dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Export

MATTER OF O-USA, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 8, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORN[A SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETlT[ON: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an import and export, hospitality, and tourism company, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as its general manager under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section I0I(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101 (a)( I 5)(L). The L-1 A classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its 
atliliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the Uniteq States to work 
temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center revoked the approval of the instant petition concluding 
that the Beneficiary would no longer be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary is the founder of the company and exercises 
overall control indicating that "it is our belief that the materials provided could [sic] fully evidence 
such facts." The Petitioner further states that operational tasks necessary to upgrade its vans are 
performed by other companies. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one contjnuous 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). 
Under U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations, the approval or"an L-lA 
petition may be revoked on notice under six specific circumstances. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 I 4.2(l)(9)(iii)(A). To properly revoke the approval of a petition, a director must issue a notice of 
Maiten?[ D-USA. Inc. 
intent to revoke that contains a detailed statement of the grounds for the revocation and the time 
period allowed for rebuttal. 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(l)(9)(iii)(B). 1 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in an executive capacity. Therefore, we will restrict our analysis to whether the 
Beneficiary would be employed 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 qr 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 
IOl(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
When examining the managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly describe the 
duties performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in a managerial capacity. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description of the job duties, we examine the 
company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the 
presence of other employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature 
of the business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual 
duties and role in a business. 
Accordingly, we will discuss evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of 
the nature of the Petitioner's business, its staffing levels, and its organizational structure. 
A. Duties 
Based on the definition of managerial capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the Beneficiary 
would 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 
would be primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities 
alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCJS, 469 F.3d I 313, 1316 (9th Cir. 
2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
1 The Director revoked the approved petition on April 11, 20 I 8. following the issuance of a notice of intent to revoke 
(NOIR) on January 29, 2018. The Director concluded that the statement of facts in the petition was not true and correct 
and the Beneficiary was no longer eligible for the nonlrinnigrant classification. See 8 C.F.R § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A)(2), (4}. 
2 
Mauer of D-USA, Inc. 
The Petitioner stated in support of the p~tition that it was engaged in "the trade business of wine, 
luxury vehicles, and furniture" and indicated that it hoped "to extend into the hospitality and tourism 
industry." The Petitioner explained that as general manager the Beneficiary was responsible for 
"business development, project development, and personnel management" and listed the following 
duties, amongst others: · 
• develop and maintain annual purchasing/procurement plan, including strategies 
· and tactics to achieve short and long term revenue objectives, 
• implement plans to take advantage of all relevant procurement opportunities for 
assigned custo_mers or region, 
• develop quarterly and annual revenue forecasts, 
• supervise the development of sales proposals, estimates, specifications, and 
presentations, 
• drive/coordinate new business across all product/service lines, 
• negotiate at the most senior client level on both technical and business issues, 
• review and approve annual roadmap for key accounts, 
• develop and deploy account strategies, 
• develop positioning for the tourism, [and] hospitality management services 
offered by the company, 
• establish strategic partners, and develop relationships with the objective of 
promoting [the] company's products/services, 
• review and approve original foundational product collateral and sales tools such 
as marketing documents, presentations, white papers, data sheets, brochures, Web 
qmtent, etc. 
• direct new service and solution launches, 
• make important personnel decisions, 
• interview, perform reference checks, and manage the employment process from 
recruitment to hiring, 
• responsible for recruitment and contracting of temporary staff for projects, 
• collaborate with peers in other regions to establish best practices, arid 
• organize training workshops and seminars. 
In a later request for evidence (RFE), the Director stated that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient 
evidence to demonstrate the Beneficiary's duties, including a description of his typical decisions and 
tasks. In response, the Petitioner highlighted the Beneficiary's accomplishments during the first 
year, noting his focus on "corporate governance and rule making," his decision to move to a larger 
commercial space, and his approval of a business plan drafted by his subordinates. It also 
emphasized some of the following additional duties: 
• made the strategic business decision to explore new business opportunities, 
establishing and implementing a wine exporting line of business as the company's 
new focus of operations, 
3 
Maller of D-USA, Inc. 
