dismissed EB-1C Case: Party Supplies Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF D-A- CORP 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT . 30, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR AN ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner , describing itself as a manufacturer and seller of party supplies, seeks to permanently 
employ the Beneficiary as its president 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 on multiple grounds concluding that the 
Petitioner did not establish that: (1) the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity in the United States; (2) it was doing business as defined by the regulations; and (3) the 
Beneficiary had been employed in a managerial or executive capacity in his former position abroad. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the submitted documentation , including an expert opinion letter 
provided on appeal, establishes that the Beneficiary would act in an executive capacity in the United 
States and that she acted in an executive capacity abroad . In addition, the Petitioner provides invoices 
on appeal it contends demonstrate that it does business as defined by the regulations . 1 
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)(l)(C) of the Act. 
1 The Petitioner provides numerous invoices on appeal indicating that it more likely than not regularly sold linens and other 
similar party items as of the date the petition was filed. Likewise , the Petitioner provided an 2017 IRS Form 1120, U.S. 
Corporation Income Tax Return reflecting that it earned $283,693 in revenue during the year preceding the date the petition 
was filed on December 12, 2017 . Therefore , we conclude that the Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to establish 
that it was doing business as of the date the petition was filed; as such, this ground for dismissal will be withdrawn . 
Matter of D-A- Corp 
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 
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. § 204.5(i)(3). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The first issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would act in 
an executive capacity in the United States. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary would 
be employed in a managerial capacity in the United States. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to 
whether the Beneficiary would be 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 executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review 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 an executive capacity. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(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. 
Accordingly, we will discuss evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of 
the nature of the Petitioner's business, its staffing levels, and its organizational structure. 
A. Duties 
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). The Petitioner must also 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. 
In a support letter provided with the petition, the Petitioner indicated that it had acquired a business 
engaged in manufacturing linens and other fabrics and noted that its "mission is to provide party 
organizers and event planners with custom designed linens, tabletops and other fabric related party 
2 
Matter of D-A- Corp 
supplies to allow them to create their final occasion." Later in response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that it was engaged in the business of wedding, birthday, and 
corporate event linen and decoration rentals, and noted that it was also venturing "into the Interior 
Decorating business, from project design to execution." 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner listed some of the following duties for the Beneficiary: 
• Oversee design, marketing, promotion, delivery and quality of programs, products 
and services and prudently manage the company's resources within budget 
guidelines, 
• Effectively direct the human resources of the organization through management 
according to authorized personnel policies and procedures, 
• Assure the organization and its products and services are consistently presented in 
a strong, positive image, 
• Control the company's operations and profitability by ensuring that it is in 
compliance with regulations and laws, 
• Ensure that all financial reports are prepared according to generally accepted 
accounting principles, 
• Evaluates requests for capital expenditures to determine feasibility and return on 
investments, 
• Plan, direct, and control the formulation oflong-term business plans and the overall 
business, 
• Plan, direct, and control the management of the company's financial accounting, 
monitoring, and reporting systems, 
• Plan, direct, and control, the management of reviews and evaluations for cost­
reduction opportunities, 
• Evaluate sales forecast and quotas established by the managers, 
• Plan, direct, and control the management of developing external relationships with 
appropriate key contacts, attorneys, bankers, and accountants, and 
• Plan, direct, and control the management of arranging new sources of finance for 
the company's debt facilities. 
In a later RFE, the Director indicated that the Beneficiary's asserted U.S. duties were "vague, broad, 
[ and] repetitive" and concluded that they had failed to describe what she would be doing on a daily 
basis. As such, the Director requested that the Petitioner submit a statement clearly describing the 
Beneficiary's daily duties and tasks. 
