dismissed L-1A Case: Real Estate

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-R-E-H-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 22.2017 
PETITION: FORM 1-129. PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which buys, sells, and manages real estate, seeks to extend the Bcneliciary's 
temporary employment 1 as its president 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)(15)(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 Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition. concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in the United States in an executive 
capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal. the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by 
applying too high a standard of proof~ and by disregarding evidence that the Beneficiary's duties are 
primarily executive and managerial. 
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 invohes specialized 
knowledge,'' for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(l5)(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 or executive capacity. !d. 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office'' petition on the Beneficiary's behalf approved for the period April 29. 
20 I 5, until April 28, 20 I 6. A ·'new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United States through a 
parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. ~ 214 2(1)( 1 )(ii)(F). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an 
executive or managerial position. 
Matter of R-R-E-H-. LLC 
There are additional requirements when a petitioner seeks to extend an L-1 A visa petitiOn that 
involved the opening of a new office. The new petition must include evidence to show: a qualifying 
relationship still exists between the employers in the United States and abroad: the U.S. entity has 
been doing business for the previous year: and the financial status of the U.S. operation. The 
Petitioner must also submit statements describing the Beneficiary"s past and intended future duties in 
the United States, and details ofthe staffing ofthe new operation. See 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(1)(14)(ii). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director found that the Petitioner has not established that it will employ the Beneficiary in an 
executive capacity. At the beginning of the proceeding, the Petitioner spcci tied that the Beneficiary 
is an executive. On appeaL the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary also qualities as a manager. 
After initially referring to the Beneficiary as an executive. the Petitioner. on appeaL maintains that 
the Beneficiary's "role in the company is quite plainly executive and managerial." Also on appeaL 
the Petitioner states: 
The very definition of "executive capacity'' says the beneficiary is managerial or 
executive if they "supervise[] and control[] the work of other supervisory. 
professional, Q! managerial employees, or manage[] an essential function within the 
organization. or a department or subdivision of the organization." INA 
101 (a)( 44 )(A). 
The statutory language that the Petitioner quotes and cites is from the definition of '"managerial 
capacity," not the definition of'·executive capacity." We will consider both definitions here. 
A managerial capacity is an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department. subdivision. function. or component of the organization. 
and exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the 
employee has authority. A personnel manager supervises and controls the work of other 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees: the duties of a first-line supervisor are not 
considered managerial unless the employees supervised are professional. A personnel manager must 
also have the authority to execute or recommend personnel actions such as hiring. tiring. and 
promotions. A function manager need not directly supervise other employees. but must manage an 
essential function within the organization. or a department or subdivision of the organization. and 
function at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or vvith respect to the function 
managed. Section 1 0 1 (a)( 44 )(A) of the Act. 
An executive capacity is an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization: 
establishes the goals and policies of the organization. component. or function: exercises wide 
latitude in discretionary decision-making: and receives only general supervision or direction from 
2 
Matter of R-R-E-H-. LLC 
higher-level executives, the board of directors. or stockholders of the organization. Section 
I Ol(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
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 1 0 1 (a)( 44 )(C) of the Act. 
A. Duties 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of the Beneficiary. we will look tirst to the 
Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's job duties. 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 or executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(1)(3 )(ii). 
The Beneficiary's job description focused on the elements ofthe definition of executive capacity: 
How the beneficiary will direct the management of the organization, or a major 
component or function of the organization; 
[The Beneficiary] will serve at the highest level [ofl management in the company. 
[The Beneficiary] will manage the day-[to-]day operations of the company and \Vill 
appoint sales representatives . . . . [The Beneficiary 1 will reviev, status reports and 
recommendations of proposed prope1iies identified by the sales representatives for 
consideration of investment and or sale of inventory .... 
How the beneficiary will establish the goals and policies of the organization, 
component, or function 
[The Beneficiary] will conduct weekly. monthly, and quaiicrly meetings with the 
sales representatives to establish weekly. monthly. quarterly and yearly goals. He 
will monitor ... progress at each meeting to ensure that the company continues to 
grow in the right direction. He will establish certain parameters for the sub-ordinate 
staff and give his staff limited discretion as it specifically relates to their respective 
positions. 
How the beneficiary will exercise wide latitude in discretional)' decision-making 
[The Beneficiary] will have complete discretion on the hiring and terminating of staff 
and designating their respective position(s) and duties within the company. He \viii 
further have a wide latitude of discretionary decision making for the day-to-day 
decisions in operating the company (i.e. authorizing payment on monthly bills: 
engaging legal counsel if needed: hiring of outside contractors for certain properties: 
etc.[)] He has authorization to enter into any contracts on behalf of the company and 
has authority to sign checks on behalf of the company. 
