dismissed L-1A Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-1-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 27, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner , describing itself as a holding company investing in and managing various businesses , 
seeks to continue the Beneficiary's employment as its chief executive officer under the L-lA 
nonirnmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 101(a)(15)(L) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-lA classification allows a corporation 
or other legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to 
the United States to work temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity . 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity in his 
former capacity abroad . In addition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity under an extended 
petition. 2 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that since the Beneficiary's foreign employment was reviewed by 
USCIS and approved under a new office petition, it should have not then been denied on this basis as 
part of a new office extension. The Petitioner also states that the Director overemphasized the fact 
that the foreign employer was a retail store and smaller in size, and asserts that the Beneficiary 
qualified as an executive abroad. With respect to the Beneficiary's proposed U.S . employment , the 
Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's duties are not primarily service oriented as determined by 
the Director and it asserts that the Director did not sufficiently consider the executive level duties in 
the Beneficiary's duty description . 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary 's behalf which was approved for the period 
from April 14, 2017, to April 13, 2018. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing busines s in the United States 
through a parent, branch, affiliate , or subsidiary for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(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 . 
2 The Director also indicated that a qualifying relationship between the Petitioner and the Beneficiary 's former foreign 
employer "may not exist." The Director noted that although they were not denying the petition on this ground that United 
States Citizenship Immigration Service (USCIS) "retains the right to revisit the qualifying relationship issue in the future, 
if the need arises." As the Director did not make a definitive conclusion as to whether a qualifying relation ship was 
established between the Petitioner and the foreign employer and it was not set forth as a specific basis for denial, we will 
not address this issue in our decision . 
Matter of M-I- LLC 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity 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)(3)(v)(B). 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. 
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; 
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. MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAP A CITY WITH THE FOREIGN EMPLOYER 
We will first analyze whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in 
a managerial or executive capacity prior to his entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant. The 
Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial 
capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an 
executive capacity. 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner contends that the Director was required to give deference to 
USCIS' prior approval of the new office petition; namely, the apparent acceptance of the Beneficiary's 
foreign employment in an executive capacity when approving that petition. The Petitioner cites Omni 
Packaging, Inc. v. INS, 733 F. Supp. 500 (D.C.P.R. 1990) and asserts that the Director was required 
to discuss why the previous petition was approved and then indicate why the current petition was 
denied on the same facts. However, the court in Omni Packaging revisited this issue and later 
determined that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service was not estopped from concluding 
that a beneficiary did not qualify as an immigrant manager or executive after having previously 
determined that the beneficiary was manager or executive for purposes of issuing an L-1 visa. Omni 
Packaging, Inc. v. INS, 930 F. Supp. 28 (D.C.P.R. 1996). 
Further, the Director's decision does not indicate whether they reviewed the prior approval of the 
Petitioner's new office petition and the evidence in that record related to the Beneficiary's foreign 
employment. We are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. Matter of Church 
Scientology Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). In addition, USCIS has clarified that "an 
adjudicator's fact-finding authority ... should not be constrained by any prior petition approval, but 
instead should be based on the merits of each case." USCIS Policy Memorandum, PM-602-0151, 
2 
Matter of M-I- LLC 
Rescission of Guidance Regarding Deference to Prior Determinations of Eligibility in the 
Adjudication of Petitions for Extension of Nonimmigrant Status (Oct. 23, 
201 7), https ://www .uscis.gov/ sites/ default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2017/2017-10-
23Rescission-of-Deference-PM6020 l 51. pdf The memorandum also emphasized that "the burden of 
proof remains on the petitioner, even where an extension of nonimmigrant status is sought." Id. 
Therefore, we will analyze the current record to determine whether the Petitioner has submitted 
sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary acted in an executive capacity in his former 
capacity abroad. 
