dismissed L-1A Case: Lighting Products

MATTER OF H-0- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 1, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a distributor and marketer of compact florescent lamps (CFL) and light-emitting 
diode (LED) products, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as the general manager of its 
"new office" under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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 record did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) the Beneficiary had been employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity; (2) the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity within one year after approval of the petition; and (3) the Petitioner had secured sufficient 
physical premises to begin doing business. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it has established eligibility based on the evidence submitted 
and that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge 
capacity, for one continuous year within three years preceding the Beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. In addition, the Beneficiary must seek to enter the United States 
temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate 
thereof in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. Section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the 
Act. 
The term "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(l)(l)(ii)(F). If the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker, indicates that the Beneficiary is coming to the United States in L-IA status to open or'to be 
Matter of H-0- Inc. 
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 includes 
information regarding the new office's physical premises, 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. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director denied the petition based, in part, on a finding that the record did not establish that the 
foreign entity employed the Beneficiary in an executive or managerial capacity.1 
The law defines the term "managerial capacity" as "an assignment within an organization in which 
the employee primarily": 
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component 
of the organization; 
(ii) supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the 
organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the 
authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions 
(such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly 
supervised, functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or 
with respect to the function managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function for 
which the employee has authority. -
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Further, "a first-line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a 
managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees 
supervised are professional." Id. 
A. Duties 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of the Beneficiary, we will look first to the 
Petitioner's description of the job duties. The description of the job duties must clearly describe the 
duties performed by the Beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in a managerial or 
executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Based on the definitions of managerial and 
1 As the Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary has been employed in an executive capacity for the foreign 
employer, we restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary has been employed in a managerial capacity. 
2 
Matter of H-0- Inc. 
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 primarily engaged in managerial or 
executive duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside other employees. See 
Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Beneficiary's foreign employer employs approximately 500 people and manufactures and 
markets CFLs and LED products. The Beneficiary has been employed by the foreign entity as vice 
president of overseas marketing, since April 2014. A l~tter from the foreign entity provided a broad 
overview of the Beneficiary's duties and noted that the domestic marketing manager, the overseas 
marketing manager, and the operation and commercial managers assist him in carrying out his 
responsibilities. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a second letter 
from the foreign entity with an expanded description of the Beneficiary's duties and divided his 
responsibilities into three areas: 
Management and Leadership (50% of his daily time) 
• Lead the Senior Marketing Manager and Senior Domestic Marketing Manager to 
develop and execute new concepts, business models, channels and partners to 
position the business as innovator and leader. 
• Collaborate with sales and sourcing to develop strategic partnership activities and 
implement the execution framework and strategic plan on identified international 
opportunities. 
• Liaise with Operation and Commercial managers to provide marketing feedback 
in order to control costs and export production and quality. 
• Report to the Board of Directors through presentations and marketing briefs with 
proposals of marketing strategies. 
Sales/Marketing (30% of his time) 
• Oversee creation and delivery of press releases, advertisements, and other 
marketing materials. 
• Plan marketing and branding objectives and implement their execution. 
• Expand the business through new marketing opportunities. 
• Prepare marketing strategies. 
• Drive overall CRM and direct marketing. 
• Analyze market trends and recommend changes to marketing and business 
development strategies based on analysis and feedback. 
• Enter into customer contracts as an agent of the company. 
• Engage in trade shows worldwide with potential clients to increase exposure of 
the company and attract potential clients. 
• Prepare and adhere to budgets. 
3 
Matter of H-0- Inc. 
Research and planning (20% of his time) 
• Understand [m]arketing, promotion, and advertising disclosure laws and codes 
internationally[.] 
• To develop and manage international pricing structure of LED product and to 
promote the sales of product to entire satisfaction ofthe company. 
• Establish current and new marketing channels. 
• Analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of sales, new methods and costs for new 
international markets. 
