dismissed L-1A Case: Chemical Trading

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-T-INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 7, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a chemical trading company specializing in flavor and fragrance ingredients, seeks to 
continue the Beneficiary's temporary employment as its general manager· under the L-IA 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section !Ol(a)(15)(L)·, 8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(I5)(L). TheL-IA 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 of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity 
under the extended petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director did not consider 
the reasonable needs of the petitioning organization as a whole, mischaracterized the nature of the 
company, and placed undue emphasis on the Petitioner's U.S. staffing levels, leading to an erroneous 
conclusion regarding the Beneficiary's employment capacity. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for theL-IA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section I 0 I (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 or executive capacity. !d. 
II. DEFINITIONS 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or 
MaUer of G-T- Inc. 
manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
IOI(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
The term "executive capacity" is defined as an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of 
the organization; establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or 
direction from higher-level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
Section IOI(a)(44)(B) ofthe Act. 
Based on the definitions of managerial and executive capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the 
Beneficiary will perform 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 will be primarily engaged in managerial or executive duties, as opposed to ordinary 
operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USC!S, 469 
F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006): Champion World, 940 F.2d at 1533. 
Ill. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The sole issue to be addressed is. whether the Petitioner established that it will employ the 
Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required 
description of the job duties, we examine 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. Accordingly, we will discuss 
evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of the nature of the Petitioner's 
business, its staffing levels, and its organizational structure. 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner states that it operates as a "global procurement division" for its overseas affiliate, 
which imports and sells flavor and fragrance chemical ingredients to Chinese customers. At the time 
of filing, it submitted the following description of the Beneficiary's duties as general manager: 
20% Engagement Management: 
Oversee daily operations, project planning, and special events, working 
closely with each program coordinator. Manage client engagements during 
pre-sales and post-sales closing. Monitor and track gross profitability of all 
2 
Malter of G- T- Inc. 
accounts in his portfolio. Communicate with the sales personnel, legal 
c~unsel, delivery teams. and finance. Review all project proposals, contracts, 
statement of works and any other agreements related to clients .... 
30% Hiring/Training: 
Personnel management (recruitment, hiring, trammg. evaluation and 
termination of statl). Create hiring plans to fill needs .... [M]entor manager 
as well as teams' individual performance by ensuring successful execution of 
organization management techniques and career planning techniques. 
Simultaneously review and analyze process performance reports against 
targets . . . . Conduct regular performance assessments. 
30% New Business Development: 
Build relationships with new clients in order to develop more business and 
enhance the sales pipeline. Develop and execute marketing strategy plans 
with the assistance of the Manager. 
20% Administration: 
Together with the manager, will develop and manage the annual budget .... 
Review cost structure of the team on a regular basis and take decision on team 
structure to meet account profit targets. Financial reviews of direct costs, 
travel and logistics planning. Effectively communicating business statistics 
and progress to board members. 
The Director found this description insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary would be 
performing primarily managerial or executive duties and requested additional infom1ation regarding 
the nature of the Beneficiary's day-to-day tasks. We agree with this assessment of the position 
description, as it contained several deficiencies. 
First, most of the Beneficiary's "engagement management" responsibilities appeared to be 
inconsistent with the nature of the Petitioner's organization. Based on the evidence provided, the 
Petitioner does not engage in projects, special e"vents, or client engagements, does not provide any 
service that would require a "statement of work," and does not employ the "program coordinators" 
or "delivery teams" referenced in the job description. Further, the Petitioner later stated that it docs 
not have sales personnel or engage in sales and marketing activities, which raises questions 
regarding the Beneficiary's stated pre-sales and post-sales activities and communications with sales 
personnel. As a result, the duties attributed to the Beneficiary under this area of responsibility did 
not appear to reflect his actual day-to-day duties as general manager of a procurement company. 
The Beneficiary's responsibility for "new business development," reflects his direct involvement in 
non-managerial sales and marketing activities, and is also inconsistent with the Petitioner's later 
claim that the U.S. company is not engaged in sales or marketing. ln addition, the Petitioner 
indicated that the Beneficiary spends part of his "administration" time communicating with board 
3 
Mauer ofG-T- Inc. 
members, but the Beneficiary is the sole owner of the company and the record does not indicate that 
the Petitioner has a board of directors. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a statement from 
the Beneficiary, who maintained that he divides his time between the same four broad areas of 
responsibility. However, the Beneficiary did not further clarify what specific tasks make up his 
responsibility for "engagement management," or explain the incongruous duties that appeared in the 
initial description. Rather, he generally stated that he manages the Petitioner's New Jersey office, 
Arizona office, United Kingdom office, and "finance/accounting unit," noting that all offices are 
"participating in procurement initiatives, finalizing procurement activities, and completing 
transportation orders through ... outside vendors/service contractors." 
