dismissed EB-1C Case: Skin Care Products

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-USA, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 15,2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, which sells and distributes skin care products manufactured by a foreign affiliate, 
seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its general manager under the first preference 
immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). This classification allows a U.S. 
employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in an 
executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petltwn. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record did not establish that: (1) the Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in 
a managerial or executive capacity; and (2) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits copies of previously 
submitted evidence and asserts that the Director erred by making arbitrary and unsupported findings. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal, with an additional finding that the Petitioner was 
not doing business for at least one year before it filed the petition. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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 the alien seeks to 
Matter of C-USA, LLC 
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. 
A United States employer may file Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, to classify a 
beneficiary under section 203(b )(1 )(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. A labor 
certification is not required for this classification. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3) states: 
(3) Initial evidence-
(i) 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: 
(A) If the alien is outside the United States, in the three years immediately 
preceding the filing of the petition the alien has been employed outside 
the United States for at least one year in a managerial or executive 
capacity by a firm or corporation, or other legal entity, or by an affiliate 
or subsidiary of such a firm or corporation or other legal entity; or 
(B) If the alien is already in the United States working for the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the firm or corporation, or other 
legal entity by which the alien was employed overseas, in the three years 
preceding entry as a nonimmigrant, the alien was employed by the entity 
abroad for at least one year in a managerial or executive capacity; 
(C) The prospective employer in the United States is the same employer or a 
subsidiary or affiliate of the firm or corporation or other legal entity by 
which the alien was employed overseas; and 
(D) The prospective United States employer has been doing business for at 
least one year. 
II. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that: (1) the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity; and (2) the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" 
as "an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily": 
2 
Matter ofC-USA, LLC 
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the organization; 
(ii) supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the 
organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the 
authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel 
actions (such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is 
directly supervised, functions at a senior level within the organizational 
hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function 
for which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is not 
considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the 
supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are 
professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" 
as "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. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must take into account 
the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of 
the organization. 1 
1 
See section IOI(a)(44)(C) ofthe Act. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-USA, LLC 
A. U.S. Employment in a Managerial or Executive Capacity 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.50)(5) requires the Petitioner to submit a statement which indicates 
that the Beneficiary is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The statement must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary. 
1. Evidence of Record 
The Petitioner filed Form 1-140 on April 7, 2015. On the Form 1-140, the Petitioner indicated that it 
had two current employees in the United States and an estimated gross annual income of $864,000. 
The Petitioner's operating agreement, dated April 18, 2014, listed "the initial Management Board for 
the Company": 
[THE BENEFICIARY.] In his capacity as Principal and General Manager of the 
Company, [THE BENEFICIARY] shall have general control to direct and develop the 
business and expansion of the Company, which shall include, but not be limited to, 
overseeing the top management team, overseeing the Company's personnel, overseeing 
logistics, making hiring and firing decisions, deciding on marketing strategies, setting 
the Company's policies and procedures, and implementing the Company's financial 
goals and expansion procedures. 
In his capacity as Manager for Legal and Financial Matters, 
shall serve under the supervision and direction of [THE 
BENEFICIARY] as Principal and General Manager of the Company. 
shall be authorized to open bank accounts for the Company at one or more 
financial institutions and to designate signatories on such accounts and shall manage the 
Company funds and may engage others to assist with any bookkeeping and accountings 
subject to approval of a simple majority of the Management Board. 
In his capacity as manager for International Business 
Development, shall serve under the supervision and direction of 
[THE BENEFICIARY] as Principal and General Manager of the Company. 
The record contains no other evidence to show that 
company or taken any active role in its management. 
has worked for the petitioning 
In a letter submitted with the petition, stated that the Beneficiary "has full responsibility for 
the following vital duties with [the Petitioner]": 
1) Plan, direct, and oversee the implementation of complex business strategies and 
procedures to enable [the Petitioner] to successfully establish itself in the United 
States; 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-USA , LLC 
2) Supervise [the Petitioner's] cost budgets and operating costs in order to maximize 
investments in the new subsidiary; 
3) Responsible for producing detailed progress reports for the parent company 
outlining the achievement of cost, quality, and efficiency objectives; 
4) Direct recruitment, performance assessment, succession planning and management 
of [the Petitioner 's] supervisory and management personnel, to ensure strict 
compliance with industry standards, employee qualifications, and effective and 
productive management of human resomces; 
5) Negotiate distribution agreements and contracts within the U.S. for new markets and 
potential clients, distributors, and partners; 
6) Responsible for seeking opportunities for growth for [the Petitioner] in conjunction 
with the futme executive, managerial, and supervisory employees. 
