dismissed L-1A Case: Brain Feedback Training

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
MATTER OF B-I-O-A-, LLC DATE: NOV. 15, 2018 
APPEAL OF CAUFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM l-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of advanced brain feedback training, seeks to temporarily employ the 
-Beneficiary as its training center general manager under the L-1 A non immigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l lOl(a)(IS)(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 record did not 
establish, as required, that: I) the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity 
abroad, 2) the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of his proposed position in the United 
States, and 3) the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the 
·United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary acts in a managerial capacity abroad, and that 
he would act in a managerial capacity in the United States, overseeing professional subordinates and 
an essential function of the company. The Petitioner also states that the Beneficiary is qualified to 
perform the duties of his proposed U.S. position and asserts that the Director improperly required 
that he have a specific level of education to qualify. 
Upon de novo review, the appeal will be dismissed as the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad, or would be employed in the United States, in a managerial 
capacity. We will, however, withdraw the Director's finding that the Beneficiary would not be 
qualified to perform the duties of his proposed U.S. position. 1 
1 We conclude that the Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary has worked for 
affiliated companies providing its brainwave training services and that it is more likely than not that he. would be 
qualified to perform the duties of his proposed U.S. position based on his prior experience with the company. The 
Petitioner need not establish that the Beneficiary has a specific level of education to perform the duties of a U.S. 
position, but may demonstrate that he or she is qualified based on their "prior education, training, and employment." 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
Matter,~[ B-1-0-A-. LLC 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the qeneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101 (a)(I S)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary 
must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. The 
petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment 
qualify him or her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
-11. MANAGERIAL CAPACITY WITH THE FOREIGN EMPLOYER 
We will first analyze whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary is employed abroad in a 
managerial capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary is employed abroad in an 
executive capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or 
manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
IOI(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
When examining the foreign managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. 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 in a 
managerial capacity. See 8 ·C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description of the job 
duties, we examine the foreign employer's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's 
foreign subordinates, the presence of foreign employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing 
operational duties, the nature of the foreign business, and any other factors that will contribute to 
understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role abroad. Accordingly, we will discuss evidence 
regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of the nature of the foreign employer's 
business, its staffing levels, and its organizational structure. 
A. Duties 
Based on the definition of managerial capacity, the Petitioner must first show that t~e Beneficiary 
performs certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World. Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 
1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary is 
2 
.
Malter of B-1-0-A-. LLC I 
primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the 
foreign employer's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCJS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 
2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner stated that it and its affiliated company in Germany provide "a unique program of 
brain wave training." The Petitioner indicated that this brainwave training "has been used to treat 
conditions such as PTSD, anxiety, depression, ADHD, addiction, brain impairment associated with 
aging, and even stroke." The Petitioner explained that its president and founder, who is also the 
president and co-founder of the foreign employer, is the creator of a 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
co-founded the Petitioner's German affiliate in 2009 and noted that he is a 
The Petitioner listed the following duties for the 
Beneficiary in his position of co-president and vice president of training servic·es abroad, amongst 
others: 
• signing authority on all of the company bank accounts, 
• approves expenditures and bank wires, 
• coordinates all matters of company policy and company direction, 
• recruits and hires Neurofeedback Technicians , food service staff, technical 
support staff and cleaning staff for the training center, 
• trains Neurofeedback Technicians on learning the 10-20 International Electrode 
Placement System, operating a EEGChart recording system, troubleshooting 
artifact filled EEG signals, and how to operate Cybernaut computers, 
• designs, fabricates, constructs, deploys, and outfits 
• designs new training chambers or pods, 
• trains technicians to troubleshoot and repair the company's proprietary software, 
and 
• trains technicians in how to properly comport themselves as they serve the 
company's High End clients and how to conduct its patented 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director requested that the Petitioner submit a duty description 
for the Beneficiary describing his typical managerial decisions and duties. In response, the 
Petitioner submitted a letter from the president of the foreign employer stating that the Beneficiary 
assisted him in co-founding the foreign employer in Germany and detailed the following tasks 
abroad, amongst others: 
• organized and supervised the teams of construction workers who followed [the 
president's] highly detailed, complex, high technology plans to create a 
brain wave training center out of what had been a farm 
building, indeed a stable, where the animals had been kept, 
3 
.
