dismissed L-1A Case: International Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF U-P-G-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 8, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, describing itself as engaged in "international business," seeks to continue to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as its president under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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 was employed in a managerial or executive capacity in his 
former capacity abroad. The Director further determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not provide adequate analysis as to how the 
submitted evidence was insufficient to establish the Beneficiary's managerial and executive capacity 
abroad and in the United States. The Petitioner states that the Director erred in only analyzing whether 
the Beneficiary qualified as a manager, and did not consider whether the Beneficiary acted abroad, 
and would act in the United States, in an executive capacity. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary must 
seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. The petitioner 
must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or her 
to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
Matter of U-P-G-
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 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
"Executive capacity" means 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 101 (a)( 44 )(B) of the 
Act. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The first issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. 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 a 
managerial or executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description of 
the job duties, we examine the company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's 
subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing 
operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that will contribute to 
understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. Accordingly, we will discuss 
evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of the nature of the Petitioner's 
business, its staffing levels, and its organizational structure. 
A. Duties 
Based on the definition of managerial or executive capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the 
Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 
1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, the Petitioner must prove that the 
Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial or executive duties, as opposed to ordinary 
operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 
1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner stated in a support letter submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence 
(RFE) that the Beneficiary had acted as its president since October 2015 and that he was tasked with 
"establishing the U.S. entity, overseeing and directing [its] overall management and operation." The 
2 
Matter of U-P-G-
Petitioner further emphasized general accomplishments and projects the Beneficiary had focused on, 
including setting direction "in developing and investing financially in the research and 
development .. -~-------~--------' manufacturing in the U.S." The Petitioner 
indicated that the Beneficiary coordinated "U.S. manufacturing" through a U.S. based vendor I I I I It further stated that the Beneficiary "made various executive decisions and represented the 
company in meeting with other company leaders or government officials, and sign[ ed] contracts or 
important business or legal documents on behalf of the company." It also emphasized that the 
Beneficiary had led the company through "successfully obtain[ing] certifications [in China] for 
numerous different kinds of and facilitated the manufacturing process of the 
" 
In addition, the Petitioner pointed to the Beneficiary's "numerous meetings" with two Chinese 
companies" and "various [Chinese] government authorities" to "conduct strategic planning for the 
three-party joint construction laboratory." The Petitioner further indicated that the Beneficiary had 
established "international logistics and marketing related services ... which provide excellent and 
comprehensive service for its customers." The Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary arranged support 
serv1ces,...!::::========:::;------~and bring manufacture business [sic] to the U.S. to 
provide~-------~ China market." 
The Petitioner also submitted a lengthy U.S. duty description for the Beneficiary including some of 
the following duties: 
• further develop, add to an edit the company's strategic plan, analyze the company's 
business advantages in thd~------~l field, analyze companies' potential 
and ability in developing, marketing and facilitating different projects; 
• making the general decisions to setting various goals and targets for the company 
development, such as the goals of establishing international cooperation to set up 
research a research and testing facility, warehousing and logistic services, including 
short term (six months to one year) and long term (three to five years); 
• continue to draft, determine, improve and resolve company rules and policies in the 
company's fund usage, investment, spending, and expense, set up internal auditing 
and observation systems; 
• make adjustments to the company's daily operational procedures based on 
development needs, including supervision and reporting/monitoring methods and 
procedures and specific guidelines including time, place and manner of reporting 
systems for the managers and employees; 
• continue to receive periodical reports (weekly, monthly, quarterly) from the 
subordinates regarding each major function of the company and revise objectives 
for each function and plans in accordance with current conditions; 
• make human resources decisions regarding policies and rules for the company; 
• observe the functions of the organization, based on the company's business 
operation needs, further adjust and determine what departments to be added or 
deleted; 
• represent the company in participating and in important meetings, negotiation and 
represent the company in various meetings; 
3 
Matter of U-P-G-
• approve/cancel major contract or business correspondence, review and/or sign 
important business correspondence representing the company, give opinions, 
instructions as to necessary changes or improvements; 
• guide and instruct performance, improve and perfect the guidelines for each 
department, chair weekly, monthly and quarterly meetings of managers and key 
personnel. 
