dismissed EB-1C Case: Cleaning Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OFF-USA, LLC 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 12, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a residential and commercial cleaning and maintenance services provider, seeks to 
permanently employ the Beneficiary as its general manager' under the first preference immigrant 
classification for multinational executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to 
permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in an executive or 
managerial capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in an 
executive capacity; and (2) the Beneficiary was employed by a qualifying entity abroad for at least 
one year in the three years preceding the tiling of the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it has submitted "overwhelming evidence"' establishing that its 
foreign parent company employed the Beneficiary in a qualifying capacity for at least one year 
during the relevant three-year period. With respect to the Beneficiary's proposed employment, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Director did not consider the totality of the evidence and erroneously 
determined that the company cannot support an executive position. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
An immigrant visa is available to a beneficiary who, in the three years preceding the tiling of the 
petition, has been employed outside the United States for at least one year in a managerial or executive 
capacity, and seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render managerial or executive 
services to the same employer or to its subsidiary or affiliate. Section 203(b )( 1 )(C) of the Act. 
The Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, must include a statement from an authorized 
official of the petitioning United States employer which demonstrates that the beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding 
1 The Petitioner also refers to the Beneficiary's proffered position as "'president." 
Matter ofF-USA, LLC 
the filing of the petition, that the beneficiary is coming to work in the United States for the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer, and tha1 t the prospective U.S. employer 
has been doing business tor at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3). 
"Executive capacity'' is defined as an assignment within an organization in which the employee 
primarily: directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the 
organization; establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component or function: 
exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or 
direction from higher-level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) ofthe Act. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (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 1 01 (a)( 44 )(C) of the Act. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in 
the United States in an executive capacity? He observed that the Petitioner provided a broad 
description of the Beneficiary's position that was insufficient to establish that her actual day-to-day 
duties would be primarily executive in nature. The Director also emphasized that, while the 
Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary directly supervises two subordinate managers, one appears 
to be a part-time employee, and the record included no evidence of payments made to the other, a 
claimed independent contractor. Finally, the Director found that there were certain non-executive 
duties that had not been assigned to any of the subordinate employees. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director overlooked relevant evidence, including the 
duty descriptions provided for subordinate staff that relieves the Beneficiary from involvement in 
the business' operational tasks. The Petitioner contends that it described the Beneficiary"s duties in 
sufficient detail and that most, if not all, of those duties are executive in nature. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5) requires the Petitioner to submit a statement which clearly 
describes the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary. Beyond the required description of the job 
duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the evidence when examining a beneficiary's claimed 
managerial or executive capacity, including 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. our analysis of this 
issue will focus on the Beneficiary's duties as well as the company"s staffing levels and reporting 
structure. 
~ The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity. 
2 
Matter ofF-USA, LLC 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities 
consistent with the statutory definition of executive capacity. Champion World. Inc. v. INS, 940 
F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). In addition, the Petitioner must prove that 
the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in executive duties, as opposed to ordinary operational 
activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCJS, 469 F.3d 1313, 
1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner, which operates a franchised commercial and residential maid service business. has 
offered the Beneficiary the position of general manager. The Petitioner provided a lengthy 
description of the Beneficiary's duties in response to a request for evidence (RFE). Briefly, the 
Petitioner stated that she would allocate her time to 13 areas of responsibility as follows: 
1. Oversees the work of Operations Manager and Service/Sales Manager for 
compliance with established policies and objectives of the company (20%) 
2. Establishes the goals and policies ofl the Petitioner] ( 5%) 
3. Directs, plans or coordinates the organization's financial and budget activities ... 
and prepare detailed reports concerning those activities, expenses. budgets and 
other items affecting the business (20%) 
4. Monitors revenues and profits in order to develop and market additional 
services offered to potential residential and commercial clientele (5%) 
5. Decides budget for the company (5%) 
6. Reviews financial statements and budget reports including those for funding for 
[the Petitioner] (5%) 
7. Presides over and serves on [the foreign parent company's] Board of Directors 
(5%) 
8. Maintains direct contact with [the foreign entity] (5%) 
9. Responsible for development, employment, and marketing plan (5%) 
10. Implements corrective action plans to solve organizational or departmental 
problems (5%) 
11. Reviews and gives final approval to contracts and agreements with commercial 
customers, suppliers, contractors, and other entities as [negotiated] by managers 
(5%) 
12. Direct, plan and implement policies, objectives, and activities of [the Petitioner] 
0 0 0 (10%) 
13. Direct human resources activities, including the hiring of more employees for 
company expansion, firing employees and establishment of departments within 
[the Petitioner] (5%) 
The description, while lengthy, does not provide sufficient insight into the nature of the 
Beneficiary's duties on a day-to-day basis. For example, the Petitioner indicates that she will 
allocate 30 percent of her time to duties related to overseeing the company's budget and financial 
activities, but did not elaborate further on the tasks that would routinely occupy her time. The 
3 
Matter ofF-USA, LLC 
Petitioner employs an administrative assistant and a contracted accountant, but it did not provide a 
position description for the assistant or evidence of the nature and scope of services provided by the 
accountant. As such, we cannot determine that the Beneficiary is relieved from involvement in 
routine financial matters of the business such as invoicing, accounts payable and receivable, and 
banking. 
