dismissed L-1A Case: E-Commerce

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10876251 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for an L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 10, 2021 
The Petitioner seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary employment1 as its President under the 
L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 10l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-lA classification allows a corporation or 
other legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the 
United States to work temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity in the United States 
under an extended petition. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a position requiring 
specialized knowledge 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)(1). The prospective U.S. 
employer must also be a qualifying organization that seeks to employ a beneficiary in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(i). 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-lA petition that involved a new office must submit a statement of 
the beneficiary's duties during the previous year and under the extended petition; a statement 
describing the staffing of the new operation and evidence of the numbers and types of positions held; 
evidence of its financial status; evidence that it has been doing business for the previous year; and 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
from March 16, 2018, until March 15, 2019. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United 
States through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(1)(ii)(F). The regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation one year within the date of approval of the petition to 
support an executive or managerial position. 
evidence that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(I)(14)(ii). 
"Executive capacity" means 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) of the 
Act. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in an executive capacity. The Petitioner does not assert that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity. 
To be eligible for L-1A nonimmigrant visa classification as an executive, the Petitioner must show 
that the Beneficiary will perform the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition at 
section 101(a)(44)(B)(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 executive position. 
If the Petitioner establishes that the offered position meets all elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in 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 given beneficiary's 
duties will be primarily executive, we consider the petitioner's description of the job duties, the 
company's organizational structure, the duties of a 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 a beneficiary's actual duties and 
role in a business. 
Accordingly, we will discuss evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of 
the nature of the Petitioner's business and its staffing levels. 
A. Job Duties 
On the petition filed on March 14, 2019, the Petitioner claimed to operate an e-commerce business 
employing six workers in the United States.2 In its initial letter of support dated February 15, 2019, 
the Petitioner identified the Beneficiary's "current" job duties and tasks, and the percentages of time 
devoted to each task, as follows:3 
2 In a letter supporting the petition, the Petitioner stated that it sells home improvement products, fast-moving consumer 
goods, and other youth oriented products. It asserted that it has a "cooperation with Amazon, Ebay and other e-commerce 
platforms, storage service companies and those global logistics carriers such as UPS, USPS, and FedEx." 
3 Because these duties were listed as "current," it appears that they represent her duties during her initial year in L-lA 
status. 
2 
I Strategic leadership and operational management (20%). 
I Formulate and implement the strategic plan and business goals of the company in the 
U.S. market and oversee the operation of the company in accordance with the direction 
established (8%). 
I Analyze and access the effectiveness of all existing operations and identify potential 
problems by hearing the reports of other directors, and render improvement suggestions 
and resolutions (6%). 
I Set guidelines and establish the company's various internal rules and policies including 
funds usage, investment, spending, and expenses (6%). 
I Fiscal stability and financial performance (20%). 
I Hear the financial report of CFO4 on director's meetings, and develop and adjust the 
periodical and annual budget for e-commerce function (8%). 
I Constantly monitor the financial environment of the company, and identify and discuss 
and current and potential financial threats and challenges of the company (6%). 
I Solicit advice and guidance from the Board of Directors of the parent company, and 
make decisions on budget breakdowns, investment endeavor, business expansion, and 
other financial-related issues (6%). 
I Sales growth and revenue increase (20%). 
I Oversee the company's gross sales revenues; review and analyze the sales reports 
represented by the sales department, 5 and establish and adjust sales goals, if necessary 
(10%). 
I Partner with the sales department to evaluate current sales channel and sales personnel, 
and identify any possible improvements (5%). 
I Direct and advise the marketing department6 on the exploration of new channels and 
market relevant customer acquisition strategies through business events and marketing 
strategies (5%). 
I Platform optimization & channel development (15%). 
I Closely track and drive strategic decisions on platform optimization based on data 
analysis (5%). 
I Render guidance and advice to the IT department7 on content design and marketing 
strategies to drive sales performance improvement and the optimization of outstanding 
customer experience (5%). 
I Partner with the marketing department on the exploration of new sales channel and the 
development of annual promotional calendar (5%). 
I Organizational improvement and human resources decision-making (15%). 
I Monitor and evaluate the work of other executive leaders of the company and receive 
reports from the general manager8 on the performance of individual personnel (5%). 
I Partner with the general manager on the valuation and improvement of compensation 
plan and training program based on needs of business growth (5%). 
