dismissed L-1A Case: Digital Marketing

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF O-1-B-S- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 31, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, 1 a provider of digital marketing services, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as president of a new office2 under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101 ( a)(l 5)(L ). The L-1 A classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its 
affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to work 
temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center revoked the approval of the petition,3 concluding that 
the Petitioner did not establish, as required, that: ( 1) the Petitioner had a qualifying relationship with 
the proposed U.S. employer at the time of filing; (2) the U.S. entity had secured sufficient physical 
premises for its new office at the time of filing; (3) the Beneficiary had at least one year of full-time 
employment abroad with a qualifying organization in the three years preceding his application for 
admission; (4) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity; (5) the 
U.S. entity would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of 
approval of the petition; and (6) the Beneficiary's services are to be used by the U.S. employer for a 
temporary period. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erroneously revoked the approval of the petition, 
contends that the Beneficiary meets all eligibility requirements for the benefit sought, and submits 
additional evidence. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal as the Petitioner has not overcome four of the six 
grounds for revocation. However, we will withdraw the Director's findings with respect to the 
Beneficiary's one year of full-time employment abroad in the three years preceding the filing of the 
1 The Petitioner in this matter is the Beneficiary's Canadian employer. The proposed U.S. employer is 
which was established in California in 2017. 
2 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(1)(1 )(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. 
3 This petition was initially approved for a one-year period by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at the 
California port of entry, under the provisions at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)( 17). 
Matter of 0-1-B-S- Inc. 
petition, and her determination that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's services 
would be used for a temporary period.4 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving a new 
office, 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. 
The petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new office 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). 
Under U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations, the approval of an L-lA 
petition may be revoked on notice under six specific circumstances. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A). To properly revoke the approval of a petition, a director must issue a notice of 
intent to revoke that contains a detailed statement of the grounds for the revocation and the time 
period allowed for rebuttal. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(B). 
II. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The first issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that it had a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employer at the time of filing on October 6, 2016. 
This classification requires that there be an entity in the United States to employ the beneficiary. In 
order to meet the definition of "qualifying organization," there must be a U.S. employer. See 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(G)(2). Further, to establish a "qualifying relationship," the Petitioner must 
show that the Beneficiary's foreign employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same 
4 The Director's determination that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's services in the United States 
would be temporary, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(vii), was based in part on the fact that the Beneficiary had 
purchased a residence after his initial entry in L-1 status, a factor that we do not find to be relevant to this determination. 
The Beneficiary remains co-owner of the foreign entity and the Petitioner met its burden to establish his intent to return 
to Canada at the end of his authorized period of stay. 
Further, the Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to establish that it employed the Beneficiary in Canada for at 
least one year in the three years preceding the filing of this petition, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). Here, the 
Director's finding was based in part on a statement on the Beneficiary's resume that he sold the Canadian entity in 2013. 
After reviewing the resume (which contains a clear typographical error) and the totality of the evidence, we find that it 
supports the Petitioner's claim that he has served as its co-president on a full-time basis since at least 2013. 
2 
.
Matter of 0-1-B-S- Inc. 
employer (i.e. one entity with "branch" offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as 
"affiliates." See section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii) (providing 
definitions of the terms "parent," "branch," "subsidiary," and "affiliate"). 
As noted, the Petitioner in this matter is the Beneficiary's Canadian employer. In an attachment to 
the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's 
U.S. employer will be . and indicated that this company's incorporation documents 
were filed on . 2016. The Petitioner provided a receipt indicating that on that date, it paid 
a third party, LegalZoom.com, for services that would include filing of articles of incorporation and 
preparing by-laws and resolutions for a California corporation. However, it did not provide a copy 
of the U.S. entity's actual articles of incorporation or evidence of its ownership. On the Form 1-129, 
the Petitioner identified ____ as its subsidiary. 
In response to the Director's notice of intent to revoke (NOIR), the Petitioner provided evidence that 
was incorporated in California in 2017, more than three months after the 
Beneficiary filed the petition at a U.S. port of entry. The Petitioner also submitted an action by 
unanimous written consent in lieu of organizational meeting by . board of directors, 
which indicates that the Beneficiary and another individual own the company in equal proportions. 
The record contains evidence that the same two individuals are the Petitioner's 50-50 owners. 