The Petitioner has submitted a substantially generic U.S. duty description and little documentation to 
substantiate the Beneficiary's daily qualifying managerial and executive level tasks. The 
Beneficiary's duty description includes several duties that could apply to any manager or executive 
acting in any industry and they provide little insight into his actual day-to-day managerial or executive 
tasks. For instance, the Petitioner did not sufficiently detail or document changes the Beneficiary 
made to the company's strategic plan, projects he facilitated, company missions, goals, or targets he 
set, rules and policies he established, or contract negotiation procedures he put in place. Likewise, it 
did not articulate or document internal auditing and observation systems the Beneficiary set up, 
operational procedures he adjusted, supervision and reporting methods and procedures he 
implemented, objectives he revised for the company's functions, instructions he gave his subordinates 
for future improvement, or human resources rules and policies he put in place. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not detail or substantiate with supporting evidence departments he added 
or deleted or guidance and instructions he provided on performance. In sum, the Beneficiary's duty 
description, despite its length, included few credible examples of his actual daily managerial or 
executive level tasks. This lack of detail and documentation is particularly questionable since the 
Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary has been acting in his capacity as president since September 
2015. 1 Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily 
executive or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of 
reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), 
aff'd, 905 F.2d41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted other information and documentation specific to the 
Beneficiary's activities, but we did not find this evidence sufficient to establish that he would devote 
a majority of his time to managerial or executive duties in the United States. For instance, the 
Petitioner emphasized his coordination with two Chinese companies to set up ~--------~ services with U.S. vendors. Further, the Petitioner described a complicated application process in 
China to gamer certifications for and provided evidence that it obtained 
them specific to certainl I However, it is not clear how these activities demonstrate the 
Beneficiary devoting a majority of his time to managerial or executive level duties in the United States 
as of the date the petition was filed. 
The Petitioner submitted a "Cooperation Agreement" it executed with two Chinese companies in 
September 2017 pursuant to which the parties agreed to coordinate on ~---------~ 
performed in the United States and another such agreement signed in July 2016 with a U.S. company 
to potentially provide thes~ I in the United States. However, there is little indication as 
of the date the petition was filed that these I I services have sufficiently developed. For 
1 The petition was filed on August 30, 2018. 
4 
Matter of U-P-G-
instance, the Petitioner's support letter still refers to "future warehousing and logistics" and the 
Beneficiary's duty description discusses research and development as tol lthat 
would take place in six months to a year. In fact, despite the Beneficiary acting in his role since 2015, 
the Petitioner still indicates that a major project for him under the extended petition would be to 
establish the international logistics and marketing related to the provision of its I I ~----~I services. Therefore, although there may be some qualifying tasks inherent in negotiating 
umbrella contracts with other companies to provide services, these are only one off events that took 
place in July 2016 and September 2017, and it is not clear without further explanation and evidence 
how this demonstrates that the Beneficiary devoted a majority of his time to qualifying managerial or 
executive level tasks in the United States as of the date the petition was filed. 
Beyond this, the Petitioner has submitted little credible evidence to substantiate his performance of 
qualifying duties. For example, in the Beneficiary's duty description the Petitioner refers to his hiring 
of an international business department manager, a manager of management and finance, and a 
manager of its claimed sales and marketing department; apparently offering these as examples of his 
qualifying managerial or executive level duties. In each case, the Petitioner's description of these 
decisions included insufficient detail and supporting documentation. For instance, the Petitioner 
indicated that the international business department manager was hired due to "specialized knowledge 
and experience in doing international transactions," that the finance manager was hired because they 
are "an expert in corporation managing," while the sales and marketing manager was brought on 
because they "showed skills in marketing strategy planning and developing new clients." 
