dismissed L-1A Case: Freight Forwarding And Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-L-G-20 I 1 CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 15, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of freight forwarding and logistics services, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as its general and operations n~anager under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101 (a)(l S)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1 lOl(a)(IS)(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 a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial 
or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in a managerial capacity based on his supervision of subordinate professional personnel 
and his management of an essential function of the company. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
'I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A 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 
1 admission into the United States. Section IO 1 (a)(l S)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary 
must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her sen1ices to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. jd_ 
Il. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in a 
managerial or executive capacity. However, the Petitioner does not claim that -the Beneficiary will 
be been employed in an executive capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity. 
Matter <?fC-L-G-2011 Corp. 
"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 
organizationai'hierarchy or with respect to the functio~1 managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
101(a)(44){A) ofthe Act. 
When examining the .claimed managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look to th_e 
petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(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, th~ 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 
Based on the definition of managerial capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the Beneficiary 
will perform certain high-lev.el 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 duties_, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside 
the Petitioner's other employees. Se~ Fcm1ily Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); 
Champion World,. 940 F.2d at 1533. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary, as general and operations manager, 
will: plan, develop, establish and implement policies and objectives; dictate the direction of the 
business; exercise discretion to make company decisions; coordinate all aspects of the business; 
plan the Petitioner's budget, review activity reports and financial statements, and coordinate 
formulation of financial programs to fund operations; supervise the accounting process; and 
negotiate and enter into contracts. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director advised the Petitioner that the submitted description 
was too general and therefore insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary would perform primarily 
managerial duties on a day-to-day basis. . The Director requested that the. Petitioner provide 
additional detail regarding his specific proposed job duties and the percentage of time to be spent on 
each task. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided a different list of duties, but did not assign 
- percentages to specific tasks as requested by the .Director. Specifically, the Petitioner described the 
Beneficiary's proposed duties as follows: 
2 
.
Matter of C-L-G-2011 Cm1,. 
• Design and implement plans that suppo11 the adequate satisfaction of clients . .. . 
• Apply their experience, skills, and proven skills in commercial and institutional 
relationships, developed in Latin America,. in the scope of the Latin American 
market, which facilitates our organization in the United States, FL the 
possibility of opening new businesses with this important region, with the 
important presence of Venezuelans and Latin Americans· in South Florida. 
• Design, apply, and promote improvement actions to increase the profitability of 
the business, through the optimization of resources, synergy with clients and 
suppliers, recruitment of new customers, and effective control operations, under 
an environment of controlled competitiveness . 
• Responsible for fulfilling and enforcing the rules and procedures. 
• Propose policies and criteria for the application of new technologies, methods, 
and tools that incorporate improvements in the management of services. 
• Design and implement plans for the effective acquisition of new clients, through 
the application of promotional methods and public relations (with clients in the 
area of influence of and in Latin America) 
• Offer innovative services that make the difference with other similar coµ,panies, 
creating an effective and efficient connection with our current clients, and those 
that could potentially be captured. 
• Travel to the Latin American Region to establish effective contacts in the industry 
of the services offered by the company, and opening new business opportunities, 
supported by their personal characteristics and knowledge of the Latin American 
idiosyncrasy. 
We agree ~ith the Director's determination that this description was also lacking the requested level 
of detail and specificity regarding the Beneficiary's day-to-day duties. While responsibilities such as 
designing and implementing plans and improvement actions, making policy proposals, and having 
the authority to enforce rules and procedures are indicative of the Beneficiary's role at the top of the 
five-person organizational chart, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient insight into the nature of 
his expected daily tasks. Specifics are clearly an important indication ot~ 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 .. lid. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 
1108 (E.D.N .Y. 1989), crfl'd, 905 f.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990).. 
Further, the Petitioner did not explain what actions the Beneficiary is expected to take in order to 
"offer innovative services'' or acquire new clients. In fact, several of the Beneficiary's duties, such 
as "recruitment of new customers," making connections with current and potential clients, and 
establishing industry contacts, suggest that the Beneficiary, who will have no subordinates engaged 
in sales or marketing activities, would be directly performing these non-managerial company 
functions. In light of these potentially non-qualifying duties, we are unable to determine that the 
broadly stated managerial responsibilities would constitute the Beneficiary's primary duties. 
