dismissed L-1A Case: Computer Equipment Wholesale

MATTER OF J-G-I-, CORP. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 13, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of wholesale services for computer and electronic equipment, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its director of administration and treasury under the L-·1 A 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-lA 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 an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition on three alternate grounds. The Director 
concluded that you did not establish that: (1) the foreign entity was continuing to do business at the 
time of filing the instant petition; (2) the Beneficiary will be primarily employed in an executive 
capacity in the United States; and (3) the Beneficiary was employed in a primarily executive position 
at the qualifying foreign entity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the foreign entity continues to do business abroad and that the Beneficiary has been 
employed at the foreign entity and will be employed in the United States in an executive capacity. 
Upon de novo review, we will reverse the Director's decision with respect to whether the foreign 
entity was continuing to do business at the time of filing the instant petition, but will dismiss the 
appeal on the remaining grounds. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organizatiop must 
have employed the Beneficiary in a 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. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. r'n 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. 
Matter of J-G-1-, Corp. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, 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 
(l)(l)(ii)(G) ofthis 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 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 IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director denied the petition, in part, based on a finding that the Petitioiler did not establish that: 
(1) the Beneficiary will be primarily employed in an executive capacity in the United States, and (2) 
the Beneficiary was employed in a primarily executive position at the qualifying foreign entity. The 
Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary will be employed or has been employed in a 
managerial capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary will be 
employed or has been employed in an executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(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; 
(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. 
2 
Matter of J-G-1-, Corp. 
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 1 01 (a)( 44 )(C) of the Act. 
A. U.S. Employment in an Executive Capacity 
1. Evidence of Record 
The Petitioner filed the Form 1-129 on October 14, 2015. On the Form 1-129, the Petitioner 
indicated that it has 5 employees in the United States and a gross annu;:tl income of $1,161,291. 
In its letter of support, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive 
capacity in the United States and described her position and duties as follows: 
The Beneficiary will fulfill the key executive position of Director of Administration 
and Treasury. In this position, she will be responsible for the following: 
• Complete decision making regarding operations programs, including goal 
setting, performance review and monitoring. Supervise the formulation, 
execution and evaluation of the annual goals and conformity with legal 
dispositions. (20%) 
• Responsible for expanding and developing the operations strategy to reach new 
projects as may be assigned by higher executives[.] (10%) 
• Responsible for consolidate administrative budgets for the cqmpany's 
operations in the USA. ( 10%) 
• Direct the employees of the company to assure compliance with company's 
guidelines, goals and standards. Responsible for the interviewing, hiring, 
dismissal, training and execution of projects for the development of the 
departments. ( 1 0%) 
• Day-to.:.day supervision of all of the company's financial operations. Manage 
the daily administration of the company[.] ( 15%) 
• Prepare annual reports of the company's administrative and financial activities. 
,, Control expenses and revenue in order to administer the working Capital. 
Prepare financial reports, plan and direct all estimates and proposals for the 
company. Approve the issuance of checks and signing them. (15%) 
• Analyze budget for approvals including those for funding of new approvals. 
She will analyze evaluation performances to determine areas of potential cost 
reduction or financial policy change. (10%) 
• Oversee the operations of the U.S. Company's core business projects, making 
discretionary decisions and setting business and operations policies through 
several channels. (1 0%) 
(b)(6)
Matter of J-G-1-, Corp. 
Some ofthe executive decisions to be fulfilled by the Beneficiary are: 
- Plan, organize and manage the financials of the company 
- Management and evaluation of personnel 
- Development and structure of the U.S. company 
- Final operational decisions of the company 
- Execution of operational strategic planning. 
In the same letter of support, the Petitioner stated that it has five employees on payroll and that the 
Beneficiary will be directly responsible for one professional employee and two subcontracted 
offices, professional accounting and legal services. The Petitioner then provided a list of job duties, 
along with the percentages of time she devotes to each, for a manager, and 
indicated that she has a "University degree in Administration." The Petitioner submitted a copy of 
university degree in administration. 
