dismissed L-1A Case: Design Studio

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT.16,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner seeks to operate as a design studio focused on kitchen and closet cabinets. bathroom 
vanities, and stone counter tops. It plans to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as president of its 
new office 1 under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L). The 
L-1A classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to 
transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to work temporarily in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that it would employ the Beneficiary in the United States in an executive 
capacity within one year of approval of the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief disputing the denial. The Petitioner contends that the 
Director neglected to consider the Beneficiary"s proposed position under the statutory definition of 
managerial capacity, despite the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary's proposed employment fits 
the statutory definitions of managerial and executive capacity. 
Upon de novo review, and after considering the Beneficiary"s position under both statutory 
definitions, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification. a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge,'' for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary"s application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(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 
1 The term "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one 
year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a '"new office .. operation no 
more than one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
Matter qf V-, Inc. 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. !d. The 
petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment 
qualifies him or her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
If the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, indicates that the beneficiary is coming to 
the United States in L-lA status to open or to be employed in a new office, the petitioner must 
submit evidence to demonstrate that the new ot1ice will be able to support a managerial or executive 
position within one year. This evidence must establish that the petitioner secured sufficient physical 
premises to house its operation and disclose the proposed nature and scope of the entity, its 
organizational structure, its financial goals, and the size of the U.S. investment. See generally. 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL AND EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The primary issue to be addressed in this decision is whether the Petitioner submitted sutlicient 
evidence to establish that it would, within one year of approval of the instant petition. employ the 
Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The statute defines the term "managerial capacity" as an assignment in which an employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or 
manages an essential function within the organization; has the authority to hire and tire or 
recommend those as well as other personnel actions, or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
101(a)(44)(A) ofthe Act. 
The statute defines the term "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) ofthe Act. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, USCIS must take into account the reasonable needs of the organization. in 
light ofthe overall purpose and stage of development ofthe organization. See section 101(a)(44)(C) 
of the Act. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not provide evidence showing that it would have the 
ability to employ the Beneficiary in an executive capacity within one year of the petition· s approval. 
As indicated above, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's proposed position tits under the 
statutory definitions of managerial and executive capacity. Therefore, we will apply both definitions 
2 
Matter of V-, Inc. 
to the facts presented to determine whether the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity within the given one-year 
period. 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner provided a cover letter claiming that the Beneficiary will 
"manage and supervise" its U.S. operation by signing contracts, "meeting with other business 
people" to help with business expansion, supervise employees, and '"perform[] daily managerial 
duties." The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary's proposed position would be comprised of 
the following components: 
• Managing the day[-]to[-]day production operations ... [ ;] 
• Participating in long-term strategic planning, fiscally, operationally and in regards to 
personnel management[;] 
• Establishing and implement [sic] company quality policies, long[-] and short[- ]term 
goals and operating procedures[;] 
• Negotiating contracts for the company[;] 
• Participating in budget planning, control and maintenance[;] 
• Assisting in the recruitment of qualified employees[; and] 
• Managing personnel including hiring or terminating employees as necessary and 
approving personnel action[.] 
In the same cover letter, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive 
capacity and provided a list of duties that closely resembles the above list. The Petitioner stated that 
the Beneficiary would exercise "maximum authority" over the corporation, make all discretionary 
decisions, "formulate long-term procedures and objectives," review financial reports. make '"tactical 
and strategic" business plans, and "'evaluate the company's success in meeting its corporate 
objectives." The Petitioner added that the Beneficiary would hire, fire, and supervise managerial 
employees. The Petitioner did not state what specific tasks would be involved in strategic and fiscal 
planning or specify the types of '·quality policies,'' goals, or procedures the Beneficiary would 
establish. The Petitioner also did not explain how the Beneficiary would assist with personnel 
recruitment or establish that assisting in the hiring of personnel or engaging in contract negotiation 
can be deemed managerial or executive tasks. 
