dismissed EB-1C Case: Carpet Import/Sales

(b)(6)
DATE: 
IN RE: 
;APR 1 7 .2015 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U$. Department ofH.omeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Irturtigratioh 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant 
to Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law 
or policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to:· 
reconsider or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or 
Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Pleas'( review the Form I-290B 
instructions at http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and 
other requirements. See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
rt· 
�Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
WWW.USCiS,g()V 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Texas Service Center Director denied the preference visa petition. The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as a multinational executive or manager pursuant to 
section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C). 
The petitioner is engaged in the import, distribution, and sale of hand woven carpets. It claims to be 
a subsidiary of the beneficiary's foreign employer, located in Nepal. The 
petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its President. 
The director denied the petition on April 17, 2014, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish 
that the beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to us for review. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that it provided sufficient 
evidence to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the U.S. in a qualifying managerial 
capacity. The petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence in support of the appeal. 1 
I. THE LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available .. ·. to qualified 
immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) 
through (C): 
* * * 
(C) Certain Multinational Executives and Managers. -- An alien is 
described in this subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding 
the time of the alien's application for classification and admission 
into the United States under this subparagraph, has been employed 
for at least 1 year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or 
an affiliate or subsidiary thereof and who seeks to enter the United 
States in order to continue to render services to the same employer 
or to a subsidiary or affiliate ,thereof . in a capacity that is 
managerial or executive. 
The language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only those executives and 
managers who have previously worked for a firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis (See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004)). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
subsidiary of that entity, and who are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its 
affiliate or subsidiary. 
A United States employer may file a petition on Form 1-140 for classification of an alien under 
section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. No labor certification is 
required for this classification. The prospective employer in the United States must furnish a job 
offer in the form of a statement which indicates that the alien is to be employed in the United States 
in a managerial or executive c:apacity. Such a statement must clearly describe the duties to be 
performed by the alien. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which 
the employee primarily--
(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. 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. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which 
the employee primarily--
(i) directs the management of the organization or a major component 
or function of the organization; 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(ii) establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, 
or function; 
(iii) exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the 
organization. 
Finally, if staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a 
managerial or executive capacity, USCIS must take into account the reasonable needs of the 
organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. Section 
101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
II. ISSUE ON APPEAL 
A. U.S. Employment in a Managerial or Executive Capacity 
The issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary would be 
employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
1. Facts 
The petitioner offered the beneficiary the position of President. In a letter of support dated July 2, 
2012, the petitioner explained the duties of the proffered position as follows: 
He [the beneficiary] will continue directing, planning, evaluating and 
implementing policies, objectives and operations, and maximizing returns on 
investments. [The beneficiary] acts with wide latitude in discretionary decision­
making. Functioning autonomously, he is primarily responsible for managing and 
directing all major activities of the company as they pertain to [the petitioner's] 
operations in the United States. 
The petitioner also stated that it employs five employees "who actually engage in the operational 
activities of the business and in the day-to-day tasks of providing the services for the company." The 
petitioner also stated that it is utilizing "independent contractors, such as accountants and graphic 
designers who report directly to [the beneficiary]." 
The petitioner submitted, among other evidence, copies of its IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporation 
Income Tax Return, for 2011. In addition, the petitioner submitted IRS Form 941, Employer's 
Quarterly Federal Tax Return, for all four quarters of 2011 and the first quarter of 2012 which 
indicate salaries and wages paid to three to five employees in 2011 and four employees in the first 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
quarter of 2012. The petitioner also submitted 2011 IRS Forms W-2 for the beneficiary and three 
other employees. Finally, the petitioner submitted a Form I-797 Approval Notice for an individual 
who was approved to work for the petitioner in H-1B status beginning on June 4, 2012. 
In a request for evidence (RFE) dated May 16, 2013, the director requested, in part, a detailed job 
description of the beneficiary's specific tasks on a normal business day including the percentage of 
time spent on each task. In addition, the director requested an organizational chart including the 
names of all employees, employees' titles, a clear description of their job duties, educational levels 
and IRS Forms W-2 for each employee. 
