dismissed L-1A Case: Automotive Sales

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G- CORP. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 22, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a used car dealership, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary employment as its 
president and chief executive officer under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101 (a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(l5)(L). The L-1A classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its 
affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifYing foreign employee to the United States to work 
temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petitiOn. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner' had not established that the Beneficiary ( 1) had been employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity, and (2) will be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner repeats previous assertions and 
contends that the evidence supports approval of the petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge 
capacity, for 1 continuous year within 3 years preceding the Beneficiary's application for admission 
into the United States. Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Act. In addition, the Beneficiary must seek to 
enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or 
a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. !d. ,, 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form l-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, shall include evidence that the beneficiary worked full-time for 
a qualifying organization abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least 1 continuous year 
during the 3 years preceding the filing of the petition. The petitioner must also submit a detailed 
description of the services the Beneficiary will perform in the United States in an executive or 
managerial capacity. 
Matter of G- Corp. 
For petitions seeking to extend the L-1 A status of a beneficiary working for a new office, the 
regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(14 )(ii) also requires a petitioner to submit a statement of the duties 
performed by the beneficiary for the previous year and the duties the beneficiary will perform under 
the extended petition, and a statement describing the staffing of the new
1 
operation, including the 
number of employees and types of positions held accompanied by evidence of wages paid to 
employees. 
II. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that: (1) the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity; and (2) the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that the 
Beneficiary worked abroad in an executive capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis of the 
Beneficiary's foreign employment to whether the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial 
capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" 
as "an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily": 
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component 
of the organization; 
(ii) supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the 
organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the 
authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions 
(such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly 
supervised, functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or 
with respect to the function managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function for 
which the employee has authority. 
Further, "[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." !d. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 11 01(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" 
as "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; 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofG- Corp. 
(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. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must take into account 
the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of 
the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(C) ofthe Act. 
A. Foreign Employment in a Managerial Capacity 
1. Duties 
When examining the managerial capacity of the Beneficiary, we will look first to the Petitioner's 
description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The Petitioner's description of the job 
duties must clearly describe the duties performed by the Beneficiary and indicate whether such 
duties are in a managerial or executive capacity. !d. 
The definition of managerial capacity has two parts. First, the Petitioner must show that the 
Beneficiary performed certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World. Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 
1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, the Petitioner must prove that the 
Beneficiary was primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational 
activities. See Family Inc .. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 
F.2d 1533. 
In a letter submitted with the petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "served as [the parent 
company's] Administrative Manager from August 2011 until May 2015 when she was transferred to 
hold a temporary 
executive position in our U.S. Company." The Beneficiary signed the letter in her 
capacity as president of the petitioning company. The Petitioner also submitted a copy of a letter 
the foreign entity's human resources manager, stating that the Beneficiary 
"has been employed by this company since August 01 st, 2011, in the position of Administrative 
Manager." In addition, the initial evidence included an undated "payroll chart" for the foreign entity on 
which the Beneficiary was listed as "administration and marketing manager." 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's duties as the foreign entity's administrative manager 
"included, but-were not limited to the following": 
• Ensured that business plans, policies and goals implemented by the Board of 
Directors were performed by the company's employees under her direct supervision. 
Coordinated operations between the Marketing Manager, Purchase 
Manager, and the 
3 
Matter ofG- Corp. 
Accounting Manager under her direct supervisiOn, who in tum supervised and 
directed the overall day-to-day operations of the Administrative Department and 
informed the Administrative Manager of the performance of other subordinates. (4 
hours or 10% of her time per week); 
• Was in charge of the administration of all business/commercial activities, marketing 
programs, inventory control, and accounting of the company. [The Beneficiary] 
supervised, revised and approved the proposals made by the Marketing Manager, 
Purchase Manager, and the Accounting Manager. Reviewed activity reports and 
financial statements with the President concerning the Company's business activity. 
