dismissed L-1A Case: Interactive Media

MATTER OF W-D-I-C- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 11, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an "interactive media" business, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's employment as 
its executive director 1 under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L­
IA classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to 
transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to work temporarily in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that: ( 1) the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity under the extended petition; and (2) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial 
or executive capacity prior to his transfer to the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision was based on an erroneous conclusion 
of law or fact and re-submits documents that it previously provided in response to the Director's 
request for evidence (RFE). 
Upon de nova 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 continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(15)(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. 
1 The Petitioner also refers to the Beneficiary's position as "chief executive officer" or "CEO." 
Matter of W-D-1-C- Inc. 
II. DEFINITIONS 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or 
manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
The term "executive capacity" is defined as an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of 
the organization; establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or 
direction from higher-level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
Based on the definitions of managerial and executive capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the 
Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 
1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, the Petitioner must prove that the 
Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial or executive duties, as opposed to ordinary 
operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 
F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d at 1533. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The first issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. 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 
The Petitioner is self-described as an "interactive media" business and states in its business plan that 
it is doing business "in the field of marketing, advertising, television, mobile and social media." The 
Petitioner submitted a letter describing the Beneficiary's duties in support of the petition, and re-
2 
Matter of W-D-1-C- Inc. 
submitted the same letter in response to the RFE after the Director advised the Petitioner that the 
duty description lacked sufficient detail regarding what the Beneficiary would be doing on a day-to­
day basis. 
We agree with the Director's finding that the position description, which consisted of a list of 11 
duties, was not specific and did not describe the actual tasks the Beneficiary would perform on a 
regular and ongoing basis. For example, the Petitioner provided broad statements that resemble the 
statutory definition of "executive capacity," such as "establish and carry out the Petitioner's goals, 
policies and procedures"; "manage general activities"; "direct and oversee the Petitioner's financial 
and budgetary activities"; "engage in long-range planning, develop strategies and programs"; 
"establish sales strategies and marketing goals," "implement accounting practices and financial 
policies" and "consult with other executives from the Parent company, staff and board members 
about general operations." 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 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
The Petitioner also generally stated that the Beneficiary would direct "efficacy of wholesale, export 
and distribution activities of the company's products and direct dissemination of technical support 
service." However, this claimed responsibility is not consistent with the Petitioner's claimed 
"interactive media" business, which does not appear to sell, export, or distribute any products, nor 
have any need to provide technical support services. 
In addition to the list of 11 duties, the Petitioner provided examples of the types of duties the 
Beneficiary has been performing in the areas of planning, human resources management, project 
management, marketing and public relations, financial management, production/sales, and 
administrative management. While such examples were presumably included to elaborate on the 
nature of the Beneficiary's day-to-day tasks, several of them are also inconsistent with the 
Petitioner's stated business model and therefore do not shed light on what the Beneficiary would 
actually be doing on a day-to-day basis. For instance, the Petitioner stated that his duties have 
included "distribution of the equipment and sale services," overseeing "organization of company 
transport," "overseeing delivery/transport of all products," and "negotiating the deal to distribution 
of the merchandise [sic]." It also stated that the Beneficiary manages "all data on the efficiency and 
security of the fuel products," and directs and oversees "site activities and personnel." Again, the 
Petitioner claims to be a marketing and media service provider and has not provided evidence that it 
transports, sells, or distributes any type of product, or requires someone to manage such activities. 
Therefore, the position descriptions the Petitioner provided include a combination of overly broad 
duties, and duties that are not credible light of the nature of the business. As such, the Petitioner did 
not meet its burden to establish what the Beneficiary's primary duties would be under an extended 
petition. Reciting a beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not 
sufficient; the regulations require a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. The 
actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros., 724 F. Supp. at 
1108, ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
3 
.
Matter of W-D-1-C- Inc. 
We acknowledge that the Beneficiary, as the Petitioner's senior employee, would have authority to 
establish plans, policies, and objectives for the company, supervise subordinate personnel, and make 
major decisions regarding its finances and overall direction. However, the Petitioner has not 
provided sufficient information to establish that these types of responsibilities would primarily 
occupy the Beneficiary's time. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of 
a position be "primarily" executive or managerial in nature. Sections 101(A)(44)(A) and (B) of the 
Act. 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or 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. 
