dismissed L-1A Case: Real Estate Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-B- CO., LTD. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 14, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a real estate development company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
managing director of its new office 1 under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(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, as required, that: (1) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in an executive capacity; 
(2) the Petitioner had a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer at the time of 
filing; and (3) the Petitioner would be able to support a managerial or executive position within one 
year ofthe approval of the petition. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by 
drawing unwarranted conclusions, and did not consider business conditions in Saudi Arabia that 
would explain apparent omissions from the record. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal, based on the merits of the record before the 
Director and on derogatory information that has since come to light. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A 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. In addition, the Beneficiary must seek to enter the United States 
1 
The term "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one 
year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(F). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office'' operation no 
more than one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
Matter of M-B- Co., Ltd. 
temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or at1iliate 
thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Section 1 01(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. 
If the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, indicates that the Beneficiary is coming to 
the Unite.d States in L-1 A status to open or to be employed in a new office, the Petitioner must 
submit evidence to demonstrate that the new office will be able to support a managerial or executive 
position within one year. This evidence includes information regarding the new ot1ice's physical 
premises, the proposed nature and scope ofthe entity, its organizational-structure, its financial goals, 
and the size ofthe U.S. investment. See generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(v). 
II. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director found that the Petitioner had not shown that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad 
in an executive capacity as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iv). The Petitioner has not claimed 
that the Beneficiary worked in a managerial capacity or a position involving specialized knowledge. 2 
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 
higher-level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. Section 
101 (a)( 44 )(B) of the Act. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in an 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. Duties 
When examining the executive capacity of the Beneficiary, we will look first to the Petitioner's 
description of the job duties. The definition of executive capacity has two parts. First, the Petitioner 
must show that the Beneficiary performed 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 was primarily engaged in executive duties, as opposed to ordinary 
operational activities alongside the foreign company's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 
469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
2 
The Petitioner initially referred to the position as "executive/managerial" but later clarified: "this position is not a 
'hybrid' of executive and manager .... Some normal, ordinary duties of an executive are ... similar to some of the 
duties of a manager." 
2 
.
Matter of M-B- Co., Ltd. 
The Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary "commenced work [at the affiliate] in Egypt in 2005 and 
continued in Saudi Arabia in 2009." The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary had the following 
duties at the foreign entity's office in Saudi Arabia, "while also managing similar business 
operations of his own in the same industry (Civil Engineering and Construction)": 
• Plan, develop and establish policies and objectives of business organization in 
accordance with board directives and corporation charter; 
• Confer with company officials to plan business objectives, to develop 
organizational policies to coordinate functions and operations between divisions 
and departments, and to establish responsibilities and procedures for attaining 
objeCtives; 
• Review activity reports and financial statements to determine progress and status 
in attaining objectives and revise objectives and plans in accordance with current 
conditions. 
• Direct and coordinate formulation of financial programs to provide funding for 
new or continuing operations to maximize returns on investments, and to increase 
productivity. 
• Plan and develop industrial, labor, and public relations policies designed to 
improve company's image and relations with customers. 
• Evaluate performance of executives for compliance with established policies and 
objectives of the different businesses in attaining objectives. 
• Participate as member of the boards of directors and chair of engineering 
activities committee. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director asked for more information because the original 
description lacked detail. In response, the Petitioner submitted a letter from 
identified as a partner and "one of the Owners and Managing Directors" of the foreign 
company. She attested to the accuracy of the original job description, and stated that the company 
had employed the Beneficiary "in 
Egypt from January 2005 to the present as Executive Managing 
Director and with our branch in Saudi Arabia since 2006 to present." She asse1ied that the 
Beneficiary's work "includes delegation and assignment of work to engineers, reviewing the Project 
Manager's work for final approval," and "[d]etermination as to what needs to be done." She added: 
Construction, development, and management of real estate properties, and all matters 
relating thereto, take[] up approximately 75% of his work time at our company. The 
remaining 25% of his time relates to administrative matters within the organization, 
such as peripheral investments, inventory control and budgeting, wherein he 
supervises management staff in those areas. 
did not identify or otherwise elaborate on the "management staff'' mentioned above, 
and the Petitioner did not submit evidence of their employment. 
3 
.
