dismissed L-1A Case: Real Estate Investment

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OFT-A-I- INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 4, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a real estate investment and financial management company, seeks to extend the 
Beneficiary's temporary employment as its chief financial officer ( CFO) 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. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity under the extended petition. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by 
requiring it to demonstrate that the Beneficiary has managerial subordinates in order to qualify as an 
executive, contending that there is no legal or regulatory precedent for this requirement. Regardless, 
the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary has managerial subordinates and thereby qualifies as an 
executive consistent with the regulations. 
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 precediqg the Beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. In addition, the Beneficiary 
must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge 
capacity. Id. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form I-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, shall be accompanied by: 
Matter ofT-A-!- Inc. 
(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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii) also provides that a visa petition, which involved the 
opening of a new office, may be extended by filing a new Form I-129, accompanied by the 
following: 
(A) Evidence that the United States and foreign entities are still qualifying 
organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section; 
(B) Evidence that the United States entity has been doing business as defined in 
paragraph (1)(1 )(ii)(H) of this section for the previous year; 
(C) A statement of the duties performed by the beneficiary for the previous year 
and the duties the beneficiary will perform under the extended petition; 
(D) A statement describing the staffing of the new operation, including the 
number of employees and types of positions held accompanied by evidence of 
wages paid to employees when the beneficiary will be employed in a 
management or executive capacity; and 
(E) Evidence ofthe financial status ofthe United States operation. 
II. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAP A CITY 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that 
Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. 
The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity. 
2 
Matter ofT-A-!- Inc. 
Therefore, we will restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive 
capacity. ' 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" 
as "an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily": 
(i) 
(ii) 
(iii) 
(iv) 
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.,, 
Finally, 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 Servi~es (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 I-129 on November 25, 2015. On the Form I-129, the Petitioner stated 
that it has six employees in the United States and that it had a gross annual income of $70,696 in 
2014. The Beneficiary was previously granted L-1A status for a one-year period commencing on 
December 1, 2014. 
Jn a support letter provided with the petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has been 
acting as CFO since January 2015. The Petitioner described the Beneficiary's duties as follows 
(verbatim): 
In his capacity as [CFO], [the Beneficiary] is specifically responsible to establish the 
operating budget and profit goals for the US Subsidiary; supervise employees to 
identify and propose strategic investment opportunities in the United States that is 
designed to generate high return for capital invested by the US subsidiary; direct and 
supervise production of proposals, investment performance reports, and financing 
requests to the Parent Entity and exercise authority to implement and fund investment 
proposals approved by the Chief Executive Officer. [The Beneficiary] is vested with 
authority to monitor and supervise employees to conduct market and risk analysis of 
investment opportunities and product expenditure and investment return reports to 
ensure the US Subsidiary operates within budget and profit parameters. He is also 
responsible for a day-to-day basis for supervising and controlling all accounting, 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-A-!- Inc. 
legal, and administrative employees and contractors, including the In-House Legal 
Counsel and Real Estate Broker, the Office Manager, 
the Real Estate Construction Project Manager, the 
Administrative Assistant, and the Certified Public Accountant, 
The Petitioner stated that it has "ambitious expansion plans" and noted that the company's foreign 
parent had invested over $1.6 million in the company since November 2014. The Petitioner 
indicated that the "second phase involved direct investment in residential construction projects by 
the [Petitioner] iri partnership with a company engaged in the investment 
and construction of residential real estate." The Petitioner explained that it ha<:l "developed a 
·residential home in Maryland that was purchased in April, 2015, then renovated and 
sold in August, 2015 for a 5% return on investment." The Petitioner stated that is "has entered the 
third phase of its investment plan to wholly invest in and construct residential real e·state." The 
Petitioner indicated that it has "acquired two more residential real estate investment projects [ ... ] 
with one currently on the market to be sold, and the other currently in the pre-construction 
permitting ph&se, slated for completion in the spring of 2016." The Petitioner explained that it was 
"actively seeking to acquire additional real estate investments with several properties under 
evaluation and consideration." The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "has been especially 
effective in identifying lucrative investment opportunities for the [Petitioner] and directing the 
[Petitioner's] professional team of employees." 