The statute defines an "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 of 
the organization; establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or 
direction from higher-level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
When examining the foreign executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the petitioner's 
description of the foreign job duties. The petitioner's description of the foreign job duties must clearly 
describe the duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in an 
executive 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 foreign 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 executive capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the 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 primarily 
engaged in executive 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); 
Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Beneficiary's foreign employer indicated that it was established by him and a 50% partner in 1998 
and that it is "one of Venezuela's most successful importers and retailers of electronics and home 
appliances." It stated that it sold items such as audio and visual equipment, televisions, DVD players, 
sounds systems, and a wide range of household appliances. The foreign employer stated that the 
Beneficiary worked as its president since its inception up until his entry into the United States on an 
L-lA new office petition to work for the Petitioner in April 2017. 
The foreign employer provided a lengthy duty description for the Beneficiary including some of the 
following duties for him abroad, amongst others: 
3 
Matter of M-I- LLC 
• Directed the financial operations of the company, including creating a company­
wide budget, determining how much the foreign employer would spend in 
acquiring new inventory including televisions, sounds systems, video playback 
systems and washers, dryers, and other home appliances, 
• Created, implemented and revised the company-wide 18 month budget, 
• Detailed money spent by the company to maintain operational status, 
• Estimated when the foreign employer would acquire the latest electronics and 
appliances, for how much, and how long these items would remain in our 
possession before final sale, 
• Ensured that the foreign employer had enough money to purchase excess stock and 
determining how much cash reserves to keep on hand for these increased 
expenditures, 
• Reviewed the budget variance report of the financial manager and accounted for 
any surpluses or shortages, 
• Revised the budget to remove additional purchases of certain electronics if not sold 
within two weeks, 
• Allocated cash flow to other priorities when not used for excess products, such as 
marketing to ensure that more people were aware of the upcoming increase in 
inventory, 
• Crafted and revised financial policies and procedures such as pricing procedures 
and lists, financing options, down payments, documentation and income required 
for financing, how to accept payment from customers, and how to invoice 
customers, 
• Made decisions on how to decrease the company's tax consequences, 
• Reviewed ways to purchase additional operational supplies, such as new point of 
sale systems, increase expenditures, and reinvest in the business and its people, 
• Ensured that all policies and regulations were being followed, 
• Disposed and transferred property belonging to the company, including 
warehouses, land, or inventory, 
• Entered into agreements as well as assigned, rescinded or extended them on behalf 
of the company, 
• Issued any checks, promissory notes, or other negotiable instruments and entered 
into them banking systems or loans of credit, 
• Acted as the company's representative in any lawsuits or procedures before the 
courts, and 
• Oversaw staff, hiring and firing, set forth how to advertise positions and conduct 
interviews, and created a salary scale for employees. 
The Petitioner provided a foreign duty description for the Beneficiary including tasks that indicate his 
performance of non-qualifying operational duties rather than executive level duties within a complex 
organizational hierarchy. For instance, the Beneficiary's duty description reflected that he was tasked 
with regularly assessing the inventory of the foreign employer's retail location selling electronics and 
appliances and determining how long these items should remain in its inventory, including purchasing 
excess stock during more busy times of year. Similarly, the duties indicated that the Beneficiary was 
4 
Matter of M-I- LLC 
engaged in a number of other day-to-day operational matters alongside the stores other employees, 
including determining which customers would receive financing, how much of a down payment was 
required on appliances, and what documentation was required to grant financing. Further, the 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary was involved in issuing any checks, promissory notes, or other 
negotiable instruments and entering them into banking systems. These duties reflect that the 
Beneficiary was more likely engaged in non-qualifying duties managing the foreign employer's retail 
appliance location, rather than setting policies and goals from an executive position within a complex 
organizational hierarchy. 
