dismissed L-1A Case: Raw Lumber Export

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF E-C-E-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 13,2018 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a raw lumber exporter, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as general 
manager and president of its new office 1 under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101 (a)( 15)(L). 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L). The L-1A 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 Vermont Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary had been employed in a qualifying managerial or 
executive for the foreign entity or would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the 
Petitioner within one year. 
On appeaL the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not accord the Petitioner the benefit of a full 
evidentiary review and analysis as required by the statute and a precedent decision. The Petitioner 
avers that it has established that the Beneficiary's employment for the foreign entity is in a 
managerial capacity and that the proposed employment satisfies the criteria for the L-1 A visa 
classification. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year "within three years preceding the [beneficiary's] application 
for admission into the United States." Section 101 (a)( 15)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary 
must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
1 
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. s 214.2(l)(l)(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. 
Malter of E-C-E-, LLC 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. JJ. The 
petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education. training, and employment 
qualify him or her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3 ). 
Also, if the Form 1-129, 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 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 ofthe U.S. investment. See Kenerally. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
The term "managerial capacity'' is defined as 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) ofthe Act. 
II. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary's four 
subordinates with managerial titles at the foreign entity actually performed managerial 
responsibilities or supervised others. The Director noted that the foreign entity employed the 
Beneficiary and his four subordinates leaving no one but the four subordinates to perfom1 the 
operational duties of the sales. administration. accounting. and logistics of their departments. The 
Director concluded that the record showed that the Beneficiary's position abroad was primarily that 
of a first-line supervisor, rather than a managerial or executive position. 2 
We will address both the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's foreign duties as well as the 
foreign entity's staffing to determine whether the Petitioner has established this eligibility 
requirement. When reviewing staffing levels as a factor in determining whether an individual is 
acting in a managerial capacity, we must take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, 
in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section 
IOI(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
' The Petitioner ~oes not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive capacity. We. therefore, 
restnct our analys1s to the Beneficiary's claimed managerial capacity for the foreign entity. 
2 
Matter of E-C-E-, LLC 
A. Duties 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary. we review a petitioner's 
description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(ii). The definitions of managerial and 
executive capacity have two parts. First the petitioner must show that the beneficiary performed 
certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table). 1991 WL 
144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). Second, the petitioner must prove that the beneficiary was 
primarily engaged in executive or managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities 
alongside the petitioner's other employees. See, e.g, /:amiZv Inc. v. USCIS. 469 F.3d 1313. 1316 
(9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d at 1533. 
The foreign entity initially provided a general description of the Beneficiary's duties and slightly 
expanded upon those duties for the foreign entity in response to the Director's request tor evidence 
(RFE). These duties included the following (bullet points added and paraphrased): 
• Develop and execute the company's business strategies such as finding target 
markets and decision [sic] regional types of products available for export and sale 
-20% 
• Prepare and implement comprehensive business plans to facilitate achievement by 
planning cost-effective operations and market development activities such as 
expanding into other countries like China. India and Pakistan- 15% 
• Ensure company policies and legal guidelines are communicated all the way from 
the top down in the company and they are followed at all times such as 
administration of employment agreements- 5% 
• Communicate and maintain trust relationships with business partners and 
authorities such as authorizing approval of employees to certify payments of VAT 
invoices- I 0% 
• Oversee the company's financial performance, investments and other business 
ventures by proper administration of the bank facility agreement- 20% 
• Delegate responsibilities and supervise the work of employees providing guidance 
and motivation to drive maximum performance such as Letter of Authorization -
5% 
• Read all submitted reports by employees to reward performance, prevent issues 
and resolve problems- 5% 
• Analyze problematic situations and occurrences and provide solutions to ensure 
company survival and growth such as establishing trusted vendor purchase 
relationships- 20% 
The description of the Beneficiary's foreign duties does not detail the Beneficiary's actual 
day-to-day tasks. Rather, the Petitioner lists broad responsibilities that are applicable to and 
performed by any company owner. For example. the foreign entity noted that the Beneficiary spent 
20 percent of his time developing and executing business strategies such as finding target markets 
and types of products tor export and sale. Similarly, the foreign entity indicated that the Beneficiary 
Matter(){ E-C-E-, LLC 
spent 15 percent of his time preparing and implementing business plans for cost effective operations 
and to expand into other countries. However, the foreign entity did not further explain the tasks the 
Beneficiary performed in carrying out these responsibilities. These general descriptions add no 
practical understanding of the specific actions the Beneficiary undeiiook in his daily routine. 