The Petitioner submitted the following organizational chart: 
Chief Executive 
Officer 
Chief Financial 
Officer 
[Beneficiary] 
I 
Legal Counsel, 
~eal Estate Broker Investment 
Secretary Project Manager 
L Independent Office Manager Administrative 
Accountant Assistant 
The chart further indicated that the legal counsel/real estate broker/secretary holds a law degree, that 
the investment project manager has a master's degree, and that the office manager and 
administrative assistant have bachelor's degrees. 
The Petitioner provided a 2014 IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, indicating 
that it earned $70,696 in revenue and paid $32,100 in wages during that year. The Petitioner 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-A-!- Inc. 
submitted internal payroll documentation and bank records reflecting bi-weekly payments to the 
'~ individuals named on the organizational chart in October and November 2015. Specifically, this 
evidence shows that the Petitioner pays the Beneficiary and the chief executive officer $2083.33, the 
legal counsel/real estate broker/secretary $1000, the investment project manager $1000, the office 
manage~. $1000, and the administrative assistant $600, all on a bi-weekly basis. 
The Petitioner submitted 
bank records from June 2015 indicating that it received significant deposits 
from individuals and one company, in the amount of $629,750. The 
bank statements show that the Petitioner also received a $400,000 funds transfer from 
in February 2015, and a $200,000 funds transfer from in May 
2015, but the Petitioner did not explain any relationship between this entity and its foreign parent 
company. 
which The Petitioner provided settlement statements reflecting that 
identifies the Petitioner's investment property manager, as its own company 
Maryland in April 2015 for $310,000 
The Petitioner also provided evidence that it 
president, had purchased a single family home in 
and sold the property in August 2015 for $405,000. 1 
purchased a property located at m 
2015, and a•property located at in 
2015. The Petitioner's documentation shows that the 
$519,000 as ofNovember 2015 by 
Maryland for $369,000 in June 
Maryland for $392,500 in July 
property was listed for sale at 
The Petitioner submitted emails and other supporting documents reflecting that its legal counsel/real 
estate broker/secretary has been requesting opportunities to show various properties in Maryland. 
The Petitioner also provided documentation reflecting that it had made multiple personal loans of 
$60,000 to an individual.3 
The' Director later issued a request for evidence (RFE) stating that the Petitioner had not submitted 
sufficient evidence to establish that the legal counsel/real estate broker/secretary and the investment 
manager would act in managerial level positions as asserted. The Director further stated that it was 
not clear from the evidence presented how the Beneficiary would direct the management of the 
company and be primarily responsible for establishing its goals and policies. As such, the Director 
requested that the Petitioner submit a duty description for the Beneficiary setting forth his typical 
executive duties. The Director asked the Petitioner to provide an organizational chart specifying 
1 The Petitjoner submitted a project cost breakdown which indicates that it provided 50% of the capital for this project 
and received 30% of the profit, while invested 50% of the capital, provided 100% of the labor, 
and received 70% of the profit. 
2 The sales contract for the MD property purchased and re-sold by identifies 
of as the listing agent for the property. Both and have the same 
business address as the Petitioner. As noted, the Petitioner states that is employed as its legal counsel, real estate 
broker, and secretary. 
3 This individual is identified on the Petitioner's lease agreement as the vice president of leasing for 
the Petitioner's landlord. 
5 
(b)(6)
! 
Matter ofT-A-1- Inc. 
each employee by name and job title along with their duties, education levels, and salaries. · The 
Director further requested that the Petitioner provide state quarterly wage reports for each quarter of 
2015. 