Maller of B-/-O-A-. LLC 
• single-handedly found, recruited, organized and supervised the teams of 
construction workers, including local craftsman, tradesman, and building systems 
engineers, 
• organized the foreign employer's banking systems, including large and small 
accounts and debit cards and credit cards and credit card acceptance capabilities, 
• recruited and trained the small staff in Germany, including its general manager 
and the cooks and trainers who come from Canada and the USA, 
• coordinated the international travel of these trainers and made sure that potential 
travel delays did not interfere with our German training schedules, 
• coordinated the availability of technicians needed for supporting the Trainers, 
• trained and supervised the EEG technicians, 
• traveled to give talks, in English, in both Germany and Poland, which has resulted 
in people signing up for our training programs, and 
• approved and signed all expenditures for the normal operations of the German 
training center. 
The Petitioner has submitted foreign duty descriptions for the Beneficiary which indicate that he is 
likely primarily engaged in non-qualifying operational duties · abroad. For instance, the Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary devoted his time to designing and constructing 
arranging for construction workers and engineers to build the 
company's training center in Germany, setting up bank accounts and credit card acceptance 
capabilities, making travel arrangements for trainers, signing clients up for the training programs, 
and approving all of the company's expenditures during normal operation. These non-qualifying 
·duties suggest the Beneficiary's involvement with all operational aspects of the business and indicate 
that he is delegating few tasks to his asserted subordinates. 
Whether the Beneficiary is a managerial employee turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained its 
burden of proving that their duties are "primarily" managerial. See sections IO I (a)( 44 )(A) of the 
Act. Here, the Petitioner does not document what proportion of the Beneficiary's foreign duties are 
managerial functions and what proportion are non-qualifying. The Petitioner lists the Beneficiary's 
duties as including both managerial tasks and administrative or operational tasks, but does not 
quantify the time the Beneficiary spends on these different duties. This lack of documentation is 
important because several of the Beneficiary's daily tasks, as discussed above, do not fall directly 
under managerial duties as defined in the statute. For this reason, we cannot determine whether the 
Beneficiary is primarily performing the duties of a manager. See IKEA US, Inci v. US. Dept. of 
.Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (O.D.C. 1999). 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the foreign employer, the fact that he 
manages or directs the business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an 
intracompany transferee in a managerial capacity within the meaning of section 10l(a)(44) of the 
Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a foreign position be 
"primarily" managerial in nature. Id. The Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the foreign 
employer's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to 
4 
Maller of B-1-0-A-, LLC 
discretionary decision-making; however, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish 
that his actual duties abroad are primarily managerial in nature. 
B. Staffing 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart listing a president, the Beneficiary as co-president 
and vice president of training services, a general manager, five trainers (one trainer being the 
president of the Petitioner and foreign employer), and two technicians. The chart also indicated that 
the Beneficiary acted as the ·"supervisor of technicians." The chart did not show a hierarchy or 
indicate whether the Beneficiary's asserted foreign subordinates acted as managers or supervisors. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary meets the definition of a personnel manager 
based on his supervision of professional subordinates. The statutory definition of "managerial 
capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function managers." See section 
10 I (a)( 44)(A) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and control the 
work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. Contrary to the common 
understanding of the word "manager," the statute plainly states that 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." Id. If a beneficiary directly supervises 
other employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or 
recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(B)(J). 
As noted, the Petitioner only contends that the Beneficiary oversees professional subordinates and 
does not indicate that he supervises subordinate managers abroad; as such, we will only analyze 
whether he qualifies as a personnel manager based on his supervision of professionals. To determine 
whether a beneficiary manages professional employees, we must evaluate whether the subordinate 
positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. C-.'f 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining "profession" to mean "any occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate 
degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occup·ation"). Section 
IO 1 (a)(32) of the Act, states that "[t]he term pr(?fession shall include but not be limited to architects, 
engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, 
academies, or seminaries." 