The Petitioner submitted a business plan outlining the Beneficiary's position at the U.S. company 
exactly the same as its letter of support. 
The Petitioner submitted its organizational chart, depicting the Beneficiary at the second tier of the 
hierarchy as the director of administration and treasury, reporting to the President of the company, 
located in Venezuela. According to the chart, the Beneficiary supervises two "external" services, 
accounting and legal counsel, and a manager, who in turn supervises a "purchases and inventory 
analyst" and an "administrative secretary and human resources," who supervises a messenger to be 
hired. Parallel to the Beneficiary's position is the "director of commercial and operations," who 
supervises a "head of sales and operations," who in turn supervises five "drivers," all of which are to 
be hired. 
The Petitioner submitted its IRS Forms 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Returns, for each 
quarter in 2014 and the first, second, and third quarters of 2015. The Form 941 for the third quarter 
of 2015, which was the quarter prior to the date of filing of the petition, indicates that the Petitioner 
had five employees and paid $40,612.80 in wages, tips, and other compensation during that period. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) on October 28, 2015, instructing the Petitioner to 
submit a detailed description of the Beneficiary's proposed duties in the United States to 
demonstrate that she will be employed in the claimed executive capacity. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a letter briefly describing the Beneficiary's position 
in the U.S., specifically stating that the Beneficiary will typically be responsible for employee 
relations, training, recruitment, administration, customer service,, operational policy and procedures, 
the implementation of programs and policies related to the department operation, administrative 
oversight, monitoring of budget management, planning and organization, overseeing and 
administering departmental orientation and ongoing training programs, dismissing employees as 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of J-G-1-, Corp. 
needed, ~meeting with shareholders to report on the company's operational progress, and all 
administrative functions of the company, including payroll. The Petitioner also stated that the 
Beneficiary will direct the administrative management of the organization, use her independent 
discretion and authority to establish goals and policies of the organization, have complete 
independence in making all discretionary decisions, such as opening new markets and employment 
of business professionals, and receive supervision or direction from other stockholders of the 
company. 
The Petitioner submitted a copy of the same organizational chart previously submitted for the U.S. 
company, along with job descriptions for each of the Beneficiary's subordinates. 
The Petitioner submitted its payroll summary for November 2015, indicating that it employed five 
individuals, including the Beneficiary's direct subordinate. The Petitioner also submitted its IRS 
Form W-3, Transmittal of Wage and Tax Statements, for 2014, indicating that it employed three 
individuals in 2014. 
The Petitioner submitted an expert opmwn letter from dated 
November 11, 2015. described the Beneficiary's position and responsibilities in the 
United States just as described by the Petitioner in its initial letter of support. 
concluded as follows: 
By performing these duties, [the Beneficiary] would be acting in a 
managerial/executive capacity, as her responsibilities would require her to direct 
company operations, oversee corporate performance, hire and fire professional 
employees, and assume direct responsibility for major business decisions. 
Furthermore, because of its growth, revenue, and international operations, it is 
reasonable for a company the size of [the Petitioner] to require a Director of 
Administration and Treasury to manage its US operations. Therefore, it is my 
opinion that the position of Director of Administration and Treasury is 
managerial/executive in nature, and that [the Beneficiary] can be classified as a 
manager and an executive. 
The Director denied the petition on December 11,2015, concluding, in part, that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity in the United States. In 
denying the petition, the Director found that the job description, for the Beneficiary's proposed 
position, provided by the Petitioner was vague and general. The Director noted that the Petitioner's 
RFE response did not include the requested detailed job description describing the duties that will be 
\ 
performed in the specific industry of intended employment for the Beneficiary and her direct reports. 
