dismissed L-1A Case: Shipping And Logistics

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 28,2017 
PE,TITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a shipping and freight forwarding services provider, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as its general manager under the L-1A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
•· transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). 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 a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
submit sufficient evidence to establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and 
would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner objects to the Director's reliance 
on the Petitioner's size and contends that the Beneficiary would direct and control the Petitioner's 
key functions and work through other employees to achieve the company's goals. The Petitioner 
also asserts that the Director erred by determining that the position description provided for the 
Beneficiary's foreign employment was too broad to establish her eligibility as a manager. 
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 position involving 
specialized knowledge, for one continuous year within three years preceding the Beneficiary's 
application for admission into the United States. Section 101 ( 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, executive, or specialized 
knowledge capacity. !d. The evidentiary requirements for filing an L-1 classification petition are 
located at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
The term "managerial capacity" is defined as "an a~signment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily": 
.
Matter of 
(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 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._ 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 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 individ!Jal 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. 
II. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAP A CITY 
The two issues we will address in this proceeding are whether the Petitioner provided sufficient 
evidence to establish that the Beneficiary was employed. abroad and would be employed in the 
United States in a managerial capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary has been 
or will be employed in an executive capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the 
Beneficiary has been and will be employed in a managerial capacity. 
A. U.S. Employment 
The first issue to be addressed in this proceeding is whether the Petitioner provided sufficient 
evidence to establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity. Namely, the 
Director found that the Petitioner does not employ sufficient personnel to relieve the Beneficiary 
from having to primarily perform non-managerial job duties. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that 
it is "a well[-]established Florida Corporation with two (2) full[-]time employees." 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and 
"function managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers are 
2 
.
Matter of 
required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees. On the other hand, 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) ofthe Act. 
1. Staffing 
When examining a beneficiary's claimed managerial capacity, we review the beneficiary's job duties 
within the context of the totality of the record, 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. 
The Petitioner filed the petition claiming two employees and a gross annual income of $204,394. 
Namely, initial evidence included paystubs showing that the Petitioner employed 
(sales manager) and (assistant manager) at the time of filing. The Petitioner 
provided a cover letter stating that it will serve individuals and companies in Florida and 
throughout Central and South America with the goal of becoming a "primary international shipping 
and freight services agency." The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be responsible for 
expanding the company's staff as well as firing employees and evaluating their performance. 
The Petitioner also provided a "business plan for a start-up entity," indicating that while the 
Petitioner has been operating since 2013, it "kept a low level of financial activities" until it decided 
to expand its business in 2015. 1 The business plan includes the Petitioner's revenue forecast and a 
management summary, followed by a personnel plan, which shows hiring projections for the first 
three years of operation. The plan indicates that the Petitioner would hire a general manager, an 
operations manager, a sales manager, a warehouse chief, and an assistant manager during its 
first 
year of operation, adding a warehouse assistant and a customer service employee to its staffing 
structure during the second year of operation, and a sales assistant in its third year. As the Petitioner 
claimed only two employees at the time of filing - a sales manager and an assistant sales manager - it 
appears that the other positions were not filled and therefore could not have been part of the 
Petitioner's organizational hierarchy when the petition was filed. Although the business plan states 
that the Beneficiary "has assisted the new company with export details, including warehouse 
management, cargo shipping and customs logistics," the Petitioner did not specifically describe the 
Beneficiary's level of involvement in any of these daily operational functions or explain who would 
assist the Beneficiary and relieve her from having to allocate her time primarily to these non­
managerial functions. 
1 Despite submitting a business plan for a start-up business, the Petitioner acknowledged that it has been doing business 
since 2013 and did not claim to be a "new office," as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(F), when filing this petition. 
Therefore, the Director did not apply the evidentiary requirements for new office petitions located at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v). ' 
3 
.
Matter of 
In addition, the Petitioner provided an organizational chart depicting a slightly different projected 
staffing 'structure. The chart shows the Beneficiary in the top tier as general manager, a sales 
manager and an operation manager at the second tier, and five lower-level positions including two 
assistant sales managers, a customer service employee, a warehouse assistant, and a warehouse 
chief. Later, in response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided evidence that it 
continued to have a staff of two employees, the sales manager and assistant manager, as of August 
2016. 