In response, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "established new policies," including exploring 
the interior decoration business. The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary had decided that this 
new service would include "the design and implementation of new ambiances" and that they would 
cater to corporate clients pursuant to a new "business to business" marketing strategy. It farther 
explained that the Beneficiary "regularly attends industry trade events" and that she had identified the 
opportunity to "sell to other Business[es] who in tum supply professional grade linens." It noted that 
it had seen "a dramatic reduction in our Costs of Goods Sold under [the] Beneficiary's leadership" 
3 
Matter of D-A- Corp 
due to her establishing "a Series of Administrative and Operational Directives." The Petitioner also 
listed policies the Beneficiary had, and would, set including some of the following: 
• A purchasing policy including 'just in time" elements, low "buffer stocks," using vendors 
with short "lead times," and close coordination with production facility, 
• A production policy emphasizing reductions in steps, reductions in wait times, high level 
of precision and excellence, training, use and preservation of materials. 
• A new location policy calling for a show room "to be more accessible and suitable for 
prospective and existing clients," 
• A fabric and thread selection policy indicating that "fabric should generally follow design," 
"acquired at roll level," "be the genuine article," and "threads should be the strongest," 
• A fabric supplier selection policy providing that fabrics should be sourced from primary 
sources and that quality and consistency taking precedence over price, 
• A linen design policy dictating that company "accommodate client's custom design 
proposals" and that "designs should be suitable to client's needs and wants, 
• A sewing pattern policy "based on proprietary sewing patterns" which are copyrighted, 
• An auction, out of business sales, and liquidation participation policy where the 
Beneficiary "will establish the Policy concerning when, how and to what extent ... [the] 
Petitioner [ will] source its raw material, 
• Pricing policies and discount policies, and 
• A logistics subcontractor policy, since it is "key that [the] Beneficiary establish criteria for 
the selection oflogistics providers." 
Furthermore, the Petitioner also submitted some of the following additional duties for the Beneficiary: 
• Meet regularly with managers, (production manager, administrative manager, and 
the marketing and sales manager), to discuss matters requiring executive attention, 
• Review reports of these managers to assess whether policies are being met and issue 
recommendations, 
• Conduct random site visits to production floor and warehouse, 
• Negotiate terms with suppliers, contractors, and clients, 
• Provide guidance to promote future compliance and reassess policies, 
• Review training personnel logs and assess whether training policies are being 
followed, 
• Review key performance indicators and formulate and articulate additional 
directives to management, including reducing costs in half based on the 
implementation of these (KP Is), 
• Exercise final say on social media platforms and messages, 
• Decide on when to start sourcing cloth from Europe, Asia, or the United States, 
• Decide when to give credit to a client, 
• Approve variances in terms of contracts entered into with cloth suppliers, logistics 
subcontractors and/or clients, 
• Decide which trade events she will attend, 
• Make final decisions concerning settlement of legal, fiscal, commercial actions or 
disputes, 
4 
Matter of D-A- Corp 
• Dispose of any stale, worn or outdated linen inventory, 
• Decide on the insurance policy to contract for the company, and 
• Handle bank relationships at the highest level. 
First, the Petitioner has submitted duty descriptions indicating that she is involved with nearly every 
operational aspect of the business, including assessing the company's stock levels and disposing of 
dated inventory, reducing lead times at its "production facility," assessing a new locations for the 
business, reviewing fabric design, and selecting sourcing for its materials. Likewise, the meandering 
duty description provided for the Beneficiary reflects her direct involvement in accommodating client 
design requests and needs, setting specific project pricing, handling social media activity, deciding 
when to extend credit, and attending trade shows. In contrast, the record includes no evidence of the 
Beneficiary delegating these operational aspects to her claimed managerial and operational 
subordinates. In fact, the list of policies the Beneficiary "will" establish reflects what she would or 
might accomplish in the future, but it does not indicate whether she has set these policies and that she 
was primarily delegating and dictating these matters to her subordinates as of the date the petition was 
filed. In fact, the Petitioner submits no documentary evidence to substantiate the existence of these 
asserted policies. 
