Financial And Operational Director

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 appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity. The record contained unresolved ambiguities regarding staffing, the Beneficiary's responsibilities, and the nature of day-to-day duties, indicating a significant portion of time would be spent on non-managerial operational tasks and first-line supervision of non-professional sales staff, which does not meet the statutory definition of managerial capacity.

The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial capacity in the U.S. The job description contained generalities that precluded a meaningful assessment of actual tasks, and there was insufficient evidence of a subordinate staff to relieve the Beneficiary from non-qualifying operational duties. Issues regarding the qualifying relationship and foreign employment capacity were reserved as the staffing issue was dispositive.

The Petitioner failed to establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity because the organizational structure lacked sufficient staffing to relieve the Beneficiary from operational duties. The AAO found that post-filing hirings could not be considered to establish eligibility at the time of filing. Consequently, the Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof regarding the nature of the offered U.S. job.