dismissed L-1A Case: Business Process Outsourcing

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarramea 
invasion of personal privacy 
JOBUCCOpy 
DATE: 
MAY 1 6 2.011 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Irrunigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-IA nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section IOI(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. § I IOI(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a business process outsourcing company, states that it is a subsidiary 
of Firstsource Solutions Limited, located in India. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the 
position of Manager of Process Excellence for a period of three years. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish: (1) that the beneficiary has 
been employed by the foreign entity in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; or (2) that the 
beneficiary would be employed by the U.S. entity in a primarily 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 asserts that the director improperly denied 
the petition, as the evidence submitted established that the beneficiary is "a manager with a significant 
responsibility overseeing an essential function of the corporation." Counsel asserts that the beneficiary 
"practiced wide decision making authority and exercised discretion over the day-to-day operations of the 
function." Counsel requests that the AAO review the arguments already made in the record of proceeding, 
rather than submitting a brief or additional evidence in support of the appeal. 
To establish eligibility for the L-l nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section IOI(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one 
continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States. 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the 
alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (1)(1 )(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies him/her to perform the intended 
Page 3 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
II. Employment Abroad in a Managerial Capacity 
The first issue in this matter is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary has been employed by 
the foreign entity in a primarily managerial capacity. The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary has 
been employed in an executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § I 10 I (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. 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. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, on April 7, 2009. In a letter dated 
March 25, 2009, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary has been employed by its parent company in India 
since May 2003 in the position of Manager - Process Excellence. The petitioner described the beneficiary'S 
duties in this position as follows: 
• Understanding client SLA's and Preparing the Quality plan accordingly; 
• Implementation of Quality Management System across Healthcare/Publishing vertical of 
Chennai center; 
• Implementing rigorous measurement and review of quality performance; 
• Implementation of Quality MIS in the process; 
• Guiding the operations team to focus on priorities; 
• Calibration of QA members periodically; 
• Attend Customer meeting for business review; 
• Implementation of SPC (statistics process control) m the operations such of Pareto 
Fishbone analysis, Control charts; 
• Implementation of Quality Governance mechanism such as Quality Review meeting; 
• Conducting [Yellow Belt] and [Green Belt] for healthcare/publishing vertical; 
• Building Quality culture in the Chennai Center; 
• Increasing the Quality DNA in the Chennai Center; 
• Identification, initiation and mentoring of six sigma projects; 
• Facilitation of Business Quality Council meetings for reviewing six sigma projects; 
• Participating in the Business Review meetings with client; 
• Participating in the six sigma projects review meeting with the client; 
• Driving Quality initiatives; and 
• Implementation of BPMS in the Healthcare/Publishing vertical. 
The petitioner submitted an organizational chart for the foreign entity's Process Improvement & Management 
organization as of January 2008. The beneficiary is depicted on the chart as "Manager, Process Excellence," 
and reports to an individual with the title "Master Black Belt - Healthcare, Publishing & Domestic Business." 
This individual reports to the Executive Vice President - Process Excellence. Other employees who report to 
the beneficiary's direct supervisor include two "CO PC Coordinators" and an employee with the title "Black 
Belt - Airtel & Vodafone Ess." 
The petitioner also submitted a copy of the beneficiary's resume in which he states that he is "heading the 
service quality and process excellence department" at the petitioner's Chennai center. He lists duties that are 
similar to those identified above, and indicates that his position involves a "Process Excellence Role" and a 
"Service Quality Role." 
On April 16, 2009, the director issued a request for additional evidence ("RFE"), but did not request any 
additional evidence pertaining to the beneficiary's employment capacity with the foreign entity. 
On May 26, 2009, the director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary has been employed by the foreign entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity, or that 
the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. In 
denying the petition, the director noted that the duties listed do not appear to be primarily managerial or 
executive but instead "demonstrate a direct relationship between the beneficiary and the clients" and "duties 
that involve the day-to-day operations of the business." [n addition, the director observed that the 
organizational chart does not indicate any subordinate personnel who report to the beneficiary. 