Although the Director specifically requested the information, the Petitioner's description of the 
Beneficiary's job duties does not establish what proportion of the duties is managerial in nature, and 
1 
Maller ofC-L-G-2011 Cm7J. 
what proportion is non-managerial. See Republic <?f Transkei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 177 (D.C. Cir. 
1991). 
On appeal, the Petitioner now states that the Beneficiary's _"essential duties" would include: 
(1) Ensure [the Petitioner's] administrative, operational financial compliance with 
its bylaws and with the general laws, practices, and procedures that regulate the 
cargo business; 
(2) Decide how to exercise [the Petitioner's] corporate interests regarding legal 
issues that may arise; 
(3) Report periodically to the parent company regarding key aspects of [the 
Petitioner], such as its income and expenses; market changes and adjustments 
made in response; and (?pportunities for business expans10n, where [the 
Beneficiary] would focus [the Petitioner's] resources. 
(4) Approve (the Petitioner's] web-site contents; 
(5) Hire and fire employees, set salaries, and oversee employee performance; 
(6) Open and close bank accounts and review income and expenditures. Oversee 
the accounting of [the Petitioner] to manage clients' payment of invoices and 
payment of [the Petitioner's] debts; and 
(7) Negotiate and enter into day-to-day business related contracts on behalf of [the 
Petitioner]. 
This description, for reasons that are not explained, bears little resemblance to the list of duties 
provided in response to the RFE, and, like the previous descriptions is insufficient to establish how 
the Beneficiary's duties would be primarily managerial. The Petitioner does not explain the specific 
tasks the Beneficiary will perform to ensure compliance with industry practices and procedures or 
how much time he will allocate to this responsibility. Similarly, it is unclear that hiring and firing 
statl overseeing website content, and responding to legal issues would be part of the Beneficiary's 
regular routine. The Petitioner has not indicated any immediate plans to hire staff, has not provided 
information regarding who develops its website content, and has not identified the types of legal 
issues that would require the Beneficiary's daily intervention. 
The Beneficiary's responsibility for negotiating and entering in to "day-to-day business related 
contracts" is also inadequately explained. Absent further details regarding the nature of these 
contracts, we cannot determine whether this is managerial responsibility, or whether the Beneficiary 
will be directly selling the Petitioner's services. Overall, the description is lacking detail; may 
include non-qualifying duties, and lacks information regarding how the Beneficiary would divide his 
time between managerial and non-managerial functions. 
The fact that the Beneficiary will manage or direct a business does not necessarily establish 
eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial capacity within the 
meaning of section 101 (a)(44)(A) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires 
that the duti~s of a position be "primarily" executive or managerial in nature. Sections 
101 (A)( 44 )(A) and (B) of the Act. While the Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the 
4 
.
Maller (!{C-L-G-2011 Corp. 
Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to 
discretionary decision-making, the various position descriptions submitted are neither consistent nor 
sufficiently detailed, which limits their probative value . For the reasons discussed, the position 
descriptions alone are insutlicient to establish that the Beneficiary would perform primarily 
managerial duties. 
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, we take into account the reasonable needs of the organization , in light of the 
overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section IO I (a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
The . Petitioner states that . its services include freight forwarding, logistics, customs and 
documentation brokering, door-to-door service between and Venezuela, international courier 
services, guaranteed space in daily cargo flights, and shipment of air and maritime cargo to 
Venezuela, Chile , and other international destinations. The Petitioner further states that it 
consolidates and re-packs its clients' merchandise to optimize volume of shipment and advises 
clients on the necessary documentation needed for shipment. Finally , there is evidence that the 
Petitioner is engaged in sourcing and procuring merchandise for shipment to its international clients. 
