dismissed L-1A Case: Wholesale Distribution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-G- LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN.31,2019 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANTWORKER 
The Petitioner, an importer and wholesale distributor of truck ~pare parts and plastic's, seeks to continue 
the Beneficiary's temporary employment as executive manager t1nder the L-1 A nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. 1 . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101 (a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-1 A 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 record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity 
under the extended petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends, contrary to the Director's conclusion, that the Beneficiary 
devotes all of his time to performing managerial duties and that it is properly staffed to relieve him 
from performing non-qualifying operational tasks. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L- lA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity for one continuous year within 
three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). In addition, 'the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States temporarily to 
continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a 
managerial or executive capacity. Id. ' 
--,---------.- . ~ 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
April 27, 2017, until January 23, 2018. A '.'new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United 
States through a parent, branch; affiliate, or subsidiary for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(F). The 
regulation at 8 C. F.R. § 2 I 4.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation one year within the date of approval of the 
petition to support an executive or managerial position. · 
Matter of T-G- LLC . 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-1 A petition that involved a new office must submit a statement 
of the beneficiary's duties during the previous year and under the extended petition; a statement 
describing the staffing of the new operation and evidence of the numbers and types of positions held; 
evidence of its financial status; evidence that it has been doing business for the previous· year; and 
evidence that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The sole issue to address is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would act in a 
managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. The Petitioner does not claim that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to 
whether the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity. 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or 
manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the. function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
rday-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
When examining the managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly describe the 
duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in a managerial 
capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description of the job duties, we 
examine the company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate 
employees,· the presence of other employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing operational 
duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a 
beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. Accordingly, we will discuss evidence regarding 
the Beneficiary's job· duties along with evidence of the nature of the P~titioner' s business, its staffing 
levels, and its organizational structure. 
A. Duties 
• .. ✓ 
Based on the definition of managerial capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the Beneficiary 
will perform certain high-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, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the 
Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); 
Champion World, 940 F:2d 1533. 
) 
2 
Matter of T-G- LLC 
The Petitioner stated that it was formed in the United States in 2016 "to get into the American 
market for consumer goods which consists of truck spare parts and plastics" to be produced by the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer. · The Petitioner also indicated that "apart from our core business of 
truck parts trade, we have been the supplier and trader of PVC and PE packaging materials, plastic 
sports goods and consumer goods." It also noted that it collaborates. "with. over 100 Chinese 
factories within their supplier network in China." 
The Petitioner explained that as executive manager the Beneficiary would be involved in "the 
reorganization and expansion/development of its vital product development and product delivery 
operations," apply "unique knowledge" of the foreign employer's "internal procedures," and :'des1gn 
the product development processes\ and quality control operations." It also stated that the 
Beneficiary would be "responsible for the direction and control of the [Petitioner's] overall strategic 
business development function," conduct "all major business decisions," and finalize critical 
negotiations and contracts." 
Further, it indicated that the Beneficiary would provide "business leadership and vision involving a 
complex mix of in-depth knowledge of [the foreign employer's] methodologies, products, services 
and business development plans" · and focus on "various marketing and business development 
projects." It further explained that 90% of the time the Beneficiary would be "engaged in the 
management, coordination and [direction of the Petitioner's] strategic business development, 
marketing and commercial activities, including planning and implementation of [the foreign 
employer's] inve~tment in the U.S." The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary would spend the 
remaining 10% of his time on "other managerial tasks such as analyzing financial reports to 
determine progress and status in attaining objectives and revising plans in accordance. with current 
conditions." 
Furthermore, the Petitioner listed the following duties for the Beneficiary under· the extended 
petition, amongst others: 
• oversee and manage the expansion ·of the Petitioner's product development and 
delivery operations, ensure that they are in-line with strategic growth and business 
development plans, and hire additional staff - 20% of his time, 
• manage the delivery of the Petitioner's cons1;1mer goods consisting of truck spare 
parts and plastics, conduct weekly meetings to ensure new developments/features 
are in line. with Petitioner policies and growth plan, make decisions on the 
suitability of. frameworks/project proposals, and move a part of the foreign. 
employer's facilities to the U.S. within the next four years-23% of his time, 
• approve and negotiate contract and project terms with regards to final price and 
terms of.agreement -' 5% · · · . 
