dismissed L-1A Case: Car Rental

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-R- LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 22,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a rental car company with three employees, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as its "President/CEO" under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 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 an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In support of its appeal, the Petitioner disputes the Director's 
decision, asserting that it has sufficient personnel to relieve the Beneficiary from having to perform 
operational and administrative tasks and that the Beneficiary "manages professiona[ sic ]/supervisory 
personnel." 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge 
capacity, for one continuous year within three years preceding the Beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(15)(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, executive, or specialized knowledge 
capacity. !d. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form J-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, shall be accompanied by: 
Matter of M-R- LLC 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will 
employ the alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph 
(l)(l)(ii)(G) ofthis section. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or 
specialized knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the 
services to be performed. 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time 
employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years 
preceding the filing ofthe petition. 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position 
that was managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that 
the alien's prior education, training, and empfoyment qualifies him/her to 
perform the intended services in the United States; however, the work in the 
United States need not be the same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(14 )(ii) also provides that a visa petition, which involved the 
opening of a new office, may be extended by filing a new Form I-129, accompanied by the 
following: 
(A) Evidence that the United States and foreign entities are still qualifying 
organizations as defined in paragraph (1)(1 )(ii)(G) of this section; 
(B) Evidence that the United States entity has been doing business as defined in 
paragraph (1)(1 )(ii)(H) of this section for the previous year; 
(C) A statement of the duties performed by the beneficiary for the previous year 
and the duties the beneficiary will perform under the extended petition; 
(D) A statement describing the staffing of the new operation, including the 
number of employees and types of positions held accompanied by evidence of 
wages paid to employees when the beneficiary will be employed in a 
management or executive capacity; and 
(E) Evidence ofthe financial status ofthe United States operation. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
As indicated above, the primary issue to be addressed in this decision is whether the Petitioner 
provided sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United 
States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
2 
Matter of M-R- LLC 
Section 101(a)(44)(A)ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" 
as an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the organization; 
(ii) supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the 
organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the 
authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel 
actions (such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee 
is directly supervised, functions at a senior level within the organizational 
hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or 
function for which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is not 
considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the 
supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are 
professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" 
as "an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily": 
(i) directs the management of the organization or a major component or 
function of the organization; 
(ii) establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or 
function; 
(iii) exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level executives, 
the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of the Beneficiary, we will look first to the 
Petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The Petitioner's description 
of the job duties must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary and indicate 
whether such duties are in a managerial or executive capacity. !d. 
3 
Matter of M-R- LLC 
The definitions of managerial and executive capacity each have two parts. First, the Petitioner must 
show that the Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. 
INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). Second, the Petitioner must 
prove that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial or executive duties, as opposed to 
ordinary operational activities alongside the Petitioner's ot~er employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 
469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533. 
Further, if staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a 
managerial or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must take 
into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of 
development of the organization. See section 101 (a)( 44 )(C) of the Act. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner filed the Form I-129 on February 12, 2016 claiming three 
employees after its initial year of operation. In a supporting statement that accompanied the petition, 
the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive and in a managerial 
capacity, which would include "overseeing the executive management of the company" and 
managing, .rather than performing, an essential function of the organization with the essential 
function being to "maintain control of the overall U.S. company operation." The Petitioner also 
claimed that the Beneficiary's duties in his proposed position would be similar to those he performed 
during his employment abroad. The Petitioner did not, however, explain how the needs of a rental 
car company with only three employees, including the Beneficiary, would be met by having the 
Beneficiary perform duties that are similar to those he performed abroad while working for an entity 
that provides "emergency pre-hospitalization services with ambulances, doctors, paramedics, and 
drivers" and operates with a staff of 120 employees. The Petitioner's claim does not acknow·ledge or 
account for these critical differences, which are likely to impact the Beneficiary's job duties based 
on each employer's individual needs. A petitioner's unsupported statements are of very limited 
weight and normally will be insufficient to carry its burden of proof, particularly when supporting 
documentary evidence would reasonably be available. See Matter o.fSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm'r 1998) (citing lvfatter o.fTreasure Craft o_fCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)); 
see also Matter o.fChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). The Petitioner must support its 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See "~atter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 
376.Further, if USCIS finds reason to believe that an assertion stated in the petition is not true, 
USCIS may reject that assertion. See, e.g., Section 204(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b); Anetekhai 
v. INS, 876 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1989); Lu-Ann Bakery Shop, Inc. v. lVelson, 705 F. Supp. 7, 10 
(D.D.C. 1988); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
The Petitioner's supporting statement includes job descriptions for the Beneficiary and the general 
manager, who the Petitioner stated would be the Beneficiary's sole direct subordinate employee. 
