dismissed L-1A Case: Medical & Energy Equipment

MATTER OF S-B- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 28, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an exporter of medical supplies and alternative energy equipment, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as the president of its new office under the L-1A nonimmigrant classification 
for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-1A classification allows a corporation or other legal entity 
(including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to 
work temporarily in an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that its foreign parent company has employed the Beneficiary in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
contends that the foreign entity employs the Beneficiary as a personnel manager responsible for 
overseeing professional subordinates. The Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in concluding 
that the Beneficiary is primarily engaged in non-managerial duties. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge 
capacity, for one continuous year within three years preceding the Beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. 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, executive, or specialized knowledge 
capacity. !d. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, shall be accompanied by: 
Matter ojS-B- Inc. 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will 
employ the alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph 
(l)(l)(ii)(G) ofthis section. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or 
specialized knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the 
services to be performed. 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time 
employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition. 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position 
that was managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that 
the alien's prior edm:ation, training, and employment qualifies him/her to 
perform the intended services in the United States; however, the work in the 
United States need not be the same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v) further provides that if the petition indicates that the 
beneficiary is coming to the United States as a manager or executive to open or to be employed in a 
new office in the United States, the petitioner shall submit evidence that: 
(A) ·Sufficient physical premises to house the new office have been secured; 
(B) The beneficiary has been employed for one continuous year in the three year 
period preceding the filing of the petition in an executive or managerial capacity 
and that the proposed employment involved executive or managerial authority 
over the new operation; and ' 
(C) The intended United States operation, within one year of the approval of the 
petition, will support an executive or managerial position as defined in 
paragraphs (l)(l)(ii)(B) or (C) of this section, supported by· information 
regarding: 
(1) The proposed nature of the office describing the scope of the entity, its 
organizational structure, and its financial goals; 
(2) The size of the United States investment and the financial ability of the 
foreign entity to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing 
business in the United States; and 
(3) The organizational structure of the foreign entity. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-B- Inc. 
II. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. The Petitioner does 
not claim that the Beneficiary has been employed in an executive capacity. Therefore, we restrict 
our analysis to whether the Beneficiary has been employed in a managerial capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of;the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" 
as "an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily": 
(i) manages 
the organization, or ~ department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the organization; 
(ii) 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; 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the 
authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel 
actions (such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee 
is directly supervised, functions at a senior level within the organizational 
hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and 
(iv) ) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or 
function for which the employee has authority. 
Further, "[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 employees supervised are professional." !d. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must take into account 
the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of 
the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(C) ofthe Act. 
A. Evidence ofRecord 
On the Form I-129, the Petitioner identified the Beneficiary's foreign employer as 
located in the United Arab Emirates and stated that the Beneficiary's duties as general manager of 
the foreign entity included "supervising four sub-components of company - /sales, accounting, 
workshop and retail operations" as well as "direct supervision of all employees." 
3 
Matter ofS-B- Inc. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "has extensive experience in the business of sourcing and 
resale of used and new medical equipment and supplies" and "sourcing renewable energy solutions 
such as solar and wind products" in the Middle East. 
In a support letter, the foreign entity's chief executive officer (CEO) indicated that the Beneficiary has 
been employed as the company's general manager since 2004. The CEO explained that the Beneficiary 
has been "the primary Direc~or of all activities with 4 out of 6 employees answering directly to him and 
the other two employees answering to subordinates that he oversees." He further stated that the 
Beneficiary acts with "full power in all decision making, administrative and personnel issues," noting 
that he "directly supervises the three basic sub-components of our company-sales, accounting, 
workshop and retail operations." The CEO explained that the Beneficiary is tasked to "devise strategies 
and formulate policies to ensure that [ ... ] objectives are met, specifically in business development, 
marketing, and sales." He further stated that the Beneficiary sets goals, appoints department heads, 
manages the company's functions, and oversees budgets and the use of resources. 
The CEO's letter described the Beneficiary's typical workday abroad as follows: 
Upon entering the office to start his day, [the Beneficiary] will review his email 
account. This account usually consists of communications from executives of other 
companies, legal counsel, government agencies and other business related 
communications. His emails will also contain communications from his heads of 
departments either directly to him or emails sent to outside parties in which he has 
been copied. He will answer those emails that require a response and note the 
activities of his department heads for further discussions in meetings. This process 
can take from one to two hours, depending on the volume of the emails and the 
number of interruptions in the form of telephone calls and questions from 
employees. This amounts to 12.5%-25% of his work day. 
