dismissed L-1A Case: Investment Consulting

MATTER OF 0- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 19.2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an "investment consulting" company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
general manager of its new office 1 under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section IOI(a)(IS)(L). 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(l5)(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 Center denied the petition, concluding that the new oftice 
would not support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of approval 
of the petition. The Director also concluded that the record did not establish, as required, that the 
Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director incorrectly concluded that it did not provide 
evidence specific to its first year hiring plans in the United States. In addition, the Petitioner states 
that the Director incorrectly concluded that it did not submit any supporting documentation of the 
Beneficiary acting in a managerial capacity abroad. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification for 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 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. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Act. The petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training. and 
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)(1 )(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 ofO- Inc. 
employment qualify him or her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3). 
If the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, indicates that the beneficiary is coming to 
the United States in L-1 A status to open or to be employed in a new office, 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). 
"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. 
"Executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization: 
establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; exercises wide 
latitude in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction from 
higher-level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. Section 
101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
II. NEW OFFICE 
The Director denied the petition, in part, because the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 
will act in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States within one year. 
If the Form I-129 indicates that the beneficiary is coming to the United States in L-1A status to open 
or to be employed in a new office, the petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new 
office will be able to support a managerial or executive position within one year. Therefore, 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 
managerial or executive capacity. The totality of the evidence must be considered in analyzing 
whether the proposed managerial or executive position is plausible considering a petitioner's 
anticipated staffing levels and stage of development within a one-year period. See 8 C.P.R. § 
214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
2 
Matter of 0- Inc. 
A. Duties 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner stated that it was established "with the objective of exploring 
investment opportunities for the foreign entity's Chinese clients" and to market the foreign employer's 
property management services in the United States. The Petitioner indicated that it planned on 
acquiring commercial properties in the United States, including hotels and motels. The Petitioner 
explained that the foreign employer granted the Beneficiary paid leave in November 2015 to come to 
the United States to complete a master's degree, while also launching the Petitioner's operations. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would act as general manager of the new company and 
devote 35% of her time to recruiting, training, and directing a management team including 
"assign[ing] them specific job duties, review[ing] their work schedules and oversee[ing] the 
performance of the managers." The Petitioner indicated she would be selecting "three employees 
from the foreign entity" to "perform investment opportunity presentations and draft purchasing plans 
for Chinese clients in China" and organize site visits to investment properties. The Petitioner also 
explained that the Beneficiary would spend I 0% of her time on setting out the company's 
operational strategy and vision, including "long-term plans and goals," "business goals," and 
"company policies and procedures." Further, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would devote 
20% of her time to managing and supervising overall operations and making final decisions for the 
company, including determining the "progress and status of each project of the company in attaining 
business objectives," revising "strategies and plans in accordance with the current conditions," and 
providing "guidelines and instructions to the managers." 
The Petitioner also explained that the Beneficiary would spend I 0% of her time on managing the 
company to attain business goals in revenue, expense, profitability, and customer satisfaction. 
performing such duties as determining "areas to make cost reduction and program improvement" 
and reviewing "the summary of consumer reports and surveys.'' Finally, the remainder of her time 
would be spent overseeing company's overall financial plan and budgets, including determining 
funding of projects (5%), and reporting to the general manager of the foreign employer (20%). 
The Petitioner has submitted a vague U.S. duty description that does not convey the Beneficiary's 
actual proposed day-to-day tasks or establish that she would devote her time primarily to managerial 
or executive duties. The duty description includes several general duties that could apply to any 
executive or manager acting in any business or industry and they do not provide insight into the 
actual nature of her role. The Petitioner has provided few specifics related to how the Beneficiary's 
day-to-day duties fit specifically within the company's tirst year business plans; for instance, what 
specific actions she will take during the first year to assure that the business develops as necessary to 
support her in a managerial or executive capacity within one year. In fact, the Beneficiary's duty 
description includes few references to the company's projected business. 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), a.f{'d, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990); Avyr Assoc.\· .. Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
3 
Matter of'O-lnc. 
The fact that the Beneficiary manages or directs a business does not necessarily establish eligibility 
for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity within the 
meaning of section 1 01 (a)( 44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that 
the duties of a position be "primarily" managerial or executive in nature. Sections 10l(A)(44)(A) 
and (B) of the Act. While the Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day 
operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making, 
the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that her actual duties will be primarily 
managerial or executive in nature within one year. 