In denying the petition, the Director noted that the Petitioner currently does not have the subordinate 
staff to relieve the Beneficiary from having to perform non-qualifying job duties. The Director also 
took into account the Petitioner's reasonable needs and its stage of development and concluded that 
the Petitioner would not be able to support the Beneficiary in a position where she would allocate 
her time primarily to managerial or executive tasks, but rather that the Beneficiary's job duties 
would be primarily operational. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that it "is a well[-]established" organization with two full-time 
employees. The Petitioner contends that the Director focused entirely on its size and overlooked the 
Beneficiary's responsibility to "direct and control the company's major functions." The Petitioner 
further asserts that the Beneficiary would "work through other employees to achieve the 
corporation's 
goals." 
We find that the record does not contain sufficient evidence to substantiate the Petitioner's claims. 
The Petitioner correctly states that it had two employees at the time of filing, but it has not 
established that a two-person staff would be sufficient to relieve the Beneficiary from having to 
spend her time primarily on the performance of operational and administrative job duties. ,Based on 
the personnel projections the Petitioner provided in its business plan, it appears that the Petitioner 
plans to expand its staff to eight employees during the course of a three-year time period. However, 
the Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been 
satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication: 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )( 1 ). 
Here, the Petitioner does not establish how the sales manager and assistant manager would relieve 
the Beneficiary from having to perform the Petitioner's operational and administrative tasks. The 
Petitioner correctly observes that a company's size alone may not be the determining factor in 
denying a visa petition for classification as a multinational manager or executive without taking into 
account the reasonable needs of the organization. See section 1 01 (a)( 44 )(C) of the Act. However, it 
is appropriat,e for USCIS to consider the size of the petitioning company in conjunction with other 
relevant factors, such as the absence of employees who would perform the non-managerial or non­
executive operations of the company or a "shell company" that does not conduct business in a 
regular and continuous manner. Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 2006); Systronics 
Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). The Petitioner's claim that its two-person 
support staff is sufficient to support the Beneficiary in a position where her duties would be 
primarily managerial in nature is not sufficient without supporting evidence showing who would 
perform the Petitioner's operational and administrative tasks associated with its shipping and 
4 
.
Matter of 
logistics business, thereby relieving the Beneficiary from having to allocate her time to primarily 
non-managerial functions. Thee Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
Further, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary would qualify as a personnel manager, as 
the evidence submitted shows that the Petitioner's entire organization at the time of tiling was 
comprised of two employees only one of whom - the sales manager - would serve as the 
Beneficiary's direct subordinate. Such evidence is not sufficient to show: that the Beneficiary would 
allocate her time primarily to supervising and controlling the work of other supervisory, 
professional, or managerial employees. Section 101 (a)( 44 )(A)(ii) of the Act. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims 
that the Beneficiary would "direct and control the company's major 
functions," thereby suggesting that the Beneficiary would assume the role of a function manager, 
rather than a personnel manager. In order to establish that the Beneficiary would assume the role of 
a function manager, the Petitioner must clearly describe the Beneficiary's job duties by identifying 
the function with specificity, articulating the essential nature of the function, and establishing the 
proportion of a beneficiary's daily duties attributed to managing the essential function. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The Beneficiary's job description must also demonstrate that the Beneficiary will 
manage the function rather than perform the duties related to the function. See Matter of Z-A -, Inc., 
Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). 
Here, the Petitioner's function' manager claim rests on the broad assertion that the Beneficiary would 
"direct 
and control the company's major functions." The Petitioner has not specifically 
identified an 
essential function that the Beneficiary would manage or provided evidence to show who would 
perform the underlying duties of that function. Without this critical information, we cannot rule out 
the likelihood that in an organization with a limited support staff, the Beneficiary would be required 
to allocate the primary portion of her time to carrying out the Petitioner's operational tasks in order 
to meet its daily needs and ensure that it continues to function. Therefore, in light of the deficiencies 
discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would either assume the role 
of a personnel manager or that she would manage an essential function within the organization. 
2. Duties 
When examining the managerial capacity of the Beneficiary, we also look to the Petitioner's 
description of the job duties. See 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(3 )(ii). 
Based on the statutory definition of managerial 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 duties, as opposed to ordinary operational 
activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc., 469 F.3d at 1316; Champion 
World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
5 
.
