General Manager

The petition was dismissed because the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary would function in an executive capacity as defined in section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. Evidence showed the Beneficiary was the only employee, suggesting he would personally perform the service tasks of the contract rather than directing the organization. The management of a client's employees (hotel staff) did not satisfy the requirement for executive capacity within the petitioning entity.

The motions were dismissed because the Petitioner failed to address the specific conclusions of the prior appellate decision regarding the Beneficiary's proposed employment capacity and did not establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Additionally, the Petitioner did not submit new facts or documentary evidence to overcome the deficiencies concerning the claimed qualifying relationship, specifically conflicting ownership information in tax returns and an invalid stock certificate. The Petitioner's new claim of an affiliate relationship was also not sufficiently supported.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would primarily perform executive duties, lacking sufficient evidence of subordinates to handle non-executive tasks. The organizational structure and staffing levels were inconsistent and inadequate to support an executive role. Furthermore, the qualifying relationship between the U.S. and foreign entities was not proven due to a defective stock certificate and conflicting ownership information on tax returns. The Petitioner's argument for a 'functional manager' role was also rejected as an improper change to the petition's basis and lacked supporting evidence.