dismissed L-1A Case: Printing

ide&ti~dmta. ~~
preventcl~s.tdy w"v~mmted
invasion~personalprivacy
.PUBLICCOf'l
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
File: EAC 06 22351971 Office: VERMONT SERVICE GENTER· Date: DEC 0'42001
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
. .
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office:
...~.
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
EAC 0622351971
Page 2
DISCUSSION : The Director , Vermont Service Center , denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The
matter is now before the AdministrativeAppeal s Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal.
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to extend the employment of its president as an L-1A
nonimmigrant .intracompanytransferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the'Immigration and Nationality
Act (the Act) , 8 U.S.c. §1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a Florida limited liability company , states that it is
engaged in printing services. The petitioner claims that itis an affiliate ofInternet Center 2023, c.A., located
in Caracas, Venezuela . The beneficiary was granted one year in L-1A classification in orderto open a new
office in the United States and the petitioner now seeks to extend his stay fortwo additional years.
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary would be
employed in the United States in a primarily' managerial or executive capacity. ,
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal : The, director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review . On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary
will ,be employed "in a managerial capacity of supervisor," and will direct the activities of "numerous
independentcontractors, " Counsel asserts that the director erred in 'failing to consider the services provided
by independent ,contractors. Counsel submits ,additional evidence in support of the appeal, but has , not
provided a brief.
Upon review , and for the reasons discussed herein , counsel 's assertions are not persuasive. To establish
, eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria outlined in section
10i(a)(IS)(L) of the Act. Specifically , a qualifying organization must have employed the , beneficiary in a
'qualifying managerial or executive capacity , or in a specialized knowledge capac ity, for one continuous year
wit~in three years preceding the beneficiary 's application for admission into theUnited States. In addit ion,
the beneficiary must seek to enter the Unite~ States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to
the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge
capacity.
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. '§ 214.2(1)(3) states that 'an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be '
accompanied by:
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the
alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l )(ii)(G) of this section.
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive , managerial, or specialized
knowl~dge capacity, including adeta}led description of the services to be performed .'
'(iii) ' Evidence that the alien has at least 'one continuous year of full time employment
abroad with a qualifying organizat ion w ithin the three years preceding the filing of
the petition .
EAC 06 22351971
Page 3·
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior
education, training , and employment qualifies him/her to perform , the intended
, services in the United States ;however , the work in the United States need not be the
,same work which the alien performed abroad.
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l4)(ii) also provides that a visa petition , which involved the open ing of a
new office , may be extended-by filing a 'new FormI-i29 ; accompanied b~the following :
(A)
(B)
(C) ,
'(E)
Evidence that the United States and' foreign entitiesa~estill qualifying organizations
as defined in paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(G) of this section;
Evidence that the United States entity has been doing business as defined In
,paragraph (1)(l)(ii)(H) .of this section for the previous year ;
A statement of the duties performed by the beneficiary for the previous year and the ,
duties the beneficiary will perform under the extended petit ion; ,
A statement describing the staffing of the new operation, including the number of
, employees and types of positions held accompanied by :,evidence of 'wages paid to
employees when the benefic iary will be employed in, a managerial or ' executive '
capacity ; and
EVidenceofth~ financial .statusof the United States operation, , '
The sole issue addressed by the director is whether the beneficiary would be employed by the United States
entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition.
, ,
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act; 8 U.S.C ~ ' § nOl(a)(44)(A) , defines the term "managerial capacity" as an
assignment within an organization in which the emt;>loyeeprimarily :
(i) manages the organization , or a departm ent, subdivision , fu~ction , 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
EAC 06 22351971 '
Page 4
(iv) exercises discretion over the day to day operations, of the activity or function for ,
which the employee has authority. A first line supervisor is not considered to be
acting in a m anagerial 'capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory
duties unless the employees supervised are professional. .. '
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act , 8 U.S.c. § 1l01(a)(44)(B) , defines theterm "executive capacity" as an
assig,nmentwithin an organization in which the employee .primarily : .
(i) directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the
organization; .
(ii) establishes the goals and policiesof the organizati?n , component; or function; .
(iii) exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision maki~g ; ,and.
(iv) receives only 'general supervision or direction from higher level executi ves, the board
of directors, or stockholders of the organization.