Whether the Beneficiary is a managerial or executive employee turns on whether the Petitioner has 
sustained its burden of proving that their duties are "primarily" executive. See sections 10l(a)(44)(B) 
of the Act. Here, the Petitioner does not document what proportion of the Beneficiary's duties would 
be executive functions and what proportion would be non-qualifying. The Petitioner lists the 
Beneficiary's duties as including several administrative or operational tasks, but does not quantify the 
time she spends on these different duties. Although the Petitioner generally indicates the time the 
Beneficiary spends on different duties, such as devoting 18% of her time to "onsite IT personnel 
meetings" or 18% to "onsite meetings with staff," these vague categories do not effectively convey 
what portion of her time is spent performing non-qualifying operational tasks. Indeed, based on the 
Petitioner's lengthy description of the Beneficiary's activities, there appear to be few operational 
aspects of the business that she will not be directly engaged in and it has not properly detailed and 
documented how she was primarily delegating these tasks to her subordinates as of the date the petition 
was filed. For this reason, we cannot determine whether the Beneficiary is primarily performing the 
duties of an executive. See IKEA US, Inc. v. US. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 
1999). 
In addition, to the extent the Petitioner lists duties that suggest the Beneficiary's performance of 
executive level tasks, they are generic and do not effectively substantiate that she performs them. For 
instance, the Petitioner emphasized that the Beneficiary cut the company costs in half and that she 
implemented "KPis" which helped achieve this goal; however, it does not explain the specifics of how 
she accomplished this, the KPis that were put in place, nor does not submit documentary evidence to 
corroborate this initiative. Similarly, the Petitioner points to the Beneficiary's implementation of a 
new policies related to purchasing and production, but there is no detail as to the vendors she selected 
or negotiated with or how she reduced production times. 
Likewise, the record does not explain the specific directives the Beneficiary issued, suppliers or clients 
she negotiated with, training policies she implemented, sourcing decisions she made, variances she 
5 
Matter of D-A- Corp 
approved, final decisions she made on fiscal matters, or banking relationships she handled. Further, 
the Beneficiary's initial duty description includes several duties that appear to bear little resemblance 
to the later description of her tasks. For instance, there is little detail and no documentation to 
substantiate the budget guidelines the Beneficiary set, the human resources policies and procedures 
she put in place, accounting issues she resolved, capital expenditures she approved, sales quotas she 
set, external relationships she developed with key contacts, attorneys, bankers, and accountants, and 
new fonding sources she procured for the company's "debt facilities." 
The Beneficiary's duty descriptions include several generic tasks that could apply to any executive 
acting in any business or industry and they do not provide insight into the actual nature of her role. 
The Petitioner provided insufficient examples and little supporting documentation to demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's performance of qualifying duties. Specifics are clearly an important indication of 
whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions 
would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 
1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). In fact, to the extent the Petitioner 
provides specifics regarding the Beneficiary's activities, this indicates her involvement in nearly every 
operational aspect of the business and there is little documentation to corroborate that she primary 
delegates these non-qualifying tasks to her subordinates. 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the organization, the fact that she will 
manage or direct the business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as a 
multinational executive within the meaning of section 101 (a)( 44 )(B) of the Act. The Beneficiary may 
exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of 
authority with respect to discretionary decision-making; however, the position description alone is 
insufficient to establish that her actual duties would be primarily executive in nature. 
B. Staffing 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in an executive 
capacity, we take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of its overall purpose 
and stage of development. See section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. 
On the Form 1-140, the Petitioner stated that it had seven employees at the time the petition was filed. 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner provided an organizational chart dated in December 2016, 
approximately one year prior to the date of the petition. This chart reflected that the Beneficiary 
supervised an executive assistant, and finance and administration, sales, and production managers. 
The finance and administration manager was shown to supervise a bookkeeper, while the sales 
manager was shown to oversee a marketing employee and an events coordinator. Meanwhile, this 
chart indicated that the production manager supervised two fabric cutters, three seamers, and an 
assembler. In total, this chart showed that the Petitioner employed thirteen employees beyond the 
Beneficiary. 
Later in response to the RFE in December 2018, the Petitioner provided a list of "current and former 
employees" showing that at this time it employed eight individuals beyond the Beneficiary, including 
6 
Matter of D-A- Corp 
a "manager administrative," a marketing manager, a fabric cutter, two seamers, an ironer, and 
employees devoted to "Out Souses [sic]" and "washing and iron fabric." 