• supervise a team of four U.S. professionals including a sales and marketi.ng 
n:1anager, execu.tive manager assistant, a sales representative, and a sales assistant 
who ov~rsee all U.S. client projects, delegate briefs and assign off on quality 
3 
Matter of T~G- LLC 
control documents on a daily basis, review and look after consultancy based 
requests that are proposed by U.S. clients - 10% of his time, 
• continue to oversee and manage the foreign employer's team of seven 
professionals located in Turkey and have overall authority to hire, train, assign 
tasks and oversee progress and evaluate performance - 6% of his time, 
• · develop and implement recruitment and training strategies to ensure company's 
growth targets are being delivered q_n, including all hiring and firirig, recruitment 
of additional professional personnel who will provide suppo1i functions so that 
the Beneficiary can concentrate on strategic value added initiatives - 2% of his 
time, 
• review monthly reports provided by subordinates to determine and evaluate 
progress and status of ongoing projects- 2% of his time, 
• develop production and quality control strategies, take control of initial 
implementation phases, oversee processes and cost-effective operations while 
adhering to Petitioner and foreign employer quality guidelines and standards - 5% 
of his time, . 
• post implementation, delegate projects to U.S. and Turkish tea~s to ensure 
performance is in line wi~h client's strategic objectives - 5% of his time,. 
• evaluate financial aspects of the Product Delivery division to prioritize key 
projects and d~vise budget and expenditure plans for determining costs 
commitment of Development division - 5% of his time, 
• advise and direct staff where budget can be best utilized in the organization 
through weekly management meetings, including making key~ decisions to 
reallocate resources if a project is deemed critical - 5% of his time, 
• develop plan to ensure product delivery operations runs on time and within budget 
- 5% of his time, 
• assess risks and set contingency plans through auditing company processes - 2%, 
and 
• evaluate the company's · overall production performance with respect to its 
production operations to present recornmendqtions - 5%. 
The Petitioner submitted substantial documentation indicating that the Beneficiary would likely be 
primarily involved in non-qualifying operational level tasks as of the date the petition was filed. For 
instance, the Petitioner submitted client invoices dated in March and April 2018, months after the 
petition was filed2, reflecting the Beneficiary's email and copies of checks signed by him for the 
payment of these invoices. Likewise, the Petitioner submitted evidence of the Beneficiary 
completing wire transfers for the payment of goods, and invoices bearing his signature and contact 
. information throughout its first year of operations an.d up to the filing of the petition. In addition, the 
Petitioner provided emails reflecting the Beneficiary coordinating delivery quantities with suppliers 
.and arranging for the shipment and distribution of samples to customers. As mentioned in the 
Beneficiary's duties, the Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary would continue to oversee the 
2 The petition was. filed in January 2018. 
4 
Matter of T-G- LLC 
foreign employer's operations while in the United .States. It also submitted many emails, several of 
these emails dating near to the date the petition, indicating the Beneficiary's continued day-to-day 
involvement with non-qualifying operational duties abroad, such as confirming, communicating, and 
coordinating client orders. In contrast, although the submitted documents suggest that the 
Beneficiary is delegating some tasks to his claimed U.S. and foreign subordinates, it has not 
sufficiently demonstrated that he is being primarily relieved of non-qualifying operational duties as 
·of the date the petition was filed. 
Whether the Beneficiary is a managerial employee turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained its 
burden of proving that their duties are "primarily" managerial. See sections 10l(a)(44)(A) of the 
, Act. The Petitioner claimed that the Benefici31ry would be wholly relieved from non-qualifying 
operational duties as of the date the petition was filed, yet it submits documentation that reflects his 
performance of administrative or operational tasks and it does not quantify the time the Beneficiary 
spends on these duties. This lack of documentation is important because several of the Beneficiary's 
documented tasks, as discussed above, do not fall directly under managerial duties as defined in the 
statute. For this reason, we cannot determine whether the Beneficiary would primarily performing 
the. duties of a manager. See IKEA US. Inc. v. US. Dept. of'Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 
1999). 
The Petitioner also provided insufficient detail and documentation regarding the Beneficiary's 
asserted qualifying tasks. The Benefi~iary's duty descriptions include several generic duties that 
could apply to any manager acting in any industry and they provide little insight into his actual day­
to-day managerial tasks. For instance, the Petitioner did not detail or document product 
development and delivery operations the Beneficiary managed, the strategic growth, busin
1
ess 
development plans, and policies he ensured compliance with, and the "frameworks" and project 
proposals he made decisions on. 