The Petitioner claimed to have six employees at the time of filing in December 2017. It has 
submitted copies of 2017 IRS Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statement for seven employees, copies of 
state and federal quarterly tax returns for the first three quarters of 2017, payroll records for a three­
month period (July to September 2017), and two different organizational charts. 
The initial organizational chart, included in the Petitioner's business plan, identified the Beneficiary 
as CEO with four direct subordinates: a finance manager, a director of investor relations, a product 
coordinator, and a market analyst. Of these four employees, only the market analyst was identified 
as having a subordinate - a marketing assistant position that was not filled. The chart also included 
two independent consultants (legal counselor and "human resources") and two foreign subsidiaries 
(EsoTV and Avatar), reporting to the Beneficiary but did not identify any foreign employees or 
consultants by name. 
In the organizational chart submitted in response to the RFE, the Petitioner identified the same four 
employees subordinate to the Beneficiary, but indicated that the product coordinator supervises an 
"IT/Programmer" and the marketing analyst supervises a "market assistant" 
However, the record demonstrates that and both left the company well before 
the filing of this petition.2 Absent evidence that the Petitioner re-hired these individuals prior to 
responding to the RFE, their inclusion on the revised chart is misleading. The evidence shows that 
the Petitioner paid a total of seven workers in 2017, but never had seven employees at the same time, 
as depicted on the second organizational chart. This revised chart also eliminated the independent 
consultants and foreign subsidiaries identified on the original chart. 
Based on the evidence submitted, the Petitioner actually had five employees at the time of filing, 
including the Beneficiary, not six as claimed on the petition, or seven as indicated on the second 
organizational chart. 
2 Comparing the 2017 IRS Forms W-2 and the Petitioner's payroll records, we determined that received his 
last paycheck of the year in July 2017 and worked only during September 2017. 
4 
.
Matter ofW-D-1-C- Inc. 
Both organizational charts also included separate companies as part of the Petitioner's corporate 
structure. Initially, the Petitioner depicted three wholly-owned companies and one minority-owned 
company, but indicated that only one of them was staffed. The Petitioner placed 
these claimed subsidiaries under the Beneficiary's supervision. In the chart submitted in response to 
the RFE, the Petitioner included only two claimed subsidiary companies - and 
- and once again indicated that neither company was staffed. The 
Petitioner placed the companies under the supervision of the director of investor relations, but did 
not explain the changes it made in the structure or mention the other claimed subsidiaries in the RFE 
response.3 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and 
"function managers." See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Here, the Petitioner does not 
claim that the Beneficiary will manage an essential function, but does indicate that he will be 
responsible for hiring and supervising subordinate personnel. 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."4 Section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. If a beneficiary directly supervises other employees, the beneficiary must 
also have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other 
personnel actions. Section 101 ( a)( 44 )(A)(iii) of the Act. 
As noted, the record shows that the Beneficiary would directly supervise four employees, including 
two with managerial job titles. However, the evidence does not support a finding that these 
employees had their own subordinates at the time of filing. Further, the record does not establish 
that the finance manager or director of investor relations, as the only employees in their respective 
departments, would be performing managerial duties. In fact, the finance manager is referred to by 
the title "finance assistant," in a personnel chart included in the Petitioner's business plan. The 
evidence must substantiate that the duties of a beneficiary and his or her subordinates correspond to 
their placement in an organization's structural hierarchy; employee job titles alone are not probative 
3 The Petitioner provided copies of IRS Forms SS-4, Application for Employment Identification Number, filed for 
and These documents were signed by the Beneficiary, show that 
both LLCs share an address with the Petitioner , and identify the Petitioner as the "responsible party ." However, the 
Petitioner did not provide relevant, probative evidence showing that it owns and controls these companies, such as copies 
of their articles of association, operating agreements, or membership certificates. Regardless, even if the Petitioner had 
established that it directly owns and manages these subsidiaries, it indicated that they were unstaffed at the time of filing. 
4 In evaluating whether a beneficiary manages professional employees, we must evaluate whether the subordinate 
positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) 
(defining "profession" to mean "any occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the 
minimum requirement for entry into the occupation"). Section IO I (a)(32) of the Act, states that "[t]he term profession 
shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or 
secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." 
