dismissed L-1A Case: Real Estate

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Y-T-R-E-C-.,(USA) LTD. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 22, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a New York corporation, is looking to operate as a real estate sales and development 
firm. Accordingly, the Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as the general and 
operations manager of its new office under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 
1101(a)(15)(L). The L-lA classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its 
affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to work 
temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petltwn. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that it would support the Beneficiary in the 
United States in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of approval of the petition. 
' 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred in improperly weighing the evidence of record and failing to provide 
an adequate analysis ofthe relevant facts and submissions. 
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. 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 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge 
capacity. Id. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form I-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, shall be accompanied by: 
Matter ofY-T-R-E-C-.,(USA) Ltd. 
(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) ofthis section. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or 
specialized knowledge capacity, including a detailed 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 organization within the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition. 
(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. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v) states that if the petition indicates that the 
beneficiary is coming to the United States as a manager or executive to open or to be employed in a 
new office, the petitioner shall submit evidence that: 
(A) Sufficient physical premises to house the new office have been secured; 
(B) The beneficiary has been employed for one continuous year in the three year 
period preceding the filing of the petition in an executive or managerial 
capacity and that the proposed employment involved executive or managerial 
authority over the new operation; and 
(C) The intended United States operation, within one year of the approval of the 
petition, will support an executive or managerial position as defined in 
paragraphs (1)(1 )(ii)(B) or (C) of this section, supported by information 
regarding: 
(1) The proposed nature ofthe office describing the scope of the entity, its 
organizational structure, and its financial goals; 
(2) The size ofthe United States investment and the financial ability ofthe 
foreign entity to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing 
business it:t the United States; and 
(3) The organizational structure of the foreign entity. 
2 
Matter of Y-T-R-E-C-., (USA) Ltd. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that it would 
support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of the approval of the 
petition. The Petitioner does not claim that the Benefi~iary will be employed in an executive 
capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a 
managerial capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), 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. 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. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 10l(a)(44)(C) ofthe Act. 
A. Evidence of Record 
'The Petitioner filed the Form I-129 on September 18, 2015, stating that it intends to operate a real 
estate sales and development business, which would include developing, building, managing, 
marketing, selling and servicing real estate. In its cover letter, the Petitioner stated that it will 
initially "focus on the development of hotel projects within the Chinese community" and then look 
for land to develop commercial and residential real estate. The Petitioner further stated that it plans 
to "assist those people in the United States who are interested in buying or leasing a home in China" 
3 
Matter ofY-T-R-E-C-.,(USA) Ltd. 
on a temporary or long-term basis and promote real estate sales of its parent company. The 
Petitioner projected gross earnings of $500,000 to $1 million during its first year of operation. 
The Petitioner's supporting statement included the following list of the Beneficiary's proposed job 
duties and responsibilities: 
• Oversee, direct, and manage the entire operation and business transactions of [the 
Petitioner]; complete company operational requirements by scheduling and assigning 
employees, following up on work results; 
• Oversee, direct, and manage a team of professional staff including Real Estate Sales 
Manager, Marketing Manager, Finance Manager, Development and Building 
Manager, Compliance and Legal Manager, and supervise all other employees; 
determine staffing requirements; make decision [sic] for the hiring, training and/or 
discharging of employees; 
• Establish and implement departmental policies,' goals, objectives, and procedures, 
conferring with board members, organization officials, and staff; [ d]irect the overall 
company's daily business operation, the administrative management and every 
operational activity such as preliminary market research and market positioning; 
• Plan and prepare work schedules and assigns supervising employees and employees 
to specific duties; [p ]ropose strategies for the business development; make the annual 
operational plans and take charge of the implementation of the goals and the annual 
plans; 
• Formulate pricing policies on real estates [sic] products and services according to 
corporate guidelines and requirements to profitability of store operation; [i]dentify, 
develop, and evaluate marketing strategy based on knowledge of establishment 
objectives, market characteristics, and cost and markup factors[;] 
• Coordinate the relations among each department in order to maintain a good 
operational environment for the company; [a]chieve financial objectives by preparing 
an annual budget, scheduling expenditures, analyzing variances, initiating corrective 
actions; 
• Represent the company to sign the contract with other companies or the government 
authorities, check, approve and manage every business; [r]egularly make operational 
and financial reports to the shareholders and the managerial team of the parent 
company; 
4 
Matter ofY-T-R-E-C-.,(USA) Ltd 
• Maintain the stability and reputation of the company by complying with legal 
requirements; acts as representative and spokesman of the corporation for the local 
community; [p ]erform other managerial and administrative functions .... 