In denying the petition the Director found that several of the Beneficiary's duties are not those 
typically performed by a managerial employee. The Director also found that the Beneficiary has 
been performing, rather than managing, the foreign entity's marketing function. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary is part of the foreign entity's senior 
management team and "managed a huge marketing function of Petitioner's business in India." 
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. The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not 
supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing 
an "essential function" within the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The term 
"essential function" is not defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary 
manages an essential function, a petitioner must clearly describe the duties performed in managing 
the essential function, or more specifically, identify the function with specificity, articulate the 
essential nature of the function, and establish the proportion of a beneficiary's daily duties attributed 
to managing the essential function. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). In addition, a petitioner's 
description of a beneficiary's daily duties must -demonstrate that the beneficiary manages the 
function rather than perform duties related to the function. See Matter of Z-A -, Inc., Adopted 
Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). 
The foreign entity does not describe the Beneficiary's positiOn as primarily supervismg and 
controlling the work of other employees. Rather, the foreign entity asserts that the Beneficiary is 
managing its marketing function. However, the foreign entity's description of the Beneficiary's 
duties and the time spent on the different areas of duties do not include sufficient information to 
conclude that the Beneficiary is managing the foreign entity's marketing function rather than 
performing the marketing function. · 
The foreign entity indicated that the Beneficiary spends 50 percent of his time on management and 
leadership, 30 percent of his time on sales and marketing, and 20 percent of his time on research and 
planning; however, the time the Beneficiary will spend on the more specific duties described is not 
provided. Many of the supplementary duties described could be construed as managerial or as 
operational. For example, the foreign entity's 2vague reference to leading the senior marketing 
4 
Matter of H-0- Inc. 
managers in developing and executing new concepts, business models, channels, and partners does 
not provide sufficient detail to determine the Beneficiary's actual tasks in carrying out this endeavor. 
Additionally, it is not possible to ascertain whether the Beneficiary's collaboration in sales and 
sourcing and implementing a framework and liaising with the operation and commercial managers 
are managing marketing and sales tasks or performing the essential operational tasks in these areas. 
As the foreign entity ascribes 50 percent of the Beneficiary's time to these broadly stated duties, it is 
not possible to conclude that the Beneficiary's primary role is to manage the foreign entity's 
marketing function. Further, a number of the Beneficiary's other duties such as planning the 
marketing and branding objectives and implementing their execution, preparing marketing strategies, 
analyzing market trends, and engaging in trade shows, appear to be more operational tasks rather 
than managerial. 
The duties as described are not sufficiently explicit to determine that the Beneficiary will manage an 
essential function rather than perform the foreign entity's necessary operational tasks. 
B. Staffing 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
reviews the totality of the record when examining the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a 
beneficiary, including the company's organizational structure, the duties of 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. 
The foreign entity's organizational structure shows the domestic marketing manager and overseas 
marketing manager reporting directly to the Beneficiary and the operation manager and commercial 
manager on the same tier as the Beneficiary in the foreign employer's organizational hierarchy. The 
foreign entity's organizational chart identifies only two individuals as subordinate to the 
Beneficiary's position.2 The descriptions of duties for these two individuals are insufficient to 
establish that they carry out the foreign entity's marketing function, relieving the Beneficiary to 
primarily manage the marketing function. 
Although the senior domestic marketing manager's duties reference marketing strategy, his duties 
focus on selling the foreign entity's product by introducing the company's products, adding 
customers, and establishing contacts and developing relations with potential customers and looking 
after key customers, as well as ensuring a fault free supply chain. Similarly, although the senior 
marketing manager's duties include assisting the Beneficiary in the overall marketing operation, she 
is involved in assessing online tenders of prospective buyers, handling logistics to ensure that 
dispatches and deliveries are made per the customers' requirements, coordinating with the 
2 Although the Petitioner asserts on appeal that these two subordinates have additional staff who report to them, these 
claimed staff members are not listed in the foreign entity's payroll records. 
