dismissed L-1A Case: Real Estate Investment

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FEE: WAC 03 205 51665 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: ljlJk 2 0 " 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
obert P. Wiemann, ~irictor 
Appeals Office 
WAC 03 205 5 1665 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimrnigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
According to the documentary evidence contained in the record, the petitioner was incorporated in 2002, and 
claims to be a hotel marketing, real estate investment and development business. The petitioner claims that 
the U.S. entity is a subsidiary of ALCAT, Inc., located in the Philippines. It seeks to extend its authorization 
to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its president and CEO for a period of three 
years, at an annual salary of $32,000.00. The director determined that the petitioner had not submitted 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary had been or would continue to be employed by the 
U.S. entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The beneficiary was initially granted a one-year 
period of its stay to open a new office in the United States and the petitioner now seeks to extend the 
beneficiary's stay. 
On appeal, counsel disagrees with the director's determination and asserts that the beneficiary's duties have 
been and will be managerial or executive in nature. 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section lOl(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L), the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary, within three years preceding 
the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving specialized knowledge, for one continuous year 
by a qualifying organization, and seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render 
his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof, in a capacity that is managerial, 
executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii) states, in part: 
Intracompany transferee means an alien who, within three years preceding the time of his or 
her application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad continuously 
for one year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or parent, branch, affiliate, or 
subsidiary thereof, and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to render his 
or her services to a branch of the same employer or a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary thereof in 
a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(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) of this 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 with the three years preceding the filing of the 
petition. 
WAC 03 205 5 1665 
Page 3 
(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 himlher to perform the intended serves 
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. 5 214.2(1)(14)(ii) states that a visa petition under section 101(a)(15)(L) which involved 
the opening of a new office may be extended by filing a new Form 1-129, 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)( l)(ii)(H); 
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 managerial or executive 
capacity; and 
E) Evidence of the financial status of the United States operation. 
The issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the 
beneficiary's employment with the U.S. entity has been and will be primarily managerial or executive in 
nature. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily- 
(0 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 
WAC 03 205 5 1665 
Page 4 
(iv) Exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or 
function for which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is 
not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of 
the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are 
professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily- 
6) Directs the management of the organization or a major component or 
function of the organization; 
(ii) Establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or 
function; 
(iii) Exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) Receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
In a letter of support, dated June 30,2003, counsel for the petitioner described the beneficiary's duties as: 
As the President and CEO of LSJJA, [the beneficiary] has been responsible for managing, 
including, but not limited to, marketing development, budgeting, personnel, project 
management, and contract negotiations. He also has the authority to hire, train, and terminate 
all staff. He has been overseeing research of the U.S. real estate market, and implementation 
of sales and marketing of ALCAT's services and business operations. Receiving only 
general supervision from the board of directors of the parent company, [the foreign entity], 
[the beneficiary] exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making. 
In a letter of support, dated July 1, 2003, the petitioner reiterated the beneficiary's job description given by 
counsel, and further described the beneficiary's duties, in part, as: 
At this time, he oversees the work of four employees (two full-time paid employees, two part- 
time non-salaried workers) engaged in the varied responsibilities of marketing and sales . . .. 
Please note that the next few years will be the most critical in LSJJA's growth, and that [the 
beneficiary] will hire additional employees to manage the new functions and individual 
departments. 
[The beneficiary] also oversees research of the U.S. market, especially for the purposes of 
real estate investment and development, and marketing of the parent company's business 
operations. He exercises wide latitude and discretionary decision-making. More importantly, 
he has the critical responsibility of establishing contact and meeting with other executives of 
U.S. corporations with which the parent company wishes to conduct business. A lower-level 
manager or employee at LSJJA would lack the knowledge, authority, reputation, and 
WAC 03 205 5 1665 
Page 5 
established ties to successfully develop marketing strategies or to negotiate real estate 
acquisitions. 
[The beneficiary] is properly classified as an executive for L-1A purposes because he meets 
and negotiates with other senior personnel to develop and coordinate business transactions 
between LSJJA and major U.S. companies. 
The petitioner submitted a Corporate Business Plan, in which the beneficiary's duties, as president and CEO 
of the U.S. entity, are described as: 
Oversees operations of the U.S. office. The CEO/President manages all aspects of the 
subsidiary, including: executing goals set by parent company, establishing and implementing 
general guidelines and policies, planning and supervising business activities, negotiating 
contracts, setting budget, and coordinating interactions with business industry and 
community. 
