dismissed L-1A Case: International Trade

MATTER OF C-Q-A-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 18, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an exporter of electronics, heavy machinery, and mmmg and alternative energy 
equipment, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as the chief executive officer (CEO) of its new 
office I under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. Immig~ation and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section lOl(a)(lS)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l lOl(a)(lS)(L). The L-lA 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 denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity. In addition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States within 
one year of an approval of the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director overemphasized the size of the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer and contends the Director did not take into account this company's reasonable 
needs when evaluating the Beneficiary's claimed executive capacity. Further, the Petitioner states 
that the Beneficiary would act in an executive capacity in the United States within one year based on 
his supervision of professionals performing managerial duties. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-IA nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving a new 
office, a qualifying organization must have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). In addition, the beneficiary must 
1 The tenn "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one 
year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1}(I}(ii}(F). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v}(C) allows a "new office" operation no 
more than one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
Matter of C-Q-A-. LLC 
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 submit evidence to demonstrate that the new office will be able to support a 
managerial or executive position within one year. This evidence must establish that the petitioner 
secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation and disclose the proposed nature and 
scope of the entity, its organizational structure, its financial goals, and the size of the U.S. 
investment. See generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
II. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
We will first analyze whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary is employed abroad in 
an executive capacity. The Petitioner does _not claim that the Beneficiary has been employed in a 
managerial capaciW abroad. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary 1s 
employed in an executive capacity. 
The statute defines an "executive capacity" 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. 
When examining the foreign executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly 
describe the duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in an 
executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description of the job duties, 
we examine the foreign employer's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's foreign 
subordinates, the presence of foreign employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing operational 
duties, the nature of the foreign business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding 
a beneficiary's actual duties and role abroad. Accordingly, we will discuss evidence regarding the 
Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of the nature of the foreign employer's business, its 
staffing levels, and its organizational structure. ~ 
A. Duties 
Based on the definition of executive capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the Beneficiary 
performs certain high".'level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 
1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary is 
primarily engaged in executive duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the 
foreign entity's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); 
Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
2 
.
Matter of C-Q-A-. LLC 
In a submitted business plan, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's foreign employer was 
engaged in "sourcing and distributing specialized heavy equipment for the mining and construction 
industries, sophisticated devices for the medical industry, as well as solar panels and its components 
for the African market." It further indicated that it was "a large and successful distribution company, 
which is focused on providing government agencies and the private sector in general with used 
equipment as well as consulting services." 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner listed the following duties for the Beneficiary in his position 
as director, among others: 
• develop and establish company business strategies, 
• determine the optimal strategic plans to expand the company into Zimbabwe, Botswana, 
Namibia and Congo, 
• manage a close working relationship with critical suppliers, 
• attend tradeshows such as the ___ ___ show, 
• oversee and review financial planning, 
• proactively identify financial and operating trends, 
• enhance financial forecasting and operating protocol, 
• approve capital investments, 
• oversee and handle complex import and export issues, 
• develop and maintain relationships with key industry members and clients, 
• oversee and sign off on the established marketing campaign, 
• determine staffing requirements, 
• oversee hiring and training policies, 
• direct and evaluate professional development and compliance training, and 
• direct all corporate policies in regards to Human Resources. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director stated that the Beneficiary's foreign duties lacked detail 
and indicated that the Petitioner should discuss in detail the specific executive decisions made by 
him abroad and his typical executive-level duties. In response, the Petitioner submitted additional 
duties and responsibilities, as follows: 
• determines financial goals and policies and other expenditures, including new 
capital equipment, 
• decides where cuts must be made, including possible layoffs and/or downsizing, 
• responsible for all strategic development, including overseeing all sales functions 
of the organization, 
• one of two representatives in the organization with the authority to finalize and 
negotiate contracts over $50,000, 
• determine sales goals and ensure sales quotas are met, 
• set specific sales targets and adjust them accordingly, 
• responsible for marketing functions including fostering client relations, 
• maintain strong client relationships with the company's larger clients, 
3 
.
Matter ofC-Q-A-, LLC 
• build new business relationships, 
• authority to make decisions on the spot regarding price breaks and volume 
discounts in negotiations, 
• responsible for establishing all· shipping policies and procedures including 
working directly with ~~------- the company's primary 
shipping resource, 
• detennine the budget for shipping and sets strict pricing policies for all shipments, 
• one of only two individuals in the organization that can directly negotiate contracts with 
our shipping agent, 
• responsible for lobbying on behalf of the company to the Zambian government, 
• detennine all staffing policies and procedures, and 
• approve or deny staffing requests of departments based on need. 