5 
Matter of H-0- Inc. 
production department, developing and managing price structure, and evaluating the effectiveness of 
sales, methods, and costs. Thus, the Beneficiary's direct subordinates perform some marketing 
duties, but also perform sales and logistical duties. As the foreign entity does not describe how the 
subordinates allocate their time, we cannot ascertain their primary duties. 
Further, the record does not include information on the duties and interactions of the operation 
manager and commercial manager, the individuals on the same organizational tier as the Beneficiary 
who are claimed to assist the Beneficiary. The record does not include sufficient probative 
information regarding the foreign entity's staffing to establish the Beneficiary's actual role within 
the foreign entity's organization. Without additional detailed information, we cannot conclude that 
the Beneficiary has been relieved from primarily performing the foreign entity's operational 
marketing tasks. 
Even if considering the Beneficiary as a personnel manager for the foreign entity, the record does 
not establish that either of the Beneficiary's direct subordinates are supervisory or managerial 
positions. 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." 3 Section 
101(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(l)(l)(ii)(B)(J). Here, the foreign entity does not detail the 
Beneficiary's authority regarding personnel actions or otherwise describe his duties as primarily 
supervising other employees. 
The record is insufficient to the Beneficiary has been relieved of performing marketing, operational 
and other administrative tasks associated with the function he is claimed to manage. The record 
does not establish that he primarily managed the foreign entity's marketing function or primarily 
supervised the individuals subordinate to his position. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established 
the Beneficiary has been employed in a managerial capacity abroad. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director also denied the petition based, in part, on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish 
that the new office would support the Beneficiary in a primarily managerial or executive capacity 
within one year of approval of the petition. Specifically, the Director referenced a proposed 
3 In evaluating whether a beneficiary manages professional employees, we 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 I 0 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." Therefore, we focus on the level of education required by the 
position, rather than the degree held by subordinate employee. Here, the Petitioner has not established that a bachelor's 
degree is actually necessary to perform the duties described for the Beneficiary's two subordinate employees. 
6 
Matter of H-0- Inc. 
organizational chart and inconsistencies in the projected positions for the U.S. entity, the lack of 
detail in the record regarding the operating expenses including payroll for all intended employees, 
and the lack of information regarding the foreign entity's organizational structure and its relationship 
to the new proposed office. The Director determined that the record did not include sufficient 
evidence to demonstrate that the new office would support a managerial or executive position within 
the allowed one year. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's responsibilities "will be primarily managerial 
duties associated with development of the U.S. market for the Petitioner's international 
organization." The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary will enter into contracts with and direct 
the activities of accounting firms, attorneys, bankers, and custom brokers; "will recruit and supervise 
the operations team that will include the marketing and sales department personnel, support staff 
personnel as well as sourcing warehouse and distribution personnel"; and "would manage the 
essential function of developing the group's presence in the US, a role which reasonably requires 
him to rely on support from-staff [sic] in the foreign company whose duties directly related [sic] to 
the objectives and goals ofthe_U.S. office." 
The same definition of managerial capacity as set out above applies when evaluating the 
Beneficiary's managerial capacity for the U.S. employer. See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. The 
Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity. 
A. Duties 
As noted above, the foreign entity in this matter manufactures CFLs and LED lamps of various 
wattages. In an introductory statement, the Petitioner explained that the foreign entity saw a growth 
market potential by directly selling their lighting products in the United States and determined that a 
local (U.S.) team was needed to facilitate business trading and marketing strategies. The Petitioner 
noted further that due to the Beneficiary's experience and knowledge of foreign markets, he is being 
transferred "to manage the export business and to supervise the retail and institutional segments of 
the United States market." 
