dismissed L-1A Case: Import And Trading

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5847111 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 19, 2019 
The Petitioner, describing itself as an import and trading business specializing in PVC piping, seeks to 
continue to temporarily employ the Beneficiary in the United States as its president and chief executive 
officer under the L-lA nonimrnigrant classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity in his 
former capacity abroad. The Director further determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director abused her discretion by concluding that the 
Beneficiary's U.S. and foreign duties were not sufficiently detailed. The Petitioner contends the 
regulations do not require that it submit a detailed duty description, nor do they indicate what 
represents a sufficient description. The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary's duties are sufficiently 
specific and that she would be primarily relieved from perfonning non-qualifying operational duties. 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary would qualify as an executive in the United States. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification , a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial , executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary must 
seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. The petitioner 
must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or her 
to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The first issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. The Petitioner does not claim 
that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis 
to whether the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity. 
"Executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization; 
establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; exercises wide latitude 
in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. Section 101 (a)( 44 )(B) of the 
Act. 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the regulations do not require it to submit a detailed job duty 
description and contends that the regulations do not define such a description. Although we 
acknowledge that the regulations do not specifically codify a detailed duty description, if this is 
possible given the variety of beneficiaries and industries that may apply for the L-lA nonimmigrant 
benefit, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) has long assessed the credibility 
of a beneficiary's duties to assess their eligibility. 
When examining the executive 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 an executive 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. 
A. Duties 
Based on the definition of 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 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 1533. 
In a support letter, the Petitioner stated that it "offers a premier location for unparalleled logistical 
support and infrastructure" and that it had been "approved to transact business in Florida as part of a 
collaborative partnership with a local PVC manufacturer and supplier." The Director later issued a 
request for evidence (RFE) asking for a more detailed duty description for the Beneficiary; namely, 
one that described her day-to-day executive level duties. In response, the Petitioner indicated that the 
2 
Beneficiary was responsible for and performed the following tasks, which it organized into various 
categories: 
A. Setting goals, policies and priorities of the Petitioner's business development (30%) 
• Exercises leadership in setting goals, policies and priorities, 
• Sets vision and judgement to pace development, 
• Reviews petitions from subordinate managers on different products and new 
customers, 
• Makes executive decisions on new business development, 
• Grooms her potential successor to be able to see the big picture and have the 
capacity to make top level executive decisions, 
• Considers expanding the business by partnering with others, 
• Decides on timing of entering new fields and lines of business, 
• Sets policies on human resources, or more appropriately for the business, 
• Leads by motivating the managers, especially when sometimes she has to rebuff 
some of their proposals, 
B. Key personnel decisions and organizational development (30%) 
• Serves the Petitioner and its foreign affiliate as a whole when assessmg the 
Petitioner's operations, 
• Directs and evaluates managers and professional staff: 
• Push forward organizational development in line with business expansion, 
• Exercise complete discretion in personnel decisions such as hiring, firing and 
giving bonuses, 
C. Make decisions on resources allocation (30%) 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Exercise executive duties in resources allocation, set priont1es of business 
development and the important aspect of resource allocation, 
Allocates resources to achieve the already decided business and organizational 
development objectives, 
Boldly decided to position warehousing resources in Florida increasing sales from 
$3.6 million in 2017 to $5.7 in 2018 by factoring in other positive factors, 
Decided to actively explore new products such as Acrylic sheeting, an executive 
decision that had direct and major impact on the Petitioner's bottom line, 
In the coming years, make similar executive decisions on allocating resources in 
support of business development, product development and organizational 
development, 
Take in advice, date and projection from managers and make final decisions and 
make changes along the way, 
Allocate budget and personnel to make the next phase of development a successful 
one, 
• Act like a general who takes in business intelligence reported by managers and 
professional staff and make decisions on critical resources allocation so the 
organization keeps moving in the right direction in terms of growing our business 
based and making our company stronger and more capable, 
3 
D. Improve the risk and regulatory compliance system and direct business manager to 
implement it (10%) 
• Establish a risk control and regulatory compliance system, and 
• Hire lawyers to create a management system in compliance with the federal and 
state employment and labor laws. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Beneficiary's U.S. duty description was 
insufficient and overly broad and that it did not sufficiently demonstrate what she would do on a day­
to-day basis. The Director indicated that although the Petitioner had provided some details and 
examples, it did not sufficiently establish how executive-level responsibilities primarily occupied the 
Beneficiary's time. Despite its contention on appeal that a detailed description of the Beneficiary's 
duties is not required by the regulations, the Petitioner provides an additional daily routine for the 
Beneficiary setting forth some of the following tasks: 
9:30-10:00 am 
Attend to emails mostly from foreign entity deputy general manager reporting on prior 
day in China: work with foreign entity in servicing our clients in America, and rely on 
emails to have a firm grasp of activities and performance at the foreign entity. 
