dismissed L-1A Case: Aircraft Parts

u.:s. Gitizensliip 
and Immigtation 
Services · 
MATTER OF S-A-: LLC· 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 22, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a seller of aircraft parts, seeks· to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as its vice 
president of operations under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(L). The L-lA 
classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a 
qualifying foreign employee t9 the United States to work temporarily in a managerial or executive 
-~~ . 
The Director o(the California Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required,. that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive . ' . 
capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary will manage components of the organization 
and control· the work of professional employees. It states that some of its ·services will be performed 
by contr~ctors and claims that its small staff meets its reasonable peeds. 
After reviewing the totality of the submitted evidence, we. uncovered inconsistencies outside . the· 
record, which prompted us to issue a notice of intent to dismiss and request for evidence 
(NOID/RFE). The Petitioner has since responded to our notice and we have reviewed the response 
within the context of all prior submissions in the record. Upon de novo review, we find that the 
Petitioner has not overcome the basis for denial. In .,addition, based on the response to our 
NOID/RFE, we find that the Petitioner has ·not establi~hed _that the Beneficiary was employed abrnad 
for the requisite period of one year within· the three years· prior to filing this petition. Therefore, we 
will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nohimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial,-executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section I0I(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary 
must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same. 
employer or a s11:bsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or ·executive capacity. Id. The 
1:fatter ofS-A-, LLC 
I 
· petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment 
qualify hi~ or her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT fN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employment would be in a managerial 
capacity. Therefore, we will only address this claim and will not discuss whether the Beneficiary 
will be employed in an executive capacity. 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
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; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Based on the statutory definition of managerial capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the 
Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities.· Champion World, Inc. '\?- INS, 940 F.2d 
1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision): The Petitioner must also prove that the 
Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial 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. 
The 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 capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
Beyond the required_ description. of the job duties, we examine the company's organizational 
structure, the duties of the Beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to 
relieve the Beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other 
factors that will contribute to understanding the 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 anc;l its staffing )evels. 
A. Staffing 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
capacity, we take into account the reasonable needs of the organization in light of the over~ll 
purpose and stage of development of the org;anization. See section 101 (a)( 44 )(C) of the Act. 
The Petitioner claimed four employees - an operations manager, an "accounting" manager, a 
purchasing manager, and a sales manager - at the time this petition was filed in August 2017. It 
. . ' . 
provided a 2017 quarterly tax return showing that it claimed four employees during the second 
.. \ 
2 ' 
.
'--
Matter ofS-A-,-LLC 
quarter, which immediately preceded the filing of this petition. The Petitioner also stated that it used 
to assist with shipping and finding spare parts and provided 
evidence of payments made to these contracted parties. The Petitioner also discussed plans to hire 
five additional employees in the near future. We note, however, that 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). As such, any additional staff 
that the Petitioner planned to hire after it filed this petition would not be relevant for the purpose of 
determining the Petitioner's eligibility at the time o.ffiling. 
The Director reviewed the record and determined that an RFE was warranted to determine whether 
the Petitioner was adequately staffed to relieve the Beneficiary from having to allocate his time 
primarily to the performance of non-managerial job duties. Namely, the Director instructed the 
Petitioner to provide an organizational chart depicting its staffing levels and asked that the chart be 
complete with a list of employee names and job titles, a summary of their job duties, and tqeir 
respective educational levels and salaries. 
The response contains a 2016 tax return and the Petitioner's organizational chart, which identifies 
five employees and includes the Beneficiary's position, the position of vice president of sales, 1 and 
the five vacant positions, none of which were filled at the time this petition was filed. The chart 
shows a president/CEO at the top of the organizational hierarchy followed by two subordinates - the 
vice president of sales and the Beneficiary as vice president of operations. The vice president of 
sales is depicted as having two subordinate managers - a purchasing manager and a sales manager -
and the Beneficiary is depicted as having three subordinates - an accounting manager with no 
subordinates, an operations manager with one subordinate, and a manager of human resour~es 
("HR") also with one subordinate. 
