dismissed L-1A Case: Aviation Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 20, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an aviation technology consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
its managing director under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(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 to the United States to work temporarily in a managerial or executive 
capacity. · 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
not established, as required, that the Beneficiary: (1) would be employed in an executive capacity 
for the U.S. entity; and (2) had been employed as an executive for the foreign qualifying 
organization. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision is based on incorrect assumptions and 
that the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary has been employed abroac;l and would be employed 
in the United States in an executive capacity. 1 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a position involving 
specialized knowledge, for one continuo~s 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 or executive capacity. Section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the 
Act. 
1 
The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary has been or would be employed in a managerial capacity. 
Matter of S-, LLC 
An individual L-1A petition filed on Form l-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, must include 
evidence that the petitioner will employ the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, 
including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
The Act defines the term "executive capacity" as an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily directs the management of the organization or a major component or function 
thereof; 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) ofthe Act. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE. CAPACITY 
The Petitioner is a management and consulting firm that provides advisory services in aviatiOn 
information technologies. It was established in January 2015. The Petitioner states on the Form 
I-129 that it employs three U.S. workers. 
The Director determined that the Beneficiary will be required to perform the actual work of the 
company, such as managing projects, marketing, and first-line supervisory duties, rather than 
primarily functioning as an executive. 
We will address both the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's intended duties as well as the 
Petitioner's staffing to determine whether the Petitioner has established this eligibility requirement. 
We note that when reviewing staffing levels as a factor in determining whether an individual is 
acting in an executive capacity, we must 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) ofthe Act. 
A. Duties 
When examining the executive capacity of a beneficiary, we will look first to a petitioner's 
description ofthejob duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The definition of executive capacity has 
two parts. First, the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary will perform certain high-level 
responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. 
July 30, 1991). Second, the Petitioner 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, e.g., Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 
940 F.2d at 1533. 
In a letter submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner asserted that its objective is to have the 
Beneficiary "oversee the company's consulting services of aviation market analysis, project 
management, and air traffic management solutions for North America." The Petitioner stated that 
the Beneficiary would spend 50 percent of his time on contract management of European ·customers 
2 
.
Matter of S-, LLC 
"requiring harmonization consulting services with U.S. entities and standards" and 50 percent of his 
time on contract vehicle establishment "pursuing opportunities with U.S. government and private 
industry to promote joint business activities with European companies." In a job offer to the 
Beneficiary, dated November 15, 2016, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's "specific tasks 
will be to provide technical advice to private and public aviation organizations, identify prospective 
customers and perform corporate management duties." These briefly described duties indicate that 
the Beneficiary is the individual who will be performing the consulting services, by providing 
technical advice, and will be marketing the Petitioner's services by pursuing business opportunities 
with the U.S. government and private industry. However, an employee who "primarily" performs 
the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be "primarily" 
employed in an executive capacity. See, e.g, section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act (requiring that one 
"primarily" perform the enumerated executive duties); Matter of Church Scientology Int 'l, 19 I&N 
Dec. 593, 604 (Comm'r 1988). 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
will "[ s ]et out the strategic direction of the team," will pursue business opportunities and 
research agreements which involve seeking new clients from a variety of sources, and will manage 
the team's project portfolio which "involves maintaining and growing the client base, generating 
leads, managing project pipeline and connect[ing] with clients on a regular basis through client calls, 
meetings and networking." The Petitioner added that the Beneficiary will "[s]upervise performance 
and deliverables of active contracts and projects, and provide recommendations," and will execute 
human resources policy which involves managing the entire recruitment process, performance 
quantification, and salary and benefit incentives. 