The Petitioner based the Beneficiary's proposed job description on a 40-hour work week, despite 
claiming that the Beneficiary ·would work "very much more than that on a regular and ongoing 
basis." While the Petitioner indicated that "some aspects will continue to occupy a great deal more 
time," it did not specifY these additional job duties. The Petitioner also did not state whether such 
job duties would be of an executive or managerial nature or whether they would be non-qualifying 
operational tasks. 
4 
Matter of M-R- LLC 
The Petitioner also claimed that the Beneficiary would oversee the executive management of the 
organization and spend his time planning, establishing, directing, and controlling the following: 
(1) the Petitioner's strategy, corporate goals, and administrative policies for ten hours; (2) the 
Petitioner's financial policy for five hours; (3) the Petitioner's operating procedures and policies for 
ten hours; (4) the Petitioner's sales and marketing policies and strategies for ten hours; and (5) the 
Petitioner's human resource strategy for five hours. Although the Petitioner listed a set of job duties 
under each of these five categories, it did not allocate specific time constraints to those duties or 
specifically define the duties in such a way that would allow for a meaningful understanding of what 
actual tasks the Beneficiary would perform within the scope ()f the U.S. organization. The 
supporting statement also includes a job description for the general manager, who would act as the 
Beneficiary's subordinate. 
In addition to the supporting statement, the Petitioner provided other evidence, including an 
organizational chart and the Petitioner's 2015 quarterly tax returns. The organizational chart shows 
a board of directors at the top of the hierarchy, followed by the Beneficiary in his proposed position, 
a general manager as the Beneficiary's subordinate, and an administrative assistant as the general 
manager's subordinate. The quarterly tax returns show that the Petitioner had three employees 
during the first three quarters and two employees during the last quarter of 2015. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's submissions, the Director determined that additional evidence was 
necessary to establish eligibility. Therefore, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), 
instructing the Petitioner to provide, in part, the educational requirements, educational credentials, 
and a position description for the Beneficiary's U.S. subordinate and evidence to support its claim 
that it had three employees at the time of filing, as indicated in the petition. 
The Petitioner complied with the Director's request, providing a response statement in which it 
indicated that the position of general manager has no educational requirements and involves the 
management of one subordinate employee. The Petitioner resubmitted the job description for the 
general manager and provided its payroll summary for the first three months of 2016 to establish that 
it had three employees at the time of filing. 
As indicated above, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 
would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. In denying the petition, the Director 
found that the Petitioner did not provide a position description, educational requirements, or copies 
of the Beneficiary's employees' educational credentials. However, the Director's finding is not 
consistent with the evidence of record, which, as previously noted, shows that the Petitioner 
provided the general manager's job descriptions on two occasions - first in support of the initial 
filing of the petition and later in response to the RFE. While the content and probative value of the 
job descriptions will require further evaluation, we do not dispute that the information was provided 
initially and later upon request in the RFE. Further, given that the Petitioner's RFE response 
indicates that there are no educational requirements for the position of general manager, it is 
unreasonable to interpret this response as a failure to comply with the Director's request for a list of 
the general manager's educational requirements. While it is true that the Petitioner did not comply 
5 
Matter of M-R- LLC 
with the RFE request for a list of the general manager's educational credentials, the Petitioner's 
claim that the Beneficiary's subordinate oversees a subordinate of his own indicates that the 
Petitioner seeks to establish that the Beneficiary's subordinate is a supervisory or managerial 
employee, rather than a professional employee. It therefore appears that the issue of the general 
manager's educational credentials is not critical to support the Petitioner's claim. 