The Beneficiary indicated that he manages "the three units through establishing goals and polices for 
each sub-unit to follow," and stated that each office manager reports to him on a daily basis and 
seeks his approval regarding all procurement activity initiated. However, this statement did not 
·provide sufficient detail regarding what the Beneficiary does on a day-to-day basis with respect to 
the company's procurement activities. In addition, the Beneficiary is the sole employee at the New 
Jersey office, which it initially described as the company's "East Coast branch," and has not shown 
how he would manage, rather than perform, procurement activities conducted from that location. 
The Beneficiary's statement in response to the RFE also did not further elaborate upon his 
"hiring/training" duties. While we do not doubt that he has the authority to hire and train staff, the 
record shows that he has hired no more than one or two employees since he was granted L-1 A status 
in 2015, and the record does not establish that he would be hiring or training staff under the extended 
petition or how he would spend 30% of his time on this area of responsibility. 
The Beneficiary went on to state that his responsibility for "new business development," requiring 
an additional 30% of his time, includes "building relationships with new business partners in the 
international market for [the Petitioner] to source and purchase higher quality and new kinds of raw 
chemistry materials/elements for our Chinese parent company." However, it is not clear how this 
responsibility differs from that of his two subordinates who also source and purchase materials tor 
export to the parent company, or how it qualities as a managerial or executive duty. The Beneficiary 
provided examples of new supplier relationships secured in 2017, but also stated that he "personally 
participated in the critical stage of sourcing new business partner and product samples." While the 
Petitioner has provided evidence that the Beneficiary had two subordinates to assist him with 
procurement, the record does not establish that they would sufficiently relieve him from non­
managerial duties associated with the company's business development and procurement activities. 
Overall, the position description submitted in response to the RFE did not sufficiently detail the 
specific tasks the Beneficiary would perform as part of his regular daily routine. Specifics are 
clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or 
managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the 
regulations. Fedin Bros. Co .. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff"d, 905 
F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
4 
.
Matter vf G-T- Inc. 
The fact that the Benefici ary will manage or direct a business does not necessa rily establish 
eligibilit y for class ificati on as an intracomp any transferee in a managerial or executive capacity 
within the meaning of section 1 0 l(a)(4 4) o f the Act. By s tatute , eligibility for t his class ification 
requir es that the d uties o f a position be " prim arily" executi ve or manage rial in n ature. Sections 
I OI(A) (44)(A) and (B) of the A ct. While the Beneficia ry may exe rcise discretio n ove r the 
Petition er's day-to-day operations and poss ess the requisite level of authority with respec t t o 
discretion ary decision-making , the position descript ions alone are insufficient to establish that his 
actual du~i es would be prim arily managerial or execu tive in natu re. 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
If staffin g levels are used a s a factor in dete rmining wheth er an individua l wi ll be a cting in a 
manageri al or executive capacity, we take into acco unt the reaso nable needs of the o rganization, in 
light ofth e ove rall purpos e and stage of develop ment of the org anizat ion. See section I OI(a)(44)(C) 
ofthe Act. 
The Petitioner has prov ided inconsistent information regarding its staffin g and organizational 
structure . A t the time of tilin g in August 201 7, the Petitioner stated that it employs three people and 
has offic es in California, Arizona, and New Jersey: It provided evidence related t o a ll three 
location s, including photogr aphs o f its Californi a location. On the Form 1-129 s igned b y the 
Beneficiar y, the Petition er used 
a California mailing a ddress and stated that the 
Benefi ciary "will divide his time and effort betwee n the 3 [company] locations. " 
The organi zational chart that accompanied the petition identi fied the Beneficiary as general manage r 
with a subordin ate mana ger a l ogistic manager (open position), and a marketi ng a nd 
sales man ager reporting to him. The chart also showe d three vacancies for "ass istant" 
position s under the manag er, two vacant "distributi on rep" positions under the logistics manager, 
and three o pen "account manager" positions under the marketing and sales manager, for a total of 12 
position s. The Petitioner prov ided evidence of wages paid to in 201 5 and an offer letter 
issued to for the position of sales manage r with a start date of March 2016. Base d on the 
evidenc e s ubmitted , the Benefi ciary resides in New Jersey, in Arizona, and m 
Californi a. 