5 
Matter ofW-D-1-C- Inc. 
and will not establish that an organization 1s sufficiently complex to support an executive or 
managerial position. 
We have also considered whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary supervises 
professional employees. The Petitioner provided evidence that the production coordinator has a 
bachelor's degree in business and the marketing analyst has a bachelor's degree in communication. 
However, we focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree held by 
a subordinate employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee does not 
automatically lead to the conclusion that an employee is working in a professional capacity. The 
Petitioner did not provide a credible position description for the production coordinator position. As 
noted, the Petitioner states that it is a service provider in "interactive media." The Petitioner states 
that the production coordinator reviews a "master production schedule and work orders," and 
"distributes work orders to departments, denoting the number, type and proposed completion date of 
units to be produced," duties that are not consistent with the claimed nature of the business. The 
marketing analyst's duties are similarly incongruous, as the Petitioner notes that she "completes 
concept testing for new products" among other duties. The Petitioner has not established the actual 
duties performed by these employees in support of a claim that they are professionals. Accordingly, 
the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel manager based on his 
supervision of managerial, supervisory, or professional employees. 
The Petitioner has not established, in the alternative, that the Beneficiary would be employed in an 
executive capacity. The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's 
elevated position within a complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or 
functions of the organization, and that person's authority to direct the organization. Section 
101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the 
management" and "establish the goals and policies" of that organization. Inherent to the definition, 
the organization must have a subordinate level of managerial employees for a beneficiary to direct 
and they must primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than the 
day-to-day operations of the enterprise. An individual will not be deemed 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. 
Although the Petitioner submitted a position description which paraphrases the statutory definition 
of "executive capacity," it has not provided sufficient detail or supporting evidence to support a 
claim that he directs subordinate managerial personnel and that he primarily focuses on the broad 
goals and policies of the organization, rather than on its day-to-day operations. As discussed further 
below, the Petitioner has not identified anyone on its staff who actually provides the company's 
services and has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary is relieved from performing these operational 
tasks. 
As stated above, section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act requires that we take into account the reasonable 
needs of the organization in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization 
if staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity. However, it is appropriate to consider the size of the petitioning company in 
6 
.
Matter ofW-D-1-C- Jnc. 
conjunction with other relevant factors, such as the absence of employees who would perform the 
non-managerial or non-executive operations of the company. Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313 
(9th Cir. 2006); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
The Petitioner claims to be operating as an interactive media company focused on advertising, 
marketing, television, and social media services. It claims to have at least two subsidiaries 
and operating from its main office, but indicates that these businesses are 
not staffed, which suggests that the Petitioner's five employees must perform the services of all three 
companies. In addition, the evidence shows that the Petitioner's parent company, : 
also operates from the same address, but does not include information regarding Full 
International' s staffing or operations. The Petitioner has submitted a confusing collection of 
invoices which make it difficult to discern how these companies do business. For example, the 
record includes invoices involving the following parties, many of which are issued out of sequence, 
all dated between January and May 2017: 
• The Petitioner issued 22 invoices to totaling $143,000. 
All invoices were for "management consulting" or "management services." 
• The Petitioner issued one invoice to for provision of "strategic 
management advertising consulting." 
• issued 10 invoices for "management consulting" services it 
rendered to both the Petitioner and 
• issued six invoices for "management services" rendered to 
three invoices for advertising services rendered to 
and three invoices for marketing, advertising, and social media placement services 
provided to the Petitioner's claimed Brazilian subsidiary, 
There is little description in the record of what specific services the Petitioner has been providing, 
who provides those services, or who provides the services on behalf of the claimed subsidiaries, 
which are located in the Petitioner's office and not yet staffed. Based on the limited position 
descriptions provided for the Beneficiary's subordinates, the Petitioner has not established that the 
financial manager, director of investor relations, market analyst, or production coordinator are 
actually providing marketing, advertising, management, or consulting services for the Petitioner or 
its claimed subsidiary companies. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown who provides its services 
or how it is able to support the Beneficiary in a position which reasonably requires him to perform 
primarily managerial or executive duties. 