In addition, the Petitioner provided a business plan including an organizational chart which reflected 
that the Beneficiary supervised an executive assistant and an operations manager, while the operations 
manager was shown to oversee finance and administration and marketing and sales managers, a 
production coordinator, and a "home decor designer & CAD renderer." This chart also indicated that 
the finance and administration manager supervised an "outsourced" bookkeeper and that the marketing 
and sales manager oversaw a sales executive and an online sales employee "to be hired." Further, the 
chart reflected that the production coordinator oversaw fabric cutters, seamers, and assemblers, 
generally referred to as "direct labor cost" in the chart. 
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, the 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." 
Id. 
The Petitioner has not submitted a definitive organizational chart corresponding with the date the 
petition was filed to demonstrate that the Beneficiary acted within a complex organizational hierarchy 
at this time. For instance, in support of the petition, the Petitioner submitted an organizational chart 
dated in December 2016, approximately one year prior to the date the petition was filed. Further, the 
Petitioner then provided a list of employees working for the company as of the RFE response, or 
approximately one year after the date of the petition. In addition, it submitted an organizational chart 
with its business plan; however, it is not clear to what time this chart relates, as it is undated. In fact, 
the Petitioner submits on appeal a listing of its "current" staff reflecting a list of employees generally 
consistent with the chart set forth in the business plan. This staff listing on appeal shows two 
employees, the asserted "operational manager" and sales executive, who did not join the company 
until 2018. Therefore, since the petition was filed in December 2017, it appears that the business plan 
organizational chart does not coincide with the date the petition was filed. The Petitioner must 
establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time 
of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
Further, discrepancies between the provided organizational charts leave question as to the Petitioner's 
actual organizational structure as of the date the petition was filed. For instance, the employee listed 
as the sales manager in the first organizational chart is then listed as the finance and administration 
manager in the chart provided in the business plan. Meanwhile, the employee shown as the executive 
assistant in the initial organizational chart is listed as "manager administrative" in the RFE personnel 
list, and then as the production coordinator in the business plan organizational chart. Likewise, the 
7 
Matter of D-A- Corp 
personnel list provided with the RFE reflects a seamer who is shown to be the marketing and sales 
manager in the business plan organizational chart. The Petitioner provides no evidence on appeal to 
clarify its organizational structure as of the date of the petition. The Petitioner must resolve 
inconsistencies and discrepancies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to an expert opinion letter it submitted from an associate dean and 
professor of finance at the University ofl I However, this submitted expert letter does 
not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would act as an executive within a complex organizational 
hierarchy. In fact, the letter indicates that the Beneficiary would be responsible for "overseeing and 
supervising the work of multiple professional employees 2 ... who themselves lead developmental 
design projects," an assertion not previously offered by the Petitioner. Further, this statement that the 
Beneficiary oversees professional subordinates is inconsistent with its various organizational charts 
and her asserted duties. 
Further, the supervision of professionals does not establish that the Beneficiary acts in an executive 
capacity within a complex organizational hierarchy. This claim leaves question as to what 
organizational chart the professor reviewed in making his determinations; and as we have discussed, 
the Petitioner does not clearly describe and set forth its organizational structure as of the date the 
petition was filed. In fact, the expert letter states that the Beneficiary will have "several direct reports, 
including but not limited to administrative managers [ and] marketing professionals, and an individual 
with responsibility for outsourcing activities." However, this description of the Beneficiary's 
subordinates does not match with any of the submitted organizational charts, and the expert opinion 
does not provide credible details as to the Petitioner's organizational structure. For instance, it makes 
no specific mention of the claimed sales and marketing and production manager positions reflected in 
each of the conflicting organizational charts. 
The expert opinion also includes generic statements that shed little light on the Beneficiary's actual 
duties and how she qualifies as an executive. For example, the letter vaguely states that the Beneficiary 
would manage "the full cycle of the employer's business operations via the performance of functional 
management duties," that she will "demonstrate decisive management and decision-making," and that 
she would "ensure clear communication and alignment with her reports and the hiring of incremental 
staff skilled in the areas needed to be able to create high-quality goods." Again, these statements 
provide little detail as to the Beneficiary's actual daily tasks and leave question as to whether the 
claimed expert has full knowledge of her role. 
