dismissed L-1A Case: Heavy Equipment

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OFT-USA, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 30, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITlON FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a purchaser and seller of heavy equipment, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as president and chief executive officer of its new office
1 
under theL-IA nonimmigrant classification 
for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section IOI(a)(IS)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § II Ol(a)(IS)(L). The L-1 A classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including 
its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to work 
temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Qirector of the California Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. In 
addition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that it had secured suf1icient 
physical premises to launch its business. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director overlooked the Beneficiary's detailed foreign 
duties and contends that they establish he acts in a managerial capacity. The Petitioner also states 
that it has secured sufficient physical space to begin its operations. 
Upon de novo review, the appeal will be dismissed as the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. We also conclude that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the 
United States within one year of the petition. We will, however, withdraw the Director's finding 
with respect to whether the Petitioner secured sufficient physical premises to launch its business. 2 
1 The term "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one 
year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(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. 
2 We conclude that the Pelitioner has submitted adequate evidence to establish that it more likely than not acquired 
sufficient physical premises to launch its business. In denying the petition on this ground, the Director appeared to 
suggest that the Pelitioner must have warehouse space to support its proposed heavy machinery purchasing business as 
of the date of the petition. We disagree, and conclude lhat the Petitioner has established that it has arranged for sufficient 
office space to begin its initial operations. 
Mauer <ifT-USA. Inc. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for theL-IA nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving a new 
office, a qualifying organization must have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). In addition, the beneficiary must 
seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. !d. 
The petition~r must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new oftice will be able to support a 
managerial or executive position within one year. This evidence must establish that the petitioner 
secured suflicient 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. MANAGERIAL CAPACITY WITH THE FOREIGN EMPLOYER 
We will first analyze whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary is employed abroad in a 
managerial capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary is employed abroad in an 
executive capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary has been 
employed abroad 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 foreign 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 foreign employer's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's 
foreign subordinates, the presence of foreign employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing 
operational duties, the nature of the foreign business, and_ any other factors that will contribute to 
understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role abroad. Accordingly, we will discuss evidence 
regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of the nature of the foreign employer's 
business, its staffing levels, and its organizationa! structure. 
2 
Mal/er ofT-USA. Inc. 
A. Duties 
Based on the definition of managerial capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the Beneficiary 
performs 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 is 
primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the 
foreign employer's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 
2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's foreign employer provides "heavy equipment trading, 
engineering, procurement, construction management, operation services, consultant [sic J and 
solution and R&D for off shore and inshore industries." The Petitioner indicated that the 
Beneficiary acts as general manager abroad emphasizing that "he has extensive experience in the 
business of sourcing and resale of used and reconditioned heavy machinery and construction 
equipment." The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary is tasked with overseeing supervisors of 
three main components of its business, or procurement, "workshop," and sales operations. 
The Petitioner submitted the following duty description for the Beneficiary: 
All organizations have specific goals and objectives that they strive to meet. [The 
Beneficiary's J duty has been to devise strategies and formulate policies to ensure that 
these objectives were met, specifically in the business development, marketing and 
sales. Working with his executive staff, he sets goals and arranged [sic] program and 
develops strategies to attain these goals. He was responsible for the appointment of 
subordinate department heads, who in turn manage the functions and the employees 
how carry out the programs. He also oversees budgets and ensures that resources are 
used properly and that programs were carried out as planned. To do all of these 
varied tasks effectively, he has supervised and relied on the execution of his orders by 
his staff of highly skilled, personally selected, personnel. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's resume which also detailed the Beneficiary's 
foreign duties. The resume indicated that he was tasked with "developing and executing ... business 
strategies," "providing strategic advice," "preparing and implementing comprehensive business 
plans," "implementing company policy," "developing strategic plans," "controlling finance," and 
"developing, setting and reviewing Key Performance Indicators." 
