dismissed L-1A Case: Real Estate

MATTER OF DC-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
NQn-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 13,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an owner, lessor, and developer of commercial real estate, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as its "Owner/ Administrative Manager" 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 an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity in the United 
States. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In support of its appeal, the Petitioner disputes the Director's 
decision, asserting that it qualifies for classification as a new office, which the Director did not 
consider in determining that the Beneficiary's prospective employment in the United States would 
not be in a managerial or executive capacity. 
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. !d. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129; 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, shall be accompanied by: 
Matter of DC-, LLC 
(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. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary will be employed i.n a managerial or executive capacity. The Petitioner does not claim 
that the Beneficiary 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) ofthe 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 
j 
(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 
2 
Matter of DC-, LLC 
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 1 01 (a)( 44 )(C) of the Act. 
A. Evidence of Record 
The Petitioner filed the Form 1-129 on December 1, 2015. On the Form 1-129, the Petitioner 
indicated that it has two current employees and a net annual income of$6,461.39. 
In support of the Form 1-129, the Petitioner provided a document titled, "Job Description," which 
lists the following job duties for the Beneficiary in his role as "Partner/Shareholder/Legal 
Representative": 
1. Reviews and votes approval for the independent contractors that will work with the 
company and the price in exchange for their services. 
2. Reviews and votes approval for the purchase price to be paid for real estate assets 
that are purchased. 
3. Reviews and votes approval for the sales price for assets that are sold or leased. 
4. Reviews and develops the creation of policy to be executed as managing director for 
the Administration and Finance, Real Estate Development, Project Management and 
Real Estate Sales or leases for the company. 
5. Reviews the company [sic] financial and budgetary activities. 
6. Develops and reviews strategic policies along with the other member of the board of 
directors in order to advance the mission and objectives of the company. 
7. Represents the company with any person or business association, and before any 
type oflocal or federal, judicial or administrative authority. 
8. Represents the company before all authorities regarding financial issues. 
9. Reviews, grants, accepts, subscribes, endorses and utilize[s] any type of credit, bank 
account, funds transfer associated with the company. 
10. Reviews and votes for approval reports on the status of ongoing projects, account 
balances and financial statements for the company. 
11. Reviews the recommendations made by the Director of the Outsources Legal 
Department on lease contracts, [sic] for the company. 
12. Reviews the recommendations made by the Director of Outsourcing Real Estate 
Department on Real Estate acquisitions and sales, costumer [sic] service, client 
outreach, advertising and pricing for the company. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of DC-, LLC 
13. Reviews the recommendations made by the General Contractor of Project 
Management Department on engaging independent contractors for the projects with 
the company. 
14. Gets together with Member, Government Authorities, General Contractor and 
Clients to discuss the situation about the projects, to be able to review and approve 
what needs to be done for the best of the company. 
15. Promotes the projects from 
The Petitioner also submitted an organizational chart showing that it employed a building 
maintenance supervisor, in addition to the Beneficiary, at the time of filing. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's supporting evidence, the Director determined that the record lacked 
sufficient evidence to establish eligibility. Therefore, the Director issued a request for evidence 
(RFE), instructing the Petitioner to submit, in part, evidence establishing that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in , the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. The Director asked the 
Petitioner to provide an organizational chart depicting its organizational structure and staffing levels, 
information about the job duties the Petitioner's staff performs, and payroll documents. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a statement containing the same list of job duties as 
those originally listed in the document submitted in support of the petition. To that list, the 
Petitioner added that the Beneficiary provides "strategic leadership . 
. . by working with other 
management to establish long-range goals, strategies, plans and policies." The Petitioner further 
stated that that the Beneficiary would allocate 50% of hi~ time to "directing, reviewing, and 
supervising contracts, meetings, [and] financials of the company" and the remaining 50% of his time 
to "overseeing the tenants, implementing company policies, issuing orders to newly hired staff 
members and approving any new recommendations from contractors and Real Estate developers." 
In a separate statement, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has been its owner since 2013 and 
has "recently started running the business" in his capacity as the administrative manager. The 
Petitioner stated that it recently hired a full-time legal assistant and three part-time positions "to help 
with the daily ins and outs of the business." In support of this statement, the Petitioner provided a 
list of its current employees, showing the Beneficiary .at the top of the hierarchy, followed by a full­
time office assistant, a part-time advertising assistant, a part-time assistant, and a part-time building 
maintenance person, each of whom was hired approximately four weeks after the filing of the 
petition. Lastly, the Petitioner provided its 2014 corporate tax return showing $68,695 collected in 
rental income. 