The Petitioner also provided a business plan, which states that it intends to '"[ o ]f'fer superior 
customer service" by employing '"a competent design department" to address customers· ideas and 
needs and by developing relationships with suppliers for the purpose of maintaining a strong supply 
chain. The Petitioner claimed that it intends to "channel every customer to a sales representative for 
a personalized assistance [sic].'' The Petitioner provided a chart showing its projected sales for each 
segment of the business- kitchen cabinets, closets and vanity, offices and retail, and ·'Rep. revenue" 
- but did not explain how it arrived at these figures or provide price points for the products it plans 
to sell. At section XXIII of the business plan, titled "Cash Flow Forecast,'' the Petitioner provided 
figures that represent the projected "Cash Flow from Operating activities,'' which included monthly 
figures under each segment of the business and showed each month's '"Sales Income Cash In." The 
3 
Matter of V-, Inc. 
"Cash Flow Forecast" numbers for each month and product type do not match the amounts shown in 
the "Sales Income Cash In." As the Petitioner did not explain the difference between the two charts, 
both of which seemingly reflect revenue that the Petitioner expects to generate from the sales of 
each type of product it offers, we are unable to reconcile the charts or gauge the likelihood that the 
projections they offer are a realistic projection of product sales and cost of doing business. 
Further, while the "Cash Flow Forecast" chart seemingly indicates that the Petitioner plans to 
generate some of its revenue from "Market Research service," it did not elaborate on this aspect of 
the business or state what would be entailed in offering this type of service and identify the target 
customer to whom the service would be offered. The same section of the business plan includes 
monthly calculations for "Administrative expenses cash out," listing costs for the manager's salary, 
"[a]ssistant," and ''[p]roduction labor and installation'' as three of the elements that were factored 
into this monthly figure. While it appears that these references ref1ect hiring projections, it is 
unclear whether these positions are part of its first-year hiring plan and accounted for in the monthly 
calculations. 
Moreover, the above hiring plan appears to be at odds with the Petitioner's proposed organizational 
chart, which was added in a non-paginated section of the business plan. The chart does not list a 
manager, an assistant, or specifically refer to any of the positions as ''production labor and 
installation"; rather, it shows a five-person hierarchy where a president will oversee an 
administrative financial manager and an operations and sales manager. the latter of which will 
oversee a sales executive and a carpenter. The Petitioner must resolve such ambiguities 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). Further, while the business plan broadly states that the Petitioner 
plans to till the five positions listed in the chart within its first year of operation, the plan does not 
include a specific hiring timeline for the staff identified in the projected organizational chart, nor 
does it specify the salaries or wages to be paid to these future hires. or account for such costs when 
addressing the Petitioner's operating expenses. 
Lastly, the Petitioner added another list of the Beneficiary's proposed duties and responsibilities to 
the same non-paginated section of the business plan, claiming that in addition to developing policies 
and objectives, the Beneficiary will coordinate and direct sales and marketing efforts and quality 
control programs, develop and review "statistical data and product specifications," work with other 
managers to formulate production procedures, oversee product inspection. plan and organize training 
activities to ensure quality control and customer satisfaction, and meet budget requirements. The 
business plan does not account for any sales or marketing employees, despite allocating identical 
amounts of money to marketing expenses in 2017. 2018, and 2019. Also, the plan neither specifies 
who will actually train employees nor states which employees will be trained and whether there will 
be any added costs to providing such training. Further, the additional job description does not 
delineate the Beneficiary's specific daily tasks to establish precisely how he would ensure that the 
Petitioner's start-up operation progresses to the next stage of development where it would be able to 
employ the Beneficiary in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The actual duties 
4 
Matter of V-, Inc. 
themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 
1103, 1108(E.D.N.Y.1989),qff'd,905F.2d41 (2d.Cir.1990). 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a statement 
explaining the Beneficiary's role in the start-up operation. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
will have "sole discretion" in hiring a support personnel, which will include an administrative 
assistant, a sales manager, and an unspecified number of "carpenters and managers to begin the 
work." As previously noted, the Petitioner's proposed organizational chart does not include an 
office assistant as a projected hire during the Petitioner's first year of operations. Although the 
Petitioner attempted to address this issue by claiming that staff from its parent entity would "assist 
when necessary" with office tasks such as answering telephones and other "day-to-day 
administrative dutic:s," it did not specify the "administrative duties'' the foreign staff would perform 
or explain the logistics of having foreign-based employees answer telephones in a U .S.-based office. 