The Director acknowledged the expert opinion letter from but noted that it 
focused solely on the Beneficiary's proposed duties and did not take into account the overall scope 
and capacity of the business to support a qualifying executive capacity position. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of J-G-1-, Corp. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits copies of the same evidence previously submitted in response to 
the RFE and continuously refers to the expert opinion letter of when refuting the 
Director's findings that the Beneficiary's proposed position in the United States will not be in a 
managerial or executive capacity. The Petitioner states that "the expert opinion took into account the 
overall scope and capacity of the business to support a qualifying executive and managerial capacity 
position. Additionally, asserts that the Beneficiary will be engaged in an executive 
capacity." 
2. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, including materials submitted in support of 
the appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be employed 
in an executive capacity in the United States. 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position 
within an organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the organization, and 
that person's authority to direct the organization. Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(44)(B). Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" 
and "establish the goals and policies" of that organization.· Inherent to the definition, the 
organization must have a subordinate level of managerial employees for the beneficiary to direct and 
the beneficiary must primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than 
the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. An individual will not be deemed an executive under the 
statute simply because they have an executive title or because they "direct" the enterprise as the 
owner or sole managerial employee. The beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in 
discretionary decision making" and receive only "general supervision or direction from higher level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization." Id. 
The definitions of managerial and executive capacity each have two parts. First, the Petitioner must 
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. USCIS, 
469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. It is the Petitioner's burden 
to establish that someone other than the Beneficiary carries out the day-to-day, non-executive 
functions of the organization. 
When examining the executive or 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 to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate 
whether such duties are in either an executive or a managerial capacity. Id. 
On review, the Petitioner provided a vague and nonspecific description of the Beneficiary's duties 
that does not demonstrate what the Beneficiary does on a day-to-day basis. . For example, the 
6 
Matter of J-G-1-, Corp. 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will devote 20% of her time to operations, including goal 
setting, performance review, and monitoring, which does not provide any insight as to what she will 
actually do on a day-to-day basis within the context of the Petitioner's business. The Petitioner did 
not explain or clarify how the Beneficiary will carry out these duties or present tasks that she will be 
responsible for in carrying out these duties to demonstrate that these specific duties will be 
executive. The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary will devote 15% of her time to supervising 
financial operations and managing the daily administration of the company, but has not articulated 
the specific duties associated with these tasks, or explained who will be performing the financial 
operations that the Beneficiary will supervise. Further, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will 
spend 15% of her time to preparing annual reports, preparing financial reports, and approving and 
signing checks, none of which appear to be executive in nature. Rather these appear to require that 
the Beneficiary perform administrative and operational tasks that cannot be considered to be 
executive functions. The Petitioner further stated that the Beneficiary will devote 1 0% of her time to 
expanding and developing the operations strategy, another 10% of her time to analyzing the budget, 
and another 10% of her time to overseeing the operations of the core business projects, all of which 
are vague and do not impart any insight on what she will actually do in relation to these duties; the 
Petitioner did not articulate what any of these duties mean, how she will carry them out, or how they 
qualify as executive. The Petitioner did not provide any clarification as to how any of these routine 
duties qualify as executive, especially in relation to the Petitioner's stated business purpose. For the 
reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the Beneficiary's duties are 
executive in nature, such that the Beneficiary's proposed position could be considered primarily 
executive. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided an even broader description of the Beneficiary's 
proposed job duties, which do not clearly define what she will actually be doing on a daily basis, and 
lacks time allocations to the listed job duties. The fact that the Petitioner did not assign time 
allocations to the broadly stated job responsibilities precludes us from being able to determine how 
much time the Beneficiary would actually allocate to the performance of tasks that are in an 
executive capacity. Further, the Petitioner also did not indicate how the listed duties are executive in 
nature and did not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate that the Beneficiary will be employed 
primarily in an executive capacity. For example, the Petitioner simply stated that the Beneficiary 
will direct the administrative management of the organization, use her discretion to establish its 
goals and policies, make discretionary decisions, and receive supervision from the stockholders of 
the company. These particular duties do not provide any insight as to what she will actually do and 
further broaden the scope of her previously listed duties. The Petitioner did not explain or clarify 
how she will carry out these duties or present tasks that she will be responsible for to demonstrate 
that she- will perform primarily executive duties, rather the Petitioner simply paraphrased the 
statutory definition of executive. Conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's employment 
capacity are not sufficient. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not 
satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 4;1 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 
188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Other duties, such as the implementation of programs, planning and 
organization, meeting with shareholders, and financial and budgetary responsibilities are nonspecific 
7 
) 
(b)(6)
Matter of J-G-1-, Corp. 
