dismissed L-1A Case: Asset Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19793307 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 24, 2022 
The Petitioner, an asset fund management firm, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's employment as its 
"Head of North American Distribution" 1 under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees . See Immigration and Nationality Act section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-lA classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its 
affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to work 
temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity. The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that it met its 
burden to establish that the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity and asserts that the 
Director did not give sufficient weight to the evidence submitted . 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this 
matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 
review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-IA nonirnmigrant 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 101(a)(15)(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 subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
1 The Petitioner also refers to the offered U.S. position as "Head ofNorth American Business Development" and uses these 
job titles interchangeably in the submitted company letters and organizational charts . 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that it would employ the Beneficiary 
in an executive capacity. The Petitioner has consistently claimed that the proposed position satisfies 
the statutory definition of executive capacity and clarifies on appeal that it does not seek to establish, 
in the alternative, that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial 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. 
To be eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as an executive, a petitioner must show that 
the beneficiary will perform the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition at section 
10l(a)(44)(B)(i)-(iv) of the Act. If the petitioner establishes that the offered position meets all 
elements set forth in the statutory definition, it must prove that the beneficiary will be primarily 
engaged in executive duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the petitioner's 
other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). 
In determining whether a given beneficiary's duties will be primarily executive, we consider the 
petitioner's description of the job duties, the company's organizational structure, the duties of a 
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 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. Job Duties 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary, as Head of North American Business Development, "will 
continue to be primarily responsible for sourcing, structuring, and managing credit investment 
opportunities for [ the Petitioner's] clients as well as provide strategic leadership to support the 
expansion plans in the region, including building the appropriate team in the [United States]." 
The Petitioner's initial supporting letter included a list of 17 job duties. The Petitioner highlighted 14 
of those duties and indicated that the highlighted tasks, accounting for 90% of the Beneficiary's time, 
are executive in nature. The claimed executive duties included: 
• Develop, refine, implement, and direct a strategic business development plan 
covering territory-channel coverage and be responsible for all aspects of its 
implementation, including expanding and deepening relationships with existing 
clients as well as developing new business initiatives with prospective clients. 
• Using knowledge of I investment teams, identify potential recruits for 
specialist investment capability to be based locally in office .... 
2 
• Lead the Business Development team as a "player/coach" to grow assets under 
management by identifying and closing new business opportunities and cultivating 
relationships with existing clients. 
• As the FINRA registered Supervising Principal ensure that [the company] acts in 
accordance with the spirit and letter of both SEC and FINRA authorities. 
• Associated Person with National Futures Association. 
• Accredited with series 63, 7, 3 and 30 exams, series 30 being assigned "Branch 
Office Manager" status. 
• Effectively communicate the investment philosophies, processes, strategies, and 
performance to prospective clients ... 
• Direct the investment philosophies, processes, strategies, and performance in North 
America 
• Provide input into strategic product development and management as well as [the 
company's] broader thinking on distribution. 
• Leverage industry knowledge to identify and capitalize on emerging sales trends 
and provide strategic direction and leadership to accelerate [the company's] asset 
growth across North America. 
• Help formulate and drive the brand awareness of [the company] and its investment 
capabilities. 
• Contribute to the design and content of appropriate marketing materials to support 
the North American sales effort. 
• Create and maintain a strong working relationship with both external service 
providers . . . as well as internal support teams including Finance, Legal and 
Compliance. 
• Prepare and present sales reports to the Global Head of Distribution and the Board 
of [the company] as needed. 
The Petitioner's initial letter included an explanation in which it addressed how the offered position 
meets all four prongs of the statutory definition of"executive capacity" at section 101(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. The Director subsequently issued a request for evidence (RFE) and a notice of intent to deny 
(NOID), which provided additional opportunities for the Petitioner to provide supplemental 
information and evidence relating to the Beneficiary's duties and the amount of time he allocates to 
qualifying executive tasks. 