Matter of M-B- Co., Ltd. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the Petitioner had not provided enough details about the 
Beneficiary's claimed duties abroad. The Director found that some parts of the description were 
vague, and others simply paraphrased elements of the statutory definition of executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that it had "clearly explained" the Beneficiary's foreign duties, and 
that the Director's finding "is an opinion far removed from reality and an unlawful abuse of 
administrative discretion." The Petitioner does not elaborate or provide additional information about 
the Beneficiary's claimed duties with the foreign company. 
The listed duties are, for the most part, almost identical to the entry for "president (any industry)" in 
the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, a publication of the U.S. Department of Labor. (The final 
item in the Petitioner's list paraphrases rather than quotes a portion of that entry.) By design, the 
description in that entry is general enough to be broadly applicable to "any industry." The Petitioner 
must provide specifi<;: information about the particular position, rather than restate the requirements 
in the regulations. See 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). For the same reason, the requirement to provide a detailed job 
description would be meaningless if a petitioner could meet that requirement simply by quoting a 
generic definition from a government publication. 
The Petitioner adds that the Beneficiary's 
claimed foreign employment is "impossible to verify other 
than by statement of the employer" because no records exist "due ... to the unique nature in which 
business is conducted in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia." The Petitioner does not cite or submit any 
sources to corroborate this claim. In immigration proceedings, the law of a foreign country is a 
question of fact which must be proven if a petitioner relies on it to establish eligibility for an 
immigration benefit. Matter of Annang, 14 I&N Dec. 502 (BIA 1973). In the same way, the 
Petitioner cannot simply cite cultural or business practices to explain the absence of evidence. 
Furthermore, items on the list of claimed duties refer to policies, reports, and financial statements, 
which appear to contradict the Petitioner's.assertion that the foreign company produced no records. 
If these policies, reports, and statements do not exist, then we cannot accept the Petitioner's claim 
that the Beneficiary devoted significa11t time to activities involving such non-existent documents. 
We note that the Petitioner has submitted a translated power of attorney from the foreign company to 
the That document authorized the Beneficiary to 
"submit tax returns" on behalf of the company, which appears to be in direct conflict with the 
Petitioner's unsupported claim that 
"there is no taxation in Saudi Arabia." 
B. Derogatory Information 
Because the Petitioner states that the employer's statements are the only available evidence of the 
Beneficiary's employment in Saudi Arabia, we must weigh the reliability of those statements. The 
sources of the statements are the beneficiary of another L-1 A 
petition, and spouse, In a notice of intent to 
4 
.
Matter of M-B- Co., Ltd. 
dismiss (NOID), we informed the Petitioner that mqumes had revealed discrepancies m their 
statements. 
The Petitioner initially claimed that the Beneficiary transferred from Egypt to Saudi Arabia in 2009. 
In the RFE response, statements from the Beneficiary and contradicted that claim, 
stating 
that the transfer occurred in 2006. The Petitioner's own business plan indicated that the 
Saudi Arabian office opened in 2008, which is consistent with a translated registration certificate in 
the record. 
In response to the NOID, the Petitioner stated that the Egyptian affiliate made the decision, in 2006, 
to open an office in Saudi Arabia, but "[a]n operation such as this requires extensive planning" and 
the company did not receive its registration from the Saudi Arabian. government until 2008. The 
Petitioner states that the Beneficiary frequently traveled between Egypt and Saudi Arabia during the 
intervening years. 
In 2015, the Beneficiary filed a nonimmigrant visa application at the U.S. Consulate in Saudi 
Arabia. Asked to identify his employer and occupation, the Beneficiary stated that he was a civil 
engineer at Asked "Were you previously 
employed?," the Beneficiary answered "no." 
Also in 2015, 
-- that he was an engmeer 
employment, 
to 2013. 
filed a nonimmigrant visa application at the same consulate, and stated 
at Asked about previous 
stated that he had worked for the Petitioner's Egyptian affiliate from 1990 
Asked, in respective RFEs, to explain these statements, the Petitioner submitted statements from both 
beneficiaries. The Beneficiary of the current petition stated: · 
[P]lease note that I have worked two or more jobs during my professional career. 
During the relevant period in question ... I ... worked for two companies [in] Saudi 
Arabia: [the Petitioner's foreign affiliate] ... and 
I worked an average of 32 hours per week for each company . . . . The job duties I 
performed at were more of a 
professional engineering position. 
statement was identical, except that it named instead of 
stated: "As a partner, I have been active in the business affairs since I became a partner in 
the company." She also stated: "I intend to cover [the Beneficiary's] job duties here" while the 
Beneficiary is in the United States. In another letter, she stated that, as a partner at the highest level of 
authority in the foreign company, she is "fully familiar with the work that [the Beneficiary] does." 
