dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Export Of Vehicles And Machinery

(b)(6)
DATE: NAY 0 6 Z014 
INRE : Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Administr ative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF 
OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or 
policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider 
or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 
I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
i~ knRos~ 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, seeking to classify the beneficiary as 
an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a California corporation established in 
December 2012, states that it is engaged in the import and export of vehicles and heavy machinery. The 
petitioner states that it is an affiliate of ("the foreign 
entity") located in Saudi Arabia. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as the general manager of a 
"new office" in the United States for a period of one year. 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has been 
employed by the foreign entity in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner submits additional explanation of 
the beneficiary's duties abroad and contends that the foreign entity employed him in a qualifying capacity. 
I. TheLaw 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed 
the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for 
one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States. 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, executive, or 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ 
the alien are qualifying orga nizations as defined in paragraph (1)(1)(ii)(G) of this 
section. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or 
·specialized knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to 
be performed. 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that 
was managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
prior education , tramwg, and employment qualifies him/her to perform the 
intended services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need 
not be the same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v) further provides that if the petition indicates that the beneficiary 
is coming to the United States as a manager or executive to open or to be employed in a new office in the 
United States, the petitioner shall submit evidence that: 
(A) Sufficient physical premises to house the new office have been secured; 
(B) The beneficiary has been employed for one continuous year in the three year period 
preceding the filing of the petition in an executive or managerial capacity and that 
the proposed employment involved executive or managerial authority over the new 
operation; and 
(C) The intended United States operation, within one year of the approval of the 
petition, will support an executive or managerial position as defined in paragraphs 
(l)(l)(ii)(B) or (C) of this section, supported by information regarding: 
(1) The proposed nature of the office describing the scope of the entity, its 
organizational structure, and its financial goals; 
(2) The size of the United States investment and the financial ability of the 
foreign entity to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing 
business in the United States; and 
(3) The organizational structure of the foreign entity. 
II. The Issues on Appeal 
A. Managerial or Executive Capacity (Foreign Entity) 
The sole issued addressed by the director was whether the petitioner established that the foreign entity 
employed the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three 
years prior to the filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of 
the organization; 
(ii) 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; 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the authority to 
hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions (such as 
promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly supervised, 
functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the 
function managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function for 
which the employee has authority. 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)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of 
the organization; 
(ii) establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
(iii) exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level executives, the 
board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
The petitiOner stated that the foreign entity is "primarily involved in the building of commercial and 
residential high rise buildings, roadways, sewage and foundation planning and building, freeway 
construction , and large industrial projects." The petitioner claims that the foreign entity earned over 
$9,000,000 in revenue in 2012 and that it has more than 88 employees. 
The petitioner asserted that the beneficiary has been acting in the capacity of finance manager for the 
foreign entity since 2007 and explained the beneficiary's duties in this capacity as follows: 
[The beneficiary] currently is a Finance Manager of the Saudi Arabia company, filling 
that position for the last five years. He has been involved with the establishing and 
implementing policy, hiring staff, coordinating project schedules, material and material 
quantities and various vendors, ensuring the financial aspect of each project is 
accommodated to see fruition and completion to due dates. He has assisted in ensuring 
that each project has systems in place to see that it meets all its requirements as per time 
lines, equipment and material needs and the complete project is completed working with 
project managers and other management staff. 
The petitioner also prpvided a foreign organizational chart which reflected that the foreign entity is directed 
by a general manager who supervises a deputy general. The chart indicates that the deputy general manager 
has a subordinate projects manager, an administrative manager, and financial officer. The financial officer 
was shown to supervise "accounts." The chart does not identify any employees by name. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
In a submitted business plan, the petitioner further indic,ated that the beneficiary was being selected to 
establish the foreign entity's affiliate company in the United States "for the purpose of procuring and 
buying used and new vehicles , machinery for the parent company [for] the course of their own operations or 
o provide to other companies." It also stated that the beneficiary was being transferred for this purpose due 
to his understanding of the needs and requirements of the foreign entity's contracts and job orders and 
because of his awareness of the project locations and their unique environmental conditions. 