The Petitioner stated on the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, that it had four 
employees at the time of filing in December 2017. The Petitioner's payroll records confirm that the 
company employs a "procurement manager and warehousing " employee , an "administration and 
operation manager," and two warehouse employees . The Petitioner's organizational chart shows 
that one warehouse employee reports to the procurement manager and one reports to the 
administration and operation manager, but the Petitioner did not provide job descriptions for the 
lower-level warehouse staff . 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity " allows for both "personnel managers·' and 
"function managers ." See section 101(a)(44)(A) 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 manilgerial capacity merely by virtue 
of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional." Id. If a 
beneficiary directly supervises other employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire 
and fire those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(B)(J) . 
Although the submitted organizational chart depicts both_of the Beneficiary's direct subordinates as 
"managers ," each with one subqrdinate warehouse employee, the Petitioner has not otherwise 
claimed that these employees are managers or 'supervisors . Rather, the Petitioner has consistently 
claimed that both of the Beneficiary's subordinates are professionals. 
5 
Matter q/C-L-G-201 l Cmp. 
To determine whether a beneficiary manages professional employees, we must evaluate whether the 
~ubordinate positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of 
endeavor. C.'{: 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 10l(a)(32) of the Act,_states that "[t]he termprqfession shall include but not 
be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers m elementary or 
secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." 
Therefore, we must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree 
held by subordinate employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee 
does not automatically lead to the <::onclusion that an employee is working in a professional capacity. 
The Petitioner provided evidence that the administration and operations manager has the foreign 
equivalent of a bachelor of pharmacy degree. However, the Petitioner has not established that it 
requires the position holder to possess such a degree. The submitted "profile" for the position 
· indicates that the position holder will "preferably" be finished with university studies. Similarly, the 
Petitioner provided evidence that its "procurement manager and warehousing" employee has- the 
foreign e_quivalent of a bachelor's degree in industrial engineering, but the profile for the position 
does not state a bachelor's degree requirement for the position; it states that the position holder will 
be "preferably from the Industrial Engineering area." 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director should not have second guessed the Petitioner's 
business judgment by questioning· whether a degree is actually required for the subordinate positions. 
However, it is the Petitioner's burden to support its claims that these arc professional positions 
requiring completion of a bachelor's degree. By submitting job profiles indicating that the position 
holders "preferably" have such qualifications, it has not adequately supported that the positions 
require a bachelor's degree. 
Turning to the subordinate employees' job descriptions, the Petitioner stated that the procurement 
manager plans and streamlines "everything related to the process of purchasing, contracting, and 
locating goods and services," plans purchases and logistics, creates and updates a database of 
suppliers, products and prices, negotiates agreements with· suppliers, plans the functions of "the 
department and assigns functions to "the personnel in charge," prepares "the detailed planning of the 
project in relation to procurement and necessary equipment," and elaborates "the detailed planning 
of the required equipment by stage in the projects." The organizational chart depicts a "warehou·se 
operation". employee reporting to this position, but no description of the duties assigned to that 
employee. It is unclear whether the warehouse employee actually supports the procurement 
function, which appears to require most of the procurement manager's time. There is insufficient 
evidence to establish that this is a supervisory or managerial position. 
The Petitioner states that the administration and operations manager is responsible for elaborating 
the company's budget, proposing administrative policies and procedures, financial management, cost 
control, accounting records, the remuneration process, supervising "operational and· administrative 
management," planning and_ controlling administrative activities, negotiating cargo shipments and 
6 
Maller qfC-L-G-2011 Cm7,. 
controlling the cargo clearance system, administering contracts for transport, customs and cargo 
management, paying suppliers and collection management. The description does not mention any 
supervisory duties. Although the organizational chart shows a "warehouse systems operation" 
employee reporting to this position, the job description for the administration and operations 
manager does not indicate that this is a supervisory position. 
Overall, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary will be supervising the work of 
managerial, supervisory, or professional employees. Further, the amount of time the Beneficiary 
will spend on supervisory duties is not clearly delineated in any of the various versions of the 
Beneficiary's position description. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims for the first time that the Beneficiary will manage the essential 
function of planning an~ overseeing expansion of the Petitioner's market share in the United States. 