· Although the Petitioner submitted some documentary evidence of the Beneficiary directing his 
subordinates, it did not sufficiently document the claimed contract and project terms he had 
negotiated in the United States. In addition, it did not articulate and document the briefs and quality 
control documents the Beneficiary signed off on, the consultancy based requests he reviewed, the 
production and quality control strategies he developed, budget and expenditure plans he devised, key 
decisions on the allocation of resources he made, plans on product delivery operations he approved, 
or contingency plans he set. In fact, portions of the Beneficiary's duties appear to bear little relation 
to· its import and export operations including references to. a "product delivery division," a 
"development division," a.nd "projects," which were not sufficiently substantiated. The 
Beneficiary's duties also indicate that he would spend a significant portion of his time managing the 
delivery of truck spare parts in the United States. However, the Petitioner submitted emails dated 
near to the dafe the petition was filed reflecting the Beneficiary's· communicat.ion with foreign 
I 
employer management and stating that he had developed little market for these goods in the United 
States. · 
5 1 
Matter of T-G- LLC 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted substantial email documentation reflecting the 
direction of sales and order representatives abroad and his coordination of fabric and other good 
orders from China. However, the Beneficiary's duties indicate that he would devote only 6% of his 
time to coordinating and overseeing these operations abroad; whereas, there is limited evidence that 
· he was performing managerial tasks in the United States as of the date the petition was filed. In 
sum, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate that the Beneficiary would 
likely devote a majority of his time to managerial tasks as of the date the petition was filed. 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the organization·, the fact that he will 
manage or direct a business does not· necessarily establish eligibility for class\fication as an 
intracompany transferee in a managerial capacity within the meaning of section 10l(a)(44)(A) and 
(B) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a position be 
"primarily" managerial in nature. Id. The Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the Petitioner's 
day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary 
decision-making; however, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that his actual 
duties would be primarily managerial in nature. 
B. Staffing 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an indi.vidual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, we take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the 
overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart in support of the petition reflecting that the 
Beneficiary supervised a sales and marketing manager overseeing a •sales representative and an 
executive assistant. As noted in the Beneficiary's duties, the chart also indicated that the Beneficiary 
would continue to supervise· several employees abroad, including a customer relations employee, a 
sales area manager overseeing two sales representatives, and an eX:pmi manager supervising an 
export sales representative and a sales assistant. In response to the Director's request for evidehce 
(RFE), the Petitioner provided an updated U.S. organizational chart asserting that it had added a 
sales assistant reporting to the sales representative in March 2018. '. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary "manages and directs a professional team 
comprised-of at least two (2) individuals in the U.S., specifically: a Sales and Marketing Manager, 
and Executive Manager Assistant." 1 Likewise, "the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary would 
continue to manage a "professional team" employed by the foreign employer employed in the United 
States. · 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" all~ws for both "personnel managers" and 
"function manager~." See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Personnel managers are require·d to 
pl'imarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
empl?yees. Contrary to the common understanding of tpe word "manager," the statute plainly states 
that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue 
6 
! 
I 
I 
Matter of TjG- LLC 
of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional." Id. If a 
beneficiary directly supervises other employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire 
and fire those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(B)(3). 
First, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that I the Beneficiary 
supervises subordinate managers or supervisors. As discussed, the Petitioner submitted a U.S. and 
foreign organizational chart reflecting subordinate managers, including the sales and marketing 
manager in the United States, the U.S. based sales representative overseeing a sales assistant, a sales 
area manager abroad, and a foreign export manager. However, the S\lbmitted evidence indicates that 
the Petitioner did not hire the clairped U.S. sales assistant below the U.S. sales representative until 
late March 2018; as such, this employee is not relevant to establishing the Beneficiary's eligibility as 
of the date the petition was filed. 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)(l). 