In the RFE, the Direct or r equested additi onal d etailed evidence regardin g t he Petitioner's 
organiz ational structure and s ubordinate staff. In response, the Petit ioner stated that the inclusion of 
the California address on the Forn1 1-129 was "an administrative error made by the 
petition er's prior attorney/representative." The Petitioner indic ated that its California office closed 
three months a fter opening in 20 16 due to the loss of business with two maj or suppliers. 
Howev er, the Petitioner's initial filing was prese nted as self-prepa red with no ack nowledged 
attorney or repres entative. Further, the Petiti oner expressly stated on the F orm l-12 9 that i t had a 
West Coas t branch, indicated that the Beneficia ry would spend some of his time and effort there, 
provided a lease agreement with photographs of the location , a nd submi tted an organ izat ional chart 
identif ying a sales manager based in California. lt did not simply indicate a n erroneous mailing 
5 
.
Malter of G-T- Inc. 
address on the Form I-129. The Petitioner has not adequately expl ained why it claimed to have an 
office in California if such office had closed a year before the date of tiling. 
In additi on, the Petitioner claimed in response to the RFE that it had opened a United Kingdom 
branch office in July 201 7. The Petitioner did not explain why it did not men tion or p rovide 
evidence related to the U.K . oftice when it filed this petition in August 201 7. It is reasona ble to 
expect the Petitioner to be able to accurately identi fy the location of its offices and empl oyees at any 
given time. As a result of these changes, the organizational chart submitted in res ponse to the RFE 
bore little resemblance to that provided at the time of filing. 
The revised organizational chart (dated October 20 17), indicated that the Beneficia ry ove rsees 
(Manager/EU), (Manager/US A), and a contracte d CPA who is the so le member 
of the "fin ance/accounting department." The new chart did not include a sales/marketing department 
and the previously identifi ed m anager of that department. Instead the Petitioner stated that it "does 
not have [ a] sales and marketing department " or any need for one. The proposed logistics 
departm ent was also absent from the new chart. Rather, the Petitioner indicated that the two 
manager s a re responsible for "sourcing, purcha sing, marketing , and logistics." The chart shows that 
each manage r oversees or works with two to three vendors /third-party compani es respons ible for 
warehou sing, labeling, packin g/repacking, shippin g, and custom clearance activities. 
The Petitioner provided evid ence that it has paid wages to sinc e 2014 and estab lished that 
she is the only e mployee of the A rizona o ffice. 1 The Petitioner also submitted an emp loymen t 
agreement for of in the United Kingdom . Under the stated 
term s, the Petitioner agreed t o pay him $20,000 per quart er to source and purchase raw materials in 
Europe, o btain market intelligence a bout product s in the flavor and iragrance i nd ustry, and t o 
perform "other duties" as assigned. The Petiti one r provided evidence that it paid invoices issued by 
company in 2016 and 2017 for the purchas e of chemical ingredients, as well as 
evidenc e of one wire transfer made directly to in October 20 17. 
The s tatut ory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "pe rsonnel manage rs" and 
"function managers." See section I 01 ( a) (44)( ~)( i) and (ii) of the Ac t. Personnel managers are 
required to primarily supervise and contr ol the work of other supervisory, profess ional, o r 
manageri al employees. Contr ary to the comm on understandin g of the word "manager, " the statute 
plainly s tates that a "fir st line supervisor is not cons idered to be acting in a manage rial capacity 
merely by virtue of the superv isor 's superviso ry duties unless the e mp loyees supe rvised are 
profess ional." 2 Section 101(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. If a b eneficiary directly s upervises other 
1 The Petitioner explained that receives half of her salary from a related U.S. company called 
which the Petitioner states is engaged in repackaging purchased products prior to export. The submitted evidence 
indicates that she is the sole employee of 
2 
In evaluating whether a beneficiary manages professional employees, we must evaluate whether the subordinate 
positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) 
(defining "profession" to mean "any occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the 
minimum requirement for entry into the occupation"). Section I 0 I (a)(32) of the Act, states that "[t]he term profession 
6 
.
Malter of G- T- Inc. 
employees, the beneficiary must also have the autho rity to hire and fire tho se employees, or 
recomm end those actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. § 2 I 4.2(1)(1 )(ii)(B)(J). 