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. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103. 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). 
afrd. 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). An individual will not be deemed a manager or an executive 
under the statute simply because they have a managerial or executive title or because they "direct" or 
"manage" the enterprise as the owner of the entity. 
The foreign entity also stated that the Beneficiary is the individual responsible for maintaining 
relationships with business partners and analyzing problems and providing solutions to ensure the 
company's survival and growth. These responsibilities are conceptually more operational in nature 
than managerial. The Beneficiary is the individual performing the necessary tasks to continue and 
expand the foreign entity's operations. rather than managing or directing these activities. As neither 
the foreign entity nor the Petitioner further expounded upon these responsibilities. the record is 
insufficient to establish that these responsibilities and any associated duties fall within the 
parameters of the statutory definition of managerial capacity. 
The foreign entity added that Beneficiary also performed duties regarding financial reporting. including 
selecting the appropriate accounting policy. making accounting judgements, ensuring accurate 
accounting records, and preparing the financial statements. Further. that the Beneficiary designed and 
maintained the internal control system, ensured compliance with the registered accounting system, and 
safeguarded the assets of the company. The foreign entity did not indicate whether these duties fell 
within the 20 percent of the Beneficiary's time allocated to overseeing the company's financial 
performance, investments, and other business ventures. or within one of the other generally described 
responsibilities. Nevertheless, these responsibilities arc insufficiently described to establish that the 
duties require the Beneficiary to manage the financial component rather than perform many of the 
non-qualifying budgetary and supervisory duties associated with maintaining the foreign entity's 
finances. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasized that the Beneficiary exercised managerial authority by 
administering the foreign entity's contracts and signing corporate documents. The Petitioner also 
emphasized that the Beneficiary is the foreign entity's controlling shareholder. However. the 
Beneficiary's senior level of authority within the company is but one factor to consider when 
evaluating a beneficiary's managerial capacity. The Petitioner in this matter has provided a general 
description of the Beneficiary ·s responsibilities which otTers little insight into the duties he actually 
performed on a day-to-day basis for the foreign entity. Without detailed duties. we cannot analyze 
and evaluate the Beneficiary's actual daily role within the foreign entity. 
While the Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the foreign entity's day-to-day operations and 
possess the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making. the position 
4 
Matter of E-C-E-, LLC 
descriptions lack detail and thus are insufficient to establish that his actual duties for the foreign entity 
were primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
B. Staffing 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, we review the totality of the evidence 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 chart depicted four positions subordinate to the Beneficiary. The 
sales manager negotiates and manages sales, and maintains good relations with customers. The 
accountant prepares intemal and extemal financial statements, inputs data, prepares and conve11s data to 
general ledger entries, develops spreadsheet reports, and prepares payments. The logistics manager 
manages the warehouse, transportation and customer services, liaises with suppliers, manufacturers, and 
retailers, and tracks quality, quantity of stock levels, delivery times, transport costs, and et1iciency. The 
executive a~sistant provides logistical and administrative oversight, travel support, and tactical 
organization of meetings, and works with the president and the company's vendors and height 
forwarder. 
The Director noted that each of the Beneficiary's foreign subordinates was the only employee within 
the department and found that although the subordinates held managerial or executive titles, each of 
these individuals was perfom1ing the day-to-day tasks of providing the foreign entity's products and 
services. The Director tound that the Beneficiary's position was that of a first-line supervisor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that in addition to supervising professionals, the Beneficiary's 
performance as a manager in the year prior to his transfer was spent in several functional areas tor the 
foreign entity. The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary spent 20 percent of his time spent on financial 
planning and budgeting, 35 percent of his time on "market targeting development and evaluation." IS 
percent of his time on business compliance. and 20 percent on human resources administration. The 
Petitioner contends that the staff accountant/auditor. the sales manager. and the executive assistant 
performed these functions. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity'' allows for both "personnel managers" and 
"function managers.'' See section I 01 (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 "tirst 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) ofthe Act. 