Other supporting documents included the Petitioner's bank statements from July and August of 
2015, which show total deposits in the amount of $10,900, the Petitioner's proposed organizational 
chart, and the Beneficiary's resume. The proposed organizational structure depicts a president at the 
top of the hierarchy, followed by the Beneficiary's position, which is shown as overseeing five 
department managers heading the finance, marketing, sales, developing and building, and the 
compliance and legal departments. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) instructing the Petitioner to submit, in part, 
evidence to establish that the new office would support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity within one year of the petition's approval. 
The Petitioner's submissions in response to the RFE included a translated "Corporate Statement" 
from the foreign entity claiming that its U.S. subsidiary, i.e., the Petitioner, is a real estate broker and 
developer that will provided the following eight services: 1) real property search; 2) relocation 
consulting; 3) mortgage consulting and loan preapproval; 4) title transfer; 5) community description; 
6) comparative market analysis; 7) property appraisals; and 8) property preparation. The statement 
further Indicates that the foreign parent entity has invested an initial sum of $50,000 "for company 
setup and other initial expenses." The statement further indicated that "[u]pon opening its doors for 
business, the (Petitioner] will have a total full-time personnel complementof 12" and claimed that 
five more employees will be hired within the first two years of operation. 
The Petitioner also provided its own statement, indicating that its business model and organizational 
structure "has been slightly modified since the initial filing of the petition." In accordance with 
these modifications the Petitioner submitted a business plan discussing its financial plan as well as 
its plans for staffing the organization and marketing its services. At page 29 of the business plan, the 
Petitioner stated that $35,250 of the initial $50,000 investment would consist of capital and pre­
operating expenses, leaving the remaining $14,750 to be used for the Petitioner's "working capital 
I 
needs." The Petitioner provided a breakdown of its operating budget on page 42 of its business plan, 
indicating that total operating expenses for the first year of operation would total $221,450. On page 
35 of the business plan, the Petitioner predicted that it would s'ell a total of 4 7 properties - 29 in the 
United States and 18 in China - with the assistance of 15 real estate agents who will be "affiliated 
with" but will not be employees of the Petitioner. At page 32 of the business plan the Petitioner 
explained that while all five subordinate management positions will be filled within the first year of 
operation, none will be hired immediately so that they will receive compensation for only a fraction 
ofthe year. 
The Petitioner also provided the following hourly breakdown of the Beneficiary's job duties at 
Exhibit E of its RFE response: 
5 
Matter ofY-T-R-E-C-.,(USA) Ltd. 
A. Oversee general management (Total: 29 hours) · 
• Top-level oversight and management ofthe operations ofthe corporation (3 hours); 
• Meetings [sic] with and make management reports to the company's shareholders (in 
China), with an emphasis on financial performance and the direction of the 
development of the [Petitioner] ( 4 hours); 
• Selection, recruitment and initial training of company functional managers, as well as 
the continuous employee selection, recruitment, training, motivation throughout the 
life of the enterprise (3 hours); 
• Meetings with the company functional managers .... and supervision and review of 
their job performance and business reports (4 hours); 
• Definition and promulgation of departmental policies, strategic goals, objectives and 
procedures (2 hours); 
• Definition and assignment of department managers' roles, responsibilities and 
deliverables (2 hours); 
• Work with legal counsel to draft, review and approve major terms for general 
contracts, sales contracts, lease & rental agreements, and all related legal documents 
(3 hours); 
• Review and approval of annual departmental budgets prepared by subordinate 
managers, and subsequently monitoring their adherence to it (2 hours); 
• Serving as the company's authorized representative or signatory in dealings with 
government regulatory agencies as well as trade associations ( 4 hours); 
• Compliance with all corporate legal (statutory reporting) and financial (taxation­
related) obligations (2 hours). 
B. Direct the business development (Total: 11 hours) 
• Periodically conduct market research activities and validations of the corporate 
strategic positioning (3 hours); 
• Crafting and monitoring of the overall annual operating budget for the corporation (3 
hours); 
• Development and introduction of all business processes ... (2 hours); 
• Establishment of real estate pricing strategies in accordance with market conditions 
and corporate profitability targets (3 hours). 
