dismissed L-1A Case: Clinical Laboratory Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-L-1-INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 17, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a DNA and clinical lab testing services business, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's 
temporary employment as its president and CEO under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 11 0l(a)(l 5)(L). The L-lA classification allows a corporation or otherlegal 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 it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity 
under an extended petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and emphasizes that it previously submitted over 
4500 pages of documentation in support the petition. The Petitioner contends that the Director failed 
to consider the totality of the evidence and the prior approval of an L-lA petition filed on the 
Beneficiary's behalf 
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. 
II. DEFINITIONS 
"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; 
Matter of B-L-1- Inc. 
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 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
The term "executive capacity" is defined 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 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
Based on the definitions of managerial and executive capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the 
Beneficiary will perform 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 will be primarily engaged in managerial or executive duties, as opposed to ordinary 
operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 
1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d at 1533. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that it would employ the 
Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity under an extended petition. 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly 
describe the duties performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in a managerial 
or executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description of the job duties, 
we examine the company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate 
employees, the presence of other employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing operational 
duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a 
beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
Accordingly, we will discuss evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of 
the nature of the Petitioner's business, its staffing levels, and its organizational structure. 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner submitted the following description of the Beneficiary's duties at the time of filing: 
• Establish and implement goals and policies for the acquired U.S. company, 
following the overseas affiliate company's policies, guidelines and goals. 
2 
.
Matter of B-L-1- Inc. 
• Direct, oversee, and develop the company's sales, purchasing and financial 
operations, and implement corporate policies in line with the overall growth 
strategy of the company and its overseas affiliate company; 
• Develop plans, projects and programs, establishing company methodology for 
analyzing client needs, and develop internal protocols for delivering high-value 
services in both arms of the business tailored to meeting customer needs; 
• Monitor and direct business activities to ensure that services are delivered within 
budget and ensuring the company remains competitive in the local marketplace; 
• Make sure the company meets accepted levels of quality and that services meet all 
legal, regulatory and compliance requirements; 
• Oversee and direct the activities relating to a strategic marketing campaign aimed 
at promoting the activities of the company; 
• Determine staffing requirements and exercise discretionary authority over 
subordinate managers and staff ... ; 
• Prepare performance reports and other high-level metrics for presentation and 
reporting to affiliate company; 
• Negotiate and liaise with customers, ensuring that internal customer service and 
sales protocols are adhered to; 
• Undertake business development activities to develop operational strategies, long 
range plans, annual operating plans and annual budgets. 
This description was overly broad, as it did not list the specific tasks the Beneficiary would perform 
on a day-to-day basis within the context of the Petitioner's business. The Petitioner did not provide 
examples of goals, policies, plans, methodologies or internal protocols the Beneficiary has developed 
or is expected to develop in support of its claim that such tasks would require a significant portion of 
his time on a regular and ongoing basis. Further, we note that certain protocols and operating 
procedures for the Petitioner's business are dictated by the franchisor ( ) 
according to the franchise training manuals and other franchise documents submitted on appeal. 
The position description also refers to a "strategic marketing plan," but the Petitioner does not have 
any marketing personnel on staff and it is unclear what the Beneficiary's involvement in "directing" 
marketing activities would entail. It is also unclear what types of customer negotiations would engage 
the Beneficiary, as the record indicates that the Petitioner provides lab testing services to individual 
clients. Finally, the Petitioner refers to the Beneficiary's oversight of"sales, purchasing and financial 
operations," but it does not claim to have any sales or purchasing staff, and its financial department 
appears to be limited to an external accounting firm that received only $2700 in payments from the 
Petitioner in the preceding year. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director requested a more detailed description describing the 
Beneficiary ' s typical day-to-day duties and the amount of time to be spent on each specific task. 
In response, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary has allocated his time as follows since 
assuming the president and CEO position in 2015: 
3 
.
Matter of B-L-1- Inc. 
Directing the Operations Department: 
• Reviewing and analyzing the operations, sales and activity reports of the 
department (10%). 
• Directing, designing, and implementing strategic plans for operations, health and 
safety management, marketing and sales (10%). 
• Ensured successful, timely, budgeted delivery of services, customer care (10%). 
• Sets customer/patent relations strategies (5%). 
• Monitoring new trends in the medical/wellness industry. Directed and approved 
wellness service strategies and price policies, and special offers to ensure 
competitive level profits (10%). 
