dismissed L-1A Case: E-Commerce

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8586253 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC . 2, 2020 
Form 1-129, Nonimmigrant Petition for an Intracompany Transferee 
The Petitioner seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary employment as its president under the L­
IA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees . Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L) . The L-lA classification allows a corporation or 
other legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the 
United States to work temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity under the 
extended petition . We dismissed a subsequent appeal and motion to reconsider. The matter is now 
before us on a motion to reopen. 
In these proceeding s, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review , we will dismiss the motion to reopen. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
A petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements of a motion and show proper cause for granting 
the motion . 8 C.F.R . § 103.5(a)(l) . A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by 
documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA 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)(l5)(L) of the Act. In addition , the beneficiary must 
seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering their services to the same employer 
or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity . Id. The petitioner must also 
establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training , and employment qualify him or her to perform 
the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § l 10l(a)(44)(A) , defines the term "managerial capacity" 
as an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily : 
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component 
of the organization; 
(ii) supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the 
organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the 
authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions 
(such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly 
supervised, functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or 
with respect to the function managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function 
for which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is not considered 
to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's 
supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional. 
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
On the extension petition filed in May 2018, the Petitioner asserted that it operates an e-commerce 
business between the U.S. and Latin America. It submitted evidence of products such as cell phones, 
TVs, and appliances for sale on its website and asserted that it also plans to market and distribute two 
medical products,.~---------~ on the Amazon platform. It farther stated that in its 
first year of business, it expanded into providing aerial photography and video services 1 and 
"venturing into the food truck business." It ,rovided evidence that it purchased a food truck and 
utilized the fictitious name ~I ------~J 
On the extension petition, the Petitioner claimed to have six employees. In response to the Director's 
request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided an organizational chart depicting the Beneficiary 
as the "president/general manager" of the organization, subject to a three-person board of directors 
where the Beneficiary is one of the board members. The chart shows that in her capacity as 
"president/general manager," the Beneficiary oversees the company's four "external consultants" - an 
accountant, a software developer, an e-marketing company, and "quality developers" - along with five 
direct company employees, including an administrative assistant, a "logistic" employee, a "logistic 
assistant," a marketing and sales employee, and the director of research and development. 
With the petition, the Petitioner provided a job description stating that the Beneficiary's duties would 
include conferring with staff and the board of directors, representing the company in all official 
business matters and ensuring adherence to local and state laws, engaging in contract negotiations with 
suppliers and contractors, coordinating budget and finances, formulating and implementing goals and 
policies and evaluating the staff's performance in successfully meeting those goals, reviewing the 
marketing strategy, coordinating departmental activities in terms of pricing, sales, and distribution 
1 The record does not include any details about these services. 
2 
logistics, reviewing inventory reports and restocking orders, overseeing the quality of goods, selecting 
"managers or other high-level staff:" and ensuring proper operation of data systems and equipment. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would oversee the 
following list of activities: general managing, logistics, marketing/sales, financial and market studies, 
administration, investigation and developing, and external consultants ( accounting, software, e­
marketing, hardware, and labor). The Petitioner discussed the Beneficiary's roles during its initial 
"Phase of Constitution," and its subsequent "Commercial Phase." The Petitioner stated that during 
this later phase, the Beneficiary would allocate 55% of her time to "Corporative Leadership," which 
would involve five activities: (1) leading the development and "adjustments of the Vision and 
execution of the politics and procedures;" (2) reviewing and updating "the Business Model;" (3) 
creating strategies "around commercializing products and services;" ( 4) making "[h ]igh level" policy 
and strategy decisions; ( 5) and "[ r ]eviewing and actualizing the politicies [sic] and strategies." The 
Petitioner also provided a pie chart showing that 45% of the Beneficiary's time would be allocated to 
"Others," which is comprised of three categories- "Follow Up and Control of the Strategic Activities," 
"Strategic Human Capital Managing," and "Following and Control of the Functional Activities." 
