dismissed L-1A Case: Food Wholesale

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF N-US INC. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 24, 2019 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a wholesaler of spices and other food ingredients, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's 
temporary employment1 as its vice president of sales/marketing under the L-lA nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 101(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity 
in the United States, or that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it has established by a preponderance of the evidence 
that the Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity, and that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 
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 capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary must 
seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
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 Beneficiary was previously granted L-lA nonimrnigrant status, valid from September 8, 2017, to September 7, 2018, 
to open a new office for the Petitioner . 
Matter ofN-US Inc. 
evidence that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(14)(ii). This evidence must demonstrate that the beneficiary will be employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity, as defined at sections 10l(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act, under the 
extended petition. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity. 
Therefore, our analysis will address whether the Beneficiary's proposed position would be in a 
managerial capacity. 
"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. 
When examining the managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly describe the 
duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in a managerial 
capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description of the job duties, we examine 
the company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the 
presence of other employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of 
the business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties 
and role in a business. 
Accordingly, we will discuss evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of 
the nature of the Petitioner's business, its staffing levels, and its organizational structure. If staffing 
levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 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. However, the regulations 
provide strict evidentiary requirements for the extension of a "new office" petition and require USCIS 
to examine the organizational structure and staffing levels of the Petitioner. See 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(14)(ii)(D). 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. 
2 
Matter ofN-US Inc. 
A. Duties and Staffing 
Based on the statutory definition of managerial capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the 
Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 
1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). The Petitioner must also 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 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); 
Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
In a letter supporting the initial petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would allocate his 
time in the offered position of vice president of sales/marketing as follows: 
• Review and Analyze sales and activity reports, potential sales, and performance data to 
measure productivity and goal achievement to determine areas of cost reduction and program 
improvement - 10% of time; 
• Direct, design, and implement strategic sales and marketing plans in a cost-effective and time­
efficient manner - 10% of time; 
• Manage integrated project plans to ensure successful on-time and on-budget delivery of 
products by developing scope of work documents for all projects to define tasks, deliverables, 
cost estimates, and timing - 10% of time; 
• Take part in negotiations with clients and logistics companies - 5% of time; 
• Help clients to obtain the products according to their specification - 5% of time; 
• Stay alert to new trends - 5% of time; 
• Determine staff requirements, hire personnel, oversee training of new personnel, and monitor 
management personnel activities and reports of lower level personnel submitted by Managers 
- 5% of time; 
• Direct and approve product strategies, price policies, and discounts in order to ensure required 
competitive level, cost recovery, and profitability expected by the company- 10% of time; 
• Establish and communicate goals and objectives- I 0% of time; 
• Work on the setting up of a strategy for being time efficient and reducing costs - 5% of time; 
• Plan a weekly meeting to coordinate company operations - 5% of time; 
• Develop financial forecasts and perform financial analysis - 10% of time; 
• Direct the Company's promotion through social media - 5% of time; and 
• Direct a competitive analysis- 5% of time. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director indicated that the duties listed were vague and did not 
sufficiently detail whether the Beneficiary would be primarily performing executive or managerial 
tasks. He requested additional evidence regarding the Beneficiary's proposed duties in the United 
States. 
In response, the Petitioner's President provided an undated letter stating that "all of the sales functions 
previously overseen by the affiliate in the Netherlands" are now being run out of the Petitioner's 
United States office under the direction of the Beneficiary. Referring the Beneficiary's initial duties 
set forth above, the President stated that those duties "list the day-to-day functions of the subordinate 
employees allowing the beneficiary to engage in strategic planning and marketing, including the 
3 
Matter ofN-US Inc. 