Another 20 percent of the Beneficiary's time would be allocated to oversight of the operations 
manager and the sales and service manager. However, as discussed further below, the Petitioner has 
not provided evidence that it actually engages the sales and service manager. Further, as noted by 
the Director, the operations manager received a salary commensurate with part-time employment 
($9,533) in 2015. The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary delegates many operational duties to 
these two employees and the lack of evidence that they are employed as full-time managers raises 
questions regarding the accuracy of her job description as a whole and the extent to which the 
Beneficiary directs the company through her subordinates. For example, the Petitioner indicates that 
the Beneficiary merely gives final approval for contracts and delegates sales and marketing duties to 
her subordinates. Notwithstanding this claim, the record contains copies of service proposals the 
Beneficiary prepared for clients, suggesting that she is directly involved in marketing and selling the 
company's services. As the submitted job description does not acknowledge these non-qualifying 
duties, we cannot determine how much ofthe Beneficiary's time would be allocated to them. 
Finally, the Petitioner described some of the Beneficiary's responsibilities in very general terms that 
paraphrase the definition of "executive capacity" and do not offer sufficient insight into her day-to­
day tasks. The following tasks are included in her job description: "implements corrective action 
plans to solve organizational or departmental problems"; "sets the business strategies''; "direct, plan, 
and implement policies, objectives and activities"; "establishes the goals and policies"; and "sets the 
company policies for dealing with customers and employees.'' Although these responsibilities are 
intended to establish the Beneficiary's executive capacity, the duty description is repetitive and 
overly vague. Conclusory assertions regarding the Beneficiary's employment capacity are not 
sufficient. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the 
Petitioner's burden of proof. 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); Avyr Assocs .. Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 
(S.D.N.Y.). 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person· s elevated position 
within a complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the 
organization, and that person's authority to direct the organization. Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" and "establish 
the goals and policies" of that organization. Inherent to the definition, a beneficiary must primarily 
focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than the day-to-day operations of the 
enterprise. An individual will not be deemed an executive under the statute simply because they 
have an executive title or because they "direct" the enterprise as the owner or sole managerial 
employee. A beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision making'' and 
receive only "general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors. or 
stockholders of the organization.'' !d. 
4 
.
Matter ofF- USA, LLC 
Whether the broad duties attributed to the Beneficiary qualify as executive in nature depends in large 
part on whether the Petitioner established that she has sufficient subordinate stafT to manage and 
perform the day-to-day company activities she is claimed to direct. As discussed further below, the 
Petitioner has not shown its ability to relieve the Beneficiary from significant involvement in the 
operational tasks required to operate its business. 
The fact that the Beneficiary will direct a business as its senior employee does not necessarily 
establish eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in an executive capacity within 
the meaning of section I 01 (a)( 44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires 
that the duties of a position be "primarily" executive in nature. Section I 01 (A)( 44 )(B) of the Act. 
Even though the Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the Petitioner's operations and possess 
authority with respect to discretionary decision-making, the position description alone is insufTicient 
to establish her employment in an executive capacity. 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that it has an organizational 
hierarchy in place sufficient to relieve the Beneficiary from involvement in the day-to-day 
operations of the business. 
The Petitioner stated on the Form I-140 that it had 11 employees when it filed the petition in October 
2015. The Petitioner submitted a January 2015 organizational chart, which showed the Beneficiary 
as president directly supervising an operations manager. The operations manager's direct reports 
included a sales and service manager , a coordination and training employee , a schedule manager, a 
supplies and purchase employee , and the contracted accountant. The chart depicted a crew leader 
and five maid and housekeeping employees reporting to the sales and service manager, and 
vacancies for a floor maintenance position and an executive assistant. 3 
Comparing the chart to the Petitioner's payroll records, we note that one of the listed maid and 
housekeeping employees was no longer employed when Petitioner filed the petition 
October 2015, and another maid and housekeeper left the company while the petition 
was pending and was not replaced. Further , we note that the contractor identified as the 
"coordination and training " employee , who was paid $11,586.22 in 2015 , received only $1 ,716.65 in 
2016 and also appears to have left the company . The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility 
requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the tiling and 
continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.2(b )(1 ). 