Further, although we acknowledge that the expert opm10n letter discusses various policies the 
Beneficiary "will" be tasked with creating, such as the aforementioned thread selection and proprietary 
design policies; as well as her responsibility to "provide her team with a clear framework for product 
2 To detennine whether a beneficiary manages professional employees, we must evaluate whether the subordinate positions 
require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining 
"profession" to mean "any occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum 
requirement for entry into the occupation"). Section IO I (a)(32) of the Act, states that "[t]he 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." 
8 
Matter of D-A- Corp 
development" and "review project plans to ensure consistency in designing core elements," there is 
little indication as to what she was specifically doing as of the date the petition was filed. This is 
particularly noteworthy since the expert opinion letter is dated in February 2019, over one year after 
the date the petition was filed; despite this, it includes few details as to what the Beneficiary had 
already accomplished or what policies she had established while acting in her asserted executive 
capacity in the United States. 
We may, in our discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, professional 
organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int 'l, 19 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, we are ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding a foreign national's eligibility. The submission of letters from experts 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. We may even give less weight 
to an opinion that is not corroborated or is in any way questionable. Id. Furthermore, merely repeating 
the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy a 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). Here, 
we did not find the provided expert opinion letter convincing in demonstrating that the Beneficiary 
acted in an executive capacity as of the date the petition was filed. 
In conclusion, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would act in an executive capacity 
under an approved petition. The Beneficiary's duty descriptions indicate the Beneficiary's wide 
ranging involvement in nearly all of the non-qualifying operational aspects of the business and it does 
not sufficiently articulate and document her qualifying executive-level duties as of the date the petition 
was filed. Further, the Petitioner did submit a clearly defined organizational chart corresponding to 
the date the petition was filed. Therefore, the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary would act in an elevated position within a complex organizational hierarchy or that she 
would be primarily tasked with directing the management and establishing the goals and policies of 
the organization, consistent with the statutory definition of an executive. 
III. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAP A CITY 
We will now briefly address whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary was employed in 
an executive capacity prior to her entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant. 
The Petitioner did not submit a sufficiently detailed foreign duty description describing the 
Beneficiary's day-to-day executive-level duties to support that she devoted her time primarily to 
qualifying tasks. The Beneficiary's foreign duty description includes several generic duties that could 
apply to any executive acting in any business or industry and they do not provide insight into the actual 
nature of her role abroad. The Petitioner provided insufficient examples and little supporting 
documentation to demonstrate the Beneficiary's performance of qualifying duties abroad, such as the 
procedures she monitored to "keep the highest standards of excellence," the "functions of the different 
departments" she coordinated, the sales, handling, and collection policies she set, required corrections 
she made to improve production levels, goods and service providers she worked with, or "logistics 
accomplishes [sic]" and "corresponding guidelines" she supervised. Again, specifics are clearly an 
important indication of whether a beneficiary's foreign duties are primarily executive in nature, 
9 
Matter of D-A- Corp 
otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. F edin Bros. 
Co., Ltd., at 724 F. Supp. at 1103, 1108. 
It is also noteworthy that the Petitioner does not clearly articulate what business the foreign employer 
conducted, and still conducts, abroad. In support of the petition, it submitted unexplained photographs 
showing woman's shoes, but otherwise it provides no details regarding the foreign employer's current 
or former operations. For instance, the expert opinion letter vaguely states that the foreign employer 
"is in business of buying, selling, distribution, import, export, design, and manufacture in Venezuela." 
The vague statements and lack of evidence specific to the foreign employer's operations leaves 
substantial question as to whether the Beneficiary acted in an executive capacity abroad. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary acted in an executive 
capacity in her former role abroad. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of D-A- Corp, ID# 4755085 (AAO Oct. 30, 2019) 
10