4 The Petitioner's organizational charts do not indicate that it currently has, or plans to hire, a CFO. 
5 The Petitioner's initial organizational chart does not indicate that it has a sales department. 
6 The Petitioner's initial organizational chart does not indicate that it has a marketing department. 
7 The Petitioner's organizational charts do not indicate that it currently has, or plans to have, an IT department. 
8 The Petitioner's organizational charts do not indicate that it currently has, or plans to hire, a general manager. 
3 
I Make final decision on the appointment, recruitment, and dismissal of the general 
manager, directors of each department, individual employees, and make any personnel 
changes, if necessary (5%). 
I Public relations and contract negotiation (10%). 
I Represent the company for civic and professional association responsibility and 
activities and facilitate the positive interaction with local communities, government 
entities, and other social organizations (4%). 
I Build and maintain strategic business relationship with business partners, and act as a 
liaison between the company and its vendors (3%). 
I Negotiate and sign contracts on behalf of the company and participate in industry-related 
events or associations that will enhance the reputation and popularity of the company 
(3%). 
On the petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would perform the following duties under 
the extended petition:9 
I Strategic leadership and operational management: to provide strong leadership for the 
company by monitoring its day-to-day operation, and to manage all aspects of the e-commerce 
business to ensure the implementation of the company's vision, mission, and overall direction. 
I Fiscal stability and financial performance: to continually oversee and evaluate the company's 
fiscal stability and performance to ensure the fulfillment of business goals, and to exert 
decision-making authority on major issues affecting the company's financial end-state. 
I Sales growth and revenue increase: to establish, implement, and adjust the e-commerce sales 
goals to ensure that the company remains competitive in the market, and to identify new areas 
to e-commerce opportunity. 
I Platform optimization and channel development: To identify any possible changes and 
improvement of current sales platform and channels in terms of the content, product 
assortment, merchandising, etc. to ensure its attraction and effective reach to target customers. 
I Organizational improvement and human resources decision-making: To provide strategic 
direction and exert decision-making authority on human resources related issues to create an 
environment and culture that efficiently enhances the loyalty of the employee. 
I Public relations and contract negotiation: To serve as a spokesman and representative of the 
company on public occasions, and to facilitate and reinforce the long-term cooperation 
between the company and its industry partners. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director stated that the description of duties provided by the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would primarily perform the high level 
responsibilities of an executive or manager. The Director stated that it appears that the Beneficiary 
9 The petition did not indicate percentages of time to be devoted to these duties; however, the categories are similar to the 
ones provided in the Petitioner's support letter detailed above relating to the Beneficiary's "current" duties. 
4 
primarily performs operational tasks, and therefore, she requested additional information about the 
Beneficiary's day-to-day functions. She specifically requested (a) a statement detailing the 
Beneficiary's duties during the previous year, and (b) a letter from the Petitioner detailing how the 
Beneficiary will be employed in an executive or managerial position under the extended petition.10 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided a list of the Beneficiary's duties during the initial year 
of her L-1A nonimmigrant status, including her overall job duties and specific tasks, and the 
percentages of time devoted to each task. The overall job duties and percentages were similar to those 
initially provided, but the tasks and percentages of time devoted to those tasks were different from 
those initially submitted. For example, as noted above, the list initially submitted stated that she spent 
20% of her time on strategic leadership and operational management, including formulating and 
implementing the strategic plan and business goals of the company in the U.S. market and oversee the 
operation of the company in accordance with the direction established (8%); analyzing and accessing 
the effectiveness of all existing operations and identify potential problems by hearing the reports of 
other directors, and render improvement suggestions and resolutions (6%); and setting guidelines and 
establish the company's various internal rules and policies including funds usage, investment, 
spending, and expenses (6%). The new list also stated that she spent 20% of her time providing 
strategic leadership and monitoring the daily operation of e-commerce business, but described her 
tasks related to that category differently.11 Also, in the new description of her financial duties, the 
references to a CFO and an IT department were removed. A petitioner must establish that the position 
offered to a beneficiary, when the petition was filed, merits classification as a managerial or executive 
position. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 l&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'I Comm'r 1978). A petitioner 
may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS 
requirements. See Matter of lzummi, 22 l&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner further asserted that the Beneficiary would continue to be 
employed primarily as an executive in the United States. However, it did not provide additional insight 
into what she would primarily do on a day-to-day basis under an extended petition. The purpose of the 
RFE is to elicit further information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been 
established. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material 
line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
In her decision, the Director determined that the Beneficiary would not be employed primarily in an 
executive capacity in the United States. She stated that the Beneficiary would primarily perform the 
day-to-day functions of the Petitioner's e-commerce business, as her duties would primarily comprise 
a wide range of operational and administrative tasks.12 On appeal, the Petitioner submits two briefs; 
10 A petitioner seeking to extend an L-1A petition that involved a new office must submit a statement of the beneficiary's 
duties during the previous year and under the extended petition. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(C). 