The Petitioner has not submitted a sufficiently detailed duty description that describes the 
Beneficiary's day-to-day executive-level duties abroad or credibly establishes that he devotes his 
time primarily to qualifying tasks. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a 
beneficiary's duties are primarily executive in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would 
simply be a matter 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 Beneficiary's duty description includes several generic duties that could apply to any executive 
acting in any business or industry and they do not provide insight into the actual nature of his role 
abroad. The Petitioner provided insufficient examples and little supporting documentation to 
demonstrate the Beneficiary's performance of qualifying duties abroad, such as business strategies 
he developed, relationships he maintained with "critical suppliers," financial forecasting or operating 
protocol he enhanced, technology or capital investments he approved, complex import or export 
issues he handled, or marketing campaigns he established. Likewise, the Petitioner did not 
adequately detail or document hiring and training policies he put in place, professional development 
and compliance training he planned, or human resources policies he implemented. In addition, the 
Petitioner did not articulate or document layoffs or downsizing he decided on, contracts over 
$50,000 in finalized and negotiated, sales goals and targets he set and adjusted, or relationships he 
maintained with large clients. It also did not describe or provide evidence to substantiate new 
business relationships he built, shipping policies and procedures he established, staffing policies and 
procedures he determined, or staffing requests he approved or denied. 
ln contrast, the Petitioner provided documentation indicating the Beneficiary's involvement in non­
qualifying operational level duties. For instance, the Petitioner submitted several transactional 
documents reflecting the foreign employer's purchase of a wide variety of goods from 2014 through 
2017, including ranges, electronics, solar panels, automobile spare parts, industrial equipment, 
amongst other goods. The Petitiqner contends that subordinate sales executives send orders to the 
foreign employer's project manager "who works with our established suppliers in finalizing product 
availability." The Petitioner also indicated that for "smaller contracts," the Beneficiary "will sign off 
and the Sales Executives will finalize the contracts." The Petitioner further asserted that the 
4 
Matter of C-Q-A-, LLC 
Beneficiary was only involved with the finalization and negotiation of contracts over $50,000. 
However, several submitted invoices and transactional documents reflect the Beneficiary's name and 
signature, including the purchase of: approximately $67,000 in ranges in April 2017, about $35,000 
worth of vehicle parts in December 2016, an automobile filter worth approximately $1500 in 
September 2016, a $7400 fuel pump in October 2016, a $25,000 door mount in May 2014, amongst 
others. The Petitioner submitted few documents to support its assertion that the company's sales 
executives and project manager, or other subordinates, are initiating and processing orders. In fact, 
the Beneficiary's name and signature appears on several invoices valued under $50,000, leaving 
question as to the Petitioner's assertion that he is only involved with the negotiation and closing of 
transactions above this threshold. Indeed, the Petitioner also states that the Beneficiary "signs off' 
on all smaller contracts, indicating that he is widely involved in all operational matters of the 
business. 
In addition, the Beneficiary's duty description suggests that he is responsible for most of the 
company's shipping operations, stating that he "works directly" with its shipping contractor, that he 
oversees the shipping function, and that he is "one of only two (2) individuals in the organization 
that can directly negotiate contracts with our shipping agent." The Beneficiary's duties appear to 
indicate that he is performing most of the duties necessary to arrange the company's shipments and 
the Petitioner does not indicate that he delegates the operational tasks within the shipping function to 
his subordinates. In fact, as noted, the Petitioner states that he "works directly" with the shipping 
contractor, indicating that he is not delegating shipping tasks to his subordinates. This indication 
that the Beneficiary is substantially involved in the foreign employer's shipping activities is 
particularly significant since the foreign employer operates an export business where it is reasonable 
to expecnhat the shipping of goods represents a large part of the business. 
Whether the Beneficiary is an executive employee turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained its 
burden of proving that their duties are "primarily" executive. See section 101 ( a)( 44 )(8) of the Act. 
Here, the Petitioner does not document what proportion of the Beneficiary's duties would be 
executive functions and what proportion would be non-qualifying. The Petitioner submits evidence 
indicating the Beneficiary's involvement in operational level tasks that do not fall directly under 
executive duties as defined in the statute, but does not quantify the time he spends on these duties. 