Therefore, the only remaining asserted U.S. based manager as of the date the petition was filed is the 
asserted sales and marketing manager. However, the Petitioner provided statements and 
documentation leaving question as to whether the sales and marketing manager acted as a 
subordinate supervisor as of the date of the petition. For instance, although the Petitioner provided 
an organizational chart with the petition reflecting that it employed three subordinates, the sales and 
marketing manager, executive assistant, and sales representative; it emphasized several times in 
support letters and on appeal that it employed only ''a professional team of two individµals." In fact, 
a letter from the sales and marketing manager from April 2018, several months after the petition, 
mentions only "two (2) degreed professionals." · Further, this letter directly from the sales and 
marketing manager questionably makes no reference to his claimed role as a subordinate manager. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided a business plan referring to the claimed sales and marketing 
manager as a "sales representative" and an email from the Beneficiary to foreign management 
referring to this employee as the same. Likewise, supporting emails from the first year of operation 
reflect the asserted sales and marketing manager acting as a sales representative subordinate to the 
Beneficiary rather than as a · subordinate supervisor overseeing subordinates of his own. The 
Petitioner also submitted a performance review for the U.S. based sales representative from March 
2018, and employee supposedly, subordinate to the sales and marketing manager; however this 
review was completed by the Ben.eficiary and not the sales and marketing manager. 
\ 
Moreover, the duties of the sales and marketing manage appear to overlap significantly with those of 
the Beneficiary, indicating that he would focus on "trade promotion programs," "developing field 
action plans," aryd establishing "_sales objectives ... plans and quotas for districts 'in support of national 
sales objectives." It appears unlikely that the sales and marketing manager .would also be focused on 
th~ setting of overall programs, plans, an9 objectives given the company's limited number of 
operational employees in the U.S, and the supporting documentation indicating that he·acts as a sales 
representative. Further, the duties of the claimed.sales and marketing manager mention national sales 
"7 
Matter of T-G- LLC 
I . 
districts which are not shown to exist.. Indeed, it is also noteworthy that the Petitioner only submits 
internal payroll documentation to support its U.S. employees and not independent objective 
evidence, such as the IRS Forms W-2 and state quarterly wage reports requested by the Director in 
the RFE. Therefore, in total, the submitted evidence .indicates that the subordinate sales and 
marketing manager would not act as subordinate supervisor under the ,extended petition. 
Beyond this, the Petitioner also claims two foreign based managers subordinate to the Beneficiary 
including the asserted export manager and a sales area manager based in Turkey. However, the 
Petitioner also indicated in the Beneficiary's duties that he would spend limited time continuing to 
oversee these operatlons abroad, or only approximately 6% of his tinie. Therefore, even if it had 
submitted sufficient evidence to substantiate these asserted foreign mariagers, it states directly that 
,the Beneficiary would not spend a majority of his time acting as a personnel manager with respect to 
these claimed foreign subordinates_. Further, the .Petitioner provides several emails between the 
Beneficiary and the asserted export manager; however,· these emails reflect the Beneficiary 
instructing this employee on sales approaches with customers and inquiring as to the status of orders, 
indicating that he is more likely a foreign employer sales representative and/or ordering processing 
employee. These emails also indicate that the Beneficiary is responsible for acting as a first line 
supervisor over the foreign employer's sales representatives and order processing employees abroad, 
. including coordinating and reporting orders and asking for the status of foreign orders. However, 
there is little indication from these several emails that these employees act as subordinate managers. 
As noted, 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." See 8ection 10 l (a)( 44)(A) of the Act. In total, the_ Petitioner did not 
submit sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary would primarily supervise subordinate 
managers abroad, as reflected in the submitted organizational charts. 
Therefore, the remaining question as to whether the Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel manager is 
whether the evidence demonstrates that he supervises professional subordinates. 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 "'.hich a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the 
occupation"). Section I 0l(a)(32) of the Act, states that "[t]he term profession shall include but not 
be limited to architects, engineers, .lawyers, physicia~s, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or 
secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." 
