dismissed L-1A Case: Religion

MATTER OF K-S-B- USA 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 25, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a U.S.-based Japanese Buddhist religious organization, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as its executive director under the L-1A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 
1101(a)(15)(L). The L-1A classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its 
affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to work 
temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the Be~eficiary's foreign 
employer. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that, because it is a non-profit entity, the Director erred by requiring that it demonstrate that 
the Beneficiary's foreign employer has an ownership interest in the U.S. entity. The Petitioner 
contends that it has established a qualifying relationship by documenting that it is controlled by the 
foreign parent entity. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge 
capacity, for one continuous year within three years preceding the Beneficiary's application for 
admission into the Uniteq States. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. In addition, the Beneficiary 
must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge 
capacity. !d. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, shall be accompanied by: · 
Matter of K-S-B- USA 
(i) Evidence that the Petitioner and the organization which employed or will 
employ the alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph 
(1)(1)(ii)(G) ofthis section. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or 
specialized knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the 
services to be performed. 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time 
employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition. 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position 
that was managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the 
alien's prior education, training, and employment qualifies him/her to perform 
the intended services in the United States; however, the work in the United 
States need not be the same work which the alien performed abroad. 
II. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the evidence of record did not establish that 
the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
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)(15)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1). 
The pertinent regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii) define the term "qualifying organization" and 
related terms as follows: 
(G) Qualifying organization means a United States or foreign firm, corporation, or 
other legal entity which: · 
(1) Meets exactly one of the qualifying relationships specified in the 
definitions of a parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary specified in 
paragraph (1)(1)(ii) ofthis section; 
(I) Parent means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity which has subsidiaries. 
(J) Branch means an operating division or office of the same organization housed 
in a different location. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-S-B- USA 
(K) Subsidiary means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent 
owns, directly or indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity; 
or owns, directly or indirectly, half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, 
directly or indirectly, 50 percent of a 50-50 joint venture and has equal control 
and veto power over the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, less than halfof 
the entity, but in fact controls the entity. 
(L) Affiliate means 
(1) One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the 
same parent or individual, or 
(2) One of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of 
individuals, each individual owning and controlling approximately the 
same share or proportion of each entity .... 
A. Evidence of Record 
On the L Classification Supplement to Form 1-129, the Petitioner identified the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer as The Petitioner stated that it is a "wholly 
owned subsidiary" of the foreign entity, a Japanese non-profit legal entity representing "one of the 
oldest and largest Buddhist denominations in Japan." 
The Petitioner explained that there are twenty temples throughout the 
United States "that are fully affiliated with and administered under the same 
ecclesiastical government." The Petitioner stated that it was established in 2010 as a non-profit 
entity in Washington State for the "sole purpose of further introducing and disseminating the 
teaching of in the United States, including providing operational 
guidance to each existing local temple so that each temple can effectively engage in coordinated 
missionary works." The Petitioner indicated that it provides advanced training for 
clergy in the United States, consisting of "ongoing seminars and separate short-term 
intensive training periods covering all aspects of the unique liturgy, 
ritual, meditation, doctrine, philosophy, ministerial duties and functions." 
The Petitioner submitted the foreign entity's charter which reflects that it is overseen and controlled 
by a Kancho (or archbishop) administering main temple in Japan and a Zasu (or 
head abbot) acting as the "highest priest responsible for teaching both clergy and lay followers." 
The charter further stated that the Zasu presides over a committee representing the Jushoku (or 
abbots) of all subsidiary temples and churches. The document also indicated that the foreign entity 
has a board of directors consisting of a senior managing director and a department of general 
managers responsible for the affairs of the entity. 
The Petitioner provided its articles of incorporation as a non-profit entity in the State of Washington 
dated October 28, 2010, which indicated in section 8.1 that it had appointed three members to its 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-S-B- USA 
board of directors. The articles further included attached bylaws which indicated that the board of 
directors had wide ranging authority over the organization, including stating in article III that it was 
responsible for appointing additional or replacement members to the already existing board. The 
articles of incorporation and bylaws made no mention of the foreign entity. In addition, the 
Petitioner submitted various "Consent[ s] in Lieu of a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors" 
indicating the board's management of the affairs of the company, including appointing additional 
and replacement members to the board, appointing a president, and authorizing the entity to open 
bank accounts. 