and vague and also do not clearly establish how she will spend her time at the U.S. company, such 
that we can determine that she will be employed primarily in an executive capacity. Further, the 
Petitioner has not explained how the remaining duties, such as preparing reports, employee relations, 
training, recruitment, customer service, payroll, and administering orientation and training programs 
are executive in nature. 
Here, the Petitioner provided a new list of proposed job duties for the Beneficiary's position in the 
United States and did not quantify the amount of time the Beneficiary will devote to each listed duty. 
Since the newly listed duties are different from the original list of duties and the Petitioner did not 
clarify whether the newly listed duties are in addition to or a replacement of, the) original listed 
duties, we cannot define the Beneficiary's proposed role at the U.S. company, nor determine how 
her proposed duties actually relate to the Petitioner's wholesale of computers and electronic 
equipment business. The Petitioner did not articulate how the Beneficiary will fulfill her proposed 
position and perform the listed job duties within the context of the Petitioner's business. Based on 
the information provided, we cannot ascertain what the Beneficiary will actually do at the U.S. 
company .. 
Whether the beneficiary is an executive employee turns on whether the petitioner has sustained its 
burden of proving that his duties are primarily executive. See sections 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
The Petitioner lists the Beneficiary's proposed duties as including both executive and operational 
tasks, but does not consistently quantify the time the Beneficiary will spend on them. Further, while 
some of the listed duties appear to be executive, such as directing the administrative management of 
the organization and establishing the goals and policies of the organization, the Petitioner did not 
provide any specifics with regard to how the Beneficiary will perform the stated job duties. This 
lack of detail and documentation is important because several of the Beneficiary's proposed daily 
tasks do· not appear to be qualifying duties. Specifically, preparing reports, administering 
department orientation, administering ongoing training programs, and all employee relations, do not 
fall directly under traditional executive duties, as defined in the statute. The Petitioner's description 
of the Beneficiary's proposed duties and her proposed activities clearly indicate that she devotes a 
portion of her time to day-to-day operational duties. Without a specific and detailed breakdown and 
specifics detailing how the Beneficiary will spend her time, we are unable to conclude that the 
Beneficiary would primarily perform executive duties at the U.S. company. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted an expert opinion letter, in which 
states that he believes the Beneficiary's position in the United States to be managerial/executive in 
nature. It appears that analyzed the same list of job duties the Petitioner presented 
with the instant petition and he does not state whether he reviewed any other documentation. It is 
unclear whether analysis considered the Beneficiary's subordinates' duties and 
whether they would relieve the Beneficiary from performing operational tasks, such· as preparing 
reports, administering the budget, orientation for employees, and ongoing training for employees. 
We may, in our discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See 
Matter of Caron Int'l., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, we are ultimately 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of J-G-1-, Corp. 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility. !d. Where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way 
questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. !d. Because 
review was limited to a review of the Beneficiary's job title and broadly described 
job duties, it has less probatiVe value, considering that our review is based on the totality of the 
evidence in the record. Again, 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 executive or managerial employee. 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed executive capacity of a Beneficiary, including the Petitioner's organizational 
structure, the duties of the Beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to 
relieve the Beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the Petitioner's business, 
and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a Beneficiary's actual duties and role in a 
business. 