Notwithstanding the Director's flawed evaluation of the evidence, our review of the petition and the 
evidence of record, including materials submitted in support of the appeal, leads us to conclude that 
the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial and 
executive capacity in the United States, as claimed. We find that the job description the Petitioner 
submitted to support these claims is not sufficient, as it is comprised of generalities and statements 
that are not consistent with the Petitioner's staffing structure at the time of filing. 
First, we will address the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary would assume the role of a function 
manager. 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 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The term 
"essential function" is not defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims that the beneficiary 
will manage an essential function, a petitioner must furnish a written job offer that clearly describes 
the duties to be performed in managing the essential function, i.e., identify the function with 
specificity, articulate the essential nature of the function, and establish the proportion of a 
beneficiary's daily duties attributed to managing the essential function. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(ii). In addition, the petitioner's description of a beneficiary's daily duties must 
demonstrate that the beneficiary will manage the function rather than performs the duties related to 
the function. 
In this matter, the Petitioner has not met the fundamental requirement of specifying the essential 
function that the Beneficiary would manage. Generally stating that the Beneficiary's essential 
function is to "maintain control of the overall" organization is not sufficient and does not define 
which specific component of the organization the Beneficiary would manage. In fact, controlling an 
entire organization seemingly implies that the Beneficiary's focus would be broad and would 
encompass the organization as a whole, rather than focusing on a single component, i.e., the essential 
function within the organization. Furthermore, 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" of an executive 
or managerial nature. Sections 10l(A)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. While the Beneficiary may 
exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess- the requisite level of 
authority with respect to discretionary decision-making, the Petitioner must provide a detailed 
description of the Beneficiary's specific job duties along with corroborating evidence to establish 
that, as of the date of filing, the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial and/or executive 
capacity. 
6 
Matter of M-R- LLC 
Here, the Petitioner's function manager claim lacks the support of a detailed and telling job 
description explaining what actual tasks the Beneficiary would perform and how the other 
employees of the organization would work together to support the Beneficiary in his management of 
a function, rather than his direct performance of the function's underlying operational tasks. For 
instance, in discussing the Beneficiary's role regarding the Petitioner's strategy, corporate goals, and 
administrative policies, the Petitioner broadly stated that the Beneficiary would "[ o ]versee all 
operations and business activities." This vague statement provides no information about the specific 
underlying tasks to be performed or explain how the Beneficiary would meet this job responsibility 
within the scope of the Petitioner's car rental business. It is reasonable to assume that any top-level 
manager or executive assumes the responsibility of overseeing business operations and formulating 
strategies to ensure the business's optimal function. However, merely providing this general 
information does not explain what specific tasks the Beneficiary would carry out or establish that 
such tasks are of a managerial or executive nature. The Petitioner is equally vague in stating that the 
Beneficiary would plan, formulate and direct policies and monitor the implementation of policies 
and procedures. The Petitioner did not define any policies or procedures with any specificity or 
explain what actual tasks are involved in monitoring their implementation. 
In discussing the Beneficiary's role in financial management, the Petitioner made note of a company 
accountant without providing evidence to show that it either employsg or uses the contracted 
services of an account. As noted above, The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. See }vfatter of Chmvathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376.. Although the 
Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary's responsibility with regard to its finances would involve 
reviewing financial statements, overseeing the drafting of financial reports, reviewing accounts 
payable/receivable reports, and ensuring that best practices standards are met, the Petitioner did not 
establish who would actually perform the underlying tasks of drafting the various reports and 
statements, as these tasks were not assigned to the general manager. 