For this reason, we cannot determine whether the Beneficiary is primarily performing the duties of 
an executive abroad. See IKEA US, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp~ 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 
1999). 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the foreign employer, the fact that he 
manages or directs the business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an 
intracompany transferee in an executive capacity within the meaning of section 101 ( a)( 44 )(B) of the 
Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a foreign position be 
"primarily" executive in nature. Id. The Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the foreign 
employer's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to 
discretionary decision-making; however, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish 
that his actual duties abroad are primarily executive in nature. · 
5 
Mauer of C-Q-A-. LLC 
8. Staffing 
The Petitioner submitted a foreign organizational chart reflecting that the Beneficiary oversees two 
subordinate directors and an office manager. The chart also indicated that the office manager 
supervises two sales executives, a supervisor, and a "project manager support," while the supervisor 
oversees a receptionist, an employee devoted to safety and security, and an accounts assistant. 
As discussed, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary acts 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 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. Under the 
statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" and "establish the goals and 
policies" of that organization. Inherent to the definition, the 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. A beneficiary 
must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision making" and receive only "general 
supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the 
organization." Id. 
The Petitioner submits evidence including various discrepancies and insufficiencies leaving question 
as to the foreign employer's claimed organizational chart and whether the Beneficiary acts in an 
executive capacity abroad. The Petitioner submitted a Zambian Revenue Authority employer's tax 
return applicable to the "month, quarter, half year ended on February 2016." The employer's tax 
return reflected that the foreign employer employed I I individuals and that it paid a total of 400,536 
Zambian Kwacha (ZMK) in wages and salaries during this undefined period. The employer's tax 
return included all of the employees listed in the foreign employer's organizational chart and 
indicated that they had been paid their full annual salaries during this period. 
However, the employer's tax return reflected that it was only applicable to the "month, quarter, half 
year ended on February 2016," indicating that it was not specific to a full year. The document 
questionably includes the full annual salaries of all of the members of the foreign employer's 
asserted organizational chart. In addition, although the document listed the Beneficiary's name on 
the signature page and the claimed date the document was signed and submitted in February 2016, it 
did not include his signature and reflected a stamp from the Zambian tax authority dated in July 
2017, approximately seventeen months after it was asserted to have been executed and submitted. 
Beyond this, the Petitioner submits no other supporting documentation to substantiate wages paid to 
the members of its foreign organizational chart. 
Furthermore, although the Petitioner submitted employment contracts specific to the employees in 
its foreign organizational chart, it only submitted five of them while the chart includes a total of ten 
6 
Matter of C-Q-A-. LLC 
employees subordinate to the Beneficiary at varying levels. In addition, an offer letter/employment 
contract specific to one of the foreign employer's asserted sales executives was executed in 
September 2016; however, the submitted employer's tax return document reflects that this employee 
earned 31,827 ZMK for the undefined period ending in February 2016. Likew~se, an employment 
contract relevant to the foreign employer's claimed project manager is dated in March 2016, while 
the aforementioned employer's tax return shows that this employee earned 30,900 ZMK during the 
period ending in February 2016. Therefore, the Petitioner questionably submits employment 
contracts for two of its employees that were executed after they were asserted to have received full 
annual salaries prior to February 2016. The Petitioner also submitted a profit and loss statement 
reflecting that it had paid 390,695 ZMK in payroll for the period from March 2015 to February 
2016. However, even if we were to accept that the provided Zambian employer's tax return was 
applicable to the entire 2015-20 I 6 fiscal year, the amount of wages paid in the provided profit and 
loss statement (390,695 ZMK) does not match with that listed in the Zambian employer's tax return 
(400,536 ZMK). 
The Petitioner also provides statements on appeal that leave further doubt as to its asserted 
organizational chart. For instance, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary "directs managerial 
employees, specifically the Sales Executives and the Project Manager, to carry out the strategy he 
defines and to execute the decisions he approves." However, the organizational chart does not 
reflect that either of the sales executives or the project manager have subordinates or that they act in 
supervisory positions. In sum, these various discrepancies leave uncertainty as to the foreign 
employer's asserted organizational chart; and in tum, whether the Beneficiary acts in an executive 
capacity abroad. The Petitioner must resolve discrepancies in the record with independent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
On appeal, the Petitioner also appears to contend that an executive need not have managerial 
subordinates to qualify. However, the regulations clearly indicate that a beneficiary "direct the 
management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization." Section 
101 (a)(44)(B)(i). Here, the Beneficiary is asserted to act at the head of the entire foreign employer 
organizational chart; as such, it is not clear how he could act within this organizational hierarchy 
without managerial subordinates. In fact, it is incongruent that the Petitioner asserts that the 
Beneficiary has managerial subordinates, but also that he is not required to have them to qualify as 
an executive. 