The Petitioner also provided an explanation of the Beneficiary's typical workday abroad, noting that 
his day begins with reviewing emails "consist[ing] of communications from executives," 
"governmental agencies," and "heads of his departments." It indicated that the Beneficiary typically 
spends one to two hours responding to these emails. It further explained that the Beneficiary spends 
about an hour "reviewing sales and marketing reports" and another hour "reviewing financial 
reports." In addition, it stated that the Beneficiary holds 30 minute to one hour meetings with each 
of his department heads "concerning issues that might have arisen, new business and strategic 
3 
Mauer ofT-USA. Inc. 
planning."' It also indicated that the Beneficiary then reviews his meeting notes and prepares "the 
appropriate assignments and orders for each department head in email," further noting that he has 
human resources "prepare [his orders] in a hard copy format memo." Lastly, the Petitioner 
explained that the Beneficiary spends another hour "maintaining communication and developing 
relationships with professionals [and] industry captains." 
The Petitioner has· not submitted a sufficiently detailed duty description that describes the 
Beneficiary's day-to-day managerial-level duties abroad or that credibly establishes that he devotes 
his time primarily to qualifying tasks. The Beneticiary's duty description includes several generic 
duties that could apply to any manager acting in any business or industry and they do not provide 
insight into the actual nature of his role abroad. In fact, the Beneficiary's duties do not mention the 
foreign employer's specific business, the acquisition and sale of heavy machinery. The Petitioner 
provided insufficient examples and little supporting documentation to demonstrate the Beneficiary's 
performance of qualifying duties abroad, such as strategies or policies he formulated, objectives he 
set, business development, marketing, or sales he directed, budgets he oversaw, or goals or programs 
he arranged. · Further, the Petitioner has not articulated or substantiated strategic advice the 
Beneficiary provided, comprehensive business plans ·he implemented, or "Key Performance 
Indicators" he developed. This lack of detail is particularly noteworthy since the Petitioner asserts 
that the Beneficiary has been acting as general manager of the foreign employer since 20 I 0. 
Likewise, the description of the Beneficiary's daily routine abroad also provides little insight into his 
actual managerial role. Again, the daily routine sets forth tasks that could apply to any manager in 
any business, such as reviewing and responding to emails from executives, governmental agencies, 
or department heads. The Petitioner offers other similarly vague tasks such as, reviewing sales and 
marketing and finance reports, conducting daily meetings with department heads, issuing 
"appropriate assignments and orders," and "developing relationships with professionals." ·The 
Petitioner does not effectively articulate or document executives he communicated with, marketing 
he reviewed, financial decisions he made, assignments or orders he issued, or relationships he 
developed. In fact, the Petitioner emphasizes the Beneficiary's email communication with other 
executives and department heads, including written memos of his orders, yet it provides none of this 
documentary evidence. Specifics arc 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 of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co, Ltd v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. II 03, 
1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), af{'d, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
In contrast, the Petitioner provides foreign em.ployer documentation indicating the Beneticiary' s 
involvement in non-qualifying operational level duties. For instance, the Petitioner submitted 
several invoices dating from 2013 to 2016 which include the Beneficiary's name as a contact. The 
Petitioner also provided a number of documents reflecting the company's bid for heavy machinery at 
auction, almost all of which include the Beneficiary's name. Further, the Petitioner emphasizes that 
the Beneficiary previously worked as a procurement manager with the foreign employer and points 
to his extensive experience in the sourcing and resale of used and reconditioned heavy machinery 
and construction equipment. As such, to the extent that the Petitioner provides detail regarding the 
4 
Mauer '!fT-USA. Inc. 
Beneficiary's duties, this evidence reflects his involvement in non-qualifying operational tasks. 
However, the record includes little evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary delegates these non­
qualifying duties to his subordinates. 
Whether the Beneficiary is a managerial employee turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained its 
burden of proving that their duties are "primarily" managerial. See sections 101 (a)( 44)(A) and (B) 
of the Act. Here; the Petitioner does not document what proportion of the Beneficiary's duties 
would be managerial functions and what proportion would be non-qualifying. The Petitioner 
submits evidence indicating the Beneficiary's involvement in operational level tasks that do not fall 
directly under managerial duties as defined in the statute, but does not quantify the time he spends on 
these duties. For this reason, we cannot determine whether the Beneficiary is primarily performing 
the duties of a manager. See IKEA US, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of.Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 
1999). -
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the foreign employer, the fact that he 
manages or directs the business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an 
intracompany transferee in a managerial capacity within the meaning of section 10l(a)(44) of the 
Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a foreign position be 
"primarily" managerial in nature. Sections 10l(A)(44)(B) of the Act. The Beneficiary may exercise 
discretion over the foreign employer's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of 
authority with respect to discretionary decision-making; however, the position descriptions alone are 
insufticient to establish that his actual duties abroad are primarily managerial in nature. 