The Petitioner also did not specify what ''technical assistance'' it would require to grow the 
company, despite claiming that the foreign-based staff would be available to provide such 
assistance. 
The Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary would not ''conduct day-to-day operations" and stated 
that his focus during the Petitioner's first year of operation would be to build and maintain cash flow 
to meet daily business needs, address the company's personnel needs through hiring and firing 
employees, formulate and revise policies and procedures as needed, coordinate and direct sales and 
marketing, and direct product inspection. The Petitioner did not specify precisely what actions the 
Beneficiary plans to undertake to build cash flow, and did not specify any policies or procedures the 
Beneficiary would devise to address the Petitioner's initial start-up needs and its needs going beyond 
its first year of operation. The Petitioner also did not state who would execute the Petitioner's 
marketing plans either during its initial year of operation or beyond. Likewise. while the Petitioner 
stated that its goal by the end of its first year of operation is to ''sustain the salaries" of its employees 
to enable the Beneficiary to focus on ·'growing and managing the budget" and setting more goals 
and policies to grow the company, it did not specify the steps the Beneficiary would take to advance 
the Petitioner to that next stage of development. 
With regard to issues concerning the funding of the U.S. operation, the Petitioner claimed that the 
foreign entity made wire transfers to reimburse the Beneficiary for funds that he provided. 
However, the only record of the foreign entity's monetary contributions is a single fund transfer of 
$2,050, which shows that the Petitioner's former attorney, rather than the Beneficiary or the 
Petitioner itself, was the recipient of those funds. Further, while the Petitioner provided a translated 
document titled "Certification" from an external auditor who stated that the Beneficiary receives a 
monthly wage of $3,200, the document does not specify the source of the wages or the time period 
for such compensation. Therefore, the "Certification" does not establish that the $3,200 represents 
the foreign entity's compensation to the Beneficiary for his work in the United States on the 
Petitioner's behalf. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
5 
Matter qf V-, Inc. 
The Petitioner also provided its bank statements from November 2016 through February 2017 and 
bank statements for the foreign entity covering roughly the same time periods. However, none of 
the documents establish that the foreign entity contributed funds to the Petitioner's start-up operating 
expenses. First, regarding the foreign entity's statements, any document in a foreign language must 
be accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(3 ). The translator must 
certify that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. !d. Here, while the Petitioner 
provided a certification indicating that documents had been translated from Spanish into English, the 
translation only addresses the format of the bank statement but does not translate the content which 
precludes us from being able to determine to whom the funds were issued or the sources of any 
incoming funds. Because the Petitioner provided translations that are incomplete, we cannot 
meaningfully determine whether the translated material is accurate and thus supports the Petitioner's 
claims. 
The Petitioner's statements are also insufficient. While the November 2016 shows that the 
Petitioner had an account balance of $5,826, the record lacks evidence to show that this amount was 
sufficient to fund the Petitioner's start-up costs. In fact, each of the three subsequent statements 
show that the balance decreased each month as a result of two monthly withdrawals totaling $839 to 
pay the bank's monthly service fee and the Petitioner's lease. None of the Petitioner's statements 
show incoming funds from any source. Thus, neither entity's bank statements corroborate the claim 
that the foreign entity made capital contributions to fund the U.S. entity's start-up and operating 
expenses. As previously stated, the Petitioner's assertions must be supported by relevant probative, 
and credible evidence. Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
In issuing the denial decision, the Director focused on the Petitioner's proposed organizational chart, 
finding that the Petitioner did not provide evidence to establish that the Beneficiary's two projected 
subordinates - an administrative financial manager and an operations and sales manager - would 
actually be managerial employees as their respective position titles indicate, thereby precluding the 
finding that the Beneficiary would direct the management of the organization. The Director also 
determined that the Petitioner provided a deficient job description and did not establish that it would 
require or support a primarily executive position. 
When examining the executive capacity of the Beneficiary, we will look first to the Petitioner's 
description of the job duties. The Petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly describe the 
duties to be performed by the Beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in an executive 
capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
Based on the statutory definitions of executive and managerial 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 executive or managerial duties, as opposed to 
ordinary operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USC!S, 
469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
Matter of V-, Inc. 
