dismissed L-1A Case: Automotive Trade

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion :Jf personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securit)' 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: NOV 0 ! 2011 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 1OI(a)(IS)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § l1Ol(a)(IS)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
infonnation that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.S. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Fonn 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
erry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vennont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-IA nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(IS)(L) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. § II0I(a)(lS)(L). The petitioner, a New York corporation, states that it intends to engage in the 
international trade of automobiles. It claims to be a subsidiary of Arkstar International, Inc., located in Japan. 
The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as president of its new office in the United States for a period 
of three years 1 
The director denied the petition based on two independent and alternative grounds. The director concluded 
that the petitioner failed to establish: (I) that the U.S. company had secured sufficient physical premises to 
house the new office; and (2) that the U.S. entity would support a managerial or executive position within one 
year of commencing operations in the United States. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. In a letter submitted in support of the appeal, counsel asserts 
that the director overlooked substantial evidence submitted in support of the petition, and issued a vague 
decision that gives the petitioner no meaningful opportunity for rebuttal. Counsel stated on the Form 1-290B, 
Notice of Appeal or Motion, that he would forward a brief and/or additional evidence in support of the appeal 
within to the AAO within 30 days. As of this date, no additional documentation has been received and the 
record will be considered complete. 
I. The Law 
To establish eligibility for the L-I nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 10 1 (a)(lS)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one 
continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States. 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, executive, or 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Fonn 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the 
alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 
I Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(7)(A)(3), if the beneficiary is coming to the United States to 
open or be employed in a new office, the petition may be approved for a period not to exceed one year. 
Page 3 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time employment 
abroad with a qualitying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies himlher to perform the intended 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v) further provides that if the petition indicates that the beneficiary is 
coming to the United States as a manager or executive to open or to be employed in a new office in the United 
States, the petitioner shall submit evidence that: 
(A) Sufficient physical premises to house the new office have been secured; 
(B) The beneficiary has been employed for one continuous year in the three year period 
preceding the filing of the petition in an executive or managerial capacity and that the 
proposed employment involved executive of managerial authority over the new 
operation; and 
(C) The intended United States operation, within one year of the approval of the petition, 
will support an executive or managerial position as defined in paragraphs (1)( 1 )(ii)(B) 
or (e) of this section, supported by information regarding: 
(/) The proposed nature of the office describing the scope of the entity, its 
organizational structure, and its financial goals; 
(2) The size of the United States investment and the financial ability of the 
foreign entity to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business 
in the United States; and 
(3) The organizational structure of the foreign entity. 
II. Discussion 
A. Sufficient Physical Premises to House the New Office 
The first issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established that it has secured sufficient 
physical premises to house the new office, as required by 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). 
Evidence of the physical premises secured for the new office is required initial evidence for a petition filed 
pursuant to 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). Therefore, the critical facts to be examined are those that were in 
existence at the time of filing the petition. It is a long-established rule in visa petition proceedings that a 
petitioner must establish eligibility as of the time of filing the petition. A visa petition may not be approved 
Page 4 
based on speculation of future eligibility or after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new 
set offacts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978); Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971); Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm. 1998). 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, on June 29, 2009. On the Form 1-
129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, the petitioner indicated that its mailing address is_ 
The petitioner provided no other address where asked to indicate the address 
where the beneficiary wi1l work. 
The petitioner did not submit a lease agreement in support of the petition. According to a Durable Power of 
Attnrr,ev document submitted at the time of filing, the above-referenced address is the residential address of 
the petitioner's vice president, who was appointed as the beneficiary's attorney-in-fact. 
The director issued a request for additional evidence ("RFE") on July 2, 2009. The director instructed the 
petitioner to submit evidence establishing that it has secured physical premises to house the new office, 
including: (1) an original lease agreement and the telephone number of the lessor; (2) the square footage of a1l 
premises secured and a copy of the floor plan; and (3) photographs of the interior and exterior of the premises 
secured. 
In a letter dated July 31,2009, the petitioner clarified that it used the New Jersey address stated on the petition 
"on an interim basis." The petitioner indicated that since it will be engaged in the sale of pre-owned cars, it 
requires office space together with a garage. 
The petitioner submitted a sublease agreement between the U.S. company and over-tenant, New York 
Transmissions & Used Auto Sales, dated July 1,2009. According to the terms of the sublease, the petitioner 
will pay $1,200 per month for use of office space and "1/2 shop space" to be used for "auto repair & sales." 