The nonimmigrant petition was filed on July 26, 2006. ' The petitioner indicated on Form 1-129 that the
beneficiary would continue to serve as president of the U.S. company, which claimed to have two employees
as of the date of filing. " ' " , .
In aletter .dated July 17 ,2006 , the petitioner described the beneficiary's duties in this position as follows:
, In this ' 'position, [the beneficiary] has been ,re ~ponsible for -determining and formulating
policies and business strategies and has provided the overall direction of the company. He has ..
also ' planned, directed and coordinated operational activities at the, highest level of
. management with the help of subordinate managers. Furthermore , he has directed.iplanned, ,
," andimplemented policies and object ives of. the company in accordance with the company
charter and board of directors. He has also directed the activities of the bus inessin order to
update procedures, e stablish responsibilities, and coordinate functions among departments
and sites. As President , [the' beneficiary] analyzed the business :operations to evaluate the
~ ", . . ' .
performance of the company and employees , as well as determined areas of cost reduction
and program .improvement. Due to the technical nature of [the petitioner). and PrintingMania
[the petitioner's claimed subsidiary] , [the beneficiary] has also be [sic] responsible for
overseeing the product and equipment development and ensuring that the company stays
abreast of the latest technological advances in ·printing. Additionally, [the beneficiary] has
been responsible for overseeing the inventory levels of the company and to ensure that the
logistical procedures in force are cost-efficient and sufficient for meeting consumer demand .
As President , [the beneficiary] has confered [sic] with the executive staff, as well as listened
and considered 'employee feedback, in order to establi sh policies and formulate plans. He has
been responsible for rev iewing financial,statements and sales and activities reports to assess
, "
, .
EAC 06 223-51971
Page 'S ,
, ,
the business health of the company and to ensure that company's objectives are achieved.
. - . . . . .
[The beneficiary] has also been responsible for overseeing the training of new staff members ,
and has made sure the correct procedures and protocols are being followed by both
executives and employees.
With respect" to the'nature of the petitioner's .business , the petitioner stated that the U.S. company had
purchased a 50% interest in "PrintingMania" which is described as "a full service offset printing company
with an extensive array of digital and traditional printing equipment" and a "team of graphic artists." The '
petitioner submitted a copy of stock certificate number '5 issuing 500 shares of "Mania Productions Corp." to
the U .S. company , but no further evidence regarding this claimed subsidiary has been provided. The petitioner
also submitted 'evidence that it has registered a fictitious name and does business as "Xprint." Accordin~ to
the petitioner's lease agreement, the company shares and operates a 300 square foot office with its lessor , New
Print , Inc., which appears to do business as "Palmetto Printing ." '
The director issued a request for additional evidence on December 7, 2006. In part, the director requested: (1)
a comprehensive description of the beneficiary' s duties ; (2) a list of the U.S. company's employees , including '
names, position titles and detailed position descr iptions ; (3 }an ,o~ganizational chart for the U.S. company ; (4)
payroll records for the month of July 2006; 'and (5) a copy of IRS Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal
Tax Return, for the third quarter of 2006.
In a response received on March 2, 2007 , the petitioner provided the following description of the beneficiary's
duties as "sales director":
In his Managerial position [the beneficiary] is being responsible for providing leadership ,'
vision and strategic direction while building new business for US div ision .
He is responsible for new business ' development , planning capture of. proposals, setting
strategic direction in an evolving market, ensuring successful ,'program execution and high
level of operations for each project to maintain excellent customer relationships for both US
division and overseas, providing first level senior management responsibility for customer
satisfaction . '' . '" ' '
As manager , he ensures maximum overcome prioritizing , .initiating, and monitoring ' the
capture process on proposals assuring prescribed financial controls .
Performance of his duties requires exercise judgment and interaction with ali levels of
support staff, and customers, making managerial decisions in a collaborative manner while
identifying joint marketing opportunities where applicable , assisting in all operation ,'
performance goals ,creating and maintaining an environment conducive to the professional
, growth and development of staff. '. . ' :.
[The beneficiary] manages all aspects of Sales Administration as relates to alignment,
analysis, compensation, and any process for both US and foreign 'divisions. ,
. EAC 06 22351971
Page 6
. Heidentifies and implements strategic and tactical planning to enhance growth.
He performs market assessments , competitor analyses, pricing strategies. Draw conclusions '
from market assessment data on the competiti ve environment and the company's strengths ,
weaknesses, opportunities and targets.
. ' .