The Petitioner has not submitted suflicient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary oversees 
professional subordinates abroad. First, in the RFE, the Director requested t~at the Petitioner submit 
the duties, educations, and salaries of the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates abroad. However, the 
Petitioner did not submit this evidence. Without sufficient duty descriptions for the Beneficiary's 
subordinates abroad we cannot determine whether they are professionals. In addition, although the 
Petitioner provided some indication that the Beneficiary's subordinates abroad held bachelor's 
degrees, its response was insufficient to demonstrate that these subordinates hold bachelor's degrees 
and work in professional positions as defined by the regulations. For instance, the submitted 
organizational chart indicated that the claimed general manager was a "graduate of gymnasium and 
university," that three of its trainers had "college degrees," and that one of its technicians held a 
5 
.
Maller of B-1-0-A-, LLC 
"college degree." Although a specific bachelor's degree is not required to establish a subordinate as 
a professional, the Petitioner has not sufficiently substantiated that his subordinates hold bachelor's 
degree. First, it has not clearly articulated their bachelor's degrees. Further, the Petitioner does not 
document that the Beneficiary's foreign subordinates hold bachelor's degrees and it does not explain 
why these positions require such degrees. 
In addition, on appeal, the Petitioner appears to confirm that the positions subordinate to the 
Beneficiary do not require bachelor's degrees , stating that "because the [training] prograrri is so 
unique, there is no specific bachelor's degree required for entry into the position of 
Trainer." This statement appears to indicate that the knowledge required for the trainer positions 
could be gained exclusively through the provision on internal training with the Petitioner and that a 
bachelor's degree would not necessarily be required for entry into these positions. In sum, the 
Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary qualifies as a 
personnel manager based on his supervision of professional subordinates. 
Furthermore, the submitted evidence leaves question as to whether the foreign employer's operations 
are sufficient to sustain the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity. For example, the Petitioner 
submitted a foreign employer balance sheet indicating that it earned approximately €210,000 in 
revenue and paid around €3,000 in "personnel expenditures" in fiscal year 2016 and that it made 
about €224,000 in income and paid approximately €30,000 in personnel expenditures in fiscal year 
2015. Although the balance sheet also indicated that the foreign employer had about €89,000 in 
"other operating expenditures" in 2016 and around €107,000 in 2015, it is not clear from its financial 
statement that it was sufficiently operational to support the Beneficiary and his claimed subordinates 
as of the date the petition was filed in December 2017. 
In fact, when explaining the Beneficiary's duties, the president of the foreign employer referred 
mostly to activities related to the initial establishment of the company in 2009, such as hiring 
construction workers to build a training facility, setting up bank accounts, and recruiting and training 
staff; however, there is little detail or documentation specific to the foreign employer's current 
operations and clients. The president of the foreign employer indicated that the Beneficiary 
coordinated the international travel of "cooks and the Trainers who come from Canada and the USA 
to lead our training programs there;" but, there is little evidence to substantiate these activities or the 
provision of any training services abroad. Indeed, the Petitioner's organizational chart makes no 
mention of the "cooks" discussed in the Beneficiary's duties. Likewise, the Petitioner submits no 
supporting documentation to substantiate that the foreign employer pays its asserted subordinates 
abroad and it questionably only provided two untranslated paystubs for the Beneficiary from June 
and July 2015. We note that the Petitioner is required to establish that the Beneficiary has been 
employed in a managerial capacity for at least one continuous year within the three years preceding 
the filing of the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
In total, the evidence submitted specific to the foreign employer's operations leaves doubt as to 
whether it is sufficiently developed to support the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity or his 
_claimed professional subordinates. 