5 
.
Matter of M-B- Co., Ltd. 
In May 2017, after the filing of the appeal, filed her own nonimmigrant visa application at 
the U.S. Consulate in Asked to specify her "primary occupation," she answered that she was 
"not employed" and, instead, caring for her children. Asked "Were you previously employed," she 
answered "no." 
In response to our NOlO, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary never claimed that was 
his only employer, and that the Beneficiary entered Saudi Arabia as an employee of while 
also scouting locations and opportunities to launch the Petitioner's affiliate in that country. The 
Petitioner submits a copy of a 2016 letter from to the Consul General of France, requesting a 
five-year multiple-entry visa for the Beneficiary to visit that country. This letter indicates that the 
Beneficiary still worked for in 2016, and is therefore consistent with the Beneficiary's 
statements at the U.S. Consulate. The letter does not support the Petitioner's claim that the 
Beneficiary simultaneously worked for the Petitioner's affiliate in Saudi Arabia. 
The Petitioner acknowledges that was never employed in Saudi Arabia, but 
nevertheless played a significant, albeit unpaid, role as a partner. The Petitioner submits a copy of 
Saudi Arabian visa, which did not authorize employment in that country. The visa 
shows that was not allowed to work in Saudi Arabia, but it offers no information to 
support the key claim that. she worked without pay, participating in business decisions. The 
Petitioner has not addressed or explained specific assertion that she "t[ oo ]k care of 
children" in lieu of employment. The visa documents for the Beneficiary and for 
corroborate parts of the narrative, but crucially, they do not corroborate their claims of employment 
or active involvement in the Petitioner's Saudi Arabian affiliate. 
At the Consulate in the two beneficiaries and were all asked about present and 
former employment, and none of them claimed employment with the Petitioner's at1iliate in Saudi 
Arabia. Despite the Petitioner's observation that the application form does not ask about multiple 
current employers, it remains that none of the relevant documents corroborate the Petitioner's claims 
about the individuals' claimed work for the Petitioner's Saudi Arabian affiliate. 
claimed employment with the Egyptian affiliate, but only in the context of former 
employment that had ended in early 2013. In response to the NOlO, the Petitioner states: 
As to statement that he served ... [in] Egypt from January 1, 1990 
to January 1, 2013, this refers solely to the operations when he was in Egypt. The 
business was thereafter organized and operated in Saudi Arabia from 2013 to the 
present. ... 
[The Egyptian affiliate] was his former employer ... until 2013, whereafter he went 
to Saudi Arabia to work for that company's branch oflice, as well as 
.
Matter of M-B- Co., Ltd. 
This revision of the claim is inconsistent with prior chronologies, which had moving 
from Egypt to Saudi Arabia in 2009. In the same brief, the Petitioner asserts that the company began 
operations in Saudi Arabia several years before 2013. The Petitioner's explanation does not 
successfully account for statement to a U.S. government official that he worked 
for the Egyptian affiliate only until 2013, and thereafter worked for in Saudi Arabia. 
Furthermore, the assertion that a move from Egypt to Saudi Arabia caused the Egyptian company to 
be "former employer" is inconsistent with the Petitioner's assertion that the 
present Beneficiary "was under the employment of [the company] in Egypt, although he was 
physically present in Saudi Arabia." The Petitioner represents the move from Egypt to Saudi Arabia 
as a change of employment for but not for the Beneficiary in this case. The 
Petitioner's business plan includes the claim that both Beneficiaries continue to draw salaries from 
the Egyptian and Saudi Arabian companies. 
The Petitioner asserts that the company's early activities in Saudi Arabia took place "under the 
auspices of ' but the Petitioner has not substantiated this claim. Documentation of the 
company's existence, and of the Beneficiary's presence in Saudi Arabia, does not lead to the 
conclusion or inference that the Beneficiary was an executive of that company. 
Given the many unexplained inconsistencies and discrepancies in the statements of the various 
parties, the Petitioner has not established that those statements are credible or reliable evidence in the 
absence ofveri£1able corroborating documentation. 