Whether the Beneficiary is a managerial or executive employee turns on whether the Petitioner has 
sustained its burden of proving that their duties are "primarily" executive. See sections 10l(a)(44)(B) 
of the Act. Here, the Petitioner lists duties reflecting the Beneficiary's involvement in non-qualifying 
tasks, but does not sufficiently document what proportion of the Beneficiary's duties would be 
executive functions and what proportion would be non-qualifying. For this reason, we cannot 
determine whether the Beneficiary is primarily performing the duties of an executive. See IKEA US, 
Inc. v. US. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
In contrast, with respect to the Beneficiary's claimed qualifying tasks, the Petitioner did not submit 
sufficient detail and documentation to substantiate his executive level tasks. The Petitioner provided 
insufficient examples and little supporting documentation to demonstrate the Beneficiary's 
performance of qualifying duties abroad, such as specific financial decisions he made, pricing policies 
he put in place, "18-month budgets" he set, or marketing campaigns he planned and ordered. Likewise, 
the Petitioner did not adequately detail or document financing or invoicing policies he established, 
agreements he entered into or assigned, rescinded or extended, vendors he negotiated with, strategies 
he implemented to reduce tax consequences, property he acquired or disposed of, or lawsuits he 
represented the company in. This lack of detail and documentation is particularly notable as the 
Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary acted as the president of the foreign employer from 1998 to April 
2017. 
The Petitioner has not submitted a sufficiently detailed duty description that describes the 
Beneficiary's day-to-day executive level duties abroad or which credibly establishes that he devoted 
his time primarily to qualifying tasks. 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). 
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 an executive capacity within the meaning of section 101(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a foreign position be 
"primarily" executive 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 
discretionary decision-making; however, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish 
that his actual duties abroad are primarily executive in nature. 
5 
Matter of M-I- LLC 
B. Staffing 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in an executive 
capacity, the reasonable needs of the organization are taken into account in light of the overall purpose 
and stage of development of the organization. See section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. 
The Petitioner submitted a foreign organizational chart indicating that the Beneficiary oversaw a 
department of operations and a vice president. The department of operations was shown to consist of 
an operations manager supervising two sales representatives, "security," and "logistics." Meanwhile, 
the chart reflected that the vice president oversaw an administration department, "third party marketing 
providers," and a financial manager. The chart further indicated that the administration department 
was made up of an administration manager supervising an administrative assistant and the financial 
manager was shown to oversee a tax analyst and an accounting assistant. 
As noted, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary qualified as an executive abroad. 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 10l(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 beneficiary 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." 
Id. 
The supporting foreign employer documentation provided by the Petitioner leaves question as to 
whether the Beneficiary acted in an elevated position within a complex organizational hierarchy as 
reflected in the submitted foreign organizational chart. For instance, despite listing several positions 
within the foreign employer organizational chart, the Petitioner identified only six employees by name. 
The Petitioner also indicated that several of the members of its organizational chart were "independent 
contractors," including the financial manager and the subordinate tax analyst and accounting assistant, 
the unidentified "third party marketing providers," its sales representatives, its logistics staff: "the 
receivers and shippers," and "security." However, the Petitioner submitted no supporting evidence to 
substantiate the engagement of these independent contractors or to demonstrate that they could be 
considered part of the foreign employer's organizational structure. In fact, of these independent 
contractors, only the financial manager was identified by name. Therefore, the Petitioner did not 
submit supporting evidence to substantiate most of the foreign employer's claimed organizational 
chart. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided foreign payroll documentation from November 2017, or 
approximately eight months after the Beneficiary's entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant, 
reflecting that it only employed four individuals, including one of the claimed sales representatives, 
6 
Matter of M-I- LLC 
the operations manager (also questionably referred to as the sales manager on the record), the 
administration manager, and the administrative assistant. This payroll documentation indicated that 
the administrative assistant earned more than the claimed operations and administration manager and 
that the sales representative was paid more than the asserted administration manager. Likewise, the 
Petitioner submitted a payroll listing recorded with the "Registry of Financial Information" in 
Venezuela in May 2015 which again reflected that the foreign employer had only four employees, 
including the same four employees reflected in its payroll documentation from November 2017. 
However, in this document the operations/sales manager, administrative assistant, and administration 
manager were simply listed as secretaries, while the sales representative was shown as a "seller." 