In the denial decision, the Director noted that the original job description is different from the job 
description that was submitted later in response to the RFE. 2 The Director also determined that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would primarily oversee supervisory or professional 
employees or provide sufficient supporting evidence of the Beneficiary's authority to hire and fire 
subordinates. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserted that it provided a detailed description of the Beneficiary's proposed 
job duties. The Petitioner pointed to the Beneficiary's hiring and firing authority describing instances 
where she exercised that authority based on knowledge she gained from reviewing quality control 
reports. The Petitioner also emphasized the Beneficiary's senior position within its organizational 
hierarchy, noting that such placement gives her discretionary authority over the company's finances 
and contract negotiations and allows her to evaluate whether "the company is taking the correct path" 
and to make changes accordingly. 
In our appeal decision, we found that the job descriptions provided by the Petitioner were vague, did 
not adequately convey what the Beneficiary would be doing on a daily or weekly basis within the 
context of an e-commerce business, and did not show that her duties would be primarily managerial 
or executive in nature. We stated that the Petitioner did not provide a detailed description of the 
actions the Beneficiary would carry out with respect to "Corporative Leadership." Instead, we noted 
that the Petitioner listed five broadly stated, overlapping job responsibilities that do not clarify her 
actual role in the business or specify the activities she executes on a daily or weekly basis to meet the 
organization's business goals. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's 
duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature; otherwise meeting the definitions would simply 
2 The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the 
time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
3 
be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
In light of these deficiencies, we found that the Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary 
would spend her time primarily performing duties of a managerial nature. We also stated that the 
Petitioner did not provide supporting evidence showing that the employees and "external consultants" 
named in the organizational chart actually worked for, or provided services to, the Petitioner at the 
time this petition was filed. We also found that because the Petitioner did not submit evidence to show 
that any of the six employees it claimed to have at the time of filing actually worked for the Petitioner 
at that time, the record did not establish that the Petitioner was adequately staffed to relieve the 
Beneficiary from having to allocate her time to primarily non-managerial or non-executive job duties. 
We concluded, therefore, that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed 
under the extended petition in a managerial capacity as defined in section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner submitted two new charts describing how the Beneficiary 
performs her job duties and categorizing them within the four criteria of managerial capacity as defined 
in section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. We determined that these "new facts" could not be considered in 
the motion to reconsider because the motion to reconsider must establish that our previous decision 
was erroneous because it was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3). The Petitioner alleged in its motion to reconsider that we erroneously stated that no 
evidence was submitted to show that the employees it identified on an organizational chart were 
actually employed by the Beneficiary, and listed the pertinent documentation it had submitted for the 
years 2015-2017. However, our appeal decision correctly stated that the evidence did not show that 
the employees identified on the organizational chart were actually employed at the time the petition 
was filed in May 2018. Thus, in our decision on the Petitioner's motion to reconsider, we determined 
that the Petitioner did not establish that we incorrectly applied any law or policy in our appeal decision. 
III. ANALYSIS 
The only issue to be addressed on motion to reopen is whether the Petitioner established that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity under the extended petition. The Petitioner 
asserts on motion that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity. 
To be eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, a petitioner must show that the 
beneficiary will perform the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition at section 
101(a)(44)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act. If the record does not establish that the offered position meets all 
four of these elements, we cannot conclude that it is a qualifying managerial position. If a petitioner 
establishes that the offered position meets all four elements of the applicable statutory definition, it 
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). In determining whether a beneficiary's duties will be 
primarily managerial or executive, we consider the petitioner's description of the job duties, the 
company's organizational structure, the duties of the beneficiary's subordinate employees, the 
presence of other employees to relieve the beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature 
of the business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding the beneficiary's actual 
duties and role in the business. 
4 
On motion to reopen, the Petitioner resubmits the two charts submitted with its motion to reconsider. 