Revised objectives and plans in accordance with the plans and directives set up by 
the President and Board of Directors. Also reviewed and approved the resubmission 
of plans and financial projections with a more detailed estimate of costs and a critical 
path. [The Beneficiary] also arranged the sales invoices and signed off all purchase 
ledger invoices to ensure strong cash-flow and that the company's obligations to the 
authorities were met each month. (6 hours or 15% of her time per week) 
• She planned, developed, and implemented methods for enhancing revenue sources 
and maximized profits generating new revenue sources for the company. 
Spebifically, she created flow charts and analyzed the trends of productivity within 
the company to determine how to increase the productivity within the company to 
determine how to increase the productivity and therefore the gains. In this sense, she 
oversaw the planning and development of public relations policies designed to 
improve the company's image and relations with customers, employees and the 
\ public. (6 hours or 15% of her time per week) 
• [The Beneficiary] identified and met with contractors in order to better allocate the 
internal resources of the company. Also met with bankers, attorneys and the 
company's accountant. Especially with the company's accountant in conjunction 
with the Marketing Manager and the Purchase Manager in order to coordinate the 
formulation of financial programs to provide funding for new and continuing 
operations to maxtmtze returns on investments. Also, ensured through the 
company's accountant that all the financial and tax documents of the company were 
complied with. (8 hours or 20% ~~her time per week) 
• Participated in the development and management of company's corporate policies, 
procedures, goals and annual budget; performed periodic cost and productivity 
analysis maintaining profit margins and controlling unnecessary expenditure which 
is a key component in the Company's healthy balance sheet. (4 hours or 10% of 
her time per week) 
• She was engaged in the signing of contracts and other documents to bind the 
company in legal contract agreements, such as entering into new agreements for new 
projects to be performed on behalf of the company, acquisition of office supplies and 
other services. She was also responsible for establishing important business contacts 
through meeting and attending industry related conventions and events. (8 hours or 
20% of her time per week) 
4 
Matter of G- Corp. 
• Hired appropriate personnel and established personnel conduct, actions and activities 
such as determining their hierarchical position within the Administrative 
Department's organizational structure based on qualification. -This, by definition, 
included decision-making as to promotion and termination. She was also 
responsible for setting-up typical managerial procedures as it relates to working 
hours, vacation time, health insurance, and so forth. In doing so, she necessarily 
exercised wide latitude in discretionary decision-making over overall company 
activities. (4 hours or 10% of her time per week) 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), stating that "the listed duties indicate that the 
beneficiary was directly involved in the provision of services." The Director asked the Petitioner to 
submit more details about the Beneficiary's former position abroad, and information to show thaHhe 
position met all the elements of the definition of a managerial capacity. The Petitioner responded by 
repeating the same job description and asserting that the Beneficiary "is clearly a manager that 
exercised her authority and supervised other professionals or managers who actually carried out the 
day-to-day function of the business. [The Beneficiary] spent 100% of her time in managerial 
functions." 
The Director denied the petition, based in part on a finding that the Beneficiary's job description is too 
vague to show exactly what the Beneficiary did for the foreign company. On appeal, the Petitioner 
repeats the Beneficiary's foreign job description, with no further comment regarding the deficiencies 
identified by the Director. 
Upon review, we agree with the Director's assessment that the foreign job description lacks detail. For 
example, the Petitioner has stated that the Beneficiary spent 8 hours per week meeting with various 
people inside and outside the company "in order to coordinate the formulation of financial programs." 
This provides little insight into the nature of the Beneficiary's active role in the formulation of those 
programs. 
Likewise, we learn nothing of the Beneficiary's duties from the assertion that she "[e]nsured that 
business plans, policies and goals ... were performed by the company's employees." This element of 
the job description essentially amounts to her authority over subordinates, but the Petitioner stated that it 
occupied only 4 hours in a typical week. Oversight over subordinates is a level of authority rather than 
an identifiable activity. 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 actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. 
Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), af('d, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
The Petitioner has claimed that the Beneficiary spent another 8 hours per week signing contracts and 
attending conventions and events. These are different activities, grouped together under a single 
heading; the Petitioner did not specifY how much time the Beneficiary devoted to each of these different 
functions. Also, the record does not show that the Beneficiary signed enough contracts or attended 
enough gatherings to account for (on average) 8 hours per week. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter ~f G- Gorp. 
Beyond the general deficiencies in the Beneficiary's job description, the record contains discrepancies 
regarding the nature of the Beneficiary's work abroad. In response to the RFE, stated 
that the Beneficiary "was given maternity leave for a year, starting on August 15th, 2014." The 
Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary served as a function manager. "managing the administrative 
operations of the company." Specifically, the Beneficiary "maintained control of the overall U.S. 
Company's administrative activity," while "negotiating and entering into major business agreements on 
behalf of the U.S. Company." This statement appears to be inconsistent with the job duties stated 
above. 
In the denial notice, the . .Director questioned how the Beneficiary could have overseen the Petitioner's 
administrative activity while working in Venezuela, 
when she left Venezuela on maternity leave in 
August 2014, several months before the Petitioner' s establishment in December 2014, and was still in 
the United States when the Petitioner filed its petition on her behalf. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not address this significant discrepancy. The Beneficiary was never in 
Venezuela during the U.S. company's existence, and therefore could not have overseen the U.S. 
company's operations while working overseas for the foreign company. Also, any work that the 
Beneficiary did perform in the United States in visitor status, whether on behalf of the foreign 
company or not, would not have been qualifying foreign employment. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(A). 
Doubt cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the 
remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591 
(BIA 1988). In this case, the Petitioner has asserted that the Beneficiary's duties abroad included 
responsibilities over the U.S. company , when that company did not yet exist. In the denial notice , 
the Director specifically advised the Petitioner of this discrepancy , but the Petitioner , on appeal , has 
not resolved or even acknowledged this issue. 
The Director's unrebutted finding that the submitted descriptions ofthe Beneficiary's foreign job duties 
lack both consistency and sufficient detail, in conjunction with a review of the totality of the evidence, 
as discussed below, does not permit us to find that the Petitioner has provided sufficient , credible 
information regarding the Beneficiary's former employment abroad. 
2. Staffing 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed managerial capacity of a beneficiary, including the company's organizational 
structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to 
relieve a beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other 
factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary ' s actual duties and role in a business. 
6 
(b)(6)
"fatter of G- Corp. 
An organizational chart Jor the foreign company includes the following information about the 
components subordinate to the Beneficiary: 
Board of Directors 
I 
Administrative Management [the Beneficiary] 
Administrative Assistant I 
I I I I 
Marketing Dept. Accounting & Tax Dept. Purchase Dept. H.R. Dept. 
I 
Institutional Cashier Personnel Selection 
& Permit Relations & Training 
A separate part of the chart, "Operations Management," showed an unspecified number of additional 
employees: 
• Operations Management 
• Production Supervisor 
• Lab and Quality Control 
• Distribution Supervisor 
• Security Supervisor 
• Security 
• Workers 
• Fleet 
In all, the foreign company's organizational chart has 21 sections, some of wliich have labels such as 
"workers" that indicate or suggest multiple employees within a particular category. The company 
payroll chart submitted at the time of filing included 20 employees identified by name, job title, hire 
date, and level of education. Of these, 11 employees were identified as holding the position of 
"worker." Additional employees included a general manager, a director , a supervisor, a distribution 
manager and a maintenance supervisor. The remaining employees were the Beneficiary (identified as 
administration and marketing manager), a human resources and institutional relations manager 
an administrative coordinator /accounting and tax and a 
cashier Like the organizational chart , the payroll chart did not list 
any subordinate employees in the marketing or purchase departments. 