The Petitioner has consistently stated that the Beneficiary will occupy the senior position in its 
company, but has not submitted a job description or supporting evidence sufficient to demonstrate 
that he would primarily engage in managerial or executive duties as of the date it filed the petition, 
given the lack of staff to provide the company's services. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not met its 
burden to establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. 
.
Matter ofW-D-1-C- Inc. 
IV. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director also found that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. As with the U.S. position, we will discuss evidence 
regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of the nature of the foreign entity's 
business, its staffing levels, and its organizational structure. 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary served as vice president of its claimed Brazilian 
subsidiary, prior to his transfer to the United States. The foreign entity's payroll 
records indicate his job title as "vice president marketing." 
In a letter in support of the petition, the Petitioner indicated that most of the Beneficiary's duties 
related to the foreign entity's financial matters. For example, the Petitioner stated that he had "wide 
discretionary authority in the formation and implementation of the corporation's accounting 
practices and policies"; was the "ultimate decision-maker regarding the company's budgets and 
allocation of resources"; analyzed "financial information, such as price, future trends, and 
investment risks"; and "makes investment decisions." The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary 
directed "the import distribution activities of its products," but the foreign entity is claimed to 
produce a quiz show for Brazilian television and it is unclear what products it imported and 
distributed. 
In response to the Director's request for clarification regarding the Beneficiary's day-to-day duties, 
the Petitioner submitted a letter from the foreign entity's CEO. He stated that the Beneficiary was 
"responsible for overseeing the marketing and expansion activities of the company," and performed 
the following duties: 
• Review financial statements, services reports, and other performance data to 
measure productivity and goal achievement and to determine areas needing cost 
reduction ... ; 
• Manage his staff, oversee the preparation of work schedules and assign specific 
duties; 
• Establish and implement departmental policies, goals, objectives, and procedures, 
conferring with the CEO, as necessary; 
• Determine staffing requirements, and interview, hire and train new employees, or 
oversee those personnel processes; 
• Engage in long-term planning and identifying business opportunities; 
• Direct and coordinate organization's marketing and expansion activities and 
maximize investments and increase efficiency; 
• Acquisition of new clients and business relationships; 
• Oversee actions of the COO and CIO and the Operations Manager and matters 
directly related to providing services. 
8 
.
Matter ofW-D-1-C- Inc. 
• Monitor businesses to ensure that they efficiently and effectively provide needed 
services while staying within budgetary limits. 
We agree with the Director's determination that the submitted position descriptions do not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary primarily performed managerial or executive duties. Further, the 
two descriptions submitted inexplicably bear little resemblance to each other given that the initial 
description focused on financial management and decision-making and did not mention the 
Beneficiary's claimed responsibility for oversight of "marketing and expansion" activities. Given 
that the foreign entity's organizational chart includes a CFO who reports to the CEO, and an entire 
financial department, the initial description attributing the company's higher level financial functions 
to the Beneficiary in his capacity of vice president of marketing was not credible. 
The position description submitted in response to the RFE consists mainly of broad duties that could 
apply to any senior position, and did not provide insight into the nature of the Beneficiary's day-to­
day duties as the vice president of marketing for a television production company. General 
statements, such as "establish and implement ... policies, goals, objectives, and procedures," and 
"engage in long-term planning," do not describe the types of tasks the Beneficiary performed. 
Conclusory assertions regarding the Beneficiary's employment capacity are not sufficient. Merely 
repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof. 
Fedin Bros., 724 F. Supp. at 1108, aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Assocs., Inc. v. Meissner, 
1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). The Petitioner did not describe specific policies or procedures 
he implemented or provide examples of long-term plans he developed, nor did it provide details on 
the marketing and expansion activities he directed or coordinated, or explain who assisted him with 
these activities. 
Further, some of the Beneficiary's duties, such as training new employees and assigning work 
schedules, are not consistent with the Beneficiary's placement on the organizational chart and the 
Petitioner's claim that he oversaw a tier of managerial employees, who in tum supervised the lower 
level staff. Similarly, without a more detailed explanation, the Beneficiary's responsibilities for 
"acquisition of new clients and business relationships," cannot be distinguished as a clearly 
managerial or executive-level job duty. 
