Operations Manager

The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish that the Beneficiary would primarily perform managerial duties, either as a personnel manager or a function manager. For a personnel manager, the Beneficiary had only one direct subordinate, and evidence suggested a small portion of time was spent supervising this individual, with many stated duties being non-managerial operational tasks. The Petitioner did not provide supporting documentation to substantiate personnel authority, delegation of non-qualifying tasks, or wages paid to claimed subordinates. For a function manager, the Petitioner did not sufficiently substantiate that the Beneficiary would be primarily engaged in managing an essential function rather than performing it, with the Beneficiary still responsible for several apparent non-qualifying operational duties. The AAO concluded it was more likely the Beneficiary was performing non-qualifying operational tasks himself or alongside subordinates, thus not meeting the EB-1C criteria for managerial or executive capacity.

The Petitioner failed to provide a statement from the foreign employer confirming the Beneficiary's duties and did not establish a subordinate personnel structure. There was no objective evidence of a qualifying relationship (parent, subsidiary, or affiliate) between the entities. Furthermore, the Beneficiary's stay in the U.S. for over four years in B-2 and F-2 status without work authorization interrupted the continuity of qualifying employment.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary's subordinates, both in the U.S. and abroad, qualified as professional employees requiring a bachelor's degree, or as managers/supervisors. The evidence submitted on motion, including updated letters, organizational charts, and educational credentials, did not sufficiently establish the managerial capacity criteria, and some evidence was previously submitted or lacked corroboration. The motion to reconsider also failed to articulate why the Director's decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy.

The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner did not state new facts supported by documentary evidence, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The Petitioner merely repeated prior assertions and failed to address the AAO's reason for dismissing the first motion, which was the lack of required initial evidence for several EB-1C criteria.