The sublease "is subject to the Over-Lease" between the over-tenant and the landlord, which has not been 
provided for review. The petitioner submitted a copy of a check in the amount of $2,400 for July rent and 
security deposit issued to the over-tenant. In addition, the petitioner provided photographs of the garage 
storefront of New York Transmission & Used Auto Sales, which depicts the petitioner's sma1l company sign 
on an external fence and in a sma1l interior office. The petitioner also submitted a copy of a workspace with 
auto repair tools and equipment. 
According to the petitioner's business plan, the company anticipates that it will sell 50 cars per month and 
achieving gross annual sales of $6,000,000. 
The director denied the petition on August 18,2009. In denying the petition, the director observed that the 
petitioner failed to establish that it had secured sufficient physical prem ises to house the new office prior to 
the filing of the petition. The director emphasized that the petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of 
filing the petition pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
Page 5 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner does not address the issue of whether the petitioner secured physical 
premises to house the new office as of the date of filing the petition. Accordingly, the AAO will affirm the 
director's determination and dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner conceded that the address stated on the petition was an "interim address" and does not claim to 
have secured physical premises to house an auto sale and repair business prior to June 29, 2009, the date on 
which the petition was filed. 
Further, even if the petitioner had subm itted the sublease and photographs at the time of filing, the evidence 
would be insufficient to establish that the premises secured is sufficient in light of the proposed nature and 
scope of the petitioner's business. The petitioner initially stated that it intends to engage in the international 
trade of automobiles; however, the sublease agreement indicates that the petitioner is authorized to use the 
premises for automobile sales and repairs. The petitioner appears to be renting a small office sufficient for 
one person and part of an automobile repair shop. The lease agreement does not stipulate that the petitioner 
has the use of a car lot, and it is unclear whether the petitioner could reasonably achieve its projected sales of 
50 vehicles a month given the nature and apparent size of the leased premises. Although requested by the 
director, the petitioner did not provide a floor plan or evidence of the size of the premises. 
In addition, the petitioner has not provided a copy of the master lease for the company's subleased premises. 
Without a copy of the master lease agreement, the AAO cannot determine whether or if the landlord's consent 
to the sub-lease of the premises was required or given. The sublease also provides that the provisions of the 
master lease are part of the sublease and that the petitioning company, as subtenant, was required to read and 
initial the over-lease. 
For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner has not established that it had secured sufficient physical premises to 
house the new office, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(v)(A). Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
II. Beneficiary's Employment in a Managerial or Executive Capacity 
The second issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary would be employed 
in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity within one year. 
Section IOI(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § IIOI(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of 
the organization; 
(ii) supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees, or manages an essential function within the organization, or a department 
or subdivision ofthe organization; 
Page 6 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the authority to 
hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions (such as 
promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly supervised, 
functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the 
function managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function for 
which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is not considered to be 
acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory 
duties unless the employees supervised are professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(8) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § I I 01 (a)(44)(8), defines the term "executive capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the 
organization; 
(ii) establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
(iii) exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
The one-year "new office" provision is an accommodation for newly established enterprises, provided for by 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulation, that allows for a more lenient treatment of 
managers or executives that are entering the United States to open a new office. When a new business is first 
established and commences operations, the regulations recognize that a designated manager or executive 
responsible for setting up operations will be engaged in a variety of low-level activities not normally 
performed by employees at the executive or managerial level and that often the full range of managerial 
responsibility cannot be performed in that first year. In an accommodation that is more lenient than the strict 
language of the statute, the "new office" regulations allow a newly established petitioner one year to develop 
to a point that it can support the employment of an alien in a primarily managerial or executive position. 
Accordingly, if a petitioner indicates that a beneficiary is coming to the United States to open a "new office," 
it must show that it is prepared to commence doing business immediately upon approval so that it will support 
a manager or executive within the one-year timeframe. This evidence should demonstrate a realistic 
expectation that the enterprise will succeed and rapidly expand as it moves away from the developmental 
stage to full operations, where there would be an actual need for a manager or executive who will primarily 
perform qualifying duties. See generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(v). The petitioner must describe the nature of 
its business, its proposed organizational structure and financial goals, and submit evidence to show that it has 
the financial ability to remunerate the beneficiary and commence doing business in the United States. Id 
In a letter dated June 22, 2009, the petitioner provided the following description of the beneficiary's proposed 
duties as president: 
Page 7 
In the capacity of president, [the beneficiary] will function as chief executive officer (CEO) 
with wide latitude of discretionary power. For instance; he will have the full authority to 
hire, fire, promote and demote employees. He will decide the company's policy/strategies 
including whether or not, when to engage in a joint venture with other companies. He will 
request corporate parent for additional capital investment if he deems necessary. He is in 
charge of overall business operation and will have final say in many important issues. [The 
beneficiary], however, is not doing this all by himself. He does not supervise daily operation. 