Finally, the director noted that the petitioner had failed to submit the requested percentage of time the 
beneficiary devotes to his listed duties. As noted above, the director did not in fact request additional 
evidence pertaining to the beneficiary's employment capacity prior to denying the petition. Even if the AAO 
were to find that the director should have requested evidence before denying the petition, the director's error 
would be harmless. Because the director did not request evidence prior to her decision, the petitioner had the 
opportunity to submit additional evidence to the AAO on appeal. Cj Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 
(BIA 1988). The petitioner did not avail itself of this opportunity 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner states that the director improperly denied the petition. Specifically, 
counsel states: 
Page 5 
[The beneficiary 1 qualified for this classification as a manager with significant responsibility 
overseeing an essential function of the corporation. Acting in his senior level managerial 
capacity [the beneficiary 1 practiced wide decision-making authority and exercised discretion 
over the day-to-day operations of the function. All arguments necessary to establish that [the 
beneficiary 1 qualifies as an intracompany transferee were made in the initial petition as well 
as in response to the request for evidence filed with USCIS. 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are not persuasive. The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 
has been employed by the foreign entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 1 01 (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. Here, the petitioner indicates that the beneficiary'S current and proposed duties are 
those of a "function manager." The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary supervises personnel in 
India or that he will supervise any personnel in the United States. 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, USCIS will look first to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). If a petitioner claims that the 
beneficiary is primarily managing an essential function, the petitioner must furnish a detailed position 
description that clearly describes the duties to be performed in that capacity, i.e., identify the function with 
specificity, articulate the essential nature of the function, and establish the proportion of the beneficiary'S 
daily duties attributed to managing the essential function. If a petitioner fails to document what proportion of 
the beneficiary'S duties would be managerial functions and what proportion would be non-managerial, the 
AAO cannot determine whether the beneficiary is primarily performing the duties of a function manager. See 
lKEA US, Inc. v. Us. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (O.O.C. 1999). In addition, the petitioner's 
description of the beneficiary'S daily duties must clearly demonstrate that the beneficiary primarily manages 
the function rather than performs operational duties related to the function. An employee who "primarily" 
performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be "primarily" 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See sections 101 (a)( 44 )(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that 
one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties.) 
The petitioner's description of the beneficiary'S duties fails to identify his specific tasks or the amount oftime 
he devotes to his areas of responsibility, such that it could be concluded that he is primarily managing an 
essential function within the foreign entity. Some aspects of the position appear to involve direct involvement 
and interaction with client projects. For example, the petitioner states that the beneficiary'S duties include 
"understanding client SLA's and preparing the quality plan"; "attend customer meeting for business review," 
"identification, initiation and mentoring of six sigma projects," "participating in the Business Review meeting 
with client," and "participating in the six sigma projects review meeting with the client." The beneficiary 
states in his resume that he shares six sigma projects with clients, works with clients, and delivers "client 
impact projects." 
The petitioner did not, however, clarify the scope or nature of the beneficiary'S interactions with clients, and 
thus it cannot be concluded that such duties rise to the level of managerial duties, rather than simply 
specialized duties inherent to delivery of customer projects. Specifics are clearly an important indication of 
Page 6 
whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the 
definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. 
Supp. 1103 (ED.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
The beneficiary indicates in his resume that he is "heading the service quality and process excellence 
department" at the petitioner's "Chennai center." However, the foreign entity's organizational chart depicts the 
"Process Improvement and Management Organization." It fails to identifY the department the beneficiary 
claims to head, the "Chennai Center," or the beneficiary's management role within it. The beneficiary is listed 
as "Manager - Process Excellence" and reports to a "Master Black Belt" in the healthcare, publishing and 
domestic business. Other persons reporting to the same manager have the job titles "COPC coordinator" and 
"black belt." The overall "manager" of the component of the organization depicted on the organizational 
chart is the executive vice president for Process Excellence, rather than the beneficiary. 