The director found that the initial evidence submitted by the petitioner was insufficient to demonstrate that 
the foreign entity employs the beneficiary in a qualifying executive or managerial capacity. The director 
noted that the provided foreign organizational chart did not include the beneficiary's claimed position of 
finance manager, but only the position of "financial officer." As such, the director requested that the 
petitioner submit: (1) personnel or training records to show that the beneficiary was employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity abroad; (2) a more detailed organizational chart listing all employees in 
the beneficiary's immediate department with these employees identified by name and job title, along with a 
summary of their duties, their education levels and salaries; and (3) a letter from the foreign entity 
describing the beneficiary's managerial decisions, his duties and the percentage of time he spent on each 
duty. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a support letter from the foreign entity, which indicated that the 
beneficiary had acted in the capacity of finance manager since 2007 and that he performed the following 
duties in this capacity: 
[The beneficiary's] duties involved the day to day operations, in the general financial 
management of the funds that were needed to complete projects, he would make 
decisions on an executive level as to project contract details, implementation and follow 
through to see projects to their completion. He has been involved with the establishing 
and implementing policy, hiring staff, coordinating project schedules, material and 
material quantities and various vendors, ensuring financial aspect[s] of each project is 
accommodated to see fruition and completion of due dates. He has assisted in ensuring 
that each project has systems in place to see that it meets all its requirements as per 
timelines, equipment and materials needs and the complete project is completed working 
with project and other management staff. Communicate and instruct others in the 
department of project accounts, using standard management practice to ensure that 
financial aspects of each project were met to satisfaction and du[ e] dates. Accept new 
projects and ensure they were set up in proper manner. Work closely with project 
managers on specific project issues to ensure jobs/projects /assignments would go 
smoothly. He would receive project outlines [and] he would ensure project viability from 
financial management aspect, taking into consideration government regulations, permits, 
etc. Communicate with our executive level managers to coordinate logistics for each 
project for financial levels for each stage of each project. Review cost estimates, verify 
materials availability, time restraints, labor requirements for each project, oversee 
completion dates, productivity projections, be involved in executive management 
meetings to review upcoming projects, goals, current company project reviews. [The 
beneficiary] would be in charge of the accounting department , oversee disbursement of 
materials and purchases, approve labor wage rates and work requisitions for each project. 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Assign accounts and payroll responsibilities. He at times would perform duties outside 
his department but he is a valuable part of the company's management. 
Further, the petitioner resubmitted the same foreign organizational chart in response to the RFE, and 
provided none of the additional evidence requested by the director with respect to this issue. 
In denying the petition on this ground, the director stated that the job duties submitted for the beneficiary in 
his claimed capacity as finance manager were not sufficiently detailed and that they did not set forth the 
amount of time the beneficiary devoted to specific duties, as requested by the director. Further, the director 
noted that the petitioner had also failed to provide sufficient detail with respect to the foreign entity's 
organizational structure, including the names of the beneficiary's subordinate employees, their duties, 
education levels and salaries. 
On appeal, the petitioner states that the beneficiary acted in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, 
indicating that "he was in charge of the financial department of accountants, [and] account clerks varying 
from 5-7 employees at any one time who [sic] he was their direct supervisor or was the manager of their 
supervisor." The petitioner also asserts that the beneficiary was "responsible for financial accountability for 
policy to the owner" and that he worked closely with other managers to make executive decisions . The 
petitioner notes that the beneficiary worked closely with project budgets to assure that target deadlines were 
met and that proper equipment was acquired to complete each project. 
Upon review of the petition and evidence, and for the reasons discussed herein, the petitioner has not 
established that the beneficiary has been employed by the foreign entity in a qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity. 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The definitions of executive and 
managerial capacity have two parts. First, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary performs the high­
level responsibilities that are specified in the definitions. Second, the petitioner must prove that the 
beneficiary primarily performs these specified responsibilities and does not spend a majority of his or her 
time on day-to -day function s. Champion World, Inc. v. INS , 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th 
Cir. July 30, 1991). Here, the petitioner failed to document what proportion of the beneficiary's duties 
would be managerial functions and what proportion would be non-managerial, despite the director's request 
for information regarding the percentage of time the beneficiary would allocate to specific tasks. Failure to 
submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(14). 