search for new clients and the negotiation of contracts with them." 2 The President farther asserted 
that the Beneficiary oversees two employees, a logistics manager and a sales manager, and "is 
currently responsible for undertaking the following tasks which will be implemented within the five­
year business plan:" 
• Oversee the Company's product strategies, price policies, and discounts in order to ensure 
required competitive level- 20% of time; 
• Oversee the hiring process, employee appraisal and review- 10% of time; 3 
• Oversee the sales activities considering new trends in the industry- 10% of time; 
• Oversee the implementation of strategic sales plans- 10% of time; 
• Oversee the establishment of new business relationships with partners- 10% of time; 
• Oversee the achievement of goals and objectives. 4 Based on results, realign the Company's 
priorities and goals-15% of time; 
• Oversee the Company's promotion through social media- 10% of time; 
• Supervise development of new innovative marketing campaigns to increase the customer base 
- 10% of time; and 
• Oversee the implementation of a competitive analysis- 5% of time. 5 
We note that the initial job description had the Beneficiary performing primarily non-qualifying 
operational duties, while the revised description has the Beneficiary tasked with several duties 
involving oversight that were not included in the initial description. Many of the initial tasks were 
also removed in the revised description, and the percentages of time devoted to each individual duty 
were changed. The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
The purpose of the RFE is to elicit farther information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit 
sought has been established. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). When responding to an RFE, a petitioner cannot 
offer a new position to a beneficiary, or materially change a position's title, its level of authority within 
the organizational hierarchy, or its associated job responsibilities. 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 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). 
If significant changes are made to the initial request for approval, a petitioner must file a new petition 
rather than seek approval of a petition that is not supported by the facts in the record. The information 
provided by the Petitioner in its response to the Director's RFE did not clarify or provide more 
2 It appears based on this statement that those duties shifted to lower level employees, although based on staffing levels at 
the time of filing, there was only one employee on the payroll - a logistics manager- who could have assumed those duties. 
The logistics manager already had her own duties, including data entry of freight bills; freight bill auditing and marketing; 
coordination with logistics companies, origin factories and clients regarding pickup and delivery of products; maintaining 
files to comply with customs regulations; and packing products for shipment to buyers and unpacking received shipments 
form sellers. Thus, it is unclear how she could have assumed all of the Beneficiary's initial duties, as well. 
3 This duty overlaps with the President's duties. 
4 This duty overlaps with the President's duties. 
5 The Petitioner's May 2017 business plan shows that the Beneficiary will be responsible for overseeing these duties in 
"Year 5," although its response to the RFE indicated that the revised duties were current as of October 2018, which was a 
little more than two years following its July 2016 incorporation. 
4 
Matter ofN-US Inc. 
specificity to the original duties of the position, but rather changed many of the duties and the 
applicable time devoted to each duty. Therefore, the focus of our analysis will be based on the job 
description submitted with the initial petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary directs the Petitioner's "marketing strategies, 
policies, and strategic planning." It states that the Beneficiary will be primarily employed in a 
managerial position and that the Petitioner has hired "lower level employees to assist the beneficiary 
in his managerial duties." It submits an undated letter from its President stating that the Beneficiary's 
"efforts have been absolutely critical to our business development" and that the company has met the 
goals of its business plan. The President states that the sales support manager and logistics manager 
perform duties that "relieve the beneficiary from performing the day-to-day duties of non high­
qualifying tasks." 6 He also restates the Beneficiary's revised duties listed in the RFE response above. 
Like the Director, we find that the Petitioner provided a deficient job description that is so general it 
could describe virtually any general position with any company. The initial description provides only 
vague information that focuses on the Beneficiary's oversight of the business, but says little about the 
actual tasks he would perform or how those tasks qualify as managerial. For example, the tasks of 
helping clients to obtain "the products" according to their specification and staying alert to new trends 
are general, non-managerial duties. The task of taking part in negotiations with clients and logistics 
companies does not describe the negotiations or the Beneficiary's role in them or how that is a 
managerial duty. The task of directing a competitive analysis does not define or describe "competitive 
analysis" or indicate how it is a managerial task. 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 be a matter ofreiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajf'd, 905 F.2d41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Moreover, although the Petitioner asserts that the Petitioner has hired "lower level employees to assist 
the beneficiary in his managerial duties," the record does not demonstrate the existence of sufficient 
lower level personnel at the time of filing to relieve the Beneficiary from performing non-qualifying 
day-to-day operational duties. At the time of filing, the Petitioner only employed two employees -
the Beneficiary and a logistics manager. Thus, it is not clear how the logistics manager could support 
all of the sales and marketing duties that the Beneficiary claims to direct and oversee. Without lower 
level staff to perform operational duties, we cannot find that Beneficiary would be relieved from 
performing non-qualifying duties, specifically those of the sales manager. 