• reviewed marketing strategy and goals and through Import and Export Manager, 
establishing storage and distribution channels for purchasing, and exporting of 
automobiles, . 
• provide adequate and timely information to the board and the foreign parent 
company to enable it to effectively execute its oversight role, 
• create the company's cultural environment and developed an employee handbook, 
• coordinate with Vice General Manager to direct and coordinate organization's 
financial and budget activities to fund operations, maximize profits, and increase 
efficiency, 
• prepare work schedules and assign specific duties to Department Managers, 
• Evaluate department managers' performance, and 
• Determine staffing requiremen~s. 
Following a site visit by an immigration officer (IO), the Director issued a notice of intent to revoke 
(NOIR) which listed various discrepancies regarding the operations and employees observed during 
this visit. In response, the Petitioner offered few additional duties or decisions for the Beneficiary 
indicating that he had "determined that the company would be better suited to focus and develop its 
vehicle modification activities before revisiting wine and furniture sales opportunities at a later time" 
and that he "directed the company to focus on its retrofitted luxury vans business operations." The 
Petitioner emphasized that he had the ultimate authority to decide "business strategy and direction 
for the US company, personnel matters including hiring and firing, creating internal policies, budget 
setting for the company, and is authorized to make any financial commitment by the company." 
Further, it indicated that the Beneficiary determines the "'company's goals, business strategy, 
policies, and development" and noted that his "core responsibilities are business development 
management, project management, and personnel management." 
In revoking the petition, the Director concluded that the Beneficiary's duty description was too 
general to demonstrate the duties he performed within the context and scope of the business. On 
appeal, the Petitioner provides little additional detail regardin·g the duties the Beneficiary performs, 
or would perform, stating only that he is responsible "for the board of the company and has overall 
control of the company with extensive discretion'' and asserts "that the materials provided could 
fully evidence such fact." 
Upon review, we concur with the Director's determination that the Beneficiary's duties are too 
vague. The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient examples or documentation to substantiate the 
Beneficiary's day-to-day managerial duties. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether 
a beneficiary's duties are primarily 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. 1 I 03, 
1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The Beneficiary'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. The Petitioner provided insufficient 
examples and little supporting documentation to demonstrate the Beneficiary's performance of 
qualifying duties, such as purchasing and procurement plans he developed, revenue forecasts he . 
4 
.
Maller of D-USA. Inc. 
created, negotiations he conducted with clients , account strategies he deployed, dialogue he engaged 
in with strategic partners, "foundational product collateral and sales tools" he reviewed and 
approved, important personnel decisions he made, or marketing strategies he put in place. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner provided some examples of the Beneficiary performing 
qualifying tasks, but these did not sufficiently demonstrate that he would devote his time primarily to 
managerial duties. For iristance, the Petitioner initially emphasized the Beneficiary's decision to 
explore exporting wines; and later, that he decided to shift the company's focus to upgrading vans 
for sale in China. However, these represent one-time decisions and authority to direct the business 
and are not indicative of his day-to-day managerial duties. Further, the Petitioner pointed to an 
employee handbook the Beneficiary approved; but this document is not specific to the business, and 
it is not reflective of how he spent, or would spend, a substantial portion of his time. 
Similarly, the Petitioner references a business plan it states was drafted and reviewed by his 
managerial subordinates and approved by the Beneficiary . This five page document stated that the 
Petitioner would focus on a number of vague action items such as formulating "policies to encourage 
corporate managers to participate in marketing efforts," concentrating on "developing overseas 
customers and domestic distributors," "always meet[ing] the customer needs in product procurement 
and price," ensuring "that the same product has more than two suppliers," and "strengthen[ing] the 
education and training ." However , the business plan included few details or specifics as to how any 
of these general goals would be accomplished, such as marketing it would implement, customers, 
distributors, or suppliers it would focus on, or education and training it would be provide. In sum, 
this document is not credible and it does not appear that the preparation of this document accounted 
for a significant portion of the Beneficiary's duties. 
