
petitions than I-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant L-1A petitions are simply approved in error. 
Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(i)(requiring no 
supporting documentation to file a petition to extend an L-1A petition's validity). 
In making a determination of statutory eligibility, USCIS is limited to the information contained in the 
record of proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(ii). In this matter, the record of proceeding contains 
insufficient information regarding the beneficiary 's actual job duties and inconsistencies regarding the job 
titles, roles and duties of the beneficiary's subordinates and therefore falls short of establishing that the 
beneficiary will be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
B. Foreign Employment in a Managerial or Executive Capacity 
The remaining issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established that the foreign entity 
employed the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
In denying the petition, the director found that the petitioner submitted an overly vague description of the 
beneficiary's job duties and failed to provide evidence that the beneficiary 's subordinates within the 
foreign entity were professionals. 
Upon review, the AAO will withdraw the director's determination with respect to this issue. The 
petitioner has established that the beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive capacity. The record 
reflects that the beneficiary served as president of a 42-person company with a subordinate general 
manager, at least two tiers of subordinate managers and supervisors, and sufficient lower-level staff to 
perform the day-to-day tasks associated with the company's major functions, and to relieve the 
beneficiary from involvement in such tasks. The petitioner complied with the director ' s requests to 
submit the foreign entity's organizational chart, provided the requested job titles and job duties for the 
beneficiary's subordinates, submitted an adequately detailed description of the beneficiary's duties, and 
has further supplemented the record on appeal. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
The petitioner has submitted relevant, probative, and credible evidence to support a conclusion that the 
beneficiary was more likely than not employed abroad in an executive capacity. Therefore , the director's 
adverse finding with respect to this issue alone will be withdrawn . 
III. Conclusion 
The petition will be denied and the appeal will be dismissed based on a finding that the petitioner did not 
establish that it will employ the beneficiary in a qualifying 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; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, 
that burden has been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.