stated that the company's "Business Plan outlines proposed detailed tasks and a breakdown 
of the percentage oftime devoted to each of[the Beneficiary's] duties on a weekly basis." The business 
plan states that the Beneficiary "will be responsible for overseeing the following": 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-USA, LLC 
Create Marketing campaigns Sales & Marketing Manager, 12% 
Maintain customers [sic]· relationships Administrative Assistant 5% 
through social media 
Create press releases 
Create partnerships with industry leaders 
Maintain the image of the company 
Create innovative ads campaigns 
The business plan included the following organizational chart: 
Business & Sales 
Department 
I 
Business Development 
Manager 
I 
Office & Sales 
Manager 
I 
Administrative 
Assistant 
General Manager [the Beneficiary] 
Finance 
Department 
I 
Finance 
Manager 
Purchasing 
Department 
I 
Logistics 
Supervisor 
4% 
2% 
8% 
3% 
Marketing 
Department 
I 
Sales & Marketing 
Manager 
I 
Sales 
Representatives 
The plan, however, did not indicate that all of those positions had been filled. Rather, the plan 
described the Petitioner's intent to staff the company gradually, over five years. The business plan 
stated that the Petitioner "intends to hire 1 Sales and Marketing Manager, 1 Administrative Assistant 
and 2 Sales Representatives in Year 1." The business plan is dated July 22,2014. 
Eight and a half months later, on Form I-140, the Petitioner indicated that it had two employees. A 
payroll ledger, dated one day before the filing date, identified those two employees as the Beneficiary 
and A second organizational chart included the following information: 
Finance Manager 
General Manager 
[the Beneficiary] 
Office Manager 
Administrative personnel 
Sales Manager 
(to be determined) 
I 
Sales team 
The chart did not identify the "Administrative personnel" or "Sales team," or document that it had hired 
anyone to fill those positions. 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-USA , LLC 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), stating that the Petitioner had provided only 
"generalized descriptions [which] do not clearly describe the beneficiary's actual job duties." 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a letter from who stated: "Since early 2015, [the 
Petitioner] has hired two (2) additional employees," specifically a marketing manager and an 
administrative assistant/logistics specialist (a job offer letter in the record states the joint title as 
"office assistant and also sales agent"). letter repeated the table of duties from the 
business plan, but showed the newly hired subordinate personnel in place of the sales and marketing 
manager and sales representatives listed initially. stated a business development 
manager, sales manager , and sales representative "are to be hired within the next months." 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not established that the 
Beneficiary would serve in a managerial or executive capacity. The Director stated that the 
Petitioner had provided only "brief descriptions " that did not "describe [the Beneficiary's] specific 
daily tasks." The Director also noted that "the beneficiary actually oversaw one employee" at the 
time of filing, and that "the one employee cannot be classified as professionals , managers or 
supervisors." 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that is an attorney whose "duties clearly require a 
professional degree." The Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary's job meets all the requirements 
of a managerial capacity, and that the Director arbitrarily denied the petition. 
2. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, including materials submitted in support of 
the appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be employed 
in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look first to 
the petitioner's description of the job duties.2 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.3 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director 's decision shows an oversimplified version of the 
list of the Beneficiary 's duties, which mischaracterizes the [job duties] as being generalized when 
they are very carefully delineated," and that "the agency does not acknowledge that each of these 
categories is further subdivided into 25 job duties." The job description shown in the denial notice, 
and reproduced in the Petitioner's appellate brief, shows all "25 job duties," omitting only the 
percentages shown for each. The description in the denial notice appears to be shorter than the 
original, but only because the Director reformatted the table into more compact paragraphs. 
2 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5) . 