The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary is responsible for implementing a Quality Management System 
and Business Process Management systems across the Healthcare/Publishing vertical; implementing "rigorous 
measurement and review of quality performance"; implementing Quality MIS in the process; implementing 
"Quality Governance mechanisms"; "building Quality Culture"; "increasing Quality DNA" and driving 
Quality initiatives. Again, the petitioner does not explain in any detail the specific duties the beneficiary 
performs to carry out his responsibilities, such that they could be classified as managerial, and the duties 
described do not clearly demonstrate the beneficiary's level of authority. Without further explanation, it could 
be concluded that the beneficiary is a staff specialist or subject matter expert with respect to quality and 
process excellence matters, rather than a manager functioning at a senior level with respect to these company 
functions. Vaguely described responsibilities such as "building Quality Culture," or implementing "Quality 
Governance mechanisms" provide little insight into the nature of the beneficiary'S actual duties and their 
impact on the foreign entity's operations. 
The fact that the beneficiary is charged with implementing quality and business process management systems 
for a component of the organization not automatically elevate his responsibilities to the level of managerial 
capacity. The petitioner operates a business process outsourcing consulting company, as such, it is reasonable 
to believe that the process and quality management functions are undoubtedly complex, implemented 
organization-wide, and require the expertise and skills of an experienced professional. However, the petitioner 
has not established that the beneficiary serves at a senior level with respect to the quality or process 
excellence functions or that his responsibilities for implementing internal or client systems and processes in 
these functional areas rise to the level of managerial capacity. 
The tenn "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, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A)(ii). Based on the statutory 
definition of managerial capacity, a petitioner must prove the following elements to establish that a 
beneficiary is primarily serving as a function manager within an organization: 
First, the beneficiary must manage an "essential function" within the organization, or a 
department or subdivision of the organization; 
Page 7 
Second, the beneficiary must function at a "senior level" within the organizational hierarchy 
or with respect to the function managed; and 
Third, the beneficiary must control and "exercise discretion" over the day-to-day operations 
of the function. 
See sections 101(a)(44)(A)(ii), (iii), and (iv) of the Act. 
An analysis of the beneficiary's qualifications as a function manager must begin with an examination of his 
actual job duties. If the petitioner's description does not demonstrate that the beneficiary's duties are primarily 
managerial in nature, then it cannot establish that he primarily acts as a function manager. Given that many of 
the beneficiary's duties have not been sufficiently defined, and given the discrepancies between the job 
description and the organizational chart with respect to the beneficiary's level of authority, the AAO cannot 
conclude that the beneficiary performs primarily managerial duties, or that he meets all components of the 
statutory definition of managerial capacity pertaining to function managers. In addition, as discussed above, 
the evidence of record does not sufficiently identify the beneficiary's level of authority or degree of discretion 
over the day-to-day operations of the function he is claimed to manage. The beneficiary appears to be 
available to the organization and to clients as an advisor, consultant, trainer and mentor on quality assurance 
matters. 
Finally, we note that while the petitioner places emphasis on the beneficiary's certification as a "Six Sigma 
Black Belt" as evidence of the beneficiary's stature within the organization, the record shows that the 
beneficiary had received this certification in July 2008, less than one year before the petition was filed. The 
organizational chart for the foreign entity lists many other "Black Belts" and "Master Black Belts," and this 
credential issued by a third party appears to be common in the petitioner's industry. While it may be a notable 
professional achievement, the beneficiary's possession of the credential does not lend support to its claim that 
the beneficiary is employed as a function manager for the purposes of this classification. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has been employed 
by the foreign entity in a primarily managerial capacity. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
B. Employment in the United States in a Managerial Capacity 
The second issue discussed in this matter is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary will be 
employed by the U.S. company in a primarily managerial capacity. 