B. Stalling 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart retlecting that the Beneficiary oversees an assistant 
manager, a technical manager, a procurement employee, a workshop manager, and a logistics 
employee. In tum, the technical manager is shown to supervise a mechanic and two general labor 
employees and the workshop manager an electrician and two weld.,:rs. In addition, the chart 
reflected that the assistant manager supervises a human resources employee, "accounting," and 
"sales marketing." Some of the Beneficiary's subordinates are shown to fulfill multiple roles: for 
instance, the employee devoted to human resources is shown to also focus on accounting, while the 
assistant manager is reflected as working in accounting, sales and marketing, and procurement. Yet 
another employee is also shown to divide her role between procurement and sales and marketing. 
In a support letter, the foreign employer emphasized that the Beneficiary supervises four components 
each headed by a manager possessing a required bachelor's degree. These managers and 
components included the assistant manager, procure~ent and sales and marketing, accounting and 
human resources, and a technical manager. 
The Petitioner asserts· that the Beneficiary acts as a personnel manager overseeing subordinate 
managers and professionals. The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both 
"personnel managers" and "function managers." See section IOI(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 
5 
Maller ofT-USA, Inc. 
Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, 
professional, or managerial employees. Contrary to the common understanding of the word 
"manager," the. statute plainly states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a 
managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees 
supervised are professional." 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(1)(1 )(ii)(B)(J). 
The Petitioner has provided conflicting statements regarding the Beneficiary's subordinate managers 
and professionals leaving question as to the foreign employer's actual organizational structure. In 
support of the petition, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary supervises three main 
components of the business, including procurement, workshop, and sales operations. However, in 
another support letter the foreign employer stated that the Beneficiary oversees four major 
components: assistant manager, procurement and sales· and marketing, accounting and human 
resources, and a technical manager. Further, the submitted foreign organizational chart reflects that 
the Beneficiary oversees five differing components, including the assistant manager, technical 
manager, procurement, a workshop manager, and "logistics." The foreign employer also indicated 
that two of the Beneficiary's subordinate managers are a procurement and sales and marketing 
employee and a "department head" devoted to accounting and human resources. However, in the 
provided foreign employer organizational charts, neither of these employees are shown to oversee 
subordinates or departments. ' 
The Petitioner also submits conflicting payroll and financial documentation leaving question as to 
the foreign entity's employees and organizational structure. For instance, the Petitioner provided an 
audited 2017 financial statement for the fiscal year running from March 2016 to March 2017. The 
financial statement indicated that the foreign employer paid $188,525 in wages during that year, 
while submitted foreign payroll documentation for this same period reflects that the company paid 
$200,500 in wages. Likewise, the Petitioner also submits a foreign employer audited financial 
statement covering April 2017 through September 2017 indicating that the company paid $123,500 
in wages during this period. In contrast, provided payroll documentation for this same period 
reflects that the foreign employer paid $151,808 in wages. These discrepancies leave question as to 
tli.e actual nature of the foreign employer's organizational structure and whether the Beneficiary 
oversees managerial and professional subordinates. The Petitioner must resolve the discrepancies in 
the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Maller of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Furthermore, similar to the Beneficiary's duties, the Petitioner provides duty descriptions for the 
Beneficiary's asserted foreign managers and professionals that are vague and which do not convey 
their actual day-to-day activities. For instance, the Petitioner submitted a resume for the 
Beneficiary's asserted assistant manager stating that she is tasked with "planning and implementing 
strategies to attract customers," coordinating "daily customer service operations" such as orders and 
payments, tracking annual objectives, handling complaints from customers, and researching 
6 
Mauer ofT-USA, Inc. 