.1 !d. 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-USA, LLC 
The Director was justified in finding that the job description lacks detail. Some elements are fairly 
self-explanatory, such as "[ c ]ontracts negotiations" and "[ c ]reate press releases," but many others 
describe general goals rather than the duties performed to reach those goals. Examples of these 
general elements include "[ o ]ptimization of processes," "[ d]ecrease fixed costs," and "[ m ]aintain the 
image of the company." The Petitioner did not identify the steps that the Beneficiary would take to 
optimize processes, decrease costs, or maintain the company's image. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner had indicated that the Beneficiary would oversee the listed functions, 
which would be performed by a sales and marketing manager, an administrative assistant, and two 
sales representatives, but those positions were all vacant at the time of filing. We will address the 
staffing issue below. 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, including the 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. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and 
"function managers." 4 Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work 
of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. The statute plainly states that a "first 
line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the 
supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional." 5 If a beneficiary 
directly supervises other employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire 
those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 6 
The Petitioner had only one subordinate employee, on staff at the time of filing. The 
Director acknowledged that the Petitioner later hired additional staff, but, as the Director also stated, 
the petition must be approvable based on the circumstances at the time of filing. 7 Therefore, when 
discussing the Petitioner's staffing, we must limit consideration to position. 
The Director stated that the Beneficiary's one subordinate "can not be classified as professionals, 
managers or supervisors." The Director did not elaborate on this finding. The wording suggests that 
the Director meant that a single employee cannot comprise multiple "professionals, managers or 
supervisors," but the regulations do not establish a minimum staff size for a personnel manager. 
4 See section IOI(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii). 
5 Section IOI(a)(44)(A)(iv) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(4)(i). 
6 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). 
7 See 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(b )(I). USC IS cannot properly approve the petition at a future date after the petitioner or 
beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg' I Comm 'r 
1971). 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-USA, LLC 
On appeal, the Petitioner states: "The USCIS denied the Petition primarily on the basis that the one 
employee [the Beneficiary] supervised was not a professional." The record does not support this 
interpretation of the decision. The Director issued a five-page decision, including a lengthy 
discussion of the submitted job descriptions. Only one two-sentence paragraph of the decision 
addressed the issue of whether the Beneficiary's subordinate "can ... be classified as professionals, 
managers, or supervisors." Even then, this statement was ambiguously worded and is not clearly a 
finding that is "not a professional." Therefore, we cannot agree with the Petitioner that 
the Director based the denial "primarily on the basis that was not a professional." 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary's one subordinate "clearly qualified as a professional being an 
attorney."8 is an attorney, but the Petitioner has not stated that it employs him in that 
capacity. Rather, the Petitioner has designated his role as a "Finance Manager" and "Office Manager." 
The duties listed in the employment agreement are not those of an attorney. 
The Petitioner maintains that duties (reproduced below, from letter in the 
RFE response) are, nevertheless, professional in nature: 
Management of overseeing, designing, and controlling the process of production and 
redesigning business operations in the production of services. Involves the 
responsibility of ensuring that business operations are efficient in terms of using as few 
resources as needed, and effective in terms of meeting customer requirements. Report to 
the Principal [i.e., the Beneficiary]. 
Like the Beneficiary's own job description, job description consists of general assertions 
that do not describe identifiable duties that he performs. Furthermore, had no subordinates 
at the time of filing, and therefore he had no one to manage or oversee. The Petitioner has not explained 
how the above description shows that holds a professional role within the petitioning 
company. 
also holds a managerial title. Without subordinates, one can still be a function manager, but 
the Petitioner must still identify the function that the employee manages, and demonstrate that the 
company is in fact performing that function. The Petitioner has not identified any such function, or any 
workers - either employees or contractors - who performed that function as of the filing date. 
The Petitioner's business plan indicated that the company "will hire" several managers and 
supervisors and "intends to hire Sales Representatives ... [and] one to two Receptionists." When it 
filed the petition, the Petitioner had not yet hired those individuals, so they could not yet relieve the 
Beneficiary of non-qualifying operational and administrative tasks. As shown above, the Petitioner 
must show eligibility at the time of filing. It cannot suffice for the Petitioner to declare an intention 
to create qualifying circumstances in the future. 