C. Staffing 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed executive capacity. of a beneficiary, including the company's organizational 
structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to 
relieve a beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other 
factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
The 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. Under the statute, 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 managerial employees 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 of the enterprise. An individual will not be deemed an executive under the statute simply 
based on an executive title. A beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision 
making" and receive only "general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization." ld. 
.
Matter of M-B- Co., Ltd. 
The foreign entity's purported organizational chart lists individual positions such as "site engineer" 
and "quantity surveyor," as well as divisions such as "finance" and "tendering" that do not specify 
the number of employees or their titles. The chart shows the Beneficiary to have authority over 
"procurement," "technical office," "project manager," "accountant," and "supervisor for rental 
equipment." The Petitioner has not named any of the subordinate employees or submitted evidence 
to show that the foreign company actually employs individuals in the organizational structure 
claimed. We note that the Petitioner has submitted what purport to be copies of the Beneficiary's 
monthly pay receipts. By submitting these copies, the Petitioner has attested to the existence of 
payroll records, but the Petitioner has not submitted such records for its other claimed employees. 
The record contains few documents directly-relating to the company's activities in Saudi Arabia. A 
contract dated October 2015 and executed in refers to a construction project by the 
petitioning company, but it refers to the Beneficiary as an "authorized Engineer" and "a manager of 
the project," which suggest an onsite role as a project manager. This is not consistent with the 
organizational chart, which called the Beneficiary an "executive manager" superior to an unnamed 
"project manager." 
The Director found that the Petitioner had not submitted enough information to show that the 
company in Saudi Arabia had a subordinate staff to relieve the Beneficiary from performing non­
qualifying tasks. On appeal, the Petitioner does not address this issue directly. Counsel for the 
Petitioner states: 
While [the foreign entity] does employ permanent, full-time staff, those are limited to 
essential employees needed on a continuous basis. When a construction job is taken 
on, the company hires temporary workers, from laborers to skilled artisans, as well 
[as] subcontractors to do specific limited parts of the construction contract. It is the 
permanent staff who supervises these temporary workers, and it is the beneficiary 
who would supervise everybody. 
Assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 
(BIA 1988) (citing Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980)). Counsel's 
statements must be substantiated in the record with independent evidence, which may include 
affidavits 
and declarations. Neither counsel nor the Petitioner identified the "essential employees" said to 
comprise "the permanent staff," and the Petitioner has not submitted copies of contracts with 
subcontractors or other evidence to support the new claim that the Petitioner has a core of pennanent 
employees assisted, as needed, by outside labor. 
We have already discussed the Petitioner's claims that few records exist owing to business practices 
in Saudi Arabia. Without documentation of the foreign company's staffing, there is only the 
organizational chart and general statements from company officials. Owing to the derogatory 
information discussed above, those statements have diminished evidentiary weight. 
8 
.
Matter of M-B- Co., Ltd. 
We note that a company's size alone, without taking into account the reasonable needs of the 
organization, may not be the determining factor in denying a visa petition for classification as a 
multinational manager or executive. See section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. However, it is 
appropriate for USCIS to consider the size of the petitioning company in conjunction with other 
relevant factors, such as the absence of employees who would perform the non-managerial or 
non-executive operations ofthe company. See, e.g.. Family Inc .. 469 F.3d 1313; Systronics Corp. v. 
INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d. 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). The size of a company may be especially relevant when 
USClS notes discrepancies in the record which cast doubt on some of the Petitioner's claims of fact. 
See Systronics, 153 F. Supp. 2d at 15. 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient corroborated information about the foreign company's 
staffing to show that the Beneficiary supervised a managerial staff as claimed. The Petitioner has 
not established that the Beneficiary served abroad in an executive capacity for at least one 
continuous year during the three years prior to the filing of the petition. 
III. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
To establish a "qualifying relationship" under the Act and the regulations, a petitioner must show 
that the beneficiary's foreign employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (i.e. 
one entity with "branch" offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See 
generally section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1). The Petitioner claims affiliation 
with the companies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia because is a 50% partner in the 
foreign companies and owns half of the U.S. Petitioner's shares. 
The Director found that the Petitioner had not established that the foreign entity was actively doing 
business at the time of filing. If the foreign entity was not doing business, then there was no active 
entity with which the Petitioner could have had a qualifying relationship at the time of filing. On 
appeal, the Petitioner states that an onsite investigation would establish the company's continued 
business activity. 
The Petitioner initially submitted Egyptian tax documents relating to 2014 and 2015. For the Saudi 
Arabian entity, the Petitioner submitted a translated contract dated October 2015, nearly a year 
before the filing date in September 2016. 