11 Her revised tasks related to strategic leadership and operational management included creating a company profile and 
annual business plan based on the periodical and annual marketing report and sales revenue to develop a clear path business 
path vision (5%); presiding at the bi-weekly meetings and hearing reports from department managers, and rendering 
suggestions on major issues (5%); receiving general direction from top executives at the parent company on strategic 
development and setting goals accordingly (5%); and adjusting the periodical sales goals based on the sales margin and 
other indexes (5%). 
12 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, e.g., sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act 
5 
emails relating to the Petitioner's 2018 tax filings; five bi-weekly management meeting agendas for 
portions of 2018 and 2019 detailing some of the Beneficiary's duties;13 and a resume for the 
Petitioner's former deputy general manager. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's duty 
description is "explicit" and "goes beyond the day-to-day operational duties." It also provides a 
weekly schedule of the Beneficiary's duties from December 31, 2018, through January 6, 2019, and 
asserts that her duties show that she exercises business decision making and management direction 
authority on a daily basis. 
Upon review, we agree with the Director's determination that the Beneficiary's proposed job 
description under the extended petition includes numerous duties that fall outside the statutory 
definition of executive capacity. Despite asserting that it had hired six subordinate employees to assist 
with its operations, many of the tasks listed by the Petitioner indicate that the Beneficiary will be 
directly engaged in the business operations of the company. For example, the Petitioner states that the 
Beneficiary would engage in contract negotiations on behalf of the company, which is typically a duty 
attributed to subordinate staff and not a corporate executive. The Petitioner also indicates that the 
Beneficiary will continue to exert decision-making authority on human resources related issues and 
that 15% of her time would be devoted to such tasks. The Petitioner does not explain why the 
Beneficiary, and not the deputy general manager or a department manager, would continue to oversee 
these issues. Finally, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will manage its operational activities 
and implement sales goals. While we do not doubt that the Beneficiary, as President of the company, 
wi 11 be engaged and knowledgeable regarding the company's operational activities, we cannot 
conclude that the listed tasks are primarily executive job functions. It appears that the majority of the 
Beneficiary's duties under the extended petition will continue to be non-qualifying, operational duties 
essential to the company's continued business operations. 
Further, many of the prospective job duties listed for the Beneficiary overlap with the duties of other 
employees. The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will "continually oversee and evaluate the 
company's fiscal stability and performance to ensure the fulfillment of business goals, and to exert 
decision-making authority on major issues affecting the company's financial end-state." While these 
stated duties indicate that the Beneficiary is likely responsible for both qualifying and non-qualifying 
financial tasks, the Petitioner claimed in response to the RFE that it employs a financial and 
administrative director who supervises and manages the daily operation of the department and who 
drives the financial planning of the company. Further, the financial and administrative director also 
oversees "employee recruiting, orienting, and training," which appears to overlap with the 
Beneficiary's human resource duties detailed above. Thus, the tasks of the Beneficiary and the 
financial and administrative director overlap. In addition, the duties listed on the former deputy 
general manager's resume submitted on appeal indicate that she managed financial plans and forecasts, 
which overlaps with the stated financial duties of the Beneficiary and the financial and administrative 
(requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); Matter of Church Scientology 
lnt'I, 19 l&N Dec. 593,604 (Comm'r 1988). 
13 We note that on the agenda dated December 17, 2018, the next "bi-weekly meeting" is scheduled for December 31, 
2019. Further, one of the agendas is dated December 31, 2019, but it states that the next "bi-weekly meeting" is scheduled 
for January 14, 2019. Further, the agendas indicate that "all directors" attended the meetings presided by the Beneficiary, 
but they do not identify the actual attendees. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). The agendas are not credible evidence 
of the Beneficiary's executive duties. 
6 
director. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988).14 
Additionally, as previously noted herein, some of the Beneficiary's duties detailed in the record 
describe interactions with employees and departments that are not listed on the Petitioner's 
organizational charts. The I ist of duties references a "CFO," but there is no indication that the 
Petitioner employs a CFO. It also references an IT department, but neither organizational chart listed 
an IT department. Further, it references a "general manager," but neither organizational chart I ists a 
general manager.15 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. Id. at 591. 