In reviewing the Petitioner's staffing, the Director specifically pointed to a lack of evidence that the 
Petitioner has actually paid the claimed sales and service manager for his services, and further noted 
3 The record shows that the Petitioner had actually hired an executive /administrative assistant prior to filing 
the petition and she remained with the company through 2016 . The Petitioner also paid approximately $1.300 to a 
contracted carpet cleaning company in both 2015 and 2016 , and we assume this is the "floor maintenance " position 
identified on the chart. 
5 
Matter ofF-USA, LLC 
that the operations manager receives wages commensurate with a part-time position. Both of these 
employees are charged with carrying out duties delegated by the Beneficiary and therefore are 
claimed to relieve her from involvement in day-to-day operational and administrative activities. 
Therefore, the Beneficiary's supervision of these two subordinate managers is critical to the 
Petitioner's claim that she would be employed in a qualifying executive capacity. 
As evidence that it employs the sales and service manager, who is charged with sales and marketing 
functions and overseeing all cleaning crews, the Petitioner submitted a sales agreement executed in 
March 2012. This individual agreed to "perform marketing services which shall include personal 
contact with perspective [sic] customers, and provide or distribute advertisements for the company.'' 
It also stated that the individual would "manage the company's services" but did not elaborate or 
refer to any specific, identifiable managerial or supervisory responsibilities. He was to receive a 
commission of 15% of the gross receipts generated from his sales efforts and issued IRS Form I 099. 
The Petitioner did not provide evidence showing that it ever paid this person and he was not among 
the individuals who received IRS Forms 1099 in 2015 or 2016. Further, the duties described in the 
sales agreement are not consistent with the supervisory responsibilities the Petitioner attributes to 
this position. Although the Director specifically pointed out a lack of evidence related to this 
individual, the Petitioner has neither acknowledged nor addressed this deficiency on appeal. The 
record does not establish that the Petitioner employs or contracts a sales and service manager or 
established which, if any, of the Beneficiary's subordinates is actually performing the company's 
sales. As noted, the record includes evidence that the Beneficiary herself has been preparing and 
delivering sales proposals. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner employs the operations manager, but the Director raised 
concerns that this does not appear to be a full-time position. This employee received $9,533.31 in 
wages in 2015, less than several of the maid and housekeeping employees. The Petitioner has not 
acknowledged the Director's concerns or further elaborated on this employee's full- or part-time 
status. Further, some of the duties assigned to this employee, which include developing and 
disseminating policies and objectives, managing the operations of the company, and hiring and tiring 
employees, closely resemble duties already assigned to the Beneficiary. The evidence must 
substantiate that the duties of a beneficiary and his or her subordinates correspond to their placement 
in an organization's structural hierarchy. 
In this regard, we note that the Petitioner has submitted job descriptions for its "supplies/purchase'' 
employee and "schedule manager" which appear to be incongruent with the nature and scope of the 
company. For example, a job description submitted for the supplies/purchase employee states that 
she manages procurement staff, develops the company's purchasing program, "maintains connection 
with ... the accounting, manufacturing and stock departments'' and "manages raw material, work­
in-process, and finished goods inventories to meet production plans and customer expectations." 
The Petitioner does not depict this position as a supervisory role on its organizational chart. It has 
no "procurement staff," raw material and finished goods inventories, or manufacturing and stock 
departments. Therefore, this description does not appear to accurately represent this employee's 
actual duties. The "schedule manager" position includes a mix of administrative tasks that are likely 
Matter ofF-USA, LLC 
performed by the administrative assistant, and tasks that are already assigned to other employees, 
such as supervising "hiring, performance appraisals, promotions, transfers and vacation schedules:· 
As such, it is also unclear what this employee actually does. 
Finally, we note that, even though the Petitioner states that it has over 150 residential and 
commercial clients who regularly use its cleaning and housekeeping services, by the time the 
petition was adjudicated, the company employed just one crew leader and three housekeeping staff. 
At least three of these four employees were not full-time workers based on their salaries. This lack 
of lower-level staff casts further doubt on the descriptions provided for the schedule manager, 
operations manager, and supplies/purchase employee. After reviewing the totality of the record, it is 
reasonable to conclude that most of the subordinate staff members, including those assigned 
managerial titles or depicted as supervisors on the organizational chart, are more likely than not 
engaged in the provision of the Petitioner's services. 