In response, the petitioner provided a letter from the foreign entity which included described the 
beneficiary's U.S. duties as follows: 
1. Efficiently direct the overall business operation of [the petitioner]; 
2. Formulate policies and draw strategic plans to market the products of [the 
foreign entity] in Nepal, using a wide latitude of discretionary decision 
making power; 
3. Effectively and systematically research and explore new market opportunities 
and make a sustained effort in expanding the market for the products of the 
parent company of [the petitioner]; 
4. Meets with prospective clients and negotiate contracts etc.; 
5. Finalize the pricing based on the prevailing market situation in the United 
States[;] 
6. Hire required staff for the operation and expansion of the business activities of 
[the petitioner]; 
7. Efficiently supervise the financial planning and budgetary control of [the 
petitioner]; 
8. Provide effective leadership and sound guidance to the supporting staff, 
particularly those at the supervisory level, to facilitate efficient day-to-day 
management of [the petitioner]. 
The petitioner also provided the beneficiary's specific daily duties with the percentage of time spent 
on each duty as follows: 
• Meetings with the Vice President and the Treasurer regarding company's 
financial position, budget allocation and public relations (15%) 
• Meeting with current clients and potential clients (13%) 
• Review of financial and budget reports prepared by the Treasurer (10%) 
• Review of financial statements provided by the Acc_ountant (8%) 
• Attendance of various business related meetings, lunches and events (13%) 
• Report company's current standing, accomplishments, issues, goals to [the 
foreign entity] (3%) 
• Review marketing plan prepared by Vice President (8%) 
(b)(6)
Page6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
• Research market trends and draw strategic plans (15%) 
• Inspection of new inventory and company (5%) 
• Go over employee issues (3%) 
• Go over client issues (7%) 
The petitioner submitted an organizational chart which indicated the beneficiary as the Executive 
President with two direct subordinates - a part-time Treasurer/Finance employee and the Vice 
President. The chart shows that the Vice President supervises a Project/Marketing Manager, a 
Project Assistant and a "Sales Incharge." 
The petitioner provided a brief job description for the Vice President which included the following 
duties: "carry out strategic plans by overseeing operations"; "develop functional roles and assign 
responsibilities to Project Manager and Salespeople"; "oversee the job performances of the Project 
Manager and Salespeople"; "communicate expectations and the organization's mission to 
colleagues"; "determine the organization's success in terms of profitability and corporate 
citizenship"; and, "report the goals and accomplishments of the business." 
The petitioner also explained that the Treasurer/Finance employee performs the following duties: 
"set up appropriate systems for book-keeping, payments, lodgments & petty cash"; "ensure that 
appropriate financial systems and controls are in place"; "ensure everyone handling money keeps 
proper records and documentation"; "present regular reports on the organization's financial 
position"; "present revised financial forecasts based on actual spend"; "prepare and present budgets 
for new or ongoing work"; and, "advise on financial implications of strategic and operational plans. " 
The petitioner did not provide position descriptions for the project/marketing manager, the project 
assistant or the sales incharge employee. It provided evidence of wages paid to all employees except 
for the "Treasurer/Finance." 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary 
would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director did not support his finding that the petitioner has 
insufficient staff to relieve the beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties, and that the 
director failed to take into account the nature of the business when considering the petitioner's 
staffing levels. The petitioner further contends that the director appeared to require that the 
beneficiary perform exclusively qualifying managerial or executive tasks. 