The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the 
work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" 
within the organization. See section 10l(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 demonstrate that "( l) the function 
is a clearly defined activity; (2) the fu11ction is 'essential,' i.e., core to the organization; (3) the 
beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to pe1:fhrm, the function; ( 4) the beneficiary will act 
at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and (5) 
the beneficiary will exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day operations." Matier of G­
Jnc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
As noted above, the Petitioner has submitted three different position descriptions'for the Beneficiary, 
none of which suggested that he would be primarily managing business development and· market 
expansion activities in the United States. Even though one of the descriptions states that the 
Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to perform duties related to business development, promoting the 
company's services, and handling relationships with new and potential clients, the Petitioner has not 
shown how he will ·primarily performs managerial duties in these areas rather than directly 
performing· the non-managerial operational tasks. As noted, the Petitioner has not claimed that the 
Beneficiary's subordinates are in marketing, selling, or promoting the company's services. 
While performing non-qualifying tasks necessary to produce a product or service 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 beneficiary will "primarily" perform 
managerial or executive duties. See section I0I(a)(44) of the Act. Whether a beneficiary is an 
"activity" or "function" manager turns in part on whether the Petitioner has sustained its burden of 
proving that their duties are "primarily" managerial. See Maller <!/' Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 
2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). Here, the Petitioner has not supported its claim that the Beneficiary 
will primarily manage an essential function of the company. · 
As required by section 101 (a)(44)(C) of the Act, if statling levels are used as, a factor in determining 
whether an individual is acting in a managerial or executive capacity, we take into .account the 
7 
.
Maller of C-L-G-2011 Cm7J. 
reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the 
organization. However, it is appropriate 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 F.3d 1313 
(9th Cir. 2006); Systronics Corp. v. INS. 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 200 l ). The size of a 
company may be especially relevant when we note discrepancies in the record. See Systronics, l 53 
F. Supp. 2d at 15. 
As discussed, the Petitioner claims to offer logistics, shipping, packaging, and freight forwarding 
services and also appears to source and procure products for its customers. The Petitioner has not 
provided a detailed, consistent description of the Beneficiary's duties, and did not provide position 
descriptions for two of its four subordinate employees, which makes it difficult to determine how the 
company's necessary operational work would. be allocated among the five-person staff. 
The Petitioner claims for the first time on appeal that it works with its claimed foreign affiliate to 
coordinate logistics as ·part of its freight forwarding service. The Petitioner does not identify which 
· foreign employees support the U.S. company, or provide evidence of their interactions with the 
petitioning company or of any specific services the foreign entity is claimed to provide. As a result, 
the record does not contain sufficient evidence to establish that the foreign staff assist the Petitioner 
with its day-to-day operations or remove the Beneficiary from involvement in non-managerial duties 
required to provide the services of the company. 
Further, as noted, the Petitioner does not claim to employ any staff engaged in sales or marketing 
functions, but states that the Beneficiary will manage these and other business development 
act1v1t1es. Based o'n these deficiencies and the evidence as a whol_e, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently supported its claim that it ~vould require the Beneficiary to primarily perform higher 
level duties consistent with the statutory definition of managerial capacity. 
III. QUALIFYING RELL\ TI ON SHIP 
Although not addressed in the Director's decision, we find that the Petitioner has not established that 
it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. To establish a "qualifying 
relationship," the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary"s foreign employer and the proposed 
U.S. employer are the same employer (i.e. one entity with "branch" offices), or related as a "parent 
and subsidiary" or as "affiliat.es." See section 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. § 
· 214.2(1)( 1 )(ii) (providing definitions of the terms "parent," "branch," "subsidiary," and "affiliate"). 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner stated that it is an affiliate of the Beneficiary's foreign employer, 
a Venezuelan company, and described the ownership as follows: "The [Petitioner] is owned by 
and [the Beneficiary]. The Foreign Business Entity . 1s 
owned by ___________________ and 
The Petitioner submitted the foreign entity's incorporation document indicating that each of the four 
claimed owners has a 25% share in the company. The record also contains copies of the Petitioner's 
8 
.