Instead, he will have a manager and a senior technician who will relieve him from the routine 
supervision of daily operation, so that [the beneficiary] can focus on more important duties 
outlined above. 
In a separate statement, the petitioner submitted the following job description: 
President: a) Set General Goals and Objectives for the company, b) Approve company rules 
and regulations, c) Review and approve Expenses Budget, Review Financial statements; d) 
Formulate company structure, Approve hiring and firing of staff at manager or higher level, 
e) Coordinate with executives of other companies or participate at important trade 
conferences, f) assume full profit and loss responsibilities for the US company and report to 
corporate parent. Utilize the expertise of outside expert such as financial consultant. About 7 
hours for each itemized duties. Work done through the assistance of sales/marketing manager 
and senior technician. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted a description of the beneficiary's proposed "typical day" noting that the 
beneficiary's daily duties would include: checking his calendar and to-do list; prioritizing and responding to 
or delegating responses to e-mails; meeting with the company's sales/marketing manager and senior 
technician and other internal meetings for two hours daily; reviewing documents and reports prepared by the 
manager and managing assistant and preparing reports required by parent company; reading trade publications 
and business magazines; contacting business consultants for marketing, strategy or technical issues; 
formulating internal rules, adjusting strategies, and communicating with the foreign parent company. 
The petitioner provided job titles and proposed job descriptions for employees to be hired in 2009, including a 
sales/marketing manager, a senior technician, a managing assistant, a part-time bookkeeper, a business 
consultant to be hired on an hourly basis; a secretary to work with the manager and senior technician; and five 
to ten commissioned sales persons. 
The petitioner indicated that its Japanese parent company transferred $120,000 in initial capital as an 
investment in the U.S. company, and provided evidence that it had an available bank account balance of 
$121,800 as of May 8, 2009. 
In the request for additional evidence issued on July 2, 2009, the director instructed the petitioner to submit 
the following additional information to establish whether the U.S. company will be capable of supporting a 
managerial or executive position within one year: (1) a comprehensive description of the beneficiary'S 
proposed duties; (2) an organizational chart for the U.S. entity depicting the beneficiary's proposed position; 
(3) evidence of all assets that have been purchased for use in the U.S. enterprise; and (4) a copy of the U.S. 
company's business plan, including specific details regarding the business to be conducted and one, three and 
five-year projections for business expenses, sales, gross income and profits and losses. 
In a letter dated July 31, 2009, the petitioner emphasized that it provided a description of the beneficiary's 
proposed duties at the time of filing. The petitioner noted that the beneficiary has already established the U.S. 
company and will be prepared to immediately begin efforts to recruit a sales/marketing manager and 
management assistant to relieve him from supervising the daily operation of the company. The petitioner 
further stated that the beneficiary will perform the following duties: 
a. He will travel around in the US and internationally for business opportunities. He would 
travel internationally 2-3 times a year. 
b. He will communicate with corporate parent in Japan on weekly basis. 
c. He will review and evaluate the overall performance of business operation on weekly 
basis. 
d. He will on behalf of our company, join the local trade association and 
coordinate/associate with his counterparts. 
e. He will review, revise and amend company's rules, regulations. 
f. He will contact banking/financial consultants to build up a solid financial footing. 
g. Our current equipments are included in the leased as is. The president will decide if and 
when we need to purchase new equipment or move to a bigger, better space. 
h. The president will make hiring decisions of higher ranking employees (the two positions 
mentioned above), and will review and approve the hiring proposals made by them. 
The petitioner submitted a proposed organizational chart which depicts the position of president with two 
direct subordinates, the managing senior assistant and the sales and marketing manager. The chart indicates 
that the managing senior assistant will oversee a secretary and bookkeeper, while the sales and marketing 
manager will oversee one technician and sales staff. 
The petitioner also provided a copy of its business plan dated May 2009. The petitioner indicates that "the 
core of the business will remain the conventional trading, i.e., acting as an agent/dealer to earn low-risk yet 
reasonably high return rate in each sale of cars." The petitioner indicates that in the first year of operations, 
the company will engage in the sale of pre-owned Japanese cars, with anticipated sales of 50 cars per month, a 
margin of $500 per car, gross annual sales of $6 million, and gross profit of $300,000. 