The Petitioner also provides claimed meeting minutes and communications between the Beneficiary 
and his subordinates, and foreign employer management that are not credible or demonstrative of his 
actual day-to-day managerial tasks . For instance, the Petitioner submitted what it asserted are 
meetings minutes from the company's first staff meeting in May 2017 .. The notes of this meeting 
indicate that the Beneficiary stated: "I hope all of you to help each other for the development of the 
company and offer advice and suggestions for our company" and "I'm going to assign everyone a 
new work assignment." The meeting notes then mechanically listed the duties of each member of 
the organizational chart and to whom each employee will report . For instance, the notes reflect that 
the Beneficiary stated: "[The Vice Manager] will be under the direct leadership of [the 
Beneficiary] to assist [the Beneficiary] to handle the affairs of the company ." In total, the 
meeting minutes raise question as to whether they are truly reflective of the Beneficiary's daily 
performance of qualifying managerial level duties. Likewise, the Petitioner further provided 
purported meeting minutes from June 2017 including the same unnatural back and forth between the 
members of the meeting . Like the previously provided meeting minutes, the notes include a list of 
action items that are not reflective of verbal communication at a staff meeting and abruptly end with 
the Beneficiary stating "okay, the meeting is over." On the whole, these meeting minutes do not 
credibly demonstrate that the B~neficiary would devote a majority of his time to managerial duties. 
5 
Maller <?lD-USA. Inc. 
Similarly, the Petitioner provides several translated communications between the Beneficiary and the 
president of the foreign employer. However, these documents questionably provide no indication of 
how they were communicated. For example, one communication from the foreign employer's 
president states "I received your email," but his response is typed on a blank page with no letterhead 
or indication of how his response was provided. All of these purported communications between the 
Beneficiary and the foreign employer's president are submitted in this same format, and they leave 
question as to whether they are reflective of actual communications made between the Beneficiary 
and foreign employer management. In sum, the documents submitted to substantiate the 
Beneficiary's managerial duties and decisions, such as the provided employee handbook, business 
plan, meeting minutes, and foreign company communications, are not credible and do not 
sufficiently substantiate his day-to-day managerial tasks. 
· In contrast, the Petitioner submits evidence indicating the Beneficiary's substantial involvement in 
non-qualifying operational tasks. For instance, the Beneficiary's duties state that he would be tasked 
with "developing sales proposals, estimates, specifications, and presentations," performing reference 
checks on prospective employees, "manag[ing] the employment process from recruitment to hiring," 
and "recruit[ing] and contracting of temporary staff for projects." The Beneficiary's duties 
submitted in response to the RFE also mention him "preparing work schedules." In total, these 
·duties are not reflective of a managerial employee overseeing supervisory and professional 
subordinates to whom he primarily delegates operational tasks. In addition, the record includes 
documentation indicating the· Beneficiary's involvement with various non-qualifying operational 
tasks, such as signing off on all business trip expenses, signing all of the company's checks to pay 
invoices, purchasing the company's attendance at a tradeshow using a debit card, and signing off on 
the purchase of approximately $800 worth of tools and office supplies. Therefore, the record 
contains evidence suggesting that the Beneficiary is engaged in nearly all the operational matters of 
the business and there is little evidence to credibly demonstrate the delegation of these tasks to the 
Beneficiary's subordinates. 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the organization, the fact that he manages 
or directs a business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an intracompany 
transferee in an managerial capacity within the meaning of section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. By 
statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a position be "primarily" 
managerial in nature. Id. The Beneficiary may have exercised discretion over the Petitioner's day­
to-day operations and possessed the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary 
decision-making; howeve"r, the job description alone is insufficient to establish that his actual duties 
were primarily managerial in nature. · 
B. Staffing 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individµal is acting in a managerial 
capacity, we take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall 
purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section IOl(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
6 
.
Matter ,?f D-USA, Inc. 
In support of the petttton and in response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted an 
organizational chart reflecting that the Beneficiary supervised a vice manager who in turn oversaw a 
marketing development manager and an import and export manager. The chart also indicated that 
the marketing development manager supervised a marketing analyst and a fleet supervisor, while the 
import and export manager supervised two business specialists. 