The first chart lists 13 "Functions" of the Beneficiary, with corresponding percentages of time devoted 
to each function and examples of duties in each category. The second chart provides a list of the 
Beneficiary's job duties and categorizes them according to the four criteria of managerial capacity as 
defined in section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's position of 
president meets all elements of the statutory definition of "managerial capacity" at section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. However, the Petitioner has not stated new facts, supported by documentary 
evidence, demonstrating that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity under the 
extended petition as defined in section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Specifically, it has not established that the Beneficiary "supervises and controls the work of other 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees," consistent with section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the 
Act. The definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." 3 Here, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity 
based on her proposed supervision and control of subordinate personnel. 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." 4 Id. 
On motion, the Petitioner attributes 25% of the Beneficiary's duties to the supervision and control of 
the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees under section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) 
of the Act. Specifically, it asserts that the Beneficiary will spend 10% of her time reviewing the 
marketing and development of international marketing strategy implemented by marketing and 
computer/software professionals; promotional strategies including website, search engine 
optimization (SEO), social networks, Facebook, 5 content marketing, email marketing, international 
databases, overseas agents, and independent contractors. Related to these functions, the Petitioner 
asserts that the Beneficiary regularly meets with the Director of Marketing and Sales to review the 
marketing strategy. However, I I the marketing and sales employee listed on the 
Petitioner's organizational chart, was not employed and paid by the Petitioner in the second quarter of 
2018 when the petition was filed. 6 Therefore, it is not clear who will create the marketing strategy for 
the Beneficiary to review,7 or how the Beneficiary will supervise and control the vacant position in 
3 The Petitioner does not allege that the Beneficiary will be employed as a function manager. 
4 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 10l(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." 
5 We note that the Petitioner's Facebook page has not been updated since July 2017. 
6 As previously noted, the Petitioner claimed to employ six employees at the time of filing and indicated that the Beneficiary 
will supervise an administrative assistant, a logistic employee, a logistic assistant, a marketing and sales employee, and 
the director of research and development. Further, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary oversees four external 
consultants. 
7 Without evidence substantiating its claimed employees, the Petitioner has not established that it employs subordinate 
staff to relieve the Beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties. 
5 
marketing and sales. The Petitioner has not resolved this ambiguity with independent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Further, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary will spend 10% of her time analyzing operations to 
evaluate performance of company or its staff in meeting long and short-term objectives or to determine 
areas of potential cost reduction, program improvement, or policy change. Related to these functions, 
the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary regularly meets with the Directors of Research and 
Development and Market and Sales and external consultants to review its mission and determine if it 
is taking the correct path. However, as noted, the purported Marketing and Sales Director was not 
employed and paid by the Petitioner in the second quarter of 2018 when the petition was filed. Doubt 
cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and 
sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Id. at 591. Further, the 
short-term and long-term objectives of the Petitioner are not clear, as it advertises itself concurrently 
as an e-commerce company, a food truck operator, 8 and a provider of aerial photography and video 
services. The Petitioner has not resolved these ambiguities with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Id. at 591-92. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Beneficiary will devote 5% of her time to directing human resource 
activities, including the oversight of "professional independent contractors/subcontractors." On 
motion, the Petitioner submits three accounting invoices from 2018 showing that I I 
Accounting Services, Inc. prepared payroll reports and tax returns for the Petitioner. The invoices are 
directed to the Petitioner and do not reference the Beneficiary. They do not reflect the Beneficiary's 
oversight of an accountant. The Petitioner also submits one invoice from ~-------~from 
2018 showing thatl I performed website code upgrades and content upgrades for the Petitioner 
totaling $100.00. The invoice is addressed to the Petitioner and references the Beneficiary's name. 
However, the invoice does not reflect the Beneficiary's oversight of the work performed byl I I I nor does the $100 invoice corroborate the Beneficiary's purported weekly meetings 
with I I The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter o Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). The Petitioner also submits 
one invoice from~ _______ ___,indicating that the Petitioner utilized photography services 
totaling $700.00, although the balance due is inexplicably listed as $100.00 on the invoice. The 
invoice is addressed to the Petitioner and references the Beneficiary's name. However, the invoice 
does not reflect the Beneficiary's oversight of the work performed byl I We 
note that the invoices from~ _______ ___,andl I are similar in font and 
structure, indicating that they were created by the same individual. Doubt cast on any aspect of a 
petitioner's proof may undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in 
support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. In this case, the similarities above 
lead us to conclude that the invoices are not credible. The invoices submitted on motion do not support 
the organizational chart showing that the Beneficiary oversees four external consultants. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits its IRS Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, for 
the second quarter of 2018, which covers the filing date of the petition. It shows that the Petitioner 
8 We note that the Petitioner stated in a letter supporting the extension petition that the food truck "has operated primarily 
in the City ofc:::==;' however, later in the record, it indicated that the City ofc=J bans food trucks. The Petitioner has 
not resolved this inconsistency with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 
l&N Dec. at 591-92. 