10:00 am- 12 pm 
Ad hoc meetings on new business development which involved manager at the 
Petitioner and foreign entity, rely on market intelligence on company's capacity and 
her business vision and took initiative to explore launching a newline of business 
involving Acrylic product: understanding that entering into a new sector of Acrylic 
product required investment into a new supply chain, move ahead notwithstanding 
uncertainty of new clients and without limited expertise in this sector, successfully 
secured a position in the sector and now this represents roughly 25% of the our sales. 
12:00-13 :30 
Lunch meeting with visiting clients, local business leaders: learning about the US 
business environment, HR management practice, anti-discrimination concepts, develop 
new business relationships, and they are also critical sources of the Beneficiary's ideas 
for business development strategies and organizational development initiatives. 
Working lunches with local bankers. 
13 :30-14:30 
Attend briefings on sales and business development, briefed by subordinate managers 
on sales and client payment status of Florida branch: focused on directing efforts and 
allocating resources to overcome unanticipated bumps and challenges, instruct 
managers on quality and business development to investigate underlying cause, 
exercise executive leadership to coordinate multiple department managers in China and 
the States to rectify the late-payment or order decreasing. 
14:30-16:00 
Ad hoc meeting on a major challenge facing our business. For example, in 2018, the 
US government increased tariff of Acrylic product and PVC products by 10% 
4 
respectively: exercised her leadership in navigating this uncharted water, on the 
supplier side, China-based managers worked with factories to find ways to lower costs 
and reduce prices, managers and Beneficiary through effective communication 
strategies persuaded clients to share a portion of the cost increase. 
16:00-16:30 
One-on-one conversation with manager[ s] to review performance and provide 
feedbacks and instructions for improvement: the Beneficiary worked with all middle 
managers closely and therefore was in a position to give concrete assessment of their 
skills and work ethics and productive suggestions for improvement. 
Despite providing a lengthy list of duties for the Beneficiary on the record, these descriptions are 
substantially generic and it has submitted little documentation to substantiate her actual day-to-day 
qualifying executive-level tasks. The Beneficiary's duty descriptions include several duties that could 
apply to any executive acting in any industry and they provide little insight into her actual day-to-day 
executive tasks. For instance, the Petitioner did not sufficiently detail or document the goals, policies, 
and priorities the Beneficiary set, the vision she established for the company, human resources policies 
she put in place, or business development initiatives she ordered. Likewise, it did not articulate or 
document organizational development she "pushed forward," research and development, marketing, 
logistics, sales and sourcing "operational infrastructure" she built, investment plans she created, and 
alliances and partnerships she built with other businesses. In addition, the Petitioner did not detail or 
substantiate with supporting evidence recommendations the Beneficiary made to improve policies and 
procedures, resources she allocated in support of business, organizational development, budget and 
personnel decisions she made, or risk control and regulatory compliance systems she established. 