Establishing the Goals and Objectives of the Company (15%) 
• Overseeing the Lab Director and Operations of the three labs in 
and 
• Established and communicated the goals and objectives for the company, worked 
on setting up strategies for time efficiency and cost reduction, and planned monthly 
meetings. 
Directing the Finance Department (15%) 
• Overseeing the Financial Department, which was managed by Accountant 
[the Beneficiary] has developed financial forecast and analysis preparations, 
and prepared financial statements. 
Full Authority of Personnel (10%) 
• [The Beneficiary] has exercised a full authority of hiring, promotion, demotion and 
termination of personnel decisions ... determining the requirements of his staff, 
hiring personnel, and overseeing the training of new personnel and monitoring their 
activities. 
The Petitioner also noted that the Beneficiary has full authority to make decisions on behalf of the 
company, such as decisions involving third-party contractors, and the authority to open new labs. 
We agree with the Director's determination that the description provided in response to the RFE did 
not include the requested level of specificity regarding the Beneficiary's actual day-to-day duties as 
president and CEO. Both submitted job descriptions convey the Beneficiary's authority over the 
company's policies, goals, objectives, and day-to-day operations, but provide little insight into the 
types of tasks that primarily occupy his time. Conclusory assertions regarding the Beneficiary's 
employment capacity are not sufficient. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations 
does not satisfy the Petitioner 's burden of proof. 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); A,y r Assocs., Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 
188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Here, the Petitioner has not provided the necessary detail or an adequate 
explanation of the Beneficiary 's proposed activities in the course of his daily routine. Although the 
Director addressed this deficiency in the denial notice, the Petitioner has not provided further 
information regarding the Beneficiary 's specific day-to-day duties on appeal. 
4 
.
Matter of B-L-1- Inc. 
The fact that the Beneficiary will manage or direct a business as its senior employee does not 
necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or 
executive capacity within the meaning of section l0l(a)( 44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this 
classification requires that the duties of a position be "primarily" executive or managerial in 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, a broad position description alone is insufficient to establish that his 
actual duties would be primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
B. Business Activities, Staffing and Organizational Structure 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual will be acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, we take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the 
overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
The Petitioner states that it operates four franchised medical and DNA lab testing facilities doing 
business as and an clinic, which provides "nutritional and 
wellness therapies" as well as "aesthetic and laser treatments." 
The Petitioner stated on the Form 1-129 that it had 12 employees at the time of filing. It provided an 
organizational chart which identifies the Beneficiary as president & CEO, supervising an advisor 
, a lab director and a finance/accounting director The chart also included 
vacancies for a marketing director and an administrative/HR director position directly subordinate to 
the Beneficiary. The chart shows a lab operations manager ( ) reporting to the lab director, 
and a total of seven employees reporting to the lab operations manager, including three medical 
assistants, three phlebotomy technicians, and a "natural practitioner" _____ Finally, the 
chart identified a contractor that handles call center operations. 
In an attached employee list, the Petitioner indicated that the three medical assistants are part-time 
employees, while all other payroll staff work full-time. In addition, the Petitioner indicated that the 
accountant works part-time on a "per service basis," the natural practitioner works part time on a "per 
appointment basis," and the advisor works full-time according to a "consultancy contract." Therefore, 
it appears that the 12 employees claimed on the Form 1-129 included the contracted staff 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted evidence of wages paid to employees at the time of 
filing along with what it presented as an updated organizational chart showing its staffing as of August 
2018 . However , the Petitioner's payroll journals and quarterly reports reflect that the Petitioner had 
six employees at the time of filing (including the Beneficiary) , not nine as indicated on the 
organizational chart. Specifically , the only employees paid in May 2018 were the Beneficiary , the lab 
director , the lab manager , and the three phlebotomy technicians. As ofJune 2018, the lab director was 
no longer on the Petitioner ' s payroll , and it appears that one of the phlebotomy technicians left and 
was replaced. In July 2018 , it appears that the Petitioner added a fourth phlebotomy technician and 
another employee ____ who did not appear on the employee list or organizational chart. 
5 
.
Matter of B-L-1- Inc. 
The Petitioner's "updated" organizational chart continued to include the laboratory director 
who was no longer on payroll, as well as three medical assistants who were not employed by the 
Petitioner at the time of filing, and not reflected in the more recent payroll records. 
Further, on appeal, the Petitioner has submitted new evidence in support of its claim that it has a 
contracted "medical director" on staff to provide services at its wellness clinic. This evidence includes 
an offer letter addressed to dated January 2018, and a credit card statement intended 
to corroborate $930 in payments made to in the first half of 2018. However, the statement 
does not identify as the recipient of the payments, and as of the date of the appeal, no credit 
card payments had been made for four months. The Petitioner also does not explain why it did not 
include on any version of its organizational chart or employee lists. 
