dismissed L-1A Case: Engineering

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 0-E- , INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 24,20 18 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITlON FOR A NON lMMIGRA NT WORKER · 
The Petitioner, an engineering , procurement, and construction serv ices business, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as its project manager and to extend his status 
1 
under the L-1 A 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)( 15)(L). TheL-IA classiticat ion allows a corpo ration 
or other legal entity (includin g its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifYing foreign employee to the 
United States to work temporarily in a managerial or executive capacit y. 
The Director of the V~rmont Service Center denied the petition, conclud ing that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that: (1) the Beneficiary had at least one continuous year of full-time 
employment abroad with a qualifying entity in the three years preceding the filing of the petition ; (2) 
he was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity; and (3) he wou ld be emp loyed in the 
United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and assert s that the Director did not apply the 
prepond erance ofthe evidenc e standa rd to the facts presented. 
Upon de novo review , we will withdraw the Director 's determina tion that the Benefi ciary did not 
have one continuous year of employment abroad with a qualifying entity during the relevant three­
year time period .2 However , as the Petitioner has hot overcome the remaining grounds for denial , 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
1 U.S. Citizenship and Immigrant Services (USCIS) previously approved an L- lA classification petition tiled on the 
Beneficiary's behalfby . · 
2 The Director's adverse determination was based on a finding that the Petitioner did not submit evidence of the 
ownership for the Beneficiary's current L- I A employer, and therefore did not establish that he had 
been working with a qualifying entity while in the United States. The evidence submitted on appeal is s ufficient to 
establish that was an affiliate of the Beneficiary's foreign employer, and his time spent 
in the United States working for this entity did not interrupt his continuous employment with the qualifying organization 
abroad, where he had worked since 20 I I. See generally 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)( I )(ii)(A). 
Matter of 0-E-, Inc. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for theL-IA nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving a new 
office, a qualifying organization must have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity for one continuous year within three. years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). 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. I 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 
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 
!Ol(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) of the 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 f-amily Inc. v. USCIS, 469 
F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d at 1533. 
Ill. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The first issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
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 
2 
.
Matter of 0-E-, inc. 
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 foreign 
entity's business , its staffing 
levels, and its organi zational structure. 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner stated that the foreign entity, is primarily engaged in construction and 
procurement services and has-employed the Beneficiary in the position of project manager from 
January 2011 through September 2014. 3 The Petitioner stated that this was an "exec utive or 
managerial" position and that the Beneficiary performed the following duties: 
• Planning, directing , and coordinating projects to ensure that goals or objectives 
are accomplished within the prescribed time frame and funding parameter s 
( 15%); 
• Reviewing project proposal or plan to determine time frame, finding limitations, 
procedures for accomplishing project, staffing requirements , and allotment of 
available resources to various phases of project ( 15% ); 
• Establishing work plan and staffing for each phase of project, and arranging for 
recruitment of project personnel (5%); 
• Hiring and firing subordinate managers as well as supervising Procurement 
Manager, Financial and Administrative Affairs Managers , HR Manager , IT 
Manager and Marketing Manager (20%); 
• Conferring with project staff, including engineers and architects to outline work 
plan and to assign duties , responsibilities 
and scope of authority ( l 0%); 
• Directing and coordinates activities of project personnel and subordinate 
managers, including architects and engineers, to ensure project progres ses on 
schedule and within prescribed budget (15%); 
• Reviewing status reports prepared by project personnel, including architect, 
engine·ers, construction managers and modify schedules and plans as required 
(10%); . 
• Prepare project report s for management , client, or others (5%) ; 
• Conferring with project personnel , including con struction managers, to provide 
technical advice and to resolve problem s (5%). 
The Petitioner emphasized that, because the Beneficiary has a doctorate degree in architecture, he 
has assisted in all phases of engineering, procurement , and construction, and "primarily 
assists with the preparation and filing of bids for various projects. " The Petitio ner noted that the 
Beneficiary supervised engineers and architects hired for specific projects, and did not work at 
project sites "since each project has its own manager who works at the site and supervises all other 
site personnel." · 
3 The Petitioner stated that, since September 2014, the Beneficiary has continued working concurrently for both 
in Turkey and for in the United States. The Beneficiary's entries in L-1 A status have been 
intermittent. 