In its letter dated March 25, 2009, the petitioner provided the following description of the beneficiary's 
proposed duties as Manager of Process Excellence: 
Conducting Training Workshops (20%) 
• Providing training for Six Sigma quality control tools, Green Belt, Yellow Belt training. 
• Beneficiary will also participate in providing Black Belt training for those North America 
employees that have been identified as candidates to join Process Excellence 
Coaching and Mentoring Six Sigma Green Belts and Black Belts (25%) 
Page 8 
o Support [the petitioner's] managers who have undertaken Six Sigma projects after 
training 
o Beneficiary will hold project review sessions with [company] managers, answer 
questions, assist in the design and implementation of projects. 
Leading Business Process Measurement Systems and Improvement Projects (35%) 
o Implement Business Process Management Systems, process improvement and Six Sigma 
projects for [the petitioner] 
Business and Project Reviews (10%) 
o Participates in [the petitioner's] operations planning meeting. 
o Beneficiary manages the monthly Business Quality Council that tracks the project of all 
Six Sigma projects for [the petitioner] as well as the Process Excellence deployment. 
Business Analytics (10%) 
o Statistical expertise positions beneficiary to provide advanced business analytical support 
to [the petitioner's] Operations team. 
o Beneficiary will generate reporting and provide analysis of data to the senior 
management and operations managers at [the petitioning company]. 
The petitioner further stated that the beneficiary will manage the essential function of "Process Excellence 
deployment, a core component of which centers on 6sigma methodology." The petitioner stated that the 
beneficiary's "day-to-day responsibilities" associated with managing this function are the following: 
o Leading 6sigma projects focused on improving perfonnance and reducing expenses for [the 
company's] Healthcare vertical, specifically on the payer side. 
o Establishing BPMS and perfonnance metric dashboards 
o As senior level specialist he will be providing 6 sigma QC tool, yellow belt and green belt 
training to managers and supervisors 
o Supporting Process Excellence 
o Establishing a governance structure to ensure compliance with global process deployment 
strategy. 
Finally, the petitioner'S initial letter provided additional information regarding the nature and scope of the 
beneficiary'S duties as follows: 
This is a managerial pOSItIOn of significant responsibility and the beneficiary will be 
responsible for deployment of Process Excellence framework, developing in-house resources 
and driving improvement projects. His role can be divided into two categories, process 
management and process improvement deployment. 
His core responsibilities will involve driving Business Improvement Projects, trammg 
employees on Six Sigma methodology, conducting workshops, mentoring Green Belts and 
Black Belts in their respective projects and helping them to achieve their desired targets 
including targets. The beneficiary will apply his expertise in setting up Business Process 
Measurement Systems (BPMS) for Healthcare/Service sector business processes using 
management methods, including statistical methods obtaining through his Six Sigma training, 
through which he obtained Black Belt Certification, 
[The foreign entity 1 as a business has constantly focused on the health care sector and has 
been steadily increasing revenues from the USA, The beneficiary, being a part of the 
emerging business process outsourcing (BPO) industry and more importantly, having a rich 
BPO industry background, understands both the Indian and the USA operations, His 
expertise in handling Six Sigma in the healthcare environment makes him the ideal candidate 
for the position of Manager of Process Excellence at [the petitioner l His role will include all 
the above-mentioned duties as well as the additional responsibility of translating the best 
practices, deploying Six Sigma and integrating the business in the USA and India, 
The petitioner provided the following explanation of Six Sigma: 
Six Sigma is a business management strategy, which seeks to identifY and remove the causes 
of defects and errors in manufacturing and business processes, It uses a set of quality 
management methods, including statistical methods, and creates a special infrastructure of 
people within the organization ("Black Belts" etc,) who are experts in these methods. Each 
Six Sigma project carried out within an organization follows a defined sequence of steps and 
has quantified financial targets (cost reduction or profit increase). 
