dismissed EB-1C Case: Travel And Tourism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-T- LLC 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE : SEPT. 19, 2019 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner , a travel agency serving recreational and medical tourists from China, seeks to 
permanently employ the Beneficiary as its manager and 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 approved the petition , but later revoked that approval , 
concluding that the record did not establish , as required , that the Petitioner would employ the 
Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity . 
On appeal , the Petitioner cites the prior approval of two nonimrnigrant petitions based on the same 
employment , and asserts that the revocation "is a violation of beneficiary's due process and an abuse 
of discretion." The Petitioner also notes that "the USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] 
Fraud Unit made multiple site visits to the Petitioner's office." The Petitioner speculates that "the 
revocation is the result of an inherent desire to target the Beneficiary for unknown reasons, " and that 
USCIS "failed to disclose the 'real reasons' behind the NOIR" (notice of intent to revoke). Our 
appellate review of the record is based solely on the grounds raised in the NOIR , and we conclude that 
the Director correctly found that the petition had been approved in error. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
A. The Classification Sought 
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. 
Matter of G-T- LLC 
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). 
B. Revocation of an Approved Petition 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155, states: "The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, 
for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him 
under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition." 
Regarding the revocation of an immigrant petition under section 205 of the Act, the Board of Immigration 
Appeals has stated: 
In Matter of Es time ... , this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa petition 
is properly issued for "good and sufficient cause" where the evidence of record at the time 
the notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial of the visa 
petition based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of proof The decision to 
revoke will be sustained where the evidence of record at the time the decision is rendered, 
including any evidence or explanation submitted by the petitioner in rebuttal to the notice 
of intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) ( quoting Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 
1987)). 
II. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAP A CITY 
The Director found that the petition was approved in error, because the Petitioner had not established 
that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. The Petitioner does not 
claim that it seeks to employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity. Therefore, we restrict our 
analysis to whether the Beneficiary will 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. 
Based on the statutory definition of executive capacity, a petitioner must first show that the beneficiary 
will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 
1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, the petitioner must prove that the beneficiary will be 
primarily engaged in executive duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the 
2 
Matter of G-T- LLC 
Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); 
Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly 
describe the duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in a 
managerial or executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(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 and its staffing levels. 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner initially stated that the Beneficiary divides his time as follows: 
Executive/Supervisory, 75% of the Beneficiary's time: 
Direct the management of the Company and supervise all subordinate professional 
management employees ... ; set strategy and goals for the operation of the Company; 
have ultimate decision, control and responsibility for all decisions made on behalf of 
[the petitioning entity]; receive general direction from and report on progress to the 
Board of Directors of the Chinese Parent; has the authority to hire, evaluate, promote 
and fire any and all workers under his supervision. 
Marketing/Public Relations, 10%: 
Direct the management of the marketing/PR function of the Company; act as 
Company's diplomatic/business representative for high-level business development 
meetings and for community-based PR campaigns. 
Operations, 10%: 
Direct the management of general tour operations through supervision of professional 
management employees. 
Financial, 5%: 
Direct the management of all financial matters, such as overseeing the liaison with 
accountant and tax preparer through supervision of professional management 
employees. 
In the NOIR, the Director stated that the job description was worded so vaguely that it did not show 
the Beneficiary's actual duties. In response, the Petitioner asserted: "if USCIS were to revoke the 
approval of an immigrant visa petition without first showing 'good and sufficient cause' that 
Petitioner's proof was 'probably false,' then that would constitute an abuse of its adjudicatory 
3 
Matter of G-T- LLC 
discretion." A petitioner's evidence, however, need not be "false" in order to warrant revocation. If 
USCIS concludes that a petition was approved in error, that conclusion is sufficient grounds for 
revocation. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988). 
The Petitioner cited an example of the Beneficiary's claimed executive role with the company: 
The Beneficiary's vision and leadership cemented a relationship between the Petitioner 
and I l .. positioning the Petitioner as the central facilitating tour company 
for Chinese nationals looking to travel to the United States for healthcare reasons. In 
June 2018J linvited the Beneficiary ... to attend an event in~ I China 
announcing the formalizing ofl Is relationship with thel I Clinic. 
The record offers little information abouu I except that it is a "referral facilitator" based in 
.__ __ _.I which paid the Petitioner a monthly consulting fee in 2018. I l's business 
relationship with the petitioning entity is not prima facie evidence that the Beneficiary is employed 
primarily in an executive capacity. Furthermore, the documentation relating tol I dates from 
2018, years after the petition's 2016 filing date, and therefore cannot establish that the Beneficiary 
was already eligible for the classification sought at the time of filing as required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). 
The Petitioner stated that, during the site visits, "it was clear that the agents were concerned abµut..........., 
the Petitioner's relationship with ... I I" The Director did not mentionL__J 
c=Jin the NOIR, and therefore any concerns expressed during the site visits do not appear to have 
played a part in the decision to revoke the approval of the petition. 