The petitioner submitted an organizational chart depicting the U.S. entity's hierarchical structure. The chart 
designated the beneficiary as president and general manager, with a vice president, corporate secretary, and 
two account executives under his direction. The petitioner also submitted a copy of the U.S. entity's DE-6 for 
the quarter ending June 30, 2003, which showed the entity employed the beneficiary and the two account 
executives during that period. The petitioner submitted a copy of IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporate Income 
Tax Return for the year 2002, in which it was shown that the U.S. entity paid $8,100.00 as compensation to 
officers and paid nothing towards salaries and wages. 
In the request for evidence, dated July 11, 2003, the director requested that the petitioner submit copies of the 
U.S. entity's organizational chart describing, in detail, its managerial hierarchy and staffing levels, Quarterly 
Wage Reports (Form DE-6 and Form 941) for all employees for the last four quarters, and payroll summaries 
(Form W-2 and W-3) evidencing wages paid to employees. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a copy of the U.S. entity's 
organizational chart that showed the beneficiary as president, with a vice-president and two account 
executives as his subordinates. The petitioner listed the employees' duties as: 
PRESIDENT AND CEO 
Control the management, including, but not limited to, budgeting, personnel, project 
management, and contract negotiations [;I 
Oversee research of the U.S. market, especially for the purposes of real estate 
investment and development, and marketing of the parent company's business 
operations [; and] 
Research feasibility for setting up new branch of Fernandina 88 Suites in California; 
including costs and marketing potential [.I 
VICE-PRESIDENT 
Assume overall management duties in [the beneficiary's] absence 
Advise President on business development 
WAC 03 205 51665 
Page 6 
Assist with conducting and analyzing marketing research 
ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE 
Telecommunicate with agencies and clients 
Provide marketing penetration and sales 
The petitioner submitted copies of the U.S. entity's Form DE-6, Quarterly Wage and Withholding Reports for 
the quarters ending June 30, 2003 and September 30, 2003, which showed the entity employed the beneficiary 
and two account executives. The petitioner also submitted Form DE-6, Quarterly Wage and Withholding 
Reports for the quarters ending December 31, 2002 and March 31, 2003, which showed the beneficiary to be 
the entity's sole employee. The petitioner submitted copies of the U.S. entity's Form 941, Employer's 
Quarterly Federal Tax Returns, for the quarters ending March 31, 2003 and September 30, 2003. The 
petitioner also submitted duplicate copies of the beneficiary's Form W-2 for the year 2002. Counsel 
reiterated the beneficiary's past and proposed job duties with the U.S. entity. 
The director determined that the record contained insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary 
had been or would be employed by the U.S. entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The 
director noted that the administrator/corporate secretary's position, which appeared in the U.S. entity's 
organizational chart originally submitted, was eliminated in the company's organizational chart submitted in 
response to the request for evidence. The director also noted that the chart showed the administrator reporting 
to the vice-president and supervising the two account executives. The director stated that the account 
executive positions, by description, where not considered professional, and that the vice-president, by 
definition, was performing duties as a first-line supervisor. The director noted that such evidence did not 
demonstrate the presence of a subordinate staff to relieve the beneficiary from performing non-qualifying 
duties. The director further noted that with the beneficiary being engaged in researching real estate 
opportunities and negotiating real estate opportunities on behalf of the foreign entity, he would be engaged in 
non-qualifying duties and would be rendering service to the foreign entity rather than the U.S. operation. The 
director also noted that with the gross annual income reported by the U.S. entity, in comparison to the wages 
and salaries paid for one quarter to employees, it was unclear how the petitioner could pay the salaries listed 
in the company's organizational chart. 
On appeal, counsel disagrees with the director's decision and asserts that the U.S. entity's organizational 
charts differ because "the parent company . . . determined that a change in a more effective organization was 
required." Counsel reiterates the beneficiary's job description given and asserts that such duties are typical of 
executives, and not that of first-line supervisors. Counsel contends the account executives are responsible for 
interacting with and recruiting travel agencies and clients, and also perform some sales and marketing, 
therefore, their duties are critical and of a "professional caliber," within the meaning of the regulations. 