2. Analysis 
Upon review, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be employed m a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, we. review the totality 
of the record, starting first with the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's job duties. See 8 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
C.P.R. § 204.50)(5). A detailed job description is crucial, as the duties themselves will reveal 
the true nature of the beneficiary's foreign and proposed employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). We .will then 
consider this information in light of other relevant factors, including job descriptions of the 
beneficiary's subordinate employees, the nature of the business that is conducted, the foreign 
company's subordinate staff, and any other facts contributing to a comprehensive understanding 
of the beneficiary's actual role within the foreign entity. While an entity with a limited support 
staff will not be precluded from the immigration benefit sought herein, it is subject to the same 
burden of proof that applies to a larger entity with a moderate or large subordinate staff. In other 
words, regardless of an entity's size or support staff, the petitioning entity must be able to 
provide sufficient evidence showing that it has the capability of maintaining its daily operations 
such that the beneficiary was relieved from having to primarily perform the operational tasks. 
At the time of filing, the petitioner provided a list of duties that described the beneficiary's 
position in very generalized terms, noting that he will "efficiently direct the overall business 
operation of [the petitioner]"; "formulate policies and draw strategic plans to market the products 
of [the foreign entity] in Nepal, using a wide latitude of discretionary decision making power"; 
and, "provide effective leadership and sound guidance to the supporting staff, particularly those 
at the supervisory level, to facilitate efficient day-to-day management of [the petitioner]." The 
.duties were overly broad and lacked any specific references to the petitioner's distribution 
business or to the specific tasks the beneficiary performs on a day-to-day basis. For example, the 
petitioner did not provide any further information regarding strategies for generating resources 
and revenues for the company, who the beneficiary supervises in this regard, or what specific 
activities the beneficiary must perform when directing the overall business. 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. 
Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990). 
Although the petitioner provided an expanded description in response to the RFE, that 
description also included duties that were described in broad terms and included potentially non­
qualifying duties. For example, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary would allocate 15% of 
his time to meeting with clients and potential clients and an additional 13% of his time to 
attending "various business related meetings," but did not provide sufficient explanation as to 
how these client and business meetings involve managerial or executive duties. The petitioner 
indicated that the beneficiary allocates another 10% of his time to "go over" employee and client 
"issues" but, again, without further explanation it is unclear whether these duties should be 
characterized as managerial or executive in nature. Finally, the petitioner indicated that the 
beneficiary allocates 5% of his time to "inspection of new inventory" and 15% of his time to 
"research market trends," which suggests that he directly performs these non-managerial duties 
rather than delegating them to subordinate staff members. Overall, these duties, which account 
for 58% of the beneficiary's time, cannot be classified as qualifying duties based on the limited 
.information provided. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
Reciting the beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not 
sufficient; the regulations require a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. The 
petitioner has failed to provide any detail or explanation of the beneficiary's activities in the 
course of his daily routine. The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the 
employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. At 1108, affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990). 
The definitions of executive and managerial capacity have two parts. First, the petitioner must 
show that the beneficiary performs the high level responsibilities that are specified in the 
definitions. Second, the petitioner must prove that the beneficiary primarily performs these 
specified responsibilities and does not spend a majority of his or her time on day-to-day 
functions. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 
30, 1991). 
While performing non-qualifying tasks necessary to produce a product or service or other non­
managerial duties will not automatically disqualify the beneficiary as long as those tasks are not 
the majority of the beneficiary's duties, the petitioner still has the burden of establishing that the 
·beneficiary is "primarily" performing managerial or executive duties. Section 101(a)(44) of the 
Act. An employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or provide 
a service is not considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity. 