As a result, the petitioner lists the beneficiary's duties as including both managerial and administrative or 
operational tasks, but fails to quantify the time the beneficiary spends on them . This failure of 
documentation is important because several of the beneficiary's daily tasks, such as making decisions on 
project contract details, implementing and following up on projects to drive their completion, handling all 
financial aspects on all company projects, acquiring equipment and materials for all company projects, 
setting up new projects, working closely with project managers on specific project issues, coordinating the 
logistics of each company project , and approving work requisitions for each projec t do not fall directly 
under traditional managerial or executive duties as defined in the statute. For this reason, the AAO cannot 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
determine whether the beneficiary is primarily performing the duties of a manager or executive. See IKEA 
US, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice , 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
Indeed, the petitioner has not clearly stated, or substantiated, the beneficiary's performance of qualifying 
managerial or executive duties. For instance, the petitioner states that the beneficiary has formulated and 
implemented policies, instructed others on financial management practices, assessed government 
regulations, and coordinated with upper management on go~ls, but the record includes no specifics or 
supporting documentation to corroborate that the beneficiary performs these qualifying duties relevant to 
policy formulation, goal setting, or the delegation of non-qualifying operational duties. The petitioner 
submits no examples, or supporting documentation, to demonstrate policies, goals, or financial practices the 
beneficiary implemented or government regulations with which he regularly dealt. Specifics are clearly an 
important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature. 
Conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's employment capacity are not sufficient. The actual duties 
themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros . Co., Ltd. v. Sava , 724 F. Supp. 1103, 
1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of 
Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 
190 (Reg. Comm 'r 1972)). 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when examining 
the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, including the company's organizational 
structure, the duties of the beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to relieve 
the beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that 
will contribute to understanding the beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
As noted, the director requested that the petitioner submit a detailed foreign organizational chart, including 
information regarding the members of the beneficiary 's immediate department, their titles , duties, education 
levels, and salaries. However, the petitioner only resubmitted a vague organizational chart which fails to 
identify the beneficiary's position of "finance manager," and indicates a "financial officer" position that 
oversees unidentified "accounts" employees. Again, failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a 
material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). As such, the 
petitioner has not identified or submitted any supporting evidence to support that the existence of the 
beneficiary's subordinate employees. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm 'r 1 998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 
1972)). 
The petitioner now attempts to submit additional details regarding the beneficiary's subordinate staff at the 
foreign entity on appeal. Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence 
and has been given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered 
for the first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be 
considered, it should have submitted it in response to the director's request for evidence. /d. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
Indeed, the petitioner has provided inconsistent explanations with respect to the beneficiary 's claimed 
subordinates, alternatively indicating that the beneficiary oversees "accounts," project managers, and now 
on appeal, states that the beneficiary supervises five to seven account clerks. The petitioner also vaguely 
states that the beneficiary both directly supervises these subordinates or their managers, but fails to specify 
which employees he in fact oversees and controls. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any 
inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
On appeal, and throughout the record, the petitioner contends that the beneficiary acted in a qualifying 
executive capacity with the foreign employer. The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" 
focuses on a person's elevated position within a complex organizational hierarchy, including major 
components or functions of the organization, and that person's authority to direct the organization. Section 
101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B). Under the statute , a beneficiary must have the ability 
to "direct the management" and "establish the goals and policies" of that organization. Inherent to the 
definition, the organization must have a subordinate level of managerial employees for the beneficiary to 
direct and 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. The 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." /d. 
The petitioner has not established with sufficient evidencethat the beneficiary was employed in a qualifying 
executive capacity with the foreign employer. As noted previously herein, the petitioner's description of the 
beneficiary's duties is vague, includes a number of non-qualifying duties, and does not indicate that he 
primarily performs duties consistent with the setting of broad goals and policies rather than day-to-day 
operations. In fact, the duty description provided for the beneficiary suggests that he was primarily engaged 
in non-qualifying operational duties relevant to project implementation and completion. Further, the 
petitioner has provided almost no detail regarding the foreign entity's organizational structure or the 
beneficiary's duties as necessary to demonstrate that the beneficiary directs the management of the 
organization. As such, the petitioner has not established that the foreign entity employs the beneficiary in 
an executive capacity. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has not established that the foreign entity has employed 
the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. Accordingly, the appeal wiJJ be dismissed. 