Thereafter, [the Beneficiary] spends about 1 hour of his time reviewing sales and 
marketing reports generated by his business development subordinates. This 
amounts to 12.5% ofhis work day. 
Approximately another 1 hour is spent renewing [sic] financial reports and budget 
considerations from the HR & Financial'Department. This amounts to 12.5% of his 
workday. 
Normally, he will engage in meetings with each of his department heads. Each one 
of these meetings normally lasts between 30 to 60 minutes concerning issues that 
might have arisen, new business and strategic planning. This amounts to between 
18.74% to 37.5% ofhis work day. 
After these meetings, he will review his notes and prepare the appropriate 
assignments and orders for each department head in email form a.nd have his 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-B- Inc. 
Administrative Assistant prepare them in a hard copy format memo. This again 
requires about one hour of his day or 12.5% of his work day. 
Finally, he would devote 12.5% of his remaining time (1 hour) to maintaining 
communication and developing relationships with professionals, industry captains 
and other sources capable of providing information and sharing strategies that 
might affect policy and goal planning and implementation. ~ 
The Petitioner provided the Beneficiary's resume where he explained his role with the foreign entity as 
follows: 
As a general manager, I have been involved in managing and conducting a lot of 
company activities such as product selection, blJsiness negotiation together with 
supervision of custom clearance. 
In absence of the CEO of the company for one year, all of the managerial and directing 
of the day to day activities of the company such as procurement activities, quality 
control activities, R&D activities, as well as after sales services was my responsibility. 
Also, I was in charge of arranging the weekly meetings of all the top management and 
giving feedback to the low level management of the decisions made in these meetings. 
This job included managing and running the general trading company. Supervising the 
trade of electronic components to all middle east countries as well as taking care of 
marketing, custom clearance procedures, Opening and executing L/Cs, banking 
operations, financial reporting to shareholders, calculating profit and loss of the 
company at the end of each month, finding new and promising avenues to take the 
business higher. 
While working at [the foreign entity], I helped secure the distributor title of 
power supply industries in the Middle East as well as and 
for the company. 
In addition, the CEO's letter listed the Beneficiary's subordinates, their education levels, and duties. 
I 
The listed subordinates included a head of the "technical support department" who "oversees 
technical evaluation of sophisticated products involving electricity as well as maintaining all internal 
and network systems for [the foreign entity]." The CEO stated that the Beneficiary also supervises a 
human resources and financial employee and a business development employee who "heads [the] 
business development team" and "oversees the negotiations leading to the purchase of product." 
The letter indicated that the business development employee is "capably assisted" by a 
sales/purchasing manager, and in a later duty description, the Petitioner stated that she was tasked 
with identifying marketing opportunities, "improving product packaging," "coordinating new 
5 
\ 
(b)(6)
Matter ojS-B- Inc. 
product development," monitoring "online sales activity," and developing "promotional ideas and 
material." The CEO stated each employee had at least the equivalent of a bachelor's degree. 
'-. 
Further, the CEO letter explained that the Beneficiary oversees an administrative assistant and 
"outside contractors and labor," noting that these contractors are resourced from the nearby 
which gives the company access to "a ready pool of 
laborers as well as equipment." The Petitioner submitted four invoices from the all for 
amounts below $500, indicating the foreign entity's use of a forklift and its engagement of 
"labourers/janitors." In addition, the Petitioner provided resumes for each of the Beneficiary's 
subordinates and copies of their educational credentials. 
The Petitioner submitted the foreign entity's organizational chart reflecting the structure specified 
above, but further indicating that the sales and marketing manager oversees a warehouse and 
inventory employee and that the Beneficiary reports to the "owner and CEO." The Petitioner later 
submitted a duty description for the "warehouse and inventory manager" reflecting that he is tasked 
with overseeing "the receiving, packing and shipping of goods with the help of contractors," 
"liaising with customers, suppliers and transport companies," and "keeping stock control systems." 