In contrast, a similar filing dated in August 2014 showed four "sellers" and a manager, suggesting that 
if the claimed administration manager and operations managers acted in their asserted supervisory 
roles they would have been listed as managers in the aforementioned registry. Beyond this conflicting 
documentation, the Petitioner submits no supporting documentation to demonstrate the Beneficiary's 
claimed subordinates acting in their roles or reflecting him delegating duties to subordinate managers 
within a complex organizational hierarchy. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies and 
discrepancies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
The Petitioner also provided vague duty descriptions for the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates. For 
example, the foreign employer indicated in a support letter that the administrative manager was tasked 
with "handling all human resources matters," "addressing employee complaints," handling payroll, 
and following "all employee manuals and procedures set by [the Beneficiary]." However, the 
Petitioner has not provided credible details to substantiate this asserted manager's role, such as the 
human resource matters and complaints they handled nor there evidence of the claimed employee 
manuals and procedures set by the Beneficiary. 
Likewise, the Petitioner states that the operations manager was responsible for implementing "all 
policies and procedures set by [the Beneficiary] for the Department" and the Beneficiary's "training 
programs so that Sales Representatives were informed of all the products that the company offered." 
However again, there is no explanation or documentation to corroborate these asserted policies, 
procedures, and training programs passed down by the Beneficiary. Beyond this, the foreign employer 
indicated that the operations manager was responsible for opening and closing the store each day, 
ensuring that the alarm system was secure and the merchandise was protected, procuring the 
company's inventory, and negotiating prices and amounts with suppliers. First, the operations 
manager's duties in closing and opening the store and securing inventory leave question as to whether 
she indeed acted in her claimed role as a supervisor. 
Further, the Beneficiary's duties indicated that he had significant responsibility for monitoring and 
acquiring inventory and negotiating with vendors and suppliers, leaving uncertainty as to whether the 
foreign employer would require another manager devoted to these tasks, particularly given its apparent 
limited staffing to support the store's day-to-day operation. The Petitioner only provided evidence 
indicating that it employed one "sale representative" or "seller," presumably an employee that would 
act as a clerk in the appliance store and provide services to customers. Given this, it appears more 
7 
Matter of M-I- LLC 
likely that the claimed operations manager was acting in this role, rather than as a manager subordinate 
to the Beneficiary as claimed. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not properly substantiate that the foreign employer's operations were 
sufficient to support the Beneficiary an executive capacity and the asserted multi-layered 
organizational structure. For instance, in a support letter, the foreign employer stated that it "is one of 
Venezuela's most successful importers and retailers of electronics and home appliances"; however, it 
submitted little supporting documentation to substantiate this claim. Indeed, in this same support letter 
the foreign employer refers to finances from 2013, despite the Beneficiary working for the foreign 
employer until April 2017 and this petition being filed in April 2018. The Petitioner provided 
numerous foreign employer transactional documents, but only a few were translated. We note that 
any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). To the limited extent these documents were translated they reflected the 
buying and selling of mattresses, not electronics and appliances. The Petitioner also submitted 
photographs of only one retail location, operations not reflective of its assertion that it was a leading 
appliance retailer in Venezuela, nor does this one store front indicate, without further supporting 
evidence, that it would require the complex organizational structure it asserted. 
In conclusion, the Petitioner provided a foreign duty description for the Beneficiary indicating his 
direct involvement in the operations of the inventory and billing of one retail appliance location in 
Venezuela. In contrast, there is little detail and supporting documentation to substantiate the 
Beneficiary's primary involvement in qualifying executive level tasks since 1998; or as required, the 
three years prior to the date of his entry into the United States. For instance, the record does not 
include any evidence of the Beneficiary delegating duties to his claimed subordinates. In addition, the 
foreign employer claimed to have a complex organizational hierarchy; however, the evidence revealed 
that the majority of these claimed employees were independent contractors whose engagement and 
roles within this structure were not sufficiently substantiated. In fact, as we have noted, the supporting 
documentation reflected that the foreign employer only had four employees beyond the Beneficiary. 
In sum, the evidence indicates that it is more likely than not that the Beneficiary acted only as a first 
line supervisor and manager of a retail electronics and appliance location and not as an executive in 
an elevated position within a complex organizational hierarchy. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was employed in an 
executive capacity abroad. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
As we have discussed, the Director also denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity in the United States. 3 
Because of the dispositive effect of the above finding of ineligibility; namely, our affirmation of the 
Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary acted in an executive 
3 Similar to the Beneficiary's asserted foreign employment, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary would be employed 
in an executive capacity and not as a manager consistent with the regulations. Therefore, we will only briefly analyze 
whether the Beneficiary would qualify as an executive under an extended petition. 