8 Section 101(a)(32) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(32), classifies attorneys as professionals. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of C- USA, LLC 
The Petitioner has not shown that it employed 
supervisory capacity at the time of filing. Therefore, 
Beneficiary would be employed as a personnel manager. 
in a professional, managerial, or 
the Petitioner has not shown that the 
The Petitioner has not established, in the alternative, that the Beneficiary will be employed primarily 
as a "function manager." The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary's 
managerial role arises not from supervising or controlling the work of a subordinate staff but instead 
from responsibility for managing an "essential function" within the organization.9 The statute and 
regulations do not define the term "essential function." If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary will 
manage an essential function, that petitioner must clearly describe the duties to be performed in 
managing the essential function, i.e., identify the function with specificity, articulate the essential 
nature of the function, and establish the proportion of the beneficiary's daily duties dedicated to 
managing the essential function. 10 In addition, a petitioner's description of a beneficiary's daily 
duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary will manage the function rather than perform the duties 
related to the function. 
The Petitioner has not identified the functions that took place at the company at the time of filing, or 
identified the personnel (either in-house or outsourced) carrying out those functions. Without such 
basic information, we cannot find that the Beneficiary was a function manager at the time of filing. 
The Petitioner has shown that it intends to manufacture and market skin care products in the United 
States, but the record does not show the extent, if any, to which the Petitioner engaged in that 
activity as of the filing date. 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary "also qualifies as an executive" because he "directs the 
management of [the petitioning company], establishes the goals and policies, has complete latitude 
in decision making and receives only general supervision from the parent company." The extent of 
the Beneficiary's discretionary authority is not in dispute here. 
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. 11 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. 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not shown that there was any management for the Beneficiary 
to direct at the time of filing. The Petitioner had one employee identified as a subordinate manager 
9 See section IOI(a)(44)(A)(ii) ofthe Act. 
10 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5U)(5). 
11 Section IOI(a)(44)(B) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B). 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-USA, LLC 
below the Beneficiary, but as discussed, the Petitioner has not established that this employee holds a 
managerial role. 
The fact that the Beneficiary manages or directs a business does not necessarily establish eligibility 
for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity within the 
meaning of section 101(a)(44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that 
the duties of a position be "primarily" of an executive or managerial nature.12 While the Beneficiary 
may exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possesses the requisite level 
of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making, the position description alone is 
insufficient to establish that his actual duties, as of the date of filing, would be primarily managerial 
or executive in nature. 
We also consider the proposed pos1t10n 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. 
The Petitioner, on appeal, states: "USCIS erroneously found that the Petitioner's failure to include 
the organizational chart[ s] ... with the initial filing resulted in the failure to establish eligibility at 
the time of filing." The Petitioner states that the Director "committed a factual error" because "[t]he 
initial filing did contain the organizational charts." The Petitioner is correct that the Director 
overlooked the charts in the initial submission, but the Director did not cite this as a ground for 
denial. The Director merely made an observation in the course of reviewing the record. This error 
did not affect the outcome of the decision. 
Furthermore, the organizational charts submitted with the petition did not accurately reflect the 
Petitioner's structure at the time of filing, because both versions of the charts included hypothetical 
future employees in addition to the two people who actually staffed the company at the time. Also, 
subsequently submitted charts reflected changes in the company that occurred after the filing date. It 
was for this reason that the Director cited the requirement that the Petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing. 
Although the Petitioner was recruiting additional staff at the time, the Beneficiary had only one 
subordinate employee as of the petition's filing date. Notwithstanding 
managerial title, the Petitioner, on appeal, states that the company's "day to day tasks were delegated 
at the inception to until the Petitioner hired more employees after the filing date. 
The Petitioner states that the Director unfairly denied the petition because the Beneficiary had only 
one subordinate at the time of filing. 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 
12 Sections IOI(A)(44)(A) and (B) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(44)(A) and (8). 
11 
(b)(6)
Matter of C- USA, LLC 
support a manager." 13 Furthermore, it is appropriate for USCIS to consider the size of the 
petitioning company in conjunction with other relevant factors, such as a company's small personnel 
size, the absence of employees who would perform the non-managerial or non-executive operations 
of the company, or a "shell company" that does not conduct business in a regular and continuous 
manner. 14 
The Petitioner has not shown who performed the company's day-to-day, non-managerial tasks when 
the company's entire staff is said to have consisted of managers. Further, we note that 
employment agreement permits him "to have other business interests and employments," and his 
resume refers to simultaneous employment at his law firm and at the petitioning company. 
ongoing work as a practicing attorney would appear to limit the time that he would be 
available to work for the Petitioner, and thus to relieve the Beneficiary from having to perform lower­
level tasks. The Petitioner has subsequently hired administrative and sales staff, but this only raises 
the question of who (if anyone) performed administrative and sales duties before their hiring. 
