dismissed L-1A Case: Grocery Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 8, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which intends to operate an Asian grocery store, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as president/general manager of its new office I under the L-1 A nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1 IOl(a)(15)(L). The L-IA classification allows a corporation or other legal 
entity (including its atliliate 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, as required, that it would be able to support a managerial or executive position within one 
year of approval of the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director mischaracterized the nature of the Beneficiary's 
proposed duties, did not weigh all relevant factors, and erroneously determined that the new office 
would not support a managerial position within a one-year period. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving a new 
office, a qualifying organization must have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(v)(B). In addition, the beneficiary must 
seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
The petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new office will be able to support a 
managerial or executive position within one year. This evidence must establish that the petitioner 
1 The tenn "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one 
year. 8 C.F.R. § 2J4.2(1)(l)(ii)(F). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation no 
more than one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
Maller of S- LLC 
secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation and disclose the proposed nature and 
scope of the entity, its organizational structure, its financial goals, and the size of the U.S. 
investment. See generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
II. DEFINITIONS 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial ~mployees, or 
manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of _the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
The term "'executive capacity" is defined as an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of 
the organization; establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or 
direction from higher-level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
Section l O 1 ( a)( 44 )(B) of the Act. 
Based on the definitions of managerial and executive capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the 
Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World. Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 
1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, the Petitioner must prove that the 
Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial or executive duties, as opposed to ordinary 
operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 
F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d at 1533. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the new office would support 
a managerial or executive position within one year of approval of the petition. On appeal, the 
Petitioner maintains that the position is managerial in nature, but it previously claimed that the 
proposed position satisfies the definitions of both managerial and executive capacity. 
In the case of a new office petition, we review a beneficiary's proposed job duties as well as the 
petitioner's business and hiring plans and evidence that.the business will grow sufficiently to support 
a beneficiary in the intended managerial or executive capacity. 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. Accordingly, 
the totality of the evidence must be considered in analyzing whether the proposed managerial or 
executive position is plausible considering a petitioner's anticipated staffing levels and stage of 
development within a one-year period. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
2 
.
Matter of S- LLC 
A. Duties 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner stated that it established a majority-owned U.S. subsidiary, 
which was in the final stages of acquiring the assets of an existing grocery 
store owned by The Petitioner explained that the 
Beneficiary would be assigned to to "personally manage[] the supermarket business" and 
indicated that he would allocate 100% of his time to the following duties : 
1. Formulate operation policies , including pricing , administration, and employment 
policies. (10%) 
2. Carry out implementation plan to the resolution adopted by board of director ; Review 
the performance of plan and report to board of director[s] (5%) 
3. Approve marketing plan and budget plan, and decide any improvement or adjustment 
on the plan or strategies ; ( 10%) 
4. Review monthly sales report, financial and budget report to identify flaws in 
management structure and decide to improve business structure or re-design 
management procedure. (15%) 
5. Review the performance report of whole business operation to find out weakness in 
daily operation and draft plan to improve daily operation for better outcome . (15%) 
6. Study business trend, follow up on major competitors' activities. Decide to expand or 
adjust product line to meet customers need. (10%) 
7. Decide to hire, fire head of all department ; supervise and evaluate the day-to-day 
performance of managers and supervisory employees . Promote or demote managerial 
employees based on their performance. (15%) 
8. Decide to contract important suppliers and other professions ( e.g. CPA, financial 
advisors , attorneys); Approve important agreement or joint operation agreement. 
(10%) 
9. Directly contact important suppliers . Decide to enter important supply , wholesale or 
other long-term contract. (15%) 
Although these duties accounted for all of the Beneficiary's time, the Petitioner provided a list of 
five additional duties that he would perform as the "only executive member " of the company, and 
stated that those duties would also require I 00% of his time. These duties included: ( l) reviewing 
and approving the company's business strategy and business plan - 15%; (2) executing resolutions 
made by member meeting and reporting annual performance - 20%; (3) approving operation 
structure and establishment of the company ~ 15%; (4) evaluating the performance of current 
strategies , reviewing financial and budget reports and deciding "the establishment of subdivision " -
25%; and (5) directing and managing all aspects of executive operation of the company and making 
all important final decisions - 25% . 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director advised the Petitioner that it was unclear how two 
separate sets of responsibilities would each require I 00% of the Beneficiary's time and allowed the 
Petitioner the opportunity to explain and provide additional evidence in support of its assertion that 
he would primarily perform managerial or executive duties within one year. 