In response to the NOID, the Petitioner provided a list of 11 duties with the approximate percentage 
of time the Beneficiary allocates to each duty and reiterated that all listed duties (requiring 90% of his 
time) are executive in nature. These duties included: 
1. Develop, refine, implement, and direct a strategic business development plan, 
including investment philosophies, processes, strategies, and performance, for [the 
company's] North American initiatives. (15%) 
2. Oversee and take responsibility for all aspects of the business development plan's 
implementation, including expanding and deepening relationships with existing 
clients as well as developing new business initiatives with prospective clients. 
(15%) 
3 
3. Direct each and every aspect of the Sales and Business Development component as 
well as the Business Development Team function .... Develop, implement and 
direct the "go to market" plan for North America, utilizing industry knowledge and 
licensure to ensure these plans are in line with company and industry standards. 
These tasks require accreditation with series 63, 7, 3 and 30 exams. (15%) 
4. Lead the Business Development Team to grow assets under management by 
identifying and closing new business opportunities and cultivating relationships 
with existing clients in all aspects of the investment process. (10%) 
The Petitioner indicated that each of the remaining duties would each require 5% of the Beneficiary's 
time and include: creating and maintaining working relationships with external providers and internal 
teams (finance, legal, and compliance); contributing to the design and content of marketing materials; 
helping to formulate and implement brand awareness; effectively communicating the firm's 
investment philosophies, strategies and performance to prospective clients; preparing and presenting 
sales reports to the Global Head of Distribution; serving as the Associated Person with the National 
Futures Association (NF A); and, in his role as FINRA registered Supervising Principal, ensuring that 
the firm executives its business development processes in accordance with SEC and FINRA 
regulations. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Beneficiary's position description includes 
several non-executive tasks related to marketing and selling the Petitioner's services to clients, as well 
as some tasks that were not sufficiently explained. The Director also emphasized that the submitted 
descriptions only account for 90% of the Beneficiary's time and therefore USCIS is unable to conclude 
that the remaining 10% would be allocated to executive-level duties. As discussed further below, the 
Director did not deny the petition solely on the basis the Beneficiary's position description, but rather 
considered the submitted job descriptions in reviewing the evidence in its totality. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary's "primary duty" is to establish a framework 
for the Regional Business Development team, including policies, procedures, processes and protocols 
needed for the company to operate in the region. The Petitioner maintains that it is not required to 
establish that 100% of the Beneficiary's time would be allocated to executive-level duties and asserts 
its submission of a description that accounts for only 90% of his time does not prevent a determination 
that his duties are primarily executive in nature. Further, the Petitioner contends that the Director 
"ignored" the submitted job descriptions and did not explain why those descriptions were insufficient 
to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof applicable in this matter. 
The Petitioner has the burden of establishing that the Beneficiary will perform the high-level 
responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition at section 10l(a)(44)(B)(i)-(iv) of the Act, and that 
the Beneficiary will primarily engage in executive duties as opposed to performing operational 
activities alongside other employees. Here, the Petitioner submitted a probative explanation of how 
the Beneficiary's U.S. position satisfies the elements of the statutory definition of "executive 
capacity." The record establishes that the Beneficiary was initially transferred to the Petitioner's new 
office in 2018 with authority to set up, structure, and develop its business development or 
"distribution" component, a role that involves the appropriate level of authority. However, the 
Petitioner has also described the position as one expected to serve as a "player-coach," with the 
Beneficiary spending some of his time performing the same operational duties as members of the 
4 
business development team he leads. For example, at the time of filing, the Petitioner stated that he 
will "continue to be primarily responsible for sourcing, structuring, and managing credit investment 
opportunities for [the Petitioner's] clients as well as provide strategic leadership to support the 
expansion plans in the region, including building the appropriate team in the U.S." While we do not 
question the Beneficiary's authority to provide strategic leadership within his area of authority, the 
Director raised valid questions regarding the amount of time he would spend directly performing 
client-related activities and other tasks that fall outside the definition of "executive capacity." 