8 
Matter of M-I- LLC 
capacity in his former capacity abroad, we will only briefly address the remaining issue addressed by 
the Director. 
In denying the petition on these grounds, the Director determined that the Beneficiary's duties 
reflected that he was more likely engaged in non-qualifying duties related to the provision of services 
as an owner and operator of the Petitioner's businesses rather than performing qualifying executive­
level duties. Further, the Director indicated that the duties of the Beneficiary's claimed subordinate 
managers did not demonstrate that they acted in their asserted roles. The Director also determined 
that the Petitioner had presented its organizational structure as more complex, when in reality, it 
consisted of only two to three full-time employees. 
Upon review, the provided evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary would act 
in an executive capacity in the United States under an extended petition. 
The Petitioner indicated that it was a holding company controlling two wholly owned subsidiaries in 
the United States one operating a I I franchise specializing in selling, producing, and 
installing visual communications and another run~ng a franchised sna location providing "beauty 
treatment services ... such as skin treatments throug I technology." 
Again, although the Petitioner submitted a lengthy U.S. duty description for the Beneficiary, the stated 
duties were vague and the record lacked supporting documentation to substantiate that he would be 
primarily engaged in qualifying tasks. Once again, 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 ofreiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 
1103, 1108. 
For instance, the Petitioner did not sufficiently detail and document the executive level policies and 
procedures the Beneficiary established or would establish. The Petitioner listed various policies the 
Beneficiary would set, such as how employees should greet customers, how they would work with 
customers on marketing materials, signs, and business cards, how to perform proper data entry of 
customer contact information at the spa, how to determine when treatment is necessary at the spa, how 
to accept payment, how to close the register at the end of the day, amongst others. 
However, these duties are more indicative of an employee involved in the day-to-day operational 
aspects of the business, rather than an executive setting goals and policies within a complex 
organizational hierarchy. For instance, the Petitioner also refers to policies the Beneficiary established 
related to "paid time off:" a "dress code," "how to create and revise employee and independent 
contractor files," and a procedures manual. But again, the record includes no supporting evidence to 
substantiate these policies and to corroborate that the Beneficiary is more likely than not focused on 
these high level aspects of the business rather than its day-to-day operations. Furthermore, it is notable 
that the Petitioner provided no documentation of the Beneficiary delegating policies or daily 
operational tasks to his subordinates. In sum, the Beneficiary's asserted duties indicate that the 
Beneficiary is more like engaged in operational activities alongside his colleagues rather than setting 
goals and policies from an executive level within a complex organizational hierarchy. 
9 
Matter of M-I- LLC 
In contrast, the record did include supporting documentation reflecting the Beneficiary's involvement 
in non-qualifying operational level duties. For example, the Petitioner submitted an invoice for the 
payment of rent at its spa in March 2018 listing the Beneficiary. The Petitioner also provided invoices 
from 2017 reflecting the Beneficiary's involvement in purchasing spa supplies through PayPal. This 
along with the Beneficiary apparent involvement in all aspects of the operation of the Petitioner's 
businesses indicates that he would more like than not be primarily engaged in non-qualifying 
operational level duties rather than executive-level policy setting. 
Again, whether the Beneficiary is an executive employee turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained 
its burden of proving that their duties are "primarily" executive. See sections 10l(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. Here, the Petitioner lists duties and provided evidence reflecting the Beneficiary's involvement 
in non-qualifying tasks, but does not sufficiently document what proportion of the Beneficiary's duties 
would be executive functions and what proportion would be non-qualifying. For this reason, we 
cannot determine whether the Beneficiary is primarily performing the duties of an executive. See 
IKEA US, Inc. v. US. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in 
an executive capacity in the United States. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that Beneficiary was 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad or that he would be employed in a managerial 
or executive capacity in the United States under an extended petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-I-LLC, ID# 582837 (AAO Sept. 27, 2019) 
10