B. Managerial or Executive Capacity (United States) 
Beyond the decision of the director , the petitioner has also not established that the beneficiary would be 
employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity in the United States within one year of the 
approval of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
The petitioner states that the beneficiary is being transferred to the United States to act in the capacity of 
general manager to launch the U.S. affiliate business' operations. The petitioner asserted that it wiJJ 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
develop sources of supply for heavy equipment and machinery that the foreign employer requires to 
complete current construction projects. The petitioner contends that it would also be "expanding on U.S. 
construction consultancy services incorporating engineering, architectural and complete projects." The 
petitioner explained the beneficiary's proposed duties as follows : 
[The beneficiary] will fill the position of General Manager in the [petitioner 's] office. 
This position is pivotal to the success of a new business. He will be setting up all the 
conditions of a viable operating business. He will be responsible for day to day 
discretionary authority in relation to coordinating and directing the business operation 
activities. His strong knowledge [of] the operations of the parent company business, and 
the types of equipment needed to match their needs is essential in getting this business 
productive immediately. His skills in business administration, finance and executive 
aspects of construction business is crucial to the details needed to make equipment 
acquisitions and look for certain product lines and materials as needed from the parent 
company. [The beneficiary] will be needed as soon as possible to establish the proper 
framework of how the business will function. 
The petitioner also submitted a proposed U.S. organizational chart indicating the beneficiary at the head of 
the organization overseeing a director of finance, a head of sales, and a marketing associate. The chart 
further reflected that the director of finance would be "in charge of accounting and office processes in 
billing and receivables," and that he or she would supervise "accounting clerks." The chart also indicated 
that the head of sales would be "in charge of setting sales territories and attending appointment[s] with 
current and new customers," and that he or she would oversee three sales associates. Lastly, the chart stated 
that the marketing associate would handle "promotions/public relations" and "new business development," 
and that he or she would supervise a receptionist. The record indicated that none of the proposed positions 
within the organization had been filled. Additionally, the petitioner provided a business plan setting forth 
its proposed plans. The petitioner mentioned that it would hire "product research" and "development" staff, 
bot did not provide exact job titles, the number of employees to be hired, or timelines for hiring. The 
petitioner indicates that it anticipates employing 10 employees (the number identified on the organizational 
chart) or more within five years. 
The director concluded that the initial evidence submitted by the petitioner was insufficient to demonstrate 
that the beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity after one year. As 
such, the director requested that the petitioner submit: (1) a letter indicating the proposed number of 
employees and their positions and how the proposed business will support the beneficiary's role within one 
year, (2) a more detailed business plan setting forth a timetable for each proposed action that the petitioner 
will undertake, and (3) a more detailed proposed organizational chart including a listing of all proposed 
positions, a summary of duties, and the employees' expected educational levels. 
In response, the petitioner resubmitted the same organizational chart and business plan that were provided 
in support of the petition. The petitioner vaguely stated that the company would "add staff as the business 
grows," and provided no specific timetable for the hiring of additional employees. Further, the petitioner 
submitted its employment agreement with the beneficiary setting forth the following duties for the 
beneficiary in his capacity as general manager: 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
[The beneficiary] will set up all conditions to operate business. Will be responsible for 
day to day discretionary authority in relation to coordinating and directing the business 
operation and activities, such as locating vendors/purveyors ( 40% ). Set up and maintain 
banking accounts and systems (10%). Set up avenues to find products and units for 
parent company (10%) set up systems for preparing vehicles for shipping (10%) setting 
up transportation vendors and systems (10%) set up business systems within the office 
(10%). Hire associates and employees (5%) report and communicate with parent 
company as to implementation of policy and progress. Be in charge of day to day 
operations, report to parent company as to policy changes and updates as to business 
projections, development and progress. 
If a petitioner indicates that a beneficiary is coming to the United States to open a "new office," it must 
show that it is prepared to commence doing business immediately upon approval so that it will support . a 
manager or executive within the one-year timeframe. This evidence should demonstrate a realistic 
expectation that the enterprise will succeed and rapidly expand as it moves away from the developmental 
stage to full operations, where there would be an actual need for a manager or executive who will primarily 
perform qualifying duties . See generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). The petitioner must describe the nature 
of its business, its proposed organizational structure and financial goals, and submit evidence to show that it 
has the financial ability to remunerate the beneficiary and commence doing business in the United States. 