5 
Matter of E-C-E-. LLC 
We first note that the record does not include sutlicient evidence regarding the subordinates' positions 
to identify any of the positions as professional positions. When 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 101(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." It is the level of education required by the position. rather than the degree held by 
subordinate employee that establishes a position as a professional position. The possession of a 
bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee does not automatically lead to the conclusion that an 
employee is employed in a professional capacity. Here the subordinates· position descriptions focus 
on the clerical, administrative, logistical, and sales duties necessary to carry out the foreign entity's 
operations. Neither the Petitioner nor the foreign entity describes specific duties that would require a 
bachelor's degree to perform the duties of their respective departments. Rather. the position 
descriptions as described show a sales position. a bookkeeper/junior accountant. a logistic 
coordinator. and an assistant. 
In addition to the lack of evidence establishing that the subordinate positions are professional. we 
also find that the subordinate positions described are not managerial or supervisory in nature. As the 
Director found. the Beneficiary's subordinates at the foreign entity are performing the routine 
operational and administrative duties of their departments. The Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary's duties at the foreign entity were primarily those of a personnel manager as set out 
in the statute. 
We also find the Petitioner's claim on appeal that the Beneficiary's time at the foreign entity was 
spent primarily managing tour ditlerent essential functions unpersuasive. We note that the Petitioner 
re-arranges the allocation of the Beneficiary's time spent on various responsibilities/functions on 
appeal, without explanation, and the time allocated does not total 100 percent. The Petitioner's 
reference to an adopted decision is noted. However. whether a beneficiary is an "activity" or 
"function" manager turns in part on whether the Petitioner has sustained its burden of proving that 
their duties are ''primarily" managerial. See Matter ofZ-A-. Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO 
Apr. 14, 2016). Here, the Petitioner does not document who performed the first-line supervisory 
duties of non-professional employees. if not the Beneficiary. 
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 I 0 I (a)( 44 )(A)(ii) of the Act. If a petitioner claims that a 
beneficiary will manage an essential function, it must clearly describe the duties to be performed in 
managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that "(I) the function 
is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is 'essential,' i.e., core to the organization; (3) the 
beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to perfimn, the function; ( 4) the beneficiary will act 
at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and (5) 
Matter of E-C-E-, LLC 
the beneficiary will exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day operations." Matter of 
G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 20 17). Here, the foreign entity does not describe 
the Beneficiary's duties as primarily managing an essential function but rather operating the entire 
company as its majority owner. Merely performing or supervising all the necessary sales. logistical, 
and financial operations is not the same as managing an essential function. 
At the time of filing, the foreign entity was a six-year old company with five employees. The 
company employed the Beneficiary as its chief executive officer and four additional employees, 
three of whom had managerial titles. 3 It does not appear that the reasonable needs of the foreign 
entity might plausibly be met by the services of all managerial/executive employees. The foreign 
entity's organizational structure is not sufficient to elevate the Beneficiary to more than that of a 
first-line supervisor of non-professional employees. The Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary was primarily employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the foreign entity. S'ee 
sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. 
III. NEW OFFICE 
The Director determined that the record did not establish that the Petitioner would have projected 
growth in one year sufficient to require the Beneficiary to perfonn primarily in a qualifying capacity. 
The Director also found that the Petitioner's proposed organizational structure was not sufficient to 
elevate the Beneficiary's position to a primarily managerial or executive position within one year. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates that it is primarily an export company that sources southern 
yellow pine from log suppliers, who load the logs and deliver the containers directly to the tl·eight 
forwarder. The Petitioner also notes that it entered into a 50-50 joint venture with another company 
to establish a subsidiary company in July 2017. The Petitioner indicates that the subsidiary company 
employs five people. 
Preliminarily, we find that the creation of a separate subsidiary entity in July 2017 is not relevant to 
establishing eligibility for a "new office·· petition filed in March 2017. The Petitioner must establish 
that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied fi'om the time of the 
filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(b)(1 ). Consideration of the separate 
subsidiary will not be considered in evaluating the Petitioner's projected gro'.'.ih and support of the 
Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. 