Matter of 
In its support letter, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial 
capacity where she would direct and oversee the company. The Petitioner indicated that the 
Beneficiary's responsibilities would be to "plan, manage, direct, supervise and coordinate the 
organization" with the goal of attaining "optimum efficiency and economy [sic] operations and 
I 
maximize profits." The Petitioner" further stated that the Beneficiary would develop the 
organization's goals and policies, "analyze the marketing potential of new clients," and plan and 
direct "service programs to develop new markets and to develop [sic] competitive position of [sic] 
within the industry." The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would have the authority to hire 
and fire employees as well as assess their respective performances. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided an hourly breakdown listing the following job duties that would 
comprise 
the Beneficiary's proposed position with the U.S. entity: 
• 2 Hrs . 
• 4 Hrs . 
• 2 Hrs . 
• 4 Hrs . 
• 2 Hrs . 
• 4 Hrs . 
• 4 Hrs . 
• 2 Hrs. 
• 4 Hrs . 
\) 
• 2 Hrs . 
• 2 Hrs . 
• 3 Hrs . 
• 3 Hrs . 
• 2 Hrs. 
Prepare and present the annually [sic] projection and global strategies of 
the company[.] 
Analyze, develop and execute new alliances to increase the international 
business opportunities and profitability for the company. 
Evaluate monthly reports in order [to] determine requirements for 
increasing profits. 
Periodic review of financial statements and data related to the incomes 
and expenses in order to take financial decisions. 
Implement innovating techniques to ensure and improve the company 
goals. 
Evaluate financial risk and business opportunities. 
Monitor general operations executed in order to align procedures to the 
plan projects. ' 
Execute strategic plan by implementing short and long-term goals that 
align with the scope of service, mission and values of the company. 
Initiates action plans as necessary, as to employ new personnel, put into 
operation new regulations, and arrange new investments, [sic] between 
others. ~ 
Direct, formulate and continuously update the company policies and 
procedures in favor of the financial improvement. 
Direct and coordinate the mayor [sic] company activities including hire, 
supervise and evaluate the professional performance of the managers. 
Design and apply the incentives and promotions plan of the employees 
and planning the training required. 
Provide positive and constructive feedback to the personnel by coaching, 
mentoring, counseling or corrective guidance and action, as appropriate. 
Ensure a safe work 
environment for employees by enforcing the 
execution of all safety programs and makes recommendations for 
changes as n,ecessary. 
6 
.
Matter of 
In the RFE, the Director observed t~at the Beneficiary's job description consisted of broadly-cast 
business objectives that did not reveal what actual tasks the Beneficiary would perform in her 
proposed position. The Director offered the Petitioner an opportunity to resolve this evidentiary 
deficiency by submitting, in part, a statement containing a more detailed list of the Beneficiary's job 
duties, the percentage of time she would allocate to each job duty, and an explanation of how the 
Beneficiary would meet each prong of the four-prong definition of managerial capacity. 
In response, the Petitioner provided a letter containing another hourly breakdown of the 
Beneficiary's job duties. The new job description was similar to, but not entirely consistent with the 
one provided in the original supporting statement in that certain job duties, which were common to 
both job descriptions, had different time allocations. Namely, both job descriptions indicate that the 
Beneficiary would evaluate financial risk and business opportunities, execute a strategic plan by 
implementing long- and short-term goals, and coach, mentor, determine incentives and promotions 
for employees, and provide feedback to personnel. However, the original job description allocated 
4, 2, 3, and 3 hours to these job duties, respectively, while the new job description indicated that the 
Beneficiary would allocate 2, 4, 2, and 2 hours, respectively, to the same set of job duties. The 
Petitioner has neither acknowledged nor resolved these inconsistencies with independent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Also, given our prior discussion regarding the Petitioner's lack of employees to support the 
Beneficiary's proposed position, it does not appear that the Petitioner had a subordinate staff for the 
Beneficiary to oversee and evaluate at the time the petition was filed. While the Petitioner's 
business plan projects the hiring of additional staff, the record does not show that such a staff existed 
at the time of filing and therefore any of the Beneficiary's job duties that involve overseeing 
subordinates would be inaccurate for the purpose of describing the Beneficiary's proposed position 
at the time the petition was filed. 