Matter of R-R-E-H-. LLC 
Whether the beneficiary will receive only general supervision or direction from 
higher level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders. 
As the owner of the company, he will not receive any supervision from anyone. 
Many of the described duties specifically relate to the Petitioner's interactions with sales 
representatives and review of their work product, but the Petitioner had no sales representatives 
when it filed the petition. Instead, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary "will appoint sales 
representatives'' at some unspecified time in the future. While a new office petition can rely on 
plans for the coming year. a subsequent extension petition must show that the Beneficiary already 
performs primarily managerial or executive tasks. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time 
it files the petition, continuing through the adjudication ofthe petition. See 8 C.F.R. ~ 103.2(b)(l ). 
Because the original job description involved plans regarding staff that the Petitioner had not yet 
hired, that description cannot accurately reflect the Beneticiary's duties as of the tiling date. 
Furthermore, the definitions of managerial and executive capacity require not only that a beneficiary 
will have high-level responsibilities, but also will be primari(v engaged in managerial or executive 
duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. The 
job description did not specify how much time the Beneficiary devoted to non-managerial and non­
executive tasks at the time of tiling, and therefore did not show that the Beneficiary primarily 
engaged in managerial or executive duties. 
After the Director requested more information, the Petitioner provided a new job description. \vhich 
took into account growth and changes that occurred after the petition's filing date. The new 
description also indicated that the Beneficiary '·repmi[s] to the Board of Directors of the Foreign 
Company," which contradicted the earlier claim that the Beneficiary "will not receive any 
supervision from anyone." Because the Petitioner must establish eligibility at tiling and maintain it 
afterwards, we must first determine whether the petition was properly approvable when tiled. If it 
was not, then subsequent changes cannot remedy the deficiencies in the context of the same petition 
(as opposed to a new petition filed under a new set of facts). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not adequately established the nature of the 
Beneficiary's duties as they existed at the time of tiling. By itseiC this deficiency would be grounds 
for denial of the petition, but the Director's denial decision relied instead on a discussion of the 
company's staffing, to be addressed below. 
B. Staffing 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when 
examining a beneficiary's claimed managerial or executive capacity, 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. 
4 
Matter of R-R-E-H-, LLC 
and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a 
business. 
The Petitioner stated: "[the Beneficiary initially] found himself carrying out many day to day duties . 
. . . [H]e has had to recruit other staff to carry out day to day mundane duties whilst he concentrates 
on developing the business and recruiting key members to drive the business forward." The 
Petitioner listed some of the duties delegated to subordinates: 
[The Beneficiary] will appoint sales representatives who will look for property 
inventory and find potential buyers for their current inventory. The sales 
representatives report directly to [the Beneficiary] and \vill be required to provide 
status on sales territories assigned to them as per the business plan. . .. 
Admin[istrative] staff will handle calls, tiling and coordination of meetings with 
clients and [the Beneticiaryl and/or sales representatives. 
On the petition form, the Petitioner indicated that it had five employees in the United States. But in 
an accompanying statement, the Petitioner claimed "a team of nine staff ... together with a variety 
of professional sub contracts and ... trade specialists." The Petitioner submitted copies of invoices 
from a cleaning service. a construction company. a septic service. a plumber. and a real estate 
brokerage. A broker from that firm appears on the Petitioner's organizational chart. The invoices 
demonstrate that the Petitioner relies on contractors t()f certain functions. but they do not establish 
that the Petitioner relied on those services more than occasionally. 
The Petitioner submitted inconsistent information regarding its staffing and finances in 2015. On its 
quarterly income tax returns, the Petitioner reported paying six employees a total of $114.800 in 
wages during 2015. The Petitioner also submitted copies of tive IRS Forms W-2. Wage and Tax 
Statements, showing that the Petitioner paid five employees an aggregate total of $57.800 in 2015. 
The Beneficiary is not one ofthe five employees named on the IRS Forms W-2. On its 2015 income 
tax return. the Petitioner did not report paying any wages. Instead. it reported $90.731 in total 
income and only $10,812 in expenses. The Petitioner's bank statements show recurring transfers to 
the Beneficiary, marked "wages," but no such payments to others. (The statements do not identify 
the recipients of checks paid.) The Petitioner did not explain these significant discrepancies. 