In sum, the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's prospective duties under the extended petition 
includes numerous non-qualifying tasks; many of her prospective job duties overlap with the duties of 
other employees; and some of her duties describe interactions with employees and departments that 
do not exist. Thus, the record at the time of filing does not credibly establish that the Petitioner was 
able to support a primarily executive position for the Beneficiary a year after the approval of the earlier 
new office petition, and the materials submitted on appeal do not resolve the inconsistencies in the 
record. 
The fact that the Beneficiary will manage or direct the business as its President does not necessarily 
establish eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in an executive capacity within the 
meaning of section 101(a)(44)(B) 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. Here, the position description does not establish that her day-to-day duties would be 
primarily executive in nature. 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
Next, we will address the U.S. company's staffing at the time of filing. If staffing levels are used as a 
factor in determining whether an individual is acting in an executive capacity, the reasonable needs of 
the organization must be considered in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the 
organization. See section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. As noted, the U.S. company was established as 
a new office and its prior petition was approved for one year, with a validity period that ended on 
March 15, 2019. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation one 
year from the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
The Petitioner provided evidence that it employed six individuals at the time of filing, including the 
Beneficiary. According to its organizational chart dated February 2019 submitted with the petition, 
the Beneficiary oversees the deputy general manager; the deputy general manager oversees an "Adm in 
& Financial Dept" employee, a "Logistics Dept." employee, and a "Warehouse Dept" employee; and 
the "Warehouse Dept" employee oversees a warehouse staff employee. The chart identifies four 
14 The emails submitted on appeal relating to the Petitioner's 2018 tax filings do not resolve the issue of overlapping 
financial duties. 
15 As further detailed below, the Petitioner submitted two different organizational charts, one with the extension petition 
and one in response to the RFE. Both charts list a "deputy general manager" directly underneath the Beneficiary in the 
organizational hierarchy, but not a general manager. 
7 
additional unfilled positions, including a financial specialist, customer service representative, logistics 
operator, and another warehouse staff member. The record is not clear who was performing the duties 
of these positions at the time of filing. 
In her RFE, the Director stated that the record lacks sufficient documentation about the employees that 
the Beneficiary oversees. She noted that the record does not contain specific descriptions of the 
subordinates job duties, and that based on the fact that the Petitioner only has six employees (including 
the Beneficiary), it does not appear that the Petitioner has sufficient staffing to relieve the Beneficiary 
from performing the day-to-day tasks necessary to produce a product or service. She acknowledged 
that the Petitioner intends to hire additional employees, but stated that the Petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing the extension petition.16 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided, in part, another organizational chart; a list of the duties 
of each of the individuals listed on the chart; copies of identification documents and employment 
agreements for the Petitioner's employees; payroll summaries and employee paystubs for portion of 
2019; and quarterly tax returns for part of 2019. The organizational chart submitted in response to the 
RFE shows that the Beneficiary will oversee a yet-to-be-hired deputy general manager;17 that the 
deputy general manager will oversee an "Admin & Financial Dept" employee, a "Sales & Mktg Dept" 
employee, and a "Warehouse Dept" employee; that the "Admin & Financial Dept" employee will 
oversee a customer service representative and yet-to-be-hired bookkeeper; that the Sales & Mktg 
Dept" employee will oversee a sales associate, an inventory control specialist, and a yet-to-be-hired 
marketing specialist; and that the "Warehouse Dept" employee would oversee three warehouse 
associates. 
In her denial decision, the Director noted the two different organizational charts submitted to the 
record. She found that the initial organizational chart, showed six employees, was corroborated by 
the first quarter federal tax return. The organizational chart submitted in response to the RFE showed 
10 employees as of August 2019, and indicated that it would hire three others. The Director noted that 
the prospective hiring of additional employees has no bearing on the Petitioner's eligibility as of the 
date of filing. The Director determined that the record did not establish the duties of the Beneficiary's 
immediate subordinate, the deputy general manager. Thus, she determined that the record was not 
clear whether the Beneficiary's staff was sufficient to relieve her of the day-to-day functions of the 
business. The Director concluded that the record does not establish that the Beneficiary would serve 
in a primarily executive capacity in the United States. 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position. 
Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" and "establish the 
goals and policies" of an organization or major component or function thereof. Section 101(a)(44)(B) 
of the Act. To show that a beneficiary will "direct the management" of an organization or a major 
component or function of that organization, a petitioner must show how the organization, major 
16 As previously stated, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(3)(v)(C) only allows the intended U.S. operation one year 
within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. If the business does not have 
the necessary staffing after one year to sufficiently relieve the beneficiary from performing operational and administrative 
tasks, the petitioner is ineligible for an extension. 
17 It appears that the individual formerly holding this position in February 2019 was no longer employed in the role as of 
August 2019. 