Counsel indicated that the petitioner was submitting "copies of commercial invoices regarding business with 
customers in Dominican Republic." The referenced exhibit included a commercial invoice for "underwear as 
gift" sent from an individual in the Dominican Republic to the petitioner's vice president, and copies of 
Spanish-language advertisements placed by the foreign entity through International Press Japan Co. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be 
employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or that the new office would realistically support a 
managerial or executive position within one year. In denying the petition, the director found the position 
descriptions submitted for the beneficiary too vague to demonstrate that his actual duties would be primarily 
managerial or executive in nature. The director concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that it would 
grow to the point where it would require a manager or executive within one year. 
Page 9 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director failed to consider the significant business 
operation of the petitioner's parent company in Japan and the fact that the foreign entity invested substantial 
capital for the U.S. entity. Counsel further contends that the director's analysis did not adequately explain 
why the beneficiary's proposed job duties are not primarily managerial or executive in nature, and thus 
provided insufficient support for the director's conclusions. Similarly, counsel asserts that the director's 
decision failed to address the strengths and weaknesses of the submitted business plan, and thus the petitioner 
is unsure why the director concluded that "the size and scope of the proposed business activities does not 
support any executive/managerial level position." 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence, and for the reasons discussed herein, the petitioner has not 
established that the beneficiary will be employed by the United States entity in a managerial or executive 
capacity within one year. 
As a preliminary matter, we acknowledge counsel's assertions that the director provided a fairly vague 
explanation for the denial of the petition. When denying a petition, a director has an affirmative duty to 
explain the specific reasons for the denial; this duty includes informing a petitioner why the evidence failed to 
satisfy its burden of proof pursuant to section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). 
As the AAO's review is conducted on a de novo basis, the AAO will herein address the petitioner's evidence 
and eligibility. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 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 
either in an executive or managerial capacity. Id. 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when examining 
the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, including the petitioner's proposed 
organizational structure, the duties of the beneficiary's proposed subordinate employees, the petitioner's 
timeline for hiring additional staff, the presence of other employees to relieve the beneficiary from performing 
operational duties at the end of the first year of operations, the nature of the petitioner's business, and any 
other factors that will contribute to a complete understanding of a beneficiary'S actual duties and role in a 
business. As noted above, the petitioner's evidence should demonstrate a realistic expectation that the 
enterprise will succeed and rapidly expand as it moves away from the developmental stage to full operations, 
where there would be an actual need for a manager or executive who will primarily perform qualifying duties. 
See generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
In the instant matter, the petitioner has repeatedly described the beneficiary'S proposed position in very broad 
terms. The petitioner initially stated that the beneficiary will exercise "wide latitude of discretionary power," 
"have the full authority to hire, fire, promote and demote employees," "decide the company's 
policies/strategies," be "in charge of overall business operation," and "have final say in many important 
issues." The petitioner indicated at the same time that the beneficiary will "set general goals and objectives," 
"approve company rules and regulations," "review company rules" and "assume full profit and loss 
responsibilities" while reporting to the corporate parent. Such statements reflect that the beneficiary will be 
the senior employee in the new company, but they offer little insight into what the beneficiary will actually do 
on a day-to-day basis as the president of a newly established used automobile sales and repair shop during the 
Page 10 
first year of operations and beyond. Reciting the beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast 
business objectives is not sufficient; the regulations require a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job 
duties. The petitioner has failed to provide any detail or explanation of the beneficiary's proposed activities in 
the course of his daily routine. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), 
ajj'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
The AAO acknowledges that the petitioner attempted to describe the beneficiary's "typical day" but these 
duties were also described in very general terms, with the petitioner stating that he beneficiary will be 
reviewing correspondence, reviewing unspecified "documents and reports" prepared by subordinates, 
preparing unspecified "documents and reports" for the petitioner's parent company, telephone consultations, 
formulating rules and strategies, reading trade publications, and attending daily two-hour meetings to "check 
the status of various projects." Finally, in response to the director's request for a comprehensive description 
of the beneficiary's proposed duties, the petitioner submitted a description that closely resembled the duties 
listed at the time of filing, which had already been reviewed by the record and found to be deficient. 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. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft 
of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972». 
The petitioner did not indicate that the beneficiary would be directly involved in the day-to-day operations of 
purchasing, repairing or selling used cars, but once again, the list of duties did not fully explain the 
beneficiary's role within the context of the petitioner's business, and is wholly dependent on whether the 
petitioner's evidence supports a finding that the petitioner will hire the proposed employees identified in the 
organizational chart, such that the beneficiary would actually be free to perform the duties described. 