As discussed previously in this decision, the Petitioner did not provide a detailed description of the 
duties the Beneficiary would perform during the Petitioner's initial year of operation or the duties he 
would perform beyond that start-up phase. Instead, the Petitioner provided job descriptions that 
make broad claims about the Beneficiary's discretionary authority regarding the company's goals, 
policies, personnel matters, and financial issues. However, 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. The Petitioner has not provided any detail or 
explanation of the Beneficiary's projected activities in the course of their daily routine. The actual 
duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co .. Ltd v. Sava. 724 
F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
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'' executive or managerial in nature. Sections 
101(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, these factors alone are insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary 
would primarily perform duties that are managerial or executive in nature. Here, the job description 
lacks the degree of detail that is necessary to establish precisely what tasks the Beneficiary would 
carry out. Without this information we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary would perform 
primarily managerial or executive duties one year after the approval of this petition. 
Further, we consider the applicable new office regulations, which take into account that when a new 
business is established and commences operations. 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 or 
executive responsibility cannot be performed. In order to qualify for L-1 nonimmigrant 
classification during the first year of operations. the regulations require a petitioner to disclose the 
proposed nature of the business and the size of the U.S. investment and 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 duties. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner has not provided sutlicient evidence to demonstrate the 
likelihood that it would be able to support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive position 
within one year of approval of the instant petition. As previously noted, the Petitioner has not 
provided sufficient evidence establishing how much money it would need in start-up and operating 
expenses, nor has it established that the foreign entity has made any monetary contributions to fund 
the U.S. operation. As noted above, the Petitioner relies on partially translated bank statements 
which are insufficient to corroborate the foreign entity's financial status or the extent of its 
Matter of V-, Inc. 
involvement, if any, in financially supporting the Petitioner's start-up operation. Thus, we cannot 
conclude that the Petitioner has the ability either to commence doing business or to adequately staff 
its operation with support personnel who would eventually minimize the Beneficiary's direct 
involvement in primarily performing the Petitioner's nonmanagerial or nonexecutive tasks. 
While no beneficiary is required to allocate 100% of his or her time to managerial- or executive­
level tasks, the petitioner must establish that the non-qualifying tasks the beneficiary would perform 
are only incidental to the proposed position. An employee who ''primarily'' performs the tasks 
necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be '·primarily" employed 
in a managerial or executive capacity. See sections 10l(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that 
one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); see also Matter olChurch 
Scientology Int '1, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm'r 1988). Here, the Petitioner has not provided 
sufficient evidence to show that it would likely employ a stafi capable of relieving the Beneficiary 
from having to primarily carry out its operational and administrative functions after its first year of 
operation. 
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 organization 
must have a subordinate level of managerial employees for a beneficiary to direct and they 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.'' !d. 
In the present matter, the Director properly determined that the managerial position titles and general 
claims put forth in the proposed organizational chart are not sufficient to establish that the 
Beneficiary's proposed subordinates would assume managerial positions such that the Beneficiary 
can be deemed as directing the management of the organization pursuant to the statutory criteria of 
"executive capacity." 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to the previously submitted organizational chart to support the claim 
that the Beneficiary would direct the management of the organization through subordinate managers. 
However, without job descriptions for the Beneficiary's subordinates. it is unclear how we can 
determine that their respective positions would actually involve managing others as their position 
titles and the proposed organizational hierarchy may suggest. Moreover. as previously discussed, 
the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the foreign entity's financial 
ability to support the start-up of the U.S. operation, including providing funding to execute the 
hiring plan that is depicted in the proposed organizational chart. Restating previously made claims 
Matter of V-. Inc. 
and pointing to an unsupported organizational chart cannot be deemed as the relevant. probative. and 
credible supporting evidence necessary to overcome the basis for the Director's denial. See 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Further, while we acknowledge the Director's oversight in neglecting to address the claim that the 
Beneficiary's proposed position would satisfy the statutory criteria for managerial capacity within 
one year of the petition's approval, we disagree with the Petitioner's argument that such oversight is 
grounds for a remand. 
