dismissed EB-1C Case: Import/Export

i&tifying data deleted to 
prevent cleady unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacj 
PUBLIC copy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Oflce of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
(. 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 SEP o 3 2009 
SRC 02 241 53 183 
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. 3 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner is a corporation incorporated in the State of Florida that claims to be engaged in the 
export and import of diesel injection and tractor parts. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as the 
president, treasure and director of its U.S. operations. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to 
classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 11 53(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or 
manager. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner had not established that the 
beneficiary will be employed by the United States entity in a primarily managerial or executive 
capacity. The director further found that the petitioner has failed to establish that it had been doing 
business for one year prior to the filing of the immigrant petition. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner contends that the 
director's decision is in error. Counsel asserts that the beneficiary will be employed by the U.S. 
entity in a managerial capacity, and that the petitioner has been doing business since its inception in 
1999. Counsel submits additional evidence on appeal to support these assertions. 
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 the firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate 
or subsidiary of that entity, and 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 that indicates that the alien is to be employed in the United States in 
a managerial or executive capacity. Such a statement must clearly describe the duties to be 
performed by the alien. See 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(j)(5). 
The first issue in the present matter is whether the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily 
managerial or executive capacity by the United States entity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 101(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 fhction 
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. 5 1 101 (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; 
(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. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-140, Immigration Petition for Alien Worker, on August 7, 2002. No 
supplemental evidence was submitted at that time. 
On January 22,2003, the director issued a request for further evidence (RFE), in which he instructed 
the petitioner to submit evidence of the staffing level in the United States, including the position 
titles, duties, and educational levels of all employees. The director also requested Internal Revenue 
Service (IRS) Forms W-2 for the year 2002 for all employees, a copy of the petitioner's corporate tax 
return for 2002, and a copy of IRS Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, for each 
quarter in 2002. 
In response, the petitioner submitted an organizational chart showing that the U.S. company's staff 
consisted of the beneficiary as president, treasurer and director; an individual serving as vice 
president, secretary, and director; an administrative manager; and a marketing employee. The 
petitioner only submitted Forms W-2 and job descriptions for the beneficiary, the vice president, and 
the administrative manager. It is also noted that on the Form 1-140 the petitioner indicated that it has 
3 persons on staff. The description of the beneficiary's job duties in the U.S. company includes: 
The daily monitoring of the financial aspects of the [U.S. company]. 
The implementation and enforcement of budgetary guidelines for the expansion of 
the [U.S. company] in its aim to wholesale USA manufactured diesel injection 
and tractor parts. . . . This duty includes travel within the United States to meet 
with suppliers to expand the line of U.S. manufactured parts currently being sold 
overseas and locally. 
The planning of the daily activities of [the U.S. company], both in the banking 
realm and the delivery and export division. 
Administrative management of the sales staff. 
Review on a daily and weekly basis the financial reports and supporting 
documents with relation to the progress and continued success of the forecasted 
sales achievement objectives of the company. 
The petitioner also indicated that as chief executive officer of the petitioner's international group, the 
beneficiary's duties include: 
Planning, implementation, control and performance of the general strategies for 
the international business objectives. 
The monitoring via phone and computer communication systems of the progress 
and management of the production, manufacturing status report, and inventory 
levels to meet future shipment needs to both the USA and foreign corporations. 
On March 3 1, 2003, the director issued a second RFE. With respect to the beneficiary's position in 
the United States, the director requested a statement describing the proposed job duties of the 
beneficiary, including position title, all duties, and percentage of time spent on each duty. The 
petitioner was also asked to disclose the number of subordinate manager/supervisors or other 
employees reporting directly to the beneficiary, along with a brief description of their job titles, 
duties and educational levels. 
In a letter dated April 25, 2003, the petitioner provided the following description of the beneficiary's 
job duties in the United States: 
As President, Treasurer and Director of [the U.S. company], his duties include: 
The daily monitoring of the financial aspects of the [U.S. company]. He will 
continue to be fully responsible of the financial viability of [the U.S. company], 
including directing the auditing of accounts to insure compliance with established 
standard procedures and practices. 
He will continue to be responsible for directing and coordinating the activities of 
managerial personnel, which are involved in the performance of internal 
operations of the business, included [sic] the managerial personnel of the 
Multinational Group. Also, he will continue to be responsible for hiring the 
necessary personnel of the company. 
He will be responsible for reviewing on a daily and weekly basis the activity 
reports and financial statements to determine the company's progress and the 
success of the commercial operation. 
The implementation and enforcement of budgetary guidelines for the expansion of 
the [U.S. company] in its aim to wholesale the line of USA manufactured diesel 
injection and tractor parts currently being sold overseas and locally. 