Lastly, the Petitioner provided a revised organizational chart reflecting the positions it seeks to fill 
within its first and second years of operation based on its plan to focus on real estate sales rather than 
real estate development, as was part of the original plan. The Petitioner altered the original 
department headings, combining sales and marketing into a single department (as compared to the 
original chart where the two functions represented two different departments), replacing the 
development and building department with a support systems department, and adding a human 
resources department which was not included in the original chart. The new chart also included the 
positions that would comprise each department and identified the four positions it seeks to fill in its 
second year of operation, indicating that the five department managers and their immediate 
subordinates would be hired within the Petitioner's initial year of operation. .~ 
6 
Matter ofY-T-R-E-C-.,(USA) Ltd. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that the new office 
would support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of approval of 
the petition. In denying the petition, the Director found that the Beneficiary's proposed job 
description was vague and thus did not establish the nature of the proposed job duties. The Director 
also rejected the Petitioner's altered organizational chart, stating that eligibility must be established 
at the time of filing. The Director determined that the Beneficiary would supervise lower level 
employees and would lack sufficient personnel to relieve him from having to primarily allocate his 
time to nonqualifying tasks. Lastly, the Director noted that the Petitioner's bank records show that 
the Petitioner had approximately $10,000 in available funds and determined that this sum would not 
be sufficient to remunerate its employees, including the Beneficiary, or to commence doing business. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits an appeal brief contesting the Director's findings. The Petitioner 
asserts that the Petitioner will support the Beneficiary in a managerial position within one year of 
approval. The Petitioner contends that the Director did not properly consider the supporting 
evidence and therefore provided a flawed analysis. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, including materials submitted in support of 
the appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be employed 
in the United States in a managerial capacity within one year after approval of the petition. 
When examining the managerial capacity of the Beneficiary, we will look first to the Petitioner's 
description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The Petitioner's description of the job 
duties must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary and indicate whether such 
duties are in a managerial capacity. !d. 
The definition of managerial capacity has two parts. First, the Petitioner must show that the 
Beneficiary will perform 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 will be primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational 
activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 
1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
In addition, it is important to note that when a new business is established and commences 
operations, the regulations recognize that a designated manager responsible for setting up operations 
will be engaged in a variety of activities not normally performed by employees at the 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 the petitioner to disclose the business plans and the size of the United States investment, and 
thereby establish that the proposed enterprise will support a managerial position within one year of 
the ~pproval of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). This evidence should demonstrate a 
7 
Matter ofY-T-R-E-C-.,(USA) Ltd. 
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 who will 
primarily perform qualifying duties. 
In the present matter, the record lacks sufficient evidence to substantiate the revenue projections 
made in the business plan and does not establish that the Petitioner has sufficient funds available to 
commence doing business and to support its operating budget. First, while the Petitioner has 
repeatedly claimed that it would start with an initial investment of $50,000 from its foreign parent 
entity, the record does not establish that the entire amount has been made available for the start of 
business. In reviewing the Petitioner's bank statements, we note that $4,900 was deposited into the 
Petitioner's business account in July 2015 and an additional $6,000 was deposited into the same 
account in August 2015 for a total of $10,900. This amount is $39,100 less than the $50,000 fund 
infusion the Petitioner claimed it would have available to start business operations. We further note 
that the Petitioner did not provide documentation to establish the source of these funds. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden 
of proof in thes~ proceedings. Matter of Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (quoting 
Matter ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
' 
On appeal, the Petitioner discusses the foreign parent entity's revenue, which exceeds the amount of 
funds the Petitioner would need to commence doing business, and provides a translated statement 
from the foreign entity claiming that it made formal requests with the proper Chinese authorities for 
permission to transfer additional funds into the Petitioner's U.S. account. However, neither the 
foreign entity's financial status nor its claim that a formal fund transfer request was made can be 
deemed as evidence that is sufficient documentary evidence to corroborate the claim that the foreign 
entity has and will continue to invest funds to support the Petitioner's business operation. See id. 
The record as presently constituted indicates that the Petitioner has only $10,900 currently available 
to commence doing business. This amount is inconsistent with the claim that the foreign entity has 
invested $50,000 to fund the Petitioner's start-up operation. The Petitioner has not resolved this 
inconsistency with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. See Matter of 
Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Further, based on the Petitioner's breakdown of its first 
year expenses, the $10,900, which are currently in the Petitioner's bank account are not sufficient for 
the Petitioner to commence doing business. 