In the NOIR, the Director asserted that the Petitioner did not provide enough details to show "what 
the beneficiary would actually be doing on a daily basis." In response, the Petitioner expanded its 
earlier description of the Beneficiary's duties, offering examples of the Beneficiary's past work such 
as the following: 
• The Beneficiary "visited the top American medical institutes assisting I I to 
contract with those institutes"; 
• The Beneficiary represented the Petitioner at "high-level business development meetings"; 
• The Beneficiary "oversaw the creation of'' the Petitioner's "America Guidebook," which "is 
broadly recognized by professionals and customers alike"; and 
• The Beneficiary supervised the implementation of the Petitioner's fee schedule. 
The Director did not dispute the Beneficiary's control over the petitioning entity, or suggest that the 
Beneficiary is a low-ranking employee. Rather, the Director acknowledged "the beneficiary's 
heightened degree of discretionary authority." At issue is the level of detail concerning the 
Beneficiary's duties. The above information did little to clarify the nature of the Beneficiary's duties 
with the company. The Petitioner has sent medical tourists to various U.S. medical institutions, but 
the record offers little information about the Beneficiary's involvement in this process. The Petitioner 
did not submit any evidence about the "America Guidebook." The broad and vague claim of 
4 
Matter of G-T- LLC 
recognition by unidentified "professionals and customers" is not evidence of that recognition, or even 
of the guidebook's existence. 
The Director revoked the approval of the petition, stating that the Petitioner had not provided enough 
details about the Beneficiary's duties to show that they are primarily managerial. On appeal, the 
Petitioner further expands upon the earlier job description. The Petitioner emphasizes the 
Beneficiary's work withl l which, as noted above, took place after the filing date and cannot 
retroactively establish eligibility as of that date. 
The Petitioner also states, without elaboration, that the Beneficiary "has secured alliances with two (2) 
of the leading Chinese insurance companies," for which "contracts will be finalized in the near future." 
This activity, too, appears to fall after the petition's filing date. Furthermore, the Director did not 
dispute the Beneficiary's authority to negotiate business agreements on the Petitioner's behalf. The 
issue, instead, is whether such high-level activities constitute the Beneficiary's primary tasks. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary "[ d]irect[ s] the management of the marketing/PR function 
of the Company," and that the Beneficiary represents the company for marketing and public relations 
campaigns. The Petitioner had no identified marketing or PR staff at the time of filing, and therefore 
it is not apparent who, if anyone, relieved the Beneficiary from actually performing, rather than 
overseeing, marketing and PR functions. 
The Petitioner's submission on appeal does not overcome the Director's finding that the Beneficiary's 
duties are not primarily executive. The Beneficiary's authority over a business does not necessarily 
establish eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in an 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 nature. Sections 101(A)(44)(B) of the Act. 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 
executive in nature. 
B. Staffing 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner employed eight individuals subordinate to the Beneficiary. The 
Petitioner stated that it also used the services of a contracted accountant, and that it "also relied on 
additional part-time guides, sales persons, and operators who are independent contractors." The record 
does not document who these contractors are, what they do, and how much time they devote to 
working for the petitioning entity. 
With respect to the Petitioner's own employees, the Petitioner stated that three of the subordinate 
positions were both professional and managerial, but the record does not support this characterization. 
The Petitioner claimed that the administration and HR manager is in charge of the "administrative 
staff," but the Petitioner did not show that the position has any subordinates. Duties included 
administrative tasks such as "maintaining equipment," filing, scheduling, and purchasing equipment. 
5 
Matter of G-T- LLC 
The information technology (IT) and ecommerce manager maintains the company's website, updates 
applications, and implements backup and recovery procedures. The Petitioner stated that this 
employee also manages staff: but the Petitioner did not elaborate. (In correspondence relating to this 
petition, this employee has used the title "Office Manager.") 
The third claimed managerial position has inconsistent titles. The Petitioner referred to the position 
as the "Bookkeeping and CRM [Customer Relationship Management] eCommerce Manager," but the 
position description showed the title as "Bookkeeping and Assistant Operations Manager." That 
description indicated that the employee "[ m] aintains records of financial transactions" and 
"[ c ]ooperates with clients to determine their needs and preferences," while also booking reservations 
and collecting payments. The duties described appear to amount to bookkeeping and customer service, 
which are not management-level tasks. 
We interpret the term "professional" to mean that a given position requires a baccalaureate degree as 
a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. 1 The Petitioner referred to each of the three above 
positions as professional, but the Petitioner did not show that the positions require a bachelor's degree. 
Only one of these employees (the IT and ecommerce manager) appears to have actually earned a 
bachelor's degree. Significantly, direct supervision of professionals is an element of a managerial 
capacity, not an executive capacity. See section 101(a)(32)(A)(ii). 
The five remaining claimed employees are operations assistants. Their position descriptions indicated 
that they report to the president (the Beneficiary), which appears to contradict the claim that two of 
the claimed managers also manage subordinate staff Those position descriptions appear to derive 
from generic templates; they contain no references to the travel agency business, but they do refer to 
seemingly unrelated activities such as "[ a ]rranging for the delivery of domestic and international 
packages." 
Although the Petitioner identified itself as a travel agency, the job descriptions shed little light on 
which employees, if any, perform the usual duties of a travel agent. 