B. Business Plan and Projected Staffing 
As noted, the Petitioner asserted in support of the petition that it would focus on marketing the 
foreign employer's property management services and investment from Chinese investors in the 
United States. The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart along with the petition ref1ecting 
that the Beneficiary would supervise a facilities manager and an administration manager who would 
be hired within two months, and a global investment manager to be hired '"immediately after [the 
Beneficiary] is in position." The chart further indicated that the facilities manager would supervise a 
bookkeeper and three "property leasing/managing coordinator[ s r within two months of their 
department head being put in place. In addition, the chart showed that the global investment 
manager would oversee two purchasing coordinators, to be hired once the Beneficiary was in place, 
and an '·independent real estate agent" within two months of the global investment manager's hiring. 
Lastly, the chart indicated that the administration manager would oversee an administrative assistant, 
hired within two months of her supervisor, as well as an "outsourced" accountant. corporate 
attorney, and real estate attorney. 
Approximately one month later in response to the director's RFE, the Petitioner stated that it had 
acquired an existing tea and coflee shop in California. The Petitioner submitted an updated 
organizational chart indicating that the Beneficiary would supervise a coffee/tea store manager, who 
in tum oversees two shift supervisors. The shift supervisors are shown to supervise "already hired'" 
servers. Otherwise, the organizational chart was largely consistent with that previously submitted on 
the record. 
The new office regulations recognize that a designated manager responsible for setting up operations 
will be engaged in a variety of low-level activities not normally performed by employees at the 
managerial level and that often the full range of managerial responsibility cannot be performed in 
that first year. However, a petitioner's evidence in support of a new office petition should 
demonstrate a realistic expectation that the enterprise is prepared to commence business operations 
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. 
Accordingly, the entire record must be considered to determine whether the proposed duties are 
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). 
4 
Matter of 0- Inc. 
The duties provided for the Beneficiary's proposed subordinates are overly vague and do not convey 
their day-to-day tasks in the context of the company's first year development. First, there is a great 
deal of overlap in responsibilities among the Beneficiary's proposed managerial subordinates despite 
their varying roles. Further, the Petitioner provided a list of non-specific duties for the proposed 
facilities manager that could apply to any such employee in any business, including discussing 
strategies and recommending a variety of programs, and supervising and monitoring property 
management staff. Similarly vague duties were provided for the Beneficiary's other proposed 
managerial subordinates. The Petitioner stated that the global investment manager will be tasked 
with developing relationships with investors in China and managing and assisting clients in 
purchasing properties in the United States, and while the purchasing coordinator will "utilize 
resources and perform research to determine marketing patterns and strategies" and organize site 
visits for clients. The Petitioner has not provided any examples of specific tasks the proposed 
managers will perform during the first year to help successfully launch the business such that it will 
support the Beneficiary in her asserted managerial capacity within one year. 
The Petitioner also has not submitted sufficient detail regarding its first year hiring and business 
plans, information critical to assessing whether it is likely that the business will develop sufficiently 
during the first year. For instance, the Petitioner states that it will hire all of the Beneficiary's 
managerial subordinates shortly after the approval of the petition. and the subordinates of these 
proposed managers soon thereafter. The Petitioner asserts that it already employs the administrative 
manager, the coffee/tea store manager, two shift managers, and servers. However, the Petitioner 
provides little evidence that it currently employs these individuals such as proof of regular salaries 
being paid to them, tax documentation, or other evidence to substantiate their employment. 
Likewise, the Petitioner states that the global investment manager and the purchasing coordinators 
will be paid by the foreign employer, but it does not identify these employees, substantiate this 
assertion, or indicate how much these employees will earn. The Petitioner provided little detail on 
how it will pay its many projected employees during the first year. 
Similarly, the Petitioner provides little detail regarding its first year actions to substantiate that it will 
develop sufficiently during the first year to support the Beneficiary is qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity. For instance, the Petitioner asserts that the foreign employer will invest 
$360,000 in the company during the first year. However, it does not specify how this money will be 
spent during the first year to develop the business. Further, the Petitioner did not provide evidence 
that this amount has been transferred to the Petitioner: in fact, there is documentary evidence that the 
foreign entity transferred only $1 000 to the Petitioner in the form of a "consulting fee.'' 
In support of the RFE, the Petitioner emphasized its acquisition of a tea and cotTee shop for 
approximately $187,000, and provided first year financial projections based on this purchase. The 
Petitioner emphasized that the store it acquired has nine employees. However, the Petitioner does 
not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate its acquisition of the tea and coffee shop. The 
Petitioner provided a copy of a business purchase agreement dated May 20, 2017, but it is not fully 
executed. Further, the listed seller of this store is the Petitioner's claimed administrative manager. It 
is also questionable that this claimed transaction took place only ten days prior to the Petitioner's 
Matter o(O-Inc. 
response to the RFE, particularly since it the acquisition of the shop was not mentioned at the time of 
filing, just one month earlier. The Petitioner has also not provided other supporting documentation 
to substantiate this transaction, such as proof of the shop's nine employees, photographs of this 
business, supporting documentation relevant to the business, or financials specific to this business. 