In sum, while several of the duties described by the petitioner would generally fall under the definitions of 
managerial or executive capacity, the lack of specificity raises questions as to the beneficiary's actual 
proposed responsibilities. Overall, the position description alone is insufficient to establish that the 
beneficiary's duties would be primarily in a managerial or executive capacity, particularly in the case of a new 
office petition where much is dependent on factors such as the petitioner's business and hiring plans and 
evidence that the business will grow sufficiently to support the beneficiary in the intended managerial or 
executive capacity. The petitioner has the burden to establish that the U.S. company would realistically 
develop to the point where it would require the beneficiary to perform duties that are primarily managerial or 
executive in nature within one year. Accordingly, the totality of the record must be considered in analyzing 
whether the proposed duties are plausible considering the petitioner's anticipated staffing levels and stage of 
development within a one-year period. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(v)(C)(2) requires the 
petitioner to submit evidence that the intended United States operation, within one year of the approval of the 
petition, will support an executive or managerial position supported by information regarding the proposed 
nature of the office describing the scope of the entity, its organizational structure, and its financial goals. 
In reviewing the totality of the evidence in the record, the AAO must consider the nature of the petitioner's 
new office, its proposed staffing levels, its preparation for rapid development, and its need for an employee 
who will perform primarily managerial or executive duties. 
The petitioner indicated at the time of filing and in response to the RFE that it will employ a president, a 
sales/marketing manager, a senior technician, a managing assistant, a bookkeeper, a secretary, commissioned 
Page 11 
sales people, and a contracted business consultant. While the organizational structure described may very 
well be capable of supporting a qualifYing managerial or executive position, the petitioner must also 
demonstrate that its proposed staffing structure is credible and can realistically be put in place within one 
year. 
The petitioner indicates that it intends to engage in the international trade of automobiles and employ six 
direct employees, along with external sales agents and consultants. The petitioner's business plan states only 
that the company will engage in the sale of pre-owned Japanese cars, with anticipated sales of 50 cars per 
month and gross sales of $6,000,000 per year. 
As contemplated by the regulations, a comprehensive business plan should contain, at a mtmmum, a 
description of the business, its products and/or services, and its objectives. See Matter of Ho, 22 I&N Dec. 
206,213 (Assoc. Comm. 1998). Although the precedent relates to the regulatory requirements for the alien 
entrepreneur immigrant visa classification, Matter of Ho is instructive as to the contents of an acceptable 
business plan: 
ld. 
The plan should contain a market analysis, including the names of competing businesses and 
their relative strengths and weaknesses, a comparison of the competition's products and 
pricing structures, and a description of the target market/prospective customers of the new 
commercial enterprise. The plan should list the required permits and licenses obtained. If 
applicable, it should describe the manufacturing or production process, the materials required, 
and the supply sources. The plan should detail any contracts executed for the supply of 
materials and/or the distribution of products. It should discuss the marketing strategy of the 
business, including pricing, advertising, and servicing. The plan should set forth the 
business's organizational structure and its personnel's experience. It should explain the 
business's staffing requirements and contain a timetable for hiring, as well as job descriptions 
for all positions. It should contain sales, cost, and income projections and detail the bases 
therefore. Most importantly, the business plan must be credible. 
The petitioner's three-page business plan contains little information beyond projected units sold per month, 
and does not support a finding that the petitioner will in fact be in a position to hire the proposed staff within 
one year. Moreover, a review of the petitioner's lease and photographs of the leased premises raises further 
questions regarding the intended nature and scope of the U.S. company. The petitioner indicates an intent to 
employ five office staff and one technician, but the photographs depict one small office that appears large 
enough to accommodate only one person. As noted above, the petitioner's lease does not appear to include a 
car lot and it is unclear where the petitioner intends to store the automobiles that it purchases or imports for 
repair and re-sale, such that it could realistically reach its goal of selling 600 cars during the first year of 
operations. The leased premises appear to be sufficient to accommodate auto mechanics and an office 
worker. 
The petitioner has subm itted evidence that it had an available balance of $121 ,000 in its checking account as 
of the date of filing the petition, but it has not identified its start-up costs or indicated how this investment will 
be used to start up operations. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
· 4 
Page 12 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Malter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm. 1998) (citing Malter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972». 
The regulations require the petitioner to present a credible picture of where the company will stand in exactly 
one year, and to provide sufficient supporting evidence in support of its claim that the company will grow to a 
point where it can support a managerial or executive position within one year. The petition cannot be 
approved based on a general position description, a proposed organizational chart, and an abbreviated 
business plan that fails to discuss critical factors such as operating costs, start-up costs, and hiring plans. 
The AAO does not doubt that the beneficiary will have the appropriate level of authority over the petitioner's 
business as its president. The petitioner did not, however, submit sufficient evidence that the petitioner could 
realistically support a managerial or executive position within one year. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving 
eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 V.S.c. § 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.