The Petitioner provided a lengthy narrative identifying "functions" the Beneficiary "will perform 
and oversee. For example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will spend 40 percent of his 
daily time on management and leadership duties including setting the strategy, providing strong 
leadership, developing the annual business plan, managing operations and budgets, managing and 
executing the export chain plans and managing staff including assessments, recruitment and training 
needs with line control over managerial staff. The duties described under the management and 
leadership heading includes generalities rather than describing the specific duties the Beneficiary 
will be expected to perform. For example, providing strong leadership, contributing to the 
development of strategic plans, and spearheading effective growth strategies and processes simply 
state general business objectives without the necessary detail on how the duties to obtain the 
business objectives will be carried out. Additionally, managing operations, budgets, and expenses, 
as well as managing and executing the export chain plans include operational duties, and the 
Matter of H-0- Inc. 
Petitioner does not specifY who would carry out the operational tasks within one year of approval of 
the petition, so that the Beneficiary would not have to perform them himself. 
The Petitioner added that the Beneficiary will spend about 30 percent of his time on sales and 
marketing which will require establishing marketing and sales teams, managing and evaluating sales 
and marketing activities, forging distributor relationships, establishing policies for government and 
institutional product bidding, working closely with product marketing feedback, recommending 
selling techniques, and assisting in developing brand identity. These duties may incorporate some 
supervisory duties as well as operational duties. However, the duties are not sufficiently detailed to 
ascertain whether the Petitioner expects the Beneficiary to primarily supervise others or to 
participate in the operational duties alongside the proposed employees. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will spend 20 percent of his time on finance which will 
include preparing and administering budgets, evaluating monthly financial reports and resolving 
significant variances, assisting with 'and evaluating financial policies to optimize inventory and 
minimize financial exposure, and assisting with the audit process. Finally, the Petition indicates the 
Beneficiary will spend 10 percent of his time on distribution operations but does not consistently 
explain its involvement in the distribution process relating to the foreign entity's products; that is, 
the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will establish warehousing facilities in California, but later 
asserts that the foreign entity will ship products directly to clients. Further, the record does not 
include evidence of potential U.S. employees or employees of the foreign entity who will be 
responsible for developing the U.S. distribution channels and ensuring delivery schedules and 
quality controls standards are met, other than the Beneficiary. 
The duties listed in the Petitioner's description are very broad (such as "[p]rovide strong leadership 
and direction for staff and maintain[] a positive can-do culture" or are short-term, one-time 
responsibilities that would not make continued demands on the Beneficiary's time (such as 
establishing sales and marketing teams and distribution channels). Further, the Petitioner has not 
indicated how much time the Beneficiary would devote to the individual responsibilities described. 
The allocation of time to these individual responsibilities is important as many of them describe 
performing operational duties. We cannot ascertain how much of the Beneficiary's time will be 
spent on performing the duties and functions the Petitioner described, rather than primarily 
supervising employees or managing a specific function. 
The described duties of the Beneficiary's proposed new office position do not include sufficient 
probative detail to establish that he. would be performing primarily managerial duties within one 
year. 
B. Business Plan and Proposed Staffing 
The position description alone is insufficient to establish that a beneficiary's duties would be 
primarily in a managerial capacity, particularly in the case of a new office petition where much is 
dependent on factors such as a petitioner's business and hiring plans and evidence that the business 
8 
.
Matter of H-0- Inc. 
will grow sufficiently to support a beneficiary in the intended managerial or executive capacity. A 
petitioner has the burden to establish that it will realistically develop to the point where it will 
· require the beneficiary to perform duties that are primarily managerial in nature within one year. 
Accordingly, the totality of the record must also be considered in analyzing 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). 
In its initial letter, the Petitioner stated: "[The Beneficiary] will recruit and supervise the operations 
team that will include the marketing and sales department personnel, support staff personnel as well 
as sourcing 
warehouse and distribution personnel." The record included an organizational chart in 
the Petitioner's business plan showing the following planned structure (positions shown in italics 
were still vacant at the time of filing): 
TBD: Sales Executive 
General Manager 
(Beneficiary) 
TBD: 
Finance/Accountant 
TBD: Sales Executive 
TBD: Operations 
Marketing/Sales 
Head 
TBD: Soles Executive TBD: Soles Executive TBD: Support Stoff 
The Petitioner also submitted a business plan and a chart outlining manpower cost estimates for the 
Beneficiary, a marketing and sales head, one sales executive, and one support staff, in the first six 
m~mths of operation. The chart adds one sales executive to be employed in the second six months of 
operation, and adds two more sales executives to be employed in the second year of operations. The 
Petitioner's initial submission did not include job descriptions fpr the subordinate positions 
identified on the organizational chart. 