See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the 
enumerated managerial or executive duties); see also Matter of Church Scientology 
International, 19 I & N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). Here, while the beneficiary has the 
appropriate level of authority over the company as the petitioner's senior employee, the 
petitioner's descriptions of his duties are insufficient to establish that his day-to-day tasks are 
primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, including the 
petitioner's organizational structure, the duties of the beneficiary's subordinate employees, the 
presence of other employees to relieve the beneficiary from performing operational duties, the 
nature of the petitioner's business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a 
beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
The petitioner submitted an organizational chart that indicated the beneficiary would supervise a 
Treasurer/Finance employee. However, according to the Forms W-2 for 2012 and the Forms 
NYS-45, Quarterly Combined Withholding, Wage Reporting, and Unemployment Insurance 
Return, for 2012 submitted by the petitioner to indicate all of its employees, no documentation 
indicated that the individual that held the position of Treasurer/Finance was actually employed 
. by the company. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record 
by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will 
not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth 
lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). The petitioner indicated that the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
Treasurer/Finance employee would "set up appropriate systems for book-keeping, payments, 
lodgments & petty cash"; "ensure that appropriate financial systems and controls are in place"; 
"ensure everyone handling money keeps proper records and documentation"; "present regular 
reports on the organization's financial position"; "present revised financial forecasts based on 
actual spend"; "prepare and present budgets for new or ongoing work"; and, "advise on financial 
implications of strategic and operational plans. " Thus, without evidence that the 
Treasurer/Finance position was filled, it is not clear who is handling all of the financial 
operations of the business or that the beneficiary is relieved from performing these duties. 
We acknowledge that the petitioner has established that it employs the vice president, who 
reports to the beneficiary and is claimed to supervise the three lower-level staff. The statutory 
definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A)(i) and 
(ii). Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. Contrary to the common understanding of 
the word "manager," 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." Section 101(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act; 8 C. F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(B)(2). Here, while the beneficiary may allocate some of his time to qualifying 
supervisory duties, the record does not establish that he primarily supervises and controls the 
work of subordinate managers or professionals. As discussed, nearly 60% of his time, according 
to the petitioner's breakdown of his job duties, is allocated to duties unrelated to personnel 
supervision. The petitioner has not established that the ·beneficiary qualifies as a personnel 
manager and has not claimed that he manages an essential function of the company. 
The petitioner stated that it is "an importer and distributor of woven high end handmade and 
hand knotted carpets, and pashmina shawls produced by its parent company in Nepal. " The 
petitioner submitted a copy of its lease, which indicates that it operates a store selling home 
decorations, clothing and carpeting. As noted above, it appears that the petitioner employs five 
individuals. The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the petitioner employs a 
Treasurer/Finance employee. Further, although it has provided evidence of wages paid to the 
vice president, project/marketing manager, project assistant and sales incharge employee, it has 
not provided job descriptions for three of these positions. As such it is unclear that the petitioner 
has sufficient employees that would perform the various operational tasks inherent in operating 
the business on a daily basis, such as market research, ordering inventory, handling the financial 
and administrative operations, shipping, customs, negotiating contracts, and routine sales. The 
petitioner has failed to provide a sufficiently detailed explanation, along with credible and 
probative supporting documentation, establishing the U.S. entity's overall organizational 
structure, staffing levels, and the scope of its business activities at the time of filing. The record 
is unclear as to the beneficiary's actual role will be, and as to the petitioner's actual staffing 
levels. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
The petitioner correctly observes that a company's size alone, without taking into account the 
reasonable needs of the organization, may not be the determining factor in denying a visa to a 
multinational manager or executive. See§ 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act, 8 U. S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(C). 
However, it is appropriate for USCIS to consider the size of the petitioning company in 
conjunction with other relevant factors, such as a company's small personnel size, 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. See, 
e.g. 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 size of a company may be especially relevant when USCIS notes 
discrepancies in the record and fails to believe that the facts asserted are true. See Systronics, 153 
F. Supp. 2d at 15. Here, the petitioner provided a vague description of the ben�ficiary's duties 
that included a number of potentially non-qualifying tasks. It did not provide position 
descriptions for lower-level staff, nor did it document its employment of all of the staff named on 
its organizational chart. There is simply insufficient evidence to establish how work is allocated 
among the petitioner's five person staff to supporting a finding that the beneficiary performs 
primarily qualifying managerial or executive duties. 