Matter of R-R-E-H-, LLC 
An organizational chart submitted with the initial tiling showed the following structure: 
President (the Beneficiary) 
Secretary/Paralegal/Notary Assistant to Secretary 
Real Estate Acquisition and Sales Co-Founder Real Estate Broker 
I I 
Assistant to Co-Founder Property Manager 
I 
Assistant to Property Manager 
Later, the Petitioner submitted a ditlerent chart stating that the earlier version "lacked clarity." The 
new chart, however, is not simply a clarification of the original chart: it contains several material 
differences, including new hires and changes of title for existing employees. For example: 
• The chart now shows the Beneficiary reporting to the hoard of directors of the Petitioner's 
foreign affiliate. 
• A new employee in "Administration Management" replaced the ''Assistant to Secretary." 
• The chart no longer shows the real estate broker shown on the first chart. The two 
individuals identified as the broker's subordinates are now elsewhere in the hierarchy. 
• The individual previously named as the secretary/paralegal/notary received a promotion to 
"Office/Operations Manager.'' 
• The ''Office/Operations Manager" directly supervises the "Property Management Manager" 
(formerly identified as the assistant to the ''Property Manager") and "'Acquisition & Sales 
Manager,., each of whom, in turn, oversees various contractors. 
• The "Acquisition & Sales Manager" also supervises three newly-identified positions. 
Specifically, a newly hired "Wholesale Manager" supervises two "Sales Agents:· 
• One of the two "Sales Agents'' is newly hired: the other was previously identi1ied as the 
·'Property Manager.'· 
The Petitioner has not shown that the second version of the organizational chart accurately depicts 
the organization as it existed at the time of tiling: therefore. we will not consider the sufticiency of 
the new organizational structure. The Petitioner has not established that its structure at the time of 
tiling allowed the Beneficiary to work in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The Petitioner stated that the real estate broker's role is to --r p ]rovide full back up and support for the 
legal compliance of licenced activity of Real Estate Sales and Marketing." An invoice from the 
brokerage firm shows that the broker is a contractor rather than an employee. The invoice showed 
that the Petitioner paid the brokerage $300 per month. a sum that does not indicate that the broker 
worked full-time or exclusively for the Petitioner. Instead. the invoice indicates occasional 
engagement ofthe broker's services. 
.
Matter of R-R-E-H-, LLC 
The Petitioner stated that the company's co-founder has the following duties: 
• Day to day management of and Properties. 
• Identifying new opportunit[ies] in North Florida to present to [the Beneficiary] 
• Duties as directed by [the Beneficiary]. 
• New business ventures. 
The co-founder's assistant has the following stated duties: 
• Back 
up and support for [the co-founder]. 
• office management. 
• property management. 
• Accounting. 
• Tenant Liaison. 
• Rental Collection. 
The Petitioner stated that the individual m charge of real estate acquisition and sales has the 
following responsibilities: 
• Identify investors and landlords in the USA and overseas for the promotion/sale 
of Real Estate. 
• To grow the sales department and recruit sales staff. 
• Marketing. 
• Attending regular networking events. 
• Identifying property for refurbishment and eventually for rent and sale. 
• Identifying property for direct sale. 
• Identifying property for investment and rental. 
• Sales/Purchase contracts. 
• Dealing with title companies and closings. 
• Attending Auctions. 
• Preparing viability for every deal and discussing with [the Beneficiary] 
• Daily meeting [with the Beneficiary]. 
• Twice weekly reporting to [the Beneficiary]. 
• Managing contractors and si[t]e visits. 
The person with the above responsibilities earned $8,400 in 2015. consistent with part-time 
employment. (The Petitioner's quarterly tax returns show no variation in the number or employees 
over 2015, and the Petitioner did not claim to have hired any of its staiT mid-year.) The person's 
name does not appear in tax documentation from 2016. either as an employee or as a contractor. 
The secretary and the secretary's assistant handle routine administrative tasks: they are not 
managers, supervisors, or professionals. (The organizational chart did not show the secretary's 
Matter of R-R-E-H-. LLC 
assistant as the subordinate of the secretary, and the secretary's job description did not include 
supervision of the assistant.) 
The Petitioner provided one joint job description for the property manager and his assistant. shmving 
a broad range of duties from "Rental Management of in house and client prope11ies" to ··Answering 
calls." The property manager earned $8,400 in 2015, which is not a year's full-time wage: his 
assistant earned $24,000 in 2015, the only reported wage higher than $11.000 for that year. In 2016. 
with the new title "Property Management Manager," the former assistant earned $4.000 as an 
employee and $4,530 as a contractor. 
IRS Forms W-2 from 2016 show that the Petitioner paid tive employees an aggregate total of 
$15,445 the year the Petitioner tiled the petition. This amount is less than one full-time salary at 
minimum wage in Florida in 2016. Payments to contractors. too. were below $5.000 each in 2016. 
as shown on IRS Forms 1 099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income statements. Therefore. the available 
evidence shows that, when the Petitioner filed the petition in 2016. supporting staff was only 
sporadically available to relieve the Beneficiary from having to perform operational and clerical 
functions. 