3 
Maller of S- LLC 
In its response, the Petitioner did not attempt to reconcile the two lists of duties. The Petitioner 
emphasized that is has an ambitious business plan for the grocery store that will include expansion to 
include a wholesale business, a food court, and online sales, and that such plans can only be 
implemented by a managerial or executive employee. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
"will be the one in charge of the company with the highest discretion to all aspects of management 
of the business." 
In the denial decision, the Director determined that the Beneficiary's proposed duties include non­
managerial duties such as "marketing," "budgeting," and "contracting" but did not further address 
the proposed job duties. On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director "overtly twisted the 
managerial duties," and asserts that the submitted job description is sufficient to establish that the 
Beneficiary will primarily exercise discretion over the day-to-day operations and that he will 
delegate tasks, including marketing, budgeting, and contracting, to the store manager and 
supervisors. The Petitioner maintains that at least 80% of the Beneficiary's time will be spent on 
qualifying duties. 
While we agree with the Petitioner that the submitted pos1t1on description does not include 
primarily non-qualifying duties, the description as a whole is overly broad and does not list the 
specific tasks the Beneficiary would perform, such that they could be classified as managerial or 
executive in nature. Further, the Petitioner did not attempt to reconcile its initial claim that two 
different sets of duties would each require 100% of his time. Several of the duties merely paraphrase 
the statutory definition of executive capacity and therefore have limited probative value in terms of 
explaining the nature of the Beneficiary's expected duties. For example, the Beneficiary's 
responsibilities to "direct and manage all aspects of executive operation[s]"; "approve the company's 
business strategy"; "evaluate performance of current strategies"; and "formulate operation policies" 
are too vague to explain how the Beneficiary will spend his time on a day-to-day basis. Conclusory 
assertions regarding the Beneficiary's employment capacity are not sufficient. Merely repe~ting the 
language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. 
Co .. ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), qff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Al~vr 
As.mes .. Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
With respect to the Beneficiary's cl~imed managerial tasks, the Petitioner has not established that 
certain related non-managerial tasks inherent to operating the business would be delegated to 
subordinate employees within one year. For example, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will 
"approve a marketing plan and budgeting plan," review a "performance report," and review monthly 
sales, budget and finance reports. The Petitioner states that the store manager and his direct 
subordinates perform the actual marketing, budgeting, and other operational tasks. Although the 
Petitioner states that one of the store manager's duties will be to prepare sales reports, it has not 
identified which employees would prepare marketing and budget plans for the Beneficiary's 
approval. The Beneficiary is also responsible for studying business trends and competitor activities, 
arid dealing directly with suppliers. These duties are not clearly managerial ih nature and would not 
be delegated to subordinates. 
4 
.
Maller ofS- LLC 
In sum, the submitted job description was problematic because it accounted for 200% of the 
Beneficiary's time; included a combination of overly broad responsibilities and duties that involve 
"overseeing" activities that· are not clearly delegated to subordinates; and finally, included duties 
that, without further explanation, have not been shown to be managerial or executive in nature. 
We acknowledge that the Beneficiary, as the Petitioner's senior employee, would have authority to 
establish plans, policies, and objectives for the company, supervise any employees hired, and make 
major decisions regarding its finances and overall direction. However , the Petitioner has not 
established that these types of responsibilities would primarily occupy the Beneficiary's time within 
one year . By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a position be 
"primarily" executive or managerial in nature. Sections 10l(A)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not give sufficient weight to all of the 
Beneficiary's listed job duties and emphasizes that the provided job descriptions do not include 
clearly non-qualifying duties . However, the position description alone is insufficient to establish 
that a beneficiary's duties would be primarily in a managerial or executive capacity, particularly in 
the case of a new office petition where much is dependent on factors such as a petitioner's business 
and hiring plans and evidence that the business will grow sufficiently to support a beneficiary in the 
proposed position. 