6 
employed three employees, not six as stated on the extension petition. The Petitioner's State of Florida 
Department of Revenue RT-6 for the second quarter of 2018 similarly shows that it employed only 
three workers in the second quarter of 2018, including the Beneficiary. The Petitioner's payroll 
documents also show that there were only two other employees in addition to the Beneficiary at the 
time of filing. Specifically, the payroll register shows that the Petitioner employed the Beneficiary;9 
I who is listed as the Petitioner's Secretary and Director of Research and Development 
~o_n_t_h_e _P_e-ti-ti-on~er' s organizational chart; and I I whose title is listed as "Logistic" on the 
chart. 10 Thus, the documents submitted on motion to reopen do not support the organizational chart 
showing that the Beneficiary oversees five direct company employees. 11 Id. 
Pursuant to section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel manager based on her supervision of professional subordinates. 
In evaluating whether the Beneficiary manages professional employees, we review evidence of the 
subordinate positions and whether they 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." 
Therefore, we must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree 
held by the subordinate employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by subordinate employees 
does not automatically lead to the conclusion that an employee is employed in a professional capacity. 
Regarding the organizational hierarchy of the Beneficiary's subordinates, the Petitioner stated that the 
marketing and sales position and director of research and development are professional positions 
requiring a baccalaureate degree. 12 Given that the director of research and development position was 
the only one of the two filled by the Petitioner at the time of filing, we will review that position. The 
Petitioner submitted copies of the diplomas held by the director of research and development and 
9 The payroll records show that the Petitioner paid her $2,300 in gross pay each month from April 1, 2018, to June 30, 
2018, and that her pay per hour was $176. Thus, it appears that she worked about 13 hours each month that qua1ier. 
However, the petition indicates that she works full-time. Futiher, the Beneficiary's actual pay of $2,300 per month 
($27,600 per year) conflicts with the petition which indicates that she will be paid $50,000 per year. The Petitioner has 
not resolved these discrepancies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Id. at 591-92. 
10 The payroll records show that the Petitioner paidl I $780 in gross pay each month from April I, 2018 to 
June 30, 2018. and that his hourly rate was $60 per hour. The payroll register also shows that the Petitioner paidl : I 
I I $975 in gross pay each month from April 1, 2018, to June 30, 2018, and that his hourly rate was $75 per hour. 
Thus, it appears that each man worked 13 hours per month that quarter. Given the ambiguities in the record regarding its 
staffing and operations. it is not clear that the Petitioner is doing business in the United States. See 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(2). "Doing business," is defined as the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods or services. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(H). The Petitioner must address this issue in any future 
proceedings. 
11 We note that pictures in the record show the operation ofa food truck, but the organizational chart and payroll documents 
do not demonstrate that any employees are dedicated to its operation, such as a chet: cashier, catering statr: and/or delivery 
driver. Futiher, the Petitioner asselis that it provides aerial photography and video services, but it is unclear who perfonns 
these duties for the Petitioner. Matter of Ho, 19 T&N Dec. at 591. Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to 
reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. 
12 It does not assert that the logistics position is a professional position. We note that the logistics employee. a non­
professional, is paid $15 more per hour than the individual serving in the purpolied professional position of director of 
research and development. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. 
7 
asserted that the position requires at least a bachelor's degree. However, it has not clarified how his 
duties with the Petitioner require him to hold a bachelor's degree. 