For example, the job description states that the Beneficiary will "monitor reports of lower level personnel 
submitted by Managers." However, the Petitioner's organizational chart submitted with the petition does not 
list any personnel below the logistics manager and the sales manager who report to the Beneficiary. Thus, there 
appear to be no "reports of lower level personnel submitted by Managers" for the Beneficiary to monitor 
because there are no lower level personnel without managerial titles below the Beneficiary. Further, the job 
6 At the time of filing the petition, the position of sales manager was not filled. We also note that the Petitioner's May 
2017 business plan lists the following cunent and prospective employees: logistics manager, sales representative, President 
and vice president of sales/marketing. It does not list a sales manager, although the duties of sales representative and sales 
support manager appear to be the same based on an undated letter from the Petitioner's President submitted after the initial 
petition was submitted. 
5 
Matter ofN-US Inc. 
description indicates that the Beneficiary will direct, design, and implement strategic sales and marketing plans, 
but it is not clear who is creating the sales and marketing plans for him to direct. The description also states 
that the Beneficiary will manage integrated project plans, but it is not clear who is developing the project plans 
for him to manage. Moreover, the description states that he will direct and approve product strategies, price 
policies, and discounts, but it not clear who is developing the strategies, price policies, and discounts for him 
to direct and approve. The description also states that he will direct the social media, but it is not clear who is 
creating the social media content. Further, the description states that he will direct a competitive analysis, but 
it is not clear who is generating the competitive analysis for him to direct. The submitted evidence is not 
persuasive in demonstrating that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity. 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. 
Further, the job description does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary has authority over personnel 
actions, that he functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy, or that the Beneficiary 
exercises discretion over day-to-day operations. Rather, based on the description of the President's 
duties, it appears that the President retains that authority and discretion. The President's duties include 
overseeing the financial aspects of growth and expansion; establishing and implementing the 
Company's policies, objectives, and procedures; maintaining financial reports; designing, monitoring, 
and directing the implementation of strategic business plans; and overseeing the performance of the 
Petitioner's employees. Many of the President's duties overlap with the Beneficiary's duties, 
including duties related to designing, monitoring, and directing the implementation of strategic 
business plans; overseeing the performance of the Petitioner's employees; establishing goals and 
objectives; and maintaining financial reports. Based on the overlapping duties, it is not clear that the 
Beneficiary duties would be "primarily" managerial in nature. Sections 10l(A)(44)(A) and (B) of the 
Act. 
Based on the foregoing, the record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would be primarily 
engaged in managerial duties. 
B. Organizational Structure 
The statutory definition of"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See sections 10l(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to 
primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. 
The statute plainly states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial 
capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are 
professional." Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(4). If a petitioner claims 
that a beneficiary directly supervises other employees, those subordinate employees must be 
supervisory, professional, or managerial, and the beneficiary must have the authority to hire and fire 
those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. Sections 
10l(a)(44)(A)(ii)-(iii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(2)-(3). 
The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the 
work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" 
within the organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a petitioner claims that a 
6 
Matter ofN-US Inc. 
beneficiary will manage an essential function, it must clearly describe the duties to be performed in 
managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that: 
(1) the function is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is "essential," i.e., core to 
the organization; (3) the beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the 
function; ( 4) the beneficiary will act at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy 
or with respect to the function managed; and ( 5) the beneficiary will exercise discretion 
over the function's day-to-day operations. 
Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
On the petition, the Petitioner claimed three employees, including the Beneficiary. In the RFE, the 
Director stated that Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence confirming the employment of 
subordinate employees, their educational record, or evidence that they will relieve the Beneficiary 
from performing non-qualifying tasks. Further, the Director indicated that if the Beneficiary would 
serve as a function manager, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence that the specific 
function is critical or essential, or that the Beneficiary will serve in a high-level position or in a position 
directly related to an essential function of the business. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided payroll and employment tax documents showing that 
the Petitioner employed and paid only one employee, a logistics manager, in 2017; and that it 
employed and paid only two employees, the Beneficiary and the logistics manager, in 2018. The 
President and the sales manager are not listed on any of the payroll or employment tax documents. 
The Petitioner indicated in response to the RFE that the logistics manager has an associate's degree 
and provided a copy of the associate of applied science degree of I r 
In the denial decision, the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary will 
oversee the work of professional subordinates for whom a baccalaureate degree or higher is required 
to perform their job duties. 8 On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it has four employees; that the 
Beneficiary would supervise two professional level employees; and that the newly hired sales support 
manager has a bachelor of fine arts degree in graphic design and photography. 9 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary will oversee the 
work of professional subordinates. The evidence indicates that the Petitioner had only one employee 
other than the Beneficiary at the time of filing the petition. That employee was a logistics manager 
with an associate's degree. Her duties, including data entry of freight bills; freight bill auditing and 
marketing; coordination with logistics companies, origin factories and clients regarding pickup and 
delivery of products; maintaining files; and packing products for shipment, are not duties requiring a 
7 The name on the payroll documents is~--------.-~ 
8 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"). 
9 It is not clear how her fine alts degree relates to the position of sales supp01i manager. 
7 
Matter ofN-US Inc. 
bachelor's degree. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it hired a sales support manager in October 
2018, but it provides no payroll, tax, or other evidence to support that assertion. Further, her duties, 
including ensuring that the Petitioner's products are "made available to customers in the most efficient 
manner possible;" creating sales reports; contacting new clients; and managing and following up on 
leads, are not duties requiring a bachelor's degree. Regardless of her qualifications, because she was 
not employed by the Petitioner at the time of filing, her subsequent employment is not relevant to this 
petition. 10 Additionally, the Petitioner's organizational chart shows that neither the logistics manager 
nor the sales manager oversees any employees. Thus, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary 
would primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees. In light of the deficiencies described above, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary will be employed as a personnel manager. 
Although the Petitioner does not specifically assert that the Beneficiary will serve as a function 
manager, we will briefly address the issue. Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently described the 
function to show that it is "a clearly defined activity." Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 201 7-05. 
Instead, it broadly states that the Beneficiary oversees supervision of the sales and marketing functions 
in the United States without adequately describing a specific function or component of the U.S. 
organization that the Beneficiary would manage. Further, whether a beneficiary is an "activity" or 
"function" manager turns in part on whether the Petitioner has sustained its burden of proving that the 
duties of that beneficiary are "primarily" managerial. See Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 
2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). As discussed above, the Petitioner has provided a deficient job 
description that neither defines an essential function, nor conveys an understanding of how the 
Beneficiary would go about managing the function. The deficient job description, coupled with 
insufficient evidence of adequate staffing, also precludes us from finding that the Beneficiary would 
serve as a function manager. 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity in 
the United States. 
III. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Director farther found that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has been employed 
abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has served as 
a senior sales account manager for its affiliate.__ ________ ___. in the Netherlands since 2013 
and asserts the Beneficiary served as a function manager in this position. As such, we will restrict our 
analysis to whether the Beneficiary was employed abroad as a function manager. 
In a letter supporting the petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary served as "Senior Sales 
Account Manager for I I in the Netherlands from 2013-2017, where he was 
responsible for the development and implementation of sales and marketing strategies for customer 
groups with revenue targets of $10 million." The letter stated that he also was responsible for South 
African and North American customers and that he reported to the sales director. It also stated that he 
10 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). 
8 
Matter ofN-US Inc. 
"trained logistics personnel to support sales business objectives and developed an affordable range of 
spice ingredients within the R&D group." 