The petitioner indicated that the beneficiary .supervises an executive administrative assistant who works
twenty hours per week. The petitioner stated that her duties include answering or directing inquires from
business partners , preparingjnvoices, organizing correspondence and' records, preparing correspondence,
researching "information requests," preparing special reports, internal accounting, and scheduling
appointments and meetings.
The petitioner provided photographs of the petitioner's "main office" located at 7088 SW .158 Path in Miami ,
. Florida, which appears to be a small office and some copying and printing equipment set up in a residence .
. .This address was identified as the beneficiary's residential address on . Form 1-129. The petitioner also
provided photographs of its sales office located at 16115 SW 117 Ave ., #A-23 in Miami , Florida"the address
identified as the beneficiary's work site on Form 1-129. The photograph of the exterior of these premises
identifies the business as "Palmetto Printing."
The director denied the petition on May 7, 2007 , concluding that the petitioner had not established that the
beneficiary would be employed ina primarily managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition.
The director noted that the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's position identified general managerial
functions and was insufficient to establish what duties he would perform within the context of the petitioner's
current staffing arrangement. The director emphasized that the record shows that the company employs only
the beneficiary and a part-time .executive assistant and thus does 'not appear to employ full-time employees to
provide the sales and services of the company. The directordetennined that it is reasonable to conclude, based
on the evidence submitted, that the beneficiary would be primarily engaged in the performance of non­
qualifying duties. The director further found that thepetitioner had failed to .establish that the beneficiary .
would supervise a subordinate staff of professional, managerial or supervisory employees, manage an
essential function, or function ata senior level within an.organizational hierarchy..
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner provides the following statement on form 1-129:
The benefic iary has worked i~ a managerial capacity of supervisor and directing the activities
of numerous independent contractors employed by the petitioner organization.:The Service
(USCIS) erred as a matter of law in -failing to consider the independent contractor employed
. by the petitioner. .
In support of the appeal,the petitioner submits:
• A Website Marketing . Service Agreement. between the petitioner and _ .
_hedocument is not signed .ordated.
EAC 06 223 '51971
Page 7
" ,
• A letter from the president of , who states that his company has
"rendered established and continuous services" to,the petitioner in the areas of graphic
design , consultirig and printing.
• A letter from . stating that the petitioner utilizes their services for payroll
,forms and income tax preparation.
• A letter from that the petitioner has utilized its services "in
the administrative area, account ing consultation and collecting .payments ," ,
• A letter from ' indicating that it has provided services to the '
petitioner "in the area of bookkeeping and filing services."
• A letter from a customer of the U.S. company, .praising the
petitioner's "dedication in the areas of graphic design, consulting and printing."
• A letter from , stating that the company has provided graphic
design, consulting and printing services to the petitioner since January 2006 .
The petitioner provides copies of invoices issued to the petitioning company for servi~es rendered by by' . . .
The petitioner has,also provided a copy oftheLl.S . company's
2006 IRS Form 1065, Return of Partnership Income , but the return does not provide any clear evidence of
.payments to independent contractors. Furthermore.jiccording to the tax return , the petitioner did not pay any '
1 " , " .. ,' , ' ,',
rent in 2006. '
,Upon review , and for,'the reasons -discussed herein , the petitioner ' has not established that the beneficiary
would be employed ina primarily managerialor executive cap~city under the extendedpt?tition. '
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary , the AAO will look first to 'the
petitioner's description ' ofthe job duties. See 8 C.F .R. § 2l42(l)(3)(ii). The petitioner's descriptionof the job
duties must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are ,
either in an executive or managerial capacity. Id.
The initial position description provided by the petitioner was overly general and failed to identify the specific
managerial or executive duties to be performed by the beneficiary under the extended petition. For example ,
the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary is responsible , for such vaguely-defined responsibilities as
"overall direction of the company," "formulating policies ," directing "the activities of the business ,"
"coordinating functions among departments and sites ," conferring with "executive staff," and working with
"subordinate managers." Reciting the beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business
objectives is not sufficient ; the regulations require a' detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job duties.
The petitioner ha~ failed to .provide any detail or explanation of the beneficiary's activities in the course of his
daily routine. The actual duties themselves will reveal the true natureof the employment. Fedin Bros. Co. ,
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp . -1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989),affd ; 905,F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, the
. . . .