In the denial notice, the Director identified several deficiencies regarding the Petitioner's staffing: 
• The co-founder appears to be performing operational functions rather than delegating them to 
others. 
• The individual in charge of ''administration management" has no subordinates and does not 
appear to be a manager, despite the title. 
• The promotion of the secretary to ot1ice/operations manager took place after the filing date. 
and the Petitioner had not shown that the position is managerial. 
• The Petitioner minimally documented the nature and extent of its reliance on contractors. 
• The Petitioner has not documented its sales volume or ''provided a marketing budget. 
examples of marketing activities, client contacts, or other such evidence ... to establish the 
work product that [sales agents] would produce ... 
The Director found that, while "the beneficiary has a high level of authority." the Petitioner had not 
shown "that the company has reached a level of organizational complexity that can support him in a 
primarily executive role ... 
On appeal, the Petitioner states: ''Rather than apply the preponderance of the evidence standard, the 
USCIS applied a much more rigorous standard. omitting consideration of certain documents and 
making unsupported conclusions to determine that [the Beneficiary's] duties are not managerial. .. 
The Petitioner does not establish that the Director applied a higher standard instead of the 
"preponderance of the evidence" standard that is appropriate in this proceeding. The 
"preponderance of the evidence" standard requires that the evidence demonstrate that the claim is 
"probably true," where the determination of "truth"' is made based on the factual circumstances of 
.
Matter of R-R-E-H-. LLC 
each individual case. Matter (~fChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (quoting Jlvfaller of 
E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989)). The truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality. Thus. in adjudicating the petition pursuant to the preponderance of 
the evidence standard, a director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance. probative 
value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence. to 
determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true . !d. 
The Petitioner does not identify the "certain documents'' that would have changed the outcome of 
the decision if the Director had considered them. The documents in the record do not establish 
eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence, because some are deficient as discussed above. Also. 
those documents are not fully consistent, as shown, for instance, by the major discrepancies in the 
Petitioner's 2015 tax documents. That year's IRS Forms W-2 indicated that the Petitioner spent 
more than $100,000 on salaries, but on its federal tax retum. the Petitioner repmied that its total 
expenses for the year were less than $11.000. These discrepancies diminish the credibility of the 
Petitioner's documentation. See Maffer of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
The Petitioner states that the Director "erred by requiring that. for [the Beneficiary] to be considered 
a manager, he must be supervising individuals who themselves meet the [Act's] definition of 
executive." The Director did not make such a finding. although the Director did find that the lack of 
subordinate managers prevented a finding that the Beneficiary qualities as an executive. 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person·s elevated position 
within a complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the 
organization, and that person's authority to direct the organization. Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. To qualify as an executive, as the Petitioner initially claimed. a beneficiary must have the 
ability to "direct the management" and ''establish the goals and policies·· of that organization. 
Inherent to the definition. the organization must have a subordinate level of management for a 
beneficiary to direct, and a beneficiary must primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the 
organization rather than the day-to-day operations by which the organization achieves those goals 
and implements those policies. An individual will not be deemed an executive under the statute 
simply because of an executive title or because that individual "directs" the enterprise as its owner or 
sole managerial employee. 
The Petitioner contends that several of the Beneficiary"s subordinates are managers. Specifically. 
the Petitioner asserts that the co-founder is "a functional manager of the remaining inventory in 
and and will be responsible for the coming year for the expansion of the 
office. [He] is also responsible for managing budget compliance with each 
department.'' The Petitioner has provided minimal information about the co-founder's continued 
involvement with the company and the specific nature of his ongoing work. 
The other two claimed managers whom the Petitioner identi1ics on appeal did not hold their 
respective positions at the time of tiling. One was the Petitioner's secretary. and the other joined the 
company in August 2016, several months after the filing date in April. 
9 
.
Matter of R-R-E-H-. LLC 
The Petitioner also states: 
Even if [the three claimed managers] are not themselves managerial and executive 
employees (which they are), their job duties ... quite plainly demonstrate that they 
are the same type of "necessary support personner' ... doing the heavy lifting and 
day-to-day work on the ground to relieve [the Beneficiary! from having to run the 
day-to-day functions of the company himself. 
The assertion that these individuals are "doing the heavy lifting and day-to-day work"' contradicts the 
claim that they are managers, whose role is to oversee rather than perform those tasks. Also. the 
Petitioner has not shown that it has compensated any of them at a level consistent with significant 
managerial responsibilities. The office/operations manager earned $5,873 in 2016. and the nc\\ ' 
employee in administration management earned $2,885 in the last four to tive months of that year. 