In a response letter, the Petitioner stated that it had completed market research indicating that it 
"would be able to generate substantial revenue from real estate investments and construction over a 
three-year period. " The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary "directs all aspects of the 
[Petitioner's] finances ," that he would be responsible for "establishing the operating budget and 
expenditure policies, " "oversee[ing] employees to identify strategic investment opportunities," 
"review[ing] and approv[ing] investment proposals and investment propos,al reports," 
"implement[ing] and fund[ing] investment projects," and that he "directs employees to conduct 
market and risk analysis of investment opportunities." The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
would continue to spend "50 to 60 hours per week on typical executive duties," which it listed as 
follows: 
• Attend meetings, seminars and presentations with target . investment business 
representatives and tour potential investment properties; travel to potential 
investment project sites (30%) · 
• Review proposals and property data reports concerning potential investments 
(25%) 
• Meet with Project Manager to review and revise/approve budget, design plans, 
contractor bids and quotes for investment properties ( 10%) 
• Meet with Legal Counsel and Project Manager to evaluate feasibility and assess 
viability of target investment projects (5%) 
• Review and respond to telephone messages , emails and from employees , 
accountant, foreign parent entity executives, existing and potential investment 
representatives (5%) 
• Meet with employees to obtain status reports of current investment projects (5%) 
• Review market data and trends for local real estate, stocks, and bio-technology 
industries (5%) 
• Review bank statements, financial statements , and tax statements (quarterly and 
annual) prepared by CPA (3%) 
• Review spreadsheets , financial projections and evaluate return rate of investments 
(3%) 
• Review and sign contracts and legal documents (2.5%) 
• Review and approve reports for transmission to foreign parent entity regarding 
financial status of U.S. entity (2.5%) . 
• Review and approve/modify funding requests for transmissi9n of foreign parent 
entity (1 %) 
The Petitioner noted that , since the petition was filed, the Beneficiary had directed the Petitioner "to 
acquire three additional real estate investment properties. " 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-A-!- Inc. 
The Petitioner submitted duty descriptions for each of the Beneficiary's subordinates. The 
Petitioner stated that the investment project manager was tasked with "research[ing] market data," 
"search[ing] for potential investments," "solicit[ing] proposals from potential investment 
representatives," "tour[ing] potential investment properties with CFO/Beneficiary to estimate 
renovation cost," preparing "cost estimates and profit projection spreadsheets," managing and 
supervising ''construction workers at construction sites," "solicit[ing] bids from contractors," and 
managing all "materials purchase" and architects." The Petitioner explained that the legal 
counsel/real estate broker/secretary was responsible for "review[ing] and advis[ing] on all 
documentation," "tour[ing] potential investment properties with the CFO," "prepar[ing] contract 
purchase offers," negotiating "all real estate transactions," coordinating "all aspects of real estate 
purchase transactions," marketing properties for sale, attending "all real estate settlements," and 
"prepar[ing] and transmit[ting] reports 
approved by [the] CFO." 
The Petitioner stated that the office manager/human resources manager is tasked with interviewing 
"insurance accounting, real estate settlement agents, 
and other outside service providers" and 
completing performance reviews for the company's employees. The Petitioner indicated that the 
administrative assistant "assists in printing, copying, scanning, book keeping and that she prepares 
investment progress reports." Lastly, the Petitioner explaiped that the accountant prepares the 
payroll and tax returns for the company. 
The Petitioner provided a lease agreement for 1222 feet of space with 
that the Beneficiary executed on behalf of the Petitioner. As evidence of its 
occupancy, the Petitioner submitted a letter from which was signed by 
the Petitioner's claimed investment project manager. The Petitioner did not explain the 
relationship between and its landlord, The Petitioner also 
submitted a photograph of the outside of the premises, a single family home, which includes a yard 
sign identifying the property as the location of the 
and the petitioning company. 