As discussed, an IO later conducted an administrative site visit to 
California and concluded that the Beneficiary was operating the Petitioner's 
business out of a warehouse location not listed on the record which the IO described as a "friend's 
office ."2 In a later NOIR, the Director stated that when the [0 visited the aforementioned 
location he observed that, out of the asserted members of its organizational chart, only 
the Beneficiary and his claimed vice manager were present. The Director also indicated that the IO 
observed the following: 
• there were other employees on location, but they were not employees of the 
Petitioner, 
• the Beneficiary explained the business as being engaged in retrofitting Mercedes­
Benz vans to be tourism vehicles in China, 
• there were six vans at the location being modified at the time of the visit, 
• the Beneficiary stated he had bought 30 vans, but provided no evidence to 
substantiate this claimed purchase, 
• the Beneficiary stated all vans were purchased verbally over the phone, thus _ 
explaining the lack of supporting evidence, 
• the Beneficiary indicated that he did business with his "partner," the Petitioner's 
vice manager, and the vice manager's company 
• a provided lease for was signed by the Petitioner's claimed 
vice manager on behalf of 
Upon reviewing the !O's observations, the Director concluded that the Petitioner was operating at a 
location whk;h was the primary business location of another company . The Director determined that 
this left question as to its operations and whether the Beneficiary acted in his asserted managerial 
capacity. The Director also indicated that the site visit left question as to whether the Petitioner had 
the organizational structure it claimed. 
In response to the NOIR , the Petitioner acknowledged that its address was now at the 
Ave location and stated that was, and is,_its wholly owned subsidiary. The Petitioner 
indicated that has no employees and that it was only used to secure the 
office location. The Petitioner submitted corporate documentation meant to demonstrate that it 
had acquired all of the shares of ___ . in July 2017. The Petitioner further asserted that the 
2 The Form 1-129 reflected that the Petitioner's offices were at California 
. The Petitioner also provided a three year lease for this 2,495 square foot space dated in May 2017, 
executed approximately only one month prior to the date the petition was filed. 
7 
.
Matter of D-USA. Inc. 
IO was mistaken when he concluded that the Beneficiary and his claimed "partner," vice manager, 
were the only employees at the location during the site visit. It stated that there were four employees 
of the Petitioner present at the time, including the Beneficiary, its vice manager, the import and 
export manager, and one of its business specialists. The Petitioner asserted that the marketing and 
development manager was on a business trip, its market analyst was on vacation, and that its fleet 
supervisor works remotely from Oregon where he purchases vans from a dealership located there. 
The Petitioner noted that it had moved its office location to _____ beginning in August 
2017 and through October 2017. 
Further, the Petitioner pointed to tax documentation, such as Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statements 
reflecting that it had "7-8 fulltime employees" who perfonn the day-to-day business operations of 
the company and who relieve the Beneficiary from these tasks. An updated organizational chart 
submitted at this time reflected a similar organizational structure as that previously asserted with the 
Beneficiary overseeing the vice manager supervising a new marketing development manager and the 
import and export manager. The chart also indicated that the marketing development manager 
supervised a market analyst and a fleet supervisor, while the import and export manager oversaw one 
business specialist. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary directs the company from the 
location and that it performs "various upgrades and features to the Mercedes-Benz 
Metris and Sprinter vans such as running boards, power-steps, electronic systems , lights, seat 
upholstery" and that these vans are shipped to China for sale. 
In the revocation decision, the Director stated that the date of the Petitioner's claimed acquisition of 
was in July 2017, after the filing of the petition in June 2017. The Director also 
indicated that the Petitioner did not sufficiently substantiate its purchase of The 
Director also noted that the claimed vice manager had signed a lease as the owner of 
and that the claimed vice manager of the Petitioner was I isted in California corporate records as the 
secretary, chief financial officer, and sole director of Likewise, the Director pointed 
to a submitted contract to reserve an exhibition space and emphasized that this document was signed 
by The Director determined that it was not clear who performed the administrative 
functions of the Petitioner; namely, who actually performed the modifications to its vans prior to 
their shipment and sale. The Director concluded that based on the Petitioner's asserted operations, it 
did not establish that the Beneficiary would manage supervisory or professional subordinates and 
determined that he would be primarily involved in the routine operational activities of the business. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that they "registered only to facilitate future 
operation, and all costs of this company from registration to operation were borne by [the 
Petitioner]." The Petitioner indicates that the claimed vice manager was "appointed the executor, 
therefore, the equity transfer didn't involve the so-called cost issue ." It also contends that "all 
modification work has been commissioned to other companies following our requirements and we 
also had the requests afterwards for temporary labor to complete some modification work, thus we 
don't have. our own workers ." Further, it states that "we're a newly established company fumbling 
our way forward, there might be a lot including contract management and [sic] needs improvement, 
so we're unable to provide more details regarding some of our materials ." 
