dismissed L-1A Case: Organic Farming

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
MAIL STOP 2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: EAC 08 007 53281 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: DI@ (1 1 2M)8 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonirnrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 101 (a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
-*"" +* 
John F. Grissom, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 08 007 53281 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary in the position of 
"owner/executive" to open a new office in the United States as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany 
transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 
1 10 1 (a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of Tennessee, 
allegedly operates an organic farm. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish (1) that the United States 
operation will support a managerial or executive position within one year; or (2) that the beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary primarily 
performed qualifying duties abroad and will primarily perform qualifying duties in the United States within 
one year. In support, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying 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. 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) 
 Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the 
alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) 
 Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 
(iii) 
 Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
(iv) 
 Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies himher to perform the intended 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
EAC 08 007 53281 
Page 3 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(~) states 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, 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 (I)(l)(ii)(B) or (C) of this section, 
supported by information regarding: 
(I) 
 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. 
The first issue in this proceeding is whether the intended United States operation, within one year of the 
approval of the petition, will support an executive or managerial position. 
Section 101 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 101 (a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) 
 manages the organization, or a 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 
EAC 08 007 53281 
Page 4 
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. 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 IOl(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1101(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) 
 directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the 
organization; 
(ii) 
 establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
(iii) 
 exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) 
 receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
In support of its petition, the petitioner submitted a letter dated October 3, 2007 in which the proposed United 
States enterprise is described as a 1,460-acre organic farming operation located in Tennessee. The petitioner 
also outlined a "five-year plan" for the operation. Years one and two are described in the letter as follows: 
Year 1: 
[The beneficiary] manages two workers (Corban, hired man) to plow grassland and 
convert into certified organic immediately to grow corn and soybeans 
Begin transition of current tilled land in to [sic] organic - [the beneficiary] manages 
the conversion process 
Buy some cattle to begin transition into natural or organic beef 
Increase storage capacity - special crops cannot be delivered immediately 
Get a Forest Plan written up by the State Forester for the land 
- 
 [The beneficiary] and Corban visit other organic farms to see Biological farming in 
action 
Year 2: 
[Slecond year of transition - grow non-gmo crops (corn and soybeans) at a premium 
[The beneficiary] and Corban visit organic trade shows (Acres) to make contacts for 
diverse markets 
EAC 08 007 53281 
Page 5 
Begin clearing trees for pasture areas 
- 
 [The beneficiary] manages the Forest Plan - set up duck holes and blinds and bluffs 
for deer - grow crops that encourage wild life attraction 
Full Biological Farming practices initiated 
Increase employees for the farming division 
The petitioner also vaguely summarizes the beneficiary's proposed duties in the United States. As this job 
description is in the record, it will not be repeated here verbatim. Generally, the petitioner paraphrases the 
statutory definition of "executive capacity." However, the petitioner did not specifically define the proposed 
staffing of the organization, the goals or policies to be established by the beneficiary, or how, exactly, the 
beneficiary will be relieved within one year from primarily performing the non-qualifying tasks inherent to 
the administration of a farm. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted revenue, expense, and income projections. However, these projections were 
not corroborated by any evidence pertaining to the proposed United States operation. 
On October 18, 2007, the director requested additional evidence. The director requested, inter alia, a more 
detailed description of the proposed staffing and personnel structure of the United States operation, 
descriptions of the job duties and job titles of the proposed subordinate workers, a more detailed description 
of the beneficiary's proposed duties, and an organizational chart for the United States operation. 
In response, counsel submitted a letter dated October 23, 2007. In this letter, counsel clams that the United 
States operation will "establish a manufacturing facility for farm implements" in addition to operating the 
organic farming enterprise described in the initial petition. The petitioner submitted an uncorroborated "five- 
year plan" for this line of business as well. The plan notes that the beneficiary will manage "all operations" 
but does not indicate that any additional workers will be hired during the first year. 