In the RFE, the Director stated that the initial documentation did not show ongoing business activity 
by the foreign entity as of the time of filing. In response, the Petitioner submitted copies of invoices 
from May to November of 2016, showing the Saudi Arabian company's purchase of various 
building supplies. The Petitioner also submitted Egyptian financial statements for 2013 through 
2015. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that the foreign entity was doing business 
in September 2016. The Director noted that the company's 
purchase of supplies does not constitute 
9 
.
Matter of M-B- Co., Ltd. 
doing business, defined as the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods, services, or 
both. See 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(H). 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that "business is conducted very differently in the Middle East," and 
asserts: "If the ... petition is approved and forwarded to an investigation is welc~me to 
verify that [the foreign entity] is indeed in active operation in Saudi Arabia." 
The burden of proof is on the Petitioner to establish eligibility; there is no presumption of eligibility. 
While all claims are subject to verification by USCIS or consular officials, the government is under 
no obligation to gather qualifying information on the Petitioner's behalf. For this reason, we cannot 
accept the Petitioner's request that we approve the petition first and then seek information to justify 
that approval. 
As the Director observed in the denial notice, purchasing supplies is not, in itself, an income­
generating activity that provides goods or services. The same is true of maintaining or renewing 
registration with local government offices. Licensure and inventory permit a company to do 
business, but they do not, in themselves, amount to doing business. Also, a single contract from 
2015 does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has done business regularly, systematically, and 
continuously. The Petitioner cannot waive its burden of proof by asserting, without evidence, that 
Saudi Arabian business practices include minimal record-keeping. The Petitioner has not 
established that the foreign company was actively engaged in the regular, systematic, and continuous 
provision of goods, services, or both, as of September 2016 when the Petitioner filed the petition. 
IV. NEW OFFICE 
The Director found that the Petitioner has not established that its new office will support an 
executive or managerial position within one year of the approval of the petition. On appeal, the 
Petitioner states that the Director has drawn unwarranted conclusions before the company has had a 
chance to commence operations in the United States. We disagree, and find that th~ Director did not 
step outside the regulatory requirements as the Petitioner contends. 
To establish that it will be able to support an executive or managerial position, the Petitioner must 
submit information regarding the proposed nature of the office, describing its scope, organizational 
structure, and financial goals; the size of the United States investment and the financial ability of the 
foreign entity to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business in the United States; 
and the organizational structure ofthe foreign entity. See 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
When a new business is first established and commences operations, the regulations recognize that a 
designated manager or executive responsible for setting up operations will be engaged in a variety of 
low-level activities not normally performed by employees at the executive or managerial level and 
that often the full range of managerial responsibility cannot be performed in that first year. The 
"new office" regulations allow a newly established petitioner one year to develop to a point that it 
can support the employment of a beneficiary in a primarily managerial or executive position. 
10 
Matter of M-B- Co., Ltd. 
Accordingly, if a petitioner indicates that a beneficiary is coming to the United States to open a "'new 
office," it must show that it is prepared to commence doing business immediately upon approval so 
that it will support a manager or executive within the one-year timeframe. This evidence should 
demonstrate a 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 or executive who will primarily perform qualifying duties. See generally 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v). The petitioner must describe the nature of its business, its proposed organizational 
structure and financial goals, and submit evidence to show that it has -!he financial ability to 
remunerate the beneficiary and commence doing business in the United States. !d. 
To establish the proposed nature of the oftice, the Petitioner submitted a copy of its business plan. 
The Petitioner described its "primary focus" as "real estate investment and development, and trade, 
both domestic and import/export." The Petitioner also expressed an interest in "[p ]urchase and 
management of existing businesses, such as retail shopping centers/malls" and "[j]oint ventures with 
major U.S. companies for the implementation of projects in Saudi Arabia relating to major 
construction projects." 
The Petitioner states that it "does not predict net profits from purchases and sales . . . . The cost of 
operations will be covered through the savings to our foreign aftiliates, for which reimbursement 
will be made to [the Petitioner] by each entity." The Petitioner has not provided financial 
information for the entity in Saudi Arabia. The Egyptian entity's financial statement for calendar 
year 2015 showed a net profit of 1,916,414 Egyptian pounds, which was about US$244,909 under 
the exchange rate in effect on December 31, 2015. The Petitioner's bank balance as of June 11, 
2016, was $244,912. It is not clear whether it is a coincidence that the two figures are so close to 
one another. 