In this case, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary supervises two external contractors, but did 
not provide any evidence of contracts or work performed by the claimed contractors. As such, we 
cannot conclude that they are employed by the Petitioner or that they relieve the Beneficiary from 
any of the related non-qualifying duties, such as accounting. The Petitioner also claims that the 
Beneficiary has a single subordinate employee, a manager, to relieve her from performing 
non-qualifying duties. However, the lists of job duties provided for the manager position, indicate 
that she is primarily responsible for sales, customer service, and inventory. Thus, it does not appear 
that the manager relieves the BLeneficiary from performing some of the non-qualifying duties 
associated with her position such that she will be employed primarily in an executive capacity. As 
such, it appears that the Beneficiary will perform all of the non-executive tasks associated with 
preparing reports, administering the budget, orientation for employees, and ongoing training for 
employees. Even if the non-qualifying duties discussed above had not been clearly assigned to the 
Beneficiary, the Petitioner does not demonstrate that it has any employees to relieve the Beneficiary 
from performing these operational and administrative tasks. 
While the Beneficiary may represent a high-level employee of the Petitioner; this alone is not 
sufficient to establish that she will be primarily employed as an executive. The designation hinges 
on whether or not the Petitioner demonstrates that it has the requisite level of subordinate staff 
capable of carrying out the duties associated with the day to day operation of the business. In this 
case; incorporating our earlier discussion of the deficiencies of the job description provided and the 
lack of evidence regarding the entity's staffing, we find that the Petitioner has riot established that it 
has an organizational structure sufficient to elevate the Beneficiary to a position that is primarily 
executive in nature. 
We note that a company's size alone, without taking into account the reasonable needs of the 
organization, may not be the determining factor in denying a visa to a multinational manager or 
9 
Matter of J-G-1-, Corp. 
executive. See§ 101(a)(44)(C) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(C). In reviewing the relevance of 
the number of employees a petitioner has, federal courts have generally agreed that USCIS "may 
properly consider an organization's small size as one factor in assessing whether its operations are 
substantial enough to support a manager." Family Inc. v. USCIS 469 F.3d at 1316 (citing with 
approval Republic ofTranskei v. INS, 923 F 2d. 175, 178 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Fedin Bros. Co. v. Sava, 
905 F.2d at 42; Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25, 29 (D.D.C. 2003)). It is 
appropriate for USCIS to consider the size of the petitioning company in conjunction with other 
relevant factors, such as a company's small personnel size, the absence of employees who would 
perform the non-managerial or non-executive operations of the company, or a "shell company" that 
does not conduct business in a regular and continuous manner. See, e.g., Systronics Corp. v. INS, 
153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). Here, it is not the size of the company that is determinative, 
but rather that the Petitioner has not shown that it has current employees to relieve the Beneficiary 
from performing the non-executive tasks associated with preparing reports, administering the 
budget, orientation for employees, and ongoing training for employees in the United States. 
Based on the deficiencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
will be employed in an executive capacity in the United States. 
B. Foreign Employment in an Executive Capacity 
. 1. Evidence of Record . 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from the foreign entity, stating that the Beneficiary has been 
employed in an executive capacity at the foreign entity and described her position and duties as 
follows: 
The Beneficiary has several years of experience in the executive pos1t10n of 
Director of Administration and Treasury with the foreign company having been 
employed since 2006. In this position, she was directly responsible for the financial 
management of the company. Her duties were as follows: 
• Day-to-day supervision of financial operations as well as strategic planning 
and performance goals. Specifically, this entails the overall management 
and supervision of the personnel and financial functions. (20%) 
• Formulate company policy, establishing hiring and firing policies. Direct 
the operational employees of the company. Responsible for the 
interviewing, hiring, dismissal, training and execution of projects for the 
development of the departments. (20%) 
• Establish performance standards, monitoring subordinate managerial and 
personnel performance. ( 1 0%) 
• Developing business strategies, product and service plans. ( 10%) 
• Consolidate operating budgets for the company's effective operation. 
Prepare annual reports of the company's activities. Control expenses and 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of J-G-1-, Corp. 
revenue in order to administer the working Capital. Prepare financial 
reports, plan and direct all estimates and proposals for the company. 
