dismissed L-1A Case: Board Game Cafe

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 25819946 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 13, 2023 
The Petitioner, operating as a board game cafe, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) under the L-lA nonimrnigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. 1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity . The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo . Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonirnmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a position requiring 
specialized knowledge for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's 
application for admission into the United States . 8 C .F.R. § 214 .2(1)(1). The prospective U.S . 
employer must also be a qualifying organization that seeks to employ a beneficiary in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(i). 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-lA petition that involved a new office must submit a statement of 
the beneficiary's duties during the previous year and under the extended petition; a statement 
describing the staffing of the new operation and evidence of the numbers and types of positions held; 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary 's behalf. That petition was approved for the 
one-year period from June 11, 2021, until June 10, 2022. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business 
in the United States through a parent , branch, affiliate, or subsidiary for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F) . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation one year within the date of approval of the 
petition to support an executive or managerial position . 
evidence of its financial status; evidence that it has been doing business for the previous year; and 
evidence that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(14)(ii). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANGERIAL CAPACITY 
The issue to be addressed in this decision is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary's 
position under an extended petition would be in a managerial or executive capacity. The record in this 
instance contains conflicting claims as to whether the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employment would 
be in a managerial or in an executive capacity. Therefore, as a preliminary matter we will address 
those inconsistencies prior to considering whether the proposed position meets the statutory criteria of 
managerial or executive capacity. 
A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 
As noted, there are considerable inconsistencies among the Petitioner's various claims as to whether 
the Beneficiary's proposed employment would be in a managerial or in an executive capacity. The 
Petitioner claims on appeal, and has similarly claimed at other times throughout the processing of this 
petition, that the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. position would be in a managerial capacity. The 
Petitioner further contends that any prior statements claiming that the proposed employment would be 
in an executive capacity were the result of "former counsel's mistake of negligence." However, the 
record shows that the Petitioner has also referred to the Beneficiary's U.S. position as that of an 
executive, thereby undermining the claim that former counsel was solely responsible for the 
inconsistency. Namely, in a May 2022 support letter, which was provided as initial supporting 
evidence, and in an October 2022 statement, which was provided in response to a request for evidence 
(RFE), the Beneficiary, in her capacity as the Petitioner's CEO and primary signatory, referred to her 
proposed position as that of an executive. Not only were both letters signed by the Beneficiary in her 
official capacity, but both were also written on company letterhead, thus indicating that former counsel 
was not solely responsible for providing inconsistent information about the Beneficiary's U.S. 
employment capacity. 
Further, as correctly pointed out in the Director's decision, the responsibility of reviewing the 
information provided in the petition and any supporting evidence, including the May 2022 letter, falls 
squarely on the Petitioner, particularly in light of the Petitioner's signature on page 6, part 7 of the 
Form I-129, filed June 9, 2022, which confirmed that the content of the petition had been "reviewed 
... and that all of the information contained in the petition ... and in the supporting documents, is 
complete, true, and correct." Thus, while it is plausible, although unsupported by the record, that 
certain errors may be attributed to former counsel, ultimately, it is the Petitioner's responsibility to 
ensure that the information contained in the petition and the evidence submitted in support thereof are 
accurate. Merely providing an affidavit from the Beneficiary who claimed that she was unaware of 
erroneous information offered by prior counsel because she "never reviewed the contents of the I-12 9 
petition" does not excuse the Petitioner from its obligation to resolve inconsistencies in the record. 
See Matter of Valdez, 27 I&N Dec. 496 (BIA 2018) (establishing that signature on an application 
creates a strong presumption of knowledge about the application's contents, which can be rebutted by 
establishing fraud, deceit, or other wrongful acts by another person). We further note that any material 
2 
inconsistencies, if unresolved through the submission of independent, objective evidence, may lead us 
to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other supporting evidence in the record. Id. 
In addition, despite claiming that former counsel was to blame for any inconsistencies in the record, 
there is no evidence that the Petitioner sought to address former counsel's claimed error through a 
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. In Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 63 7 (BIA 1988), aff'd, 
857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988), the Board oflmmigration Appeals (the Board) established a framework 
for asserting and assessing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Board set forth the 
following documentary requirements for asserting a claim of ineffective assistance: 
• A written affidavit of the petitioner attesting to the relevant facts. The affidavit should provide 
a detailed description of the agreement with former counsel (i.e., the specific actions that 
counsel agreed to take), the specific actions taken by former counsel, and any representations 
that former counsel made about his or her actions. 