The Petitioner also submitted an IRS Form 1023, Application for Recognition of Exemption, along 
with its supplemental answers to the Form 1 023. In the supplement, the Petitioner states that it acts 
separately from the foreign entity 
and that the approximately twenty temples in the 
United States are "independent legal entit[ies] governed by local decision-making." The Petitioner 
further stated "[the Petitioner] is a separate legal entity from both 
(Japan) and [the] With respect to overlap 
between the Japanese and 
United States entities, the Petitioner stated that although it anticipated that a part of its board of 
directors would likely be employees, directors or officers ofthe Japanese entity, "[the Petitioner's] 
Board of Directors will have its own fiduciary duties to [the Petitioner] and will act accordingly." 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted bank account information and wire transfer 
documents 
demonstrating that the foreign entity has been providing it with substantial financial support. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) stating that the evidence was insufficient to 
establish that the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. The Director 
pointed to the Form 1023, noting that it indicated that the Petitioner had issued no stock to the 
foreign entity and that the Petitioner acted as an independent legal entity. The Director requested 
that the Petitioner provide additional evidence to support its assertion that it is a subsidiary of the 
foreign entity. 
In response, the Petitioner stated that it was established as a non-membership non-profit corporation 
in Washington and is not authorized to issue stock or other ownership interests. The Petitioner 
explained that its three original directors were appointed by the foreign entity and noted that its 
board of directors, consistent with its articles of incorporation, is self-perpetuating because it is 
appointed by the acting board. The Petitioner submitted board consent documentation dated April 1, 
2013, showing that it had five board members, including the Beneficiary and four other priests. 
The Petitioner indicated that each of its board members act, or did act, as representatives of the 
foreign entity. The Petitioner specified that all of its board members have held senior managerial or 
executive-level positions with the foreign entity and specified the positions held by each, noting that 
the Beneficiary "was the Managerial Minister of the International Department of [the foreign 
entity]." The Petitioner emphasized that all members of the Petitioner's board of directors are 
foreign entity personnel and that "this clearly indicates [the foreign entity] had the control over [the 
Petitioner's] board of directors." Further, the Petitioner explained that its board is responsible for 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-S-B- USA 
nominating its own members, therefore making its board of directors "self-perpetuating" and cut off 
from admitting members from outside of the foreign entity. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted a document titled "Internal Regulations of [the Petitioner]" 
dated October 1, 2011. The Petitioner asserted that the foreign entity promulgated these internal 
regulations to control its governance. Chapter 2, Article 7 of the regulations states that the Petitioner 
will establish a board of directors numbering "from three to seven as appropriate with a 
representative Director among them." Further, the section specifies that "a person in the position of 
Director of the [foreign entity] international department shall assume the [position of] representative 
director" and that all other directors would· be priests of the foreign entity "appointed by the 
representative director or the director selection committee (the Board Meeting of [the foreign 
entity])." 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted translated documentation showing the transfer of funds from the 
foreign entity to the Petitioner. The documentation indicated transfers to the Petitioner's account 
related to the purchase and renovation of a temple, as well as funds for the Petitioner's operating 
fund. 
In denying the petition, the Director stated that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to 
establish that it is a subsidiary of the foreign entity. The Director concluded that the evidence 
demonstrated that the entities were separate non-profit corporations and that the Petitioner had not 
established that the foreign entity has an ownership interest in the Petitioner. 
In its appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred by concluding that the Petitioner, as a 
non-profit organization, is required to show ownership by the foreign entity in order to establish that 
the two entities have a qualifying parent-subsidiary relationship. The Petitioner states that it is 
impossible for a non-profit organization to provide evidence of it ownership; therefore, non-profit 
entities may establish a qualifying relationship by demonstrating that they are under common 
control. The Petitioner asserts that common control is established in the present matter through the 
foreign entity's right to select the Petitioner's board of the directors. The Petitioner points to the 
internal regulations of asserting that these require that only managers 
of the foreign entity or recognized priests of the religion can be appointed as directors. Further, the 
Petitioner contends that the self-perpetuating nature of its board assures that it will remain under the 
control of foreign entity representatives, noting that it is "impossible for the US directors to do 
anything contrary to the interests of the foreign entity." The Petitioner asserts that the foreign entity 
controls all human resources and financial decisions and that these matters are presented to and 
approved by the foreign entity's general assembly. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also provides a special committee report of the foreign entity assembly 
which states that the committee was "seeking approval for enforcement of the Internal Regulations 
of [the Petitioner]" and indicates that these regulations were adopted in their original form. The 
Petitioner also submits a "Consent in lieu of the Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of [the 
Petitioner]" dated July 5, 2013, reflecting the appointment of two new members of the board of 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-S-B- USA 
r 
directors, along with evidence that both new members have served as heads of temples in Japan and 
held managerial positions within overseas. 