Approve the issuance of checks and signing them. (10%) 
• Manage the development organization, strategies, and objectives of the 
company. Responsible for expanding and developing the operations 
strategy to reach new projects as may be assigned by higher executives[.] 
(10%) 
• Direct the creative, administrative and managerial employees of the 
company[.] (20%) 
. . 
At the foreign company, the beneficiary is directly responsible for the 
Division Manager and the Caracas Division Manager. 
In the same letter of support, the Petitioner provided a brief list of job duties for the Beneficiary's 
two subordinates, both managers, and indicated that both have a "University degree." 
The Petitioner submitted a payroll list for the foreign entity from May 1, 2015 to August 31 , 2015, 
indicating that it had at least 11 employees, including the Beneficiary and her two listed 
subordinates, during that period. 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart for the foreign entity, depicting the Beneficiary at 
the third tier of the hierarchy as the Director of Administration and Treasury, reporting to the vice 
president of the company. According to the chart, the Beneficiary directly supervises a legal counsel 
and two division managers. One division manager supervises a cashier and an inventory analyst, 
and the other division manager supervises external accounting, a treasury analyst, a human resources 
analyst, and a purchasing analyst, who supervises a purchasing assistant. Parallel to the 
Beneficiary's position is the "director of logistics and operations," who supervises a head of 
operations with five subordinates, and a head of sales, with two subordinates. 
The Petitioner submitted copies of the Beneficiary's salary receipts from the foreign entity, 
indicating that she was employed by the foreign entity from January 2013 to December 2013. 
In the RFE, the Director instructed the Petitioner to submit a detailed description of the Beneficiary's 
duties to demonstrate that she has been employed abroad in the claimed executive capacity. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a letter from the foreign entity describing the 
Beneficiary's position abroad as follows: 
In the position of Director of Administration and Treasury at the Venezuelan 
company, the beneficiary is typically responsible for the following: 
) 
1. Overseeing the administrative functions of the company to include, payroll, 
investment, and accounting 
II 
(b)(6)
Matter of J-G-1-, Corp. 
2. Develop a budget guideline for company 
3. Recruit, evaluate, and terminate staff 
4. Responsible for achieving all financial goals 
5. Meetings with upper management to ensure operations are meeting 
company's standards and goals 
6. Review of budgetary, operating and activity reports 
7. Establish effective staff training programs 
8. Responsible to develop business strategies, product and servtce plans, 
financial and sales plans 
The Petitioner went on to state that the BenefiCiary directs the management of the organization by 
being responsible 'for all ·subordinate managers and overseeing the, strategy that the company is 
implementing, uses her independent discretion and authority to establish goals and policies of the 
organization, has complete independence in making all discretionary decisions, such as opening new 
markets and employment of business professionals, and receives supervision or direction from other 
stockholders of the company. ; 
The Petitioner submitted a copy of the same organizational chart previously submitted for the 
foreign entity and position descriptions for the Beneficiary's two direct subordinates. 
The Petitioner submitted copies of the Beneficiary's salary receipts from the foreign entity, 
indicating that she was employed by the foreign entity from October 2014 to December 2014 and 
January 2015 to December 2015. 
The expert opinion letter from described the Beneficiary's position and 
responsibilities at the foreign entity just as described by the foreign entity in its initial letter of 
support. concluded as follows: 
Given the advanced responsibilities that [the Beneficiary] has supervised with the 
Venezuelan parent company, it is clear that her past position with the company has 
required her to engage in duties that must be considered as executive and 
managerial in nature. In particular, [the Beneficiary] has been actively involved in 
establishing and executing company policies and in supervising, hiring, training, 
and firing professional employees. As such, it is clear that [the Beneficiary] has 
been engaged in sophisticated duties that further solidify the managerial/executive 
nature of her preparation for the proffered position of Director of Administration 
and Treasury with the US subsidiary. 