• Evidence that the petitioner informed former counsel of the allegation of ineffective assistance 
and was given an opportunity to respond. Any response by prior counsel ( or report of former 
counsel's failure or refusal to respond) should be submitted with the claim. 
• If the petitioner asserts that the handling of the case violated former counsel's ethical or legal 
responsibilities, evidence that the petitioner filed a complaint with the appropriate disciplinary 
authorities ( e.g., with a state bar association) or an explanation why the petitioner did not file 
a complaint. 
Id. at 639. These documentary requirements are designed to ensure we possess the essential 
information necessary to evaluate ineffective assistance claim and to deter meritless claims. Id. 
Allowing former counsel to present his or her version of events discourages baseless allegations, and 
the requirement of a complaint to the appropriate disciplinary authorities is intended to eliminate any 
incentive for counsel to collude with his or her client in disparaging the quality of the representation. 
Id. 
In addition to these documentary requirements, the pet1t10ner must show that former counsel's 
assistance was so deficient that the petitioner was prejudiced by the performance. Matter of Lozada, 
19 I&N Dec. at 632; Matter of Melgar, 28 I&N Dec. 169, 171 (BIA 2020). 2 Specifically, the petitioner 
must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's error, they would have prevailed on 
their claim. Matter of Melgar, 28 I&N Dec. at 171. Harmless error is insufficient. See Matter of 
2 In Lozada, the Board determined that Lozada was not prejudiced by counsel's failure to file an appeal brief (resulting in 
the summary dismissal of the appeal) because: he received a full and fair hearing at his deportation hearing, at which he 
was given every opportunity to present his case; he did not allege any inadequacy in the quality of prior counsel's 
representation at the hearing; the immigration judge considered and properly evaluated all the evidence presented; and the 
immigration judge's decision was supported by the record. 
3 
Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. at 639 ( explaining that individuals are "generally bound by the conduct of their 
attorneys absent egregious circumstances"). 
In this matter, the Petitioner has not complied with the documentary requirements for asserting a claim 
of ineffective assistance. 
B. Managerial Capacity 
Notwithstanding the inconsistent information offered up to this point regarding the claimed 
classification of the Beneficiary's proposed position, we will address the Petitioner's most recent claim 
that the proposed employment would be in a managerial capacity. 3 In doing so, we will apply the 
statutory definition of managerial capacity and assess the supporting evidence to determine whether 
the Petitioner is eligible for the benefit sought herein. 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or 
manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Based on the statutory definition of managerial capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the position 
in question involved certain high-level responsibilities. Sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. 
The Petitioner must also prove that the Beneficiary was primarily engaged in managerial duties, as 
opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the foreign employer's other employees. See 
Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, we examine the company's organizational structure, 
the duties of the Beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to relieve the 
Beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that 
will contribute to understanding the Beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
Accordingly, we will address the Petitioner's claims in the discussion below, which will include 
consideration of the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of the nature of the U.S. employer's 
business, its staffing levels, and its organizational structure. Under the preponderance of the evidence 
standard, the evidence must demonstrate that the petitioner's claim is "probably true." Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Each piece of evidence, even if not mentioned directly, has been 
3 We will disregard any prior claims that the proposed position would be in an executive capacity. 
4 
examined 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. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was operating a single board game cafe, which it acquired in 
November 2021. The Petitioner discussed and provided evidence of plans to purchase additional such 
cafes with the objective of expanding its operations to multiple locations within the United States. 
1. Job Duties 
First, we will discuss the Beneficiary's job duties, highlighting their importance in revealing the true 
nature of the employment. See generally 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). While we primarily focus on the Beneficiary's 
proposed job duties, the duties performed by the Beneficiary during the prior year are also relevant as 
they allow us to ascertain the Petitioner's readiness to support the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity 
under an extension of a new office petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(C) (requiring a statement 
of the duties performed in the previous year and those to be performed under the extended petition). 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided a statement discussing the Beneficiary's role during 
the Petitioner's new office phase as well as a breakdown of the job duties she would be assigned in 
her proposed U.S. position. The discussion of the Beneficiary's role consisted of a broad overview of 
her general responsibilities over the past year in the initial new office phase. Namely, the Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary set strategy for initial operations and future expansion, provided leadership 
through creation and implementation of the Petitioner's "vision, mission, and overall direction," 
represented the company in the public sector and in any "business deals," evaluated the performance 
of subordinate managers, made personnel decisions, and provided direction through management and 
operational oversight with the goal of achieving "the company's stated mission." Although these 
responsibilities convey a sense of the Beneficiary's discretionary authority over the set-up, staffing, 
and operations of the business, they do not disclose any specific tasks the Beneficiary performed or 
outline actual directives she executed during the company's initial year of operation. As such, it is 
unclear how or whether the Petitioner was able to advance to an operational phase that would 
adequately accommodate for the Beneficiary's proposed position in a managerial capacity following 
expiration of the initial petition. 