8 
component, or function is managed and demonstrate that the beneficiary primarily focuses on its broad 
goals and policies, rather than the day-to-day operations of such. An individual will not be deemed 
an executive under the statute simply because they have an executive title or because they "direct" the 
organization, major component, or function as the owner or sole managerial employee. A beneficiary 
must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision making" and receive only "general 
supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the 
organization." Id. 
Upon review, we agree with the Director's determination that the record does not demonstrate that the 
Petitioner has sufficient staffing to relieve the Beneficiary from performing the day-to-day tasks 
necessary to produce a product or service. While the Petitioner has demonstrated that it employs 
several individuals to carry out some of the operational functions of the company, it has not established 
how they relieve the Beneficiary from performing the day-to-day activities of the U.S. company or 
otherwise support a position in which her actual duties would be primarily executive in nature. 
Further, the Petitioner's initial organizational chart identifies four unfilled positions, including a 
financial specialist, customer service representative, logistics operator, and another warehouse staff 
member. The record is not clear whether other employees were performing the duties of these 
positions at the time of filing, including the Beneficiary. Additionally, the Petitioner's subsequent 
organizational chart submitted in response to the RFE adds a sales and marketing department, but it is 
unclear who was performing the sales and marketing duties at the time of filing the extension petition. 
Given that sales and revenue growth are essential aspects of the Beneficiary's job, she would 
necessarily require support in these areas. The logistics department also disappeared in the second 
chart, but it is unclear why it was no longer needed in the Petitioner's business. We additionally note 
that the Petitioner is an e-commerce business, yet neither of its organizational charts identify any IT 
personnel to handle the technology related to its e-commerce platform. Thus, the record does not 
credibly demonstrate that the Petitioner has the necessary staffing after one year to sufficiently relieve 
the Beneficiary from performing operational and administrative tasks. See 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director incorporated duties of a manager into that of an 
executive. While the Director did discuss managerial attributes of the position in her decision, she 
ultimately determined that the record was not clear whether the Beneficiary's position would be 
primarily executive in nature. Specifically, she found that the record was not clear whether the 
Beneficiary's staff was sufficient to relieve her of the day-to-day functions of the business. This basis 
for denial has not been overcome on appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also asserts that it is "unconvincing" to deny the executive capacity of the 
Beneficiary because "USCIS should have known that the staffing of the e-commerce business is 
distinguished from other retailing and wholesaling" businesses. It states that the Petitioner "relies 
heavily on its e-commerce platform" which releases its employees "from a majority of the sales and 
marketing activities."18 It additionally states that its number of employees is based on the actual needs 
18 If this is true, it is unclear why the Petitioner added a sales and marketing department to its organizational chart in 
response to the RFE. 
9 
of the company in its current stage of development.19 However, a petitioner has the burden to establish 
that it would realistically develop to the point where it would require the beneficiary to perform duties 
that are primarily managerial or executive in nature within one year. The Petitioner's unsupported 
statements are insufficient to carry its burden of proof, particularly when supporting documentary 
evidence would reasonably be available. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. 
In sum, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) only allows the "new office" operation one year 
within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. If a business 
does not have the necessary staffing after one year to sufficiently relieve the beneficiary from 
performing operational and administrative tasks, the petitioner is ineligible for an extension. Here, 
although the organizational chart suggests that a subordinate staff is available to perform some of the 
non-qualifying operational duties, the Petitioner has not explained how the yet-to-be-hired staff's 
duties have been delegated to existing employees, or why a significant percentage of the Beneficiary's 
time continues to be devoted to non-qualifying tasks. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United 
States in an executive capacity under the extended petition as defined at section 101(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act.20 The appeal will be dismissed for this reason. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
19 The reasonable needs of a petitioner will not supersede the requirement that a beneficiary be "primarily" employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity as required by the statute. Brazil Quality Stones v. Chertoff, 531 F.3d 1063, 1070 n.10 
(9th Cir. 2008). 
20 We acknowledge that USCIS previously approved a nonimmigrant petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary. However, 
the mere fact that USCIS approved a visa petition on one occasion does not create an automatic entitlement to the approval 
of a subsequent petition for renewal of that visa. See, e.g., Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 148 (1st Cir 2007); 
Matter of Church Scientology lnt'I, 19 l&N Dec. 593,597 (Comm'r 1988). Each non immigrant petition filing is a separate 
proceeding with a separate record and a separate burden of proof. In making a determination of statutory eligibility, USCIS 
is limited to the information contained in that individual record of proceeding. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(ii). 
10