Section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act requires that USCIS must take into account the reasonable needs of 
the organization in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization if 
staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial or 
executive capacity. We must take into account the reasonable needs of the organization and that a 
company's size alone may not be the only factor in denying a visa petition for classification as a 
multinational manager or executive. See section 101 (a)( 44 )(C) of the Act. However, it is 
appropriate for USCIS to consider the size of the petitioning company in conjunction with other 
relevant factors, such as the absence of employees who would perform the non-managerial or non­
executive operations of the company. 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. See Systronics, 153 F. Supp. 2d 
at 15. 
Here, while the Petitioner may have sufficient staff to provide the company's services, the record 
does not support its claim that the Beneficiary oversees subordinate managerial employees who 
supervise separate divisions of the company. Nor has the Petitioner established that it actually has 
employees dedicated to perform various operational duties such as purchasing, sales, marketing, and 
routine financial tasks. As noted, the Petitioner has not documented payments to one of its key 
"managers" and has submitted job descriptions for subordinate employees which are incongruous 
with the nature of the organization. The Petitioner must resolve these ambiguities in the record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ql Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582. 
591-92 (BIA 1988). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would be 
sufficiently relieved from involvement in the day-to-day operations of the company, despite her 
senior position in the company hierarchy. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not met its burden to 
show that her duties would be primarily executive in nature. 
Matter ofF- USA, LLC 
IlL ONE YEAR OF EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
The Director also determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary had one year of 
employment abroad with a qualifying entity during the relevant three-year period.
4 
The Director 
considered evidence of the Beneficiary's employment prior to 2012 and determined that there were 
unresolved inconsistencies in the record regarding her foreign employer's identity. Further, the 
Director determined that even if the Petitioner did establish that the Beneficiary worked for its 
foreign parent company for at least one year between 2009 and 2012, the Petitioner is required to 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary's qualifying employment abroad occurred in the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it submitted "overwhelming evidence" of the Beneficiary's 
employment with its parent company prior to her last entry to the United States as a nonimmigrant in 
February 2012. Further, the Petitioner asserts that the Director misapplied the regulations pertaining 
to the foreign employment requirement. Specifically, the Petitioner contends that it is not required 
to show that the Beneficiary's employment abroad occurred in the three years preceding the tiling of 
the Petition in October 2015 because she was working in the United States for the Petitioner in L-1 A 
status at the time of filing. 
Upon review, we agree with the Petitioner that the Director used the incorrect reference point by 
requiring that the Beneficiary's employment abroad occurred between October 2012 and October 
2015. 
The regulations require that, if a beneficiary is already in the United States working for an entity that 
has a qualifying relationship with their foreign employer, the petitioner must establish that the 
beneficiary was employed by the entity abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one 
year in the three years preceding the beneficiary's entry as a nonimmigrant. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B). 
The Petitioner claims that its parent company employed the Beneficiary in Brazil from 2005 until 
early 2012, when she last entered the United States. The Petitioner tiled an L-1 A intracompany 
transferee petition on the Beneficiary's behalf in May 2012 and requested at that time that she be 
granted a change of nonimmigrant status from B-2 to L-1 A. USC IS ultimately approved both the 
petition and the request for a change of status in April 2015. The Director's calculation did not take 
into account the fact that the Beneficiary was working for the Petitioner in L-1 A status when the 
petition was filed. 
For purposes of determining whether the Beneficiary had the required one year of employment 
abroad, we will look at the three-year period preceding the Petitioner's filing of her approved L-1 A 
4 
Although the Director concluded that the Beneficiary did not have the required year of employment abroad in a 
managerial or executive capacity, the denial decision did not reach a discussion of the Beneficiary's employment 
capacity and instead focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that she had one year of employment 
abroad during the relevant three-year period. 
.
Matter ofF- USA, LLC 
petition in May 2012. This is the date on which she sought "entry'' as a nonimmigrant to work for a 
qualifying subsidiary of her claimed foreign employer. Therefore, we must look at the evidence of 
her employment abroad for the period May 2009 through May 2012. 
The record contains the following evidence from the foreign entity relating to this period of time: 
• Receipts of payment of salary to the Beneficiary for the period January 2011 through 
December 2011, with English translation. 5 According to these receipts, she received a 
monthly salary ofR$7,500 to R$7,800 and had Brazilian income taxes deducted. 
• "RAIS - Annual List of Payroll Year - Base: 2011" for the year 2011. The Beneficiary was 
not listed among the employees included in this 28-page document. 