6 
Matter of 8-/-0-A-. LLC 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that the Beneficiary qualifies as a function manage,r in his 
capacity abroad. The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not 
supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing 
an "essential function" within the organization. See section IOI(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a 
petitioner claims that a beneficiary manages an essential function, it must clearly describe the duties 
performed in managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that "( 1) 
the function is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is 'essential,' i.e., core to the organization; 
(3) the beneficiary primarily manages, as opposed to performs, the function; (4) the beneficiary acts 
at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and (5) 
the beneficiary exercises discretion over the function's day-to-day operations." Matter <?l G- Inc., 
Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary acts as a function manager abroad. As 
previously noted, the Petitioner submitted duty descriptions for the Beneficiary including several 
non-qualifying operational duties, including coordinating construction workers to build a training 
facility, setting up credit card acceptance capabilities, making travel arrangements for trainers, 
signing clients up for training programs, and approving all expenses. It did not clearly indicate what 
percentage of time he devoted to these non-qualifying tasks. For this reason, we cannot determine 
whether the Beneficiary primarily devotes his time to managing his asserted function rather than 
performing the function. 
Further, the evidence reflects that the facts in this case are significantly different than those in the 
adopted decision cited by the Petitioner on appeal. Id. For instance, the petitioner in Matier <?( G­
lnc. sul;>mitted ample documentation reflecting that the beneficiary in that matter directed the work 
of various teams across five business units and six geographic delivery areas, that he led a team 
overseeing a monthly revenue forecast process and the collection of financial data from delivery 
leads and global sales teams, and that he Was supported by six direct and three indirect reports. In 
short, the petitioner in Mauer of G- Inc. demonstrated that the beneficiary was primarily relieved 
from performing the non-qualifying duties of his function. Here, the Petitioner has not submitted 
sufficient detail and documentation; in fact, it provides duty descriptions for the Beneficiary 
indicating his substantial involvement in the non-qualifying operational tasks of the business. In 
addition, the Petitioner has submitted little evidence to demonstrate that the foreign employer is 
sufficiently operational allowing the Beneficiary to act primarily in a managerial capacity. As such, 
the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary qualifies as a function manager in his capacity 
abroad. 
Lastly, the Petitioner also contended that the Dfrector overemphasized the size of the foreign 
employer in concluding that the Beneficiary did not act in a managerial capacity abroad. The 
Petitioner correctly observes that we must take into account the reasonable needs of the organization 
and that a company's size alone may not be the only factor in determining whether the Beneficiary is 
employed abroad in a managerial capacity. See section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. However, it is 
appropriate for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) to consider the size of the foreign 
7 
Matter of B-1-0-A-, LLC 
employer in conjunction with other relevant factors, such as the absence of employees who would 
perform the non-managerial operations of the company. Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313 (9th 
Cir. 2006); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). The size of a company 
may be especially relevant when USCIS notes discrepancies in the record: See Systronics, 153 F. 
Supp. 2d at 15. We do not concur that the Director improperly considered the foreign employer's 
size in denying the petition. As we have discussed in this decision, the Petitioner has submitted 
foreign duty descriptions for the Beneficiary abroad which indicate that he more likely than not 
primarily performs non-qualifying operational duties. Further, it has provided insufficient evidence 
to substantiate the foreign employer's asserted employees and operations. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary is employed in a 
managerial capacity abroad. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The next issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial capacity in the United States. The Petitioner does not claim that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity in the United States; as such, we will only 
analyze whether he would be employed in a managerial capacity. In addition, because of the 
dispositive effect of the above finding of ineligibility; namely, our affirmation of the Director's 
conclusion with respect to the Beneficiary's asserted foreign employment, we will only briefly 
address the remaining issue pertaining to his proposed employment in the United States. 
In the denial decision, the Director pointed to apparent non-qualifying operational duties listed in the 
Beneficiary's U.S. duty descriptions. The Director also emphasized that the Beneficiary would 
oversee subordinate contractors as opposed to employees of the Petitioner and indicated that it did 
not demonstrate that his subordinates would be professionals as claimed. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director took certain duties in the Beneficiary's duty 
description out of context and asserts that he will not primarily perform non-qualifying duties, but 
manage the performance of these duties by his subordinates. The Petitioner states that the 
Beneficiary would qualify as a personnel manager based on his supervision of professional 
subordinates and that he would act as function manager. 