The statutory definition of ''managerial capacity'' allows for both "personnel managers'" and 
"function managers:' See section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers are 
required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory. professionaL or 
managerial employees. Contrary to the common understanding of the word ''manager:· the statute 
plainly states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity 
merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are 
professional." Section 101(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. If a beneficiary directly supervises other 
employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and tire those employees. or 
recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(B)(J). 
The above paragraph indicates that despite the differences between a manager and an executive. we 
similarly consider the level of employees who will be subordinate to the Beneficiary's position. 
Thus, when determining whether the Beneficiary's proposed position would meet the statutory 
definition of managerial capacity within one year of the petition's approval, we consider whether the 
Beneficiary's direct subordinates will be managerial, supervisory, or professional employees. Here. 
the record does not contain job descriptions of the Beneficiary's proposed subordinates and thus we 
do not have the necessary information to conclude that the Beneficiary's primary focus within one 
year of the petition's approval would be to oversee the work of manageriaL supervisory. or 
professional employees. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director should have relied on the equivalent position 
descriptions within the foreign entity's organization to gather relevant information about the duties 
to be performed by the Beneficiary's proposed subordinates. We disagree and find that the 
Petitioner's argument does not take into account critical differences between a start-up organization 
and an established organization that has been actively doing business for a number of years and is 
statled with support personnel who carry out the organization· s operational and administrative 
functions. Such an organization is capable of relieving the Beneficiary from having to allocate his 
time primarily to nonmanagerial functions and allows him to focus on tasks that are directly 
associated with managing or directing the management of that organization. 
In the matter at hand, while the foreign entity is fully operational and has been for years. the 
Petitioner is in its initial start-up phase of development. As such, its future success is speculative 
and yet to be determined. Thus, in an effort to determine whether the Petitioner is likely to succeed 
in supporting the Beneficiary in a primarily managerial or executive position within one year of the 
9 
Matter of V-, Inc. 
petition's approval, we rely in large part on a detailed business plan, which should properly outline 
the Petitioner's financial needs in terms of start-up costs, personnel needs, and the costs of doing 
business during this initial phase of operation. We also look to the foreign entity's financial status 
and evidence of its current capital contributions, which help explain how the Petitioner would fund 
its operation so that it can commence doing business and advance to the next phase of development. 
Referring to the job duties of employees positioned within an established, fully staffed organization 
would not provide us with information about the Petitioner's projected statT in a start-up 
organization, whose needs and capabilities would not match those of its foreign counterpart. 
Here, not only did the Petitioner neglect to discuss the proposed job duties of its projected support 
staff, but it also neglected to provide evidence to demonstrate that the foreign entity has made any 
monetary contributions to fund the Petitioner's start-up expenses. As such, we have little reason to 
believe that the Petitioner would have the ability to adequately statT its organization with 
managerial, supervisory, or professional personnel for the Beneficiary to oversee within one year of 
the petition's approval. While the RFE did not expressly ask the Petitioner for evidence to support 
the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity, it did 
sufficiently list the numerous factors and evidence that users considers in determining the 
likelihood that a new office would support an executive or managerial position within one year of 
petition approval. As fully discussed above, the Petitioner provided a deficient business plan and 
did not demonstrate that the foreign entity made monetary contributions to fund the Petitioner's 
start-up operation and meet its business needs during the initial stage of its operation. 
Alternatively, 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 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The term 
"essential function'' is not defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims that a 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, or more specifically, 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, a petitioner's description of a beneficiary's daily duties must 
demonstrate that the beneficiary will manage the function rather than perform duties related to the 
function. See Matter qfZ-A-. Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). In this matter, 
the Petitioner has not claimed nor provided evidence to show that the Beneficiary would manages an 
essential function within one year of the petition's approval. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence, which includes the Petitioner's business plan, its projected stat1ing, and the 
Beneficiary's proposed job duties, precludes a finding that the Beneficiary would be employed in an 
executive or managerial capacity within one year of this petition's approval. Therefore, we will 
dismiss this appeal. 
10 
Matter of V-, Inc. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.f'V-, Inc., 10# 647437 (AAO Oct. 16, 2017) 
11