dismissed EB-1C Case: Hotel Development

MATTER OF B-G-, LLC 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 2, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a hotel developer, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as a construction 
project executive under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or 
managers. 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 record did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) the Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a 
managerial or executive capacity; (2) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity; and (3) the Petitioner has the ability to pay the Beneficiary's proffered wage. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the denial notice was 
confusingly worded, and that the Director ignored persuasive evidence that the Petitioner holds 
sufficient assets to pay the Beneficiary's salary. Upon review of the denial decision, we find that the 
decision informed the Petitioner of the deficiencies in the submitted evidence, and thus afforded the 
Petitioner sufficient means to remedy those deficiencies on appeal. Although the Petitioner may 
object to the wording and organization of the Director's decision, the assertions in the appellate brief 
demonstrate the Petitioner had a sufficient understanding of the grounds for denial. Any 
imperfections in the denial notice did not deny the Petitioner the opportunity to file a meaningful 
appeal. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
An immigrant visa is available to a beneficiary who, in the three years preceding the filing 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 1-140, 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 
Matter of B-G-, LLC 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding 
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 that the prospective U.S. employer has 
been doing business for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(3). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that it will employ the Beneficiary in an 
executive capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary will be or has been employed 
in a managerial capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary will be and 
has been employed in an executive capacity. 
"Executive capacity" means 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) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B). 
When examining the claimed executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly 
describe the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in a 
managerial or executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(5). Beyond the required description of the 
job duties, we examine 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. 
Based on the statutory definition of executive capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the 
Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 
1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, 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. USCIS, 469 F .3d 1313, 
1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
Accordingly, we will discuss evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of 
the nature of the Petitioner's business and its staffing levels. 
2 
.
Matter.of B-G-, LLC 
A. Duties 
On the petition form, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be "[r]esponsible for coordinating 
and overseeing projects of construction and development of hotel, providing cost analysis, project 
point person , managing resources, hiring and terminating managers and others, etc." 
In a job offer letter, the Petitioner stated: 
This position is responsible for leading project teams on the construction of projects 
ensuring project quality, schedule, cost control, safety and customer satisfaction 
objectives are met. [The Beneficiary] will report and provide weekly reports to the 
partners at [ the Petitioner's foreign affiliate]. [The Beneficiary] will plan, organize 
and control all resources (people and materials) for the successful execution of a 
project. 
The Petitioner's attorney of record provided a longer job description, but the detailed job description 
must come from the intending U.S. employer. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2G)(5). Assertions of counsel do 
not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533,534 n.2 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter 
of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980)). Counsel's statements must be substantiated 
in the record with independent evidence, which may include affidavits and declarations. 
In a separate letter, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's "position will oversee [a] joint venture 
between Petitioner and for construction and operation of ... [a] 
hotel at a specified location in Tennessee. The Petitioner stated that the position is 
permanent, but did not explain what the Beneficiary would do after the completion of the hotel's 
construction. 
After the Director asked for more details about the Beneficiary's intended duties, the Petitioner 
submitted a list of 24 items and a separate set of "supervisory responsibilities." Among the listed 
items are the following: 
Manages multiple projects and Project Managers concurrently 
Sets safety, quality, schedule, cost and owner relationship goals 
Reviews project proposal or plans to determine time frame, procedures for 
accomplishing project, staffing requirements, and allotment of available resources to 
various phases of the project 
Manages the financial aspects of contracts; assures job margin analysis is completed 
on a regular basis 
Manages the scope of work and his mastery of the contract documents 
3 
.
Matter of B-G-, LLC 
Establishes and maintains positive relationships with key owners, architects 
The "supervisory responsibilities" section reads: 
Manages one or more Project Managers, Superintendent, Project Engineer, and one or 
more construction admin. Is responsible for the overall direction, coordination, and 
evaluation of this unit. Carries out supervisory responsibilities in accordance with the 
organization's policies and applicable laws. Responsibilities may include 
interviewing, hiring, and training employees; planning, assigning, and directing work; 
appraising performance; rewarding and disciplining employees; addressing 
complaints and resolving problems. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the job description "appears to be too vague," listing 
general responsibilities but not "the day-to-day duties." 