In an RFE, the Director noted that the Petitioner did not detail the number and type of proposed 
positions, or describe how the Beneficiary's subordinates would relieve him from performing 
non-qualifying duties within the first year subsequent to approval of the petition. The Director also 
found that the Petitioner had not estaplished that it had sufficient funds to commence operations. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted brief positions descriptions for the previously identified 
positions. The Petitioner described the Beneficiary 's position as .shouldering the overall 
9 
Matter of H-0- Inc. 
responsibility for the U.S. operations and being the head of strategy, and acting as an interface 
between the U.S. company and the foreign entity. The head of marketing and sales position is 
described as "primarily responsible for implementation of marketing and sales strategy in terms of 
creating product and brand awareness in target market, identification of institutional customers, 
procuring orders, identification and appointment of dealers/distributors, publicity, customer 
relationship management etc." The Petitioner described the sales executive position as "primarily 
responsible for implementation of sales plans in terms of regular direct contact with customers for 
procurement of orders, collection of payments, after sales service and handling customer 
complaints." 
The description of the duties of the Petitioner's proposed employees is insufficient to establish that 
they would relieve the Beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties within a year of approval 
of the petition. Although the head of marketing and sales appears to devote time to marketing, his 
duties do not include supervision of the sales executives. His position appears to have been placed 
on a supervisory tier in the Petitioner's organizational structure to elevate his position to a 
supervisory position rather than someone whose duties are primarily marketing. Thus, his insertion 
on a supervisory tier does not correspond to the Petitioner's description of his duties. Additionally, 
the Petitioner does not describe the ongoing role the law offices or its accountant will have in the 
business operations. Accordingly, the law offices and the proposed accountant will not be 
considered as relieving the Beneficiary of performing the Petitioner's operational tasks. 
The Petitioner does not assert and the job~ descriptions of the marketing and sales department head 
and the sales and support staff proposed positions do not indicate that the duties performed require a 
baccalaureate degree. Thus, these positions are not professional positions. Cf 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). Further, the duties as described indicate that these individuals will be engaged in 
marketing and sales tasls.s and will not be performing managerial duties. The Petitioner's job 
descriptions, business plan, and proposed staffing do not demonstrate that the Beneficiary will be 
more than a first-line supervisor of non-professional employees within one year of the approval of 
the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims the Beneficiary will be employed primarily as a function manager 
by the end of the initial year of operations. The Petitioner' asserts that in addition to the proposed 
U.S. employees, the Beneficiary will rely on the foreign entity's staff to carry out the marketing 
duties. As noted above, the term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not 
supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing 
an "essential function" within the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) ofthe Act. 
To show the Beneficiary's eligibility as a function manager, it is not enough tor the Petitioner to 
assert that developing a presence in the United States would necessarily require the Beneficiary to 
rely on support from the foreign staff whose duties are directly related to the objectives and goals of 
the U.S. office. Rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate that relationship and the specific 
contributions to be made by the foreign staff. In this matter, the Petitioner does not offer evidence or 
plans that demonstrate the relationship between the foreign employees and the Beneficiary's duties 
10 
Matter of H-0- Inc. 
for the Petitioner. Additionally, the Petitioner does not explain how the foreign employees will be 
inserted into its proposed operations. The business plan submitted does not reference the 
Petitioner's reliance on the foreign entity's marketing employees, rather, it specifies that "a 
supporting infrastructure comprising [sic] of [a] marketing team of professionals will be developed 
in the [S]tate of Oregon." The record does include a reference to the Petitioner being backed by an 
"assured sourcing infrastructure in India," but this is not a reference to the foreign entity's marketing 
division or other specific employees that will support the Beneficiary in the proposed U.S. position. 