Here, the Director's decision reflects that she properly considered the totality of the evidence to 
determine whether the Petitioner met its burden to show that it would have a reasonable need for the 
Beneficiary to primarily perform the claimed managerial or executive duties within one year. For 
the additional reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not met this burden. 
B. Projected Staffing and Business Plan 
As noted, the totality of the evidence must be considered in analyzing whether the proposed duties 
are plausible considering a petitioner's anticipated staffing levels and stage of development within a 
one-year period. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
As a preliminary matter, we note that the Petitioner's business plan is predicated on the acquisition 
of an existing grocery store known as and the expansion of the retail grocery 
business to include a wholesale business, a food court, and online sales. The Petitioner indicates that 
its majority-owned subsidiary, was in the "final stage" of acquiring the assets of 
and submitted a "Purchase of Business Agreement" signed on December 17, 2017 . The 
purchase agreement indicated that the closing date for the $600,000 purchase would be on January 
15, 2018, but the Petitioner did not submit evidence that the purchase was completed or that funds 
were paid to the seller as of the date of filing on January 18, 2018. 
Later, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a lease agreement for the grocery store's 
retail premises signed by in March 2018, but this evidence alone is insufficient to show that the 
purchase was completed according to the terms of the purchase agreement. Therefore, while our 
discussion below is based on an assumption that the Petitioner owns a majority interest in the . 
5 
.
Matter of S- LLC 
which, in tum, owns and operates the we note that there are omissions in the 
record regarding the completion of the store purchase . The Petitioner did not provide any additional 
evidence demonstrating that was operating the store at the time of the RFE response. This is 
relevant because the Petitioner's business plan is based on an assumption that would 
immediately take over the operation of the store and move forward with its hiring and expansion 
plans. 
On the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker , the Petitioner stated that it had five 
employees . In a supporting letter, the Petitioner clarified that would be retaining the five 
current employees and would recruit a "new manager and cashiers ," with the expectation that it 
would employ IO workers by the end of 2018 . The organizational chart submitted at the time of 
filing indicated that the Beneficiary would serve as the Petitioner's president and as the general 
manager of with responsibility for overseeing the store manager. The 
other grocery store employees included a produce manager, a grocery manager, a produce stocker, 
and two cashiers. The Petitioner also submitted an IRS Form 941, Employer 's Quarterly Federal 
. Tax Return, showing that · employed six workers and paid $17,354 in salaries 
and wages during the third quarter of 2017 . The Petitioner did not provide updated information 
regarding current staffing in response to the RFE, nor did it provide evidence that the 
employees were transferred to payroll. 
The Petitioner's business plan indicates its intent to invest $200,000 on inventory, obtain new 
supplier agreements, adjust product offerings to meet customer demand, hire a professional manager, 
and to engage in more aggressive marketing and promotional efforts . The business plan also 
mentions that it intends to adopt new technology for online ordering for in-store pickup and to 
expand to wholesale of goods to restaurants. The business plan included a recruitment plan for 2018 
which indicated that the Petitioner would hire a store manager, grocery supervisor and two cashiers 
in March 2018, and an office secretary in June 2018. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted an organizational chart that reflected cuiTent staff as 
of March 2018, and intended hiring for 2018 and 2019 . This chart indicates that the Beneficiary 
would directly supervise the existing store manager, an office secretary to be hired later in 2018, and 
an assistant manager who would be hired in 2019. The store manager 's subordinates include a 
produce manager, four cashiers (two current and two to be hired in 2018), a grocery supervisor to be 
hired in 2018, and two buyers to be hired in 2019. The chart includes a produce stocker who reports 
to the produce manager. Finally the chart includes a wholesale line of business projected to start in 
2019, a food court slated tq open in 2019, and "more stockers (if necessary)" to be hired in 2019. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and 
"function managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers are 
required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees. Contrary to the common understanding of the word "manager," the statute 
plainly states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial capaci.ty 
merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties un_less the employees supervised are 
6 
.