We also question whether the Petitioner was a "new office'' when the petition was filed. The 
Petitioner was organized in August 2015 and this petition was filed in March 2017. To qualify as a 
"new office" the organization must have been doing business 4 in the United States for less than one 
3 The duties of the executive assistant's position are not sufficiently detailed to establish whether the position is primarily 
clerical or executive in nature. 
4 
The term "doing business:· is defined as the regular, systematic. and continuous provision of goods or services. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)( 14)(ii)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)( I )(ii)(H). 
.
Matter of E-C-E-. LLC 
year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F). In this matter if the Petitioner was doing business prior to March 
2016, it could not be considered a "new office," subject to the less strict "new office' ' regulati ons. 
The record in this matter include s copies of the Petitioner 's bank statements since November 20 15. 
The Petitioner's pertinent bank statements are: 
• The Petitioner ' s November 2015 bank statement which shows two deposits totalin g just over 
$200,000 from of Australia .5 
• The Petitioner's December 20 15 bank statement which shows the foreign entity's transfer of 
just over $120,000 to the Petitioner and also shows three large withdrawals totaling over 
$100,000. 
• The Januar y 2016 bank statement which lists only four withdrawals, three of the withdrawals 
total over $90,000 . 
• The February 2016 bank statement which shows the foreign entity" s additional deposit of 
$58,296 and shows almost $160,000 paid out. 
The record does not include evidence detailing the purpo se of the initial Novemb er 2015 deposit 
from what appears to be 
an unrel ated company and the purpo se of a number of significant 
withdrawals from the Petitioner ' s bank account prior to March 20 16. These transaction s, with no 
underlying evidence describing their purpo se, raise significant concerns regarding the Petitioner's 
status as a new office .
6 
Additionally, the individual in the Petitioner 's export coordinator /operations manager position 
indicated on his resume that he began his employment with the Petitioner in January 20 16. Further, 
one of the Petitioner's supplier s, in a letter written on the Petitioner's behalf indicate s that it has 
been doing business with the Beneficiary since 2015. This information and the lack of explanation 
regarding the Petitioner 's receipts and debits prior to March 2016, casts doubt on the Petition er's 
claim on the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, that it is a new office. As the 
Petitioner was not given an opportunity to respond to these concerns , we will discuss the other 
deficiencies in the record which preclude a determinati on that the Petitioner established it could 
support a managerial or exec utive position within a one-year time frame at the tim e of filing . 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that it will support the Beneficiary 
in an executive or managerial capacity, as the statute defin es those terms, within one year. When a 
~ This deposit raises questions regarding the foreign entity's purchase of the Petitioner's outstanding units. That is, as 
the record does not include evidence describing the purpose of this deposit, it is unclear if purchased an 
interest in the Petitioner or if this deposit was payment for lumber or other goods and services. The issue of the 
Petitioner's initial funding and resulting qualifying relationship with the foreign entity in this matter must be addressed 
in any future proceedings. 
" The Petitioner has provided invoices, shipping information, and bills of lading for transactions conducted from April 
20 16 through J une 20 17. 
8 
Malter of E-C-E-, LLC 
new business is first 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 
low-level activities not normally performed by employees at the executive or managerial level and 
that often the full range of managerial or executive responsibility cannot be performed in that first 
year. The "new office" regulations allow a newly established petitioner one year to develop to a 
point that it can support the employment of a beneficiary in a primarily managerial or executive 
position. 
The Petitioner provided a broad description of the Beneficiary's proposed duties and allocated the 
Beneficiary's time to those duties. Although the description shows the Beneficiary possesses a 
senior level of authority within the company, it offers little insight into what he will actually do on a 
day-to-day basis during the first year of operations and beyond. Other than responsibilities to 
procure lumber and coordinate with the affiliate in Vietnam, the Petitioner does not connect any of 
the vague job responsibilities to its actual export operation. The actual duties themselves will reveal 
the true nature ofthe employment. Fedin Bros. Co .. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108. 