Of the five positions labeled as "vacant," two positions - a shipping manager and a ''stockman" - are 
under the sales vice president and the other three positions - the HR manager, the HR assistant 
manager, and the operations assistant manager - are under the Beneficiary, thereby indicating that 
the Beneficiary would oversee two employees who have managerial position titles but who did not 
actually have subordinates to oversee at the time of filing. As the Petitioner claimed only four 
employees on the petition form, it does not appear that this organizational chart reflects the 
Petitioner's staffing composition at the time this petition was filed. Furthermore, the five vacant 
positions are part of a future hiring plan and therefore are not relevant to the issue of the Petitioner's 
eligibility at the time of filing. · 
In the denial decision , the Director determined that the Petitioner did not provide evidence showing 
that the Beneficiary ' s subordinates are professional employees or that the organization is .adequately 
staffed to relieve the Beneficiary from having to primarily perform non-managerial job duties; The 
1 Although the chart names as the vice president of sales, the initial cover letter indicated that 
is the Petitioner's co-founder whom the Petitioner seeks to transfer as an intracompany transferee; the RFE response 
indicates that this position is currently vacant. 
3 
.
Matter ofS-A-, LLC 
Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would either manage an 
essential function or that he would oversee supervisory or professional personnel. 
. On appeal, the Petitioner, citing Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 
2016), argues that the Director must consider its reasonable needs and take into account its related 
foreign organization, which engages in similar business activities . However, the Petitioner has not 
shown that the findings in the cited case are applicable in this matter. Merely establishing that the 
Petitioner and the related foreign entity "are· jointly engaged in the sales of aircraft spare parts, 
components, and equipment" is not sufficient to demonstrate that the foreign entity or its employees 
will play an active role in supporting the U.S. operation and relieve the Beneficiary from having to 
primarily perform the non-managerial job duties of operation. Although the Petitioner indicated that 
the foreign entity's staff would assist in carrying out some of its non-managerial functions, it neither 
specified which services it claims the foreign entity's employees would perform, nor has it provided 
evidence establishing that the foreign entity's employees are part of its personnel plan and would in 
any way support the U.S. operation. A Petitioner has must support its assertions with relevant, 
l • . 
probative, arid credible evidence . See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
The Petitioner also asserts that it hired outside contractors to perform some of its operational 
functions and asks us to consider its 2016 tax return, which shows · gross earnings .of approximately 
$5 million, but no contributions towards officer compensation or employee salaries or wages. That 
said, the Petitioner has provided evidence showing that it contracted to find 
spare aircraft parts and to handle the logistics of shipping its products. However, as 
we since discussed in our NOID/RFE, there is documentation outside the record as well as evidence 
that the Petitioner submitted, which shows that whom the Petitioner claims as its 
president, and whom it claims as its purchasing manager ; actually own 
and respectively. Although the Petitioner's 2017 second quarterly wage 
report includes and indicates that he was paid a salary during that quarter, the Petitioner 
has not reconciled the incongruity of retaining as an employee on the one hand, while 
contracting his company to perform shipping .services on the other hand. Likewise; the claim that 
the Petitioner actually employs as its president is misleading and belies the tru~ 
nature of his relationship with the petitioning entity , which contracted company to 
find_ spare aircraft parts. 
The Petitioner responded to our NOID /RFE with evidence of the P~titioner's contractual 
relationships with and . however, the Petitioner has not resolved 
the above described irregularities 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). This lack ofresolution of 
key issues causes us to question the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence in the record, such 
as the Petitioner's organizational chart and corresponding employee job descriptions , which were 
submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. See id As such, we are precluded from 
effectively assessing the Petitioner 's staffing at the time of filing, which_is a necessary element that 
allows us to determine the extent to which the Beneficiary will be relieved from performing 
primarily non-managerial duties when this petition: was filed. · 
4 
., 
.
l 
Matter ofS-A- , LLC 
The Petitioner also asks us to consider its purpose and stage of development, contending that it has 
established a reasonable need to have "a senior-level employee," like the Beneficiary, manage "the 
essential function of developing its presence in the United States." Although the Petitioner correctly 
observes that we must take into account its reasonable neeqs, it is appropriate for USCIS to consider 
the size of the petitioning company in conjunction with other relevant factors, such as the absence of 
employees who would perform the non-managerial or non-executive operations of the company or a 
company that does not conduct business in a regular and continuous manner. Family Inc. v. USCIS, 
469 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 2006); Systronics Corp. v. INS,. 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
Furthermore; the Petitioner's reasonable needs will not supersede the requirement that the 
Beneficiary must be "primarily" employed in a managerial capacity, rather than spending the 
majority of his time on non-managerial duties. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. The 
Petitioner has not established that a four-person operation would be sufficient to support the 
Beneficiary in a managerial capacity. 