By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a position be "primarily" 
executive or managerial in nature. Sections 10l(A)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. Therefore, even 
though the Beneficiary likely exercised discretion over his assigned area of responsibility (marketing 
and expansion) the job description alone was too vague to establish that his actual day-to-day duties 
were managerial or executive in nature. 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted an undated organizational chart for the foreign 
entity which identifies the beneficiary as "Vice-President, Marketing and Expansion," reporting to 
the foreign entity's CEO. The chart is identified as a "joint" chart depicting staff of both and 
9 
.
Matter of W-D-1-C- Inc. 
another Brazilian entity, 
entities' staff. 
but does not clearly distinguish between the two 
Although the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary's area of responsibility was marketing and 
expansion, his listed subordinates all appear to have been involved in the development and 
production of television programming. The Beneficiary's direct subordinates have the managerial 
job titles of COO, CIO, and operations manager, but their subordinates include cast members, 
production content creators, designers, show producers, and technical production workers such as 
camera operators. 
Although the Petitioner provided position descriptions for the Beneficiary's direct subordinates, 
those descriptions are broad and do not establish that any of these employees directed lower level 
employees to carry out the day-to-day activities associated with "marketing and expansion." For 
example, the Petitioner stated that the COO spent most of his time leading employees "to encourage 
maximum performance and dedication," and establishing procedures for the "content of the TV 
program." The operations manager is described as performing human resources related duties, while 
the CIO is claimed to spend most of his time on identifying, selecting, and purchasing technology 
and equipment. 
In light of the Beneficiary's broad position description and the fact that none of his claimed 
subordinates performed duties related to his claimed area ofresponsibility, the Petitioner has not met 
its burden to show that the Beneficiary primarily managed or directed the foreign entity's "marketing 
and expansion" activities or that the foreign entity had staff to relieve the Beneficiary from 
performing the operational and administrative tasks associated these activities. Further, the 
disconnect between the Beneficiary's area of responsibility and the activities performed by the rest 
of his department raises questions regarding the accuracy of the organizational chart. Notably, 
another organizational chart for the foreign entity, which is part of the Petitioner's business plan, 
does not include a vice president position, nor does it include a COO or CIO. 
The Director noted the deficiencies in the record with respect to the submitted job description and 
the lack of evidence that the Beneficiary's subordinates relieved him from performing operational 
activities associated with his area of responsibility. However, on appeal, the Petitioner has simply 
re-submitted the Beneficiary's paystubs, one of the foreign entity's organizational charts, the brief 
position descriptions for the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates, and the foreign entity's letter. 
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed, we agree with the Director's decision and find that the 
Petitioner has not submitted evidence on appeal to establish that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
V. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
Although not addressed in the Director's decision, we further find that the Petitioner has not 
submitted evidence of its qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
10 
.
Matter ofW-D-1-C- Jnc. 
To establish a "qualifying relationship," the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary 's foreign 
employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (i.e. one entity with "branch" 
offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Act; see also 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii) (providing definitions of the terms "parent," "branch," 
"subsidiary," and "affiliate"). 
As noted, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary was employed abroad by 
in Brazil. The Petitioner stated on the Form 1-129 
that the is its wholly owned subsidiary. In a cover letter, which appears to be a copy of a 
letter submitted in support of a previous petition, counsel stated that is majority owned by 
The record does not contain any primary evidence of 
direct or indirect ownership by the Petitioner. The Petitioner provided a "Proof of 
Registration and Current Situation" from the Brazilian government confirming active status 
in 2017, but this document does not provide information regarding ownership. 
The Petitioner has also claims to have another Brazilian subsidiary, 
and submitted documentation related to this company. However, the company's "consolidated 
contract" shows that ____ is majority owned by ____________ not 
by the Petitioner. 
Based on these evidentiary deficiencies, the Petitioner did not establish that it maintains a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer or any foreign entity. For this additional 
reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
VI. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that that the Beneficiary was employed abroad, or would be 
employed in the United States, in a managerial or executive capacity, or that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of W-D-1-C- Inc., ID# 1633939 (AAO Sept. 11, 2018) 
11