emerging products. However, these stated duties give little indication as to her actual day-to-day 
managerial tasks and provide little meaningful detail, such as strategies she implemented, customers 
she attracted, annual objectives she tracks, customer complaints she resolved, and new products she 
researched. Also, the duties mention the assistant manager's coaching and support of "new and 
existing Sales associates"; however, the foreign organizational chart and other documentation does 
not indicate that the foreign employer has sales associates. The assistant manager's duties also 
indicate her involvement with orders, payments, tracking, customer complaints, and product 
research, while the organizational chart further shows her engagement in procurement, accounting, 
and sales and marketing. The duties include little discussion of personnel management 
responsibilities. Therefore, the assistant manager's duties do not credibly establish that she acts as a 
manager or professional subordinate to the Beneficiary. 
Likewise, the duties of the asserted "procurement and sales/marketing" manager are also not 
managerial or professional in nature. First, the foreign organizational chart does not reflect that this 
claimed manager has any subordinates. Further, the "procurement and sales/marketing" manager's 
duties include various operational level tasks not reflective of a managerial or professional position, 
such as tracking orders, contacting suppliers about orders and deliveries, preparing purchase orders, 
and tracking inventory. The Petitioner also states that the "procurement and sales/marketing" 
manager qualifies as a professional, due to her holding a foreign bachelor's degree in law3 
However, again, the duties of this position do not appear to require a bachelor's degree. In addition, 
the "procurement and sales/marketing" manager's law degree appears to be wholly unrelated to her 
duties, indicating that this degree is not required for the position. The Petitioner also does not 
document that this claimed professional holds a bachelor's degree in law. 
The foreign employer also described the "accountant and HR" employee as a "department head" 
subordinate to the 'Beneficiary; but yet again, the submitted foreign organizational chart does not 
indicate that this employee oversees any subordinates and her duty description does not discuss 
personnel management responsibilities. In fact, the duties of this asserted subordinate include a 
number of operational level tasks that are not reflective of a manager or professional, such as 
performing accounts payable, managing vendor accounts, creating "budgets and forecasts," and 
coordinating payroll. The foreign employer also asserts that the "accountant and 1-IR" employee 
holds a foreign bachelor's degree in industrial engineering. Again, the Petitioner does not 
substantiate this employee's degree with supporting documentation. Further, it is not apparent how a 
bachelor's degree in industrial engineering would be a prerequisite to performing various 
bookkeeping and accounting duties and the Petitioner does not sufficiently articulate why the 
"accountant and HR" position subordinate to the Beneficiary is professional. 
3 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 I 0 I (a)(32) of the Act, states that "[t]he term profession 
shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, .lawyers, physicians, surgeons. and teachers in elementary or 
secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." 
Mauer ofT-USA, Inc. 
Furthennore, the Petitioner indicates that the technical manager is tasked with "all aspects of 
maintenance, repair, accountability/documentation, and overall readiness of a tleet of approximately 
125 pieces." The Petitioner states that the technical manager is responsible for coordinating with 
field supervisors, establishing relationships with parts and service vendors, developing a 
maintenance tracking system and spare parts inventory, and creating an acquisition system. The 
foreign organizational chart asserts that the technical manager oversees a mechanic and two general 
laborers; however, it does not retlect the "field supervisors" referenced in his duties. The technical 
manager's duties again indicate that he is mostly involved with day-to-day operational level tasks, 
including "all aspects" of the company's t1eet, rather than personnel management tasks. Indeed, the 
management of personnel is not mentioned in his duty description, beyond the unexplained "field 
supervisors" who do not appear in the foreign organizational chart. In addition, the technical 
manager does not appear to qualify as a professional as he is asserted to hold only an associate's 
degree in electronics. The Petitioner also does not articulate why the technical manager position 
should be deemed professional as defined by the regulations. 
Lastly, as discussed, the submitted foreign organizational chart also indicated that the Beneficiary 
supervised a workshop manager and a logistics manager; however, the Petitioner did not provide 
duty descriptions to substantiate these claimed managerial employees. In sum, the Petitioner has not 
submitted sufficiently detailed. and credible duty descriptions tor the Beneficiary's claimed 
managerial and professional subordinates, and has not supported its claim that he was employed in a 
managerial capacity based on his supervision of managers and professionals. 