The petitioner submitted a copy of the beneficiary's Six Sigma Black Belt Certification issued by "Benchmark 
Six Sigma" on July 21, 2008, along with evidence that he completed "Six Sigma DMAIC Green Belt 
Training" in July 2005. 
The petitioner submitted a chart titled "Salt Lake City RMO Organization Chart," depicting the beneficiary's 
proposed position as "Manager, Process Excellence." The chart shows that he will have a reporting 
relationship with the "Director - Operations," and no subordinates. 
In the RFE issued on April 16, 2009, the director advised the petitioner that it submitted insufficient evidence 
concernmg the number and types of employees the beneficiary will supervise and the location of such 
workers. 
In response, the petItIoner explained that the beneficiary "will not be supervlsmg employees but rather 
managing essential functions of the company." The petitioner re-submitted the position description provided 
at the time of filing, and cited unpublished decisions to stand for the proposition that "the AAO has 
interpreted positions to be managerial even where an incumbent does not directly supervise employees, so 
long as there is wide decision making authority, significant control over the financial and technical operations, 
or where the incumbent formulates policies, negotiates contracts and develops business." 
The petitioner further stated that "the beneficiary is an industry expert who controls and commands business 
operations at a top managerial level," and that "in such circumstances the presence or absence of directly 
supervised employees does not determine his managerial capacity." The petitioner submitted a revised 
breakdown of the beneficiary's day-to-day duties as a function manager as follows: 
Page 10 
• Driving continuous improvement through direct role of leading six sigma projects. This 
would include the highest level and most complex analytical exercises, coordinating work 
activities between the US and India operations centers, and reporting results (20%) 
• Beneficiary would be conducting classroom training of managers and supervisors in the 
six sigma methodology (20%) 
• Beneficiary would be mentoring managers who have completed the six sigma Green Belt 
training as they take on projects of their own (20%) 
• Deploying [company 1 Global Process excellence initiatives in the Health Care - Payer 
operation centers. (20%) 
• Managing governance structure for Health Care Payer Centers. This incl udes managing 
monthly Business Quality Councils with the senior operation executives, holding 
monthly project review meetings with managers and project sponsors, etc. (20%) 
Finally, the petitioner stated: 
As a senior level manager within the organization, the beneficiary will have a great deal of 
decision-making authority within the scope of the above activities. Me will exercise 
managerial discretion using his authority to make final decisions on operation matters. Each 
week may vary in job duties content, but a typical week may consist of the beneficiary 
spending three full consecutive days training and the remaining two days conferencing with 
the most senior executives reviewing project strategies and prioritizing new projects. The 
beneficiary will be a major influencer (working directly with C-level executives - CEO, COO 
and CFO) to the priority order in which projects are taken on. The beneficiary will have 
regular exposure to the North American executive team. A cornerstone to the Process 
Excellence governance plan is the Business Quality Council (BQc). This is a monthly status 
review with the top executives participating. The beneficiary will lead these reviews for the 
Health Care Payer vertical. He will make decisions on a regular basis as to the six sigma 
tools and strategies deployed to achieve improvements and drive performance. All secretarial 
and administrative tasks will be delegated as needed. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be 
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. In denying the petition, the 
director determined that several of the beneficiary'S duties appear to involve "performing the actual work of 
the business," as opposed to managerial or executive tasks. The director observed that the beneficiary'S 
responsibilities for "supporting" managers and training and mentoring personnel are also not clearly 
managerial in nature. 