3 
.
Matter of 0-E-, Inc. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director advised the Petiti oner that the prov ided pos1t10n 
description lacked sufficient detail to establish what the Beneficiar y did on a day-to-day basis . The 
Director further advised that the Petitioner did not provide corroborative evidence demonstrating that 
the Beneficiary performed the listed dutie s. 
In response, the Petitioner re-submitted the same position description and a revised organizational 
chart identifying the Beneficiary as "project general manager." The Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary managed a function by ensuring that prepared successfu l bids, and also 
had responsibil ity for hiring and firing staff and supervising subordinate man agers and profe ssio nals. 
The Petitioner described two projects that has undert aken in Turke y, but did not provide 
evidence corrob orating the natu re of the Beneficiary's day-to-day tasks in relation to these projects, 
despite the Director ' s observation in the RFE that the general job description alone was insufficient 
to establish his employment abroad as a manager or executi ve. The Petitioner mentioned a 
residential townhome project called and submitted a brochure for this project, 
noting that the Beneficiary was "in charge of this project becau se it required extensive expertise." 
The Petitioner also briefly described an ongoing project called but did not 
describe the project , its staffing , the Beneficiary' s 
specific role in its manageme nt, or the date s he 
worked on it. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits the same job descr iption for a third time and again emphasizes that 
the Beneficiary "primaril y assist(ed] with the preparation of bids for various projects by being the 
planner of these projects, and then directing and coordinating projects. " 
We agree with the Direct or that the evidence submitted is insufticient to establish what the 
Beneficiary primarily did on a day-to-d ay basis while emplo yed by the foreign entity. Notably, 
· although the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiar y has been "primarily" respo nsible for preparing 
bids, it did not include this "primary" activity among the list of duties which accounted for I 00% of 
his time. The Petitioner also indicates that the Beneficiary spent 15% of his time "reviewing" 
project prop osals and plans , but did not establish who, besides the Benefic iary himsel f, act ually 
prepar ed these plans and proposals. In addition, the Beneficiary 's responsibilities for provid ing 
technical advice to project personnel and preparing project report s are not clearly managerial duties. 
The Petitioner states that the Benefici ary had the authority to hire, tire , and supervise five 
subordinate department managers and spe nt 20 percent of his time on this responsibilit y, but this 
claim i s not adequately supported . Only one of the three differ ent organizati onal charts provided for 
the foreign entity include s an IT manager or a marketing manager, subordinate s that are cons istently 
listed in the Beneficiary 's job description. Moreover , on appeal, the Petiti oner indicat es that the 
Benefic iary superv ised the work of these manageri al emplo yees "to the extent they relate to 
project s." The Petition er did not esta blish that these departme nt managers report ed to the 
Beneficiary as their direct manager or that he supervis ed the overall operation s and all depa rtments 
of the foreign entity as implied by this stated responsibility. 
4 
.
Malter of 0-E-, Inc. 
Further, as discussed below, the Petitioner has not adequately documented the foreign entity's 
"project staff' in support of its claim that the Beneficiary's responsibility for conferring with and 
coordinating such staff is a managerial function. The Petitioner emphasizes that each project has its 
own site manager to supervise on-site project personnel, but it did not consistently identify a site 
manager or site managers on the foreign entity's organizational charts , nor has it provided 
organizational charts showing the staff hired for speci fie projects. 
Finally, there is some ambiguity in the record regarding the Beneficiary's level of authority as one 
version of the foreign entity's organizational chart depicts the Beneficiary as a project manager 
. reporting to a project director , another version identifies him as "project general manager" 
supervising the project director, and a third version indicates that he is the "project general 
manager," but does not include the project director position at all. 
Although the Beneficiary may have supervised projects for the foreign entity along with any project 
employees or contractors hired, it appears that he also performed non-managerial dut ies associated 
with project bidding, proposal, reporting, and support activities which are not fully represented. in the 
breakdown of his duties. By statute, eligibility for this classitication requires that the duties of a 
position be "primarily" executive or managerial in nature. Sections 101 (A)( 44)(A) and (B) of the 
Act. Therefore, even though the Beneficiary may have exercised discretion over project activities , 
the job description alone is insufficient to establish .that his actual duties were primarily managerial 
or executive in nature. 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, the reasonable needs of t~e organization, in light of the overall purpose and 
stage of development of the organization, are taken into account. See section IOI(a)(44)(C) ofthe 
Act. 