We also note that the Petitioner makes two separate and somewhat inconsistent arguments 
concerning the issue of staffing. On the one hand, it contends that its reasonable needs justify the 
staffing of its organization, thereby indicating that it is adequately staffed. On the other hand, 
however, the Petitioner states that it plans to increase its staff to "8-9 employees" and claims that its 
foreign affiliate will assume the burden of carrying out some of its non-managerial functions. These 
claims are insufficient for the purpose of establishing eligibility. First, as previously noted, the 
.Petitioner's projected hiring of additional employees is not relevant, as eligibility rrtust be based on 
the facts and circumstances that existed at the time of filing. In this .matter, the Petitioner had no 
more than four employees at the time of filing ; it_ must therefore establish that it had the ability to 
employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity within the context of a four-person staff. 
Moreover, the unresolved anomalies regarding the Petitioner's claimed employment of 
and , and their respective ownership of entities that the Petitioner contracted, to 
provide various operational services, call into question the validity of the Petitioner's organizational 
chart and the job duties to be performed by the 'employees listed therein. · The evidence must 
substantiate that the Beneficiary's duties and those of his s9bordinates correspond to their placement 
in the organization's structural hierarchy; artificialctiers of subordinate employees and inflated job 
titles are not probative and will not establish that the organization is sufficiently staffed to support a 
managerial position. An individual whose primary duties are those of a first-line supervisor will not 
be considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of his supervisory duties unless 
the employees supervised are professional. Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. The Petitioner has 
not established that the Beneficiary would oversee supervisory or professional subordinates, despite 
what their position titles may indicate. 
The record also lacks evidence to support the Petitioner's current claim that the Beneficiary would 
assume the role of a function manager in which he would manage the function of developing the 
Petitioner's U.S. presence. The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary is 
primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" within the orgai:iization. See section 
C 
Matter ofS-A-, LLC 
101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary will manage an essential 
function, it must clearly describe the duties to be performed in managing the essential function. In 
addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that "(1) the function is a clearly defined activity; (2) the 
function is 'essential,' i.e., core to the organization; (3) the beneficiary will primarily manage, as 
opposed to per.form, the function; ( 4) the beneficiary will act at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and (5) the beneficiary will 
exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day operations." Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 
2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). In this matter, the Petitioner has not adequately described the 
essential function or provided evidence showing that it was adequately staffed at the time of filing to 
relieve the Beneficiary from actually performing the underlying duties of that function. An 
employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services 
is not considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial capacity. See, e.g., section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial duties); 
Matter of Church Scientology In( 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comrri'r 1988). 
B. Duties 
) 
Based on the statutory definition of managerial 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 managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational 
activities aiongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 
1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
Accordingly, in order to establish eligibility, the Petitioner must provide a job description that 
_clearly describes the duties to be performed by t_he Beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are 
in a managerial capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
In its supporting cover letter, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would have "broad powers" to 
direct and manage "the departments of the company;" establish departmental goals and policies, 
negotiate with potential clients, and establish business relationships with aircraft parts suppliers. 
The Petitioner also provided a scheduled breakdown of the Beneficiary's prbposed daily activities 
along with two other job descriptions where one includes a breakdown of job duties,,while the other 
focuses on the specific elements of the definition of "managerial capacity." 
The proposed daily schedule indicates that the Beneficiary will spend 2 ¼ hours daily on meetings 
with "the management" and reviewing and assigning tasks to "the company's executives, managers, 
and subordinates." However, given the previously noted irregularities and inconsistenci,es, the 
Petitioner does not appear to have a management or executive staff with whom the Beneficiary could 
meet arid confer. Despite the managerial position titles of the two employees in the Beneficiary's 
proposed department, neither had any subordinates to oversee and thus neither can be deemed to 
have held a supervisory position at the time of filing .. The daily schedule also indicates that the 
Beneficiary would allocate an hour daily to verifying and controlling shipments and deliveries. 