Therefore, although the Petitioner continues to maintain that 90% of the Beneficiary's time is allocated 
to executive duties, we agree with the Director's determination that his stated responsibilities for 
"expanding and deepening relationships with existing clients," "developing new business initiatives 
with prospective clients," "identifying and closing new business opportunities and cultivating 
relationships with existing clients," and communicating "investment philosophies, processes, 
strategies, and performance to prospective clients" indicate that he would be performing the 
operational activities associated with the business development component, rather than delegating 
these activities to other staff. The Petitioner has also indicated in its letters that he would be overseeing 
"sales, marketing and business development" subdivisions within his component but has not identified 
these separate subdivisions ( or any current marketing or sales staff) on the submitted organizational 
charts. With respect to marketing activities specifically, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary 
personally contributes to the design and content of marketing materials and helps to implement brand 
awareness, duties which the Director identified as non-executive tasks. Finally, we agree with the 
Director that some of the Beneficiary's duties are not well-defined. For example, we cannot determine 
what, if any, executive-level tasks, are associated with serving as "an Associated Person" with NF A 
or maintaining working relationships with external service providers and internal support teams. 
Based on the percentages assigned by the Petitioner, the non-executive duties discussed above may 
account for up to 45% of the Beneficiary's time, while 10% of his time remains unaccounted for. If 
the Beneficiary may be spending more than half of his time on non-executive duties, the Petitioner has 
not established that the position is primarily executive in nature. 
The Director's decision does not include a lengthy discussion of the job Beneficiary's job description, 
but, as discussed above, it identifies numerous duties as non-qualifying and does not reflect that the 
Director "ignored" the job description, as alleged by the Petitioner. On appeal, the Petitioner continues 
to claim that the Beneficiary allocates 90% of his time to executive duties, and correctly observes that 
it need only establish that he primarily performs such duties. However, it does not specifically contest 
the Director's determination that the description includes numerous non-executive duties and that such 
duties require a significant portion of the Beneficiary's time, a determination that is supported by the 
record. 
The fact that a beneficiary will direct a component of a business and exercise discretionary authority 
over that component does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an intracompany 
transferee in an executive capacity. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties 
of a position be "primarily" executive in nature. Section 10l(A)(44)(B) of the Act. Here, based on 
submitted breakdown of the Beneficiary's position, the Director raised valid reasons for questioning 
whether the Beneficiary would, more likely than not, spend his time primarily engaged in executive 
duties. In addition, as discussed further below, the Director observed that the record did not 
sufficiently document the domestic and international staff who are claimed to support the North 
5 
American business development component (and the Beneficiary's position) by performing 
operational, administrative, and other non-executive tasks associated with the day-to-day operations 
of this component. 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in an executive 
capacity, we take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose 
and stage of development of the organization. See section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. In making this 
determination, we will consider claims that employees working for related entities within the same 
qualifying organization directly or indirectly support the needs of the petitioning entity. However, if 
a petitioner makes such a claim, it bears the burden to provide probative and relevant evidence 
demonstrating the existence of such staff and the nature of the services they provide. See Matter of Z­
A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). 
The Petitioner was incorporated in 2018 as the subsidiary of a I company that is 
described as "one of the largest international asset managers in Europe." The Petitioner indicates that 
it was established to meet the demands of existing and prospective U.S. clients who prefer a local 
presence and to improve the firm's ability to develop these client relationships while raising awareness 
of its brand and products in North America. At the time it filed this petition in July 2020, the Petitioner 
stated that it had 10 employ rs in the United States (based in itsl I and offices) and a 
planned location in that was expected to hire up to 35 additional employees. 
The Petitioner has consistently claimed that "its organizational complexity and staffing size warrants 
and is capable of supporting the beneficiary in a qualifying executive capacity." It explained that its 
business model requires a "global approach" to handling the needs of its clients and that this approach 
"includes staff (both professional and non-professional), supervisors, managers, and other executives 
operating as one unit, one Department, one organization, even if those members of the team are 
positioned throughout the globe." Therefore, while the Petitioner acknowledged that "there are only 
a few employees in the United States," it emphasized that "the employees in the Beneficiary's 
Department globally ... handle the non-executive duties of his position" and provide "administrative 
and professional support ... on a daily basis." 