Further, rather than providing more detailed information about the original job duties, the new list 
simply restates a number of the previously listed job duties and replaces other duties with different 
ones without explaining how to interpret the new information within the context of the original job 
description. For example, the latter job description indicates that the Beneficiary would spend a total 
of 6 hours of her time establishing and controlling the company's budget and promoting an 
investment plan to ensure company growth. The original job description, however, is silent as to the 
Beneficiary's role, if any, in developing and implementing a budget and includes only a general 
statement about the Beneficiary being responsible for "arrang[ing] new investments." 
Lastly, while both job descriptions indicate that the Beneficiary would monitor the Petitioner's 
operations for the purpose of planning projects, the Petitioner did not explain what specific tasks are 
required to "monitor operations," nor did the Petitioner identify any specific projects that the 
Beneficiary would plan. 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. Fe din Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 
1108,(E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Here, the Petitioner did not provide 
sufficient details about the Beneficiary's proposed daily tasks and instead submitted two sets of job 
7 
.
Matter of 
duties that are somewhat inconsistent and lack the necessary degree of detail to convey the actual 
tasks the Beneficiary would carry out within the context of the Petitioner's shipping and freight 
forwarding business. 
In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to 
establish that the Beneficiary would be primarily engaged in managerial tasks, as opposed to those of 
an operational nature. Given the deficient job descriptions and lack of evidence showing an 
organizational structure capable of supporting the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity, we agree 
with the Director's conclusion. 
The fact that the Beneficiary will manage or direct a business does not necessarily establish 
eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity 
within the meaning of section 101(a)(44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification 
requires that the duties of a position be "primarily" executive or managerial in nature. Sections 
101(A)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. While the Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the 
Petitioner's day""to-day operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to 
discretionary decision-making, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that her 
actual duties, as of the date of filing, would be primarily managerial in nature. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director "overlooked" ~he Beneficiary's direction and 
control over the company's major functions. The record does no( support the contention that the 
denial of this petition was the result of the Director's oversight. Rather, we find that the record does 
not contain sufficient evidence demonstrating the Petitioner's eligibility. The Petitioner has 
provided vague job descriptions that not only lack sufficient information as to the Beneficiary's 
actual daily tasks, but also imply the existence of a developed organizational hierarchy and staffing 
structure that the Petitioner did not have at the time it filed this petition. 
In light of the above, we find that the record does not establish that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a position where she· would either manage an essential function of the organization or 
oversee a staff comprised of supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. 
B. Foreign Employment 
The remaining issue we will address in this proceeding is whether the Petitioner established that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 
1. Staffing 
In its supporting statement the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's foreign employer breeds goats, 
and engages in the farming and breeding of livestock for meat and milk. In addition the Petitioner 
further explained that the foreign entity is involved in (note: errors in the original text have not been 
changed): "national and international marketing of .. . livestock and its derived birds different lines 
of agricultural production planting of import and export of machinery equipment." 
8 
.
Matter of 
The Petitioner also provided a statement from the foreign entity indicating that the Beneficiary's 
employment abroad involves overseeing "managers and top executives." The statement listed four 
managerial employees who are claimed to be the Beneficiary's direct subordinates. The Petitioner 
also provided the foreign entity's organizational chart 
depicting the Beneficiary at the top of the 
organizational hierarchy supervising a services and supplies manager, a commercial and marketing 
manager, an operation manager, and an "Administrative & RRHH Manager" as her direct 
subordinates, each of whom is depicted as having at least one subordinate of their own. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided a separate 
percentage breakdown briefly stating the job duties of 
the Beneficiary's four subordinates. The job description of the services and supplies manager 
indicates that this individual primarily manages, trains, and evaluates subordinate employees. 
However, the information in the foreign entity's organizational chart indicates that the subordinates 
of the services and supplies manager are a supervisor, a veterinarian, and two foremen. As the 
operational tasks of these subordinate employees were not included among the supporting evidence, 
it is unclear what duties the supervisor performs. It is also unclear that the services and supplies 
manager, whose educational credentials indicate that he is an attorney, possesses the qualifications to 
oversee, train, and evaluate the work performed by two foremen and a veterinarian. Although the 
commercial and marketing manager possesses a managerial position title and is depicted as 
overseeing the work of a "manager," the only suggestion of managerial duties in his job description 
is; a reference to a "sales force" whom he is responsible for 'rewarding, motivating, and guiding. 