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 it has a qualifying relationship 
with the foreign entity. 
The regulation and case law confirm that ownership and control are the factors that must be 
examined in determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and foreign 
entities for purposes of this visa classification. See Matter of Church Scientology Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 
593 (BIA 1988); see also Matter ofSiemens Med. Sys., Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of 
Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Cornrn'r 1982). In the context of this visa petition, where the Petitioner 
claims to be a subsidiary of the foreign entity, ownership refers to the direct or indirect legal right of 
possession of the assets of an entity with full power and authority to control; control means the direct 
or indirect legal right and authority to direct the establishment, management, and operations of an 
entity. Matter o,[Church Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites Matter of Hughes, asserting that this case demonstrates that a 
subsidiary relationship can be established through control alone, and that it is "determinative" as to 
whether a subsidiary relationship exists, without reference to ownership. We do not concur with the 
Petitioner's interpretation of this decision. The petitioner in Hughes owned a qualifying 50% 
interest in the foreign entity through a joint venture and the only determination to make was whether 
common ownership and control could be demonstrated under these circumstances. It is noteworthy 
that the decision never departs from analyzing whether there is ownership and control. In fact, the 
Commissioner found that "the terms 'affiliate' or 'affiliation' may be broadly used to describe 
business entities which have relationships with one another based upon ownership and control" and 
"[t]he term 'subsidiary' is a more specific form of affiliation in which the company so described is 
subordinate to the control of another." Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. at 293 (emphasis added). 
The Commissioner also provided several examples where companies may be deemed to be a parent 
and subsidiary 9r affiliates, but in each case, the controlling entity has some ownership interest in its 
affiliated or subsidiary entity . !d. at 292-3. For these reasons, we find that Matter of Hughes did not · 1
1 
establish a precedent whereby control alone can be sufficient to establish a qualifying relationship. 
The relevant statutory law, legislative history, and regulations do not explicitly prohibit non-profit 
entities from using the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification. However, established case law 
indicates that the statutory and regulatory criteria apply universally to every petitioner seeking the L-
1 visa classification, regardless of whether that petitioner is a for-profit or a non-profit organization. 
See Matter of Church Scientology Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. at 597 ("Applying the same standards to all 
business, religious, and other personnel is the only fair way to adjudicate 'L-1' [petitions].") 
The Petitioner emphasizes that the regulatory definition of "subsidiary," as well as the definition of 
that term in Matter of Church Scientology International, refer to "direct or indirect" ownership, 
6 
Matter of K-S-B- USA 
suggesting that control is sufficient to establish a parent-subsidiary relationship. However, there is 
no basis to conclude that the reference to "indirect" ownership infers that control alone can establish 
a parent-subsidiary relationship between two entities. 
Matter of Church Scientology International states that "ownership and control are the factors for 
establishing a qualifying relationship between entities for purposes of "L-1" classification." Id. at 
595 (emphasis added). Further, the case indicates, "ownership refers to the direct or indirect legal 
right of possession of the assets of an entity with full power and authority to control," again inferring 
the presence of both ownership and control. Id. Therefore, we do not read the Commissioner's use 
of the term "indirect" to mean that a qualifying relationship may be established independent of some 
ownership, whether direct ownership between a parent and subsidiary, or indirect, such as ownership 
of a subsidiary by a parent entity through a trust or holding company. Therefore, the Petitioner is 
greatly expanding the concept of "indirect ownership" beyond its intended bounds; the plain 
language of the four-part regulatory definition of "subsidiary" contains no provision that allows for a 
qualifying parent-subsidiary relationship in circumstances where the claimed parent has no 
ownership interest in the subsidiary. 
Again, the Commissioner stressed in Matter of Church Scientology International that "[a]pplying the 
same standards to all business, religious, and other personnel is the only fair way to adjudicate 'L-1' 
[petitions]." Therefore, a determination as to whether or not a qualifying relationship exists between 
two non-profit entities requires an analysis of two factors, both ownership and control. Here, despite 
the Petitioner's non-profit status and its claim that it is impossible to establish the foreign entity's 
ownership of it, the Petitioner must nevertheless demonstrate both ownership and control by the 
foreign entity in order to establish the claimed parent-subsidiary relationship.1 However, the 
Petitioner concedes that it cannot demonstrate that the foreign entity has any ownership interest in 
the U.S. entity. 