Counsel also Mher described the beneficiary's proposed duties in the United States in the October 23, 2007 
letter as follows: 
According to the five year plans and organizational charts attached, [the beneficiary] will 
manage the overall development of the farm operation. He will coordinate with government, 
direct and develop operations, and be involved in developing the organic products to be 
grown on the fa. In addition, he will direct and develop the manufacturing division. His 
duties will include coordinating the distribution of specialized farm implements through a 
manufacturer using the New Holland Brand. He will manage initially sales and marketing of 
the products in the first year. By the second year, he will hire additional workers and manage 
overall direction and vision of the manufacturing plant. By the third year, nine additional 
employees will be hired and [the beneficiary] will manage personnel. 
Moreover, counsel claims that the beneficiary will oversee "a grain processing manager, wildlife tourism 
manager, forestry manager, grain farm manager, manager of research and development, parts manage[r], 
assembly manager and service manager." The petitioner also submitted a proposed organizational chart for 
EAC 08 007 53281 
Page 6 
the United States operation listing a variety of proposed positions subordinate to the beneficiary. However, 
the petitioner failed to specifically describe the duties of any of these proposed subordinates or explain when, 
exactly, it plans to recruit and hire these workers and in what sequence. 
On November 6, 2007, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that 
the United States operation will support an executive or managerial position within one year. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner has established that the beneficiary will perform qualifying 
duties within one year of petition approval. 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are not persuasive. 
When a new business is established and commences operations, the regulations recognize that a designated 
manager or executive responsible for setting up operations will be engaged in a variety of activities not 
normally performed by employees at the executive or managerial level and that often the full range of 
managerial responsibility cannot be performed. In order to qualify for L-1 nonimmigrant classification during 
the first year of operations, the regulations require the petitioner to disclose the business plans and the size of 
the United States investment, and thereby establish that the proposed enterprise will support an executive or 
managerial position within one year of the approval of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. Ij 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). This 
evidence should demonstrate a realistic expectation that the enterprise will succeed and rapidly expand as it 
moves away from the developmental stage to full operations, where there would be an actual need for a 
manager or executive who will primarily perform qualifying duties. 
As contemplated by the regulations, a comprehensive business plan should contain, at a minimum, a 
description of the business, its products and/or services, and its objectives. See Matter of Ho, 22 I&N Dec. 
206, 21 3 (Assoc. Comm. 1998). Although the precedent relates to the regulatory requirements for the alien 
entrepreneur immigrant visa classification, Matter of Ho is instructive as to the contents of an acceptable 
business plan: 
The plan should contain a market analysis, including the names of competing businesses and 
their relative strengths and weaknesses, a comparison of the competition's products and 
pricing structures, and a description of the target marketlprospective customers of the new 
commercial enterprise. The plan should list the required permits and licenses obtained. If 
applicable, it should describe the manufacturing or production process, the materials required, 
and the supply sources. The plan should detail any contracts executed for the supply of 
materials and/or the distribution of products. It should discuss the marketing strategy of the 
business, including pricing, advertising, and servicing. The plan should set forth the 
business's organizational structure and its personnel's experience. It should explain the 
business's staffing requirements and contain a timetable for hiring, as well as job descriptions 
for all positions. It should contain sales, cost, and income projections and detail the bases 
therefor. Most importantly, the business plan must be credible. 
EAC 08 007 53281 
Page 7 
For several reasons, the petitioner in this matter has failed to establish that the United States operation will 
succeed and rapidly expand as it moves away from the developmental stage to full operations, where there 
would be an actual need for a manager or executive who will primarily perform qualifying duties. The 
petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will primarily perform qualifying duties after the 
petitioner's first year in operation; has failed to establish that the beneficiary will be relieved of the need to 
perform the non-qualifying tasks inherent to the operation of the business by a subordinate staff within the 
petitioner's first year in operation; and has failed to sufficiently describe the nature, scope, and financial goals 
of the new office. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
First, the job description for the beneficiary fails to credibly establish that the beneficiary will perform 
primarily "managerial" or "executive" duties after the petitioner's first year in operation. When examining the 
proposed executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the petitioner's 
description of the proposed job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner's description of the job 
duties must clearly describe the duties that will be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such 
duties will be either in an executive or managerial capacity. Id. 