However, neither the organizational chart nor other evidence in the record indicates that the foreign 
entity has a "sales force" for the commercial and marketing manager to oversee. The job description 
also does not explain the commercial and marketing manager' ·s relationship to the "manager" whom 
the chart depicts as his subordinate and the record contains no information as to the operational job 
duties the "manager" performs within the scheme of the foreign entity's livestock business. 
Lastly, the job descriptions of the operation manager and the "Administrative & RRHH Manager" 
show that a number of their duties overlap. Namely, both positions are assigned the following job 
duties: controlling the company's accounting; "[e]laborat[ing]" on annual accounts, incomes, 
expenses, and investments; controlling invoices, purchases, and inventory; assuming responsibility 
for internal and external audits; and declaring and paying taxes to government bodies. The 
Petitioner did not provide a separate explanation to clarify why these two positions have overlapping 
job duties if each manager is assigned oversight of his or her own department. Further, despite the 
operation manager's position in the chart, his assigned job duties do not indicate that he actually 
supervises two security personnel, as indicated in the foreign entity's organizational chart. 
The above described anomalies lead us to question the validity of the information conveyed in the 
foreign entity's organizational chart and the corresponding job descriptions of the Beneficiary's 
claimed subordinates. 
In the RFE, the Director advised the Petitioner that the job descriptions provided for the 
Beneficiary's subordinates are overly broad and therefore preclude a determination as to whether the 
Beneficiary oversees professional, managerial, or supervisory personnel. The Director further noted 
9 
.
Matter of 
that the initial evidence did not establish which employees provide the services of the foreign entity 
or clarify how the foreign entity operates with the staff depicted in its organizational chart. 
In response, the Petitioner provided the foreign entity's organizational chart and percentage 
breakdowns for each of the Beneficiary's four subordinates. We note that both the chart and job 
descriptions reiterated the same information that was provided in the original supporting documents. 
While the new information included educational credentials of the Beneficiary's subordinates, 
indicating that all four possess degrees that are commensurate with those of professional employees, 
their respective job descriptions still do not establish that they oversee the work of the individuals 
whom the foreign entity's organizational chart depicts as their respective subordinates. The 
Petitioner also offered new evidence in the form of email correspondence between the Beneficiary 
and two of her subordinates - the services and supplies manager and the operation manager. 
However, the Petitioner did not address the Director's concerns as to who within 
the foreign entity's 
organization provides its operational services. Further, these anomalies regarding the job duties of 
the Beneficiary's subordinates leave us to question who actually oversees the operational staff of the 
foreign entity and to what extent the Beneficiary has been involved in such oversight. 
In denying the petition, the Director acknowledged that the Beneficiary has discretionary authority 
and holds the most senior position within the foreign organizational hierarchy. However, he noted 
that these characteristics· alone are not sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary's employment 
abroad was in a managerial capacity. The Director determined that the record does not establish that 
the foreign entity has sufficient personnel to relieve the Beneficiary from having to primarily 
perform non-managerial job duties or that the Beneficiary's subordinates are supervisory, 
professional, or managerial employees, despite their respective educational credentials. The Director 
also pointed out that of the foreign entity's 12 employees, only three occupy positions that may be 
directly related to cattle breeding, thereby giving cause to question whether the foreign entity can 
reasonably support the Beneficiary in a managerial position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner generally disputes the Director's. adverse findings. However, it does not 
provide additional information 
pertaining to the job duties performed by the Beneficiary's subordinates, 
or by any of the foreign entity's other employees, to establish that the foreign entity has a sufficient 
support staff to carry out the services that are directly related to cattle breeding; nor does the Petitioner 
directly address the Director's concerns regarding the supervisory, professional, or managerial nature of 
the Beneficiary's subordinates. Further, the Petitioner asserts that the Director overlooked the limited 
size of the foreign entity's business, which requires the Beneficiary to "wear[] many hats and fulfill[] 
many positions," some of which are non-managerial. However, this broad assertion does not establish 
that the Beneficiary's position involves job duties that are primarily of a managerial nature or that the 
foreign entity has the capacity to support the Beneficiary in such a position. 
In light of the deficiencies discussed above, we find that the record does not establish that the 
Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a position where she primarily oversees a staff of 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. 
10 
.