The Petitioner continued to focus on generalities when discussing the Beneficiary's management of 
operating procedures and policies, which would include duties such as directing "logistics and legal 
matters," meeting with the general manager, directing and coordinating company activities, 
maintaining profitability, and ensuring that the company's "staff is implementing all corporate 
systems and controls." The Petitioner did not specify the means by which the Beneficiary plans to 
meet these responsibilities nor define what is meant by "corporate systems and controls." The 
Petitioner also did not specify which of its employees would carry out the underlying tasks regarding 
the "corporate systems and controls." Reciting the Beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or 
broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the regulations require a detailed description of the 
beneficiary's daily job duties, as it is the actual duties themselves that will reveal the true nature of 
the employment. Fe din Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 
905 F .2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Next, while the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary's role with regard to the sales and marketing 
functions would not include marketing and selling the Petitioner's car rental services, it is unclear 
who would actually perform these tasks, as neither the Beneficiary nor the general manager was 
Matter of M-R- LLC 
assigned the sales and marketing tasks. In fact, the job description for the general manager indicates 
that this position would be responsible for coordinating operations between subordinate personnel, 
including an administrative assistant, a sales and marketing manager, and a sales representative 
"among others in the United States." However, as previously discussed, there is no evidence to 
establish, nor did the Petitioner claim, that it employed anyone other than the Beneficiary, a general 
manager, and an administrative assistant at the time of filing. It is unclear how the Petitioner's 
operational needs would be met with two employees to carry out all of its operational and 
administrative tasks without direct assistance from the Beneficiary. It is also unclear as to how the 
General Manager will function in a primarily supervisory or managerial role with one subordinate. 
As such, it is reasonable to assume that the Beneficiary would likely participate in carrying out the 
Petitioner's operational tasks in order to meet the needs of an organization with a limited support 
staff. 
Lastly, the duties used to describe the Beneficiary's role in managing human resources are also 
overly vague and lack supporting evidence. For instance, while the Petitioner claims that the 
Beneficiary would manage, supervise, and set standards for the company's staff, it is unlikely that 
any significant portion of the Beneficiary's time would be allocated to this task, given the 
Petitioner's limited staffing structure. The Petitioner also claims that the Beneficiary would ensure a 
business that focuses on customer service. However, this in and of itself is not an actual job duty. 
The Petitioner has provided no real information to explain what tasks the Beneficiary would carry 
out to create a customer service friendly environment. The Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary 
would "act appropriately on staff training and development needs" is also entirely unclear and leaves 
open the possibility that the Beneficiary would engage in staff training and development, which is 
not, on its face, a managerial task. 
In sum, the Petitioner provided a deficient job description in support of which it offered no evidence 
to establish that it has the necessary personnel to relieve the Beneficiary from having to allocate his 
time primarily to its operational tasks. We acknowledge that a company's size alone, without taking 
into account the reasonable needs of the organization, may not be the determining factor in denying 
a visa petition for classification as a multinational manager or executive. See section 10l(a)(44)(C) 
ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(C). However, it is appropriate for USCIS to consider the size of 
the petitioning company in conjunction with other relevant factors, such as the absence of employees 
who would perform the non-managerial or non-executive operations of the company, or a "shell 
company" that does not conduct business in a regular and continuous manner. See, e.g. Family Inc. 
v. USCIS, 469 F .3d 1313 (9th Cir. 2006); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 15 3 F. Supp. 2d at 15. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner's reasonable needs, which in this instance may be driven by its lack of 
sufficient support personnel, will not supersede the Petitioner's burden of having to establish that it 
has the ability to support the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity such that the primary portion of 
his time would be spent performing managerial, rather than operational, tasks. 