The Petitioner estimated its first three months of startup expenses at $111,550. The June 2016 bank 
balance is more than double that amount, but does not appear sufficient to cover more than about six 
months of expenses at the stated rate. (The planned expenses for the first three months include some 
one-time costs, but not the salaries of the company's intended staffing, discussed below.) Given that 
a year's profit from the Egyptian company covers substantially less than a year's expenses for the 
petitioning U.S. company, the Petitioner has not shown that the Egyptian company will be able to 
support the U.S. company for a significant period of time. 
The Petitioner stated that, by the end of the first year, it intended to fill the following positions: 
• Director of Operations 
• Director of Capital Investments 
• International Logistics Manager 
• Investment Analyst 
• Clerk/Mailroom 
• Research Associate 
II 
Matter of M-B- Co., Ltd. 
• Materials Buyer 
• Secretary/Clerk 
• Equipment Buyer 
• Compliance Officer 
• Receptionist/Operator 
The Petitioner also referred to "Inventory/Materials Management," but did not specify how many 
people it intended to employ in that area. 
The Petitioner did not specify the salaries for the above positions, stating that they will be 
"competitive" and contingent on the qualifications of the prospective employees. Even without 
specific figures, it is evident that· the Petitioner's plan to spend $40,000 on salaries in the first three 
months of operation cannot cover all the above-named positions. The Petitioner did not specify 
which positions it intended to fill during those first earliest months. 
An L-1 A petition for a new office must include evidence that the petitioner has secured sufficient 
physical premises to house the new office. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(v)(A). The Petitioner has 
leased a 195 square foot office, which could not accommodate all of the anticipated employees. The 
Petitioner stated that the leased space "for the time being is suflicient for our purposes. When a 
larger office is necessary, we will contract for a larger facility." The regulation requires the 
Petitioner to have secured sufficient physical premises, not simply to intend to do so at an 
undetermined point in the future. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the Petitioner had not shown that the company will 
support an executive or managerial position within a year after approval of the petition. In 
particul~r, the Director found that the Petitioner had not provided enough information about intended 
staffing and salaries. 
On appeal, the Petitioner stated that its "business plan ... is no more than a projection. These are 
the goals which the petitioner will strive to attain. They are for the future, subject to factors beyond 
the control of the petitioner." The Petitioner states that it cannot begin to make progress toward its 
goals until after the petition is approved, at which time the Beneficiary will travel to the United 
States and choose the best qualified candidates for the subordinate positions. The Petitioner adds 
that the company has sufficient funds to pay the Beneficiary's salary. 
The Petitioner is correct to state that the company need not already be operating in the United States; 
it need only be ready to begin doing business upon approval of the petition. But the Petitioner has 
not met this lower standard. 
The Petitioner's ability to pay the Beneficiary's salary is a separate issue from its ability to pay the 
subordinates who would allow the Beneficiary to devote his time primarily to managerial or 
executive duties. The Petitioner has stipulated that it will not generate profit, at least in its 
foreseeable early stages, and its ability to compensate the subordinate stati is a significant issue that 
12 
Matter ofM-B- Co., Ltd. 
the Petitioner has not fully addressed. Exact figures may be contingent on the credentials of the 
applicants, but there should at least be a range of figures with a definable minimum. The Petitioner 
has not shown how it will compensate these workers or where they will work. The Petitioner called 
itself a construction company but has not expressed plans to employ any construction workers. 
Other plans, such as purchasing existing commercial properties, amount to little more than 
speculation about side ventures that the company may choose to pursue at an unspecified time. The 
Petitioner cannot fulfill the regulatory requirements by stating that it has not yet decided on specifics 
regarding who will work for the company, where they will work, and what they will do. 
In response to the NOID, the Petitioner states: "The company has been opened, offices secured and 
business commenced, but only one stateside resident has been performing services with the company 
in the United States." The Petitioner does not provide this individual's name or job title or any 
corroborating documentary evidence. 
The Petitioner has not established that it will support an executive or managerial position within one 
year of approval of the petition. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary worked abroad in an executive position; that 
its foreign affiliate continues to actively do business; and that the new office will support an 
executive or managerial position within one year. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-B- Co., Ltd., ID# 451730 (AAO Sept. 14, 20 17) 
13