Maller ofS- LLC 
professional." 2 Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. If a beneficiary directly supervises other 
employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or 
recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(J). 
The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary would be a function manager, but does indicate 
that he is authorized to hire and fire employees and that he would supervise subordinates with 
managerial job titles. Based on a review of the Petitioner's organizational charts and business plan, 
the Petitioner's staff at the end of the first year would include a store manager, a produce manager, a 
grocery supervisor, a produce stocker, four cashiers, and an office secretary . However, we note that 
the Petitioner has not sufficiently documented the store's existing staff, stated whether they will 
work full-time or part-time, or shown that these staff were transferred to payroll as part of the 
store acquisition. 
The Petitioner indicates that the store manager would supervise the cashiers and the produce and 
grocery departments, and that he would decide on pricing policies, prepare sales reports, and oversee 
the day-to-day retail operations. However, it also indicates that the store manager would "arrange 
stocking and display in the store." The Petitioner has no other current or proposed employee whose 
duties include performing stock-related duties other than a produce stocker. In fact, the Petitioner 
does not claim it will hire any grocery stocking employees until 2019. Therefore, while the store 
manager likely performs some supervisory functions it is unclear whether he could singlehandedly 
supervise the store's day-to-day operations while also having to perform routine stocking duties . 
Similarly, the Petitioner states that the produce manager "supervises sales of fresh produce, 
including meats, seafood, vegetable and fruits" but the Petitioner provided evidence that it has a 
standalone seafood and meat counter in its store and only one subordinate employee in the entire 
department, with no plans to hire additional staff The Petitioner has not shown that one subordinate 
employee is able to perform all non-qualifying duties associated with the handling of meat, seafood, 
and fresh produce, such that the produce manager would be performing the supervisory duties of the 
department. Finally, the Petitioner indicates that the proposed grocery supervisor position will 
"manage grocery sales in the store," check quality of "grocery, appliances and general products," 
and monitor grocery inventory . The Petitioner indicates that he will eventually manage wholesale 
orders, fulfillment of online orders, and supervise buyers and other employees, but these employees 
would not be hired within one year. It is more likely than not that the position will be primarily 
responsible for purchasing inventory for the store . 
2 In evaluating 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 IO l (a)(32) of the Act, states that "[t]he term pr(?{ession 
shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons , and teachers in elementary or 
secondary schools , colleges, academies , or seminaries ." Here, the Petitioner indicated that the store manager has a 
"college" education, but did not establish that the position requires a degree or that the employee who holds the position 
has a bachelor 's degree . 
Matter of S- LLC 
Although the Beneficiary would be supervising one employee with supervisory duties, the Petitioner 
has ·not shown that he would be primarily supervising subordinate staff within one year, or that the 
subordinate staff would sufficiently relieve him from significant involvement in the store's-day-to­
day operations. The evidence must substantiate that the duties of a beneficiary and his or her 
subordinates correspond to their placement in an organization's structural hierarchy. Here, the 
evidence shows that the Beneficiary's subordinates would more likely than not perform the actual 
day-to-day tasks of operating the grocery store. While the store manager may be available to relieve 
the Beneficiary from performing some first-line supervisory duties, the record does not establish that 
one subordinate supervisor would be sufficient to remove the Beneficiary from involvement in the 
store's non-managerial functions. 
The Petitioner has also claimed that the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity. The 
statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position within a 
complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the organization, and 
that person's authority to direct the organization. Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. Under the 
statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" and "establish the goals and 
policies" of that organization. Inherent to the definition, the organization must have a subordinate 
level of managerial emplo.yees for a beneficiary to direct and they must primarily focus on the broad 
goals and policies of the organization rather than the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. An 
individual will not be deemed a~executive under the statute simply because they have an executive 
title or because they "direct" the enterprise as the owner or sole managerial employee. 