The Petitioner also submitted payroll and social security records listing 17 employees (including the 
Beneficiary) at the foreign company throughout 2015. The lists did not show their job titles or duties, or 
specify how many of those employees worked under the Beneficiary's authority rather than under 
Operations Management. 
7 
Matter ofG- Corp. 
In the RFE, the Director asked the Petitioner for evidence that the Beneficiary had managerial authority 
over professionals, managers, or supervisors. The Director also noted that the foreign company's 17 
listed employees are not enough to fill all the positions in the organizational chart. In response, the 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "supervised other professionals or managers," and listed her 
immediate subordinates as: the accounting and tax manager; the marketing manager; the purchase 
manager; and the human resource manager. 
The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary served as a function manager, "managing the 
administrative operations of the company." The Petitioner did not address the Director's observation 
that the foreign company did not show enough employees to account for the positions and departments 
shown on the organizational chart. 
The Director, in the denial notice, found that the Beneficiary's immediate subordinates, though 
identified as managers, had significant operational duties; that the company's small size did not appear 
to warrant a significant expenditure of the Beneficiary's time on personnel matters; and that the 
Petitioner had not provided enough information about the Beneficiary's subordinates. In this regard, the 
Director repeated her finding that the employee list is not compatible with the organizational chat1, 
adding that the chart shows no subordinates below the marketing manager or the purchase manager. 
On appeal, the Petitioner repeats the assertion that the Beneficiary "supervised other. professionals or 
managers" but does not address the Director's specific concerns. The Petitioner states that the 
organizational chart shows that the foreign company "employs 21 individuals in Venezuela," but does 
not explain why the lists of employees show only 17 and 20 names, respectively. Furthermore, the 
organizational chart does not show 21 employees, but rather 21 blocks, several of which are either 
departments or refer to multiple unspecified "workers." 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not provided enough 
credible information about the Beneficiary's subordinates to show that she primarily oversaw 
supervisors or managers. The 20-name payroll chart does not show that any of the Beneficiary's 
claimed subordinat~s completed college degrees or work in fields statutorily defined as professions, and 
therefore the record does not show that any of those subordinates are professionals. 
1 
The Petitioner has 
provided incomplete and conflicting information about the foreign company's personnel, compotmded 
by the other documented credibility issues we have already discussed. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and 
"function managers." See sections 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers are 
1 To determine whether the Beneficiary manages professional employees, we must evaluate whether the subordinate 
positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entl)' into the field of endeavor. Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) 
(defining "profession" to mean "any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent 
is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation"). Section I 0 I (a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S. C. § II 0 l (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." 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of G- Corp. 
required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional , or 
managerial employees. 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) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(B)( 4). If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary directly supervises other employees, 
those subordinate employees must be supervisory , professional , or managerial , and the beneficiary 
must have the authority to hire and fire those employees , or recommend those actions, and take other 
personnel actions. Sections 101 (a)( 44 )(A)(ii )-(iii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R . §§ 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(B)(2)-(J). 
The record also supports the Director's finding that the identified managers performed operational 
duties. For example, the Petitioner stated that its accounting and tax manager 
"prepared tax returns and 
other tax documents" and "carried out the accounting of assigned projects," tasks for an accountant 
rather than an accounting manager. As another example, the Petitioner stated that the marketing 
manager "[p ]repared and developed marketing plans," but the record does not identify any subordinate 
staff to actually perform the marketing tasks. The four departments said to have been under the 
Beneficiary's management appear to have been staffed by a total of three employees, including a 
cashier. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has provided conflicting infonnation about several job titles, including the 
Beneficiary's. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that serves as both 
purchase manager and accounting and tax manager; this individual was previously listed as 
"administrative coordinator/accounting and tax" on the foreign entity's payroll list. The Petitioner 
stated that serves at the marketing manager, but she was listed as a cashier on 
the payroll list, which listed the Beneficiary herself as the marketing manager. The Petitioner has not 
resolved these inconsistencies with independent , objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. For all of these reasons , the record does not support a 
finding that the Beneficiary supervised subordinate managers or supervisors. 