Further, the Petitioner has not adequately supported its claim that the foreign entity controls the U.S. 
entity. In its appeal, the Petitioner contends that the foreign entity's assembly appoints and has 
control over the members of its board of directors. However, the evidence submitted does not 
demonstrate that the foreign entity specifically appoints the members of the Petitioner's board or that 
the foreign entity has control over these board members once appointed. The Petitioner's bylaws 
make no mention of foreign entity control and indicate that it is free to act independently. Further, 
the Petitioner submitted numerous board consent documents indicating changes and appointments to 
its board of directors, none of which indicate that the foreign entity had any input into these 
decisions. In addition, the Petitioner did not provide documentation reflecting the foreign 
assembly's formal approval of changes to the Petitioner's board of directors. On appeal, the 
1 The Petitioner states that it is not possible for a non-profit entity with its structure to establish ownership, and implies 
that the Director's finding would prohibit non-profit entities from qualifying for L-1 visas. However, our discussion here 
is limited to the application of the statute and regulations to the unique facts presented in this case. The Petitioner in this 
matter is a separate legal entity from the Beneficiary's foreign employer and has consistently claimed that it satisfies the 
requirements for a parent-subsidiary relationship. That said, we note that the regulations also allow for the transfer of 
personnel from a foreign organization to a U.S. branch office ("an operating division or office of the same organization 
housed in a different location"). 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(J). 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-S-B- USA 
Petitioner presents a special committee report of the foreign entity dated September 8, 2011, 
indicating that the foreign entity committee adopted internal regulations for the Petitioner. However, 
no evidence has been provided to establish that these regulations were, in turn, adopted by the 
Petitioner. 
In addition, although the evidence indicates that the foreign entity has. provided significant financial 
support2 to the Petitioner, it does not show that the foreign entity owns the Petitioner's assets, 
controls the dispensation of these funds once they are transmitted, controls the selection or decisions 
of its board members, or has veto power over the actions of the Petitioner's board of directors. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden ofproofin these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter a/Treasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Furthermore, the Petitioner asserts for the, first time on appeal that the foreign entity's assembly 
directly appoints its board of directors; it did not make this assertion prior to the denial of the 
petition. At the time of filing, the Petitioner contended that the members of the Petitioner's board 
were the foreign entity's personnel and that "this clearly.indicates [the foreign entity] had the control 
over [the petitioner's] board of directors." The Petitioner also asserted that the board was cut off 
from non-foreign entity members due to the selection of the board by its current members, who are 
all agents of the foreign entity. The Petitioner did not state that its board of directors was directly 
appointed by the foreign entity assembly. The Petitioner now asserts on appeal that the foreign 
entity controls all of its human resources and financial decisions and that these decisions are 
approved by the foreign entity general assembly. However, the foreign assembly special report 
submitted on appeal does not demonstrate that the foreign entity is making decisions for the 
Petitioner. In fact, the Petitioner's articles of incorporation and bylaws indicate that its board is free 
to act independent of any other entity. As such, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient 
supporting evidence to substantiate that the foreign entity selects the members of the Petitioner's 
board of directors or that it manages its affairs as asserted. A petitioner may not make material 
changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCI~) requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998). 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 ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591-92 (BIA 1988). 
In addition, although the submitted evidence reflects that the Petitioner's board members are current 
and former employees and priests of the foreign entity, it does not establish that these board 
members remain under the control of the foreign entity once they are transferred. In fact, the 
Petitioner provides evidence demonstrating that the practice of in the 
United States is largely independent of the ecclesiastical control and hierarchy of the foreign entity. 
The foreign entity's charter describes a very specific ecclesiastical hierarchy where the foreign entity 
is overseen and controlled by a Kancho and Zasu, or priests fulfilling an executive function, and a 
2 The Petitioner's supplemental answers to the Form I 023 refer to these funds as "donations." 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-S-B- USA 
Jushoku, or an assembly representing all subsidiary temples and churches. However, none of the 
submitted evidence indicates that the Petitioner or the temples in the United States, are members of 
the foreign entity's assembly or that their leadership is under the ecclesiastical control of the foreign 
entity. In fact, the Petitioner's Form 1023 directly states that it will be controlled by its own 
directors and stresses that it will act as a separate legal entity from the foreign entity. Further, the 
Form 1023 does not refer to any foreign entity control and the supplement to Form 1023 expressly 
states that local temples are empowered ;to make their own local decisions, suggesting that the · 
Petitioner is empowered to control its own management. 