As discussed above, the list of proposed job duties in the Petitioner's initial supporting letter indicates 
that the Beneficiary will be leading a "business development team" and maintaining a "working 
relationship" with internal teams such as finance, legal and compliance. In the same letter, the 
Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary would be overseeing "the sales and marketing managers and 
staff' and referred to separate "Sales, Marketing and Business Development" subdivisions within the 
North American Business Development component. The Petitioner further mentioned that the 
Beneficiary would be "supporting the oversight and management" of personnel in the I office 
once it is opened and staffed. Finally, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be "directly 
supported" by two employees: Director, Institutional Client Strategy - North America and an 
Associate Director, North American Business Development. 
6 
In support of its assertions, the Petitioner submitted organizational charts, an offer letter for one of the 
Beneficiary's direct subordinates, and a copy of its IRS Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax 
Return, for the first quarter of 2020 which indicates that the company employed a total of seven 
employees in its two U.S. offices as of March 2020. 
Although the Petitioner submitted nine organizational charts at the time of filing, only two of them 
included the Beneficiary's U.S. position. One chart shows that he reports to the "CDO Americas," 
based in Spain, who also supervises thel based Sales Director for Latin America. The other 
chart depicts the Beneficiary's supervision of two I based employees (the Director of 
Institutional Client Strategy for North America and an Associate Director). 2 The Petitioner did not 
submit a chart that supported its statements that the Beneficiary supervises "sales and marketing 
managers and staff' and separate sales, marketing and business development subdivisions within the 
North American Business Development component, nor do the charts identify any staff outside of the 
I I office who work within this component. 
The Petitioner provided a copy of a signed off er letter issued to the Director of Institutional Client 
Strategy in May 2019, indicating that he would report to the Beneficiary in I I but did not 
provide any current evidence of wages paid to this employee. Its initial evidence also included a May 
2019 paystub for a based employee who, according to the submitted organizational charts, 
reports to the Sales Director for Latin America, rather than to the Beneficiary. 
In the RFE, the Director advised the Petitioner that it did not submit sufficient documentation 
regarding the personnel the Beneficiary would directly or indirectly manage. The Director requested 
an organizational chart that shows the company's organizational structure and staffing levels, and the 
structure of the Beneficiary's immediate division or department, including the names, job titles, and 
summary of duties for his subordinates. The Director also listed evidence the Petitioner could provide 
to corroborate its staffing levels and employment of the Beneficiary's subordinates, including payroll 
summaries, IRS Forms W-2, and state quarterly wage reports. 
In response, the Petitioner re-submitted the same organizational charts included with the initial filing 
and included one new chart depicting the "North American Business Development Team." The new 
chart depicts the Beneficiary as "Head of Distribution" with three direct reports, including the two 
staff identified previously and a third employee with the title "Institutional Client Strategy Director." 
The chart also depicts two proposed "Institutional Sales Support" positions that were not filled. The 
new chart indicates that the Beneficiary reports to the Head of Global Institutional Distribution, a 
London-based employee, rather than to the "CDO Americas" position depicted on the initial chart. 
The company letter accompanying the RFE response states that the Beneficiary reports to the "CCO," 
a position that does not appear on any of the submitted charts. The Petitioner did not explain any 
changes in its reporting structure that would account for these inconsistencies. 
2 The Petitioner did not explain the relevance of the other submitted organizational charts, two of which depict the "US 
Investment Organization Structure." The Beneficiary is not claimed to work within the U.S. Investment component of the 
petitioning organization and his position does not appear in either chart. Several other charts show proposed reporting 
relationships between the new I office staff and the I office and do not include the Beneficiary's position or 
any staff who appear to work within the North American Business Development component. 
7 
Although requested by the Director, the organizational charts did not include and were not 
accompanied by job descriptions for the Beneficiary's subordinate staff, nor do they identify any 
indirect reports, within the U.S. or within the global organization, that support the offered position or 
the North American Business Development component. Instead, the Petitioner reiterated that the 
Beneficiary would have "the full support of his international departments" and that "local staff and the 
Global operations team would relieve him from performing operational and administrative duties." 
The Petitioner did not provide any additional evidence in response to the Director's request that the 
company corroborate its claimed U.S. staffing levels and document the wages it has paid to the 
Beneficiary's subordinates. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's response to the RFE, the Director issued a NOID in which he 
explained why the evidence was insufficient to establish how the Beneficiary would be relieved from 
performing operational duties and other non-executive duties associated with business development 
in North America. 
