remanded EB-1C Case: Litigation Support Services

(b)(6)
MATTER OF L.:.G- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 7, 2016 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR. ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of litigation support services, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as its 
production 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)(1)(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 petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity. The Petitioner 
subsequently filed an appeal, which we dismissed. The matter is now 
before us on a motion to reopen. 
In its motion, the Petitioner offers additional evidence addressing the main basis for denial of the 
petition and subsequent dismissal of the appeal. The Petitioner also offers additional evidence 
addressing other grounds of ineligibility that we noted and briefly discussed in our prior decision. 
Upon review, we hereby grant the Petitioner's motion to reopen. Further, after considering the 
Petitioner's newly submitted evidence, we withdraw our prior decision to dismiss the appeal and 
remand the matter for further consideration. 
I. GROUND FOR DENIAL 
As previously stated, the Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
While we upheld the Director's decision, our holding was based on the duration of the Beneficiary's 
employment abroad, rather than the managerial nature of the job duties he performed, as we found 
that the Beneficiary's job duties with the foreign employer in met the statutory criteria for 
managerial capacity. 
In support·ofthe motion to reopen, the Petitioner provides supplemental evidence demonstrating that 
prior to the Beneficiary's employment as production manager with in United 
Kingdom for the seven-month period from September 2008 to March 2009, he was also employed in 
the position of production manager at m United Kingdom from 2007 to 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-G- LLC 
2008, thus indicating that the Beneficiary was employed abroad for at least one year during the 
three-year period that preceded his transfer to the United States to work for the petitioning entity. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5G)(3)(i)(B). The Petitioner offers sufficient evidence to establish that the job 
duties the Beneficiary performed during his employment in were similar in nature to 
those he performed in his position at the office such that we can conclude that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad for the requisite time period in a managerial capacity. 
In view of the supporting evidence submitted in support of the instant motion, we find that the 
Petitioner has overcome the sole basis which was cited originally in the Director's decision and 
which we subsequently cited as the basis for our own decision on appeal. 
II. GROUNDS FOR REMAND 
Notwithstanding our withdrawal of our own adverse decision, which was based on the issue of the 
length of the Beneficiary's employment abroad, we find that the record does not support approval of 
the petition based on the evidence of record. As stated in our prior decision, while we dismissed the 
appeal based on a single ground of ineligibility, we noted that the record showed three additional 
grounds, which would preclude approval of the petition. Namely, we found that the Petitioner did 
not provide sufficient evidence to establish that it meets the following statutory and regulatory 
requirements: (1) the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's employer 
abroad; (2) the Petitioner had the ability to pay the Beneficiary's proffered wage since the date the 
petition was filed; and (3) the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity 
under an approved petition. 
Upon reviewing the Petitioner's submission of additional tax returns in support of its motion to 
reopen, we find that the Petitioner has successfully established its ability to pay the Beneficiary's 
proffered wage. As such, we find that this issue need not be addressed going forward. However, the 
Petitioner's additional submissions on motion are still insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary 
would be employed in a managerial capacity under an approved petition or that the Petitioner has the 
requisite qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's former employers m and 
A. Qualifying Relationship 
Although the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity for one year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition, the Petitioner 
has not established that this employment was with a qualifying organization. The issue of the 
Petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer in and 
the most recently identified foreign employer in remains unresolved. 
Despite the Petitioner's claim that it started out as the foreign employer's U.S. branch office and 
ultimately became the foreign entity's subsidiary, the evidence that the Petitioner submits on motion 
is not consistent with that claim. Rather, the Petitioner's submissions, which include Schedules E 
and G of its 2012 and 2013 federal· tax returns, contain information that is both confusing and 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-G- LLC 
factually impossible. Namely, while Schedule E of the Petitioner's 2012 and 2013 tax returns both 
name as the U.S. entity's officer who devotes 100% of his time to the 
business of the petitioning entity, neither Schedule E lists as having any stock 
ownership in the entity where he served as an officer during the 2012 and 2013 tax years. In contrast 
to the information provided in Schedule E, Schedule G of both tax returns list 
and each, as owner of 1 00% of the Petitioner's voting stock. The Petitioner confuses 
matters further in the 2012 Schedule G by listing the foreign entity - as a 
third owner, also holding 100% of the Petitioner's voting stock, while Schedule G of the 2013 tax 
return adds a second entity - of Australia - to the list of owners holding a 1 00% 
ownership interest in the petitioning entity to show that two individuals and two entities each own 
100% of its stock. As noted above, it is factually impossible for more than a single individual or 
entity to solely own 100% of one entity. We are therefore left with no meaningful understanding of 
which individual(s) or enterprise(s) actually own(s) the Petitioner's stock. The Petitioner has not 
resolved these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591-92 (BIA 1988). 