The Director denied the petition on February 11, 2016, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity. In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner offered a vague job 
description. The Director also pointed out that the four employees the Petitioner named in its 
organizational chart were all hired after the petition was filed. 
4 
Matter of DC-, LLC 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits an appeal brief asserting that it merits treatment as a "new office" 
based on the claim that it has been doing business for less than one year. See 8 CF .R. 
§ 214.2(1)( 1 )(ii)(F) for definition of "new office." The Petitioner contends that the date the 
Petitioner commenced doing business, not the date of the Petitioner's incorporation, should 
determine whether the Petitioner qualifies as a new office. The Petitioner further asserts that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity as a "functional manager" who would 
oversee the company's sales, administration, and company objectives as well as company 
employees. In addition, the Petitioner provides the following additional list of the Beneficiary's 
proposed job duties: 
• Authority to hire/fire personnel as necessary depending on the contracts for services 
as well as disciplinary action' 
• Decision making authority to decide on suppliers after price negotiations . . . and 
authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the company; 
• Liaison with the parent company finance Director and General Director on financial 
information; business goals; resolution to problems; 
• Development and implementation of the company's procedures, production and 
efficiency for maximum use of personnel and finances; 
• Establishment and execution of marketing strategies and plans to insure profitability 
for the company; 
• Supervision of any current or future employees to address issues of client needs and 
the decision/authority to subcontract work as necessary. 
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 (1) it is a new office and (2) that 
it would employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial capacity, specifically as a 
function manager. 
1. New Office 
As a threshold matter, we will first determine whether the Petitioner qualifies as a new office. We 
find that the evidence in the record does not support the Petitioner's contentions. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F) defines the term "new office" as any organization that 
has been doing business in the United States through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary for less 
than one year. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(H) states that an entity is deemed as 
"doing business" if it provides goods and/or services on a regular, systematic, and continuous basis. 
Here, the Petitioner assumes that the Director's finding that it is not a new office was focused solely 
on the Petitioner's date of incorporation. While we agree that the date the Petitioner was established 
as a limited liability company does not determine the date the. Petitioner commenced business 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of DC-, LLC 
operations, the record in the present matter contains monthly invoices, which show that the 
Petitioner has been collecting rent from on a monthly basis since, July 1, 2014, 
thus indicating that the Petitioner has been earning a rental income from property it owns for 
approximately 17 months prior to the filing of the instant petition. As mentioned above, the record 
also contains the Petitioner's 2014 tax return, which corroborates the information conveyed in the 
Petitioner's 2014 invoices with regard to its rental income. 
In sum, the monthly invoices indicate that (1) the Petitioner was, in fact, providing a good, i.e., 
renting out property that it owns, and (2) the Petitioner was engaged in this business activity on a 
regular, systematic, and continuous basis such that it can be deemed as having been doing business 
since July 2014 when its first invoice was issued. Given that the date the Petitioner commenced 
doing business preceded the filing of the instant petition by more than one year, we find that the 
Director was correct in declining to treat the Petitioner under the provisions that \apply to a new 
office petitioner. 
2. Managerial Capacity 
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 the Beneficiary would perform and indicate whether such 
duties are in either a managerial capacity. !d. 
As indicated in the Director's decision, 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. USCJS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533. 
In the matter at hand, the Petitioner initially offered a job description that provided an overview of 
the Beneficiary's general responsibilities and his overall level of discretionary authority. However, 
broadly stating that the Beneficiary develops policies, reviews and approves use of funds, and 
reviews status reports regarding ongoing projects and account balances is not sufficient to fully 
convey the Beneficiary ' s actual role within the organization. Moreover, given that the Petitioner 
on'y claimed two employees, including the Beneficiary, at the time the petition was filed, it is 
unclear who would carry out the policies the Beneficiary will develop, who would carry out the 
underlying tasks of purchasing and selling real estate, or who would generate reports regarding 
project status and account balances. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the Director's reference to the previously provided job description 
as broad. The Petitioner asserts that it previously provided a list of the Beneficiary's job duties and 
"include[ d) the percentage of time spent on each detail .... " However, the job description the 
6 
Matter of DC-, LLC 
Petitioner provided in its RFE response is virtually identical to the description provided earlier in 
support of the petition. The percentage breakdown that the Petitioner now refers on appeal broadly 
states that the Beneficiary "spends 50% of his time in [sic] directing, reviewing, and supervising 
contracts, meetings, financials of the company" and "[t]he other 50% of his time is spend [sic] 
overseeing the tenants, implementing company polici~s, issuing orders to newly hired staff members 
and approving new recommendations from contractors and Real Estate developers." This job 
description cannot be deemed a detailed delineation of tasks, nor does the Petitioner's vague 50/50 
breakdown, which was assigned to two groups comprised of multiple job responsibilities, serve as a 
meaningful way of showing how the Beneficiary's time would be allocated or, more importantly, 
that hi~ time would be primarily allocated to tasks of a managerial nature. Reciting the Beneficiary's 
vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient and does not meet the 
regulatory provisions at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii), which require a detailed description of the 
services to be provided. The actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. 
Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990). 
Also on appeal, the Petitioner contends that "[a]s owner and functional manager, [the Beneficiary] 
supervises sales, administration, and objectives for the company- and supervises ALL employees." 
Although the Petitioner offers a second job description in support of this claim, the job duties listed 
remain broadly focused on the Beneficiary's discretionary authority and continue to lack a 
substantive account of the specific daily tasks the Beneficiary would perform in his claimed role as 
function manager. 
The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the 
work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" 
within the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) ofthe Act. The term "essential function" is 
not defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims that the beneficiary will manage an 
essential function, a petitioner must furnish a written job offer that clearly describes the duties to be 
performed in managing the essential function, i.e., identify the function with specificity, articulate 
the essential nature of the function, and establish the proportion of a beneficiary's daily duties 
attributed to managing the essential function. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). In addition, the 
petitioner's description of a beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary will 
manage the function rather than performs the duties related to the function. 
In the instant matter, the Petitioner has not provided evidence to establish that the Beneficiary 
manages an essential function. Rather, the Petitioner generally claims that the Beneficiary would 
hire and fire personnel, have authority to enter into contracts and negotiate prices with suppliers, 
develop and implement procedures, establish and execute marketing strategies, and supervise 
employees. However, the Petitioner does not identify a specific essential function or provide a 
detailed account of the Beneficiary's specific daily tasks to establish that the Beneficiary would not 
allocate his time primarily to nonmanagerial job duties. Specifics are clearly an important indication 
of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting 
Matter of DC-, LLC 
the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 
724 F. Supp. at 1108. 
Beyond the requ~red description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, incluping the company's 
organizational structure, the duties of the beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other 
employees to relieve the 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. 
After evaluating the Petitioner's assertions within the context of its real estate business and staffing 
structure at the time the petition was filed, we cannot conclude that ~the Beneficiary's time would 
only be allocated to the items listed in the job description, as there is no evidence that the Petitioner 
employed anyone other than a building maintenance supervisor at the time of filing. This general 
lack of support personnel leads us to question the Petitioner's ability to relieve the Beneficiary from 
having to allocate his time primarily to performing the daily operational and administrative tasks. In 
other words, the record shows that at the time of filing the Petitioner was comprised of a two-person 
staff, including the Beneficiary .and one other employee. While the Petitioner's RFE response 
includes evidence of additional employees, the evidence shows that such employees were not hired 
until after the petition was filed. As sueh, the subsequently hired employees were not available to 
assist the Petitioner inxelieving the Beneficiary from having to perform various nonmanagerial tasks 
at the time of filing. 
Moreover, the Beneficiary's job description refers to an outsourcing legal department, an 
outsourcing real estate department, an outsourced CPA, and a general contractor of project 
management. However, the record does not contain evidence establishing that the Petitioner 
retained any outsourced labor to carry out its operational and administrative tasks. As such, it is 
unclear who would be responsible for these duties, and given that the Beneficiary is one of two 
employees, it is likely that the Beneficiary may be required to perform these nonqualifying tasks. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(quoting Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Further, the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary would both establish and execute marketing 
strategies indicates that the Beneficiary would actually carry out the underlying marketing tasks. 
The lack of any discussion of sales and marketing personnel increases the likelihood that the 
Beneficiary would both oversee and carry out these nonmanagerial tasks, which are undoubtedly 
critical for the purpose of promoting the Petitioner's business and acquiring clientele to whom the 
Beneficiary would sell and/or lease the Petitioner's real estate. An employee who "primarily" 
performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be 
"primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See also, sections 101(a)(44)(A) and 
(B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive 
duties); Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm'r 1988). 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of DC-, LLC 
While the Petitioner states that we must take into account its reasonable needs in light of its overall 
purpose and,stage of development, this argument appears to be premised on the Petitioner's belief 
that it is a new office and therefore must be accorded treatment under the regulations that govern 
new office petitions. However, as previously discussed, the evidence of record indicates that the 
Petitioner does not fit the definition of a new office and therefore must establish that it had the 
ability to employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity as of the date the petition was filed. A 
visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after the Petitioner or 
Beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See, e.g, Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 
I&N Dec. 248 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978); Matter o.fKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm'r 1971). 