However, these examples of the Beneficiary's managerial or executive level decisions lack credible 
detail, such as the specifics of his decision making, documentation to support these decisions, and they 
include overly vague reasoning for his conclusions that bear little relation to the company's specific 
business. In addition, each one of these examples, even if properly substantiated, are one time hiring 
decisions, not actual daily managerial or executive duties. In sum, we did not find these examples 
credible in demonstrating the Beneficiary's primary performance of managerial or executive level 
duties on a daily basis as of the date the petition was filed; particularly since there is no evidence of 
him interacting with these employees, these subordinate managers acting in their roles, or him 
delegating tasks to them. 
To further illustrate the vague nature of the supporting evidence provided by the Petitioner related to 
the Beneficiary's role, it submitted two records of meeting minutes involving the Beneficiary and his 
claimed managerial subordinates in the United States in July and September 2016. However, these 
meeting minutes included few credible specifics and only made vague statements such as noting that 
the Beneficiary "analyzed and reported his decision of company's new direction and focus in 
development [of] I !manufacture in the U.S." Further, the meetings minutes stated 
that the "China [sic] company's marketing team conducted marketing research and analysis and 
obtained valuable information," and that his claimed managerial subordinates "will continue to 
provide support for the US company and to [the Beneficiary]." These asserted meeting minutes 
provide little indication of what was specifically communicated at these meetings, what marketing 
research was completed, or what tasks were delegated to the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates. 
5 
Matter of U-P-G-
Likewise, the Petitioner submitted a generic "Company Policy/Code on Ethics & General Standard" 
dated in February 2017 as apparent evidence of the Beneficiary's qualifying duties. However, the 
company policy only sets forth basic corporate concepts that could apply to any workplace in any 
industry, and this document bears little relation to the specifics of its business. The Petitioner also 
does not explain the Beneficiary's work, if any, on this policy. Again, the Petitioner states that the 
Beneficiary has been acting in his role as president since 2015; however, it only submits three vague 
supporting documents to substantiate him managing a claimed international~--------~ 
business up until August 2018. There is little detail or documentation to sufficiently corroborate that 
he was acting in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States as of the date the petition was 
filed and that he was devoting a majority of his time to qualifying tasks. 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the organization, the fact that they will 
manage or direct a business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an 
intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity within the meaning of section 
101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties 
of a position be "primarily" managerial or executive in nature. Id. The Beneficiary may exercise 
discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of authority with 
respect to discretionary decision-making; however, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to 
establish that his actual duties would be primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
B. Staffing 
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 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart indicating that the Beneficiary supervises a 
management and finance department manager, an international business department manager, and a 
sales and marketing manager. Further, the chart reflected that the management and finance department 
manager oversees a general administrator/customer service employee who is shown to supervise an 
accountant. The chart also showed that the international business department manager oversees a 
marketing specialist who supervises a logistics employee, while the sales and marketing department 
manager supervises two sales representatives. 
Similar to the Beneficiary's duty description, the Petitioner provided generic duty descriptions for the 
members of its organizational chart that do not sufficiently substantiate that they act in their asserted 
roles. For instance, the Petitioner vaguely stated that the management and finance department manager 
was tasked with directing and coordinating the daily administrative operations of the company, 
determining what services or products are necessary for the company's development, applying 
company rules and policies in daily activities, and supervising the complete process of international 
business. However, there is little indication as to what administrative operations they refer to, what 
products and services they decided on, the rules and policies that they applied daily, or what the 
"process of international business" is. Likewise, the Petitioner stated that the international business 
department manager plans and directs "the international development process for the company in 
establishing the international platform," directs subordinates "in creation of methods in development 
6 
Matter of U-P-G-
of international business" and manages the "design of methods of promotion of the company services 
to the international platform." First, the duties of the asserted international business department 
manager appear to overlap greatly with the claimed duties of the Beneficiary; secondly, these duties 
do not provide credible specifics to corroborate this claimed subordinate manager's role. For instance, 
it is not clear to what the Petitioner is referring to when it discussed the international development 
process or platform. 