Although the Petitioner has, throughout this proceeding, maintained that the Beneficiary supervised 
managers abroad, the Petitioner has also asserted that the Beneficiary primarily served as a function 
manager. The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or 
control the work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing an 
"essential function" within the organization. See section 101 (a)( 44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The term 
"essential function " is not defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary 
will manage an essential function, a petitioner must clearly describe the duties to be performed in 
managing the essential function, i.e., identify the function with specificity, articulate the essential 
nature of the function, and establish the proportion of a beneficiary 's daily duties dedicated to 
managing the essential function. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). In addition, a petitioner's 
description of a beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary will manage the 
function rather than perform the duties related to the function. 
The only essential function that the Petitioner identified was the Beneficiary's claimed oversight of the 
administration of the petitioning U.S. company. As explained above, this claim does not hold up to 
9 
Matter of G- Corp. 
scrutiny, because the Beneficiary never worked in Venezuela while the U.S. company existed. Also, 
while the U.S. company is an automobile dealership, the foreign company sells bottled water. The 
Petitioner has not defined any plausible connection between the management of the two companies. 
Based on the deficiencies and inconsistencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
·the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity abroad. 
B. U.S. Employment in a Managerial or Executive Capacity 
1. Duties 
The Petitioner initially stated that the Beneficiary would serve in an executive capacity under the 
extended petition. 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. § 110l(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 a beneficiary to direct and a 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 an 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." ld. 
The Beneficiary's full job description fills more than three pages and is too long to reproduce here in 
full. The main elements of the description are as follows: 
• Planning [25% of her time per week] 
• Financial Management [25%] 
• Management [20%] 
• Marketing and Sales [20%] 
• Human Resources Management [10%] 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would be responsible for "[p ]Ianning, establishing, 
directing, and controlling" each of the above elements. 
In the RFE, the Director stated that the Beneficiary's job description consists largely of "vague and 
general terms" such as "establishing goals and policies," combined with non-executive functions 
such as "locate anq remove or correct possible errors in information provided by the administrative 
and logistical systems that could impact the business operations." In response, the Petitioner 
repeated the assertion that the Beneficiary's functions are entirely executive in nature. The 
Petitioner did not address the specific examples of non-qualifying duties that the Director had cited 
10 
Matter of G- Corp. 
in the RFE. Instead, the Petitioner stated that the Director did not specify what was unsatisfactory 
about the job description. ~ 
In the denial notice, the Director stated that the percentages of time allocated to various duties "do 
not appear to be realistic when considered in conjunction with the scope and capacity of [the 
Petitioner's] retail used car operation, and it is unclear how many of the task[s] described can be 
deemed to be executive in nature." 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not offer any new information or argument as to how the 
Beneficiary's position is that of an executive. Instead, the Petitioner repeats the initial job 
description and states that "[t]he evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the 
Beneficiary meets all of these criteria and, therefore, can easily be deemed a functional manager, as 
more fully set forth above." The assertions preceding this paragraph, however, concerned executive 
capacity rather than that of a function manager. Prior to the appeal, the Petitioner did not claim that 
the Beneficiary will serve as a function manager, and the appeal articulates no coherent claim in that 
regard. 
The Beneficiary did not sh_ow that her claimed duties will be primarily managerial. TheDirector's 
stated objections apply equally to claims of a managerial and executive capacity; the asserted duties 
lack detail and corroboration, and do not realistically correspond to the organization as described. 