Counsel further contends that supervision of professionals is not required to qualify as an executive. In 
response to the director's concerns with the U.S. entity's ability to pay salaries and wages, counsel asserts the 
company's fiscal year 2002 was shortened due to the short time in which the entity had been in business; and 
that proper calculations demonstrate that, at years end, the total amount of salaries and wages paid will equal 
to the amounts shown in the company's organizational chart. Counsel claims that the vice-president assumes 
management duties in the absence of the beneficiary, and therefore, is the subordinate staff that is used to 
relieve the beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties. Counsel also claims that the beneficiary, by 
exploring and negotiating real estate investment opportunities on behalf of the foreign entity, is performing 
proper executive duties. Counsel further claims that the same duty descriptions were included in the initial 
WAC 03 205 5 1665 
Page 7 
"new office" petition that was approved by Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), and therefore, the 
director's denial constitutes an "abuse of discretion." 
Counsel's assertions are not persuasive. On reviewing the petition and the evidence, the petitioner has not 
established that the beneficiary has been or will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. When 
examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner's description of the job duties must 
clearly describe the duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are either in an 
executive or managerial capacity. Id. The petitioner must specifically state whether the beneficiary is 
primarily employed in a managerial or executive capacity. A petitioner cannot claim that some of the duties 
of the position entail executive responsibilities, while other duties are managerial. A beneficiary may not 
claim to be employed as a hybrid "executive/manager" and rely on partial sections of the two statutory 
definitions. 
On review, the petitioner has provided a vague and nonspecific description of the beneficiary's duties that 
fails to demonstrate what the beneficiary does on a day-to-day basis. For example, the petitioner states that 
the beneficiary's duties include: managing the operation, executing goals, policies, and guidelines, negotiating 
contracts, overseeing research of real estate in the U.S. market, and meeting with other senior personnel to 
develop and coordinate business transactions. The petitioner did not, however, define the company's goals, 
policies, identify how the beneficiary manages the organization, or clarify who actually conducts the research. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972). Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive 
or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the 
regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 
(2d. Cir. 1990). In the instant matter, it appears that the beneficiary has been and will be engaged in non- 
qualifying duties such as researching real estate opportunities and negotiating real estate deals on behalf of the 
foreign entity, and therefore, would be directly rendering a service to the foreign entity, rather than 
performing managerial or executive duties at the U.S. entity. 
Further, rather than providing a specific description of the beneficiary's duties, the petitioner generally 
paraphrased the statutory definition of executive capacity. See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(44)(A). For instance, the petitioner depicted the beneficiary as directing the entire 
operation of the organization, establishing goals and policies of the organization, and exercising sole 
discretionary decision-making. However, conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's employment 
capacity are not sufficient to meet the petitioner's burden of proof. Merely repeating the language of the 
statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 
724F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates Itzc. v. 
Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y .). 
Counsel noted that CIS approved other petitions that had been previously filed on behalf of the beneficiary, 
which contained the same job descriptions as is found in the instant matter. The director's decision does not 
indicate whether he reviewed the prior approvals of the other nonimmigrant petitions. If the previous 
nonirnrnigrant petitions were approved based on the same unsupported and contradictory assertions that are 
contained in the current record, the approval would constitute material and gross error on the part of the 
director. The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matter of Church 
WAC 03 205 5 1665 
Page 8 
Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comrn. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that CIS or 
any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 
825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court 
of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimrnigrant petitions on 
behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service 
center. Louisiana Philhamonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), afd, 248 F.3d 1139 
(5~ Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). Further, the prior approvals do not preclude CIS from 
denying an extension of the original visa based on reassessment of petitioner's qualifications. Texas A&M 
Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004). 
Although the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary is managing a subordinate staff, the record does not 
establish that the subordinate staff is composed of supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. See 
section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. A first-line supervisor will not be considered to be acting in a 
managerial capacity merely by virtue of his or her supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are 
professional. Section 101(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. The U.S. entity's organizational chart indicates that the 
company vice-president supervises the two account executives. Counsel contends on appeal, that the vice- 
president assumes management duties in the absence of the beneficiary, and therefore, relieves him from 
performing non-qualifying duties. Contrary to counsel's contentions, there is no evidence contained in the 
record to demonstrate that the U.S. entity employs a vice-president. None of the corporate tax records 
submitted by the petitioner indicate that the vice-president exists or has been paid a salary by the U.S. entity. 