We also find that even if the Petitioner had possession of the entire sum of $50,000 at the time it 
filed the Form 1-129, the Petitioner's business plan does not establish that this sum would be 
sufficient to cover its operating expenses. While the Petitioner claimed that its president would be 
compensated directly by the foreign entity, the Petitioner's operating budget (as presented at page 42 
of the business plan) indicates that the Petitioner's entire operating budget, which inCludes the 
Beneficiary's salary and the salaries of the remaining staff the Petitioner anticipates hiring during its 
first year of operation, totals $221,450. The Petitioner would not be able to cover the full cost of this 
operating budget with a $50,000 cash infusion, even if such funds had been made available to the 
Petitioner at the time of filing. While the Petitioner claims that it would stagger the hiring of its 
personnel towards the second half of its initial year of operation, thus relieving it from the financial 
8 
Matter ofY-T-R-E-C-.,(USA) Ltd. 
.burden of having to pay each employee's entire one-year salary, this claim is directly at odds with 
the foreign entity's "Corporate Statement," where it unambiguously stated that "[u]pon opening its 
doors for business, the [Petitioner] will have a total full-time personnel complement of 12," thereby 
indicating that the Petitioner would be fully staffed with department managers and their support 
personnel at the time it is ready to commence doing business. The Petitioner has not resolved this 
inconsistency with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. See id. This 
inconsistency between the foreign entity's and the Petitioner's claims further leads us to question 
whether the Petitioner would have the ability to fund its business during its first year of operation. 
In addition, while the Petitioner made various projections about the revenue it expects to generate 
through real estate sales within the Chinese community, these projections are also largely 
unsubstantiated. For instance, the Petitioner's projected revenues were partly based on what the 
Petitioner proposed as the average housing prices of the types of properties it anticipates would 
appeal to its prospective clients and the percentage of commission that is generally paid to real estate 
agents for the sale of properties in New York. However, the Petitioner did not provide evidence to 
support its business projections or claims regarding real estate commissions. Further, the 
Petitioner's use of the term "affiliated" in reference to the business relationship it plans to have with 
real estate agents it would retain to assist clients is altogether ambiguous, as no meaning was 
assigned to this term within the context of the Petitioner's business. The only affirmative statements 
the Petitioner made regarding its future business arrangements with prospective real estate agents 
were for the purpose of establishing that the agents would not be employees of the Petitioner and 
thus would be paid commissions based on properties that they sell, rather than regular salaries. The 
Petitioner did not explain how the real estate agents would be "affiliated" with its business or 
establish that its relationship with the real estate agents is different from norm based on the claimed 
affiliation. 
The Petitioner also made sales projections, claiming that it would sell a total of 47 properties in the 
United States and in China during its first year of operation through "affiliated" real estate agents. 
These projections were mainly based on the claim that the average real estate agent sells three 
properties per year and that the Petitioner would have 15 "affiliated" real estate agents at its disposal 
to make those sales. However, the Petitioner did not establish the nature of the claimed affiliation or 
provide evidence to support the claim that an agent averages three property sales per year. In other 
words, the Petitioner's claim as to its ability to generate revenue through the use of real estate agents 
is not supported by the record which contains no evidence of any prospective clients who have 
agreed to use the Petitioner's services or proof of any contractual agreements between the Petitioner 
and real estate agents with whom it claims to be "affiliated" and who would work exclusively for the 
Petitioner in order to generate the anticipated three sales per year per agent. The Petitioner provided 
no evidence to establish that all sales made by the real estate agents it will retain would be 
exclusively for its clients. As such, it is reasonable to assume that some real estate sales would be 
unrelated to the Petitione~'s business, even if the Petitioner retains real estate agents who reach the 
claimed average of three sales per year. If USCIS finds reason to believe that an assertion stated in 
the petition is not true, USC IS may reject that assertion. See, e.g., Section 204(b) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. § 1154(b); Anetekhai v. INS, 876 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1989); Lu-Ann Bakery Shop, Inc. 
9 
Matter ojY-T-R-E-C-.,(USA) Ltd. 
v. Nelson, 705 F. Supp. 7, 10 (D.D.C. 1988); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 
2001). 