He will continue to Planning [sic] of the daily activities of [the U.S. company], 
both in the local American market and the International export market. 
The petitioner provided the following breakdown in terms of percentage of time the beneficiary 
spends on each duty: 
Review of financial reports 20% Approximate. 
Review of activity reports 20% " 
Management meetings 20% " 
Management of Subordinate Managers 25% " 
Management of Multinational Group Managers 15% " 
With respect to other employees, the petitioner stated that the U.S. company's staff consisted of "the 
President, the Sales Manager, the Administrative Manager, the Marketing Manager," and a 
Commercial Coordinator to be hired in the future. However, the petitioner resubmitted the previous 
organizational chart that included only four employees -- the beneficiary as president, a vice 
president/secretary/director, an administrative manager and a marketing manager. The petitioner 
resubmitted the previous job descriptions for the vice president and administrative manager, and 
added a job description for the marketing manager. 
According to the petitioner, the vice president/secretary/director acts as general sales manager for 
[the U.S. company] both in the United States and overseas. His job duties include: 
Frequent travel within the United States and abroad to maintain close contact with 
the customers and to meet with them on a monthly basis to assess their future 
buying requirements. 
Conducting sales marketing research both within the United States and overseas 
in order to determine the needs of each market section. 
Meets with customers to coordinate design concepts for customized . . . parts. 
Obtains final approval and determines the wholesales price and [quantity of 
orders]. 
Periodically meets with corporate USA distributors to provide sales consultation 
and technical support. . . 
The administrative manager's duties include: 
The production and review of the daily inventory reports. 
The control of inventory and shipment reports for both United States sales and 
overseas shipments. 
Coordination of the manufacturing requirement deadlines to meet the purchase 
orders placed on a timely basis. 
Contact with customers requirement shipping confirmation dates [sic]. 
Update of the inventory items sheets for the over 1.600 diesel injection and tractor 
parts that this company sells or manufactures. 
Customer service representatives. 
Order shipment fulfillment confirmation Dept. Manager to better serve the needs 
of the customers. 
The marketing manager's duties include: 
Production of marketing sales analysis reports. 
Permanent marketing research as supporting of the own products market position. 
Graphic display and reporting on the expansion of the USA diesel injection and 
tractor parts goal mission. 
Public relations person with new and established customers. 
Seeking new business customers in different geographic regions coinciding with 
the expansion plan in effect since the year 2000. 
In charge of generating target sales market in formation for further expansion and 
hire of new employees. 
The petitioner also stated that, as chief executive officer of the petitioner's international group, the 
beneficiary manages ten managers based in Colombia and Venezuela. The petitioner provided the 
name, job title, and a brief description of the duties and education level of each of these employees. 
On June 6, 2008, the director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner had not established 
that the beneficiary will be employed by the U.S. company in a primarily managerial or executive 
capacity. The director found that the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary is acting in an executive 
capacity is primarily based on a set of broad job responsibilities which suggests a heightened degree 
of authority, but which fails to convey an understanding of what the beneficiary would actually do 
on a daily basis. The director also noted that at the time the petition was filed, the petitioner 
employed three employees, and the small number of employees indicates that the beneficiary is 
likely to be performing daily functions associated with running a business that may not qualify as 
managerial or executive. The director found that, based on the evidence provided, it cannot be 
concluded that the beneficiary is acting primarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner maintains that the beneficiary's daily activities as president of 
the U.S. company are executive in nature. Reiterating various aspects of the beneficiary's job 
descriptions, counsel asserts that the beneficiary oversees not only the daily activities of the US. 
employees, but also all the department heads of the petitioner's three affiliates in Colombia and 
Venezuela. Counsel also asserts that the beneficiary principally and primarily manages the 
company, and that he is clearly employed in an executive capacity according to the regulatory 
definition of that term. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's conclusion that the petitioner has failed to 
establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a primarily executive or 
managerial capacity. 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to 
the petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). 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 either in an executive or managerial capacity. Id. Beyond the required 
description of the job duties, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (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 a complete 
understanding of a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
In this instance, the petitioner has provided a vague and nonspecific description of the beneficiary's 
duties that fails to demonstrate what the beneficiary does on a day-to-day basis. For example, the 
petitioner states that the beneficiary's duties include "the daily monitoring of the financial aspects of 
[the U.S. company]," "directing and coordinating the activities of managerial personnel," 
"implementation and enforcement of budgetary guidelines" and "planning . . . the daily activities of 
[the U.S. company]." Reciting the beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business 
objectives is not sufficient. Further, in response to the director's request that the petitioner provides 
a breakdown in percentage of time the beneficiary spends per duty, the petitioner stated that the 
beneficiary spends 20% on the review of financial reports, 20% on the review of activity reports, 
20% on management meetings; 25% on the management of subordinate managers, and 15% on the 
management of multinational group managers. The petitioner provided no details as to what 
activities of the managerial personnel or of the company the beneficiary would be planning, 
directing or coordinating; what "monitoring [the] financial aspects of the company," or 
implementing and enforcing the budgetary guidelines would entail; or what specific tasks 
"management of the subordinate managers" would involve. The regulations require, and the director 
requested in the RFE, a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. The petitioner has 
failed to answer a critical question in this case: What does the beneficiary primarily do on a daily 
basis? The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1 103, 1 108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), agd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 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. Id. 