As noted, the Petitioner submitted three different organizational charts depicting the foreign entity's 
structure. The undated chart submitted at the time of filing showed that the Beneticiary reported to a 
project director and supervised a procurement manager with one subordinate, an HR manager, an- IT 
manager, a project administrator, a marketing employee, and a financial and administrative affairs 
department with six employees performing finance, accounting, administrative, and logistics 
functions. However, as discussed, the Petitioner states on appeal that the Beneficiary supervised 
subordinate department managers only to the extent that they supported specific projects , and his 
direct subordinates were site managers, engineers, architects and other workers. This version of the 
chart did not indicate that the foreign affiliate employs project staff and appears to be inaccurate, as 
it indicates that he directly supervised all department managers. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a chart .which identified the Bene ficiary as "project 
general manager" reporting directly to owners. This version shows . that the Beneficiary 
supervises a project director, rather than reporting to one, and it does not include the marketing, IT, 
project administrator, or logistics staff shown on the previous chart. Unlike that chart, this version 
5 
.
Malter of 0-E- . Inc. 
has a construction department that includes · a site manager, site supervisor, site foreman, and an 
electrician, in addition to the project director. However, an accompanying payroll listing dated June 
1, 2017, indicated that all of the construction staff had been hired between Februa ry and May 201 7. 
Therefore , the evidence did not show that the Beneficiary supervised the construction staff for at 
least one year and it is unclear what his duties would have been in the absence of project staff to 
manage. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "per sonne l managers" and 
"function mana gers." See sectio n 10l(a) (44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers are 
required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees. Contrary to the common understanding of the word "manager ," the statute 
plainly states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity 
merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employ ees supervised are 
professional." Section IOI(a)(44)(A)(iv) ofthe Act. 
Without consistent information regarding the Beneficiary's position within the hierarchy, the nature 
of his supervisory duties , or evidence of his supervi sion of staff assigned to carry out the foreign 
entity' s projects , the Petition er has not met its burden to establi sh that he primarily perform ed duties 
in a managerial capacity while employed by the foreign entit y. The Petitioner' s desc ription of the 
Beneficiary's duties implies that he managed multiple projects a nd site managers, but it has not 
submitted sufficient evidence to corroborate this statement, as it has described only one project 
completed in Turkey and has not provided evidence that it regu larly employ ed construction and 
project-related staff. Accordingly, we cannot determine that the Benefici ary routinel y s upervised 
and controlled the work of a subordinate staff of managers, supervi sors, or profe ssionals. 4 
The Petitioner also mention s the Benefici ary' s role in bidding for projects , which it describe s as an 
essential function of the foreign entity. 5 The term "function manager" applie s generally when a 
beneficiary does not supervi se or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily 
responsible for managing an "essential function" within the organiz ation. See section 
101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary will manage an essential 
function , it must clearly describe the duties to be performed in managing the essential function . In 
addition, the petitioner must demonstr ate that "(1) the function is a clearly defined activity ; (2) the 
function is 'essential,' i.e., core to the organization; (3) the beneficiary will prima rily manage, as 
opposed to perform, the function; (4) the b~nefic iary will act at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and (5) the benefici ary will 
4 The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart for another Turkish compan y called which it described as a 
"sister company ." This chart showed the Beneficiary as "project general mana ger" supervi sing a site manager, site chief, 
and 14 construction and iron worker s. An accompanying payro ll record for indicated that all com pany sta ff 
were hired in March 2017 or later . Therefor e, even if the Petitioner had subm itted evidence of owner ship or 
evidence that the staff depicted on this chart assisted with its construct ion proje cts, the evidence would not 
establish that the Beneficiary had been supervising project staff for at least one yea r. 
5 As noted, the Petitioner did not includ e preparing bid s in its break down of the Beneficiary's duties despite claimi ng that 
he primarily manage s this functio n. 