On appeal, the Petitioner repeats the previous job description and provides a new list which, the 
Petitioner states, "break[ s] down to more specific elements ... the proposed day-to-day duties of 
Beneficiary": 
1. Report of construction work progress to the directors and equity owners; 
2. Submission of materials list to the suppliers and vendors for the next level of 
development; · 
3. Report of quality material used by contractors; 
4. Take status report of [materials] delivered to the worksite; 
5. Report by contractors of sub-contractors' proposed duties and estimate of costs; 
6. Review the quality of [materials] used and in compliance with the law; 
7. Review and submission of contractor's day-to-day work completion to the 
directors and equity owners; 
8. Review invoices submitted by contractors; 
9. Disburse checks to contractors for outstanding invoices; 
10. Review change orders and submit those orders for approval by directors and 
equity owners; 
11. Review change orders with contractors; 
12. Review contractors' referral and bidding of subcontractors; 
13. Present advance weekly timeline of proposed work completion to the directors 
and equity owners; 
14. Arbitrate between contractors and subcontractors; and 
15. Accompany site visitation by ~---------- representative. 
The newly-listed duties do not indicate an executive capacity. Rather than high-level discretionary 
authority over lower levels of management, the Beneficiary's duties include inspecting materials and 
preparing reports. Also, the latest list is not, as the Petitioner asserts, an elaboration or expansion on 
4 
.
Matter of B-G-, LLC 
the previous job description. Rather, it is very different from that description. The Director found 
the earlier description to be vague and generic, and we agree with that assessment. It more 
resembles a third-party template than a job-specific description. 
Furthermore, as we will discuss further below, the Petitioner's actual staffing does not match what 
the Petitioner described at the beginning of the proceeding. Because the job description includes 
authority over specified subordinates, the absence of those subordinates has obvious and significant 
consequences for the Beneficiary's eligibility and the credibility of the Petitioner's claims. 
The Beneficiary's name is on monthly project reports relating to the construction of the hotel in 
but the reports do not show what role, if any, the Beneficiary plays in that project. 
Instead, the Beneficiary described the progress of construction as related to him by the manager of 
The record does not indicate that the Beneficiary, or any of the Petitioner's employees, has a 
particularly active or central role on the hotel construction project at the heart of the petition. 
The Petitioner holds a 24% membership interest in which, in tum, contracted with 
to build the hotel in Therefore, the Petitioner is a 
party to the construction contract only as a minority member of . The contract 
between and does not mention the Petitioner 
directly, nor does it give the Petitioner an oversight role over the project. 
The Petitioner submitted a copy of a letter from owner of the 
brand, referring to a license agreement to open a at the address specified 
elsewhere in the record. We note that the licensee named in the agreement is not the Petitioner or 
neither of those companies existed at the time of the license agreement in 2014. 
Rather, the licensee is an individual who holds no interest in the petitioning company. He initially 
held a 72.5% interest in but sold some of that interest to the Petitioner.1 Therefore, the 
Petitioner is neither directly nor indirectly a party to the 2014 license agreement. 
The letter from included this passage: 
The Project Management team coordinates consulting services that range from 
assistance with design and construction and guest services to generating revenue 
through distribution systems and sales efforts. The team consists of a field-based 
Manager who will provide on-site consulting and a Support 
Coordinator in who will serve as your administrative and tracking arm. This 
team will: 
1 This same individual also signed the construction contract between 
But he signed it on behalf of 
ownership or authority over that company in addition to his plurality interest in 
5 
and 
indicating that he has some degree of 
.
Matter of B-G-, LLC 
• Track pre-opening progress on your project. 
• Provide focus and support for your team around the three key anchor dates of 
the opening process: 1) submittal of your plans, 2) groundbreaking, and 3) 
opening of your property. 
The agreement appears to indicate that has some role in construction project management. 
There is no indication that employees would answer to the Beneficiary. 
The Petitioner has submitted inconsistent job descriptions for the Beneficiary. Also, as noted above, 
the Petitioner is not a party to the licensing agreement with and hired 
contractors to build the hotel under the guidance of a project management team from The 
documentary evidence in the record specifies no role for the Petitioner in the project except for that 
of a passive investor, and the record does not adequately establish that an employee of a minority 
stakeholder would have executive authority over the project. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's duties 
would be primarily those of an executive. 