6 
.
1 Matter ofS-A- , LLC 
However, the Petitioner ' s proposed organizational chart indicates that the shipping function would 
be within the control of the vice president of sales, rather than the Beneficiary. More specifically , 
the organizational chart shows that the vice · president of sales would oversee who 
would oversee a shipping manager. Regardless of the previously noted irregularities regarding 
claimed employment with the Petitioner , the record indicates that the Petitioner contracted 
company to provide it with shipping services , which, according to the· organizational 
chart, would fall within the purview of the vice president of sales, not that of the Beneficiary. It is 
therefore unclear why the Beneficiary would allocate any time at all to shipment-related issues. 
Furthermore, the daily schedule indicates that the Beneficiary would spend several hours of his day 
. performing administrative and operational tasks, such as drafting memos, bank letters, and contracts, 
reviewing invoices and sµipping documents, negotiating with clients, vendors, and shipping 
companies, and conducting market research through communications with aircraft dealers and 
distributors. As noted earlier, an employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce 
a product or to provide services is not considered to be "primaril y" employed in a managerial 
capacity. · See, e.g, section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the 
enumerated managerial duties) ; Church Scientology Int '/, 19 I&N Dec. at 604. 
The Petitioner's second job description includes a separate job iduty breakdown; however, a number 
of the listed job duties are unclear and do not readily fit the staffing structure depicted in the 
Petitioner's organizational chart. For instance , the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would 
outline an agenda "for subordinates in ongoing investment and/or business development projects." 
However , the Petitioner .did not describe any specific investment or development projects, nor is it 
clear that an account manager or anoperations manager - the Beneficiary ' s only two subordinates at 
the tirrie of filing - would have the skillset to execute an investment or development project agenda . 
r The Petitioner also indicated that the Beneficiary would take an active role in developing and 
controlling investment and business development programs. However , it did not describe any such 
programs within the specific scope .of an operation that buys and sells aircraft parts. Further, as in 
the Beneficiary's daily schedule of activities , the job description indicates that the Beneficiary would 
be responsible for functions that are not readily deemed as managerial , including negotiating with 
potential and existing clients and with suppliers and vendors, coordinating with shipping companies 
and distributors, identifying potential clients , seeking out "promising types of aircrafts" and "salvage 
aircrafts ," and monitoring receipt and execution of client orders.· As the job duty breakdown did not 
allocate time constraints to the listed activities , it is unclear how much time the Beneficiary would 
spend carrying out the operational and administrative functions of his department. 
Although the Petitioner provided a third job description outlining the statutory elements of 
"managerial capacity," this job description does not provide .further insight as to the Beneficiary's· 
specific job duties within the scope of the operation. Rather, the Petitioner broadly focuses on the 
Beneficiary ' s discretionary . authority with respect to policies and "upper-level managerial 
employees, " his direction of "the main operations of the company," and his placement within the 
· ~etitioner ' s organizational hierarchy. We note, however , that specifics are clearly an important 
-, 
.
Matter ofS-A- , LLC 
indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature, 
otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin 
Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1'103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided another job description that integrates the 
Beneficiary's proposed daily schedule of activities and job duty breakdown , both of which we 
addressed in our discussion above. The new job description does not adequately address the 
deficiencies noted in our discussion above. For instance, in referencing the Beneficiary's time spent 
in daily agenda meetings, the Petitioner continues to cite to all the positions within the Beneficiary's 
department, despite the fact that the HR department was devoid of employees at the time of filing 
and the assistant operations manager position was also vacant. Likewise , the Petitioner continues to 
refer to "the company's executives" and the Beneficiary's oversight of supervisory, professional, and . 
managerial employees," even though none of his claimed subordinates has subordinates of his or her 
own and no evidence was provided to show that either the operations manager or the accounting 
manager is a professional employee. 2 
Further, the Petitioner provided additional information about the Beneficiary's involvement with 
shipping activities; however, it did not explain why the Beneficiary would dedicate five· hours 
weekly to an activity that is supposed to be within the purview of the vice president of sales and his 
claimed subordinate staff. The Petitioner also .continued to make vague references to "investment 
programs" and "business development" programs without identifying any such programs or 
"explaining their significance within the scope of the Petitioner's specific type of business activity. 