In sum, the Beneficiary's duty descriptions, despite their length, included few credible examples of 
her actual executive-level tasks. This lack of detail and documentation is particularly questionable 
since the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary has been acting in her capacity as president and chief 
executive officer for over three years since December 2015. 1 Specifics are clearly an important 
indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive 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). 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted other information and documentation specific to the 
Beneficiary's activities, but we did not find this evidence sufficiently credible to establish that she 
would devote a majority of her time to executive-level tasks in the United States. For example, the 
Petitioner emphasized the Beneficiary's decision to enter the acrylic products market; however, the 
record includes little supporting documentation of the company's business operations in this claimed 
new business sector and insufficient specifics as to this asserted decision. For instance, the Petitioner 
states on appeal the Beneficiary's decision led to 25% of its sales being in acrylic products, but it 
provides no documentation to substantiate this assertion. Likewise, this claim lacks credibility as it 
includes little reasonable detail, such as how the business accomplished entering this new market, what 
investment was implemented to do so, or what vendors it worked with to acquire these products in the 
United States. In fact, the only supporting document provided by the Petitioner to substantiate this 
1 The petition was filed on August 30, 2018. 
5 
critical decision on the part of the Beneficiary are meeting notes provided on appeal from December 
2016. The Petitioner's submittal of this document is questionable, considering that in the duty 
description submitted in February 2019 it indicated that it had only 'just began" to "actively explore" 
such products. Similarly, these meetings minutes also lacked credible details as to the financial aspects 
of this decision or specific instructions provided by the Beneficiary to his managerial subordinates. 
For instance, the meeting minutes state that "the marketing team conducted full feasibility research 
for the supply chain of plastic products of mainland China, Taiwan, and other Asia area;" yet, these 
minutes did not indicate any of the results of these studies. The minutes only vaguely referenced a 
few vendors who sold these products, but there is no supporting evidence that the Petitioner has 
conducted business with them. 
The Petitioner also emphasized a decision on the part of the Beneficiary to establish "Florida 
warehousing" and noted that this led to a substantial increase in revenue. However, again, there is no 
supporting documentation on the record to corroborate that the Beneficiary actually made this 
executive level decision, the Petitioner has warehousing facilities in Florida, or this decision led to an 
asserted boost in revenue of approximately $2 million in 2018 as claimed. In fact, the Petitioner 
submitted evidence indicating that it only rented a small one room business suite for $500 per month, 
leaving further uncertainty as to its warehousing assertion. 
In addition, the Petitioner also points to the Beneficiary's executive decisions related to tariffs imposed 
by the United States on PVC and acrylic products. It also provided asserted meeting minutes from 
August 2018 it claims demonstrate the Beneficiary dealing with this crisis with her subordinate 
managers. However, the meeting minutes lacked credible detail, such as the actual financial impact 
to the business, specific clients this would impact, and who they would need to communicate with on 
this issue. Indeed, the Petitioner submitted a form letter dated in September 2018 generically 
addressed to "all extruded acrylic, cast acrylic and mirror acrylic customers" that includes no 
indication that it was signed or actually sent to clients. Again, as we have mentioned, it is also 
noteworthy that the Petitioner provided no evidence that it has been operating in the acrylic market as 
claimed. 
Lastly, the Petitioner also stated in the Beneficiary's claimed daily routine that they "rely on emails to 
have a firm grasp of activities and performance at the foreign entity." However, the Petitioner only 
submitted one asserted email from December 2016, three years prior to the date of the petition, from 
the Beneficiary to a claimed vendor. Otherwise, the record includes no supporting documentation to 
substantiate the Beneficiary's actual communication and delegation of duties to her claimed 
managerial subordinates, which it asserts takes place on a daily basis. In contrast, the Petitioner did 
submit several invoices reflecting the sale of PVC products to clients in the United States by the 
foreign entity in 2016. These invoices all included the Beneficiary's email address; however, none of 
the other submitted documentation on the record reflected her claimed subordinates performing these 
operational level tasks or her delegating these non-qualifying duties to her subordinates. Despite the 
Petitioner's assertions on appeal, a critical part of this adjudication is assessing the credibility of the 
Beneficiary's duties. In sum, although the Petitioner provided a few details regarding the Beneficiary 
executive-level decisions and duties, these specifics lacked credibility and were not supported with 
sufficient documentary evidence. 