The Petitioner also indicated plans to acquire a second store for $200,000; however, there is no 
mention of the acquisition of additional stores in its financial projections. The Petitioner also states 
that the foreign employer will provide an additional $300,000 in capital to support the operation of 
the Petitioner during the first year. The Petitioner provides no supporting evidence to substantiate 
this assertion and this lack of evidence is particularly notable in light of the discrepancies in the 
evidence with respect to the foreign employer's operations discussed later in this decision. In sum, 
the lack of evidence and discrepancies related to the claimed coffee and tea business leave question 
as to the Petitioner's first year business plans and whether it will sufficiently develop to support the 
Beneficiary within the first year. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
The Petitioner also submits a separate business plan specific to its proposed development of an 
investment and property management business in the United States. However, this business plan 
provides few details on how this portion of the business will be developed. The Petitioner only 
vaguely references "foreign investment," "trade distribution," and developing "business contacts'' 
and "market opportunities," but it provides little explanation on the specific focus of this business. 
its plans for development, or the specific actions it will undertake during the first year to launch this 
business. In fact, the Petitioner leaves further question as to its planned operations as it also submits 
business certificates and business licenses indicating that the company is involved in ''the 
import/export of scientific measuring instruments." Further, the lease agreement provided by the 
Petitioner states that its agreed use is for "office and warehouse distribution of consumer goods." 
The submitted evidence also includes documentation indicating that the Petitioner has exported 
chemicals to a Chinese company and that it has received a wire transfer from a Chinese 
pharmaceutical company. In sum, the Petitioner submits a conflicting array of documentation as to 
its actual and proposed business operations and it has not provided sutlicient evidence to 
demonstrate that it will more likely than not develop as necessary within the first year to support the 
Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
The record does not include sufficient probative evidence establishing that the Beneficiary will be 
relieved from performing non-qualifying duties within one year of approval of the petition. The 
Petitioner has not fully developed the record so that we may analyze the viability of its plans to open 
and operate a new office in the United States. 
Ill. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The remaining issue addressed by the Director is whether the Petitioner established that the 
Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that 
Matter of 0- Inc. 
the foreign entity employs her in an executive capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to 
whether the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 
When examining the foreign managerial capacity of the Beneficiary, we will review the Petitioner's 
description ofthejob duties. The Petitioner's description ofthejob duties must clearly describe the 
duties performed by the Beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in a managerial capacity. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description ofthejob duties, we also the foreign 
employer's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate foreign 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 the business. 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary's foreign employer, a Chinese company, is a "vertically 
integrated regional construction powerhouse. engaging in building construction and other peripheral 
operations such as foundation work, site investigation, mechanical and electrical engineering, ready­
mixed concrete, pre-cast production and infrastructure investment." The Petitioner stated that the 
foreign entity employs 450 full time employees and that it earned over $400 million in revenue in 
2016. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary began her employment as the foreign employer's assistant 
general manager in March 2014. The Petitioner indicated that the company has enjoyed a 35% 
increase in annual sales since she began working in this position. The Petitioner explained that the 
Beneficiary devotes 30% of her time to "formulating, directing, and coordinating business 
operations, including establishing and formulating departmental policies, procedures, long-term 
goals, and objectives," and made further note of her formulation of "detailed operational policies and 
procedures." The Petitioner also indicated that the Beneficiary spends 30% of her time focusing on 
personnel issues, such as establishing "guidelines and performance expectations,'' developing ··work 
improvement plans:' establishing "policies and objectives of the company, recruiting, selecting, and 
disciplining employees, enforcing company "policies and procedures," and "establishing employee 
career development policies." 
In addition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary devotes 20% of her time to directing and 
coordinating the "collection, analysis, and dissemination of business information to formulate 
programs to maximize returns on investments." including deciding on operational budgets for each 
department and providing funds to new or continuing projects. The Petitioner cited the 
Beneficiary's creation of the Petitioner in the United States in February 2017 and the acquisition of 
licenses, the creation of a bank account, amongst other actions to create the corporate entity and 
commence business. The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary spends another 20% of her time 
reporting to the general manager on a regular basis, making "suggestions regarding improvements or 
adjustments" and making "new strategic decisions," including purchasing a tea and coffee store in 
the United States in May 2017. 
Matter of 0- Inc. 