Further, even if the Petitioner had the requisite contractual agreements with clients and real estate 
agents, respectively, it would have to start generating income almost immediately upon 
commencement of business operations in order to compensate for the lack of sufficient funds from 
the foreign entity and to cover the costs that were itemized in the Petitioner's operating budget. At 
page 39 of the business plan, the Petitioner claims that it will have accrued "just above $400,000" in 
assets during its first year of operations and provides a breakdown of its current and long-term assets 
for each month during this one-year time period. However, it is unclear how the Petitioner 
quantified its assets, as it did not provide a realistic and workable plan establishing how it would 
accumulate $297,000 of "cash on hand" by the end of its first year of operation, as indicated on page 
40 of the business plan. As discussed above, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to 
establish that it has secured the necessary funding, clientele, or "affiliated" real estate agents to 
·commence doing business upon approval of the petition. This lack of supporting evidence precludes 
us from finding that the Petitioner has adequately substantiated its claims regarding the revenues and 
assets it plans to generate from doing business in its first year of operation. As previously stated, the 
Petitioner must provide supporting documentary evidence to meet its burden of proof in these 
proceedings.· Matter ofSojjici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Lastly, the record lacks sufficient information about the Beneficiary's tasks and responsibilities 
during the Petitioner's initial start-up phase of ope.ration. It is not clear whether the job description 
provided is meant to represent the Beneficiary's responsibilities during the new office period. Given 
that the described duties indicate a more robust organization than would be available during the first 
year of operation, it appears likely that the job duties provided represent responsibilities that the 
Beneficiary will carry out after the new office period. While the Beneficiary would not be expected 
to primarily carry out job duties in a managerial capacity during this developmental phase of the 
Petitioner's operation, information about the Beneficiary's specific job duties during the start-up 
phase is nevertheless highly relevant, as it explains how the Beneficiary would contribute to the 
operation to ensure that the Petitioner will be able to not only commence doing business upon 
obtaining approval of the petition, but that the Petitioner will also likely progress to a phase of 
development wherein its level of business activity and the growth of its organizational hierarchy are 
complex enough to support the Beneficiary as an employee whose job duties are primarily in a 
managerial capacity. While we do not concur in the Director's finding that the Beneficiary's job 
description indicates that the Beneficiary would primarily perform non-managerial tasks and oversee 
lower-level employees, we find that the lack of a definitive list of the Beneficiary's initial job duties 
precludes us from being able to determine precisely how the Beneficiary will contribute to the start­
up operation to ensure that the Petitioner is able to progress to the next stage in it is development 
wherein the Petitioner would be able to support the Beneficiary in a primarily managerial capacity. 
In light of the evidentiary deficiencies described above, we find that the Petitioner has not 
established that it currently has the capability to commence doing business or that it would have the 
ability to relieve the Beneficiary from performing operational and administrative tasks after its initial 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter ofY-T-R-E-C-.,(USA) Ltd. 
year of operation. As such, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial capacity within one year of approval. 
III. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A FULL-TIME CAP A CITY 
Beyond the Director's decision, we find that the record lacks sufficient evidence to establish that the 
Beneficiary meets the regulatory provisions pertaining to foreign employment. Namely, the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii) requires the Petitioner to establish that the Beneficiary has at 
least one continuous year of full-time employment abroad during the three years prior to filing the 
petition. · 
In the present matter, the Petitioner incorporated the Beneficiary's employment history on page 58 
of the business plan and provided the Beneficiary's resume as a separate supporting document. 
While the Petitioner claimed the Beneficiary worked abroad for its parent from February 15, 2012, 
to the "present," the Beneficiary's resume and employment history show that he held positions as a 
project manager from June 2013 to the "Present" and a marketing manager from September 2006 to 
the "Present" at two separate unrelated entities. The Petitioner also indicated that the Beneficiary 
attended from September 2008 to July 2013 in order to obtain an 
associate degree and subsequently a baccalaureate degree in business administration. 
As previously noted, we may reject a claim that we find to be untrue. See, e.g., Section 204(b) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b); Anetekhai v. INS, 876 F.2d at 1220; Lu-Ann Bakery Shop, Inc. v. Nelson, 
705 F. Supp. at 10; Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d at 15. Here, the Petitioner did not 
provide information to clarify or evidence to substantiate the underlying claim that the Beneficiary 
was able to attend a university and hold managerial positions with two separate entities, all while 
maintaining a full-time position in a managerial or executive capacity within the Petitioner's foreign 
parent entity. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner's business plan and the Beneficiary's resume are inconsistent with regard 
to the dates of the Beneficiary's employment with the foreign parent entity. Namely, while the 
business plan states that the Beneficiary's employment with that entity commenced in February 
2011, the Beneficiary's resume indicates that such employment commenced in February 2012. The 
Petitioner has not resolved this inconsistency with independent, objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. 
Given the discrepancies noted above, we cannot conclude that the Beneficia:r~y has one year of 
continuous fulltime employment abroad with a qualifying entity. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above reasons. In visa petition 
proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the petitioner. 
II 
Matter ofY-T-R-E-C-.,(USA) Ltd. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofY-T-R-E-C-.,(USA) Ltd., ID# 124496 (AAO Sept. 22, 2016) 
) 
12