The job duty breakdown for the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. position was less ambiguous than her 
initial role in that it listed four broad categories of responsibilities, each of which was further broken 
down into more specific job duties. However, the job duty breakdown focuses on generalities that 
mainly highlight the Beneficiary's discretionary authority over the organization, but it does not 
disclose the Beneficiary's daily or weekly activities within the scope of an entity that operated a game 
board cafe at the time this petition was filed. For instance, the Petitioner stated that one set of 
responsibilities would involve establishing "development strategies, work plans, and internal 
procedures and policies" as well as making decisions on "important strategic, tactical and staffing 
moves." The Petitioner stated that these responsibilities would account for 25% of the Beneficiary's 
time, requiring her to spend 7 .5% of her time researching the board game markets, identifying business 
opportunities, and adjusting objectives in line with market trends; 10% of her time creating annual and 
semi-annual operations and budget plans consistent with the company's "strategic direction" and stage 
of development; and 7.5% of her time establishing "internal procedures and policies" for store 
5 
operations, customer service standards, safety rules, and human resources. However, the Petitioner 
did not identify specific policies or procedures the Beneficiary established thus far, which might allow 
greater insight into the nature of the activities, and how involved the Beneficiary is in these activities 
to determine if they support managerial job duties. Nor did the Petitioner establish that the Beneficiary 
would be required to create budgets and establish "internal procedures and policies" in the daily or 
weekly management of an operation, which, at the time of filing, was comprised of a single game 
board cafe. The Petitioner also did not establish that conducting market research and identifying 
potential business acquisitions are managerial, as opposed to operational, job duties. 
Another component of the Beneficiary's position would involve implementing "company strategies 
and work plans," which would account for another 35% of the Beneficiary's time to be distributed 
among the listed job duties as follows: 1) "assigning accountabilities to subordinate managers" and 
evaluating their respective performances for 15% of the time; 2) "strict implementation of standards 
and controls and regular evaluations and readjustments" through customer service and "HR systems 
and policies" for 5% of the time; 3) coordinating work of subordinate managers and team leaders, 
combining their proposals and initiatives, adjusting the operations plan based on managers' progress 
reports, and advising on market development for 5% of the time; 4) presiding over staffing meetings 
and collecting employee feedback for 5% of the time; and 5) reporting the Petitioner's operational 
status to the foreign entity's board and assessing "management effectiveness" and the company's 
"financial health" for the remaining 5% of the time. 
The Petitioner did not identify specific types of "accountabilities" the Beneficiary would assign or 
explain how she would distribute those "accountabilities" among her subordinates, nor does the job 
description specify the "HR systems and policies" the Beneficiary would use or the types of "standards 
and controls" she would implement within the scope of the operation. The Petitioner also did not 
explain how the Beneficiary would coordinate work among her subordinates, estimate how frequently 
operations plans would have to be adjusted, or provide an objective standard for how the Beneficiary 
will gauge the Petitioner's "financial health." In other words, despite continuing to underscore the 
Beneficiary's control over all aspects of the company's operation, the Petitioner remained ambiguous 
about the Beneficiary's actual tasks in the regular course of business. The vagueness impacts our 
ability to determine whether the Beneficiary will primarily function in a managerial capacity. 
The job description also dedicates 35% of the Beneficiary's time to leading, supervising, and training 
"the management team." However, the job duties used to describe the Beneficiary's personnel 
management role are vague and lack specific information about the actual daily or weekly tasks the 
Beneficiary would perform in executing this role. The role vaguely entails development of "an 
effective organizational structure" by means of a management team comprised of a general manager, 
a chief financial officer, an operation manager, and a store manager. The Petitioner did not clarify 
what further management actions the Beneficiary would take beyond determining which positions 
would be part of the organizational structure. Thus, it is not apparent that adjusting the Petitioner's 
organizational structure would be an activity that the Beneficiary would undertake as part of a daily 
or weekly routine. Likewise, although the Beneficiary would make personnel decisions related to the 
organization's management staff, such decisions would more likely be made on an intermittent basis, 
depending on the Petitioner's need; the record does not indicate that changes in management would 
6 
occur frequently enough to require the Beneficiary to allocate time to this matter on a daily or weekly 
basis. 