In the revocation decision, the Director found that, although the Petitioner and appear 
to share common O\\lnership, did not exist at the time of filing, and therefore there 
was no qualifying organization in the United States, and the qualifying relationship was not 
established. Further, the Director noted that ownership, as documented in response 
to the NOIR, was not consistent with the Petitioner's previous claim that the U.S. entity is its 
subsidiary. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Canadian and U.S. entities have identical ownership. The 
Petitioner also explains that in California was incorporated at a later date due to the 
fact that the applicant was still unsure as to what type of corporation it was going to establish, 
however the operations had already begun despite incorporation at a later date." 
As evidence of these claimed U.S. operations, the Petitioner points to a contract it entered into with 
(another Canadian entity) and _ (a 
Washington State company) in September 2016. The Petitioner states that "the securing of this 
contract with a U.S. company was what prompted the establishing of a branch in the U.S. and the 
filing of the L-1 weeks later in October." 
The referenced document is a "representative agent agreement" which identifies the petitioning 
Canadian entity as the "supplier" and and collectively, as the 
"representative." The agreement gives the representative the right to promote and sell the 
Petitioner's services to customers and prospective customers in Canada and several western U.S. 
states. 
3 
.
Matter of 0-1-B-S- Inc. 
The evidence submitted on appeal does not overcome the Director's basis for revocation. There 
must be a qualifying U.S. employer at the time of filing, and not simply an intent to establish a U.S. 
entity in the near future. Similarly, the foreign entity's steps toward marketing and selling its 
services in the United States through a representative agreement with an unrelated U.S. company 
cannot substitute for the existence of a qualifying legal entity in the United States that will serve as 
the Beneficiary's L-lA employer. 
As a final note, we find that the evidence supports a finding that the Petitioner and 
currently have an affiliate relationship as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(L), notwithstanding the 
Petitioner's initial claim that the U.S. entity would be its subsidiary. Regardless, as the Petitioner 
did not establish that the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employer existed at the time of filing, it cannot 
establish that it had a qualifying relationship with a U.S. entity at that time. For this reason, we find 
that the Director properly revoked the approval of the petition. 
III. PHYSICAL PREMISES 
The next issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the U.S. employer had 
secured sufficient physical premises to house its new office. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). 
On the Form 1-129, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would be working at 
in California, and that it had secured office space at this address. It provided a 
screenshot from Google Maps for It did not submit a lease agreement 
signed by the Petitioner or U.S. employer or any other evidence or explanation regarding the claimed 
office premises or how the space secured would be sufficient for the new office. 
In the NOIR, the Director advised the Petitioner of this deficiency and requested a copy of the U.S. 
entity's lease agreement and a statement describing the type of space it requires to commence 
operations. 
In response, the Petitioner stated that secured an office in California and 
submitted a month-to-month lease agreement signed in May 2017, more than six months after the 
date of filing. The agreement indicates that the maximum number of occupants in the leased office 
1s one. 
In the revocation decision, the Director noted that the submitted lease agreement did not establish 
that the Petitioner met the physical premises requirement at the time of filing. In addition, the 
Director noted that the Petitioner did not explain how the office secured in 2017 would be sufficient 
to meet the physical premises requirements for the new U.S. entity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the U.S. company was previously located at 
as stated on the petition "with the assistance of its partnership with client 
It submits a declaration from the Beneficiary in which he states that 
·offered us their office as a temporary or possibly permanent location for myself and 
until we decided where the best location to establish a permanent office was." However, 
4 
.
Matter of O-I-B-S- Inc. 
the Beneficiary's uncorroborated statement alone is insufficient to establish that the U.S. entity had 
secured physical premises suitable for commencing operations. While the record contains 
correspondence from which shows that the company's address is 
it does not contain confirmation from that it offered an 
office to , evidence of the terms of that arrangement, or evidence that ever 
occupied that office. A petitioner's unsupported statements are of limited weight and normally will 
be insufficient to carry its burden of proof. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
Subsequent to filing the appeal, the Petitioner provided evidence that secured a larger 
office in , California in July 2018. Neither the Beneficiary's statement nor the new lease 
agreement overcome the Director's finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the U.S. entity 
had secured physical premises as of the date of filing. The Director properly revoked the approval of 
the petition on this basis. 
IV. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The next issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that: ( 1) the Beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity, and (2) the new U.S. office would employ 
the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of the petition's approval. 
A. 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; 
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 
101(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. 
B. Employment Abroad 
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 
5 
Matter of 0-1-B-S- Inc. 
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. 