B. Staffing 
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, in light of 
the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(C) of the 
Act. 
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. 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, the organization must have a subordinate level of 
managerial employees for a beneficiary to direct and 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 an 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." Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart showing the following structure: 
6 
Matter of B-G-, LLC 
Construction Project Executive [ the Beneficiary] 
Project Manager 
uality Manager 
urchasing/Estimating Manager 
Subcontractor 
Superintendent/Human Resources 
kontract Procurement Associate 
Lsite Foreman 
The Petitioner's name appeared twice at the top of the organizational chart, with no indication that 
any of the individuals named actually work for contractors or other companies. 
The record does not show that the Petitioner actually employs any of the subordinates claimed 
above, The Petitioner did not name the individuals holding any of the subordinate positions or 
submit evidence of their employment. Although the petition form instructed the Petitioner to specify 
the number of its U.S. employees, the Petitioner left that information blank. Tax documentation 
indicates that the Petitioner paid no salaries in 2016. 
In the denial notice, the Director concluded that "the beneficiary appears to be the only employee of 
the company." On appeal, the Petitioner disputes this assertion, stating that it has an additional 
employee. The Director's conclusion was based on quarterly tax returns which showed only one 
employee. The Petitioner, however, paid the Beneficiary as a contractor rather than as an employee, 
so the one employee shown on the quarterly returns is not the Beneficiary. 
Tax and payroll documents from 2017 identify one employee, earning $1300 per month ($15,600 per 
year). This amount is slightly above the federal minimum wage for full-time employment. The 
Petitioner has not provided any information about this employee's job title or duties, but the low 
salary is not readily consistent with a managerial role subordinate to the Beneficiary's claimed 
executive authority. On appeal, the Petitioner refers to this individual only as "another employee 
that is not the Beneficiary." 
The Petitioner asserts, on appeal, that a petition cannot be denied solely on the basis of the 
company's size, but the statute explicitly says that the company's size can be considered as one 
factor among others. See section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act (which the Petitioner cites on appeal). 
We also consider the proposed position in light of the nature of the petitioner's business, its 
organizational structure, and the availability of staff to carry out the petitioner's daily operational 
tasks. Federal courts have generally agreed that, in reviewing the relevance of the number of 
employees a petitioner has, USCIS "may properly consider an organization's small size as one factor 
in assessing whether its operations are substantial enough to support a manager."2 Furthermore, it is 
2 Family, Inc. v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing with approval 
Republic of Transkei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 178 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Fedin Bros. Co. v. Sava, 905 F.2d at 42; Q Data 
.
Matter of B-G-, LLC 
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., Systronics Corp. v. INS, 
153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
In this instance, the Petitioner submitted a multi-level organizational chart under the heading of the 
Petitioner's own name and address, with no indication that the chart was hypothetical or prospective. 
On appeal, the Petitioner effectively stipulates that the company structure claimed on the 
organizational chart does not exist within the company. The Beneficiary's claimed duties, therefore, 
revolve around his authority over subordinates that he does not actually have, including "one or 
more Project Managers, Superintendent, Project Engineer, and one or more construction admin." 
The record does show that a contractor is building the hotel described in the record, and that 
has a contractual relationship with that contractor, but the Petitioner's status as a 
minority interest holder in does not compel the presumption that the Petitioner or 
the Beneficiary are actively involved in the construction project beyond providing some funding. 
Based on the deficiencies and inconsistencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
III. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
If the beneficiary of a given petition is already in the United States working for the foreign employer 
or its subsidiary or affiliate, then the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5G)(3)(i)(B) requires the petitioner 
to submit a statement from an authorized official of the petitioning United States employer which 
demonstrates that, in the three years preceding entry as a nonimmigrant, the Beneficiary was 
employed by the entity abroad for at least one year in a managerial or executive capacity. 
Initially, counsel for the Petitioner stated: 
The Beneficiary has been employed as an executive project developer at [the 
Petitioner's foreign affiliate] from June 2010 up to the present date. As an executive 
project developer, Beneficiary is responsible for overall supervision of all functions 
of the business including but not limited to cost analysis, project coordination, 
property purchase, marketing, and business development, and expansion of the 
overall company. 