Along with showing that the beneficiary performs the high-level responsibilities that are specified in 
the definitions of "executive capacity" and "managerial capacity," the petitioner must prove that the 
beneficiary primarily performs these specified responsibilities and does not spend a majority of his 
time on day-to-day functions. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 1991 WL 
144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). Whether the beneficiary is a managerial or executive employee 
turns on whether the petitioner has sustained its burden of proving that his duties are "primarily" 
managerial or executive. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. Here, there is insufficient 
evidence to demonstrate what proportion of the beneficiary's duties would be managerial hctions 
and what proportion would be non-managerial. In view of the broadly drawn categories of 
responsibilities as described above, and the lack of details regarding the beneficiary's daily tasks, the 
AAO cannot determine whether the beneficiary is primarily performing the duties of a manager or 
executive. 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 Intn I, 19 I&N 
Dec. 593,604 (Comm. 1988)). 
Further, counsel claims that the beneficiary functions primarily in an executive capacity. 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 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 
1101(a)(44)(B). 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 the beneficiary to direct and 
the beneficiary must primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than 
the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. 
Y age Y 
Additionally, although the beneficiary is not required to supervise personnel, if it is claimed that his 
duties involve supervising employees, the petitioner must establish that the subordinate employees 
are supervisory, professional, or managerial. See $ 101 (a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
In this instance, the evidence does not establish that the beneficiary supervises a subordinate 
managerial level of employees. While the petitioner claimed that the beneficiary has three 
employees with managerial titles under his direction, the record does not support the conclusion that 
these employees function in a managerial capacity. None of these employees -- the vice president 
acting as sales manager, the administrative manager, and the marketing manager1 - supervises 
subordinate staff, such that they could be considered "personnel managers" or supervisors. Nor can 
the beneficiary's subordinates be considered "function managers," insofar as each appear to be 
directly performing the duties relating to the sales, administrative, and marketing functions, 
respectively, rather than managing these functions. An employee who primarily performs the tasks 
necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be "primarily" employed 
in a managerial or executive capacity. Boyang, Ltd. v. I.N.S., 67 F.3d 305 (Table), 1995 WL 576839 
(9th Cir, 1995)(citing Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 604. 
The evidence also fails to establish that the beneficiary manages "professional" employees. In 
evaluating whether the beneficiary's subordinate employees are professionals, the AAO must 
evaluate whether the subordinate positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry 
into the field of endeavor. Section 101(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1101(a)(32), states that "[tlhe 
term profession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, 
surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." The 
term "profession" contemplates knowledge or learning, not merely skill, of an advanced type in a 
given field gained by a prolonged course of specialized instruction and study of at least 
baccalaureate level, which is a realistic prerequisite to entry into the particular field of endeavor. 
Matter of Sea, 19 I&N Dec. 81 7 (Comm. 1988); Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (R.C. 1968); 
Matter of Shin, 11 I&N Dec. 686 (D.D. 1966). 
Therefore, the AAO must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the 
degree held by subordinate employee. The petitioner appeared to indicate that the beneficiary's 
subordinate employees have some university-level education, although the meaning of the term 
"universitary formation [sic]" used to describe each of these employees' educational level is unclear. 
Regardless, the petitioner has not provided any evidence that a bachelor's degree is actually 
necessary to perform the functions of any of the beneficiary's subordinates. As such, the petitioner 
has also failed to establish that the beneficiary supervises professional employees. 
Finally, it is noted that the petitioner claimed that the beneficiary spends 15% of his time managing 
multiple managers within the petitioner's international group. However, the petitioner failed to 
I 
 It is unclear based on the record whether the marketing manager was actually employed by the petitioner at the time 
the petition was filed. As previously noted, while the organizational chart provided in response to the first RFE shows 
that there was a marketing employee on staff, the petitioner did not submit a Form W-2 or job description for that 
employee with the initial petition or in its response to the first RFE. 
describe in any detail the beneficiary's management duties in connection with that group of 
employees, nor does the petitioner explain how the international employees would relieve the 
beneficiary from performing the day-to-day, non-qualifying duties in connection with the operations 
of the U.S. company. In fact, the brief descriptions of the job duties of these foreign managers 
indicate that their responsibilities are linked to the facilities where they are located, in Colombia or 
Venezuela, and are not integrated into the operations of the U.S. company. 