Regardless, the Petitioner has provided vague duty descriptions for the Beneficiary's managerial 
subordinates which do not sufficiently substantiate their roles. For instance, the Petitioner indicated 
that one subordinate director is tasked with "developing and implementing [the] operational plan," 
establishing "effective internal controls and management information systems," and "monitor[ing] 
the day-to-day delivery solutions." However, the Petitioner does not submit credible examples of 
operational plans, internal controls, and management information systems this director put in place; 
and without further detail, it is not clear what "delivery solutions" his duties refer to. Further, the 
Petitioner stated that the other director subordinate to the Beneficiary was responsible for "general 
business development," including "compliance of all laws that impact the business." It further noted 
7 
1 
Matter of C-Q-A-. LLC 
that this Director is responsible for "prepping and signing agreement[s] ... on the company's behalf." 
But again, the Petitioner provides no specifics as to .the business development this director is 
involved in, the laws he ensures compliance with, or the agreements he executed. 
Lastly, the Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary's other asserted managerial subordinate, the 
office manager, was tasked with overseeing "recruitment of staff and develop[ing] job descriptions" 
and the "performance management process." However, the Beneficiary's duty description also 
includes substantial responsibility for apparent human resources functions, including "determining 
all staffing policies and procedures" and receiving "department" staffing requests and approving or 
denying them. Not only do these duties appear significantJy overlap with those of the asserted office 
manager, the Beneficiary's duties make no mention of him coqrdinating with the office manager on 
the recruitment of all staff or a "performance management process." In total, the Petitioner has not 
submitted sufficiently detailed evidence regarding the Beneficiary's subordinate managerial 
subordinates as necessary to establish that they act in their asserted capacities. 
Further, given the foreign employer's apparent operations, it is not credible that the company would 
require three directors, namely the Beneficiary and his two director subordinates. It is appropriate 
for United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) to consider the size of the 
petitioning company in 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. 
USCJS, 469 F.Jd 1313 (9th Cir. 2006); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 
200 l ). The size of a company may be especially relevant when USCIS notes discrepancies in the 
record. See Systronics, 153 F. Supp. 2d at 15. 
In conclusion, the Petitioner has not sufficiently described the Beneficiary's day-to-day executive­
level duties abroad and the record includes substantial evidence indicating his involvement with non­
qualifying operational tasks. The Petitioner has not corroborated that the Beneficiary is primarily 
relieved from performing non-qualifying operational duties in his capacity abroad. In addition, the 
Petitioner has not properly substantiated that the Beneficiary supervises managers abroad as claimed. 
As such, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is employed abroad in an executive 
capacity. · 
Ill. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
' Next, we will analyze whether the Petitioner demonstrated that the Beneficiary would act in an 
executive capacity within one year of an approval of the petition. Again, the Petitioner.asserted that the 
Beneficiary would act in an executive capacity in the United States; as such, we will only analyze this 
and not whether he would qualify as a manager . 
. 
In denying the petition on this ground, the Director concluded that the Petitioner's business plans did 
not establish that the Beneficiary would oversee "managerial or executive" subordinates within one 
year. On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that "there is a skilled and experienced team [abroad] that 
will continue to support [the Beneficiary] in handling the day-to-day aspects" and that the evidence 
8 
Matter of C-Q-A-, LLC 
"clearly shows the managerial duties of the professional employees" who will report to the Beneficiary 
within one year. 
In order to determine whether the Petitioner established that its new office will support an executive 
position within one year, we will review the Beneficiary's proposed job duties, along with the 
Petitioner's business and hiring plans and evidence that the business will grow sufficiently to support 
· the Beneficiary in the intended executive capacity. The totality of the evidence must be considered 
in analyzing whether the proposed executive position is plausible, considering a petitioner's 
anticipated staffing levels and stage of development within a one-year period. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
First, the Petitioner provides inconsistent hiring plans for the first year that leave question as to whether 
it would develop sufficiently during the first year to support the Beneficiary in an executive capacity. 
The Petitioner submitted a projected first year organizational chart indicating that it would hire an 
administrative assistant, a purchasing manager, and a solar field consultant within the first year. This 
chart also indicated that the purchasing manager would oversee a procurement specialist, west coast, 
within the first year. However, in duties submitted along with the petition in a section titled "human 
resources," the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would hire an administrative assistant, solar field 
technician, and a purchasing manager within the first year and "a procurement specialist in the. 2nd 
year." 