While the Petitioner emphasizes on appeal that it provided "voluminous" payroll evidence, it does not 
explain why this evidence does not corroborate the information provided in the Petitioner's 
organizational charts. Absent an explanation for these discrepancies, we cannot find that either 
organizational chart represented the company's actual staffing at the time it was submitted. The 
Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). The evidence shows that the 
Petitioner had no more than six employees at the time of filing, and soon thereafter had a vacancy for 
its lab director position. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary 
manages an essential function of the company, but does claim that the Beneficiary supervises 
subordinate managers and professionals. 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." 1 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)(l)(ii)(B)(3). 
With respect to the Beneficiary's supervision of supervisory or managerial staff, the Petitioner's 
organizational chart shows that only the company's lab operations department has multiple tiers of 
staff As noted, the submitted payroll evidence shows that the lab director left the company within 
one week of the petition's filing date, as he was not paid in June 2018. The Petitioner states that the 
lab operations manager supervises "all daily operations of _____ and ___ ," but 
1 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. Cf 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 occupation "). Section 101(a)(32) of the Act, states that "[t]he term profession shall include 
but not be limited to architects , engineers , lawyers, physicians , surgeons , and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, 
colleges , academies, or seminaries. " 
h 
.
Matter of B-L-1- Inc. 
she is also the only employee who works full-time at the Petitioner's lab location. 2 The 
Petitioner has not explained how this lab, which is open for 51 hours per week and accepts walk-in 
customers, would function without an employee on-site to provide its services. Therefore, while the 
lab manager may perform some administrative duties not performed by the part-time staff, the 
Petitioner has not shown how she would be acting as a supervisor or manager, rather than providing 
services to clients at the location. 
Finally, the Petitioner states that the company's "advisor" performs "management duties," and notes 
that he has been contracted to provide advice regarding the "marketing, operation and management of 
the clinic and labs." The Petitioner has not shown his management or supervisory authority over any 
of its employees. Nor has it supported its claim that he is a full-time consultant to the company, as the 
Petitioner paid him only $5200 in 2017. Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner has not established 
that the Beneficiary would be supervising a staff of subordinate managers or supervisors. 
We have also considered whether the Beneficiary would be supervising subordinate professional staff 
The Petitioner indicates that the lab director and its claimed CPA, 
are all professionals who possess at least a bachelor's degree. As discussed, the 
Petitioner has not shown that it continued to employ the after May 2018. and 
based on the submitted evidence, provide services to the Petitioner on a limited basis, as they 
were issued IRS Forms 1099 in the amounts of$5200 and $2160, respectively, in 2017. Finally, while 
the Petitioner claims that is its accountant, there is no direct evidence of payments to him. 
The Petitioner submitted letters and copies of Forms 1099 indicating that has been 
its accountant, but has not submitted evidence that is connected with this firm. For these 
reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary would be supervising professional staff as 
part of his regular routine, given the limited services provided by these staff Further, even if the 
Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to establish that at least one of his regular subordinates was 
working in a professional capacity, this is not sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary's actual duties 
as a whole are primarily managerial. The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary qualifies 
as a personnel manager. 
The Petitioner has claimed in the alternative that the Beneficiary will 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 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 an owner or sole managerial employee. As 
discussed, the submitted job descriptions are too vague to establish that the Beneficiary would be 
primarily focused on the company 's broad policies and goals, and the evidence as a whole does not 
2 In response to the RFE , the Petitioner stated that two newly hired part-time phlebotomists 
each work 20 to 25 hours per week and divide their time between the company 's 
,., 
and 
labs. 
.
Matter of B-L-1- Inc. 
adequately establish how the Petitioner's staff would relieve him from significant involvement in the 
day-to-day operations of the company to support an executive position. 
As noted, a company's size alone may not be the only factor in determining whether the Beneficiary 
is or would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity, and we must take into account the 
reasonable needs of the organization. See section l0l(a)( 44)(C) of the Act. However, it is appropriate 
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. 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 we note discrepancies 
in the record. See Systronics, 153 F. Supp. 2d at 15. 