In addition, the Petitioner explained that the sales and marketing department manager devoted their 
time to "international marketing development and business management," "designing marketing plans 
and sales strategies," supervising subordinate sales representatives in "marketing development, sales, 
negotiation and after-sale services," and making decisions on the addition or deletion of services. 
Again, the duty description of the subordinate sales and marketing department manager does not 
include sufficient detail to substantiate this position, such as marketing programs they put in place, 
sales strategies they implemented, negotiations they conducted, or services they added or removed. In 
fact, as we previously discussed, there is little evidence on the record to demonstrate that the Petitioner 
requires an entire sales and marketing department including a manager and two sales representatives. 
It is not clear from the evidence submitted that the Petitioner has significant sales and marketing 
activities in the United States nor evident what its two sales representatives are selling. In fact, the 
Petitioner acknowledges that it has not established logistics in the United States to support its 
.__ ________ ~services. Indeed, the same can be said for the asserted customer service 
employee and international marketing specialist; namely, there is little evidence that the Petitioner has 
substantial marketing activities or customers to justify these positions. 
Overall, the submitted evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has sufficient operations to 
support its claimed organizational chart. First, the Petitioner stated in support letters that it plans to 
have U.S. vendors perform .__ _______ __.services in the United States and ship these 
automobiles to China. However, there is little supporting evidence to corroborate that it has 
sufficiently developed this business since 2015. The Petitioner refers to agreements executed with a 
U.S. vendor in 2016 and with Chinese companies in 2017; but there is little evidence that this business 
has sufficiently developed to support the asserted members of its organization in their roles. 
For instance, the Petitioner asserts that it employs a folltime logistics employee focused on shipping 
b I; however, it only submitted documentation to substantiate the shipment of two 
abroad and its most recent 2017 Form 1120 U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return reflects that it 
incurred only a little more than $5,000 in shipping expenses during that year. Similarly, the Petitioner 
contends that it employs a folltime sales and marketing manager, customer service employee, 
marketing specialist, and two sales representatives, but there is little evidence to support that it has 
substantial marketing or advertising in the United States and the 2017 Form 1120 includes no more 
than nominal expenses for these activities. On the whole, the Petitioner presents a comprehensive 
organizational chart indicating that it is a folly functional .__ ________ ____, and export 
business; yet, the supporting documentation indicates that this business has yet to sufficiently develop 
to support these employees. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provides several invoices dating from January 2017 through January 2018 
that appear questionable. The majority of the invoices provided by the Petitioner reflect charges to 
7 
Matter of U-P-G-
Chinese companies, including the Beneficiary's former foreign employer, for vague services such as 
"establish growth strategy," "investigate growth opportunities," "uncover market and customer 
insights," and "perspective and strategic direction." Beyond these vague and uncertain invoices, it is 
not clear how the Petitioner generated the one million dollars in revenue it reported in its 2017 IRS 
Form 1120. 
Further, the Petitioner provided bank statements dating from January 2017 through July 2018 that 
provide little indication that it is the fully functioninql land export business it 
purports to be. The bank statements from this period include no expenses for the regular operation of 
its asserted business; such as costs in purchasing! I marketing, selling, or 
shipping them. In fact, during this period, the bank account records only reflect debits for cable, cell 
phone, and other utility bills to support its small office suite, but no other indication that the business 
is regularly operating. Despite this, the bank account shows significant deposits from unidentified 
entities abroad, which are left unexplained and appear to bear little relation to its asserted business in 
the United States and the submitted invoices. In short, the supporting documentation of the 
Petitioner's asserted operations is insufficient and inconsistent and does not support its claimed 
organizational structure. The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistencies and ambiguities in the record 
with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 
591-92 (BIA 1988). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not properly consider that the Beneficiary 
would act in an executive capacity in the United States. 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 101(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 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. A 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. 