Leases, business plans, and other documents predating the filing suggest that the Petitioner may have 
been engaged in start-up activities rather than the actual conduct of business activity at the time of 
filing. 
Based on the deficiencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
B. Foreign Employment in a Managerial or Executive Capacity 
If the Beneficiary is already in the United States working for the foreign employer or its subsidiary 
or affiliate, then the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(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. 
The Petitioner identified the Beneficiary's foreign employer as 
stated: ' is the parent company of ... 
and d/b/a stated that the Beneficiary 
"has been serving the company as a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Member of the Board of 
Directors since ... January 2008." 
The Petitioner documented the structure and staff of but not the other 
subsidiaries. Subsequently, in response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted a 
13 F amity, 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 
Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25, 29 (D.D.C. 2003). 
14 See, e.g, Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
12 
(b)(6)
Matter of C- USA, LLC 
letter from chief financial officer and chief operating officer (CFO/COO) of 
including a discussion of the Beneficiary's duties. 
The submitted information shows that employs a hierarchy of managers and 
professionals. Furthermore, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary has medical 
credentials that would qualify him to perform the operational work of the clinic. 
The submitted evidence is sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary held a managerial role 
overseas. We withdraw the Director's finding to the contrary. Nevertheless, other grounds for 
denial remain, and therefore the petition remains denied. 
III. DOING BUSINESS 
Beyond the director's decision, we find that the Petitioner did not establish that it has been doing 
business for at least one year prior to the date of filing the petition. 15 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. 16 
The Petitioner filed Form I-140 on April 7, 2015. Part 5, lines 2.d. and 2.e. of that form instruct the 
Petitioner to list its gross and net annual income. The Petitioner provided estimates for both 
numbers ($864,000 gross and $68,550 net). The Petitioner did not explain why it provided estimates 
rather than actual figures, and the Petitioner did not submit documentation of past business activity 
to support its estimates. 
The Petitioner filed its articles of organization on October 23, 2013. The Petitioner did not report 
any income on its 2013 IRS Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, and did not submit tax 
documents for 2014. The Petitioner has not submitted copies of tax documents, invoices, or other 
materials to show that it was actively providing goods and/or services a year before the filing date. 
The Petitioner's operating agreement is dated April 18, 2014, less than a year before the Petitioner 
filed Form I-140. The Petitioner has not shown what business, if any, took place before the 
Petitioner executed that operating agreement to establish the company's basic structure. 
The Petitioner submitted a copy of a business lease agreement, for a one-year term "commencing on 
April 1, 20 14." That term began just one year and six days before the filing date, and the Petitioner 
submitted no evidence that the Petitioner provided goods or services from any other location before 
it had 
leased the office space. 
The Petitioner's business plan, updated July 22, 2014, refers to the Petitioner's planned future 
activities, stating, for instance, that the Petitioner "will provide [the parent company's] product line," 
15 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(D). 
16 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). 
13 
Matter ofC-USA, LLC 
"will serve as a [distribution] platform," and "will start manufacturing [the parent company's] 
product lines in the United States." The business plan does not indicate that any of those activities 
were already underway. The exhibit list submitted with the petition indicated that the "Online Sales 
Website [was] under construction," and the Petitioner claimed no staff to fill online orders and no 
facility to store inventory for those orders. 
The Petitioner did not show that it had any employees a year before the filing date. As noted above, 
the Petitioner's July 2014 business plan indicated that the company "will hire" several managers and 
supervisors and "intends to hire Sales Representatives," but did not indicate that the Petitioner had 
filled any of those positions yet. The record does not show that the Petitioner had any operational 
staff in July 2014 that would have enabled the Petitioner to do business at that time. Several 
documents in the record, including resume and employment agreement, show 
that the Petitioner did not hire until January 1, 2015, just over three months before the 
filing date. The Beneficiary himself, according to his resume, did not start working for the Petitioner 
until October 2014, six months before the filing date. 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, including materials submitted in support of 
the appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that it has been doing business for at 
least one year prior to the date of filing the petition. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, the 
burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the petitioner. 17 Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-USA, LLC, ID# 18328 (AAO Aug. 15, 2016) 
17 Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter o[Otiende, 261&N 127, 128 (B1A 2013). 
14