Evidence of past employment must come from the employer. See 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(g)(l ). As noted 
above, counsel's unsupported assertions are not evidence. 
Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp . 2d 25, 29 (D.D.C. 2003). 
8 
.
Matter of B-G-, LLC 
The Petitioner submitted copies of pay receipts identifying the Beneficiary as the executive director 
of the foreign entity, but these materials are only evidence of the Beneficiary's title and payments 
made to the Beneficiary. 
The Petitioner also did not submit evidence regarding the foreign entity's staffing. Photographs of 
the foreign entity's office showed nearly-empty desks and shelves, and the foreign entity's income 
tax returns indicated that the company paid no salaries. The tax returns also showed minimal gross 
revenues of Rs.275,000 (US$4412) for the year ending March 31 , 2015, and Rs.491,600 (US$7429) 
for the following year.3 
The Director requested a statement from the employer detailing the Beneficiary's foreign 
employment , but the Petitioner's response did not include the requested statement. 
In the denial decision, the Director stated that the Petitioner did not "detail the beneficiary 's 
qualifying assignment abroad." On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "its initial filing ... [included] 
ample evidence to show the specified duties and experiences possessed by Beneficiary." The 
Petitioner does not elaborate, and the record does not support the Petitioner's assertion. 
The minimal evidence submitted by the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad, and held the title "executive director," but this information is not sufficient to show that he 
served in a qualifying executive capacity abroad. 
IV. ABILITY TO PAY . 
Any petition filed for an employment-based immigrant, which requires an offer of employment must 
be accompanied by evidence that the prospective United States employer has the ability to pay the 
proffered wage. The petitioner must demonstrate this ability at the time the priority date is 
established and continuing until the beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(g)(2). To establish its ability to pay, a petitioner must submit copies of its annual reports, 
federal tax returns, or audited financial statements. Id. 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary 's salary would be $65,000 per year. The Petitioner did 
not specify its gross or net annual income on the petition form, although the petition form requested 
that information. 
The Petitioner reported no income, expenses, or assets on its 2016 IRS Form 1065, U.S. Return of 
Partnership Income. The Petitioner submitted copies of bank statements showing no regular income. 
Instead, the Petitioner received two wire transfers from its parent company ($400,000 in April 2016 
and $50,000 in January 2017), most of which the Petitioner paid to "Payroll 
Details" indicated that the Petitioner paid the Beneficiary $4200 per month for the first three months 
of 2017. 
3 All historical exchange rates are from https://www.xe.com/currencytables/ (last visited July 25, 2018). 
9 
.
Matter of B-G-, LLC 
After the Director requested additional evidence, the Petitioner submitted an unaudited balance 
sheet, indicating that the company had over $400,000 in assets as of December 31, 2016. Most of 
that amount - over $394,000 - was in the form of the Petitioner's equity in _ An 
unaudited balance sheet is not an audited financial statement, and therefore it is not acceptable 
evidence of the Petitioner's ability to pay. 
The Petitioner also submitted bank documents showing a transfer of Rs.1.95 million (about 
US$30,000) from the company's foreign affiliate in September 2017. This transaction took place 
after the filing date and therefore does not reflect the Petitioner's finances at the time of filing. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the Petitioner cannot establish ability to pay through 
another company's financial documents, unaudited financial statements, or tax returns that do not 
show sufficient income or net current assets. 
The Petitioner states that its "net current income cannot be determined because the hotel is not in 
operation. The development is in its final stages." The Petitioner offers no persuasive explanation 
as to why this should be a factor in the Petitioner's favor. The Petitioner maintains that it "would be 
in [a] better position to show net income once the hotel is in operation," but the Petitioner must show 
eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). We cannot approve a deficient immigrant 
petition on the expectation that the Petitioner will eventually be able to produce documentation 
showing that it had adequate funds all along. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Director should have considered its equity in As for 
the capital, not all assets are current assets, readily available to convert into cash to pay salaries. 
Significantly, the Petitioner did not originally list its ~---- equity as assets on its IRS 
Form 1065 return. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a second version of that return, listing a preparation date of April 
11, 201 7 ( the day after the petition's filing date). The Petitioner submits no evidence to show when, 
or even if, it actually filed (as opposed to prepared) this return. 