As noted above, on appeal, counsel asserts that "all arguments necessary to establish that [the beneficiary 1 
qualifies as an intracompany transferee were made in the initial petition as well as in response to the request 
for evidence filed with USCIS." Counsel contends that the beneficiary has "significant responsibility 
overseeing an essential function of the corporation," acts in a "senior level managerial capacity," practices 
"wide decision-making authority," and "exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the function." 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are not persuasive. The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 
will be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial capacity. 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficia!)" uscrs will look first to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). As noted above, if a petitioner claims 
that the beneficia!), is primarily managing an essential function, the petitioner must furnish a detailed position 
description that clearly describes the duties to be performed in that capacity, i.e., identify the function with 
specificity, articulate the essential nature of the function, and establish the proportion of the beneficiary's 
daily duties attributed to managing the essential function. If a petitioner fails to document what proportion of 
the beneficia!),'s duties would be managerial functions and what proportion would be non-managerial, the 
AAO cannot determine whether the beneficiary is primarily performing the duties of a function manager. See 
lKEA US, Inc. v. Us. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (O.D.C. 1999). In addition, the petitioner's 
description of the beneficia!),'s daily duties must clearly demonstrate that the beneficiary primarily manages 
the function rather than performs operational duties related to the function. An employee who "primarily" 
performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be "primarily" 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See sections I Ol(a)( 44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that 
one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties.) 
At the time of filing the petition, the petitioner provided a description of the beneficia!),'s proposed duties, 
along with the percentage of time he is expected to allocate to each area of responsibility. The petitioner 
indicated that the beneficia!), will devote 20 percent of his time to providing Six Sigma training at various 
levels (green, yellow and black belt). This responsibility appears to require specialized business skills the 
beneficia!), acquired during his own Six Sigma certification training, rather than managerial skills or a senior 
level of authority within the organization. The petitioner noted that the beneficiary will be providing training 
"as a senior level specialist
ll 
in Six Sigma. 
The petitioner indicated that the beneficia!), will devote an additional 10 percent of his time to "business 
analytics" in which he will use his "statistical expertise" to provide "advanced business analytical support" to 
the petitioner's operations team, and generate reports and data analysis for review by senior management and 
operations management. These technical and analytical tasks also appear to be more akin to those of a staff 
specialist than a function manager. 
The petitioner initially indicated that the beneficia!), will devote the largest portion of his time, 35 percent, to 
"leading Business Process Measurement Systems and Improvements Projects." The petitioner indicated that 
this would involve "implementing" such projects, and explained that this role would require him to "apply his 
expertise in setting up BPMS for Healthcare/Service Sector business processes using management methods, 
including statistical methods obtained through his Six Sigma training." Although the petitioner explained the 
knowledge and skills required to perform this responsibility, the petitioner did not define the duties involved 
in "leading" or "implementing" BPMS projects for the petitioner, did not identify who the beneficia!), would 
"lead" or what tasks the beneficia!), would perform on a day-to-day basis with respect to this role. 
Concluso!), assertions regarding the beneficia!),'s employment capacity are not sufficient. The actual duties 
themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108. 
The petitioner did not adequately articulate how these project leadership responsibilities entail primarily 
managerial duties. 
An additional 25 percent of the beneficia!)"s time would be devoted to a "coaching and mentoring" role for 
Six Sigma Green Belts and Black Belts, which involves supporting managers who undertake Six Sigma 
Page 12 
projects, reviewing projects with them, answering their questions, and asslstmg in the design and 
implementation of their projects. This mentoring role appears to be that of a staff specialist or subject matter 
expert available as a resource to project managers using Six Sigma, rather than a role that would allow the 
beneficiary to exercise significant discretion over the company's day-to-day operations. The petitioner 
clarified that the beneficiary helps Green Belts and Black Belts "to achieve their desired targets" such as 
increasing revenues or reducing costs. As noted above, the beneficiary will not supervise any employees, and 
his role in "supporting" managers does not appear to rise to the level of a function manager. 