Specifically, the Director advised the Petitioner that many of the submitted organizational charts did 
not depict the Beneficiary's position and therefore did not show his placement within the 
organization's hierarchy. Further the Director noted that while some of the organizational charts 
included the Beneficiary's position, they offered conflicting information regarding the number of 
direct subordinates he supervises. The Director also acknowledged the Petitioner's claim that other 
local and global employees within the organization would relieve the Beneficiary from performing 
non-executive tasks but emphasized that the Petitioner did not include any "global support staff' from 
'international departments"' on the organizational charts or identify any additional staff (outside of 
the New York office) who report directly or indirectly to the Beneficiary. The Director acknowledged 
that having subordinates employed by a related company is not disqualifying but emphasized that the 
Petitioner bears the burden of explaining and documenting the reporting structure within the 
organization. Further, the Director advised the Petitioner that its response to the RFE did not include 
position descriptions for any U.S. employees or staff from "international organizations" to 
demonstrate that such employees relieve the Beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties. 
Finally, the Director emphasized that, despite being given the opportunity, the Petitioner did not 
provide evidence of payments made to the Beneficiary's subordinate employees. 
In response to the NOID, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary is relieved from performing non­
qualifying duties because "[he] and the United States office rely on the global network of managers, 
supervisors and support staff within the [company's] network to perform these tasks" and because he 
leads the "high-ranking professionals" depicted on the submitted organizational charts. The Petitioner 
re-submitted the previously submitted organizational charts, one of which shows that the Beneficiary 
reports to the "CDO Americas" in Spain and has two direct reports, and one which shows that he 
reports to the "Head of Global Institutional Distribution" based in I and has three current and 
two proposed direct reports. The Petitioner did not further address the issues raised in the NOID with 
respect to the lack of information regarding the duties performed by the Beneficiary's subordinates, 
the inconsistencies in the submitted organizational charts, the lack of evidence related to the "global 
support staff' and "international teams" that are claimed to relieve the Beneficiary from performing 
non-qualifying tasks, and the lack of evidence of wages paid to the Beneficiary's direct subordinates 
and other U.S. staff. 
8 
In denying the petition, the Director noted that the Petitioner's response did not address the evidentiary 
deficiencies set forth in the NOID, and therefore did not overcome the Director's determination that it 
had not met its burden to establish how the Beneficiary would be relieved from spending a significant 
portion of his time on performing operational and other duties that do not fall within the statutory 
definition of executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the previously submitted organizational charts highlight the 
Beneficiary's direct and indirect subordinates and maintains that he "leads a multi-disciplinary, cross­
organizational team." Further, the Petitioner emphasizes that it submitted an annual report for the 
Petitioner's group which highlights the nature and scope of the business and demonstrates its "global 
presence." The Petitioner asserts that the USCIS Adjudicator's Field Manual states that the 
regulations do not require submission of extensive supporting evidence for an L-1 petition except in 
"marginal or doubtful cases." 
The Petitioner also submits additional evidence, including a resume for one of the Beneficiary's 
claimed subordinates for whom no supporting documentation was previously provided, a new letter 
from human resources which provides salary and bonus information for the two I based 
subordinates depicted on the initial organizational chart, and a list of job duties for an unidentified 
position. As discussed above, the Petitioner has had two opportunities to supplement the record with 
evidence related to the Beneficiary's subordinate staff. Where, as here, a Petitioner has been put on 
notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, 
the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 
764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). 
Based on the procedural history discussed above, we agree with the Director's determination that the 
Petitioner did not meet its burden to provide a consistent explanation and evidence of its organizational 
structure and staffing levels and did not explain the duties performed by the Beneficiary's subordinate 
staff. Further the record supports the Director's conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to 
support the company's claim that the Beneficiary would be "relieved of performing operational and 
administrative duties" by both local staff members and by a "global network of managers, supervisors 
and support staff." 
As referenced above, the Petitioner contends that it is not obligated, based on the applicable regulations 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3), to submit specific supporting evidence to substantiate its assertions regarding 
the proposed employment. 