1. Duties 
The Petitioner's initial evidence included a broad description of the Beneficiary's duties on the Form 
1-129. The Petitioner noted that his duties as "Co-President" of the Canadian company were divided 
between: (1) Planning - including creation of annual operating plans, defining the company's vision, 
developing and monitoring finances, and developing leadership; (2) Management - including hiring, 
managing, and terminating personnel, overseeing the company's day-to-day operations, and 
managing compliance; and (3) Sales and Marketing - including planning and executing sales and 
marketing initiatives and ensure that sales goals are achieved. 
In the NOIR, the Director requested a more detailed description of the Beneficiary's duties, 
including an explanation of the amount of time spent on each specific task. The Director also asked 
the Petitioner to explain how the Beneficiary's duties fall within the definition of either managerial 
or executive capacity. 
In response the Petitioner submitted a letter describing the Beneficiary's duties as follows: 
• Managing the day-to-day running of the business, in terms of getting orders, 
answering inquiries and managing budgets. Efficiently analyzing problems and 
providing viable solutions. (25%) 
• Developing and implementing sales strategies to meet the sales target . . . . 
Implementing lean and continuous improvement in the sales environment. (20%) 
• Recruiting and training personnel, ensuring the continuous training and 
development of key staff . . . , resolve conflicts and make decisions for 
employees. (10%) 
• Identifying key markets and business opportunities and networking with potential 
partners for further product reach. ( 10%) 
• Implementing reports, controls and managing assigned operations in compliance 
with established policies and procedures. ( 10%) 
• Managing and overseeing the marketing plan to reach sales objectives. (10%) 
• Preparing the annual budget and the operating expense plan. ( 10%) 
• Establishing appropriate site maintenance, security, and sanitation programs. 
(5%) 
The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary was "responsible for the co-development and design 
of Communication Software and Digital Media systems" and that he "continues to work with 
National and Multi-National partners advancing business development through B2B channels." 
6 
Matter of 0-1-B-S- Inc. 
In the revocation decision, the Director found that the description submitted in response to the NOIR 
was too broad and non-specific to explain what types of duties the Beneficiary has performed on a 
day-to-day basis and therefore insufficient to establish that he has been employed in a role that was 
primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
In the Beneficiary's statement submitted in support of the appeal, he repeats the list of duties as 
stated above, and asserts that, in Canada, his focus "was directed towards Business and Sales 
Development" and that he divided his time between seeking out new affiliate partnerships and 
developing an effectives sales and management team. He also provides additional information 
regarding the duties performed by other claimed employees in Canada, which we will discuss below. 
We agree with the Director that the position descriptions the Petitioner provided at the time of filing 
and in response to the NOIR are insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary has been employed in 
Canada in a managerial or executive capacity. The descriptions are too broad to provide any insight 
into the nature of his day-to-day tasks. For example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary spent 
one quarter of his time "managing the day-to-day running of the business" without explaining or 
providing examples of the actual duties he performed to carry out this responsibility. Similarly, the 
Beneficiary's responsibility for "(i]mplementing reports, controls and managing assigned operations 
in compliance with established policies and procedures" and establishing site maintenance and 
"sanitation programs" are vague. We cannot determine what types of activities would be involved in 
"implementing . . . controls" and "managing assigned operations" or what types of sanitation 
programs exist within the context of the company's digital marketing business. Reciting a 
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 sufficient detail or explanation of the Beneficiary's activities in the course of his 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), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
In addition, the Petitioner indicates that 40% of the Beneficiary's time would be related to sales, 
marketing, and business development activities that have not been described in sufficient detail. 
While we do not doubt that the Beneficiary has the authority to determine strategies in these areas, 
there is insufficient information to establish that he is not also involved in carrying out the associated 
non-managerial sales and marketing duties. As discussed further below, the record does not contain 
a consistent description of the Petitioner staffing levels in support of its claim that the Beneficiary 
has had a subordinate staff to relieve him from significant involvement in such sales and marketing 
duties. 
Finally, we note that the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has been responsible for the 
development of communications software and digital media systems, but did not explain how these 
tasks are managerial in nature, nor did it include these duties in its breakdown of how the 
Beneficiary spent his time while employed in Canada. The Beneficiary's statement on appeal does 
not provide further insight into the nature of his day-to-day tasks and the Petitioner does not further 
address his job duties. Rather, the Petitioner emphasizes that the evidence shows that he is the 
president of the Canadian entity, a fact which is not in dispute. 
"7 
.
Matter of 0-1-B-S- Inc. 