The Petitioner has submitted a vague foreign duty description for the Beneficiary that does not 
convey her actual day-to-day tasks or establish that she has devoted her time primarily to managerial 
duties. The Beneficiary's duty description includes several general duties that could apply to any 
manager acting in any business or industry and they do not provide insight into the actual nature of 
her role. The Petitioner has provided few examples and little supporting documentation to 
demonstrate the Beneficiary's performance of these duties, such as department policies she 
established, procedures, goals, or objectives, she developed, operational plans and procedures she 
created, guidelines and performance expectations she implemented, career development policies she 
put in place, investment programs she formulated, or strategic decisions she made. The Petitioner 
states that the Beneficiary was responsible for generating a 35% increase in revenue for the foreign 
employer, but it does not explain how this additional revenue was generated, document this increase, 
or describe in detail how she achieved this accomplishment. 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., 724 F. Supp. at 1103,1108. 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary began acting in her role as assistant general manager in 
March 2014, prior to her coming to the United States November 2015. However, the Petitioner 
provides little detail as to the Beneficiary's managerial activities during the approximately twenty 
months she acted in this role abroad. In fact, the Petitioner refers prominently to the Beneficiary's 
activities after her arrival in the United States, when she is claimed to have continued to work in her 
foreign role as assistant general manager. However, the Petitioner provides little detail regarding the 
Beneficiary's daily activities while working for the foreign employer in China. Further, we also note 
that any duties the Beneficiary's performed for the foreign employer since coming to the United 
States on an F-1 student visa in November 2015 are not relevant to demonstrating her foreign 
employment since her qualifying employment must have taken place when she was not physically 
present in the United States. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(A). 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner provides some evidence relevant to the Beneficiary's duties 
while working for the foreign employer in China. However, these examples are not sutlicient. 
credible, or properly documented. For instance, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary was 
involved in the termination of two foreign entity employees in April 2015, but submits only a vague 
document stating that these employees violated the company's labor policy. Likewise, the Petitioner 
submits performance evaluations the Beneficiary is claimed to have completed for subordinates, 
including some of her claimed subordinate managers, but these performance evaluations are not fully 
translated, nor credible, as they only set forth an overall score without narrative or commentary as to 
the performance of these employees. In addition, the Petitioner submits a corporate document 
indicating that the Beneficiary approved a subordinate to "participate in [a) tour-day "project 
management training course" in March 2015. In short, the submitted documents asserting to reflect 
the Beneficiary's performance of personnel related duties for the foreign employer are vague, not 
fully translated, and not credible. Although the Petitioner contends that these documents provide 
detail as to the Beneficiary's activities abroad, they in fact provide little. 
8 
Matter of 0- Inc. 
We note that any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(b)(3). The translator must certify that the English language translation 
is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign language 
into English. !d. Because the Petitioner did not submit a properly certified English language 
translation of several of the provided foreign employer personnel documents, we cannot determine 
whether the translated material is accurate and thus supports the Petitioner's claims. 
The fact that the Beneficiary manages or directs a business does not necessarily establish eligibility 
for classification as an intracompany transferee in an executive capacity within the meaning of 
section 101 (a)( 44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of 
a position be "primarily'" managerial in nature. Sections 101(A)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. While 
the Beneficiary may have exercised discretion over the foreign employer's day-to-day operations 
and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making, the 
position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that her actual duties were primarily 
managerial in nature. 
B. Staffing 
The Petitioner submitted the foreign entity's organizational chart in response to the Director's 
request for evidence (RFE). The chart reflects that the Beneficiary oversees six subordinates 
including a hotel/property management director, a purchasing manager, an accounting manager, an 
administrative manager, an engineering manager, and a quality control manager. In turn. these 
supervisors are shown to oversee an extensive organization. For instance, the hotel/property 
management employee is shown to oversee a ''guest service section." a "maintenance section," 
"housekeeping," and "securities," while the chart also reflects that the engineering manager 
supervises an extensive group of employees including a "designing section," a "construction 
section," and a "decoration section,'' each having an diverse set of subordinate employees such as 
"construction supervisors," "equipment operators," "bricklayers," "electricians," amongst others. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary acts as a personnel manager. The statutory definition of 
"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function managers:· See section 
101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 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.'' Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(iv) 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. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)( I )(ii)(B)(J). 
The Petitioner does not submit sufficient supporting documentation to substantiate that the 
Beneficiary supervises six subordinate supervisors and an organization of over 450 employees as 
claimed. For instance, the Petitioner submits the foreign entity's monthly payroll documentation for 
9 
.
Matter of 0- Inc. 
the period April 2016 through March 2017, however, these documents are not fully translated. 