Upon review, we concur with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary would act in a managerial capacity in the United States. Similar to the Beneficiary's 
foreign duty descriptions, the Petitioner provided U.S. duty descriptions suggesting he would be 
widely involved in non-qualifying operational tasks, such as paying bills and responding to requests 
from vendors and contractors, creating tax returns, and coordinating gardeners, "cleaning people," 
and construction personnel. This statement indicates that the Beneficiary would likely be engaged in 
all of the company's bookkeeping activities. The Beneficiary's duties suggest that he would be 
substantially involved in the day-to-day operations of the company rather than acting at a senior 
level· within the organization and primarily delegating non-qualifying duties to his subordinates. 
8 
Matter <f B-1-0-A-, LLC 
Further, these operational tasks appear throughout the Beneficiary duty description; as such, 
although the Petitioner has submitted percentages of time he would devote to general functions, it 
does not properly quantify how much of his time he would devote to non-qualifying duties versus 
managerial tasks. For this reason, we cannot determine whether the Beneficiary would primarily 
perform the duties of a personnel or function manager. See IKEA US, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. <~(Justice, 
48 F. Supp. 2d at 22, 24. 
Further, the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary would act as a personnel 
manager overseeing professional subordinates as claimed. Similar to the Beneficiary's foreign 
employment, the Petitioner does not contend that he would oversee subordinate managers or 
supervisors, but only that he would manage professional subordinates. However, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that the Beneficiary would supervise professionals. The Petitioner submitted an 
organizational chart indicating that the Beneficiary would oversee three trainers (including the 
president of the Petitioner and two contractors), two technicians employed by the company, a 
contracted advertising an·d marketing employee, an employee devoted to "integrated technologies," 
and a bookkeeping and accounting contractor. However, the Petitioner did not submit duty 
descriptions for these positions to· substantiate their existence or to establish that they are 
professional positions requiring bachelor's degrees. 
The Petitioner only vaguely indicated that these employees held bachelor's or graduate degrees, but 
did not specifically identify, or submit supporting documentation to corroborate them. . Likewise, 
the Petitioner did not explain in detail why bachelor's degrees were required for these subordinate 
positions. In fact, on appeal, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary's subordinates should be 
considered professionals based on "the high level of specific training provided to them by the 
petitioning company," and elsewhere the president indicated in submitted emails that they train 
technicians and trainers "pretty much from the ground up" and that there is "not a lot of prior 
experience or education that is relevant." Th~ president also stated that "technicians do not require a 
University degree." In total, the Petitioner's statements appear to indicate that the· positions 
subordinate to the Beneficiary do not require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry. C/ 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
Moreover, the Petitioner also contends that the Beneficiary would qualify as a function manager in 
his capacity in the United States. However, as we have discussed, the Petitioner submitted a U.S. 
duty description for the Beneficiary indicating that he would be substantially involved in the non­
qualifying operational duties of the business. It did not sutliciently demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
would primarily delegate non-qualifying tasks; or more specifically, it did not establish that he 
would primarily manage a function as opposed to performing it. As discussed previously, the 
Petitioner pointed to Mauer of G- Inc. as persuasive in demonstrating the Beneficiary's eligibility. 
Again, in that matter, the petitioner provided substantial evidence reflecting that the beneficiary 
directed the work of various teams across five business units and six geographic delivery areas and 
that he was sufficiently relieved of non-qualifying duties. However, here, the Petitioner does not 
adequately detail and document the Beneficiary's proposed subordinates nor does in demonstrate 
9 
r 
Maller of B-I-O-A-. LLC 
how he would primarily delegate non-qualifying duties. As such, the Petitioner has not established 
that the Beneficiary would act as a function manager in the United States. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would act in a 
managerial capacity in the United States. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that Beneficiary is 
employed in a managerial capacity abroad or that he would be employed in a managerial capacity in 
the United States. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofB-1-0-A-. LLC, ID# 1775487 (AAO Nov. 15, 2018) 
10