The Petitioner also stated that specifying management "accountabilities," evaluating performances, 
and coaching and training subordinate managers would be included in the Beneficiary's personnel 
management role. However, here again the Petitioner has not identified the types of"accountabilities" 
the Beneficiary would assign. Thus, while the Petitioner argues on appeal that these accountabilities 
are different from the accountabilities previously mentioned in association with implementing 
"company strategies and work plans," the difference is unclear given the ambiguity about the types of 
accountabilities the Beneficiary would issue. The Petitioner also neglected to elaborate on the type of 
coaching and training the Beneficiary would provide; without more specific information, we cannot 
determine whether these duties are truly managerial in nature. 
In sum, despite indicating that the Beneficiary would assume a top position at the Petitioner's business 
and would have the managerial authority to make decisions regarding personnel and business matters, 
the job description does not convey a meaningful understanding of the actual tasks the Beneficiary 
would perform in the routine course of a board game cafe operation. The fact that the Beneficiary will 
manage or direct 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) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a position 
be "primarily" managerial in nature. Section 10l(A)(44)(A) of the Act. While the sum of the 
Beneficiary's responsibilities indicates a heightened level of discretion over the Petitioner's day-to­
day operations and the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making, her 
actual duties may not be primarily managerial in nature. To make this determination, we rely on 
specific information about a beneficiary's actual daily tasks as an important indication of whether their 
duties are primarily managerial or executive in nature; otherwise meeting the definitions would simply 
be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 905 F.2d 41; 2 USCIS-PM 
L.6(D), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-2-part-l-chapter-3. 
As discussed, however, the Petitioner provided a vague job description that offers little insight as to 
the specific activities the Beneficiary would undertake within the scope of the operation that existed 
at the time of filing. Although the Petitioner has made claims and provided some evidence of its 
intent to expand its operation to include multiple board game cafes, the record shows that Petitioner's 
organization was comprised of a single board game cafe and that it was not functioning under the 
expanded operation at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l) (requiring that eligibility must be 
established at the time of filing). 
Further, the Director's decision states that although the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary had 
four subordinate managers over whom she exercised managerial oversight, it did not demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's role in their supervision. On appeal, the Petitioner does not elaborate on the 
Beneficiary's proposed job duties or offer insight about her managerial role within the proper context 
of the Petitioner's operation at the time of filing; rather, the Petitioner primarily focuses on errors 
made by prior counsel in the course of filing this petition. As highlighted earlier, greater insight into 
the nature of the Beneficiary's activities and the level of her involvement in daily operational tasks is 
critical to our determination of whether the Beneficiary will manage the organization. See section 
10l(A)(44)(A)(i) of the Act. Having considered the relevant facts and the deficiencies in the 
7 
supporting evidence, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met its burden and established that the 
proposed position would be primarily comprised of managerial job duties. 
2. Staffing 
As noted earlier, the Petitioner's staffing and organizational structure are also critical elements in this 
analysis. If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a 
managerial capacity, we take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the 
overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided an organizational chart depicting the Beneficiary at 
the top of a 1 7-person organization where 11 of the employees comprise the staff of the Petitioner's 
board game cafe and five others occupy positions in either the finance department or the operations 
department. The chart shows that the Beneficiary's only direct subordinate is a general manager, who 
is depicted as occupying a dual role, of general manager/operations manager, with the operation 
manager directly subordinate to the general manager. In other words, the same individual occupies 
two positions where one position is subordinate to the other. Although the Petitioner indicated that 
this arrangement is temporary pending the hiring of an employee who would relieve the general 
manager from his role in the operations department, we must consider the evidence that showed how 
the Petitioner was staffed at the time of filing and determine eligibility on that basis. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). Here, it is unclear whether the Petitioner's staffing structure would support the 
Beneficiary in a managerial position, or whether the Beneficiary would be required to take on non­
managerial tasks to support the organization's functioning. 