The Petitioner provided sales contracts in support of its claim that it had purchased three additional 
properties in December 2015. In addition, the Petitioner provided a copy of a Memorandum of 
Understanding between the Petitioner and The MOU contemplates 
activities to raise capital for through a private equity structure involving EB-5 investors 
referred by the Petitioner. The Petitioner agreed to "recommend' high-quality companies and 
individuals from China to provide investment funds;'' to conduct due diligence on these companies 
and individuals, and to coordinate correspondence and contact between Chinese companies and 
individuals and 
In denying the petition, the Director stated that job descriptions provided for the Beneficiary's 
subordinates did not indicate the amount of time they will devote to their tasks or that they would 
spend a significant amount of time supervising their claimed subordinates. The Director concluded 
that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would have managerial subordinates or that 
he would primarily direct the management of the organization. The Director found that the evidence 
7 
Matter ofT-A-l-Ine. 
did not demonstrate that the Petitioner had reached a level of sufficient complexity to support the 
Beneficiary in an executive capacity. ' 
In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by requiring it to establish that the 
Beneficiary has managerial subordinates, noting that there is no regulatory requirement that a 
beneficiary must have managerial subordinates to qualify as an executive. Regardless, the Petitioner 
contends that the Beneficiary does indeed have two managerial subordinates who earn "significant 
salaries" and oversee personnel. 
In support of the appeal, the Petitioner provides additional evidence, including a business plan in 
which it states that its foreign parent company has invested capital totaling $2.3 million, "of which 
$1,850,265.13 has been invested in human resources and real estate assets in the United States." The 
Petitioner further indicates that it "increased its annual gross profit by more than five times from 
$70,969 to $379,249.76 in 2015." The Petitioner explained that it has "already acquired four more 
residential real estate investment projects [ ... ] slated for sale in 2016." The Petitioner states that it 
also has loaned $220,000 to "qualified borrowers." The Petitioner indicates that its existence relies 
on "sustained access to ample capital" and that Beneficiary's presence in the United States helps to 
ensure this continued access to investment funds from the foreign parent. 
The Petitioner further provides an additional duty description for the Beneficiary which is largely 
similar to those previously submitted. However, the Petitioner provides modified position 
descriptions for the Beneficiary's immediate subordinates. The Petitioner states on appeal that the 
investment project manager "spends more than 51% of the time in managing an administrative 
assistant to search for real estate investments and generating investment proposal reports." Further, 
the Petitioner states that the "real estate manager," formerly referred to as the legal counsel/real 
estate broker/secretary, "is responsible for supervising all personnel and transactional aspects of each 
investment property," and that she "spends more than 51% of the time managing an administrative 
assistant to generate and draft corporate, legal, and operational documents." 
The Petitioner provides a revised organizational chart indicating that the "realtor broker/legal 
counsel" oversees six investment properties and various listing, settlement, and buying agents 
associated with these properties. In addition, the Petitioner asserts that the project manager oversees 
a "construction department" including various independent contractors, architects, and other 
tradesman. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, including materials submitted in support of 
the appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in an executive capacity under the extended petition. 
When examining the managerial or executive 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 
8 
Matter ofT-A-!- Inc. 
' 
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. !d. 
The definitions of managerial and executive capacity each have 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 or executive duties, as opposed to 
ordinary operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 
469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
In the current matter, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient detail regarding the Beneficiary's 
duties to demonstrate that he would primarily devote his time to executive level duties. For instance, 
the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will perform certain qualifying tasks, such as meeting with 
his subordinate managers or reviewing reports drafted by these employees, but the Petitioner does 
not provide detail or supporting evidence to substantiate that these tasks would be the Beneficiary's 
primary duties as of the date of filing. For instance, the Petitioner does not identify goals and 
policies the Beneficiary has, or will, set or implement, qualifying duties that must make up a 
majority of his time. Reciting a beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business, 
objectives is not sufficient; the regulations require a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily 
job duties. Conclusory assertions regarding a beneficiary's employment capacity are not sufficient. 