The information provided in the Petitioner's 2012 and 2013 tax returns does not establish that the 
Petitioner is either a· branch or a subsidiary of or offices. 
Moreover, while the Petitioner claims that the and offices share common 
ownership, it does not explain or provide any substantiating evidence establishing the specific nature 
of the affiliation, if any, that may exist between these two offices or with the Petitioner. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden 
of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm 'r 1998) (quoting 
Matter ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
B. U.S. Employment in a Managerial or Executive Capacity 
Next, we will address the issue of the Beneficiary's employment capacity in his proposed position as 
the Petitioner's production manager. 
The record shows that the additional evidence on motion includes a supplemental job description and 
flow chart citing specific job duties that would be assigned to the Beneficiary. While we 
acknowledge that the Petitioner provided a more detailed job description, thus adequately addressing 
our concerns with regard to deficient job description that was previously submitted, we find that the 
additional submissions on motion do not address other deficiencies and anomalies that we previously 
discussed. Namely, the record continues to lack the names and job titles of all employees and 
contractors within the Beneficiary's immediate division; department, or team, as requested in the 
Director's Request for Evidence (RFE), dated June 24, 2014. 
As noted in our prior decision, the organizational chart that the Petitioner provided in its RFE 
response did not name anyone other than the Beneficiary in the global operations department, even 
though the chart shows a vice president directly overseeing the Beneficiary, as well as a technical 
client services analyst as the Beneficiary 's direct subordinate. The Petitioner's new submissions also 
3 
Matter of L-G- LLC 
do not explain which employees would constitute the "operational staff'' the Beneficiary is claimed 
to be overseeing. While the Petitioner claims that it is in search of another technical support analyst 
to assist the one it claims to currently employ, we note that only those facts and circumstances that 
existed at the time of filing will be considered in determining the Petitioner's eligibility. See Matter 
ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm'r 1971). 
We further find that the Petitioner's latest submissions do not include the names of contractors used 
within the Beneficiary's department, despite the Petitioner's earlier reference to "a team of 
investigators to collect data onsite at a client's premises." As we noted in our prior decision, going 
on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Despite the RFE, in 
which the Director asked the Petitioner to submit this additional evidence, and our observations on 
appeal, where we noted that the Petitioner did not comply with a portion of the RFE, the evidence on 
motion does not address the lack of evidence demonstrating the Petitioner's hiring of "a team of 
investigators" and its employment of an "operational staff." While the Petitioner provide~ examples 
of email correspondences between the Beneficiary and various other individuals on motion, such 
submissions do not identify the Beneficiary's claimed support staff or their positions within the 
organization 
Nor does the Petitioner's current motion resolve inconsistencies we noted between the job 
description that the Petitioner provided in its RFE response and the job description that the Petitioner 
initially provided in its supporting statement. Namely, while the initial description attributed various 
non-managerial and non-executive tasks - developing client relations and providing customer 
service, developing project enhancement tools, conducting research to improve work practices, 
producing employee manuals and training tools, conducting market research, providing clients with 
software training, and consulting clients regarding best practices and technology solutions -to the 
Beneficiary's proposed position, the Petitioner removed these non-qualifying duties from the RFE 
description without explanation. The Petitioner's motion does not address or resolve the 
inconsistencies of the submitted position descriptions. 
III.· CONCLUSION 
In order to determine whether the Petitioner is eligible for the immigrant classification sought herein, 
additional evidence is required. Accordingly, the instant matter must be remanded to the Director 
for the purpose of allowing the Petitioner the opportunity to supplement the record with evidence 
that may resolve the above inconsistencies and address the deficiencies described herein. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is granted, and the matter is remanded to the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, for further proceedings consistent with the 
foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter of L-G- LLC, ID# 17486 (AAO July 7, 2016) 
4