Here, while the record shows that the Petitioner was operating at an ea~ly stage of development at 
the time of filing, this factor will not supersede the Petitioner's burden of having to establish its 
eligibility at the time it filed the instant petition. Given that the Petitioner was doing business for 
longer than one year prior to filing this petition, it must demonstrate that it had the ability to employ 
the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity at the time of filing .. 
Based on the deficiencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
will be employed in a primarily managerial capacity. 
III. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
Beyond the Director's decision, we find that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for one continuous year prior to the filing of 
the instant petition. 
A. Continuous Employment Abroad for One Year 
The record shows that when asked to provide the Beneficiary's dates of employment abroad by the 
Petitioner's parent entity, the Petitioner stated on Form I -129, L Classification Supplement, section 
1(5), that the Beneficiary's dates of employment were from April 2013 to the present. 1 The 
Petitioner further noted the following: "Owned but not directly involved with operations until now." 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner also submitted the Beneficiary's resume, which identified a 
total of three entities- the Petitioner, its foreign parent entity, and -where the 
Beneficiary assumed the role of "Partner" between the years 2013 and 2015. The Petitioner did not 
discuss how the Beneficiary was able to maintain a full-time position with the 
Beneficiary's claimed employer abroad and parent to the Petitioner, while simultaneously assuming 
1 While not dispositive in this matter, we note that government records indicate that the Beneficiary first entered the U.S. 
in L-1 status on or about December 27,2013, contrary to the information reported on the 1-129 supplement which reports 
that the Beneficiary entered the United States on August 10, 2015. The petitioner must provide accurate and complete 
information about the Beneficiary's prior time in the United States in any subsequent filing in order to establish that the 
Beneficiary has the requisite time period of continuous employment abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
i 
9 
Matter of DC-, LLC 
the role of partner at two other entities. The Petitioner also did not explain what was meant by its 
statement in the petition, claiming that the Beneficiary was "not directly involved with operations 
until now." As such, it is unclear whether the Beneficiary was actively, performing services for the 
foreign entity for one continuous year on a full-time basis during the three years prior to filing the 
instant petition? 
B. Employment Abroad in a Managerial or Executive Capacity 
A determination of the Beneficiary's managerial or executive employment abroad calls for review 
the totality of the record, including first and foremost the Beneficiary's job duties, the foreign 
entity's organizational structure, the duties the Beneficiary performed during his employment 
abroad, the presence of other employees to relieve the 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 within the foreign entity's organization. As previously stated, a 
detailed job description is critical to our assessment of eligibility, as the actual duties themselves 
reveal the true nature ofthe employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner offered a description of the Beneficiary's employment abroad in 
support of the Petition. A review of that description shows that its components are nearly identical 
to those that comprised the Beneficiary's proposed job description with the Petitioner. We note that 
the job description was not accompanied by any information pertaining to the foreign entity's 
staffing or organizational hierarchy. As such, we are precluded from being able to fully evaluate the 
list of job duties within the context of the foreign entity's organizational structure. 
Applying our earlier findings to the matter at hand, the job description alone is not sufficient to 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity, as it does 
not explain who within the foreign entity actually carried out the daily operational and administrative 
tasks. As previously stated, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sojjici, 22 
I&N Dec. at 165. The record in the present matter does not contain sufficient evidence to support 
the finding that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The petition 1will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the, above stated reasons, \with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, the 
burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought ,remains with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
2 The Petitioner's response at Part 9(14) of the petition indicates that the Beneficiary is currently in the United States on 
an approved L-1 visa, which was filed by the Beneficiary's prior employer, not by the Petitioner in the matter at hand. In 
light of this information, it appears that the Benefi~iary came to the United States on August I 0, 2015 (as shown at Part 
3(5) of the Form I -129) to be employed by an entity other than the Petitioner. 
10 
Matter of DC-, LLC 
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 of DC-, LLC, ID# 20539 (AAO Oct. 13, 2016) 
II