remanded EB-1C Case: Furniture Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-F-M-, CORP. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 15,2017 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a furniture manufacturer and designer, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary 
as its president under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or 
managers. See 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 a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a· 
managerial or executive capacity, and (2) that he had been employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred when 
concluding that it had not established that the Beneficiary had been or will be employed in an 
executive or managerial capacity. The Petitioner contends that the evidence submitted establishes 
that the Beneficiary worked for the foreign entity and will work for it in an executive and managerial 
capacity. 
Upon de novo review of the record, we find that the Director did not offer an adequate analysis of 
the evidence submitted so that the Petitioner was afforded a fair opportunity to contest the decision 
and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.3(a)(l )(i); see 
also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must fully explain the 
reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the 
determination on appeal). When denying a petition, the Director has an aftirmative duty to explain 
the specific reasons for the denial; this duty includes informing a petitioner why the evidence did not 
satisfy its burden ofproofpursuant to section 291 of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). As the 
Director did not satisfy this condition, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the 
matter for entry of a new decision. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act makes an immigrant visa 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 
Matter of M-F-M-, Corp. 
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. 
The Act defines the term "executive capacity" as an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily directs the management of the organization or a major component or function 
thereof; 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) ofthe Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B). 
The Act defines the term "managerial capacity" as an assignment within an organization in which 
the employee primarily manages the organization or a department, subdivision, function, or 
component; supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees, or manages an essential function; if the employee directly supervises other employees, 
has the authority to take personnel actions, or if no other employee is directly supervised, functions 
at a senior-level within the organization 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 101(a)(44)(A) ofthe Act. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director determined that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in 
the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. The Director based his decision on the 
Petitioner's limited number of employees (9) and the job titles of those employees. The Director 
concluded that it is "outside the norm in the corporate world for a functioning business entity to have 
a full55.5% of its workforce to be employed in either a mainly executive or managerial capacity." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "each of the 4 managerial employees controlled, directed and 
reporting to the CEO fulfil totally separate functions and managerial duties and activities within the 
company." The Petitioner refers to the previously submitted descriptions of duties and other 
evidence in the record. 
The Director's reliance on the percentage of managerial employees based on their job titles is 
insufficient to provide the Petitioner with a clear understanding of the deficiencies in the record, and 
the Director's unsupported view of "the norm in the corporate world" does not provide an adequate 
basis for the denial of the petition. 
For this reason, this matter must be remanded for the entry of a new decision that analyzes both the 
Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's intended duties as well as the Petitioner's staffing to 
determine whether the Petitioner has established this eligibility requirement. We note that when 
reviewing staffing levels as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial or 
executive capacity, the Director must take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in 
2 
.
Matter of M-F-M-, Corp. 
light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section 1 0 1 (a )(44 )(C) 
of the Act. 
With respect to the Beneficiary's job duties, the position description provided appears to include a 
combination of managerial, executive, and non-qualifying duties and does not adequately describe 
the specific tasks the Beneficiary performs or the amount of time he spends on such tasks on a day­
to-day basis. 1 This lack of explanation is important because several of the Beneficiary's daily tasks, 
such as setting sales prices, analyzing market data, searching for business opportunities, and 
evaluating new products and services, do not fall directly under managerial or executive duties as 
defined in the statute. For this reason, we cannot determine whether the Beneficiary would be 
primarily performing the duties of a manager or an executive. See IKEA US. Inc. v. US. Dept. ol 
Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
The record as presently constituted 
also contains insufficient information regarding the Beneficiary's 
subordinate employees to establish that they are managers, supervisors or professionals, or that they 
sufficiently relieve the Beneficiary from significant involvement in the non-managerial, day-to-day 
operations of the Petitioner's business. 2 The record does not include probative evidence establishing 
that the operations/purchase manager directly subordinate to the Beneficiary is employed in a 
supervisory or managerial position, nor does it include evidence Beneficiary's subordinates are 
professionals. The record also does not include sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary 
is relieved from performing operational duties. 
As the Director did not properly address the Beneficiary's duties within the context of the totality of 
the evidence submitted, the matter will be remanded. 
III. MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY ABROAD 
The Director determined that the record did not establish that the foreign entity employed the 
Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. The Director based his decision on the foreign 
entity's limited number of employees and noted that seven ofthe claimed nine employees (or 77.7 
percent of the foreign entity's employees) had executive or managerial titles. The Director also 
determined that the record did not contain evidence of the foreign entity's gross annual income. 
1 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner provided a letter from of who opines 
that the Beneficiary's position "a near perfect match with the definition of' Managerial Capacity'" and states that it is not 
feasible for the Petitioner to provide a breakdown of how its employees allocate their time. We note that this letter is not 
sufficient to overcome the Petitioner's submission of an overly broad position description and will not exempt the 
Petitioner from submitting information regarding the Beneficiary's specific tasks and the amount of time he will spend 
on them. 
2 
The statutory definition of"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function managers.'" See 
section I 0 I (a)( 44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work 
of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. 
3 
Matter of M-F-M-, Corp. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides additional information to demonstrate the foreign entity's income, 
and asserts that the foreign entity employs four managerial employees who support the Beneficiary 
in his role as president and chief executive officer. 
As with the Beneficiary's U.S. employment, the Director relied on the job titles of the Beneficiary's 
subordinates to deny the petition and did not adequately articulate the deficiencies in the record 
regarding the Beneficiary's foreign employment. Accordingly, the Director must also address this 
issue on remand and issue a new decision that analyzes both the Beneficiary's duties and the staffing 
and organizational structure of the foreign entity. 
The record contains only general descriptions of the duties performed by the Beneficiary and his 
subordinates. It is not clear from the description and broadly allocated duties of the Beneficiary's 
position whether he is engaged in primarily managerial, primarily executive, or primarily 
non-qualifying duties for the foreign entity. 
Additionally, the ·foreign entity's narrative regarding its hierarchy does not correspond to the 
organizational chart provided for the foreign entity. For example, the foreign entity contended that 
the individual in the general manager/purchasing manager position supervised the three subordinate 
managers shown on the organizational chart as the operations manager, the senior sales manager, 
and the accounting/administration manager. However, when describing the operations manager's 
duties, the foreign entity stated that this position oversaw the senior sales manager and the accounts 
manager as well as the in-house counsel. As the organizational chart identities the operations 
manager as on the same tier as the senior sales manager, the accounts/administration manager, and 
the in-house legal counsel, the record does not cont&in a clear or consistent description of the foreign 
entity's organizational hierarchy. The record does not include definitive descriptions of each of the 
foreign entity's claimed "managerial" employees whose duty descriptions correspond to their 
placement on the organizational chart. 
The Petitioner must describe the Beneficiary's specific duties, as well as the time allocated to those 
specific duties, and should provide detailed descriptions for his subordinate staff. While the foreign 
entity may employ nine staff, the duties of the Beneficiary and the claimed managerial employees 
overlap, so that the actual responsibilities of each position cannot be determined and analyzed. The 
record as presently constituted is insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary was employed in a 
primarily managerial capacity or in a primarily executive capacity for the foreign entity. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
As the Director's decision did not sufficiently articulate the deficiencies in the record, we will 
remand this matter to the Director for a new decision. The Director should request any additional 
evidence deemed warranted and allow the Petitioner to submit such evidence within a reasonable 
period of time. 
4 
Matter of M-F-M-, Corp. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter ofM-F-M-. Corp., ID# 530046 (AAO Sept. 15, 2017) 
5