In this matter, the petitioner has provided a vague and nonspecific description of the beneficiary's duties that 
fails to demonstrate what the beneficiary will do on a day-to-day basis after the petitioner's first year in 
operation. For example, the petitioner states that the beneficiary will "direct and develop operations," develop 
"organic products to be grown on the farm," and coordinate "the distribution of specialized farm implements 
through a manufacturer using the New Holland Brand." The petitioner also claims that it "will hire additional 
workers" in the second year. However, the petitioner fails to specifically describe what, exactly, the 
beneficiary will do to perform these duties or to establish that any of these vaguely described duties will 
constitute a bona fide managerial or executive duty. The fact that the petitioner has given the beneficiary a 
managerial or executive title and has prepared a vague job description which includes inflated duties does not 
establish that the beneficiary will actually perform managerial or executive duties after the first year in 
operation. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties will be 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 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. 
Cir. 1990). Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg. Comm. 1972). 
Likewise, the record is not persuasive in establishing that the beneficiary will be, after the first year, relieved 
of the need to "primarily" perform the non-qualifying tasks inherent to his duties and to the operation of a 
farming and farm equipment business. While the petitioner claims that it will hire additional employees, the 
petitioner failed to explain when it plans to hire these workers, or to describe their proposed duties, even 
though this evidence was specifically requested by the director. Failure to submit requested evidence that 
precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
Consequently, it cannot be discerned how, exactly, any of these proposed workers will relieve the beneficiary 
of the need to primarily perform non-qualifymg tasks inherent to the farming and equipment operation. Once 
again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190. 
EAC 08 007 53281 
Page 8 
Furthermore, it has not been credibly established that the petitioner will truly be able to hire the workers 
described in the organizational chart and in the response to the Request for Evidence. Simply alleging that 
the petitioner will hire a variety of employees in the future who will perform non-qualifying tasks does not 
establish that the United States operation will truly grow and mature into an active business organization 
which will reasonably require the services of a beneficiary who will primarily perform managerial or 
executive duties. Rather, the petitioner must clearly define the scope and nature of a United States operation 
and establish that it has, and will continue to have, the financial ability and business strategy to support the 
establishment and growth of the business. However, the record in this matter is devoid of any such evidence. 
The business plan vaguely describes the scope of the proposed farming and equipment operation and fails to 
establish when any of the proposed workers will be hired, in what sequence they will be hired, or how they 
will be recruited. Importantly, the record also fails to establish that the United States operation is of a 
character which will require the services of a managerial of executive employee. As noted by counsel on 
appeal, "in organic farming, or any farming operation, the executive level manager is responsible for the daily 
operation of the farm and there usually is only one layer of employees below that manager." Accordingly, the 
petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will more likely than not perform "primarily" qualifying 
duties after the petitioner's first year in operation. An employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary 
to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act; see also Matter of Church Scientology 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). A managerial or executive employee must have 
authority over day-to-day operations beyond the level normally vested in a first-line supervisor. See 
101(a)(44) of the Act; see also Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 604. 
Given the size and nature of the proposed operation, it is more likely than not that the beneficiary and his 
proposed subordinate employees will all primarily perform the tasks necessary to the operation of the 
business. See generally Family, Inc. v. US. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 469 F.3d 13 13 (9th Cir. 
2006). It is not credible that a business, such as the petitioner's proposed United States operation, will 
develop an organizational complexity within one year which will require the employment of a subordinate tier 
of managers or supervisors who will be supervised and controlled by a primarily executive or managerial 
employee. Therefore, it appears that the beneficiary will be, at most, a first-line supervisor of non- 
professional workers. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will be primarily employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity within one year, and the petition may not be approved for that reason. 
Second, the petitioner failed to establish that the United States operation will support an executive or 
managerial position within one year, because the petitioner has failed to sufficiently describe the nature, 
scope, and financial goals of the new office. 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(I). As explained above, the 
petitioner describes the United States operation as a farming and farm equipment business. However, the 
petitioner's "five-year plan" and associated financial projections are entirely unsupported by evidence. The 
record does not specifically describe the operation's marketing strategy, and the petitioner fails to address its 
competitors or potential customers. It is unclear to whom the petitioner will market its products in the United 
States. The record does not contain any independent analysis, contracts, or list of business contacts. Absent a 
detailed, credible description of the petitioner's proposed United States business operation specifically 
EAC 08 007 53281 
Page 9 
addressing the petitioner's proposed products, marketing plan, and customers, it is impossible to conclude that 
the proposed enterprise will succeed and rapidly expand as it moves away from the developmental stage to 
full operations, where there would be an actual need for a manager or executive who will primarily perform 
qualifying duties. Once again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 1 90. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the United States operation will support an executive or 
managerial position within one year as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C), and the petition may not be 
approved for the above reasons. 