Both of the Beneficiary's subordinates have managerial job titles, but they appear to be primaril y 
responsib le for sourcing and purchasing chem ical ingredients and arrang ing for ware housing, 
packing , and shipment of these ingredients through third-party companies, rather than perfo rming 
manageri al or supervisory dutie s. The Benefici ary's stat ement in response to the RFE ind icated that 
he approves procurement activities initiated by his subo rdina tes, which further supports a finding 
that the subordinate employees are not acting as managers. Further, the re is some confusion 
regarding duties , as the evidence indicates that she is the sole emp loyee of a secon d, 
related compan y that engages in repackaging products . The Petitioner also provide d business 
licenses for its Arizona location showing that it engages in retail sa les. job 
description does not includ e duti es related to retai l or repacka ging act ivities. 
The Petitioner also indicates that both subordinate employees have obtained at least a bachelo r's 
degree and qualify as professional employees. Specifica lly, has a Ph.D . in physics and 
has a bachelor's degree in political science. We focus on. the level of education 
required by the position , rath er than the degr ee held by a subordinate employee . ·The possess ion of a 
bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee does not automatically lead to the conc lusion that an 
individual is employed in a professional capacit y. The Peti tioner did not sufficiently expl ain how 
the purchase of chemical ingredients and arrangement of shipping of these agreements with third 
parties requires an employee with a bachelor's degree. In fact, the initial evidence indicated that the 
forei gn entity's proc urement spec ialist, who performs similar duties in China, and the foreign 
entity's, vice genera l manager , who is claimed to oversee the procurement activities in China, both 
have a "middle school " education. 
Finally, even if the Petitio ner estab lished that the Benefic iary supervises managerial or professio nal 
subordinates , for the reason s discussed, it has not consiste ntly described his job dutie s and has not 
clea rly estab lished how much of his time would be spe nt on supervisory dut ies. For these reasons , 
the Petitione r h as not established that the Beneficiary would be employed primari ly as a person nel 
manager. 
The Petiti oner's primary claim on appeal is that the Director over loo ked the fact that the U.S. 
compan y performs the essenti al function of global procurement for its ove rseas affiliate. The 
Petitioner asserts that the Director erre d by not acknow ledg ing this role within the broader qualifying 
organ izat ion or the duties performed by the foreign entity's employee s. 
The term " function manag e r" app lies generall y ~hen a beneficiar y does not supervise or contr ol the 
work of a subordina te statT but instead is primarily responsible for managing an "essentia l functio n" 
within the orga nization. See section 10 I (a)( 44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a petitioner claims that a 
benefici ary will manage an essentia l function, it must clearly describe the duties to be performed in 
shall include but not be limited to architects, engine ers, lawyers, physician s, surgeons, and teacher s in elementary or 
secondary schools, colleges. acad emies, or seminaries. " 
'7 
.
Mauer of G-T- Inc. 
managing the essential function . In addition, the petitioner must demon strate that "( 1) the function 
is a clearly defined activit y; (2) the function is ' essential ,' i.e. , core to the organ iza tion ; (3) the 
beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the function ; (4) the bene ticiar y will act 
at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the funct ion managed; and (5) 
the beneticiary will exercise discretion over the function's day- to-da y operations." Matter of G­
lnc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 20 17). 
Here, although we agree that procurement is an essential function of the petitioning company and the 
broader organization, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary primarily manages this 
function or that the subordinate staff sufficiently relieve him from significant involvement in its day­
to-day activities. The Petitioner indicates that it has two employees and two ortices in the United 
States, with the Beneficiary in its New Jersey office and a manager in its Arizona office. The 
Petitioner has provided evid ence that the Arizona-based manager is engage d in proct1rement 
activities , but it appears that she is also responsible for a repackag ing business with no other 
employees , and possibly a retail business. The record does not support the Petitioner ' s cla im that 
this s ingle employee relieves the Beneficiary from performing the procurem ent function in the 
United States. Likewise, the Beneficiary has described his involvement in secu ring new su ppliers 
outside the United States , and the record does not show that the U.K.-based employee 
singlehandedly performs all international procurement activities. 