The chart also stated that "all other activities like, Services, Custom Clearance, Packaging, 
Forwarding and Shipping are done through Contractors." The Petitioner 
submitted payslips 
reflecting regular salaries paid to the foreign entity's employees during 2014 and 2015. The payroll 
documentation indicated that the foreign entity paid 1,332,686 Emirati Dirham to its seven 
employees during 2014, or approximately $362,828.1 
The Petitioner provided a business plan stating that the foreign entity "has been active in the promotion 
of renewable energy products within the Middle East," as well as a report on potential wind farm 
development in Afghanistan. The report includes a section providing background on the foreign entity 
stating that the company "has major expertise in Energy, Telecommunications, and Engineering 
Consultancy" and that it employs 79 employees, "85% which are professional experts in different fields 
of activities [who] became a leader in these major [fields] competing with foreign companies in the 
Middle East." The report further stated that the foreign entity "is planning and running farm 
projects in [the] east region of Afghanistan" and that its "core activity is the development and 
construction of large-scale wind farms and our focus is on designing and manufacturing wind turbines." 
The report further indicated that the foreign entity "possess[es] some ofthe industry's smartest and most 
creative people with the highest reputations and experience ... required to design, develop, build, and 
operate a successful wind farm." Lastly, the report explained that following a study "[the foreign entity] 
decided to construct the biggest wind farm in Afghanistan." 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted the foreign entity's audited financial statement indicating that it 
earned over $19.5 million in revenue and paid $143,000 in salaries and benefits in 2014. 
1 The exchange rate is based upon that set forth for December 31, 2014 at http://www.xe.com/currencytables/ 
?from=AED&date=2014-12-31. / . 
6 
Matter ofS-B- Inc. 
The Director later issued a request for evidence (RFE) stating that the evidence provided by the 
Petitioner was not sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity abroad, noting that the evidence did not demonstrate that his subordinates 
required bachelor's degrees or higher to perform their duties or that the company had sufficient 
staffing to relieve the Beneficiary from primarily performing non-qualifying operational duties. As 
such, the Director requested that the Petitioner submit copies of the Beneficiary's personnel records 
to confirm his managerial or executive capacity and a letter from the foreign entity further describing 
his typical managerial decisi~ns and duties. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted duty descriptions for each of the Beneficiary's subordinates and 
compared each position to one described in the Department of Labor (DOL) Occupation Outlook 
Handbook (Handbook), asserting that the Handbook indicates that these professions typically require 
bachelor's degrees. For instance, the Petitioner compared the business development manager to the 
Handbook "marketing manager" description, the HR & accounting manager to an "accountant," the 
sales and marketing manager to a "sales manager," and the technical support manager to an 
"electrical engineering technologist." In each case, the Petitioner provided Handbook statistics 
reflecting that these positions require at least a bachelor's degree in the vast majority of cases. The 
Petitioner did not provide a more detailed description of the Beneficiary's duties in response to the 
Director's RFE. 
' 
In denying the petition, the Director found that the Beneficiary's duty descriptions were overly 
vague, noting that they did not convey the actual tasks he is performing on a daily basis abroad or 
that he is primarily performing managerial duties. The Director stated that the Beneficiary's duties 
appeared to include substantial non-qualifying sales and marketing duties. Further, the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's subordinates are 
professionals as asserted, indicating that the evidence did not establish that these subordinates 
require bachelor's degrees to perform their respective duties. 
In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel manager based on his 
supervision of professional subordinates. The Petitioner contends that the Director erred by 
concluding that the Beneficiary primarily performs non-qualifying tasks, noting that it never stated 
that he is significantly engaged in sales and marketing duties. The Petitioner again compares the 
Beneficiary's subordinates' positions to occupational classifications described in the Handbook and 
claims that these positions typically require at least bachelor's level degrees. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, including materials submitted in support of 
the appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has been 
employed in a managerial capacity abroad. 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of the Beneficiary, we look first to the 
Petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The Petitioner's description 
Matter ofS-B- Inc. 
of the job duties must clearly describe the duties performed by the Beneficiary and indicate whether 
such duties are in either a managerial or executive capacity. !d. 
The definitions of managerial and executive capacity each have two parts. First, the Petitioner must 
show that the Beneficiary performed 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 has been primarily engaged in managerial or executive duties, as opposed to 
ordinary operational activities alongside the foreign entity's other employees. See Family Inc. v. 
USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
In the current matter, although the submitted descriptions of the Beneficiary's foreign duties provide 
little detail and do not explain his actual day-to-day tasks. For instance, tht! Petitioner submitted 
various general responsibilities that could be applicable to any manager acting in any industry, such 
as having "full power in all decision making, administrative, and personnel issues," supervising 
"sub-components" ofthe company," "devis[ing] strategies and formulat[ing] policies," setting "goals 
and arrang[ing] program[ s ]," "ensur[ing] that resources are used properly and that programs are 
carried out as planned," answering emails from other executives, legal counsel, and governmental 
agencies, reviewing "sales and marketing reports," reviewing "financial reports and budget 
considerations," meeting with department heads daily, preparing "assignments and orders" for his 
subordinates, and "maintaining communication and develop[ing] relationships with professionals," 
amongst other general and vague duties. 
In each case, the Petitioner does not specifically articulate or document major decisions the 
Beneficiary made, strategies or policies he formulated, goals or programs he set or arranged, 
companies, executiyes, or government entities he regularly coordinated with, financial decisions he 
faced, orders or assignments he gave to subordinates, or relationships he developed with 
professionals outside of the company. Indeed, the Petitioner indicates that in the course of his daily 
routine the Beneficiary spends a good deal of time answering emails relevant to his managerial role 
and also dictating instructions to his subordinates through his administrative assistant. However, the 
Petitioner provided no examples of this documentation, or any other evidence, to corroborate its 
claim that he is primarily engaged in qualifying tasks. It is reasonable to expect that the Petitioner 
would provide more detail regarding the Beneficiary's actual day-to-day activities abroad, 
particularly since it asserts that he has been working in this capacity since 2004. Reciting a 
beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly cast business objectives is not sufficient; the 
regulations require a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. Conclusory assertions 
regarding a beneficiary's employment capacity are not sufficient. The actual duties themselves will 
reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Moreover, it is noteworthy that the Beneficiary's resume mentions several activities in which he is 
engaged, such as product selection, customs clearance, client negotiations, procurement, quality 
control, research and development, after sales services, trading in electrical components, garnering 
letters of credit, and banking operations. However, none of these asserted aspects of his position are 
8 
Matter ofS-B- Inc. 
discussed in the -Petitioner's or foreign entity's descriptions of his position, and as such, we cannot 
determine how much time he spends on these duties, many of which suggest his significant 
involvement in the day-to-day operations of the business. Therefore, the record indicates that the 
Beneficiary's duties include both managerial and administrative or operational tasks and the 
Petitioner does not establish what proportion of the beneficiary's duties is managerial in nature, and 
what proportion is actually non-managerial. See Republic of Transkei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 177 
(D.C. Cir. 1991). 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, including 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. 
As noted, the Petitioner asserts on appeal the Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel manager based on 
his supervision of professional subordinates. The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" 
allows for bqth "personnel managers" and "function managers." See sections 101(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. 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 employees supervised are professional." Section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(4). If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary 
directly supervises other employees, those subordinate employees must be supervisory, professional, 
or managerial, and the beneficiary must have the authority to hire 1and fire those employees, or 
recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. Sections 101(a)(44)(A)(ii)-(iii) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(B)(2)-(3). 
To determine whether a beneficiary manages professional employees, we must evaluate whether the 
subordinate positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of 
endeavor. Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining "profession" to mean "any occupation for which a 
United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry 
into the occupation"). Section 101(a)(32) ofthe'Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(32), states that "[t]he term 
profession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, 
and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." 
In the current matter, discrepancies in the record leave question as to whether the foreign entity has 
sufficient operational employees to support the Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial capacity. For 
instance, the Petitioner states that the foreign entity has six employees, not including the Beneficiary, 
-- but over $19.5 million in revenue and extensive operations throughout the Middle East in the field of 
renewable energy and other industries. However, the Petitioner does not substantiate that the foreign 
entity engages sufficient contractors to support the Beneficiary and his subordinates in their claimed 
managerial and professional capacities. The Petitioner states that the foreign entity has a 
9 
(b)(6)
/ 
Matter ofS-B- Inc. 