I The petitioner has also submitted on appeal voluminous medical records for the beneficiary : Neither counsel
nor the petitioner pas explained how this evidence is reIe~ant to the issue of whether the beneficiary would be "
employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. ,
"
EAC06 22351971 '
Page 8
petitioner does not employ 'subordinate managers or executives nor has it been shown to be operating through
different "departments andsites ," thus raising questions regarding the credibility of the listed duties.
Moreover, the petitioner implied that the beneficiary was responsible for managing both the petitioning
company and ' apartially-owned subsidiary claimed to be a "full-service offsetprint ing
company." Other than submitting a stock certificate for the claimed subsidiary , the petitioner offered no
documentary evidence related to the business activities or employees ofPrintingMania. Going on record
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in
these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158 , 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of
California, 14 I&N Dec'. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972» ~ Accordingly, the beneficiary's claimed responsibilities for
overseeing the activities Ofthis separate company will not be considered in the instant analysis.
In response to the director's request for 'a comprehensive description of the beneficiary's duties, the petitioner
changed the beneficiary's job title from "president" to "sales director" and subm itted a completely different
list ~f duties. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent
objective evide?ce. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the
petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies . Matt er ofHo,,19 I&N Dec.
582,591-92 (BIA 1988) .
When responding to a reque st for evidence , a petitioner cannot offer a new position 'to the beneficiary, or
materially change a position's title , its level of authority within the organizational hierarchy, or its associated
job responsibil ities. The petitioner must establish that the position offered to the beneficiary when the
petition was filed l11eritsclassification as a managerial or executive position. Matter ofMichelin Tir e Corp., 17 ,
I&Npec . 248, 249 '(Reg. Comm. 1978). If significant changes are made to the initial request for approval, the
petitioner must file a new petition rather than seek approval of a petition that is not supported by the evidence
in the record.
The information provided by the petitioner in its response to the director's request for further evidence did not
clarify or provide more specificity to the original duties of the position, but rather adde~ new generic duties to
the job description. The petitioner's statements that the beneficiary provides "leadership, vision and strategic
direction," "identifies and implements strategic and tactical planning," and "manages all aspects of sales '
administration," do not assist USCIS in determin ing what the beneficiary actually does on a day-to-day bas is.
,Although the petitioner assigned the beneficiary the position title of "sales director," .the lack of a subordinate
sales or marketing staff, considered in light of the beneficiary's duties for "new business development ,"
"customer relationships ," and perfomiing market assessments and competitor analyses, suggests that he is in
fact the sole employee .responsible for sales and marketing duties 'within the petitioning company . An
employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not
considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and
(B) of the ACt (requiring that one "primarily" perform ,the enumerated managerial or executive duties); see '
also Matter ofChurch Scientology Int 'I., 19 I&N Dec.,593, 604 (Comm. 1988) .
The definitions of executive and managerial capacity ha.ve two separate requirements . First, the pe titioner
must show that the beneficiary performs the high-level responsibilities that are specified in the definitions .
EAC 06 223 51971
Pag~9
" . .' :
-,
Second, the petitioner must prove that the beneficiary primarily performs these specified responsibilities and
does not spend a majority of his or her time on day-to-day functions. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d
1533 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991); ' Whether the , beneficiary is a managerial or
executive employee turns on whether the petitioner has sustained its burden of proving that his duties are
"primarily" managerial or executive. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. Here , although requested
by , the 'director, the petitioner fails to document what proportion of the beneficiary's duties would be
managerial functions and what proportion would 'be non-managerial. ' The petitioner lists the beneficiary's
duties as including b~th managerial and administrative or~perational tasks, but fails to quantify the time the
beneficiary spends on them. , This failure of documentation is important because some of the beneficiary's
tasks do not fall directly under traditional managerial duties as defined in the statute. For this reason, the
AA,o ,cannot determine whether the beneficiary is primarily performing the duties of a manager. See IKEA
US, Inc . v. us. Dept . ofJustic e, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 ,24 (D.D.C. 1999).