Like a delayed birth certificate, the appearance of amended tax returns after the denial of the petition 
raises serious questions regarding the truth of the facts asserted. Cf Matter of Bueno, 21 I&N Dec. 
1029, 1033 (BIA 1997); see also Matter of Ma, 20 I&N Dec. 394 (BIA 1991) (discussing the 
evidentiary weight accorded to delayed birth certificates in immigrant visa proceedings). 
The revised return showed $7249 in net current assets, all in the form of cash. This amount covers 
less than half the $14,600 shortfall between the proffered wage and the Beneficiary's actual salary at 
the time of filing. The return lists the Petitioner's equity m _____ under "other 
investments," but this item does not fall under current assets. 
10 
.
Matter of B-G-, LLC 
is a separate legal entity from the Petitioner, and the Petitioner has not shown that it 
can freely draw on its equity in to pay its own expenses. The Petitioner did not 
document its sale of part of its membership interest, nor did the Petitioner show that 
has paid any distributions to its members. Therefore, we will not conclude that the Petitioner's 
equity in ____ constitutes current assets readily available to the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner asserts: "Pay stubs were provided to show that the Petitioner has the ability to pay 
Beneficiary's wages." The Petitioner submits a copy of IRS Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous 
Income, indicating that the Petitioner paid the Beneficiary $65,000 in "Nonemployee 
Compensation" during 2017. 
The monthly $4200 payments equate to $50,400 per year, which is only about three-quarters of the 
proffered $65,000 salary. Furthermore, the record is inconsistent about the timing of the payments. 
The in the initial submission indicated that the Petitioner issued check to the 
Beneficiary on February 1, 2017, with check following on March 1, 2017. But a subsequent 
bank statement shows that those two checks were posted the same day, March 2, 2017. (Likewise, 
the other employee's first two paychecks were supposedly issued a month apart, but were both 
posted the same day, March 13, 2017.) 
The bank statement shows six further payroll transactions for $4200 about once a month between 
April 2 and August 30, 2017. These eight transactions add up to $33,600, barely half the $65,000 
shown on the IRS Form 1099-MISC. The record does not show when, or in what form, the 
Beneficiary received the remaining $31,400. The absence of evidence showing how, and exactly 
when, the Petitioner purportedly paid the Beneficiary his full annual salary is a significant omission 
in the record. If the Petitioner underpaid the Beneficiary early in 2017, then later "catch-up" 
payments would not establish ability to pay at the time of filing. 
Due to the deficiencies described above, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence consistent with 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2) to show that it has been able to pay the Beneficiary's proffered salary since 
the filing date. 
V. DOING BUSINESS 
Although not addressed by the Director in the denial notice, we note that it does not appear the 
Petitioner has been doing business for at least one year prior to the date of filing the petition. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(D). Specifically, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) defines "doing 
business" as the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods, services, or both, by a firm, 
corporation, or other entity and does not include the mere presence of an agent or office. 
The Petitioner must show that it began doing business on or before April 10, 2016, which was one 
year before the filing date. 
11 
Matter of B-G-, LLC 
The Petitioner filed its on February 
25, 2016. In April of that year, the Petitioner filed a "new office" petition to classify the Beneficiary 
as an L-lA nonimmigrant. As noted above, the Petitioner's tax documentation shows no income and 
no salaries paid during 2016. Copies of the Petitioner's 2016 bank statements show minimal 
activity, consisting primarily of capital infusions from abroad and two checks issued to 
which consumed most of that capital. (The Petitioner paid $150,000 in May 2016 
and $244,222 in October 2016.) Investing in a company that one partly owns is not "doing 
business"; it is not the regular, systematic and continuous provision of goods or services. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that its "net current income cannot be determined because the hotel is 
not in operation." If the Petitioner still had not yet engaged in income-generating activity when it 
filed the appeal in January 2018, then it is not evident that the entity had been continuously doing 
business since April 2016. 
The record does not establish that the Petitioner had been doing business for at least a year prior to 
the filing of the petition. 
VI. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish its ability to pay the Beneficiary's proffered wage, or that the 
Beneficiary has been, and will be, employed in an executive capacity. The Petitioner also has not 
established that it has been doing business for at least a year prior to the petition's filing date. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of B-G-, LLC, ID# 1502126 (AAO Aug. 2, 2018) 
12