8 
.
Malter of D-USA, Inc. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and 
"function managers." Section 10 l (a)( 44)(A) of the Act. As the Petitioner does not assert that the 
Beneficiary qualifies as a function manager, we will restrict our analysis to whether he would act as 
a personnel manager. 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." Id. 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). 
• Upon review, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would more likely than not 
oversee subordinate managers and supervisors as necessary to qualify him as a personnel manager. 
A primary basis upon which the petition was revoked was the Director's determination that the 
Petitioner did not establish that it had operational level employees to perform its van renovations. 
The Petitioner does not submit additional evidence to overcome this insufficiency nor does it . 
adequately articulate how the Beneficiary and his asserted subordinate managers are relieved from 
these tasks. In fact, the Petitioner only leaves further question as to its asserted organizational 
structure by stating that it is "fumbling [its] way forward" and "unable to provide more details 
regarding some of our materials." 
The Petitioner also appears to assert on appeal that all of the actual modification work performed on 
its vans is done by contract labor; for instance stating that they use "temporary labor to complete 
some modification work, thus we don't have our own workers." Again, this statement leaves 
additional uncertainty as to whether the Petitioner has sufficient operational level employees to 
relieve the Beneficiary and his claimed managers from these tasks . For instance, although the 
Petitioner appears to suggest that it contracts for labor to perform van modifications and indicates in 
the Beneficiary's duties that he is tasked with engaging this contract labor, it submits no supporting 
documentation to substantiate this assertion . Indeed, the 10 indicated that there were other workers 
who were not on the Petitioner's payroll present at the location during the site 
visit; however, the Petitioner responded that the IO was mistaken and listed four company 
employees who were present at the time.3 This assertion appears to be in conflict with the 
Petitioner's contention that it uses contract labor to perform the van modifications and would 
indicate that the Beneficiary and his subordinates perform these duties . Without corroborating 
evidence, it appears likely that the Beneficiary and his asserted managers are primarily engaged in 
these tasks . 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted an organizational chart indicating that the Beneficiary oversaw a 
vice manager who supervised a subordinate marketing development manager and an import and 
3 The Petitioner provided a signed statement of those present reflecting that the Beneficiary, the vice manager, the import 
and export manager, and one of the business specialists were present at the time of the site visit. 
9 
.
Maller of D-USA. Inc. 
export manager . The chart also indicated that the marketing development manager oversaw a 
marketing analyst and a fleet supervisor , while the import and export manager supervised a business 
specialist. However , there is insufficient supporting evidence in the record to substantiate the 
Petitioner ' s assertions regarding the vice manager and the employees that he oversees. For example , 
the Petitioner did not credibly establish that it would require a manager and a subordinate devoted to 
marketing activities . In fact, the Petitioner's most recent 2017 IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporation 
Income Tax Return included a statement of the company's expenses and reflected that it spent 
nothing on advertising during that year and that it spent no other discernable funds on marketing its 
products. 
Further, the Petitioner submitted several invoices bearing the name of the marketing development 
manager from September through December 2017 indicating his coordination of shipments of 
vehicles to China . However, the duties of the marketing development manager do not include such 
tasks. The provided duties are generic tasks not supported by the record such as preparing a "market 
development plan," organizing staff to carry out "market research work," and organizing "marketing 
campaigns." Again, these apparent discrepancies and insufficiencies are particularly noteworthy due 
to the apparent lack of operational level employees in the Petitioner's organizational chart to actually 
perform the van modifications . As such , it appears unlikely that the claimed marketing development 
manager and subordinate marketing analyst were acting in their claimed capacities . 