Although the director specifically addressed the deficient position descriptions provided by the petitioner in
his notice of denial, neither counsel nor th ~ petitioner has attempted to clarify the beneficiary's achtal job
. duties on appeal .' , Rather, counsel simply states that the beneficiary works in "a managerial capacity of
supervisor ,lI'and directs the act ivities of "numerous independent contractors." Without documentary evidence
to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the 'petitioner's burden of proof. The
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence . Matter of Obaigbena, 19I&N Dec. 533 , 534
(BIA 1988); Matt er ofLaureano , .I9 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter ofRamirez-Sanch ez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,
506 (BIA 1980). Contrary to the counsel's assertions , the director did not "fail to consider the independent
contractor e~p10yed by the petitioner; as the petitioner did not previously claim to employ such contractors or
submit evidence of their employment. '
The.evidence submitted on appeal is insuffic ient to overcome the director's ,finding that the beneficiary would
, not be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. At most , it appears that the petitioner has
utilized the, services of graphic design and printing companies for certain jobs; however, it is not explained
why the petitioner , which hasbeen described as a full-service printing company with its own .equipment,
would need to assign such tasks to outside companies. Nor has it been established that the beneficiary
actually supervises the activities of employees in these unrelated companies. There is no .evidence in the
record of payments .to the maJority of the claimed c~mtractors who provided letters in support of the appeal.
,Again, going on record without supporting do cumentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici , 22 I&N Dec. at 165. ' The petitioner 'has not
established that the beneficiary regularly supervises any employees other than the part-time executive
assistant.
Pursuant to section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. ,§ 1iOl(a)(44)(C), if staffing levels are used a~ a factor
in determining whether an indiv.idual is acting ,in a managerial or executive capacity, USCIS must take into
, acc~urit the .reasonable needs of the organizat ion, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of
the organization. In the present matter , however, the regulat ions provide strict evidentiary requirements for
the extension ofa "new office" petition and require USCIS to examine the organizational structure and
staffing levels of the ,petitioner. See ,8 C.F .R. §' 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(D)., ' The regulation at 8 C .F.R. §
214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows .the "n ~w office" operation one year ~ithin the date of approval of the petition to
,:
EAC 06 223 '5197(
Page 10
support an executive or managerial position. There is .no provision in USCIS regulations that allows for an
extension of this one-year period. If the bus iness does not have sufficient staffing after one year to relieve the '
beneficiary from primarily performing operational and administrative tasks, the petitioner is ineligible by
regulation. for an ' extension . In the instant matter , the petitioner has not reached the point that it can employ
the beneficiary in a predominantly managerial or executive position.
The petitioner is described as a "printing services:' b~siness. Thus, it is evide~t ~hat the r'easo~able needs of
the petitioner require its employees to perform numerous .non-managerial and non-executive tasks such as
performing the graphic design and printing services , marketing, sales and customer service duties, purchasing. c, .
supplies, delivering finished products to customers, and performing routine banking, bookkeeping and
administrative tasks. The petitioner employs the beneficiary as president and a part-time assistant who
performs some administrative duties. Although thepetitioner claims on appeal to use other companies to,' , . . \
provide graphic design ,and printing services, the AAO finds.it implausible that a "printing company" that
claims to be fully-equipped does not actually perform any printing services in-house. T)J.e petitioner appears
to have printing equipment in both of its claimed locations . Based on the petitioner's representations , it does
not appear that the reasonable needs ofthe petitioning company might-plausibly be met by the services of a
president who performs primarily managerial or executive duties and part-time assistant. It is therefore
reasonable to assume , and has not been shown otherwise ,' that that the beneficiary himself must spend .a
significant amount Oftime performin~ the tasks necessary to provide the petitioner 's services. An employee
who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to
be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity, See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the
Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or execut ive duties) ; see also Matt er
a/Church Scientology Int 'I., 19 I.&NDec. 593, 604 (Comm . 1988) . '
In sum, although the beneficiary evidently exercises discretion over the day-to-day operation of the business
as its president and ,sole full-time employee ; the beneficiary has not been shown to primarily perform duties
associated with the high-level responsibilities identified in the statutory definitions of managerial or executive
capacity. The actual duties themselves .reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co ., Ltd. v.
Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108. The fact that the beneficiary manages a business , does not necessarily establish
eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity within the
meaning of sections 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. See 52 Fed, 'Reg. 5738, 5739 (Feb. 26 ,1987) . The record must
establish that the majority of the beneficiary 's duties will be primarily directing the management ofthe
organization or a component or function of the organization . .
Based on the foregoing discussion ? the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary would be employed
in a primarily managerial or executive capacity , as required by 8 C.F.R . § 2l4.2(l )(3)(ii). For this reason , the
appeal will be dismissed.
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the
, :petitioner.Section 291'ofthe Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. .
ORDER: The appea~ is dismissed.
',"