relationship with the ' giving the company access to "a ready pool of laborers as well as 
equipment," but it provides only four invoices from the all for amounts below $500, 
indicating the limited use of equipment and "labourers/janitors." In addition, the Petitioner indicates 
that activities such as "Services, Custom Clearance, Packaging, Forwarding and Shipping are done 
through Contractors," but it provided little supporting evidence to confirm that it substantially 
engages contractors to perform the claimed operational duties of the business. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient ror purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (quoting Matter 
ofTreasure Craft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Otherwise, the Petitioner provides no evidence to . demonstrate that it employs a large pool of 
operational employees which would reasonably be required to operate in the renewable energy field 
and earn the foreign entity's substantial level of revenue. For instance, the Petitioner states that the 
foreign entity has seven employees, but submitted evidence (the Afghanistan wind energy marketing 
report) indicating that the foreign company has 79 employees, 85% of which are professionals and 
experts in their field. Further, the report indicates that the foreign entity has active wind farms in 
Afghanistan, an assertion the Petitioner has again not corroborated with supporting evidence. 
Further, the Petitioner provic;led payroll documentation reflecting that the foreign entity paid 
1,332,686 Emirati Dirham to seven employees during 2014, or approximately $362,828. However, 
I 
the foreign entity's audited financial statements indicate that the company paid only $143,000 in 
salaries and wages during 2014. In addition, the 2014 financial statement does not reflect significant 
amounts paid to independent contractors to operate the business. Further, this discrepancy leaves 
question as to the credibility of the submitted foreign entity payroll documentation, and therefore 
whether the foreign entity employs the individuals identified in its organizational chart. Therefore, 
in short, the Petitioner's conflicting and unsupported statements on the record leave significant 
question as to whether the foreign entity's operations are sufficient to support the Beneficiary and 
his subordinate professionals and managers in their claimed capacities. The Petitioner has not 
resolved these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
To illustrate, the foreign entity states that the Beneficiary supervises a group of function managers 
overseeing different aspects of the business, including a business development manager who 
oversees a "business development team" and a technical support manager "overseeing all technical 
inspections." However, without any apparent ogerationallevel employees, it is not clear who makes 
up the business development team, who performs the technical inspections1 or who actually 
maintains "all internal and network systems." Indeed, it is not clear what products are being 
developed and inspected, as the Petitioner has provided little evidence to substantiate the foreign 
entity's operating activities. Further, the Petitioner states that the sales and marketing manager is 
responsible for "improving product packaging" and "coordinating new product development," but it 
provides no evidence to support the nature of the products the foreign entity has developed or that it 
is producing or selling products that require packaging. Further, the Petitioner states that the 
Beneficiary oversees components consisting of "workshop" and "retail operations," but the foreign 
10 
Matter ofS-B- Inc. 
entity organizational chart includes no employees devoted to these activities and the Petitioner 
submits no evidence to support that the foreign entity has a retail component to its business. In 
addition, the Petitioner states that the foreign entity employs a warehouse and inventory manager 
supervising contractors performing the operational tasks inherent in his ,title and referenced in his 
duties. However, again, it has submitted no evidence to corroborate the foreign entity's employment 
of these operational employees. The Petitioner suggests that the foreign entity is involved in 
designing, developing, building, and operating successful wind farms, but none of the Beneficiary's 
subordinates are directly engaged in tasks related to this stated business. 
In fact, the duties of the Beneficiary's subordinates include almost no reference to its asserted 
industry and the Petitioner has submitted no supporting documentation reflecting the performance of 
professional level duties by the Beneficiary's subordinates, or namely, those which would require a 
specific bachelor's to be minimally qualified. Although the Petitioner has provided documentation 
confirming that the Beneficiary's subordinate have degrees, these degrees alone do not demonstrate 
that these employees are engaged in professional level tasks or that the Beneficiary is primarily 
engaged in supervising professionals. In fact, as discussed above, the Petitioner has provided 
contradictory and insufficient evidence to establish what duties the Beneficiary's subordinates 
actually perform and cannot cure this deficiency by simply assigning occupational classifications 
outlined in the Handbook. Even if the Petitioner did establish that some of the Beneficiary's 
subordinates are professionals, the evidence as a whole, for the reasons discussed above, is 
insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary himself primarily performs managerial duties. 
Based on the deficiencies and inconsistencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary has been employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reason. In visa petition 
proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the petitioner. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-B- Inc., ID# 32080 (AAO Oct. 28, 2016) 
II