Indeed, the current matter closely resembles Matter of Church Scientology International, where the 
Commissioner compared the relationship between an asserted parent church and a local subsidiary · 
church in the United States to a franchisor and franchisee. In that case, the Commissioner concluded 
that although the parent church provided continuous guidance and training to the local church, the 
parent church was not shown to retain ultimate control over managing the affairs of the local church, 
much like a franchisor and franchisee. The Commissioner contrasted this relationship to that of the 
Catholic Church, where the Pope has ultimate authority and a defined ecclesiastical hierarchy 
controls the management of local churches, much like a parent and subsidiary in the case of for­
profit organizations. However, in the present matter, the Petitioner has not demonstrated with 
sufficient evidence that, despite receiving financial support, it is being managed by the foreign entity 
or that the foreign entity controls its assets or operations. In fact, the special committee report of the 
foreign entity assembly indicates that it makes all financial and executive decisions with respect to 
foreign entity operations, but does not reflect that it manages these same affairs for the Petitioner or 
that it appoints its directors. We acknowledge that it is certainly possible that the Petitioner's 
leadership will follow the dictates of the foreign entity given their current and former affiliations 
with the order abroad. However, the potential for cooperation does not 
rise to the level of actual operational and financial control of the Petitioner by the foreign entity. 
Based on the deficiencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the foreign entity, and the instant petition cannot be approved for this reason. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AMANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
Beyond the decision of the Director, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would act in 
a managerial or executive, capacity in the United States.3 The Petitioner does not claim that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity. Therefore, we 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": 
3 In reviewing a matter de novo, we may deny an immigration benefit on grounds not addressed below in the Director 's 
decision. See Spencer Enters., Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E. D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003). 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-S-B- USA 
(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. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity , USC IS 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 101 (a)( 44 )(C) 
ofthe Act. 
A. Evidence of Record 
In a support letter provided with the petition , the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "will be 
responsible for developing and directing [the Petitioner]" and 
twenty other 
temples with approximately 35,000 followers. The Petitioner indicated that the 
Beneficiary will have authority for operational and policy decisions for the entity and be responsible 
for the hiring and firing of personnel. The Petitioner further explained the Beneficiary's duties as 
follows: 
[The Beneficiary] will develop and 
establish programs for professional training for 
clergy in the United States. These activities include 
regularly scheduled ongoing seminars and separate short-term intensive training 
periods covering all aspects of the unique liturgy, ritual, 
meditation, doctrine , philosophy, ministerial duties and functions , and other forms of 
further advanced training as required . 
The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary would also "lead efforts to develop and strengthen 
lifelong relationships " between followers of the religion and each temple , spreading "Kobo Daishi ," 
the religion ' s principles , in partnership with each U.S.-based temple . It stated that the Beneficiary 
"will develop and implement an ongoing communication style with the believers ' communities in 
the U.S. through publications such as newsletters and provide 
information such as achievements of 
fellow believers, priests , and missionaries." It further indicated that the Beneficiary would develop 
and plan the web presence of the religious community and coordinate interaction between temples, 
including creating "a searchable members directory, online newsletters , chapters and affinity 
organizations, and other online communication services." It explained that the Beneficiary would 
plan and develop marketing strategies and promote membership and participation in the temples and 
act as an intermediary between the foreign entity and the twenty temples in the United States. 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-S-B- USA 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would ensure that the programs and activities of the 
temples would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the foreign entity, noting that his 
instructions and guidance would reach all members of the local temples through each organizational 
unit. It indicated that the Beneficiary would visit each temple, oversee its activities, financial affairs, 
and internal membership matters, set policy, and advise on internal rules and regulations, including 
the election of officials consistent with foreign entity guidelines. 
In a separate letter from the foreign entity's vice president, the foreign entity stated that the 
Petitioner is administered under the ecclesiastical government of the foreign entity and that its 
twenty temples are "fully affiliated" with the foreign entity. The foreign entity stated that before the 
formation of the Petitioner in 2010, "there was no operational uniformity among 
temples in the U.S." It further explained that the Petitioner was established in 2010 to 
provide "operational guidance" on creating an established system of training for clergy and to 
support the existing temples through "advanced professional training" and to provide other 
"operational support activities." It stated that the Beneficiary would develop communication 
between the temples and develop and implement strategies for "public relations among the 
community offollowers," such as newsletters and emails communicating "achievements of ministers 
and followers" and other current happenings among the temples. The foreign entity indicated that 
prior to the establishment of the foreign entity "there was no central office handling these matters." 