This additional job description is broadly-stated and the Petitioner does not document what 
proportion of the Beneficiary's duties would be managerial or executive functions and what 
proportion would be non-qualifying. The Petitioner lists the Beneficiary's duties as including some 
generally described managerial tasks which may be first-line supervisory tasks (recruiting employees 
and recommending personnel actions), some vaguely described executive tasks (developing 
organizational policies and objectives and recruiting employees), and operational tasks (seeking new 
clients, maintaining and growing the client base, connecting with clients, and managing the project 
pipeline). The Petitioner, however, does not quantify the time the Beneficiary would spend on these 
different duties. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are 
primarily executive in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of 
reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), 
aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The Petitioner's descriptions of the Beneficiary's duties and 
responsibilities and the Petitioner's job offer to the Beneficiaryreviewed in their totality demonstrate 
that the Beneficiary will primarily perform non-qualifying duties such as marketing the company, 
connecting with prospective customers, providing technical advice, and recruiting resources and 
employees which may be first-line supervisory duties. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's responsibilities will be to coordinate the 
vision and mission of the company and to assist in developing the company structure and brand 
) 
3 
.
Matter of S-, LLC 
within the European and U.S. markets and standardization efforts. The Petitioner notes that the 
Beneficiary "is expected to negotiate the terms and technical direction of the company's 
participation in projects and teams and assess whether they are in line with the company's vision and 
mission," and that his "role also involves developing a growth strategy." The Petitioner, however, 
does not detail the tasks involved in these duties as it relates to the Petitioner's aviation technology 
consulting business. 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 not provided the necessary detail and explanation of the Beneficiary's 
activities in the course of his daily routine. The actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the 
employment. I d. at 1108. 
The fact that the Beneficiary manages or directs a business does not necessarily establish eligibility 
for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity within the 
meaning of section 101(a)(44) ofthe Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that 
the duties of a position be "primarily" executive in nature. Sections 101(A)(44)(B) of the Act. 
While the Beneficiary may exercise some discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and 
possess the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making, the position 
descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that his actual duties would be primarily executive in 
nature. 
B. Staffing 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, we review the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed executive capacity of a beneficiary, including the company's organizational 
structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to 
relieve a beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other 
factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
The Petitioner's initial organizational chart identified two departments: ( 1) an aviation information 
technology department headed by the Petitioner's chief executive officer and which included two 
other individuals; 2 and (2) the data communications and airports department to be headed by the 
Beneficiary which included one other individual. In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner 
submitted a revised organizational chart showing that the Beneficiary's department included two 
additional vacant subordinate positions, and information that the Petitioner was actively interviewing 
to fill the two additional positions. However, a Petitioner must establish that all eligibility 
requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and 
2 
The record includes a subcontractor agreement with signed by the chief executive officer of 
that company. The chief executive officer of is the individual listed on the Petitioner's 
organization chart in the aviation technology department. Thus it appears that a subcontractor fills this position. The 
record does not include evidence of the employment of or the contractual relationship with the other individual listed in 
the Petitioner's aviation technology department. 
4 
Matter of S-, LLC 
continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). As the two additional positions were 
vacant when the petition was filed, these positions will not be considered.3 
The Petitioner also identified the employee in the Beneficiary's proposed department as an airport 
operations specialist who would write and maintain concept of operations to support the application 
of developed technology to communication, navigation, and surveillance services and who would 
conceptualize airport terminal processes and operations to support business development in this new 
market. The Petitioner, however, does not describe this subordinate position as a managerial 
position and further does not explain how this individual would relieve the Beneficiary from 
performing the initially described· consulting work, the marketing of the Petitioner's services to 
potential clients, and the operational duties necessary to manage the project pipeline. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates that the Beneficiary will lead the execution and quality of results, 
marketing strategy, management of customers' portfolios, and human resources, as well as directing 
the execution of recruitment policy. The Petitioner asserts that the individual in the airport 
operations specialist position will perform the technical work and that the chief executive otlicer 
performs the project management. The Petitioner does not explain the new division of duties 
amongst these three individuals or otherwise provide evidence e~tablishing that the chief executive 
officer and airport operations specialist will relieve the Beneficiary from performing the previously 
described non-qualifying duties. 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position 
within a complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the 
organization, and that person's authority to direct the organization. Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" and "establish 
the goals and policies" of that organization. Inherent to the definition, the organization must have a 
subordinate level of managerial employees for a beneficiary to direct and they must primarily focus 
on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than the day-to-day operations of the 
enterprise. An individual will not be deemed an executive under the statute simply because they 
have an executive title or because they "direct" the enterprise as the owner or sole managerial 
employee. A beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision making" and 
receive only "general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or 
stockholders of the organization." !d. Here, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
has a subordinate level of managerial employees to direct or sufficient staff to relieve him from 
significant involvement in the day-to-day operations of the company. 