The Director denied the petition concluding, in part, that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary had been employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad. In denying the 
petition, the Director found that the job description for the Beneficiary's position abroad was vague 
and general. The Director noted that the Petitioner did not include a detailed job description 
describing the duties that have been performed in the specific industry of employment for the 
12 
(b)(6)
Matter of J-G-1-, Corp. 
Beneficiary and her direct reports. The Director found that the Petitioner also did not address 
concerns that the foreign entity is of sufficient scope and capacity to support a qualifying executive 
capacity position. 
On appeal, again, the Petitioner submits copies of the same evidence previously submitted in 
response to the RFE and continuously. refers to the expert opinion letter of when 
refuting the Director's findings that the Beneficiary's position at the foreign entity was not in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
2. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, including materials submitted in support of 
the appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was employed in 
an executive capacity abroad. 
Here, the Petitioner characterized the Beneficiary's role at the foreign entity as the director of 
administration and treasury and provided a vague description of her job duties that does not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary devoted her time primarily to executive tasks. While the Petitioner 
allocated percentages of time the Beneficiary devoted to her listed duties, the Petitioner has not 
provided the specific tasks performed by the Beneficiary in carrying out the listed duties. For 
example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary devoted 20% of her time to the day-to-day 
supervision of financial operations, strategic planning, performance goals, and the overall 
management of personnel and financial functions; However, the Petitioner did not provide the 
Beneficiary;s specific, daily tasks involved in performing these duties. The Petitioner also states that 
the Beneficiary spent another 20% of her time to formulating company policy, establishing hiring 
and firing policies, and directing operational employees. The Petitioner did not explain how these 
duties are executive in nature, or how the Beneficiary carried out these duties. Further, the Petitioner 
states that the Beneficiary spent 20% of her time to directing the creative, administrative, and 
managerial employees of the company, but did not articulate the specific duties associated with this 
task. The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary had two direct subor~inates, in "division 
manager" roles, and did not specify what the Beneficiary did in directing those subordinates that 
would require eight hours of her time each week. The Petitioner did not explain or clarify how the 
Beneficiary carried out these duties or present tasks or demonstrate that these specific duties, which 
took up 24 hours of her time every week, were executive. Conclusory assertions regarding the 
beneficiary's employment capacity are not sufficient. Merely repeating the language of the statute 
or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. See 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); Avyr Associates, Inc. 
v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at ~5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
Further, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary devoted 10% of her time to developing business 
strategies, product, and service plans, and another 1 0% of her time to managing the development, 
organization, strategies, and objectives of the company and expanding operations strategy to reach 
new projects, all of which lack specificity and do not impart any insight on what she will actually do 
13 
Matter of J-G-1-, Corp. 
in relation to these duties. The Petitioner did not articulate what any of these duties mean, how she 
will carry them out, or how they qualify as executive in nature. Finally, the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary devoted 10% of her time to consolidating operating budgets, preparing annufll reports, 
preparing financial reports, and approving and signing checks, none of which are executive duties. 