The second issue is whether the petitioner has established that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner described the beneficiary's duties abroad in the October 3,2007 letter as follows: 
[The beneficiary] has performed the duties as a general manager of the company. He was in 
charge of the operations of the farm, production and ordering materials, production 
scheduling, staffing, equipment, quality control, as well as research and development. He 
plans, directs, and coordinates the operations of the company. His duties include formulating 
policies, managing daily operations, and planning the use of materials and human resources. 
He analyzes the farm's personnel and capital resources and selects the best way to meet the 
stated production goals. He also monitors the production to make sure that it stays on 
schedule and correct any problems that may arise. He monitors product standards. When 
quality drops below the established standard, he troubleshoots why standards aren't being 
maintained and how to improve the process. 
Since, 1982, he has concurrently served as the Vice-President of Honey Bee Manufacturing, 
directing the business and conducting research and development. 
On October 18, 2007, the director requested additional evidence. The director requested, inter alia, that the 
petitioner indicate how the beneficiary's duties have been managerial or executive in nature and an 
organizational chart for the foreign employer. 
In response, counsel submitted a letter dated October 23,2007 in which she clarifies that Glenray Farms Ltd., 
and not Honey Bee Manufacturing, is the "qualifling company for L-1 visas." 
The petitioner also submitted an organizational chart for the foreign employer, ( located in 
Canada. The chart shows the beneficiary at the top of the organization supervising, directly or indirectly, 
approximately nine subordinate workers. The petitioner did not describe the duties of the claimed subordinate 
workers abroad. 
EAC 08 007 53281 
Page 10 
On November 6, 2007, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that 
the beneficiary was employed abroad in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary primarily performed qualifying duties abroad. Counsel notes 
in her brief that "in organic farming, or any farming operation, the executive level manager is responsible for 
the daily operation of the farm and there usually is only one layer of employees below that manager." 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are not persuasive. 
Once again, when examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first 
to the petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. $9 214.2(1)(3)(ii) and (iv). The petitioner's 
description of the job duties must clearly describe the duties performed by the beneficiary and indicate 
whether such duties were either in an executive or managerial capacity. Id. A petitioner cannot claim that 
some of the duties of the position entailed executive responsibilities, while other duties were managerial. A 
petitioner may not claim that a beneficiary will be employed as a hybrid "executive/manager" and rely on 
partial sections of the two statutory definitions. 
In this matter, the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's job duties fails to establish that the beneficiary 
acted primarily in a "managerial" or "executive" capacity. In support of the petition, the petitioner has 
submitted a vague and non-specific job description which fails to sufficiently describe what the beneficiary 
did on a day-to-day basis. For example, the petitioner states that the beneficiary was "in charge" of farm 
operations, "plans, directs, and coordinates the operations," manages "daily operations," and monitors 
production. However, the petitioner does not specifically describe what, exactly, the beneficiary did to direct 
or manage farming operations other than to act as a first-line supervisor of non-professional farm staff. The 
petitioner has not established that any of the beneficiary's vaguely described duties pertaining to administering 
farm operations, including the supervision of farm staff, were qualifying duties. The fact that a petitioner has 
given a beneficiary a managerial or executive title and has prepared a vague job description which includes 
inflated job duties does not establish that a beneficiary actually performed managerial or executive duties. 
Once again, specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties were 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, affd, 905 F.2d 41. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190. 
