dismissed L-1A Case: Restaurant And Retail Management

(b)(6)
MATTER OF A-H-E-G- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 4, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a restaurant and management company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
its president 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
IA 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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not established that: (1) the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity for the U.S. entity; (2) the Beneficiary had at least one continuous year of full-time 
employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding his application 
for admission to the United States; and (3) it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred 
and that this petition should be granted as the Beneficiary is one of the major investors in the 
and has invested millions of dollars from 
his company in China in the subsidiaries in the 
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 proposed beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized 
knowledge capacity, for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's 
application for admission into the United States. Section 101 ( a)(15)(L) of the Act. In addition, the 
beneficiary must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services 
to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or specialized 
knowledge capacity. !d. 
I 
! 
Matter of A-H-E-G- Corp. 
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: 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will 
employ the alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph 
(l)(l)(ii)(G) ofthis section. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or 
specialized knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the 
services to be performed. 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time 
employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition. 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position 
that was managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that 
the alien's prior education, training, and employment qualifies him/her to 
perform the intended services in the United States; however, the work in the 
United States need not be the same work which the alien performed abroad. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The first issue before us is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary will be employed 
in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" 
as "an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily": 
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the organization; 
(ii) supervises and controls the work of other supervisQry, 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 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-H-E-G- Corp. 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or 
function for which the employee has authority. 
\ 
Further, "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." !d. 
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) 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. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must take into account 
the reasonable needs of the organization, in light ofthe overall purpose and stage of development of 
the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(C) ofthe Act. 
A. Evidence ofRecord 
/ 
The Petitioner filed the Form 1-129 on November 13, 2015. On the Form 1-129, the Petitioner 
claimed it had 24 current employees in the United States and a gross annual income of $728,389. 
The Petitioner stated that its parent company is 
located in China. 
In a letter, dated November 10, 2015, submitted in support of the petition, trre Petitioner stated that it 
was incorporated in the in 2009. The Petitioner asserted that "[i]t is primarily engaged in the 
business of retail and whotesale of general merchandize [sic], bar and restaurant in the " The 
Petitioner also asserted that it "is a company primarily engaged in the business of retail and 
wholesale of cosmetics products in the and that through "corporate resolutions, [it] is the 
administrative holding company of four other companies owned and managed by Beneficiary: 
a duty free market, and as ' 
companies operate a supermarket, a 
respectively. 
and 
The Petitioner stated that it is doing business as 
a restaurant. The claimed affiliated 
souvenir store, a tour company, and a car rental agency, 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-H-E-G- Corp. 
The Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary is its president and the president of these four additional 
companies and assumes overall executive responsibility for the companies. The Petitioner stated: 
"[i]n this capacity, Beneficiary is responsible for both the policy directions and overall operation of 
the business" and "(h]e directs the management of the business and establishes goals and policies for 
. the companies." The Petitioner submitted-a document signed by its corporate secretary indicating 
that the Beneficiary will manage it and the four affiliated companies, as well as direct the 
management of the organization, establish the goals and policies of the organization, components , or 
function, exercise wide latitude in discretionary decision making, and receive and implement only 
general supervision or direction from the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
The initial record also included the Petitioner's May 29, 2015, corporate resolution indicating that 
the Petitioner will serve as an administrative holding 
company to manage the administrative, payroll, 
and human resources functions of all businesses owned by 
the Beneficiary's claimed foreign employer. The resolution lists the same 
four companies noted above, as the administrative holding company's subsidiaries; 
The Petitioner submitted 2014 IRS Forms 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, for itself and 
the four affiliated companies. The record also included the Petitioner's Employer's Quarterly 
Withholding Tax Return, for the first three quarters of 2015. These returns listed four employees, 
eleven 
employees, and twelve employees, respectively. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) asking for further detail on the 
Beneficiary's U.S. position, and the subordinate positions the Beneficiary directs, the Petitioner 
referenced an Exhibit "D" that the Director could not locate in the response. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits Exhibit "D" for our examination. The Petitioner lists the 
Beneficiary's job duties in the position of"President" and the time allocated to those duties as: 
• Establish and carry out company's organizational goals, policies, and procedures. 
40% 
• Direct and oversee company's financial and budgetary activities. 20% 
• Consult with other executives, staff, and board members about general operations. 
10% 
• Negotiate or approve contracts and agreements. 10% 
• Appoint, hire and fire managers. 1 0% 
• Identify places to cut costs and to [i]mprove performance, policies, and programs. 