The Petitioner did not provide any clarification as to how any of these routine duties qualify as 
executive. The Petitioner has-not demonstrated how these routine operational and administrative 
duties are executive in nature, such that the Beneficiary's position abroad could be considered 
primarily executive. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided a new list of job duties for the Beneficiary's position 
abroad, to include tasks that are more indicative of someone who performs the administrative and 
human resource functions of the company, rather than someone who directs the organization or 
establishes goals and objectives. The Petitioner also did not quantify the amount of time the 
Beneficiary devoted to each of the newly listed duties, further indicating that she may have devoted 
the majority of her time to non-qualifying operational and administrative duties, such as overseeing 
payroll, recruiting staff, reviewing activity reports, and establishing staff training programs. The 
Petitioner also listed other duties, such as day-to-day supervision of financial operations, manage the 
development of the organization, develop a budget guideline for the company, ensure operations are 
meeting the company's standards and goals, develop business strategies and financial and sales 
plans, and achieve all financial goals, which, although they appear they can be executive-level tasks, 
the Petitioner did not provide sufficient information to provide a clear picture of what the 
Beneficiary has actually done as it relates to those tasks. Regardless, the Petitioner did not indicate 
how the listed duties are executive in nature anq did not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate that 
the Beneficiary has been employed primarily in an executive capacity abroad. Additionally, the 
Petitioner again stated that the Beneficiary has been directing the management of the organization 
and using her discretion to establish the goals and policies of the organization. Again, this particular 
duty does not provide any insight as to what she has actually been doing at the foreign entity. The 
Petitioner did not explain or clarify how she carried out these duties or present tasks that she has 
been responsible for to demonstrate that she has been performing primarily executive duties. Other 
duties, such as the financial and budgetary responsibilities, preparing reports, and training employees 
are vague and also do not clearly establish how she has been spending her time at the foreign entity, 
such that we can determine that she has been employed in an executive capacity. 
Whether the beneficiary is an executive employee turns on whether the petitioner has sustained its 
burden of proving that his duties are primarily executive. See sections 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
The Beneficiary's duties abroad include both executive and operational tasks, but do not consistently 
quantify the time the Beneficiary spends on them. While some of the listed duties appear to be 
executive, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary has been primarily performing these 
duties at the foreign entity. This lack of documentation is important because several of the 
Beneficiary's daily tasks do not appear to be qualifying duties. The Petitioner's description of the 
Beneficiary's duties abroad clearly indicate that she devoted a portion of her time to day-to-day 
operational duties. Without a specific and detailed breakdown of how the Beneficiary has spent her 
/ 
14 
(b)(6)
Matter of J-G-1-, Corp. 
time at the foreign entity, we are unable to conclude that the Beneficiary has been primarily 
performing executive duties. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted an expert opinion letter, in which 
states that he believes the Beneficiary's position at the foreign entity to be managerial/executive in 
nature. Again, it appears that analyzed the same list of job duties the Petitioner 
presented with the instant petition and he does not state whether he reviewed any other 
documentation. It is unclear whether analysis consi~ered the Beneficiary 's 
subordinates' duties and whether they relieved the Beneficiary from performing operational tasks, 
such as approving the issuance of checks, preparing reports, overseeing payroll, recruiting staff, 
reviewing activity reports, and establishing staff training programs. 
We may, in our discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See 
Matter of Caron lnt'l., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, we are ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
·eligibility. ld. Where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way 
questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. ld. Again, 
because review was limited to a review of the Beneficiary's job title-and broadly 
described job duties, it has less probative value, considering that our review is based on the totality 
of the evidence in the record. Again, 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 executive or 
managerial employee. 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed executive capacity of a Beneficiary, including the Petitioner's organizational 
structure, the duties of the Beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to 
relieve the Beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the Petitioner's business, 
and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a Beneficiary's actual duties and role in a 
business. , 
In this case, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary supervised two managers that relieved her 
from performing non-qualifying duties. However, the lists of job duties provided for both manager 
positions indicate that they are primarily responsible for sales, customer service, and inventory for 
their geographic divisions. The lists of job duties for the managers do not indicate that perform any 
duties directly related to the Beneficiary's position abroad, such that they would assist with the 
Beneficiary's listed non-qualifying duties. Thus, it does not appear that the managers relieved the 
Beneficiary from performing some of the non-qualifying duties associated with her position abroad. 
Even if the non-qualifying duties discussed above had not been clearly assigned to the Beneficiary, 
the Petitioner does not demonstrate that the foreign entity had any employees to relieve the 
Beneficiary from performing these operational and administrative tasks abroad. 
15 
Matter of J-G-1-, Corp. 
Based on the deficiencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
was employed in an executive capacity abroad. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of J-G-1-, Corp., ID# 105386 (AAO Oct. 13, 2016) 
16