!d. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be employed in a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity after one year as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Here, the petitioner has submitted a 
job description which merely recites vague job responsibilities and broadly-cast business objectives. The 
regulations require a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. The duties offered by the 
petitioner, such as looking for certain product lines and materials, establishing the proper framework of how 
the business will function, locating vendors and purveyors, maintaining banking systems, setting up 
avenues to find products, and setting up systems for shipping, transportation and business systems are 
overly vague and provide little probative value as to the beneficiary's anticipated day-to-day activities. The 
duties and the evidence of record generally include no specific examples or documentation to substantiate 
the beneficiary's proposed duties. Further , the petitioner does not specifically describe any proposed 
vendors or frameworks, banking systems, shipping processes, or business systems that will be established 
by the beneficiary. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are 
primarily executive or managerial in nature. Conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's employment 
capacity are not sufficient. Overall, the petitioner has failed to provide any detail or explanation of the 
beneficiary's proposed activities in the course of his daily routine. The actual duties themselves will reveal 
the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), 
affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Overall, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that the beneficiary's duties would be 
primarily in a managerial or executive capacity , particularly in the case of a new office petition where much 
is dependent on factors such as the petitioner's business and hiring plans and evidence that the business will 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
grow sufficiently to support the beneficiary in the intended managerial or executive capacity. The 
petitioner has the burden to establish that the U.S. employer would realistically develop to the point where it 
would require the beneficiary to perform duties that are primarily managerial or executive in nature within 
one year. Accordingly, the totality of the record must be considered in analyzing whether the proposed 
duties are plausible considering the petitioner's anticipated staffing levels and stage of development within a 
one-year period . 
In the present matter , the petitioner has not sufficiently responded to the director's RFE as necessary to 
substantiate that the business has a realistic expectation of expanding to the point where it will require the 
beneficiary to perform primarily managerial or executive duties within one year. As noted above, the 
director requested that the beneficiary submit a time table for hiring and explain specifically how the 
beneficiary would be relieved from performing non-qualifying operational duties. The director's request 
was relevant, as the beneficiary is the only current employee of the petitioner and is tasked with performing 
various operational duties such as identifying and securing sources of supply and acquiring vehicles and 
equipment for shipment back to the foreign entity. Moreover, while the petitioner's business plan suggests 
that the company may hire "product research staff" or "development staff" during the first year, the 
petitioner did not include these positions on its proposed organizational chart and instead indicated a more 
complex structure that appears to coincide with the company's anticipated hiring plans after five years, 
rather than for its first-year plan. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner did not articulate how the company will develop as necessary to 
relieve the beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties, but only vaguely stated that the company 
will hire additional employees as it grows. Likewise, the petitioner also failed to submit a more detailed 
organizational chart for the proposed entity or a more detailed business plan as requested by the director. 
Once again, failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds 
for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(14). 
Again, the petitioner's failure to submit requested evidence has left the record insufficient to demonstrate 
that the company will hire staff to relieve the beneficiary from primarily performing operational duties 
within one year. As noted, the petitioner has not submitted duty descriptions or expected educational levels 
for all of its proposed employees to substantiate its plans . Further, the business plan provided in the record 
is not sufficient to support the petitioner's claims that the company will support a qualifying managerial or 
executive position within one year. 
In fact, the record demonstrates that the petitioner is being established in the United States primarily to 
acquire heavy equipment for its claimed construction business in Saudi Arabia thereby making its claim that 
it will hire a head of sales and three sales associates questionable. Again, it is incumbent upon the 
petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to 
explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Further, as 
previously mentioned, the petitioner has not provided a timetable for the hiring of employees to relieve the 
beneficiary from performing his stated operational duties. The petitioner has not provided a detailed basis 
for its proposed cost or sales projections, or articulated how the proposed $50,000 investment in the 
petitioner will be used to launch the business . Indeed, the petitioner submitted a lease agreement for only 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
176 square feet of space with only one apparent work station which runs through November 2015, leaving 
question as to its hiring plans within the first year. 
In conclusion, and for the reasons discussed above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary 
would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity within one year. For this additional 
reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision . 
See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd. 345 F.3d 
683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004)(noting that the AAO 
reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
III. Conclusion 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 
26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.