Consequently, the record is not persuasive in establishing that the beneficiary primarily performed qualifying 
duties in his operation of the farming business. As noted above, the petitioner claims that the beneficiary 
"direct" the foreign employer's business operations through several subordinate farm workers. However, the 
record does not establish that the beneficiary was relieved of the need to perform many of the non-qualifymg 
tasks inherent to his ascribed duties by these workers. The petitioner failed to describe the duties of any of 
the beneficiary's claimed subordinate workers. Once again, going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Id. Accordingly, 
it cannot be concluded that the beneficiary was relieved from the need to perform the non-qualifying tasks 
inherent to operating a farm, and it appears more likely than not that the beneficiary primarily performed non- 
EAC 08 007 53281 
Page 11 
qualifying first-line supervisory, administrative, and operational tasks in his administration of the business. 
Once again, an employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide 
services is not considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See sections 
101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act; see also Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 604. 
As noted above, a managerial employee must have authority over day-to-day operations beyond the level 
normally vested in a first-line supervisor, unless the supervised employees are professionals. 5 
lOl(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act; see also Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 604. 
The petitioner has also failed to establish that the beneficiary supervised and controlled the work of other 
supervisory, managerial, or professional employees, or managed an essential function of the organization. As 
asserted in the organizational chart, the beneficiary directly or indirectly supervised several subordinate 
workers abroad. However, it has not been established that any of these workers was a supervisory, 
managerial, or professional worker. Merely placing one worker in a position superior to another in an 
organizational chart does not establish that a worker is a bona fide managerial or supervisory employee. 
When examining the supervisory or managerial characteristics of a worker, the AAO will look first to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. See cJ 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(1)(3)(ii). In this matter, as the petitioner 
failed to specifically describe the duties of these subordinate workers, it has not been established that any of 
the workers is a supervisory, managerial, or professional worker. Finally, as indicated by counsel on appeal, 
it appears that the beneficiary was, at most, a first-line supervisor of farm workers. Counsel stated in her brief 
that "in organic farming, or any farming operation, the executive level manager is responsible for the daily 
operation of the farm and there usually is only one layer of employees below that manager." Accordingly, as 
it appears that the beneficiary was, at most, a first-line supervisor of non-professional farm workers, the 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary was employed primarily in a managerial capacity.' 
1 
While the petitioner has not argued that the beneficiary managed an essential function of the organization, 
the record nevertheless would not support this position even if taken. 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 
101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The term "essential function" is not defined by statute or regulation. If a 
petitioner claims that the beneficiary managed an essential function, the petitioner must furnish a written job 
offer that clearly describes the duties performed in managing the essential function, i.e., identify the function 
with specificity, articulate the essential nature of the function, and establish the proportion of the beneficiary's 
daily duties attributed to managing the essential function. See 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(1)(3)(ii). In addition, the 
petitioner's description of the beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary managed the 
hction rather than performed the tasks related to the function. In this matter, the petitioner has not provided 
evidence that the beneficiary managed an essential hction. The petitioner's vague job description fails to 
document that the beneficiary's duties were primarily managerial. Also, as explained above, it appears more 
likely than not that the beneficiary was primarily a first-line supervisor of non-professional farm workers and 
performed non-qualifjmg administrative or operational tasks. Absent a clear and credible breakdown of the 
time spent by the beneficiary performing his duties, the AAO cannot determine what proportion of his duties 
were managerial, if any, nor can it deduce whether the beneficiary was primarily performing the dutiks of a 
hction manager. See IKEA US, Inc. v. US. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22,24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
EAC 08 007 53281 
Page 12 
Similarly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary acted in an "executive" capacity. 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 organization must have a subordinate level of employees for the beneficiary to 
direct, and the beneficiary must primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than 
the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. An individual will not be deemed an executive under the statute 
simply because they have an executive title or because they "direct" the enterprise as the owner or sole 
managerial employee. The beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision making" 
and receive only "general supervision or direction fi-om higher level executives, the board of directors, or 
stockholders of the organization." Id. For the same reasons indicated above, the petitioner has failed to 
establish that the beneficiary acted primarily in an executive capacity. As explained above, it appears instead 
that the beneficiary was primarily employed as a first-line supervisor of non-professional farm workers and 
performed the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide a service. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established that the beneficiary was employed primarily in an executive capacity. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary primarily performed managerial or 
executive duties abroad, and the petition may not be approved for that reason. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.