The petitioner cites National Hand Tool Corp. v. Pasquarell, 889 F.2d 1472, n.5 (5th Cir. 1989), 
and Mars Jewelers, Inc. v. INS, 702 F.Supp. 1570, 1573 (N.D. Ga. 1988), in support of its 
assertion that the small size of a petitioner will not, by itself, undermine a finding that a 
beneficiary will act in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. First, we note that the 
petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are 
analogous to those in National Hand Tool Corp., where the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 
decided in favor of the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), or Mars Jewelers, 
Inc., where the district court found in favor of the plaintiff. In addition, as noted in our decision, 
the petitioner provided a vague and nonspecific description of the beneficiary's duties that fails 
to demonstrate what the beneficiary will do on a day-to-day basis and which includes several 
non-qualifying duties. In addition, the petitioner did not provide sufficient information of its 
employees, the job duties performed by each employee and the work schedules maintained by 
each employee. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm'r 1972)). 
With respect to Mars Jewelers, we are not bound to follow the published decision of a United 
. States district court in matters arising within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 
715 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due 
-consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter 
of law. Id. at 719. 
In both National Hand Tool Corp. and Mars Jewelers, Inc., the courts emphasized that the 
former INS should not place undue emphasis on the size of a petitioner's business operations in 
its review of an alien's claimed managerial or executive capacity. We have interpreted the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11. 
regulations and statute to prohibit discrimination against small or mediu:rp-size businesses. 
However, consistent with both the statute and the holding of National Hand Tool Corp., we 
require the petitioner to establish that the beneficiary's position consists of primarily managerial 
or executive duties and that the petitioner will have sufficient personnel to relieve the beneficiary 
from performing operational and/or administrative tasks. Like the court in National Hand Tool 
Cor.p., we emphasize that our holding is based on the conclusion that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary is primarily performing managerial duties; our decision does not 
rest on the size of the petitioning entity. 889 F.2d at 1472, n.5. 
In the instant matter, the job description submitted by the petitioner provides little insight into the 
true nature of the tasks the beneficiary will perform. While the petitioner has provided a 
breakdown of the percentage of time the beneficiary will spend on various duties, the petitioner 
has not articulated whether each duty is managerial or executive. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit 
sought. See sec. 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1361; see also Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 
. (BIA 1966). The petitioner must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the beneficiary is 
fully qualified for the benefit sought. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
The "preponderance of the evidence" standard requires that the evidence demonstrate that the 
applicant's claim is "probably true," where the determination of "truth" is made based on the 
factual circumstances of each individual case. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 (citing 
Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989)). In evaluating the evidence, the truth is 
to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Id. Thus, in 
adjudicating the application pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard, the director 
must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both 
individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact 
to be proven is probably true. 
Here, the submitted evidence does not meet the preponderance of the evidence standard. As 
noted in the director's decision, the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish the 
petitioner meets the regulatory requirements to establish eligibility for the I -140 immigrant visa 
petition. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
B. Prior Approvals 
The petitioner emphasizes that the beneficiary has been previously been granted extensions of 
his L-1A status as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity. It must be 
noted that many I-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant 
I-129 L-1 petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); 
IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Examining the consequences of an approved petition, 
there is a significant difference between a nonimmigrant L-1A visa classification, which allows 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
an alien to enter the United States temporarily, and an immigrant E-13 visa petition, which 
permits an alien to apply for permanent residence in the United States and, if granted, ultimately 
apply for naturalization as a United States citizen. Cf. §§ 204 and 214 of the Act, 8 U. S.C. §§ 
1154 and 1184; see also§ 316 of the Act, 8 U.S. C. § 1427. 
Each petition filing is a separate proceeding with a separate record. See 8 C. P.R. § 103.8( d). In 
making a determination of statutory eligibility, USCIS is limited to the information contained in 
the record of proceeding. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(16)(ii). In the present matter, the director 
reviewed the record of proceeding and concluded that the petitioner was ineligible for the benefit 
. sought. In both the request for evidence and the final denial, the director clearly articulated the 
objective statutory and regulatory requirements and applied them to the case at hand. For the 
reasons addressed above, the decision was appropriate based on the evidence submitted in 
support of the instant petition. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, 
it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 
291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here the 
petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.