Further, in light of the deficient job description and the lack of evidence showing that the 
Beneficiary would allocate his time primarily to overseeing the work of supervisory, professional, or 
8 
Matter of M-R- LLC 
managerial employees, also find that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would 
assume the role of a personnel manager. 
Next, we tum to the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive 
capacity. The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated 
position within a complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the 
organization, and that person's authority to direct the organization. Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B). Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the 
management" and "establish the goals and policies" of that organization. Inherent to the definition, 
the organization must have a subordinate level of managerial employees for a beneficiary to direct 
and a beneficiary must primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than 
the day-to-day operations ofthe 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. 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has provided a deficient and overly vague job description that 
does not convey an understanding of the tasks the Beneficiary would carry out in the course of daily 
business. Further, the evidence of record depicts a staffing structure that is not sufficient to support 
the Beneficiary in an executive position. The Petitioner does not have a complex organizational 
structure, but rather is comprised of a staff whose subordinate managerial tier is comprised of a 
single individual, i.e., a general manager, who is claimed to be managing one employee, i.e., an 
administrative assistant, despite the fact that the administrative assistant's salary is greater than that 
of the general manager. As previously stated, if USCIS finds reason to believe that an assertion 
stated in the petition is not true, US CIS may reject that assertion. See, e.g, Section 204(b) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b); Anetekhai v. INS, 876 F.2d at 1220; Lu-Ann Bakery Shop, Inc. v. Nelson, 
705 F. Supp. at 10; Systronics Corp. v. INS. 153 F. Supp. 2d at 15. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it met its burden of proof and relies on its previously approved 
L-1 petition, which was filed on behalf of the same Beneficiary, to support this assertion. However, 
the record indicates that the Petitioner's prior petition was filed pursuant to the "new office" 
regulations. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(F). When a new business is established and commences 
operations, the regulations recognize that a designated manager or executive responsible for setting 
up operations will be engaged in a variety of activities not normally performed by employees at the 
executive or managerial level and that often the full range of managerial responsibility cannot be 
performed. In order to qualify for L-1 nonimmigrant classification during the first year of 
operations, the regulations require the petitioner to disclose the business plans and the size of the 
United States investment, and thereby establish that the proposed enterprise will support an 
executive or managerial position within one year of the approval of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). This evidence should demonstrate a realistic expectation that the enterprise will 
succeed and rapidly expand as it moves away from the developmental stage to full operations, where 
there would be an actual need for a manager or executive who will primarily perform qualifying 
9 
Matter of M-R- LLC 
duties. As such, the Petitioner should in no way expect automatic approval of the subsequently filed 
petition to extend the Beneficiary's period of employment in the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification. 
The evidence of record must be reviewed to determine whether, after its first year of operation, the 
Petitioner was able to progress beyond the initial stage of development and reach the next phase 
during which it has the need and ability to employ the Beneficiary in a managerial and/or executive 
capacity. We note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) only allows the "new office" 
operation one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial 
position. There is no provision in USCIS regulations that allows for an extension of this one-year 
period. If the business does not have the necessary staffing after one year to sufficiently relieve the 
Beneficiary from performing operational and administrative tasks, the Petitioner is ineligible by 
regulation for an extension. 
In the matter at hand, the Director properly determined that the Petitioner had not reached a stage of 
development where it would adequately support the Beneficiary in a managerial and/or executive 
position such that. the primary portion of the Beneficiary's time would be allocated to managerial 
and/or executive tasks. Here, the evidence of record does not support the contention that the 
Petitioner's three-person organization, which consists of the Beneficiary and two other employees, is 
sufficient to support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. Therefore, despite the 
Petitioner's assertions on appeal, where it claims that the Beneficiary supervises a general manager 
and assumes an executive position, the instant petition cannot be approved. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reason. In visa petition 
proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N 127, 128 (BIA 
2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofM-R- LLC, ID# 63635 (AAO Nov. 22, 2016) 
10