The Petitioner provided a generic duty description for the director of research and development, stating 
that he studies and proposes business opportunities, reviews technical research reports, develops and 
maintains liaisons, programs and uses computers, prepares statements of work and requests for 
proposals, and represents the Petitioner in a technical capacity. The Petitioner indicated that his role 
was similar to that of a research biologist. 13 However, his duties contain no biological components, 
such as collecting biological data or samples; overseeing other scientists or biological technicians; 
preparing ( as opposed to simply reviewing) biological reports; conducting research; or planning and 
administering biological research programs. The Petitioner asserted that it plans to market and 
distribute two medical products] land l on the Amazon platform, but the record 
contains no evidence indicating that the director of research and development is a research biologist 
supporting these efforts. 14 Given that the Petitioner claims to operate an e-commerce business, provide 
aerial photography and video services, and operate a food truck, the duties listed do not sufficiently 
corroborate his role in those operations, nor do they demonstrate that his position would require a 
bachelor's degree. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided no supporting documentation to support her personnel authority 
over, or her delegation of duties to, professional subordinates. As such, the Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary will act as a personnel manager based on her management of 
subordinate professionals. In the alternative, the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish that the 
Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel manager based on her supervision of subordinate managers or 
supervisors. The Petitioner did not submit a sufficiently detailed duty description for the director of 
research and development to substantiate that he acts in his claimed role, nor does the organizational 
chart show that he exercises control over any other employees. Similarly, the record contains no 
evidence that the logistics position is managerial or supervisory. 
The record does not establish that the Beneficiary "supervises and controls the work of other 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees," consistent with section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the 
Act. The fact that the Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the day-to-day operations of the 
business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in a 
managerial capacity within the meaning of section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. The Petitioner must still 
establish that the position meets all four elements of the statutory definition of managerial capacity. 
It has not done so here. 
We note that even if the Petitioner had established that the offered position meets all four elements of 
the applicable statutory definition, which it did not, it must prove that the Beneficiary will be primarily 
engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the Petitioner's 
other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d at 1316. Here, the deficient description of the 
Beneficiary's job duties; the unresolved ambiguities regarding the Petitioner's organizational structure 
13 It states that the position falls under the O*NET occupational code 19-1020.01. O*NET is the occupational classification 
system used by the U.S. Department of Labor. O*NET states that the occupational classification for research biologist is 
19-1029.04. See O*Net Online, https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/19-1029.04 (last visited Nov. 30! 2020). 
14 The record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner is an active seller on the Amazon platform. Neither~.---~ 
no~ I are currently available for sale on Amazon. See http://www.amazon.com (last visited Nov. 30, 2020). 
8 
and operations, as well as the duties of the Beneficiary's subordinate employees; and the absence of 
other employees to relieve the Beneficiary from performing operational duties, prevent a credible 
determination that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial duties. 
Finally, on motion to reconsider, the Petitioner objected to our observation that it did not explain how 
the Beneficiary's former employment in a medical laboratory context by the foreign parent prepared 
her for employment in the Petitioner's e-commerce business. The Petitioner stated that as a result of 
the "managerial experience" gained during her course of employment with the foreign parent entity, 
the Beneficiary is an ideal candidate to oversee the Petitioner's e-commerce operation in the United 
States. We stated in our motion decision that our reference to the Beneficiary's prior employment in 
a medical laboratory context was part of a broader discussion of the Beneficiary's managerial 
background and capabilities, and that it was one of many factors we considered in determining that 
the Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity under the extended petition. On motion to reopen, the Petitioner asserts that there is no 
requirement that the Beneficiary "have worked in the same exact position, same industry or sector or 
economic area." A petitioner must establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and 
employment qualify him or her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(3). As detailed above, given that the record is unclear as to the nature of the Petitioner's 
operations and the Beneficiary's proposed duties, we cannot determine whether her prior education, 
training, and employment qualify her to perform the intended services in the United States. 
On motion to reopen, the Petitioner has not stated new facts, supported by documentary evidence, 
demonstrating that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity under the extended 
petition as defined in section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We will dismiss 
the motion for this reason. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
9