As required by section 101(a)(44)(C) ofthe Act, if staffing l~vels are used as a factor in determining 
whether an individual is acting in an executive capacity, we must take into account the reasonable 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary will execute the recruitment policy and that his leadership is 
required to develop and organize a solid departmental structure which will attract the resources needed and make them 
part ofthe team. The Petitioner, however, does not adequately develop this aspect of the Beneficiary's duties and does 
not establish how carrying out the Petitioner's recruiting policy is an executive task. 
5 
Matter of S-, LLC 
needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the 
organization. At the time of filing, the Petitioner was a consulting firm that had been operating for 
almost two years and claimed that it employed three individuals. The record includes evidence that 
the Petitioner employed the airport operations specialist for a limited period in 2016, but does not 
include evidence of payments made to other employees. Although the Petitioner's organizational 
chart lists two individuals reporting to the Petitioner's chief executive officer, the record does not 
include evidence that the Beneficiary is in their chain of command, nor does the record demonstrate 
that these two individuals will relieve the Beneficiary from performing operational tasks. 
The record does not include sufficient probative evidence establishing that the Petitioner employs or 
contracts with subordinate staff to perform the actual day-to-day non-executive operations of the 
company. It does not appear that the reasonable needs of the petitioning company might plausibly 
be met by the services of the Beneficiary as managing director, the chief executive of1icer, one other 
employee, and two possible subcontractors. The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
will be employed in an executive capacity. 
III. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director further found that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in an executive capacity. In the denial decision, the Director found that the 
submitted job descriptions indicate that his role with the Petitioner's foreign subsidiary involves 
consulting and managing customer portfolios, rather than primarily directing the management of the 
organization. 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner's initial evidence included three different descriptions of the Beneficiary's duties with 
the foreign entity. On the Form I-129, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has been: 
"providing technical advice to governmental organizations . . . and research, validation, and 
standardization of future solutions for the aviation industry"; performing marketing duties, including 
identifying prospective customers, creating marketing plans and pursuing business opportunities; 
performing contract management duties, including monitoring project deliverables and invoicing; 
and handling corporate management responsibilities identified as "legal, accounting." 
In the foreign employer's letter in support of the petition, the foreign employer certified that the 
Beneficiary is employed by and has been working as its managing director since May 11, 2015.4 
The foreign employer identified the Beneficiary's specific tasks as: assessing and executing 
incorporation procedures, tax, and legal duties to maintain the company in business; managing 
customers' portfolio and performing marketing activities in the European aviation and airport 
4 
The foreign entity was incorporated on November 5, 2015, and the Petitioner acquired a 51 percent interest in the 
foreign entity on November 18, 2015. Although the foreign entity may have been operating as an unincorporated 
enterprise prior to November 5, 2015, the Petitioner does not provide this information. 
6 
Matter of S-, LLC 
markets; and maintammg liaison with the Petitioner regarding sharing of technology solutions, 
intellectual property, brand, and customer contracts. 
Finally, the Beneficiary, on his resume, stated that he is a co-founder of the foreign entity, an 
engineering consultancy firm specializing in research, validation, and standardization of future 
solutions for the aviation industry and that he manages contracts and customers related to network 
infrastructure and airport net-centric information sharing systems. In each of these iterations of the 
Beneficiary's duties for the foreign entity, the Beneficiary is providing technical advice and 
performing the necessary operational and marketing tasks to support the foreign entity's business. 
These are non-qualifying duties. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted a second letter from the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer. The foreign employer stated that the Beneficiary mainly performed executive 
duties, including: 40 percent of his time spent on developing market opportunities for the company, 
signing contracts for services and labor, and contacting new customers through his professional 
network and attendance at conferences and events; 30 percent of his time outlining strategic lines of 
the company business and developing the company's core business in Europe; 20 percent of his time 
on the recruiting process for employees and contractors, supervising the duties and performance of 
hired resources, and reporting periodically to the management board; and 10 percent of his time 
incorporating the company, managing the relationship with the Petitioner, and maintaining the tax 
and legal obligations. 