The Petitioner also does not describe how the Beneficiary will move beyond daily involvement in 
non-qualifying duties such as procuring lumber, negotiating terms. reviewing orders, identifying 
market opportunities, and allocating resources, to primarily performing managerial or executive 
duties within the one-year time frame. The Petitioner's broad allocation of the Beneficiary's time to 
various responsibilities includes qualifying and non-qualifying duties. The Petitioner does not 
provide a sufficient framework to analyze and evaluate what the Beneficiary will be doing within 
and beyond the one-year if the petition were approved. The record does not establish that the 
Beneficiary will perform duties in a primarily managerial or executive capacity within the required 
one-year time period. 
B. Business Plan and Staffing 
In its business plan the Petitioner states that it sources southern yellow pine logs in the United States 
and exports them to Asia's markets, mainly to Vietnam. The Petitioner indicates that it planned to 
hire an operations manager in 2016, a marketing manager in 2017, and a logistics executive in 2018. 
The initial record also included the Petitioner's proposed organizational chart. The chart showed the 
Beneficiary in the position of president/general manager with three subordinate employees. 
identified as an international sales manager, a sourcing/purchasing manager, and a coordination 
executive. The organizational chart depicts the Beneficiary's position and the coordination position 7 
as tilled when the petition was filed. The organizational chart indicates the Petitioner's plan to hire 
an international manager in the second year and a sourcing/purchasing manager in the third year. 
On appeal. the Petitioner claims that it has exceeded its projected sales using only two employees 
and a contract vendor in 2017 and that these results prove the viability of its business plan. 
7 
The individual in the coordination executive position identifies his position for the Petitioner as "operations manaoer" 
on his resume. "' 
9 
Matter 11{ E-C-E-, LLC 
However, when the petition was filed, the Petitioner did not support its projections with a detailed 
market analysis or other supporting documentation demonstrating a realistic expectation that the 
company would grow significantly the first year. The Petitioner claims on appeal that the foreign 
entity will handle import logistics, the foreign entity's sales manager will handle sales, and that it 
will use the foreign entity's accountant for financial matters. The Petitioner asserts that the foreign 
entity's employees' involvement in the Petitioner's operations demonstrate that the Beneficiary will 
perform the duties of a function manager. The Petitioner again references the Matter of Z-A­
adopted decision. 8 
The Petitioner, however. does not provide probative evidence of employees, contractors, or foreign 
staff who will source the U.S. lumber, negotiate the terms and purchase of the lumber to be exported, 
as well as supervise the foreign and local non-professional sta±T, other than the Beneficiary. For 
example, the Petitioner indicated that it would not hire a sourcing/purchasing employee until the 
third year of operations and the record to date does not include evidence that the Petitioner has hired 
such an employee. The record also does not show that the Petitioner has hired a marketing manager 
or an international sales manager as set out in its business plan. The record in this matter does not 
include a sufficiently developed business plan detailing the Petitioner's proposed staffing and 
describing how and when the Beneficiary would be relieved from performing the necessary 
operational exporting tasks of the company within a one-year time frame. 
The record lacks evidence regarding the Petitioner"s financial projections and a stafting plan. The 
business plan lacks consistent information regarding the number and type of projected employees. 
their salaries, and duties. The record does not include evidence of the Petitioner's current 
employees, the actual salaries paid, and their position within the Petitioner's organizational structure. 
The record also does not include any of the Petitioner's federal tax records supporting the unaudited 
three-page balance sheet and profit and loss statement for 2016. 
The record does not include probative evidence that the Petitioner will be sut1iciently staffed to 
allow the Beneficiary to primarily manage a major component or function of the organization and 
delegate the duties necessary to carry out the component or functions administrative and operational 
tasks within a one-year time frame. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's foreign 
employment was in a managerial or executive capacity and that it will employ the Beneficiary in a 
managerial or executive capacity within one year of approval of the petition. 
' The Petitioner incorrectly identifies Malter of Z-A- as a "new office case." However, the Petitioner in the Malter o{ 
Z-A- sought to extend a previously approved new office petition. 
10 
Mauer of E-C-E-. LLC 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofE-C-E-. LLC, ID# 929296 (AAO Feb. 13, 20 18) 
11