For example, the Beneficiary's job description identified one of her duties as "[n]etworking with 
other executives," but the company has no other executives. As another example, the job description 
did not list either sales or purchasing among the Beneficiary's duties. But the record contains copies 
of several invoices identifying the Beneficiary as a "salesperson," and others identifying her as the 
purchaser of used cars for resale by the Petitioner. The Beneficiary's documented involvement in 
the purchase and sale of these cars is neither managerial nor executive, and the Petitioner did not 
disclose this important information in the job description. Therefore, the job description is not a 
credible representation of the Beneficiary's true responsibilities and duties with the Petitioner. 
2. Staffing 
The Petitioner indicated that it outsources transport, repairs, and related functions. The Petitioner 
added that the Beneficiary "has employed a staff to undertake the management of [the Petitioner's] 
operations since 100% of her time will be spent in executive duties." 
On Form I-129, the Petitioner indicated that it had four employees in the United States. That number 
is consistent with the Petitioner's IRS Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, for the first 
quarter of2016. The Petitioner identified the employees as follows: 
• President [the Beneficiary] 
• Operations Manager 
• Sales and Marketing Manager 
• Salesperson 
II 
Matter ofG- Corp. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's only immediate subordinate, the operations manager, 
"oversees the planning, development and establishment of policies and objectives of the U.S. 
organization," and "keeps the records of the personnel ... [and] manages the personnel matters," among 
other duties. The Petitioner listed all other employees as being subordinate to the operations manager. 
The Petitioner indicated that the operations manager is also the purchase manager, but the Petitioner 
identified no staff to perform the purchasing functions, and the operations manager's job description did 
not specify his purchasing duties. 
In the RFE, the Director found that some of the operations manager's duties are administrative rather 
than managerial, and that other duties "overlap with those of the beneficiary." In response, the 
Petitioner stated that the duties do not overlap, because the Beneficiary establishes corporate policies 
and the operations manager implements those policies. This amounts to a revision of the prior claim 
that the operations manager "oversees the planning, development and establishment of policies and 
objectives" - a phrase that indicates that the operations manager not only implements, but also creates, 
those policies. 
-
In denying the petition, the Director repeated the deficiencies first described in the RFE, and found 
that the Petitioner had not shown that any of the Beneficiary's subordinates qualify as managers. 
The Director stated that the Petitioner had not shown who performs various key functions of the 
company. Although the Petitioner had claimed that it outsources some functions to contractors, the 
Director found that the Petitioner had documented only minimal use of those contractors (for 
example, $625 spent on legal and professional fees). The Director found that the submission of 
assorted invoices did not suffice to show that the Petitioner engaged the contractors' services 
regularly, rather than occasionally or intermittently. A petitioner's unsupported statements are of 
very limited weight and normally will be insufficient to carry its burden of proot~ particularly when 
supporting documentary evidence would reasonably be available. See Malter of So.ffici, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Crajt o{Cal., 14 l&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1972)); see also Matter ofCha¥vathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). The Petitioner 
must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See 2\1atter ~fChawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
On appeal, the Petitioner offers no substantive response to this ground for denial. As noted before, 
the Petitioner repeats the Beneficiary's job description from its initial letter, adding a passage at the 
end that "[t]he evidence overwhelmingly supports" approval of the petition. The Petitioner does not 
explain or elaborate, and the bare assertion that the Beneficiary qualifies for the benefit sought 
cannot overcome the specific grounds that the Director set forth at length in the denial notice. 
The evidence submitted does not provide enough information about the role each employee plays in 
the Petitioner's operation of a used car dealership. For example, no job description includes the 
operational and administrative tasks involved in purchasing cars for resale, but those tasks are 
fundamental and indispensable to the operation of a car dealership. The Beneficiary's own name 
appears on some of the purchase documents and indicates that the Beneficiary herself performs these 
12 
Matter of G- Corp. 
functions at times. Therefore, this evidence both points to the Beneficiary's performance of non­
qualifying duties and illustrates that her job description is inaccurate or at least incomplete. 
Based on the deficiencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that it will employ the 
Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the 
petitioner. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.fG- Corp., ID# 188320 (AAO Feb. 22, 2017) 
13