6 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the organization, the fact that they will 
manage or direct a business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an 
intracompany transferee in an executive capacity within the meaning of section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a position be "primarily" 
executive in nature. Id. The Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day 
operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making; 
however, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that his actual duties would be 
primarily executive in nature. 
B. Staffing 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in an executive 
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. 
As noted, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has, and would, act in an executive capacity in the 
United States. 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 10l(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 beneficiary 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 an executive under the statute simply because they have 
an executive title or because they "direct" the enterprise as the owner or sole managerial employee. A 
beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision making" and receive only 
"general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders 
of the organization." Id. 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart indicating that the Beneficiary oversaw a chief 
financial officer, a business manager, and a marketing director. Further, the chart reflected that the 
business manager supervised a product developer, a logistic specialist, and two "independent 
contractor" sales representatives. It also showed that the marketing director supervised a market 
developer. In addition, the chart reflected, and the Petitioner emphasized throughout the record, that 
it was supported by foreign entity employees, including a deputy general manager overseeing two 
overseas business department managers, two business specialists, and a "business documentary" 
employee. 
First, the Petitioner provides no supporting documentation to corroborate that foreign employer 
employees are regularly utilized by the company to support it operations. Therefore, it has not 
sufficiently substantiated that they are part of the Petitioner's organizational structure or that they 
support its operations. See Matter ofZ-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 at 6 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). 
In addition, the Petitioner did not submit supporting documentation to corroborate the two claimed 
outside sales contractors and their level of engagement; or that they can be considered a part of its 
organizational structure. Without substantiation of these asserted operational level employees to 
support its operations, the supporting evidence only questionably reflects three managers within the 
7 
business, the Beneficiary, the business manager, and marketing director, but only two operational level 
employees; namely, the logistic specialist and the marketing developer. 
Further, similar to the Beneficiary's duty description, the Petitioner provided generic duty descriptions 
for her claimed subordinate managers that do not sufficiently substantiate that they act in their asserted 
roles. For instance, the Petitioner vaguely stated that the business manager would "implement the 
Beneficiary's vision to build a U.S.-based operational infrastructure supporting R&D, Marketing, 
Logistics, [and] Sales and Sourcing," build "strong contract R&D and manufacturing capacities in 
China and access to leading PVC technologies in the U.S.," "create investment plan[s] to promote 
further expansion," "build and maintain alliances and partnerships," "visit business customers," and 
analyze "work opportunities and weaknesses." First, the duties of the business manager largely 
overlap with the Beneficiary's claimed duties and it is questionable that the Petitioner would require 
two higher level managers performing the same duties given its apparent lack of operational level 
employees. Regardless, the asserted duties of the business manager were markedly non-specific and 
did not indicate the research and development, marketing, logistics, or sourcing infrastructure they 
built, the contracts in China they maintained, investment plans they implemented, alliances or 
partnerships they built, or opportunities or weaknesses they focused on. 
The Petitioner likewise provided generic duties for the claimed subordinate marketing director, 
vaguely indicating that he would be tasked with defining the "marketing strategy," identifying 
"customers and their current and future needs," identifying "short-term and long-range issues that must 
be addressed," recommending "options and courses of action," identifying U.S.-based industries 
where Petitioner products are needed, defining investment plans, and vetting business partners. 
However, yet again, this duty description lacks credible details such as the marketing strategies the 
marketing director defined, customers he identified, short and long term issues he addressed, courses 
of action he recommended, investment plans he defined, or business partners he vetted. Indeed, the 
duties of this claimed manager again appear rather similar to those of the Beneficiary. Therefore, in 
sum, the claimed duties of the Beneficiary's subordinate managers were not sufficiently detailed and 
credible to demonstrate their purported roles within the business. In light of this, the lack of evidence 
of supporting operational level employees, and the generic nature of the Beneficiary's duties, this 
leaves substantial uncertainty as to whether the Beneficiary has, and would, act within a complex 
organizational hierarchy and primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather 
than its day-to-day operations. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would act in an 
executive capacity in the United States under an extended petition. 
III. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAP A CITY 
The next issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary was employed 
in a managerial or executive capacity abroad prior to his entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant 
in 2015. Because of the dispositive effect of the above finding of ineligibility; namely, our affirmation 
of the Director's conclusion with respect to the Beneficiary's asserted executive capacity in the United 
States, we will only briefly address the remaining issue pertaining to his former employment abroad. 
8 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary was the founder of the foreign employer in 2007 and it 
its general manager from that time to December 2015, stating that the company was "mainly engaged 
in international supply and distribution of PVC products, such as PVC foam board, PVC grain board, 
PVC moulding [sic]." 
However, similar to the Beneficiary's claimed U.S. duties, her claimed duties abroad were also generic 
and overly broad. For instance, they listed many overly vague tasks, indicating that the Beneficiary 
had been responsible for directing the company's operations, preparing strategic policies, incubating 
new business models, launching new PVC products to promote the foreign employer's brand, setting 
the right priorities, turning "crisis into opportunity," setting a "clear direction for the company," 
amongst other generic duties. The Petitioner submitted few details and no documentation to 
substantiate the Beneficiary's duties and activities abroad from 2007 to 2015, such as crises she faced, 
direction she set for the company, resources she allocated, territories she "sailed [the company] into," 
adjustments she made to the organization, or new quality protocols and standards she established. This 
lack of detail is notable considering the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary was the founder of the 
foreign employer and is claimed to have acted in her role as sole owner and general manager for 
approximately eight years. Again, 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., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 
1103, 1108. 
With respect to the foreign employer organizational structure, the Petitioner provided a chart 
indicating that the Beneficiary oversaw an office manager, deputy general manager, and financial 
director, and that these subordinates supervised four subordinate supervisors responsible for a total of 
nine other operational level employees. However, the record includes little documentary evidence of 
the foreign employer's operations to substantiate that it supported this asserted organizational structure 
during the Beneficiary's claimed foreign employment. Likewise, there is no evidence of the 
Beneficiary performing her role abroad as general manager or her delegating duties to employees 
within its organizational structure. 
Lastly, in the RFE and in the denial decision, the Director emphasized that the Beneficiary reported in 
six Department of State Forms DS-160 from 2009 to 2015 that she worked forl I I lnot the foreign employer as claimed in the cu~tion. In response 
to the RFE, the Beneficiary submitted an affidavit stating that she had joinedl___Jin 1999, received 
a master's in business administration while employed there, and then was appointed as its general 
manager of international sales in 2004. The Beneficiary farther indicated that she later founded the 
foreign employer in 2007 and noted that I I owners and executives "folly supported my new 
venture by retaining [the foreign employer's] service for export agency and sales." She also explained 
that "there were occasions where I visited overseas customers or [we] attended international trade 
shows together, in which cases, when customers issued invitation letters, they understandably included 
me as I I personnel." In addition, the Beneficiary attested that "it was my oversight and 
innocent mistake to not take affirmative actions to correct travel agents using previously saved 
employer information in filling [out] DS 160 forms." 
In total, we did not find the affidavit sufficient to overcome the material discrepancies noted in the 
Director's RFE. As discussed in the RFE, the Beneficiary reported another foreign employer to the 
9 
Department of State on six separate occasions while supposedly employed with the foreign employer 
from 2007 to 2015. This, along with the lack of evidence of the Beneficiary's foreign employment 
abroad, leaves substantial uncertainty as to her claimed qualifying foreign employment in a managerial 
or executive capacity abroad. Further, the Petitioner and Beneficiary notably submitted no supporting 
documentation to substantiate any of the assertions made in her affidavit in response to the Director's 
RFE. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies and discrepancies in the record with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary acted in a managerial 
or executive capacity abroad. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in an executive capacity in the United States or that she was employed abroad in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10