Although the Petitioner restated that the Beneficiary would use his discretionary authority to identify 
potential clients, dealers , distributors , and suppliers and search for salvageable aircraft parts, this 
element alone is insufficient to establish that the actual duties would be primarily managerial in 
nature, particularly in light of the deficiencies described above . Whether the Beneficiary is a 
managerial employee turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained its burden of proving ·that his 
duties are "primarily" managerial. See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Lastly, the Petitioner provided an evaluatiop letter from an associate dean at the 
However, the expert opinion does not establish that the Director ' s decision was based 
on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. The letter states an opinion based on scholastic 
documents outside of the record and it is not based on a review of applicable immigration statutes 
and regulations . For example , the letter .paraphrases the statutory definition of managerial capacity 
pointing to the Beneficiary's hiring, firing, and supervision of personnel, but it does not apply these 
2 In evaluating 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 101 (a)(32) of the Act, states that "[t]he term profession 
shall include but not be limited to archit~cts, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or 
secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." Therefore, we must focus on the level of education required by 
the position, rather than the degree held by subordinate employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a 
subordinate employee does not automaticany lead to the conclusion that he or she is employed in a professional capacity. 
8 
.
Matter of S-A-, LLC 
statutory elements or assess the Beneficiary's job duty breakdown within the scope of the 
organization as it existed at the time of filing. The textbook or common understanding of business 
. terms will not supersede the statutory definitions; the applicable definition of manager is contained 
in the statute at section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
0 
We may,l in our discretion , use as adv.isory opinions statements from universities, professional 
organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony . However, where an 
opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to 
accept or.may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron Int ·1, 19 l&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 
1988). 
On appeal, the Petitioner focuses on the Beneficiary's placement within the organizational hierarchy 
and asserts that he is "part of the senior management tier"; it also points to his discretionary 
authority over financial and business matters and resubmits previously submitted job descriptions 
and work schedules reiterating that the BeneficiaFy will be employed in a managerial ~apacity. 
However, the Petitioner does not offer further evidence or information that adequately addresses the· 
above noted deficiencies and establishes that the Beneficiary would primarily perform job duties in a 
managerial capacity. 
III. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT 
Finally, we find that the. Petitioner has not overcome the adverse evidence that we addressed in our 
recently issued NOID/RFE where we pointed to inconsistencies regarding the Beneficiary's claimed 
employment with , the Petitioner's Russian affiliate, since October 2010. Namely, 
we notified the Petitioner that U.S. Department of State records show that when the Beneficiary 
applied for a nonimmigrant visa (NIV) in 2012, 2013, and 2014, he did not claim to have been 
employed by either at the time ofor prior to filing these NIVs. Rather, he claimed 
as his "present" employer. We further noted that the Beneficiary 
filed three additional NIV s at various times in 2017 and that in each NIV he identified as 
his prior employer and stated that his employment with did not commence until 
after his employment with ended in January 2015. Although we acknowledged that the 
Beneficiary's resume shows a period of overlapping employment by both entities , we asked the 
Petitioner to explain the logistics of the overlap given that the entities are physically 500 miles apart. 
In response, the Petitioner maintains its claim regarding the overlapping employment and states that 
opened a branch office that was located only 24 miles from thereby 
allowing the Beneficiary to hold positions simultaneously with both entities. The Petitioner further 
states- that the virtual NIV application format precluded an applicant from being able to claim 
simultaneous employment with multiple employers. 
Although the Petitioner provided plausible explanations to address the inconsistencies we noted in 
our NOID/RFE , it did not provide any contemporaneous evidence, such as payroll summaries or 
state issued tax documents, verifying the Be~eficiary's claimed employment with 
9 
\ 
Matter of S-A-, LLC 
The Petitioner's explanations do not constitute independent, objective evidence and therefore they 
are not sufficient to resolve the above noted inconsistencies. See Ho, 19 l&N Dec. at 591-92. As a 
result of these unresolved inconsistencies, we find that the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad for one year during the three yea~s that preceded the filing of this 
petition. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we find that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
will be employed · in the United States in a managerial capacity or that he 'meets the foreign 
employment requirement. The appeal will be dismissed forthese reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-A-. LLC, ID# 1363329 (AAO Feb. 22, 2019) 
/ 
10