• Simplified Annual Corporate Income Tax Statement for tax year 2011 (calendar year 201 0) 
indicating that the Beneficiary received R$26, 150.28 in exempt income as a 25% partner in 
the company and no taxable income. 
• Five company documents signed by the Beneficiary on behalf of the foreign entity (dated in 
December 2011, May 2011, April 2011, August 2010 and May 20 10). 
• Letter from the foreign entity's human resources director, dated March 20, 2016, indicating 
that the Beneficiary worked full-time as its partner and director beginning in 2005. 
• The Beneficiary's resume, in which she states she was the parent entity's director from 2005 
until 2013 and had no other prior employers. 
In a request for evidence, the Director advised the Petitioner of an inconsistency with respect to the 
Beneficiary's employment history. Specifically, the Director noted that the Beneficiary had 
identified her current foreign employer as · when she applied for a 
B1/B2 visa at the U.S. Consulate in in September 2011. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted two letters from the Beneficiary which included essentially the 
same statement from her. In a letter dated Apri I 22, 2016, she stated: 
I am unsure where it says that I was employed by 
but I did not work there full-time. I owned 
It may be stated somewhere, 
was a failing restaurant donated to me by the owner. I did not operate that business. 
There were other personnel managing that business. I was working full-time at [the 
Petitioner's parent company]. I only came to check on during the night-time. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter dated March 2016 from 
According to this letter, donated the restaurant in question to the Beneficiary 
"in the year 201 0" because of "the lack of time from the owner to manage the cafeteria.·· The 
unidentified person who signed the letter stated that the "cafeteria activities occur only during the 
5 
The English translation of these documents indicates that the Beneficiary's title ("operations manager'') appears on 
each pay statement. However, the Portuguese words for "operations manager" (gerente de operar,:ties) do not appear to 
be on the original documents. 
9 
.
Matter ofF-USA, LLC 
night period and did not interfere in the daytime activities of [the Beneficiary] nor in [the foreign 
entity]." 
The Director did not find this explanation sufficient to overcome the Beneficiary's statement on her 
visa application, which was contrary to the Petitioner's claim that she worked solely for its parent 
company from 2005 until her entry to the United States in February 2012. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not consider the "overwhelming evidence" 
establishing that the Beneficiary was employed by its parent company during the relevant three-year 
period. 
Upon review, we disagree that the Petitioner provided "overwhelming" evidence of the 
Beneficiary's employment with its parent company. Although the Petitioner submitted the 
Beneficiary's purported monthly pay statements for 2011, the foreign entity did not list her on its 
"RAIS - Annual List of Payroll" which appears to be an official annual tax document. The foreign 
entity's tax return indicates the Beneficiary's 25% ownership of the company and receipt of income 
in 2010, but does not show that she received taxable income from the company in the form of a 
salary, commensurate with the amounts reflected in her pay statements. The Petitioner did not 
submit, for example, the Beneficiary's personal income tax return, which may clarify whether she 
actually received the claimed salary payments. 
These issues alone may provide insufficient reason to doubt the Petitioner's otherwise consistent 
claim that its parent company employed the Beneficiary between 2009 and 2012. However, the 
record does not contain a sufficient explanation for the Beneficiary's own 
statement that she was 
working for as of September 2011. The Beneficiary's statement that she 
did not work there and that the company was simply "donated'' to her is not sufficient in light of her 
statement on her visa application and based on the fact that the Beneficiary's own name is included 
in the name of this company. As noted, the Petitioner must resolve discrepancies in the record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. 
While the Beneficiary is associated with the Petitioner's parent company as one of its three partners 
and received income as a result of this ownership interest, we find that there are unresolved 
inconsistencies in the record concerning her employment and little information regarding when the 
Beneficiary acquired her ownership of The statement from the claimed 
former owner of the restaurant is not sufficient and it is unclear how this company's representative 
was in a position to confirm the Beneficiary's full-time employment with the Petitioner's parent 
company or her level of involvement with the restaurant following her claimed acquisition through 
donation. The record is simply deficient in this regard. 
For these reasons, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary 
had the required one year of employment abroad with the foreign entity during the relevant three­
year period. 
10 
Matter ofF-USA, LLC 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed as the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it would employ the 
Beneficiary in an executive capacity or that the Beneficiary had one year of employment with the 
foreign entity in the three years preceding her entry to the United States as a nonimmigrant to work 
for the Petitioner. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofF-USA, LLC, ID# 824136 (AAO Dec. 12, 2017) 
11