In light of the foregoing, the AAO concurs with the director's conclusion that the petitioner has 
failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a primarily executive or managerial 
capacity in the United States. For that reason, the petition will be denied. 
The second issue in this matter is whether the petitioner was doing business for at least one year 
prior to the filing of the petition. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R.$204.5(j)(3)(i) states: 
Required evidence. A petition for a multinational executive or manager must be 
accompanied by a statement from an authorized official of the petitioning United 
States employer which demonstrates that: 
* * * 
(D) The prospective employer has been doing business for at least one 
year. 
Further, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(j)(2) states: 
Doing business means the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods 
and/or services by a firm, corporation, or other entity and does not include the mere 
presence of an agent or office. 
In the second RFE, the director requested that the beneficiary submit "evidence of the business 
conducted by the United States entity, such as invoices, bills of sale, and product brochure of goods 
sold or produced by the company" dating from August 2001 to the present. 
In response, the petitioner provided, among other things, (1) a lease agreement for the premises 
located at the petitioner's current address, dated December 14, 2000 with an automatic renewal 
clause for up to three years after that date; (2) a number of customer referrals, including a letter 
dated April 23, 2003 from Costex Tractor Parts, stating that it has been doing business with the 
petitioner since 1999, and a letter dated April 28, 2003 from colBOX, Inc., stating that the petitioner 
has been its customer since 2000; and (3) a list of the U.S. company's invoices from August 23,2001 
through March 3 1, 2003, listing the date, number and amount of each invoice. The petitioner also 
submitted numerous copies of invoices of transactions in which it was either the customer or 
provider. However, it is noted that the invoices submitted only go back as far as January 17,2002. 
In denying the petition, the director found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that it has been 
doing business for at least one year prior to the filing of the petition. The director noted that, 
although the RFE explicitly asked the petitioner to provide evidence that it was doing business from 
August 2001 to the present, the petitioner submitted evidence that the company was doing business 
in 2002 and 2003, but failed to provide any evidence of that nature for the year 2001. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserted that since its incorporation in December 1999, the U.S. 
company has been actively conducting its business and has filed its annual tax returns with the IRS. 
Counsel also maintains that the petitioner has provided ample evidence of business conducted as 
requested, and would submit further evidence if needed. The petitioner submitted copies of its 2000 
and 2001 Forms 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, in support of this assertion. The 
petitioner's Forms 1120 indicate that its gross receipts or sales totaled $328,497 for the year 2000, 
and $438,666 for the year 2001. 
Upon review, the AAO finds that the petitioner has sufficiently shown that it had been doing 
business for at least one year prior to the filing of the petition. While the record lacks copies of the 
U.S. company's invoices predating 2002, it does contain a detailed list of the company's sale invoices 
going back to August 2001, as well as letters from third parties confirming that they have conducted 
business with the petitioner since 1999 and 2000. These items, along with the gross receipts figures 
on the petitioner's corporate tax returns submitted on appeal, sufficiently demonstrate that the 
company has been "doing business," as defined under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(j)(2) for at least one year 
prior to the filing of the petition. Accordingly, the director's finding with regards to that issue is 
hereby withdrawn. 
Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary 
will be primarily employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity, as discussed 
earlier. For that reason, the petition will be denied. 
The AAO acknowledges that USCIS has previously approved multiple L-1A petitions filed by the 
petitioner on behalf of the instant beneficiary. The AAO also notes that, as the petitioner indicated, 
the petition was first submitted in August 2002 and was adjudicated in June 2008. It must be noted 
that many I- 1 40 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; Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103. 
Examining the consequences of an approved petition, there is a significant difference between a 
nonimmigrant L- 1 A visa classification, which allows 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. CJ $8 
204 and 214 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $5 1154 and 1184; see also 5 316 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1427. 
Because USCIS spends less time reviewing 1-129 nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 immigrant 
petitions, some nonimmigrant L-1A petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. 
v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also 8 C.F.R. 214.2(1)(14)(i) (requiring no supporting 
documentation to file a petition to extend an L-1A petition's validity). 
Despite any number of previously approved petitions, and any delay between the initial submission 
of a petition and its adjudication, USCIS does not have any authority to confer an immigration 
benefit when the petitioner fails to meet its burden of proof in a subsequent petition. See section 291 
of the Act. Based on the lack of required evidence of eligibility in the current record, the AAO finds 
that the director was justified in departing from the previous nonimmigrant petition approvals by 
denying the instant petition. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
Accordingly, the director's decision will be affirmed and the petition will be denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.