In the RFE, the Director stated that "USCIS cannot determine with specificity how the beneficiary 
allotted his time to complete his day-to-day job duties in the foreign position." In response, the 
Petitioner submitted a letter dated October 12, 2018, from the Group Managing Direcrr of the 
I !stating that the Beneficiary served as senior sales account manager for I I know I ~ in the Netherlands from 2013 to 2017. The letter provided 
largely the same job description that was previously provided and did not provide specific time 
estimates for individual tasks. The Director denied the petition, concluding that the description of the 
Beneficiary's duties does not establish that the duties were executive or managerial duties. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary managed a "major component" of the business 
abroad - the development and implementation for sales and market strategies for customer end groups 
located in South Africa and North America. Although the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad as a function manager, the record does not support this assertion. First, as noted by 
the Director, the description of the Beneficiary's position abroad does not provide a meaningful 
understanding of how the Beneficiary allocated his time. The Beneficiary's position abroad is 
described generally with no indication on how the Beneficiary primarily spent his time. Although the 
description of the Beneficiary's position highlights the Beneficiary's success and achievements, it 
does not explain the Beneficiary's daily responsibilities or duties such that we could find he was 
primarily employed in a managerial positon. 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 actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the 
employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108. Here, the Petitioner has not provided 
the necessary detail or an adequate explanation of the Beneficiary's activities in the course of his daily 
routine. 
Further, although a function manager is not required to oversee personnel, the discrepancies between 
the organizational chart and the Petitioner's claims must be explained. The Petitioner states that the 
Beneficiary oversaw a sales manager, although the organizational chart for the foreign entity does not 
show that the Beneficiary had responsibility for overseeing any employees. Instead, it shows that the 
entity's three sales managers and the Beneficiary were supervised by the group sales director. 11 The 
Petitioner must resolve this discrepancy with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the 
truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 582. Based on a lack of meaningful information concerning 
the duties performed abroad and the inconsistencies regarding the Beneficiary's placement in the 
foreign entity, we cannot find that the Beneficiary was employed as a function manager. 
Finally, evidence in the record also raises questions about the duration of the Beneficiary's claimed 
employment abroad. The record contains the Beneficiary's job offer letter from I I 
~ dated December 15, 2014. It states that the Beneficiary is being offered the position of senior 
sales account manager for the sales department effective January 1, 2015. His resume also shows that 
he was in sales from January 2013 to December 2014, and became a sales manager in January 2015. 
11 A letter from the sales managed I states that the Beneficiary trained him for two weeks in South Africa, 
but it does not indicate that the Beneficiary was his supervisor. 
9 
Matter ofN-US Inc. 
Thus, it appears that he did not serve as a senior sales account manager from 2013 to 201 7 as indicated 
by the Petitioner. The Petitioner must resolve this discrepancy with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 582. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has been employed 
abroad in a managerial capacity. 
IV. DOING BUSINESS 
We note that the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has been doing business for one year 
as required by the regulations governing new office extensions. The Beneficiary was previously 
granted L-lA nonimmigrant status, valid from September 8, 2017, to September 7, 2018, to open a 
new office for the Petitioner. If a petitioner indicates that a beneficiary is coming to the United States 
to open a "new office," it must show that it is prepared to commence doing business immediately upon 
approval so that it will support a manager or executive within the one-year timeframe. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v). After one year, USCIS will extend the validity of the new office petition only if the 
entity demonstrates that it has been doing business in a regular, systematic, and continuous manner 12 
"for the previous year." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B). The Petitioner's President stated in a letter 
dated August 13, 2018, that the Petitioner "did not have the requisite personnel to begin foll scale 
operations in the U.S. Business operations until late 2017," and the documents in the record regarding 
the Petitioner's operations only reflect business conducted in 2018. As such, the record does not 
establish that the Petitioner was doing business for one year. In any future filings, the Petitioner must 
address this issue. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner 
has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of N-US Inc., ID# 4702253 (AAO July 24, 2019) 
12 The term "doing business" is defined in the regulations as "the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods 
and/or services by a qualifying organization and does not include the mere presence of an agent or office of the qualifying 
organization in the United States and abroad." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(H). 
10