In conclusion, the Petitioner has not sufficiently described the Beneficiary's day-to-day duties 
abroad and the record includes substantial evidence indicating his involvement with non-qualifying 
operational tasks. The Petitioner has not corroborated that the Beneficiary is primarily removed 
from perfonning non-qualifying operational duties in his capacity abroad. In addition, the Petitioner 
has not properly substantiated, as claimed, that the Beneficiary supervises managers and 
professionals abroad. As such, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is employed 
abroad in a managerial capacity. For these reasons, the appeal must be dismissed. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
We will also enter an additional basis tor denial. The Petitioner also did not establish that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States withiri one 
year of an approval of the petition. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would act as president of the new company in the United 
States and oversee its initial set up and operations. The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary 
would "develop company strategy," "monitor the progress of projects," "effect capital commitments 
as necessary," and hire employees. It further explained that the Beneficiary would "review and 
coordinate installation, operations, or iron out problems," "define and implement complete employee 
packages and incentives," and "review new service proposals and marketing goals." 
8 
Matter ofT- USA. Inc. 
The Beneficiary's U.S. duty description also includes several generic duties that could apply to any" 
manager or executive acting in any business or industry; such duties do not provide insight into the 
actual nature of his role. The Petitioner provided few specifics related to how the Beneficiary's day­
to-day duties fit specifically within the company's first year business plans. For instance, the 
Petitioner did not specify the actions the Beneficiary would take during its first year of operation to 
assure that it develops as necessary to support him in a managerial or executive capacity within one 
year. In fact, the Beneficiary's duty description includes no mention of the company's intended 
business, the purchase and sale of heavy machinery. The Petitioner also submits few examples of 
strategies he would develop, projects he would monitor, capital he would manage, installation he 
would coordinate, problems he would deal with, employee packages he would detine, or marketing 
goals he would review. 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 of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108. 
Further, the Petitioner's first year business and investment plans do not adequately demonstrate that 
it would likely support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity within one year. The. 
evidence indicates that the Petitioner will be engaged in the purchase of heavy machinery in the 
United States, including attending auctions for this ·purpose. The Petitioner provided evidence 
demonstrating that the foreign employer committed $150,000 to the new venture, including $70,000 
allocated to "inventory purchase." However, it is not clear how a $70,000 investment in the 
purchase of heavy machinery is sufficient to launch the business, as it does not appear sufficient to 
buy a meaningful amount of heavy machinery. Further, the Petitioner's projections assert that it will 
garner revenue to support its business within three months, including paying all wages, but given its 
limited resources, it is not clear how it will earn this revenue. 
The Petitioner also projects it will hire eight employees in addition to the Beneficiary within the first 
year. However, submitted financial projections indicate that the Petitioner allocated only $35,000 to 
wages in the last quarter of its first year of operation. Taking into account the Beneficiary's salary 
of $60,000, or $15,000 per quarter, this would leave only $20,000 to pay nine other employees, 
including an operations manager, an accountant/financial manager, an administrative assistant, two 
mechanical technicians, a buyer, two general workers, and a logistics expeditor. The Petitioner also 
did not provide proposed salaries for these employees to determine if its hiring of this many 
employees during the first year was plausible. In fact, the Petitioner submits a conflicting business 
plan and organizational chart from December 2016, indicating that it would only hire an 
administrative assistant, a "purchasing manager," and a mechanic during the first year. Finally, the 
Petitioner does not submit detailed duty descriptions for the Beneficiary's proposed subordinates to 
demonstrate how they would relieve him, if hired, from primarily performing non-qualifying duties 
within the first year. 
Therefore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would be employed m a 
managerial or executive capacity in the United States within one year. 
9 
Mauer ofT-USA, Inc. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the record does not include sufficient evidence establishing 
that the Beneficiary is employed in a managerial capacity with the foreign employer or that he would 
be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the Uni!ed States within one year. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Malter ofT-USA. Inc., ID# 1233711 (AAO May 30, 2018) 
10