The adjudication requires that we determine whether the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary 
will be employed in an executive capacity. The "preponderance of the evidence" standard requires 
that the evidence demonstrate that the claim is "probably true," where the determination of "truth" is 
made based on the factual circumstances of each individual case. Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 
(quoting Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989)). The truth is to be determined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Thus, in adjudicating the petition pursuant to the 
preponderance of the evidence standard, a director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, 
probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, 
to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true. Id. 
9 
Consistent with determining whether a petitioner has established a beneficiary's eligibility by a 
preponderance of the evidence, a director may request additional evidence. The regulation states that 
a petitioner shall submit additional evidence as the director, in his or her discretion, may deem 
necessary. The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further information that clarifies whether 
eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(8) and (12). Therefore, the fact that certain sections of the regulations set forth more 
specific types of evidence that can be submitted to meet the petitioner's burden of proof does not 
preclude USCIS from reasonably requesting probative evidence and supporting documentation to 
substantiate a beneficiary's eligibility. Further, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(viii) provides 
that a petition shall be accompanied by "such other evidence as the director, in his or her discretion, 
may deem necessary." 
As discussed above, the current adjudication requires a review of the totality of the evidence when 
examining the Beneficiary's employment in an executive capacity, including the Beneficiary's job 
description, 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 a 
beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
The Petitioner emphasizes that it described the Beneficiary's job duties, provided organizational 
charts, and submitted the company's annual report as evidence of its "global presence." The Petitioner 
maintains that this evidence should have been deemed sufficient to establish, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity. However, as 
discussed, the job descriptions included in the supporting letters indicate that the Beneficiary spends 
a significant amount of his time of non-executive duties to the extent that it is unclear that his duties, 
as of the date of filing, were primarily executive in nature. The organizational charts that include the 
Beneficiary's position do not consistently identify his placement within the company's overall 
hierarchy or the number of employees who report directly to him and were not accompanied by 
evidence documenting who the Petitioner employed at the time of filing and what duties those 
employees performed. Finally, while we will consider claims that other employees within the 
Petitioner's international organization perform duties that directly or indirectly support the 
Beneficiary's position and relieve him from performing non-executive duties, it is the Petitioner's 
burden to provide relevant and probative evidence to support its claim; simply establishing that the 
company has a "global presence" as evidenced by its annual report is not sufficient to meet this burden. 
As such, the Director's requests for additional evidence were reasonable and within the discretionary 
authority that the regulations expressly allow. 
The Petitioner consistently asserts that the Beneficiary will have executive authority over business 
development activities for its newly established U.S. operations and will continue to oversee the 
growth of these activities. However, the issue here is not the extent of the Beneficiary's authority but 
rather whether all relevant factors, taken together show that the Beneficiary will primarily perform 
executive duties. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
10 
III. PRIOR APPROVAL 
As acknowledged by the Director, the Beneficiary was previously granted L-lA status that authorized 
him to work for the Petitioner in the offered position. Although there is a previous finding of eligibility, 
the burden of proof in the request for an extension of petition validity remains on the petitioner. See 
Section 291 of the Act. Each nonimmigrant petition filing is a separate proceeding with a separate 
record. In making a determination of statutory eligibility, USCIS is limited to the information 
contained in that individual record of proceeding. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(16)(ii). Further, the previous 
determination of eligibility was made by the U.S. Consulate in Amsterdam, which granted the 
Beneficiary an L-1 visa under the Petitioner's approved blanket L petition in October 2019. USCIS 
officers consider but do not defer to previous eligibility determinations made by the U.S. Department 
of State.3 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that it will employ the Beneficiary in an 
executive capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 We also acknowledge that USCTS previously approved an L-1 A "new office" petition filed on the Beneficiary's behalf 
A "new office" petition may be approved for a period not to exceed one year and may be extended pursuant to the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii), which requires that a petitioner establish that it has been doing business and has developed 
to the point where it can support a managerial or executive position. In June 2019, USCTS denied the Petitioner's request 
to extend the Beneficiary's L-1 A status at the end of the one-year "new office" period ,I. 
11