6 
Mauer of 0-E-. Inc. 
exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day operations." Mall~r ofG- Inc., Adopted Decision 
2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
As noted, while preparing successful bids is undoubtedly essential to the foreign entity's business, 
the Petitioner has not explained how this activity, which it describes as one of the Beneficiary's 
primary duties, is managerial in nature, nor has it sufficiently established that the foreign entity had 
the staff to relieve the Beneficiary from involvement in non-managerial project activities following a 
successful bid. 
Finally, we note that the Petitioner has described. the Beneficiary's role as "managerial or executive." 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position 
within a complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the 
organization, and that person's authority to direct the organization. Section l0l(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 focus 
on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than the day-to-day operations of the 
enterprise. Here, the job duties attributed to the Beneficiary are not consistent with the statutory 
definition of executive capacity and do not reflect that he has been primarily focused on the broad 
policies and goals of the foreign entity, rather than on its day-to-day operations. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
IV. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The remaining issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that it will employ the 
Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. As with the foreign position, 
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 initially stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a "project manager," and it provided 
a duty description that was nearly identical to that provided for his foreign position. As it did with 
the foreign entity, the Petitioner went on to state that "the Beneficiary will primarily assist the 
Petitioner in preparing and filing bids .for various projects by being the planner of Petitioner's 
projects," and emphasized that "preparing bids that are successful in winning the contracts is an 
essential part of Beneficiary's proposed employment." Once again, the Petitioner did not identify 
"preparing bids" in its breakdown of the Beneficiary's job duties, making it impossible to determine 
how much time he would spend on this non-managerial duty, and raising questions regarding the 
accuracy of the percentages assigned to the listed duties. Further, as with the foreign job, some of 
the Beneficiary's duties, such as providing teclinical advice to project staff and preparing project 
Matter of 0-E-, Inc. 
reports, are not managerial, while some duties, such as the management of other project managers, 
are not adequately supported in the record. 
The Petitioner also went on to state that the Beneficiary will "supervise the work of Procurement 
Manager, Finance Manager" and "recommend promotions of HR Department and Procurement 
Department," but the Petitioner's initial organizational chart did not include these positions or 
departments. The Petitioner added a procurement supervisor to a later version of its organizational 
chart, but did not show that this position would report to the Beneficiary or that it was filled at the 
time of filing. 
Although the Beneficiary may supervise any project employees and contractors hired, it appears that 
he will also perform non-managerial duties associated with project bidding, proposal, reporting, and 
support activities. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a position be 
"primarily" executive or managerial in nature. Sections I 01 (A)( 44)(A) and (B) of the Act. 
Therefore, even though the Beneficiary will likely exercise discretion over project activities, the job 
description alone is insufficient to establish that his actual day-to-day duties will be managerial or 
executive in nature. 
·B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
The Petitioner's organizational chart at the time of filing in May 2017 indicated that the company 
had eight current employees, including a president/owner, vice president, executive assistant, 
accountant, and a project planning development and construction department that included a senior 
project manager, a project manager, an assistant project manager, and a superintendent. The 
Beneficiary's proposed title on the chart was "chief project manager" and the chart showed that he 
would supervise the other project managers in th7 project department. 
The Petitioner submitted its state quarterly wage report for the last quarter of 2016 and copies of its 
2016 IRS Form W-2s. All employees named on the organizational chart were paid in the fourth 
quarter of 2016. However, the quarterly wage report shows that the company had only four 
employees by December 2016 and it appears that several employees were no longer with the 
company by the end of the year. 
In response to the RFE in July 2017, the Petitioner submitted a revised organizational chart, which 
included all of the same stall: as well as a second accountant, a procurement supervisor, a foreman, a 
rigger, and an equipment operator, for a total of 13 staff. The Petitioner's payroll for the first quarter 
of 2017 included only eight employees and did not confirm wages paid to one of the accountants, the 
executive assistant, the procurement supervisor, the vice president, or the senior project manager. 
The Petitioner has not provided a copy of its quarterly wage report for the second quarter of 2017, 
which would corroborate the company's actual staffing at the time of filing. 
Further, the job descriptions submitted for the other employees in the Beneficiary's department 
indicate that the senior project manager, project manager, and even the assistant project manager 
perform duties that are similar to those assigned to the Beneficiary, and it is unclear to what extent 
8 
.