Although the Petitioner provided job descriptions for the positions comprising its organization, the job 
description of the general manager is vague and provides little insight about the activities assigned to 
that position. For instance, the Petitioner stated that the general manager's job duties would include 
setting "the values, mission, vision and goals," drafting "development strategies," overseeing "all 
operational activities," ensuring "a work environment that recruits, retains and supports quality staff 
and promotes productivity," developing budget plans, and making sure that the marketing staff has 
"knowledge and information needed to achieve market share growth." The Petitioner did not elaborate 
on any development strategies that have been or are in the process of being developed, nor did it list 
any "operational activities," or state how the general manager ensures the desired work environment 
and productivity and how he secures the proper "knowledge and information" for the marketing staff. 
Further, it is unclear how setting values, mission, and goals translates to duties performed within the 
context of a game board cafe business. 
Without a better understanding of what the general manager does in the course of business and how 
he carries out dual roles where he is his own subordinate in one of those roles, we are unable to properly 
gauge how the Petitioner's staffing arrangement at the time of filing functioned to relieve the 
Beneficiary from having to primarily perform operational tasks of the enterprise. An employee who 
"primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered 
to be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See, e.g., sections 10l(a)(44)(A) 
and (B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive 
duties); Matter of Church Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm'r 1988). 
8 
In sum, the Petitioner did not adequately describe the Beneficiary's job duties within the context of a 
board game caf e business, nor did it establish that it was staffed with employees who would support 
the Beneficiary in a managerial position at the time this petition was filed. 
III. ADDITIONAL DEFICIENCIES 
Finally, while not addressed in the Director's decision, we note several deficiencies that would 
preclude approval of this petition even if the Petitioner were to overcome the original basis for denial. 
A. Doing Business 
First, we will address the lack of evidence to show that the Petitioner was doing business for one year 
prior to filing the instant petition, as required. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B). 
To establish that it has been doing business for the requisite one-year period, the Petitioner must 
provide evidence that it has engaged in regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or 
services in the United States starting in June 2021 as the petition in this matter was filed in June 2022. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(H). 
Here, the Petitioner responded to the RFE with a cover letter stating that the board game cafe it 
currently operates was acquired on November 3, 2021, which is approximately seven months prior to 
the date this petition was filed and would not result in the required one-year of doing business. The 
Petitioner previously submitted a copy of the Business Purchase and Acquisition Agreement, which 
supports the Petitioner's claim regarding the transaction and date of purchase. Although the record 
shows that the Petitioner was formed inl I 2020, 4 was issued a federal identification number 
shortly thereafter, and received two fund transfers from its foreign parent, the record lacks evidence 
of any ongoing business transactions. And although the Petitioner filed a 2021 tax return, it claimed 
no income that year and instead shows only a payment of rent along with other deductions, which 
resulted in a loss of over $3,000 for that year. Likewise, the Petitioner's bank accounts also show no 
evidence of ongoing business transactions until after the Petitioner acquired the board game cafe in 
November 2021. 
The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter 
of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). Although not a basis of this denial, given the lack 
of evidence on record, the Petitioner has not established that it had been doing business since June 
2021, for one-year as of the date this petition was filed. The Petitioner must address this issue in any 
further filings. 
B. Foreign Employment 
Further, as previously noted, to establish eligibility for this visa classification, the Petitioner must 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed by a qualifying organization abroad for one continuous 
year within three years preceding the Beneficiary's application for admission into the United States. 
4 The record contains the Petitioner's Articles of Organization, which was filed in 2020, and stock certificates 
and a stock ledger showing that the Petitioner issued stock inl 12020. 
9 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1). The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary was employed by ____ 
its parent entity in Singapore, from January 1, 2019, to December 17, 2020, without 
interruption. However, we question the validity of this claim based on information that the Beneficiary 
provided in a nonimmigrant visa (NIV) application, which she filed on January 9, 2019, listing her 
"present employer" at that time as Althou h the address listed for 
this employer is the same as the one listed in the petition for __________ there is 
no evidence in the record showing that the two foreign entities are related such that the entity the 
Beneficiary listed as her employer in the 2019 NIV application can be deemed a qualifying 
organization for purposes of satisfying the relevant eligibility criteria. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
As stated earlier, the appeal will be dismissed based on our conclusion that the Petitioner did not 
provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary's proposed position under an extended 
petition would be in a managerial capacity. 
While the dismissal of this appeal will not be based on the additional deficiencies discussed above, 
the Petitioner will need to further address those deficiencies in any future filing where the 
Beneficiary's foreign employment and the Petitioner's ability to demonstrate that it was doing business 
during the relevant one-year period are material to eligibility. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10