In addition to the above duties, the majority of which were not shown to be managerial, the petitioner stated 
that the beneficiary will be "establishing BPMS and performance metric dashboards," "Supporting Process 
Excellence," and "establishing a governance structure to ensure compliance with global process deployment 
strategy." Although the petitioner described these as the "day-to-day responsibilities" associated with 
managing the "Process Excellence deployment function," the petitioner did not include these tasks in the 
breakdown of the beneficiary's duties or further discuss what managerial duties are involved in establishing 
"performance metric dashboards," a "governance structure," or "supporting Process Excellence." The 
petitioner also indicated that the beneficiary will be responsible for "translating the best practices, deploying 
Six Sigma and integrating the business in the USA and India," but again failed to elaborate upon the specific 
tasks he would perform to achieve these goals. 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 many 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. at 1\08. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner offered a slightly revised account of the beneficiary's proposed duties, 
including different percentages of time, and restated responsibilities. Notably, the petitioner indicated that the 
beneficiary would devote 20 percent rather than 35 percent of his time to leading projects. The petitioner 
removed the "business analytics" responsibility from the description and stated that the beneficiary would 
spend 20 percent of his time to "deploying [company 1 Global Process excellence initiatives in the Health Care 
- Payer operation centers." The petitioner provided no explanation for these changes. 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). 
The petitioner indicated that the beneficiary will be a "senior level manager" and a "major influencer," will 
work closely and regularly with top executives, and will have the authority to make "final decisions on 
operations matters." At the same time, the petitioner stated that "a typical week may consist of the 
beneficiary spending three full consecutive days training and the remaining two days conferencing with the 
most senior executives reviewing project strategies and prioritizing new projects." The petitioner's 
organizational chart indicates that the beneficiary will report to the "director - operations" of the Salt Lake 
City RMO organization. The petitioner did not explain what the "RMO" organization is or where it fits within 
the hierarchy of the U.S. operations as a whole. 
As noted above, 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, 8 U.S.c. § I \0 1 (a)(44)(A)(ii). 
Based on the statutory definition of managerial capacity, a petitioner must prove the following elements to 
establish that a beneficiary is primarily serving as a function manager within an organization: 
First, the beneficiary must manage an "essential function" within the organization, or a 
department or subdivision of the organization; 
Second, the beneficiary must function at a "senior level" within the organizational hierarchy 
or with respect to the function managed; and 
Third, the beneficiary must control and "exercise discretion" over the day-to-day operations 
of the function. 
See sections lOJ(a)(44)(A)(ii), (iii), and (iv) of the Act. Most importantly, the petitioner must establish that 
the beneficiary's actual duties are primarily managerial in nature. Here, while the beneficiary will likely be a 
valuable resource to the u.S. organization as an experienced and trained expert in Six Sigma and process 
excellence, and the beneficiary is clearly knowledgeable of the company's best practices in these areas, the 
petitioner has not supported its assertions that the actual duties of the position are primarily managerial in 
nature, or that the beneficiary will in fact "manage" the Process Excellence deployment function for the U.S. 
company or exercise discretion over the day-to-day operations of the function. The beneficiary will spend 
much of his time training and mentoring U.S. staff working with Six Sigma processes, conducting statistical 
and business analysis and generating reports. While these may be critical functions, the petitioner has not 
established that such responsibilities fall within the definition of managerial capacity at section 101(a)(44)(A) 
of the Act. The petitioner has not identified the nature or scope of the beneficiary's decision-making authority 
or its impact on the U.S. company's operations, nor does the limited organizational chart submitted show how 
the beneficiary functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy. The chart depicts his 
immediate peers' job titles as "technology support." The beneficiary himself appears to be primarily a staff 
specialist with expertise that may be sought out by managers and executives, rather than a manager based on 
his own duties or level of authority within the company. 
A beneficiary's "control," management or direction over a company or an essential function within a company 
cannot be assumed or considered "inherent" to his position merely on the basis of broadly-cast job 
responsibilities or the beneficiary's job title. USCIS will not accept a managerial job title and a general job 
description in lieu of the required detailed description of the beneficiary's actual job duties. The AAO concurs 
with the director's conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in 
a managerial capacity in the United States. For this additional reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.