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. 
Here, even though the record demonstrates that the Beneficiary manages the Canadian business along 
with the Petitioner's co-owner, the fact that he manages or directs the 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. 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; however, the broad position descriptions are insufficient to establish 
that his actual duties abroad have been primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
2. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is 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 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
The initial evidence also included an undated "Company Organization" document which listed the 
Beneficiary and 10 other individuals within the Canadian company. These employees included a 
CEO/President, vice president of sales, three sales employees, a customer support employee, a 
bookkeeper/administration employee, two employees responsible for web development, and a client 
fulfillment employee. 
In the NOIR, the Director requested an organizational chart or diagram showing the Petitioner's 
structure and staffing levels in Canada, noting that the Petitioner should identify all employees by 
name, job title, summary of duties, education level, and salary. 
In response the Petitioner re-submitted the aforementioned "Company Organization" document 
provided at the time of filing, a list of 11 employees. The Petitioner also provided a business plan 
for which included an organizational chart for the Canadian operations. That chart 
includes only five employees - the co-owner/company president/CEO, a vice president of sales, a 
customer support representative, one web development employee, and a client fulfillment employee. 
The Petitioner 's response included a resume for its co-owner/president, a resume for the vice 
president of sales in Canada (which does not include his period of employment with the Petitioner), 
a 20165 employment agreement for for the position of "Customer Developer Specialist," 
5 The cover page for the "Employment Package" states "Version: 03.08.16." The actual date of execution for the 
agreements is not provided. 
8 
.
Matter of O-I-B-S- Inc. 
and an employment agreement for 
Specialist. "6 
for the position of "Customer Support/Product 
The Petitioner's response also included financial statements for the Canadian operations which 
provided data for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2014, to June 30, 2016. In 2016, the Petitioner paid 
C$8,994 in salaries and wages and made C$32,952 in payments to subcontractors. In 2015, it paid 
no salaries and wages and paid C$1,497 to subcontractors. Finally, in 2014, it paid C$1,867 in 
salaries and wages and made no payments to subcontractors. 
In the revocation decision, the Director noted the low salary figures in the Petitioner's balance sheets 
and found insufficient evidence that it employs the 11 individuals listed in its "Company 
Organization" document. The Director also found that the Petitioner had not established that the 
Beneficiary had been supervising subordinate managers, supervisors, or professionals. 
The Petitioner's appeal does not adequately address these deficiencies. In his statement, the 
Beneficiary explains the Petitioner's services, which include website development and maintenance, 
profile correction and listing management, social media set-up and management, and local search 
engine optimization. He notes that the company requires staff to provide these services to clients, to 
respond to customer telephone inquiries and to manage its sales team, and states that he did not 
manage the websites, social media or other technical components. 
The Beneficiary's statement incorporates the five-person Canadian organizational chart previously 
submitted. He explains that his focus was on business and sales development, including hiring, 
training, and managing a sales team. The only sales employee on the chart is the "VP Sales" and the 
Beneficiary states that this employee was to take over "Canadian sales team management" shortly 
before the Beneficiary's transfer to the United States. He provides brief position descriptions of the 
current duties performed by all five employees on the chart. 
The Petitioner must show that it employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity for 
at least one year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition in October 2016. Based on the 
evidence submitted, at least three of the Petitioner's five claimed employees were hired in the 
months leading up to the Beneficiary's transfer to the United States and were not available to relieve 
him from performing non-qualifying duties for a period of one year. Further, there is insufficient 
evidence to support a finding that the Petitioner employed the 11 individuals named in the 
"Company Organization" document that the Beneficiary presented at the time of filing. 
As noted by the Director, the salary, wage and sub-contractor payments reported in the Petitioner's 
annual balance statements are quite low and do support the Petitioner's claim that it employed a 
subordinate staff to relieve the Beneficiary from involvement in the day-to-day operations of the 
company. Further, although the Petitioner was established in Canada in 2011, it reported sales of 
6 and 
Representative," respectively. 
; job titles were elsewhere identified as "Web development" and "Customer Support 
9 
Matter of 0-1-B-S- Inc. 
C$11,420 in 2014 and C$6,375 in 2015, suggesting that it remained in a preliminary stage of 
development for much of the three year period preceding the filing of the petition. The Beneficiary 
states that he hired, training and managed a sales team, but there is no evidence of payments made to 
sales representatives. 