As noted, the Petitioner claims that it operates four franchised locations and an 
clinic offering nutritional and wellness therapies, as well as laser skin treatments. On 
appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the company has "levels of staff attending to the day-to-day 
operations of the laboratories performed by medical assistants and phlebotomists while laboratory 
managers manag[e] the laboratories and the medical assistants and phlebotomists." However, this is not 
the organizational structure documented in the record. As discussed, the lab director left the company 
around the time of filing. Further, the Petitioner never claimed to employ more than one laboratory 
manager, and it has not documented its employment of any medical assistants after April 2018. 
The Director pointed to discrepancies in the record with respect to the number of employees available 
to provide the company's various lab testing services. The Petitioner maintains that the Director 
simply lacked an understanding of its industry, noting that "the number of employees and the number 
of hours per week varies based on patients and industry demand." The Petitioner emphasizes that 
health industry jobs such as medical assistants and phlebotomists are under high demand in the 
area. Further, it maintains that it "has consistently and continuously hired between eight (8) to eleven 
(11) medical assistants and phlebotomists per quarter through the three years to date," and that they 
work variable schedules in different locations per patient demand. However, the Petitioner employed 
a total of three phlebotomists (two part-time and one full-time) and no medical assistants in May 2018 
when the petition was filed. The Petitioner's claim that it has consistently employed 8 to 11 staff in 
these positions is not supported by the record. 
Further, the Petitioner's claim that these workers are required to work variable schedules based on 
client appointments is not corroborated by other evidence in the record, which indicates that the 
Petitioner's four laboratory centers are open six days per week and accept walk-in customers during 
their regular operating hours. Based on this information , the Petitioner would reasonably need to have 
at least one employee in each location during all four locations ' operating hours 
in order to accommodate walk-in customers. The Petitioner has not shown that it had a staff of 
phlebotomists available to meet this staffing need, even if we determine that the lab manager, as the 
only employee assigned solely to the location, is likely performing the lab services at the 
location during most of its operating hours. 
.
Matter of B-L-1- Inc. 
The Petitioner also has not adequately addressed how it is operating the wellness and 
laser treatment center with the currently available staff The Petitioner initially claimed to have 
on staff as its "Natural Practitioner," and described her duties as "Daily per patient appointment 
physician for wellness program." However, all of the submitted invoices from appear to 
be for analysis of blood test results referred by Further, the Petitioner's payments 
to her have been limited and are not consistent with the provision of daily services to patients or clients. 
As noted above, the Petitioner has mentioned a second medical practitioner, for the first time 
on appeal, but has not submitted sufficient evidence related to the nature or scope of this individual's 
services or their ongoing provision of services after June 2018. The Petitioner also submitted evidence 
that it has purchased equipment needed for laser treatments, but has not indicated that it has anyone 
on staff or on contract to provide these services. 
Overall, the evidence does not support the Petitioner's claim that it has sufficient staff to relieve the 
Beneficiary from significant involvement in the day-to-day operations of the company under the 
extended petition, or to support a position in which he would be required to perform primarily 
managerial or executive duties. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that it submitted over 4500 pages of documentation in support 
of the petition. A Petitioner must establish that it meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit 
sought by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I& N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 
2010). To determine whether a petitioner has met its burden under the preponderance standard, we 
consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and 
credibility) of the evidence. Id at 376; Matter of E-M-, 20 I&NDec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, 
the evidence submitted, specifically with respect to the company's staffing levels, does not corroborate 
the Petitioner's own statements regarding its staffing levels and structure. 
Finally, we acknowledge that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has approved a 
previous petition granting the Beneficiary L-lA status. The Petitioner asserts that it has maintained 
the staffing levels and structure described in its 2015 business plan that it submitted in support of the 
prior petition. It has provided a copy of the business plan with this petition. However, the record does 
not support the Petitioner's claim that it has continued to operate with the same staffing levels and 
structure contemplated by that plan. In fact, the Petitioner indicates that it has opened a fourth lab 
testing location, which would tend to indicate a need for an increase, rather than a reduction, in staff 
Regardless, 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. See Matter of Church 
Scientology Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988); see also Sussex Eng'g, Ltd v. Montgomery , 
825 F .2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987). We are not bound to follow a contradictory decision of a service 
center. La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *3 (E.D. La. 2000), 
ajfd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001). Further, a 2017 USCIS Policy Memorandum , which is binding 
on all USCIS components , including the AAO, states: "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." PM-602-0151, Rescission of Guidance Regarding Deference to Prior Determinations of 
9 
Matter of B-L-1- Inc. 
Eligibility in the Adjudication of Petitions for Extension of Nonimmigrant Status (Oct. 23, 2017), 
https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofB-L-1-Inc., ID# 2997336 (AAO Apr. 17, 2019) 
10