Similarly , the Petitioner submitted a contract and invoices reflecting the vice manager 's arrangement 
of participation in an automobile auction in November 2017. However, there is 
little evidence substantiating that he acts in a supervisory role subordinate to the Beneficiary, or that 
he oversees subordinate managers as claimed . In fact, the Beneficiary referred to the claimed vice 
manager in the site visit as his "partner " and the evidence indicates that he is the former shareholder 
and chief executive of This evidence leaves uncertainty as to whether the asserted 
vice manager acts in a subordinate manager role reporting to the Beneficiary as claimed. 
Furthermore , additional discrepancies suggest that the Petitioner has been misleading about its 
claimed operations. For example, in support of the petition , the Petitioner submitted a three year 
lease agreement for for over 2,000 square feet of space dated in May 2017 and 
emphasized the acquisition of this space for its proposed operations under the extended petition . The 
Petitioner also cited the acquisition of this space as a key managerial accomplishment on the part of 
the Beneficiary. Further , it listed this space as its place of operation on the petition filed in June 
2017 and made no mention of its renovation of vans at the location or its 
acquisition of , which was stated to have taken place only approximately one month 
later in July 2017. In addition , the IO noted the Beneficiary stated that the company purchased 30 
vans for renovation as of the date of the site visit in October 2017 and contended that no records for 
this purchases existed since they were all conducted verbally over the phone . First, the Petitioner's 
assertion that the purchase of 30 vans could take place without any documentation is questionable 
and it still does not provide supporting documentation to substantiate this claim. Further, the 
submitted 2017 Form 1120 does not list these assets . 
10 
Matter of D-USA. Inc. 
In sum, these discrepancies in the Petitioner's asserted operations and organizational structure leave 
substantial question as to whether the Beneficiary would oversee subordinate managers and 
-supervisors as claimed. In fact, the weight of the evidence indicates that it is more likely than not 
that the Beneficiary and his claimed managers are actually performing the operational tasks of the 
business; namely, the outfitting of vans for tourism purposes, and ·it provides no supporting 
documentation to substantiate who is performing these duties. The Petitioner must resolve 
inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Malter(?{ Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would supervise professional 
subordinates. 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. C/ 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 101(a)(32) of the Act, states that "[t]he tem1 
prqfession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, 
and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." 
In response to the NOIR, the Petitioner stated in a support letter that "the subordinate Vice Manager, 
Marketing Development Manager, and Import and Export Manager who report directly to the 
General Manager all have at _least a bachelor's degree in education level demonstrating their 
professional capacity." First, the Petitioner submitted an organizational chart reflecting that the 
marketing development manager and import and export manager reported to the vice manager, not 
"directly" to the Beneficiary as reflected in this statement. This assertion only reinforces other 
evidence on the record indicating that the Beneficiary has been acting, and would act, only as a first 
line supervisor of employees performing the operational aspects of the business. 
In addition, the Petitioner provides no documentation to substantiate its claim that the Beneficiary's 
subordinates hold bachelor's degrees and provides no explanation as to why these positions would 
require them. The Petitioner submits no supporting documentation to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's only claimed immediate subordinate in the organizational chart, the vice manager, 
holds a bachelor's degree and does not articulate why this position requires a bachelor's degree. 
Further, even if we were to consider the other employees of the company as direct subordinates of 
the Beneficiary, as the Petitioner appears to assert, we must focus on the level of education required 
by these positions, rather than the degree held by"these subordinate employees. The possession of a 
bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee does not automatically lead to a conclusion that an 
employee is employed in a professional capacity. Even if they reported directly to the Beneficiary, 
the Petitioner does not describe why bachelor's degrees are required for ihe marketing development 
manager and import and export manager positions. Therefore, the Petitioner has not submitted 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary would supervise professional subordinates 
under the extended petition. 
11 
Malter of D-USA. Inc. 
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Director properly revoked the previously 
approved petition, as the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would act in a managerial 
capacity. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity; 
therefore, the revocation of the approved petition will not be disturbed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
_Cite as Matter (~lD-USA. inc., ID# I 730726 (AAO Nov. 8, 2018) 
12 ,