Maller of 0-E-. Inc. 
he would supervise their activities. 6 Rather, it appears that each project manager would be 
responsible for delivering their own projects on time and within budget , and devel oping project 
scope and objectives, with responsibility for overseeing third parties and vendors. The record does 
not support the Petitioner 's claim that the Beneficiar y would manage other project mana gers rather 
than simply managing upcoming project s and contract staff assigned to these project s. 
For example , the Petitioner stated that each project will have a "site project manager, architects, 
engineers , sub-contractors and vendors and supp\iers." Howev er, the other project manager s already 
employed by the company are not claim ed to :be "site project manager s." While the Petitioner 
indicates that it employs one superintendent and one foreman , it is unclear which of the Petitioner's 
many claimed projects they work on, how they would support multiple project managers with onsite 
activities, or how the staffing is suffici ent to undertake the large number of projects the Petitioner 
claims to have either in progress or imminent. The Petitioner did submit copies of IRS Forms l 099 
documenting its payment s to electricians, plumbers, roofers, construction workers, demolition 
contractors , lawn service s, welders, surveyors, engineers, and concrete contractor s in 2016. 
However, it did not clearly detail each current project , its timeline , and its staffing, inform ation that 
would assist in clarifying where the Beneficiary would fit within the organization and who he would 
actually oversee. 
In the denial decision, the Director specifically noted that the Petitioner had not provided consistent 
information regarding its staffing or shown that it has the capacit y to manage the large construction 
projects that it claims to be undertaking , which the Petitioner values at $100 million. The Petitioner 
claimed that two other related U.S. companies , 
agreed to "provide service s to various projects of [the Petitioner) and related entities, " but the 
Petitioner did not adequat e
ly document these companies' employees or their provision of project­
related services to the Petition er. The Petitioner provided a state quarterly report for 
for the first quarter of 2017 which indicates that it paid employees who were previous ly on the 
Petitioner's payroll (an accountant and executive assi stant), as well as the Petiti oner's vice president 
and president. However, the Petitioner has not documented that it has a similar arrangement in place 
for construction-related staff assigned to its project s. The other party to this agreemen t, 
had only one part-time emplo yee in the first quarter of 2017 according to its 
quarterly wage report. 
The Director also found that the Petition er did not 
adequately docume nt its involvement in the many 
real estate deve lopment and construction projects described in the record. On appeal, the Petitioner 
provides a services agreement (entered September 1, 2017 and effective from June l , 20 17), 
indicating that the Petitioner agreed to provide services to 14 other Texas entities owned by the 
Petitioner's owner and/or other member s of his family . The Petitioner indicate s that most of these 
I 
entities own property in various stages of development and have sought the Peti tioner's services "to 
design, construct , procure , and to provide management and engineering services." 
6 In addition , while not dispositive , we note that the Beneficia ry has been offered an annual sala ry of $40,000 , while the 
Petitioner indicates that it pays $I 6 1 ,000 to another project manager and $99 ,750 to the assistant projec t manager 
9 
Malter of 0-E-, Inc. 
As stated above, section IOI(a)(44)(C) of the Act requires that USCIS must take into account the 
reasonable needs of the organization in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the 
organization if staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a 
managerial or executive capacity. However, it is appropriate for USClS to consider the size of the 
petitioning company in conjunction with other relevant factors, such as the absence of employees 
who would perform the non-managerial or non-executive operations of the company. Family Inc. v. 
USCIS, 469 FJd 1313 (9th Cir. 2006); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 
2001 ). 
We agree with the Director's finding that the Petitioner has not shown how it would provide these 
services for up to 14 projects with a staff of eight people, or how it would support the Beneficiary in 
a managerial or executive position based on its current structure. The Petitioner has consistently 
stated that the Beneficiary will occupy a senior position in its project management department, but 
has not submitted a job description or supporting evidence sufticient to demonstrate that he would 
primarily engage in managerial or executive duties as of the date it filed the petition, given the lack 
of lower level staff in that department to perform non-managerial tasks. Accordingly, the Petitioner 
has not met its burden to establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that that the Beneficiary was employed abroad, or would be 
employed in the United States, in a managerial or executive capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofO-E-Inc., !D# 1004436 (AAO May 24, 2018) 
10