The Petitioner submitted job offer letters for all eight subordinate employees. Each letter indicated 
that the employee would earn $20 per hour or "[p ]iece work wage by mutual agreement," but each 
letter also specified that the position was "hourly paid." The Petitioner thus set the same salary for 
every position, regardless ofrank. Seven of the eight letters were signed and dated January 1, 2015, 
a federal holiday. (The letter for one of the operations assistants is dated June 1, 2015.) None of the 
employees earned a salary consistent with a year of full-time employment. The three employees 
identified as managers earned $11,340, $9300, and $4520 in 2015. The other five earned between 
$1100 and $8155 each. 
1 Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining "profession" to mean "any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate 
degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation"). Section 101 ( 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." 
6 
Matter of G-T- LLC 
In the NOIR, the Director noted that the low compensation of the subordinate employees raised the 
question of how often the subordinate employees are present to relieve the Beneficiary from having to 
perform non-qualifying operational and administrative tasks. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a 2018 organizational chart, indicating that all seven of the 
Beneficiary's subordinates are part-time employees. The Petitioner did not explain how part-time 
employees could sufficiently relieve the Beneficiary, who works foll-time, from having to primarily 
perform non-qualifying tasks. 
The chart indicated that two of the four operations assistants report to the "Manager, IT & Accounting" 
(previously identified as the information technology and ecommerce manager) and the other two report 
to the "Manager, Administrative & HR," although the job offer letters indicated that the operations 
assistants report directly to the Beneficiary. The chart also showed a new "Director [ of] Medical 
Tourism Marketing," who has a doctorate in bioscience. 
The Petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence to corroborate its earlier claimed reliance on 
"additional part-time guides, sales persons, and operators who are independent contractors." Copies 
of the Petitioner's income tax returns for 2016 and 2017 do not show any expenses identified as 
relating to contract labor. 
The Director found that some of the Beneficiary's "tasks relate to the duties of a first-line supervisor 
over non-professional employees." In response, the Petitioner noted that supervision of professionals 
is an element of a managerial, not executive, capacity. Nevertheless, the larger point is that "a first­
line supervisor over non-professional employees" is neither a manager nor an executive. 
The Petitioner's response to the NOIR added little substantive information to the record concerning 
the duties of the Beneficiary's part-time subordinates, and it did not show that the company has a 
management structure subordinate to the Beneficiary that would justify a primarily executive position 
at its helm. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner submitted inconsistent information about the company's 
staffing, and that the company's personnel structure, consisting of a small number of low-paid 
workers, did not warrant an executive position at the top. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the record contains "sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the 
petitioner has a subordinate level of managerial employees," because the Petitioner submitted "not 
only their individual contracts, but also their resumes." The Petitioner does not explain why these 
materials establish that any of the subordinate employees are managers. What the Petitioner calls 
"contracts" are job offer letters, which included minimal descriptions of the job duties, and many of 
the resumes do not mention the Petitioner at all. The resume of the director of medical tourism 
marketing, hired after the filing date, focuses on that individual's "investigations into the pathogenesis 
of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis," and does not indicate that he has any expertise or experience in 
marketing. The resume of the IT and accounting manager lists no employment after 2011. 
7 
Matter of G-T- LLC 
The record does not fully establish what the Beneficiary's part-time subordinates do from day to day, 
and it does not corroborate the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary oversees subordinate managers. 
C. Prior Approvals 
The Petitioner notes the prior approval of two nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of the Beneficiary, 
relating to the same position described in the present petition. The Petitioner asserts that these 
approvals amount to a stipulation that the Beneficiary's position qualifies as an executive capacity, 
and the Petitioner speculates that the Director "is simply looking for any reason to deny the instant 
Petition." The Petitioner further suggests that the Director "fabricate[ d] questions oflaw or fact where 
none exist in order to cover up alternative reasons" to revoke the approval of the petition. 
The approved L- lA nonimmigrant petitions are not before us for review. An adjudicator's fact-finding 
authority should not be constrained by any prior petition approval, but instead, should be based on the 
merits of each case. USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0151, Rescission of Guidance Regarding 
Deference to Prior Determinations of Eligibility in the Adjudication of Petitions for Extension of 
Nonimmigrant Status 3 (October 23, 2017), http://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. 
The prior approval of a nonimmigrant petition is not prima fade evidence of eligibility for an 
immigrant classification, and the Beneficiary's prior admission as an L-1 A nonimmigrant did not 
create a presumption of eligibility for classification as a multinational executive. 
Based on the deficiencies discussed above, we agree with the Director that the petition was approved 
in error. The Petitioner has not established that it will employ the Beneficiary in the United States in 
a primarily executive capacity. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The revocation of the previously approved petition is affirmed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered an independent and alternative basis for the decision. The burden of proof to establish 
eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the petitioner in revocation proceedings. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Cheung, 12 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1968); and Matter of Estime, 
19 I&N Dec. 450, 452, n.1 (BIA 1987). The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofG-T-LLC, ID# 4132959 (AAO Sept. 19, 2019) 
8