This description does not provide sufficient information regarding the Beneficiary's duties to 
establish that he performs primarily executive duties. The foreign entity indicated that the 
Beneficiary spends the majority of his time (70 percent) developing marketing opportunities, signing 
contracts, contacting new customers, outlining strategic lines of the company business and 
developing the company's core business in Europe. The foreign employer does not provide a 
detailed description of the Beneficiary's specific tasks as they relate to these duties or explain how 
marketing the business and developing the foreign entity's core business meets the four-prong 
statutory definition of executive capacity. Similarly, the foreign employer does not provide 
sufficient information regarding the Beneficiary's recruiting involvement and supervision of other 
employees or contractors to conclude that the duties are executive in nature. The duties as described 
include non-qualifying duties as well as undefined duties that appear to include operational duties 
necessary to establish and continue the foreign entity's operations. The Petitioner has not 
established that the tasks described fall within the parameters of executive capacity as defined by the 
statute. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary "established the company structure and 
transformed it from a one-individual venture to a team of collaborators" and that he has gradually 
moved his work from being an executive at the foreign entity to directing project performance and 
product development strategy of both the Petitioner and the foreign entity. The Petitioner contends 
that the Beneficiary has been exclusively responsible in establishing the business, putting together 
the highly-trained, team, guiding its members, directing the management of the organization and 
Matter of S-, LLC 
ultimately, establishing long-term strategic alliances and that it is the foreign entity's affiliation with 
the Petitioner which is the best evidence of his executive capacity in the European company. 
Establishing a company and helping it grow and expand is insufficient to establish that the 
Beneficiary's daily activities comprise duties that are primarily executive in nature. Reciting the 
Beneficiary's general responsibilities and accomplishments or broadly-cast business objectives is not 
sufficient; the regulations require a detailed description of the Beneficiary's daily job duties. The 
actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co .. Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108. 
The Petitioner also does not explain the previous versions of the Beneficiary's duties for the foreign 
entity that describe his position as marketing the company, recruiting involvement, and supervision 
of employees and contractors. Nor does the Petitioner address the Beneficiary" s own description of 
his duties abroad, which indicates that he manages contracts and customers related to network 
infrastructure and airport net-centric information sharing systems. The different versions of the 
Beneficiary's duties and responsibilities do not provide a consistent description of the Beneficiary's 
primary role at the foreign entity. The record is insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary 
performs or performed primarily executive duties for the foreign entity. 
B. Staffing 
The record includes the foreign entity's organizational chart which identifies the Beneficiary as 
heading the business management department. 5 The chart shows that three individuals report to the 
Beneficiary, an "accounting and EU tax compliance specialist," a marketing and communications 
employee, and a technology strategy employee. The record also includes brief descriptions for each 
of these employees' duties. 
The accounting and EU Tax compliance specialist position is described as keeping company account 
entries (sales, expenses, and quotes) up to date, verifying the asset and liability accounts, 
maintaining records of company transaction documentation (invoices, expense records, and quotes), 
and generating tax forms verifying compliance with EU fiscal law, and submitting forms to tax 
authorities. The Petitioner on appeal describes this position as conducting the operational tasks of 
the day-to-day structure. The Petitioner's statement on appeal is vague but it appears that this 
individual may perform some of the administrative tasks necessary for the foreign entity's 
operations. The evidence of record does not suggest that this individual manages other staff or a 
particular function. 
The marketing and communications specialist's duties are described as designing marketing 
material, creating, distributing, and updating corporate documentation, visitor cards, and logo, 
working with the Beneficiary on the company communications and material by verifying 
5 
The organizational chart also shows the Petitioner's chief executive officer on the same tier as the Beneficiary in the 
technical consultancy services division. The chart shows one individual reporting to the chief executive officer. Both 
the Beneficiary and the Petitioner's chief executive officer report to the foreign entity's board of directors. 