It stated that the Beneficiary would act "in cooperation with each temple" on the "development, 
implementation, and evaluation of each temple's programs, activities, events and communications." 
It indicated that the Beneficiary "will act as an intermediary" between the foreign entity and the 
Petitioner and its 20 temples, 23 priests, and 35,000 followers. It explained that the Beneficiary's 
communications and "instructions/advises" will reach the minister of each temple and follow 
through those organizational units. 
Furthermore, the foreign entity stated that the Beneficiary would also seek out and negotiate 
opportunities with U.S. organizations and institutions, including local universities, for symposiums, 
conferences, and other international programs. It indicated that the Beneficiary would "strengthen 
[the] relationship with each local temple" to help identify new U.S. organizations. The foreign entity 
explained that the Petitioner has its own administrative staff and that it engages professionals, such 
as a 
lawyer and an accountant, noting that the Beneficiary "will hire additional personnel as needed." 
As previously noted, the Petitioner submitted supplemental answers to its 2011 IRS Form 1023 
which indicated in Part IV that "each [temple] is an independent legal entity governed by local 
decision-making" and that the Petitioner "intends to provide religious and administrative operational 
advice and instructional support." In Part V, Line 1a, the Petitioner listed three directors of the 
entity, but stating that none would receive compensation. This section did indicate that an employee 
would be hired in late 2011 or early 2012 "to perform the day-to-day operations." Further, in Part V, 
Line 1 b, the Petit~oner stated that it anticipated hiring "another employee to assist the first 
employee," likely an "experienced priest." In addition, another portion of the supplemental 
questions indicated that the Petitioner's activities include regular worship services, seminars, and 
trainings in religious practice. 
I 1 
Matter of K-S-B- USA 
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 will be employed 
in an executive capacity in the United States. 
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, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B). 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 because they have an executive title or because they "direct" the enterprise as an 
owner or sole managerial employee. 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." !d. 
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 
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.2dJ1533. 
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. 
Here, the Petitioner submits a duty description for the Beneficiary and other supporting evidence 
indicating that he will primarily perform non-qualifying operational tasks. The Petitioner suggests 
that the Beneficiary will be responsible for a developing and establishing professional training 
programs for the temples, developing relationships with the temples, implementing a newsletter and 
email communication chain, developing marketing strategies to promote membership, and 
overseeing the finances and operations of each temple. However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
12 
( 
Matter of K-S-B- USA 
that there are operational employees in place to relieve the Beneficiary from the non-qualifying 
operational aspects of carrying out these responsibilities, such as actually arranging or providing 
trainings, printing or sending newsletters or group emails, or recruiting new adherents to the religion. 
The Petitioner states that it has its own administrative employees, but does not indicate how many it 
employs, how often they are employed, or who the Beneficiary would be tasked with hiring. The 
,, Petitioner also indicates that it engages professionals such as an accountant and a lawyer, but does 
not document their employment or the nature and scope of their duties. Therefore, absent supporting 
evidence, it is not evident that the Petitioner has sufficient operational staff to relieve the Beneficiary 
from non-qualifying tasks. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 1\!atter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
In addition, the evidence reflects that the Petitioner will not have full operational authority over the 
20 temples in the United States leaving question as to whether the Beneficiary will exercise 
executive-level authority. As discussed in the previous section, the preponderance of the evidence 
indicates that the foreign entity does not have full control over the Petitioner, and in tum, the temples 
in the United States. The evidence also indicates that the Petitioner was established in 2010, and that 
previous to this time, each of the U.S.-based temples acted independently. The evidence suggests 
that the Petitioner acts as more of a consultant or advisor, promoting coordination and uniformity 
between the temples, as noted directly in the supplemental answers to the IRS Form 1023. Indeed, 
the Form 1023 reflects that the 20 U.S.-based temples are "independent legal entit[ies] governed by 
local decision-making." The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will act in "coordination" with the 
temples and act as a liaison between them and the foreign entity. Therefore, although the Petitioner 
asserts that the Beneficiary will have executive-level control over the temples, its statements and 
evidence submitted elsewhere on the record indicate otherwise. The Petitioner has not resolved 
these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter 
of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 582. 
Based on the deficiencies and inconsistencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity in the United States. The petition will be 
denied for this additional reason. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, the 
burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not 
been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofK-S-B- USA, ID# 96721 (AAO Oct. 25, 2016) 
13