Further, the Beneficiary is the sole employee of the Petitioner 's "East Coast oftice," which appears 
to rent office space at the location of a warehouse or shipping company called in 
New Jersey. The Petitioner stated that all of its otTices are "participating in procurement 
initiatives, finalizing procurement activities, and completin g transport atio n orde rs through . . . 
outside vendors /service contractor s." Further , the Beneficiar y's job descr iption indicates that he 
personall y participates in sourcing new busines s partners. The Petitioner has not provided any 
add itional description of what its New Jerse y office does if it is not engage d in procurement 
activities and arrangement of shipments from its location. 
In sum, the Petitioner's claim that one U.S. employee, one U.K. employee, a contracted accountant, 
and several outsourced service provider s a re able to relieve the Beneficiar y from performing non­
managerial duties associated with the global procurement function performed by the U.S. company 
is not adequately supported by the record. 
While performing non-quali fying task s will not automatically disqualify a beneficiary as long as 
those tasks are not the majority of a beneficiary's duties , a petitioner still has the burden of 
establishing that a benefi ciary will "primaril y" perfonn managerial or exec utive duties. See section 
101 (a)( 44) of the Act. Whether a beneficiary is "function" mana ger turns in part on whether the 
Petitioner has sust ained its burden of proving that their duti es are "primar ily" manageria l. See 
Maller ofZ-A-, Inc., Adopted Deci sion 20 16-0 2 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). Here , because of the overly 
broad description of the Benefici ary's dutie s, the Petitioner did not adequ ate ly doc ument what 
proportion of the Beneficiary' s dutie s would be managerial function s and what proport ion would be 
non-managerial. Absent a clear and credible breakdown of the time spent by the Beneficiar y 
performing specific task s, we cannot determine what proportion of the duties would be manageria l, 
8 
Mauer ofG-T-lnc. 
nor whether the Beneficiary is primarily performing the duties of a function manager. IKEA US. Inc. 
v. US. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
The Petitioner cites to Maller of Z-A- and asserts that the Director erred by focusing on the size of 
the Beneficiary's subordinate staff and the small size of the U.S. company. The Petitioner also 
claims that, pursuant to Maller of Z-A-, the Director was required to consider evidence of personnel 
employed by another related entity within the quali tying organization who perform day-to-day non­
managerial tasks for the petitioning entity. 
Here, unlike the Petitioner in Mal/er ofZ-A-, the Petitioner did not present evidence that its foreign 
affiliate's personnel perform imy day-to-day tasks for the petitioning entity. Rather, the Petitioner 
has characterized the U.S. company as one which performs the procurement and purchasing function 
for the foreign entity. Therefore, while the Petitioner submitted an organizational chart for the 
foreign entity, the Director's decision did not erroneously exclude the foreign entity's employees 
from its analysis of the Beneficiary's U.S. position. The foreign employees were not mentioned in 
the Beneficiary's own job description and the Petitioner did not place any emphasis on the roles of 
the foreign employees prior to the appeal. 
The Beneficiary may continue to supervise the foreign staff in his role as general manager of the 
Chinese company, but the Petitioner must still establish that the duties he performs on a day-to-day 
basis within the scope of the U.S. company's day-to-day operations are primarily managerial. His 
continuing general oversight of the foreign affiliate's activities does not support the Petitioner's 
claim that the Beneficiary qualifies as a function manager. Further, it remains unclear how much 
time he spends overseeing the foreign entity's activities since such duties were not included in his 
job description. 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated poslliOn 
within a complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the 
organization, and that person's authority to direct the organization. Section I 0 I (a)( 44 )(B) of the 
Act. Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" and "establish 
the goals and policies" of that organization. Inherent to the definition, the organization must have a 
subordinate level of managerial employees for a· beneficiary to direct and they must primarily locus 
on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than the day-to-day operations of the 
enterprise. An individual will not be deemed an executive under the statute simply because they 
have an executive title or because they "direct" the enterprise as the owner or sole managerial 
employee. 
Although the Petitioner has at times described the Beneficiary's duties as "executive or managerial," 
the submitted job descriptions do not indicate he would be primarily focused on the company's 
broad policies and goals. Further, the supporting evidence, which was initially marked by 
unexplained inconsistencies regarding the location of the Petitioner's offices and employees, as well 
as job duties for the Beneficiary that are not credible in light of the nature of the business, is not 
sufficient to show how the two claimed employees would sufficiently relieve the Beneficiary from 
9 
Matter ()[ G- T- Inc. 
involvement in the global procurement function undertaken by the company. Therefore, the record 
does not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity under the extended petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of G- T- Inc., ID# 1288507 (AAO June 7, 20 18) 
r 
10