Matter of 
2. Duties 
Finally, in order to provide a comprehensive discussion of the Beneficiary's employment with the 
foreign entity, we take into account the Beneficiary's job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner provided a statement from the foreign entity, which included 
the following percentage breakdown of the Beneficiary's job duties: 
• Approve plans for new investments[.] 5% 
• Analyze and propose new techniques to implement[.] 10% 
• Approve purchases and ensure the quality of procedures[.] 5% 
• Ensure the goals align from [sic] all departments ofthe company. 10% 
• Build the credibility of the operations team. 10% 
• Develop relationships within and outside the company. 10% 
• Anticipate problems and perform or authorize the implementation of optimal 
solutions. 10% 
• Communicate the existence of project progress. 10% 
• Monitor the managers' performance in each department. 1 0% 
• Provide leadership and direction to the team. 5% 
• [P]romote, monitor and ensure the quality of deliverables. 10% 
• Create a culture of collaboration and knowledge sharing. 5% 
In the RFE, the Director advised the Petitioner that the job description for the Beneficiary was vague 
and did not include sufficient information about the actual job duties the Beneficiary has performed 
in the course of her employment with the foreign entity. The Director also pointed to several job 
duties that she deemed as inherent to performing the foreign entity's general operational tasks. 
In response, the Petitioner did not adequately address the Director's concerns. Although the 
Petitioner provided the Beneficiary's original offer of employment, which contained a description of 
her position with the foreign entity, the offer contained the same list of job duties as the one 
provided originally in support of the petition. The Petitioner did not provide additional information 
to clarify or expand on several of the broadly stated job duties that were part of her job description. 
Namely, the Petitioner did not clarify the types of "new investments" the Beneficiary approves or 
what "new techniques and strategies" she proposes to attract new customers. 
Likewise, the Petitioner did not explain what the foreign entity imports or what "processes" the 
Beneficiary checks for quality within the organization's cattle breeding business. Although the job 
description indicates that the Beneficiary builds the sales team's credibility, the organizational chart 
does not corroborate this claim, as it does not include any sales employees. The record also lacks 
clarification as to the specific tasks involved in ensuring the alignment of goals among departments, 
developing relationships within and outside the organization, and creating a culture of collaboration 
and shared knowledge. The Petitioner does not explain how these broadly cited business objectives 
fit within the business model of an entity whose source of revenue stems from the breeding of cattle. 
II 
.
Matter of 
In fact, the claim that the Beneficiary promotes, monitors, and ensures product quality is not entirely 
clear, as the Petitioner does not clarify who buys the foreign entity's "product" or specify what 
"product" the foreign entity sells within the scheme of a cattle breeding business. 
In denying the petition, the Director focuses on the lack of a detailed job description specifying the 
actual job duties the Beneficiary has performed. The Petitioner now disputes the Director's conclusion, 
asserting that the foreign entity is part of "a flexible and changing business environment," which 
requires the Beneficiary to "perform a wide range of duties which will change from day to day." 
The Petitioner's statements on 
appeal do not overcome the Director's chief complaint, which focuses 
on the lack of a detailed job description delineating the Beneficiary's specific list of tasks. The 
Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary's position is dynamic and consists of a "wide range of duties" 
does not establish that the Beneficiary has allocated her time primarily to performing job duties of a 
managerial nature. 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 capacity. See, 
e.g, sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the 
enumerated managerial or executive duties); Matter ofChurch Scientology Int'l., 19 I&N Dec. 593, 
604 (Comm'r 1988). Merely claiming that the Petitioner cannot provide a list of the Beneficiary's 
tasks because the list is ever-changing does not properly address the Petitioner's burden of having to 
establish that the Beneficiary's employment abroad involved primarily managerial tasks. As 
previously stated, the fact that the Beneficiary managed the foreign organization does not necessarily 
establish eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial capacity within 
the meaning of section 101(a)(44)(A) ofthe Act. 
In order to establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity, the Petitioner 
must provide a detailed description establishing that the Beneficiary's position abroad was primarily 
comprised of managerial-level tasks. Reciting the Beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly­
cast business objectives is not sufficient, as the actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the 
employment. Fedin Bros., 724 F. Supp. at 1108, aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Here, the record 
lacks this critical information, thereby detracting from a comprehensive and meaningful understanding 
of the managerial nature of the Beneficiary's employment abroad. 
' 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence submitted does not establish that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity where her 
duties have and would continue to involve primarily managing an essential function or managing a 
subordinate staff of supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of ID# 293111 (AAO Apr. 28, 20 17) 
12