Based on this evidence, we cannot determine whether the Petitioner had employees or contractors in 
place to relieve the Beneficiary from significant involvement in non-managerial duties during the 
relevant three-year period of employment abroad, whether he supervised subordinate managerial, 
supervisory, or professional personnel during that period, or whether he primarily directed the 
management of the company. 
In sum, the Petitioner provided an overly broad and non-specific description of the Beneficiary's job 
duties in the course of his daily routine, and has submitted conflicting and unsupported descriptions 
of its structure and staffing levels during the three year period preceding the filing of the petition. 
As such, the record does not establish that he was employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity and we find that the Director properly revoked the petition on this basis. 
C. U.S. Employment in a Managerial or Executive Capacity within One Year 
The final issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of the approval of the new office 
petition. 
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. 
At the time of filing and in response to the NOIR, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would 
perform the same duties in the United States as he has performed in Canada. The deficiencies of that 
position description have been discussed above and the broad duties alone are insufficient to show 
that the Beneficiary would be performing primarily managerial or executive duties within one year. 
The Petitioner's initial evidence did not include a business plan, staffing plan, or other relevant 
information, such as the size of the United States investment. Further, as noted, the initial evidence 
did not establish the existence of the U.S. employer or show that physical premises had been secured 
to operate the new office. 
In response to the NOIR, the Petitioner submitted the U.S. entity's "L-1 Business Plan" which states 
on page 14 that the Beneficiary "will initially be supported by a customer sales representative" and 
"will also hire additional staff in year 3." The next page identified those additional positions as a 
sales manager, a client fulfillment manager, two content creators, three sales representatives, and 
10 
.
Matter of 0-1-B-S- Inc. 
two customer service representatives. However, the Petitioner must show that it can support the 
Beneficiary in a managerial or executive position within one year. The Director found that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate how a staff of one employee would relieve the Beneficiary from 
having to primarily perform non-managerial and non-executive tasks by the end of the first year of 
operations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a statement from the Beneficiary, who indicates that, as of May 
2018, is relying on the services of a social media manager, an operations manager, and a 
sales representative. He also states that the Petitioner's Canada-based website development manager 
provides services to both U.S. and Canadian customers. The Petitioner submits affidavits from the 
U.S. employees identified as sales representative and operations manager. According to their 
statements, they were hired in January 2018 and December 2017, respectively. This petition was 
initially approved for a one-year period that ended in October 2017 and the hiring of employees after 
that date does not support the Petitioner's claim that it was prepared to support the Beneficiary in a 
managerial or executive capacity at the time it filed the new office petition for its intended U.S. 
subsidiary. 
The third claimed U.S. employee, the social media manager, appeared on the Canadian entity's 
employee list in a "client fulfillment" role at the time of filing. The Beneficiary states that this 
employee "has been with from inception of the US business in California" but the record 
does not contain evidence of payments made to her and the Beneficiary's statement alone is 
insufficient to establish that this employee worked for the company before the end of the first year of 
operations and relieved the Beneficiary from significant involvement in operational, administrative 
and other non-managerial duties by the end of the initial approval period. 
In October 2018, the Petitioner submitted supplemental materials, including new agreements with 
several country clubs and a real estate agency, employment agreements for four employees, and 
evidence that it secured a larger office in July 2018. All four employment agreements are "1099 
Contractor Agreements" for sales representatives signed in 2018. The new evidence post-dates the 
original expiration date of this petition and does not support the Petitioner's initial claim that it 
would be able to support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity by the expiration of 
that petition in October 2017. The Petitioner's ability to support a managerial or executive position 
as of October 2018 is not an issue that is before us in this matter and we will not address this new 
evidence in determining whether the approval of this new office petition was properly revoked. 
We do not doubt that the Beneficiary was intended to have discretion over the new office's 
establishment and operations, the ability to hire and supervise any employees, and authority to 
control the company's finances, and establish its policies and operational guidelines. However, the 
Petitioner did not establish that these higher level duties would be his primary duties at the end of the 
initial year of operations. The record does not show that the U.S. entity was prepared to commence 
operations immediately, or demonstrate how the company would support a managerial or executive 
position within one year. 
11 
Matter of 0-1-B-S- Inc. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The approval of the petition was properly revoked as the Petitioner has not established that it had a 
qualifying relationship with the proposed U.S. employer, that sufficient physical premises were 
secured for the new office, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity, or that the new U.S. office would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity within one year. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as 0-1-B-S- Inc. ID# 1753633 (AAO Oct. 31, 2018) 
12