The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature ofthe 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). 
In contrast, the Beneficiary's duties include several specific operational tasks and the Petitioner 
provides evidence indicating that he likely devotes a significant amount oJ his time to non-qualifying 
operational duties. For instance, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary is engaged in visiting 
investment property locations and reviewing proposals and reports, and contractor bids and quotes. 
The duties of the Beneficiary and his subordinates reflect that he visits each residential location the 
company purchases and that he coordinates daily with his asserted subordinates on all matters related 
to the renovation of these properties. In sum, this evidence indicates that the Beneficiary would be 
directly involved in the company's day-to-day operations, rather than being primarily focused on its 
policies and goals. 
It is the Pet~tioner' s burden to substantiate that the Beneficiary would spend his time primarily on 
executive-level tasks under the extended petition. The Petitioner merely states that the Beneficiary 
spends a great deal of time overseeing the management of the organization, but does not support this 
statement, as required, with corroborating evidence. To the extent the Petitioner elaborates on the 
Beneficiary's qualifying tasks, such as deciding whether to purchase or renovate certain residential 
properties, these duties represent one-time decisions and. are not reflective of ongoing qualifying 
tasks that would require a significant amount of the Beneficiary's time. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (quoting Matter of 
Treasure CraftofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
9 
Matter ofT-A-!- Inc. 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, including the company's 
organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other 
employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, 
and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a 
business. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary acts in an executive capacity. 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 10l(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 they must primarily focus on the broad goals 
and policies of the organization ratheL than the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. An 
jndividual will not be deemed an executive under the statute simply because they have an executive 
title or because they "direct" the enterprise as the owner o'r sole managerial employee. A beneficiary 
must also ext(rcise "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." !d. 
Here, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that it has developed 
sufficiently during the first year to support the Beneficiary in an executive capacity. Although the 
Petitioner states that the foreign parent has provided significant investment in the U.S. company, it 
has not established that this company has sufficiently developed independent of the foreign parent to 
support the Beneficiary's position. For instance, the Petitioner has established that the company 
bought and sold one property and made one $60,000 loan during its first year of operation. In fact, 
the Petitioner states directly in the business plan submitted on appeal that the Petitioner is wholly 
reliant on the investment income from its foreign parent in order to continue operations. 
Further, the Petitioner's one claimed real estate sale during the first year of operation was in fact 
completed by Artisan Investment, whose relationship with the Petitioner is not adequately explained 
or documented in the record. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's subordinate managers 
oversee a variety of real estate brokers and agents, independent contractors, and tradesman assigned 
to its properties. However, it has not submitted supporting documentation to substantiate these 
relationships or that it has been involved in significant construction or remodeling activities. In 
addition, the Petitioner refers to several properties it acquired after the filing of the petition, or which 
it plans to acquire in the future, but the acquisition, or planned acquisition, of these properties is not 
relevant to a determination of whethe,r the Petitioner established eligibility at the time of filing. The 
Petitioner must show that it has developed sufficiently during the first year to support the 
Beneficiary in an executive capacity. The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing 
the nonimmigrant visa petition and must continue to be eligible for the benefit through adjudication. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the Petitioner or 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-A-l-Ine. 
Beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N 
Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). 
In addition, the Petitioner has not adequately supported its claim that the Beneficiary's subordinates 
act in managerial capacities. Indeed, the duties of the Beneficiary's two subordinates overlap 
significantly with his own duties. For instance, the duties of the Beneficiary and his claimed 
managerial subordinates all appear heavily weighted to the identification of real estate investment 
properties and the negotiation of real estate transactions, indicating that the Beneficiary is directly 
involved in the day-to-day operational aspects of the enterprise. The Petitioner has modified the 
duties of the Beneficiary's subordinates on appeal to indicate that they each spend more than 51% of 
their time supervising an administrative assistant. However, a petitioner may not make material 
changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. 
Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
Furthermore, certain discrepancies on the record leave question as to the Petitioner's asserted 
organizational structure. Initially, the Petitioner indicated that the legal counsel/real estate 
broker/secretary would oversee an office manager and an independent accountant. On appeal, the 
Petitioner states that this claimed manager will oversee an administrative assistant. In addition, the 
Petitioner asserted elsewhere that the office manager was mainly responsible for interviewing 
insurance, accounting, and real estate agents and other outside service providers, and not responsible 
for drafting legal documents for in-counsel as stated on appeal. 
The Petitioner also provided documentation suggesting that some of its claimed employees also 
works for a company called and and that its asserted lttgal 
counsel/real estate agent/secretary also operates her own independent legal practice and two real 
estate companies at the Petitioner's location, which appears to house at ·least four separate 
businesses. In addition, the organizational chart reflects that the company employs a president 
whose role is senior to the Beneficiary, but the Petitioner does not explain the role or duties of this 
employee. In sum, these discrepancies leave significant question as to the Petitioner's claimed 
organizational structure. The Petitioner has not resolved these inconsistencies with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). 
In addition, we acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted evidence related to an expansion of its 
activities to include consulting and advisory services to 
Specifically, the evidence indicates that the Petitioner would be required to "recommend high­
quality companies and individuals from China to provide investment funds," to conduct due 
diligence on these companies and individuals, and to coordinate correspondence and contact 
between Chinese companies and individuals and The Petitioner has not identified the 
employees who would relieve the Beneficiary from providing these services as his subordinates 
appear to be co-employed by other companies and their duties appear to be limited to real estate 
activities. ./ 
II 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-A-!- Inc. 
Therefore, although we concur with the Petitioner that there is no specific regulatory requirement 
that an executive had subordinate managers, the discrepancies in the submitted evidence leave 
question as to whether the company has developed sufficiently to support the Beneficiary and his 
asserted managerial subordinates. Given the discrepancies discussed above, the lack of detail 
provided regarding the Beneficiary's actual duties, and the omission of any information regarding 
the role of the Petitioner's president/CEO, we cannot determine that the Petitioner has grown to the 
extent that it is able to support the Beneficiary in an executive capacity. 
I 
Lastly, on appeal, the Petitioner cites a non-precedent decision made by this office in which we 
found that a petitioner had demonstrated that the beneficiary was devoting more than half of their 
time to executive-level duties. The Petitioner has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of 
the instant petition are analogous to those in the unpublished decision. While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) 
provides that our precedent decisions are binding on all users employees in the administration of 
the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. Further, we evaluate each case 
independently following a comprehensive review of the evidence submitted deciding whether a 
I 
petitioner has established that a beneficiary devotes the majority of his or her time to executive level 
tasks. However, here, unlike the cited case, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary would devote his time primarily to executive-level tasks or that the 
company has developed sufficiently during the first year to support him as an executive. 
Based on the.deficiencies and inconsistencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity under the extended petition. 
III. BENEFICIARY'S FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT 
We also observe that the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding 
the filing ofhis initial L-1 visa petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner states in the form I-129 that the Beneficiary commenced employment with its 
Chinese parent company, in 2012, and that he was previously 
employed by from 2008 until November 
2012. However, U.S. Department of State records show that when the Beneficiary applied for an a 
B1/B2 visa in September 2013, he stated that he had been employed as the Deputy General Manager 
of since 2006. While we are not making an adverse 
determination based on this information obtained from the U.S. Department of State, the Petitioner 
may need to address the Beneficiary's statements 
regarding his employment abroad if it pursues this 
matter or in any future L-1 petition filed by the Petitioner on his behalf. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reason. In visa petition 
proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the petitioner. 
12 
Matter ofT-A-!- Inc. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal will be dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofT-A-!- Inc., ID# 7829 (AAO Oct. 4, 2016) 
13