Although the petitioner asserts that two of the four employees work on a part-time basis and are not 
compensated for their services, the petitioner has not explained why a vice-president would forgo payment for 
his or her services to an employer. Further, there has been no independent documentary evidence submitted 
to substantiate such a claim. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of California, supra 
at 190. In the instant matter, even were the AAO to determine that the vice-president's services were 
voluntary, there has been no evidence submitted or plausible explanation given to demonstrate that a part-time 
vice-president could manage full-time employees and the operation of the organization in the absence of the 
beneficiary. Therefore, it appears from the record that the beneficiary has been and will continue to perform 
the day-to-day functions of the business, which includes supervising non-professional employees, rather than 
working as manager or executive of the U.S. entity. 
Although counsel asserts on appeal that the two organizational charts depicting the U.S. entity's hierarchy 
differ because "the parent company ... determined that a change in a more effective organization was 
required," there has been no independent documentary evidence submitted to substantiate the assertion. It is 
incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. 
Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits 
competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the 
reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 
supra. If CIS fails to believe that a fact stated in the petition is true, CIS may reject that fact. Section 204(b) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. Q 1154(b); see also Anetekhai v. I.N.S., 876 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1989); Lu-Ann 
Bakery Shop, Inc. v. Nelson, 705 F. Supp. 7, 10 (D.D.C.1988); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 
(D.D.C. 2001). 
WAC 03 205 5 1665 
Page 9 
Counsel contends the account executives are responsible for interacting with and recruiting travel agencies 
and clients, and also perform some sales and marketing tasks, and that therefore, their duties are of a 
"professional caliber." However, without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of 
counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); 
Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). In evaluating whether the beneficiary 
manages professional employees, the AAO must evaluate whether the subordinate positions require a 
baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. Section 101(a)(32) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(32), states that "[tlhe term profession shall include but not be limited to architects, 
engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, 
academies, or seminaries." The term "profession" contemplates knowledge or learning, not merely skill, of an 
advanced type in a given field gained by a prolonged course of specialized instruction and study of at least 
baccalaureate level, which is a realistic prerequisite to entry into the particular field of endeavor. Matter of 
Sea, 19 I&N Dec. 817 (Cornm. 1988); Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (R.C. 1968); Matter of Shin, 11 I&N 
Dec. 686 (D.D. 1966). 
Therefore, the AAO must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree held 
by a subordinate employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee does not 
automatically lead to the conclusion that an employee is employed in a professional capacity as that term is 
defined above. In this matter, the petitioner has not, in fact, established that a baccalaureate degree is actually 
necessary, for example, to perform the administrative work of the account executives. 
On appeal, counsel claims that the beneficiary explores and negotiates real estate investment opportunities in 
the United States on behalf of the foreign entity and therefore, is performing proper executive duties. 
Contrary to counsel's claim, evidence of research conducted to explore the possibilities available in the U.S. 
real estate market and entering into a lease agreement for commercial space is insufficient to establish that the 
beneficiary was even partially engaged in activities involving executive duties. The petitioner has provided no 
comprehensive description of the beneficiary's duties that would demonstrate that he will be managing the overall 
operation, establishing goals and policies, exercising a wide latitude in discretionary decision-making, or 
receiving only general supervision or direction from higher level individuals. Matter of Treasure Craft of 
Calijomia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, supra. 
Pursuant to section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. Q 1101(a)(44)(C), if staffing levels are used as a factor 
in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial or executive capacity, CIS must take into 
account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of 
the organization. In the present matter, however, the regulations provide strict evidentiary requirements for 
the extension of a "new office" petition and require CIS to examine the organizational structure and staffing 
levels of the petitioner. See 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(D). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. Q 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) 
allows the "new office" operation one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive 
or managerial position. There is no provision in CIS regulations that allows for an extension of this one-year 
period. If the business does not have sufficient staffing after one year to relieve the beneficiary from 
primarily performing operational and administrative tasks, the petitioner is ineligible by regulation for an 
extension. In a letter of support the petitioner stated: "Please note that the next few years will be the most 
critical in LSJJA's growth, and that [the beneficiary] will hire additional employees to manage the new 
functions and individual departments." Based upon a review of the record, the petitioner has not reached the 
WAC 03 205 5 1665 
Page 10 
point that it can employ the beneficiary in a predominantly managerial or executive position. Further, the 
petitioner has failed to overcome the objections of the director with regard to the U.S. entity's ability to pay 
the proffered salaries and wages cited in its organizational chart. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought rests solely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.