The low level of compensation calls into question the assertion that several of the company's 
officials have daily meetings with the Beneficiary , the president of the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner did not show that it has paid the co-founder or his assistant. either as employees or as 
contractors. When the Beneficiary purchased the co-founder's interest in the petitioning company in 
September 2015, the purchase agreement indicated that the co-founder "will continue to consult for 
[the Petitioner] and to also be responsible tor the existing assets. tenants, maintenance. sales and 
expansion in · The agreement also stated that the co-founder ·'will further receive his 
percentage of profit from the rental income of [the Petitioner's] properties until such time [sic]." 
The agreement did not specify how much the co-founder has received through this arrangement: 
whether continued rental income would be contingent on continued consulting work for the 
Petitioner ; or how much time the co-founder would devote to these activities. The available 
evidence does not establish that the co-founder is a manager. 
The Petitioner has not overcome the Director's finding that the Beneficiary does not appear to work 
in an executive capacity. The Petitioner also contends that the Beneficiary is a manager. but this 
claim is deficient as well. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity'' allows tor both ''personnel managers" and 
"function managers.'' See sections I 0 I (a)( 44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel manager s are 
required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional. or 
managerial employees . The statute plainly states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be 
acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor 's supervisory duties unless the 
employees supervised are professional." Section I 01 (a)(44 )(A) of the Act. If a petitioner claims 
that a beneficiary directly supervises other employees. those subordinate employees must be 
supervisory, professional, or managerial. and the beneficiary must have the authority to hire and fire 
those employees , or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. Sections 
I 0 I (a)( 44)(A)(ii)-(iii) of the Act. 
10 
Matter of R-R-E-H-, LLC 
The Petitioner states that it has shown that the Beneficiary ''is now in a position managing several 
subordinate employees who themselves manage essential functions of the business as well as 
subordinate employees and independent contractors ... and that the Beneficiary's ··time is primarily 
spent managing other people and directing essential functions of the business.·· These assertions rest 
on the Petitioner's descriptions of the Beneficiary"s duties and the company"s starting. But those 
descriptions are deficient, for reasons already described. Furthermore, the Petitioner has described a 
version of the company that did not exist at the time the Petitioner filed the petition. The Director 
advised the Petitioner that post-filing changes to the company"s structure cannot correct deficiencies 
in the initial filing. The Petitioner has not addressed this important point in its appeal. 
In this case, the Petitioner has not articulated a specific function that the Beneficiary will 
manage. 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 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) ofthe Act. !fa 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: 
(1) the function is a clearly defined activity: (2) the function is '"essentiaL"" i.e .. core 
to the organization: (3) the beneficiary will primarily manaRe. as opposed to perform. 
the function: (4) the beneficiary will act at a senior level within the organizational 
hierarchy or with respect to the function managed: and (5) the beneficiary will 
exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day operations. 
Matter ofG- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8. 2017). 
In this matter, the Petitioner has not described or provided evidence that the Beneficiary manages an 
essential function. Instead, the Petitioner has relied on the general assertion that the Beneficiary has 
authority over the company and that he "is also the functional manager of most tinancial aspects of 
the company." The initial job description. submitted at the time of tiling. did not mention finance 
apart from ''authorizing payment on monthly bills'' and '·authority to sign checks ... 
Although the Beneficiary owns the company. the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary was 
at the time of filing, and remains now, primarily a function manager. a personnel manager. or an 
executive. Discrepancies and gaps in the record preclude a finding that the Petitioner has met its 
burden of proof and established eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
III. TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT 
We will dismiss the appeal for the reasons discussed above. Beyond the Director's decision. we note 
another ground that precludes approval of the petition. The Petitioner has stated that the company· s 
performance is contingent on the Beneficiary"s presence, and that the Beneficiary .. is permanently in 
the USA." 
Matter of R-R-E-H-. LLC 
As noted above, the Beneficiary is the sole owner of the petitioning entity. If the beneficiary is an 
owner or major stockholder of the company, the petition must be accompanied by evidence that the 
beneficiary's services are to be used for a temporary period and evidence that the bencliciary will be 
transferred to an assignment abroad upon the completion of the temporary services in the United 
States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(vii). The Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary ''is permanently in 
the USA'' precludes a finding that the Petitioner intends for the Beneficiary's services in the United 
States to be temporary. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that it seeks to employ the Beneficiary m a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of R-R-E-H-. LLC, ID# 756937 (AAO Nov. 22. 2017) 
12