As noted, the Petitioner submitted a broad description of the Beneficiary's duties that merely 
paraphrases the statutory definition of executive capacity. It has neither defined his actual proposed 
duties in sufficient detail, nor adequately explained how the proposed staffing levels would allow 
him to primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the company within one year. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Director did not consider the significant financial 
investment made to purchase the store and the Petitioner's reasonable need to transfer a manager or 
executive to oversee that substantial investment. Section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act requires us to 
"take into account the reasonable needs Qf the organization, component, or function in light of the 
overall purpose and stage of development of the organization, co~ponent, or function." However, 
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. Cherto.ff, 531 F .3d 1063, 1070 n.10 (9th Cir. 2008). 
The Petitioner, through its subsidiary, would be operating a 21,000 square foot store with expected 
sales of over $3 million. The Petitioner did not state its operating hours but it is reasonable to 
believe that the store is open for business daily and has extended hours well beyond a typical 40 hour 
workweek. The Petitioner has not explained how a store manager, an office secretary, a grocery 
supervisor, two produce department employees, and four cashiers would be able to relieve the 
Beneficiary from involvement in the day-to-day duties of a business of this size and nature. Further, 
as noted, the Petitioner has not supported its claim that it retained the previous owner's employees or 
provided evidence of wages paid to them by AGS. 
8 
.
Matter of S- LLC 
The Petitioner emphasizes that it has a warehouse/stockroom, a fresh produce department, meat and 
seafood department, grocery, appliances, and frozen foods, and an office. [t does not intend to hire 
stock personnel during its first year of operations and instead indicates that the store manager would 
perfonn this function. Further, the Petitioner does not explain who will manage the store during the 
hours when the store manager is not available or is occupied with stocking duties. For these reasons, 
we agree with the Director's conclusion that the record contains insufficient evidence to show that 
the Beneficiary would be removed from significant involvement in the day-to-day operations of the 
company by the end of the first year. 
The Petitioner has consistently stated that the Beneficiary will occupy the senior position in its new 
office, but has not submitted a job description or supporting evidence sufficient to demonstrate that 
he would primarily engage in managerial or executive duties, or that the new office would support a 
managerial or executive position, after the initial year of operations. 
IV. PHYSlCAL PREMISES 
Although not addressed in the Director's decision , we find that the Petitioner submitted insufficient 
evidence to establish that it had secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office as ~f 
the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A) . · 
On the Form 1-129, the Petitioner provided a mailing address in Texas and stated that the 
Beneficiary would work at that address. The Petitioner provided the same address where asked to 
indicate the Beneficiary's current residential U.S. address. In the RFE, the Director requested that 
the Petitioner provide a lease agreement or other evidence to satisfy the physical premises 
requirement. / 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a commercial lease for the grocery store located in 
Texas, but this lease was signed by the Petitioner's subsidiary, , nearly two months 
after the petition was filed. 
The Petitioner also submitted a "Property Usage Agreement" signed by the Beneficiary on behalf of 
the Petitioner and on January 1, 2018. This agreement indicates that . as 
"owner" of the property located at Texas, gave the 
Petitioner the right to use its premises on a month-to-month basis beginning on January 10, 2018. 
The Petitioner attached a commercial sublease indicating that was leasing office 
and warehouse space at this address from another company and was authorized to use it through 
August 2018. 
The Petitioner did not explain why it indicated on the Fonn 1-129 that the Beneficiary would work 
from his home address in , Texas. Nor did it explain why it did not provide the Houston 
address on the Fonn 1-129 if it had in fact secured the use of a commercial space prior to the filing of 
the petition on January 18, 2018 . The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Maller of Ho, 19 J&N Dec. 582, 
591-92 (BIA 1988). Absent some explanation or additional evidence that the Petitioner actually 
9 
Matter of S- LLC 
occupied the Houston location, we find the "Property Usage Agreement," insufficient to meet the 
Petitioner's burden of proof to show that it had secured sufficient physical premises as of the date of 
filing. For this additional reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed as the Petitioner has not established that it would employ the 
Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity within one year, or that it had secured sufficient 
physical premises to house its new office as of the date it filed the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS- LLC, ID# 1699828 (AAO Nov. 8, 2018) 
\ 
10