Matter <?(C-L-G-2011 Corp . 
stock certificates issued since 2015, which show that, at the time of filing, the Petitioner was owned 
by the Beneficiary (33%), _____ (33%), and ___ (34%). 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner stated that "the Beneficiary presently owns 51 % 
and owns 49% of the United States Business Entity's shares of stock." The 
evidence shows that this change in ownership occurred in January 2018,_ subsequent to the filing of 
the petition. The Petitioner emphasized that owns 25% of the foreign entity and 49% 
of the U.S. company, and appeared to claim that his minority ownership in each company is 
sufficierit to establish an affiliat~ relationship. 
Affiliate means (I) One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same 
parent or individual, or (2) One of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of 
individuals, each individual owning and controlling approximately the same share or proportion of 
each entity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(L). 
Here, the Petition~r and the foreign entity have only one owner in common -
As a minority shareholder in each company, he does not hold a controlling interest in either the 
Petitioner or the foreign entity. Therefore, the record does not establish that the two entities are 
affiliates as defined in the regulations as they are not owned and controlled by the same parent, 
individual, or group of individuals. On appeal, the Petitioner refers to the foreign entity as its parent, 
but the record does not support a finding that the foreign entity owns any shares in the petitioning 
company. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that it has a qualifying relationship with 
the Beneficiary's foreign employer. For this additional reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
IV. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
Another issue not addressed in the Director's decision is whether the Beneficiary has been employed 
abroad in a inanagerial or executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner has not provided a consistent description of the Beneficiary's job title _or duties with 
the foreign entity, which limits the probative value of its statements regarding his employment 
abroad. Initially, the Petitioner stated that his position abroad is "General and Operations Manager" 
and that he has "full responsibility staffing, work of the entire organization including the day-to-day 
management of the company," and reports directly to the board of directors. The Petitioner's 
statements indicate that the Beneficiary serves as the top rnanager of the company. 
However, the Petitioner's evidence included a list of the foreign entity's employees which identified 
the Beneficiary as "sales manager," and named other individuals in the roles of manager, operations 
manager, operations supervisor, and head of operations. At the same time, the Petitioner submitted 
the foreign entity's organizational chart, which identified the Beneficiary as "head of operations" 
reporting to an operations manager, who reports to the company CEO, who, in turn, reports to the 
board of directors. This chart shows. the Beneficiary as supervising a "yard chief' who supervises 
9 
Matier 4C-L-G-20l J_Cmp. 
"operators," "receptors" and their supervisors, and is clearly a lower level position than the "general 
and operations manager" position described in the Petitioner's initial statement. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a letter from the foreign entity, which stated that the 
Beneficiary holds the position or' "Operations Manager" and supervises the· chief of operations, 
operations supervisor, and control and receiver analysts. The accompanying description of duties 
bears no resemblance to the original job description for the "general a!ld operations manager" 
position attributed to the Beneficiary in the initial submission. Rather, the foreign entity states that 
the Beneficiary checks daily entries and exits at the warehouse, evaluates information issued by 
equipment control analysts, checks infonnation provided by the receivers and supervisor for the 
correct storage of containers, plans for the hauling of containers to the assigned dock, and evaluates 
the department's staff and income. The Petitioner re-submitted the organizational chart which shows 
the beneficiary as "head of operations" reporting to the "operations manager." The Petitioner also 
submitted paystubs indicating that the Beneficiary was the foreign entity's "head of operations" 
throughout 2017. 
The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). It appears 
more likely than not that the Beneficiary serves as the foreign entity's "head of operations" and 
reports to an operations manager, and is not employed in the more senior "general and operations 
manager" position claimed at the time of filing. However, the Petitioner did not provide an 
explanation for the ~eneficiary's changing job titles and job duties and we are left with insufficient 
probative, credible information regarding his foreign employment. Accordingly, the Petitioner did 
not meet its burden to show that he was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. For 
this additional reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed because the Petitioner did nol establish that the Beneficiary will be 
employed'in the United States in a managerial capacity. We further find that the Petitioner did not 
establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's employer abroad or that the 
Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of C-L-G-20 I I Corp., ID# 1805541 (AAO Jan. 15, 2019) 
10 -