The Petitioner also claimed that the foreign entity's initial investment of $50,000 was to be utilized 
to secure an office, cover initial set J.lP costs and expenses, through November 2016, and that 
because it is a "predominantly sales and marketing driven organization," it is expected that it would 
generate income from order procurements and be self-funded by November 2016, a month after the 
Beneficiary's intended employment period would begin. 
However, the Petitioner does not include probative evidence establishing that it will generate 
sufficient funds to support th~ manpower it proposes. The Petitioner's business plan includes an 
estimate of sales and a table of profitability estimates, but the Petitioner does not sufficiently 
correlate these figures to the Petitioner's manpower costs estimates. That is, the business plan is 
insufficiently detailed to credibly support the Petitioner's claim that it will be self-funded within one 
month of opening the U.S. office and able to support its manpower estimates. The Petitioner also 
has not submitted evidence that the foreign entity will continue to support the U.S. office with funds 
and that it has the ability to do so. 
When a new business is established and commences operations, the regulations recognize that a 
designated manager or executive responsible for setting up operations will be engaged in a variety of 
activities not normally performed by employees at the executive or managerial level and that often 
the full range of managerial responsibility cannot be performed. In order to qualify for L-1 
nonimmigrant classification during the first year of operations, the regulations require a petitioner to 
disclose the proposed nature of the business and the size of the U.S. investment, and establish that 
the proposed enterprise will support an executive or managerial position within one year of the 
approval of the petition. See 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(v)(C). This evidence should demonstrate a 
realistic expectation that the enterprise will succeed and rapidly expand as it moves away from the 
developmental stage to full operations, where there would be an actual need for a manager or 
executive who will primarily perform qualifying duties. 
Here, the submitted business plan and proposed staffing plan do not contain sufficient evidence to 
establish that the Petitioner will be able to support a managerial or executive position within one 
year of approval. 
1 1 
Matter of H-0- Inc. 
IV. PHYSICAL PREMISES 
The Director also found that the Petitioner did not establish that it secured sufficient physical 
premises to begin doing business as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). 
The Petitioner submitted a copy of its two-year signed lease for 280 square feet of office space, a 
letter describing the purpose and reasons for choosing the selected office space, and a letter signed 
by the landlord stating that the lease was not a sublease but a direct landlord-tenant relationship, and 
noting that the current leased office space could be expanded. The record also includes photographs 
of the internal and external premises of the Petitioner's office. The photographs show several office$ 
and one photograph shows a paper sign taped on the inside of one of the indoor office windows 
identifying the Petitioner as located within the premises. The photographs do not include any other 
evidence that the Petitioner has offices within the building, such as signage on an office directory or 
on the outside of the building. 
The lease requires the Petitioner as the tenant to pay $500 beginning September 1, 2016, and 
continuing on a monthly basis thereafter. The Petitioner is also required to pay a portion of certain 
utilities. The record includes a copy of the Petitioner's bank statement from its checking account 
that includes the time period between August 11, 2016, and October 31, 2016. The bank statement 
does not include a payment of $500 or a sum approximating $500, or any multiple thereof on or 
around September 1, 2016. 
On appeal, the Petitioner references the previously submitted documentation and asserts that this 
evidence is sufficient to establish that it has secured sufficient office space to commence its business. 
However, the temporary and limited signage identifying the Petitioner as a tenant in the claimed 
office space and the lack of evidence indicating that the Petitioner paid rent for the office space 
undermines the Petitioner's assertion. The record does not include sufficient probative evidence that 
the Petitioner has secured physical premises to commence its sales and marketing efforts in the 
United States. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter o.fChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
V. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial 
capacity, that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity for the new office within 
one year, or that it has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of H-0- Inc., ID# 355327 (AAO June 1, 2017) 
12