However, as we have discussed, the provided evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary would act in an executive capacity in the United States. The Petitioner has submitted an 
overly generic duty description for the Beneficiary that bears little relation to its specific business and 
which includes few credible details. It has also not provided sufficient supporting documentation to 
establish the Beneficiary's asserted executive level role. In addition, the Petitioner provided similarly 
vague duty descriptions for the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates which do not properly corroborate 
their positions. Further, as we discussed, the submitted evidence does not demonstrate that the 
Petitioner is operating sufficiently to support its claimed organizational structure. As such, the 
Petitioner has not credibly established that the Beneficiary would act within a complex organizational 
hierarchy and primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than its day­
to-day operations. 
8 
Matter of U-P-G-
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would act 
in a managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. 
IV. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The next issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary was employed 
in a managerial or executive capacity abroad prior to his entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant 
in 2015. Because of the dispositive effect of the above finding of ineligibility; namely, our affirmation 
of the Director's conclusion with respect to the Beneficiary's asserted managerial or executive 
capacity in the United States, we will only briefly address the remaining issue pertaining to his former 
employment abroad. 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary was a founding member of the foreign employer and that 
he had acted as its "top executive" from August 2009 until October 2015. In a support letter, the 
foreign employer vaguely explained that the Beneficiary "led the company in its development from 
service provider into a multi-business structure, including technological services, research and 
development, design, manufacture, marketing and sales and after sales services support, and further 
developed international operations." Likewise, the Petitioner provided a similarly generic foreign duty 
description for the Beneficiary which did not provide details, nor did it submit probative 
documentation, to substantiate the "guidelines for adding, merging or deleting groups or teams" he 
implemented, "necessary changes" he made to the organization, strategic plans he developed, vision 
or missions he set, or what "bringing the company to the international platform" specifically entailed. 
In addition, the foreign employer did not detail procedures the Beneficiary designed and determined, 
administrative processes and measures he set up, general management guidelines he issued, goals and 
targets he established for sales, financial decisions he made, regulations for company operation he put 
in place, or "major contracts" he negotiated and approved. This lack of detail and documentation is 
particularly questionable since the foreign employer indicated that the Beneficiary acted as its lead 
executive for approximately six years. Again, specifics are clearly an important indication of whether 
a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the 
definitions would simply be a matter ofreiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. 1103, 1108. 
With respect to the foreign employer organizational structure, the Petitioner provided an 
organizational chart indicating that the Beneficiary oversaw a general manager supervising a deputy 
general manager. The deputy general manager was shown to have overseen a financial executive and 
sales, marketing, administration, and after sales managers. These department managers were shown 
to supervise various unidentified operational level employees. In total, the Petitioner indicated that 
the Beneficiary oversaw 31 personnel abroad. 
However, the Petitioner only provided duty descriptions for five department managers, and these 
subordinate duty descriptions were very similar to those provided for his asserted managerial 
subordinates in the United States. For instance, much like the Beneficiary's duties, the duties of the 
administrative manager abroad indicated that they were tasked with supervising the company's 
administrative and human resource management, setting operational procedures, interpreting rules, 
9 
Matter of U-P-G-
policies and operational procedures, and providing necessary services to the company. However, there 
is little indication as to what procedures, rules, policies, or services to which it is referring and the duty 
descriptions of his foreign subordinates include no credible details. For example, the Petitioner stated 
that the sales manager abroad was tasked with directing and managing the marketing sales business' 
overall activities, analyzing industry and competitor information, leading subordinates in developing 
new plans, and designing specific steps to carry out the plans. Yet, in each case, there are no specifics 
as to these activities, competitors, or plans. 
The Petitioner also provided correspondingly vague duty descriptions for the asserted financial, 
marketing, and after sales managers abroad. Again, these duty descriptions for the Beneficiary's 
asserted managerial subordinates abroad are generic and could apply to any managers acting in any 
business or industry and they do not credibly demonstrate the foreign employer's claimed 
organizational structure. In fact, it is noteworthy that the record includes little supporting 
documentation to substantiate these foreign managers acting in their roles or taking direction from the 
Beneficiary from 2009 through 2015. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary acted in a managerial 
or executive capacity abroad. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States or that he was employed abroad 
in a managerial or executive capacity. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The 
Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of U-P-G-, ID# 4577634 (AAO Aug. 8, 2019) 
10