Matter of S-, LLC 
translations, and supporting the marketing campaigns by providing the brochure layout, corporate 
design, and language verification with prospective customers. The Petitioner on appeal claims that 
the individual in this position prepares proposals for European calls tor tender. The Petitioner does 
not clarify whether preparing proposals is an additional duty for this position or whether preparing 
proposals is the primary focus of this position and that participating in marketing campaigns is a 
supplementary or intermittent duty. The record here does not include sufficient probative evidence 
establishing that the individual in this position manages others or a particular function. 
The technology strategic advisor position is described as applying Internet services skills and 
expertise to support the Beneficiary in strategic decision-making in terms of technology choices to 
achieve customer goals, advising on technology feasibility of entering new products and markets in 
web services, data analytics, and automation domains, and providing access to a professional 
network of developers, researchers, business managers, and investors in communication technology. 
The Petitioner, states on appeal that the individual in this position provides technical consultancy 
services to the company's customers. The limited information in the record regarding this position 
suggests that this individual performs operational tasks related to technology tasks and customer 
service. The record does not include sufficient evidence to establish that the individual in this 
position manages others or a particular function. 
The record also includes a document showing the number of hours these individuals work per week 
and their rate of pay. Although the document includes the dates May 11, 2015, to December 31, 
2016, in its heading, it does not show when these individuals joined the foreign company, a company 
the Petitioner referred to as initially a one-individual venture. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
established when the subordinate employees began working for the foreign entity. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's executive position requires that he directs the 
management of this team and the organization as a whole, and that he also establishes the company's 
goals and policies, while exercising wide latitude in discretionary decision-making. 
The evidence does not support a conclusion that the :eeneficiary's subordinates are managers who 
primarily manage others or specific functions. Instead, the Beneficiary's subordinates appear to 
perform the day-to-day functions of the foreign entity's consulting business, such as bookkeeping, 
and other administrative, technical, and operational tasks. The record does not include evidence of 
an organizational structure sufficient to support the Beneficiary in a position that is primarily an 
executive position. Nor does the record establish that the foreign organization employed a sufficient 
number of employees to develop the foreign entity's marketing opportunities, manage the foreign 
entity's contracts and customer portfolios, and recruit resources to perform consulting work, thereby 
relieving the Beneficiary from performing the necessary duties of the organization to keep it 
operational. The record does not establish that the Beneficiary's employment for the foreign entity 
has been in a primarily executive capacity. 
9 
.
Matter of S-, LLC 
IV. ONE-YEAR OF EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
Beyond the Director's decision, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary has at least one 
continuous year of full-time employment abroad within the three years preceding the filing of this 
petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner stated on the Form I-129, that the Beneficiary began work for the foreign entity in 
May 2015. The Beneficiary noted in his resume that from 20 13 to present he worked as an 
aerospace technology consultant in and in Spain as a "[t]reelance 
contractor public, 
private and academic stakeholders involved in initiatives for advancement in the current global air 
transportation market." The Beneficiary indicated that this wo'rk was in addition to his employment 
with the foreign entity. In response to the Director's RFE questioning the Beneficiary's one-year of 
continuous foreign employment, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's presence in the United 
States was due to his wife's (a G-4 visa holder) complicated pregnancy, but he traveled frequently 
back to the foreign company's office in Spain and was fully engaged in his role as chief executive 
officer of the foreign entity. 
Periods of time spent in the United States for business or pleasure, although not interruptive of the 
one-year of continuous employment abroad, shall not be counted toward fultillment of the one-year 
of required continuous employment abroad. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(A). Therefore, the 
Petitioner needs to show not only that the foreign entity employed the Beneficiary, but also that he 
spent a total of one year abroad between commencing his employment with the foreign entity in May 
2015 and the filing of this petition in December 2016. During this period of approximately 19 
months, the Beneficiary spent well over half of his time (at least 400 days) physically present in the 
United States in G-4 status. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets this eligibility 
requirement. For this additional reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has been 
employed abroad, or would be employed in the United States, in an executive capacity. In addition, 
the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has one year of full-time continuous 
employment abroad in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of S-. LLC, ID# 613194 (AAO Sept. 20, 201 7) 
10