In addition, in response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner listed tasks the Beneficiary would 
complete in the first nine months of operation, including hiring and training a purchasing manager, a 
solar field technician, and an administrative assistant, but made no mention of hiring a procurement 
specialist, west coast, subordinate to the purchasing manager. The Petitioner also listed the 
Beneficiary's tasks 9 to 48 months after opening the office, indicating that the Beneficiary would 
oversee a procurement specialist, west coast, but made no mention of when it would hire and train this 
employee. The Petitioner also stated that Beneficiary would "oversee [the] recruitment and hiring of 
Procurement Specialists, Purchasing Assistants, and any other positions that are needed as the company 
grows," suggesting that the hiring of procurement specialists may not take place during the first year. 
In sum, these discrepancies leave question as to whether the Petitioner plans to hire managers 
subordinate to the Beneficiary during the first year. As discussed above, inherent to the definition of 
an executive, the organization must have a subordinate level of managerial employees for the 
Beneficiary to direct to allow him to primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the 
organization rather than the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. 
Further, the Petitioner submits vague business plans for the first year that do not adequately 
demonstrate how it will develop sufficiently to support the Beneficiary in an executive capacity. We 
acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted contracts it executed with companies in Africa for the sale 
of certain goods, including computers and monitors for a Zambian school and a caterpillar vehicle 
and a "krane and beam hoist" for mining companies. However, it is not clear how these contracts 
would translate into the Petitioner's development in the United States during the first year. The 
9 
Matter of C-Q-A-. LLC 
Petitioner submitted a vague set of milestones it projected to reach during the first year; however, 
these shed little insight on how it would develop sufficiently to support the Beneficiary in an 
executive capacity. For instance, the milestones indicated that the Petitioner would hire a "business 
·development manager" during the first month and "sales staff' in the second month; however, its 
first year hiring plans do not mention hiring these employees. Further, the milestones were overly 
generic listing "website and social media" during month two, "establish contracts with local 
providers" during the third month, "establish contacts with new and existing clients" in month five, 
and "launch e-commerce" during its eighth month of operation. However, the Petitioner has not 
provided specific actions it would undertake to launch a website or social media campaign, generate 
relationships with "local providers" or "clients," or launch "e-commerce" during the first year. 
Indeed, the foreign contracts submitted by the Petitioner suggest that it plans to identify suppliers in 
the United States and ship goods back to these clients in Africa; as such, it is not clear what clients in 
the United States it is referring to. On the whole, these first year milestones are not credible and 
they leave question as to whether the Petitioner would likely develop sufficiently during the first 
year to support the Beneficiary in an executive capacity. 
_ The Petitioner has also not sufficiently established the size of the investment in the new office. See 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(2). In a submitted support letter, the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary and his foreign employer had "provided $119,332 in funds to cover the requisite initial 
investment" and its business plan also explained that the Beneficiary and his foreign employer had 
each contributed equally to this investment amount. However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that these funds were provided as claimed. For example, the Petitioner submitted bank account 
statements reflecting that it had received $10,687.27 from the Beneficiary in July 2017 and 
$15,904.84 from him in August 2017, transfers totaling $26,592.11. The Petitioner further 
submitted additional evidence of wire transfers originating from South African from the Beneficiary 
after the date the petition was filed, including $10,000 in February 2018 and $6,500 and $4,300 in 
March 2018 .. In total, this documentation reflects that the Beneficiary contributed approximately 
$37,400 to the Petitioner, an amount far shorter than the approximately $60,000 it indicated he had 
already paid. 
Further, there is no evidence that the foreign employer made the capital contribution of 
approximately $60,000 mentioned in the Petitioner's support letter and business plan. The Petitioner 
also stated that an additional $75,000 would be provided "as soon as permissible under Zambian 
law," but it did not describe how or when this would be provided or what prevented this money from 
being transferred. In fact, the Petitioner submitted a no interest loan agreement pursuant to which an 
individual sharing the last name as the Beneficiary borrowed $145,000 from an investment account 
in South Africa. Given the limited and inconsistent evidence of the asserted investment in the 
Petitioner, the presence of this loan document is questionable particularly since the Petitioner 
received bank and wire transfers originating from this country. This evidence leaves question as to 
whether the foreign employer has sufficient funds to support the Petitioner and to successfully 
launch it during the first year. 
10 
Matter of C-Q-A-, LLC 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demon~trate that the Beneficiary would be employed in an 
executive capacity in the United States within one year of an approval ofthe petition. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the record does not include sufficient evidence to establish that 
the Beneficiary was employed in an executive capacity abroad or that he would be employed in an 
executive capacity in the United States within one year of the petition's approval. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-Q-A-, LLC, ID# 1730665 (AAO Oct. 18, 2018) 
11 .