Further, these documents do not reflect the foreign company's staffing levels during the 
Beneficiary's claimed period of employment abroad (March 2014 to November 20 15). 
In fact, similar to the Beneficiary's duties, the Petitioner provides duty descriptions for the 
Beneficiary's asserted foreign subordinates that are vague and which do not convey their actual day­
to-day activities. First, there is significant overlap in the duties of the Beneficiary's six subordinates 
despite their varying roles. Further, the duty descriptions include no details specific to the foreign 
employer's asserted business . For instance, the duty description for the hotel/property management 
director indicates that he is responsible for managing daily operations , developing the department , 
discussing strategies, and directing marketing campaigns, yet it does not include exampl es of 
operations he manages or strategies and marketing campaigns he implemented . Likewise, the 
engineering manager and quality control manager are both stated to have responsibility for product 
development and product specifications, but there is no indication what products they are developing 
and overseeing. The administrative manager is vaguely stated to be responsible for ''all 
administrative functions." 
The duty descriptions of the Beneficiary claimed managerial subordinates also include few 
references to the foreign employer ' s asserted business operations. In swn, the Petitioner has not 
submitted sufficiently detailed and credible duty descriptions for the Beneficiary ' s claimed 
managerial subordinates , and has not supported its claim that the Beneficiary was employed in a 
managerial capacity based on her supervision of other managers. 
Moreover, the Petitioner provides little supporting documentation to corroborate the foreign 
employer's operations. The Petitioner submits numerous foreign employer documents which are not 
fully translated thereby leaving question as to whether the company's operations are as asserted or 
sufficient to support the Beneficiary in qualifying managerial 
capacity. For instance, the Petitioner 
provides foreign tax documentation, bank statements, bidding documents and notices, invoices, 
contracts and a marketing pamphlet which are not fully translated. Indeed, in many case s submitted 
foreign company documents are sparsely translated. 2 
In addition, it is also noteworthy that the Petitioner has provided several photographs of what appear 
to foreign entity employees and operations , but did not indicate what these photographs detail. As a 
result, we are left with little idea as to the true nature of the foreign employer's operations and the 
Petitioner has not properly substantiated that the Beneficiary acts as the head of a large multinational 
2 The Petitioner submitted a ·'purchase contract" which appears to include over I 00 pages, but it only provided a one 
page translation including only the titles of its section headings, which does not identify the nature of the contract, when 
it was executed, or the "seller" with whom the Beneficiary contracted. Likewise , the Petitioner provide s a "Bid Notice 
of Project ," which again appears to be several page s in Chinese. but which is only reflected as one 
incomplete page in English , indicating the date of the winning bid , price, and ''project number. " However. the 
translation does not indicate the nature of the project , for whom the project will be completed, or any other specific s.· 
These fore ign entity document s are only two examples of the Petitioner's repeated failure on the record to fully translate 
documentation relevant to the foreign employ er. 
10 
Matter ofO- Inc. 
construction and engineering company abroad. The Petitioner must resolve ambiguities 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). 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently supported the foreign employer's organizational chart with 
documentary evidence nor has it provided sufficiently detailed duties for the Beneficiary and her 
subordinates. The Petitioner has not corroborated that the Beneficiary is removed from performing 
non-qualifying operational duties in her capacity abroad and it has provided an extensive amount of 
untranslated documentation relevant to the foreign employer, leaving question as to its asserted 
operations and the Beneficiary's role therein. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad 
in a managerial capacity. 
IV. ONE YEAR OF FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
Finally, we note that the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has been employed as the foreign 
employer's assistant general manager since March 2014. However, U.S. Department of State 
records show that when the Beneficiary applied for an F-1 student visa in September 2015. she 
indicated that she had been working for a different foreign employer until March 2015. Further, the 
same records reflect that when the Beneficiary applied for a B 1 /B2 visa in October 2014, she did not 
identity the foreign entity as her employer. Based on the U.S. Department of State records, it 
appears that the Beneficiary was not employed by foreign entity for a full year prior to her entry to 
the United States in F-1 status, or for one year in the three years preceding the filing of this petition 
in January 2017. See section I Ol(a)(l5)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). 
While we are not making an adverse determination based on this information obtained from the U.S. 
Department of State, the Petitioner should address the Beneficiary's statements regarding her 
employment abroad in any future tiling on her behalf. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the record does not include sufficient evidence to establish that 
the Beneficiary acts in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity with the foreign employer or 
that the Petitioner will support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity within a 
one-year period. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Mattero(O- Inc., ID# 832366 (AAO Jan. 19, 2018) 
II