The Petitioner h~s not established that the Beneficiary supervises professional subordin;tes. We 
acknowledge that the Petitioner submits resumes for each of the Beneficiary's subordinates 1 both in 
the U.S. and abroad, and documentation indicating that these employees likely holq varying 
bachelor's degrees. However, w_e must focus on the ·1evel of education required by the position, 
rather than the degrees held by these su_bordinate employees. The possession of a bachelor's degree 
by a subordinate employee does not automatically lead to the conclusion that an employee is 
employed in. a professional capacity. The Petitioner declares that the Beneficiary's subordinates are 
professionals and that they hold bachelor's degrees, but it does not indicate why bachelor's degrees 
8 
Matter of T-G- LLC 
; 
are necessary to perform the duties of these positions. In fact, as we have discussed, the evidence 
indicates that the Beneficiary likely acts as first line supervisor of various sales representatives and 
sales processing employees, and without further explanation, it is not clear why these operational 
level positions require a bachelor's degree for minimum entry. As such, the Petitioner did not 
submit sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary primarily oversees professional 
employees in his position abroad. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
· Beneficiary oversees subordinate managers, supervisors, or professionals as required to qualify him 
as a personnel manager. I 
The regulations also require that a Petitioner seeking the extension of a new office petition submit 
evidence of its financial status after one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(E). However, the 
Petitioner provides little detail or documentation regarding its financial status after one year. For 
instance, the Petitioner states that it earned approximately $200,000 during the first year of 
operations and projects it would earn upwards of $800,000 during its second year. However, there is 
little supporting documentation to substantiate these claimed numbers or information to substantiate 
its current financial. status. We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted internally generated 
payroll documentation for the asserted members of its organizational structure, but it is not clear how 
it is sustaining this organizational structure after orie year without evidence to demonstrate its 
financial status as of the date of the petition was filed. This lack of evidence leaves question as to 
whether the Petitioner has developed sufficiently during the first year to support the Beneficiary in a 
managerial capacity. 
In fact, other supporting evidence leaves only further uncertainty as to whether the Petitioner has 
developed sufficiently dming its first year to support the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity. For 
example, the Petitioner's statements throughout the record still reflect a questionably prospective 
stance, expressing confidence· it "can take a reasonable share" of the truck spare parts and plastics 
market and noting that it plans on "conducting research" on the U.S. marketplace. The Petitioner 
states in a provided business plan submitted with the petition that although it is renting warehouse 
space to stock goods, it has only "exchanged samples with potential customers and ... quoted prices 
for some basic items." This same business plan indicated that it 2018 the Petitioner planned to get 
more samples to the United States and deliver them to customers and that it would "start trial 
business with customers." 
Similarly, the Petitioner provided emails from the Beneficiary to foreign management from 
December 2017, just prior to the date of the petition, indicating that it had made little progress in 
selling the "core" of its business emphasized in support letters, the sale of truck spare parts. Further, 
these emails reflect the Beneficiary requesting "additional capitals" from the foreign employer to 
continue to support the business. The Petitioner also submits photographs of its rented office space 
and warehouse reflecting the Beneficiary · and only two other employees, while future hiring 
· projections indicate it plans to hire.other operational level employees, such as a warehouse manager. 
However, without these employees as of the date of the petition, it appears likely that the Beneficiary 
is widely involved in the shipment and distribution of the company's product samples to generate 
9 
Matter of T-G- LLC 
initial business. As such, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that.the Petitioner most likely 
did not develop sufficiently during the fi_rst year to support the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity. 
r 
In the alternative, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary acts as a function manager. 
Although the Petitioner does not overtly assert that the Beneficiary acts as a function manager, on 
appeal, the Petitioner stated that "the record substantiates the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary 
manages an essential function." The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary 
does not supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for 
managing an· "essential function" within the organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the 
Act. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary manages an essential function, it must clearly describe 
the duties to be performed in managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must 
demonstrate that "(l) the function is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is 'essential,' i.e., 
core to the organization; (3) the beneficiary primarily manages, _ as opposed to per.forms, the 
function; (4) the beneficiary·acts at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with.respect· 
to the function managed; and (5) the beneficiary exercises discretion over the function's day-to-day 
operations." Matter o.fG- Inc., Adopted Decision.2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). · 
Upon review, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will act as a function manager. 
Although we recognize that the foreign employer's projected plans to sell truck spare parts and other 
plastics in the United States may be essential to the organization, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that the Beneficiary is primarily tasked with managing these services rather than performing them. 
As discussed previously, the Petitioner submitted substantial supporting documentation indicating 
the Beneficiary's wide involvement in the day-to-day operational aspects of Petitioner and foreign 
\ . 
employer sales activities, such as allocating and coordinating product orders, distributing client 
requirements, sending wire transfers for payment, and arranging shipments. As noted, the Petitioner 
did not clearly designate how much time the Beneficiary devotes to the aforementioned non­
qualifying operational tasks as opposed to qualifying tasks, such as promulgating policy, developing 
strategies, and negotiating master agreements with clients. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the Beneficiary will act as a function manager. · 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be employed in 
a managerial capacity. · 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must ,be dismissed as the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. -
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofT-G- LLC, ID# 1939033 (AAO Jan: 31; 2019) 
10