10% 
4 
Matter of A-H-E-G- Corp. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, including the evidence submitted on appeal, 
we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the Beneficiary, we will look first to the 
Petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The Petitioner's description 
of the job duties must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary and indicate 
whether such duties are in either a managerial or an executive capacity. !d. 
The definitions of executive and managerial 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 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). 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,J9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner here has submitted a broad overview of the Beneficiary's duties. The Petitioner does 
not include detail regarding the actual tasks the Beneficiary will perform. For example, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary will spend 40 percent of his time establishing and carrying out 
the company's organizational goals, policies, and procedures and an additional 20 percent of his time 
directing and overseeing the company's financial and budgetary activities. This description does not 
convey an understanding of the Beneficiary's day-to-day duties but rather recites vague job 
responsibilities and broadly-cast business objectives. The actual duties themselves will reveal the 
true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's 
employment capacity are not sufficient. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations 
does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 
188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.), citing Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108. 
Further, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will spend an additional 30 percent of his time 
negotiating or approving contracts, appointing, hiring, and firing managers, and identifying costs to 
cut to improve the performance, policies, and programs of its business. We cannot ascertain if these 
generally described duties are primarily managerial or executive duties or whether they comprise the 
necessary and routine first-line supervisory tasks and other operational and administrative tasks of 
owning and operating a business. 
The fact that the Beneficiary will manage or direct a business does not necessarily establish 
eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity 
within the meaning of section 101(a)(44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification 
requires that the duties of a position be "primarily" of an executive or manageriaLnature. Sections 
101(A)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. While the Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-H-E-G- Corp. 
r 
Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess the reqmstte level of authority with respect to 
discretionary decision-making, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that his 
actual duties are primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
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, the1 Petitioner does not include probative evidence of its number of employees, their positions 
within the Petitioner's restaurant/nightclub and retail shop, and the Beneficiary's interactions with 
them. The Petitioner stated on the Form 1-129 that it has 24 employees, but submitted evidence that 
it employed as few as 4 employees, and not more than 12 employees, during the first three quarters 
of2015. The Petitioner has not resolved these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). While the 
Petitioner submits 
tax information demonstrating that it pays employees, the record does not include 
an organizational chart, or evidence of the Beneficiary's subordinates' job titles, duties, and their 
hours worked. We cannot determine from the record provided whether the Beneficiary will be 
performing supervisory, administrative, and budgetary tasks or whether the Petitioner employs 
individuals or firms to perform these duties. The Petitioner does not disclose who will be 
responsible for performing any of the operational and administrative tasks, including the 
bookkeeping, customer service, and marketing of its business. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary's, authority as president extends to four 
additional companies also owned by its claimed Chinese parent. We have reviewed the Petitioner's 
corporate resolution wherein it states it will be responsible for managing the administrative, payroll, 
and human resources functions of all the foreign entity's-owned business in the The record 
also includes four ofthese,businesses' 2014 IRS tax returns, with each tax return identifying the type 
of business and showing salaries paid to employees. The record does not include additional detail 
regarding the nature of each business. Additionally, the record includes no information regarding 
the number of employees working for any of these companies or the positions the employees hold 
within each company's organizational structure. Moreover, the Petitioner does not submit any 
management agreements or documentary evidence 
establishing its management relationship with the 
other companies, other than the corporate resolution. While we acknowledge the Petitioner's claim 
that the Beneficiary controls all of these businesses, through his claimed majority ownership of the 
foreign entity, a corporation is a separate and distinct legal entity from its owners or stockholders. 
See Matter of M, 8 I&N Dec. 24, 50 (BIA 1958, AG 1958); Matter ofAphrodite Inv. Ltd., 17 I&N 
Dec. 530 (Comm'r 1980); and Matter of Tessel, 17 I&N Dec. 631 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1980). 
Thus, the Petitioner must provide some evidence that the companies interact at arms-length and have 
legitimate agreements detailing the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of each company 
including the compensation for any services performed. 
6 
Matter of A-H-E-G- Corp. 
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 ~fthe 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. 
As discussed, the record does not include the Petitioner's organizational chart or pos1t1on 
descriptions for its claimed employees, nor does it support the Petitioner's claim that its two 
businesses employed 24 workers when the petition was filed. Further, the record does not include 
sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary is responsible for directing the employees of the 
four affiliated companies. Even if considering the Beneficiary's claimed management of these other 
entities, the record does not include evidence of the number of positions and the role each position 
plays in performing the operations of those separate companies. Upon review, the Petitioner has not 
provided a probative, detailed description of the Beneficiary's duties demonstrating that he will 
perform tasks primarily in an executive capacity nor has it identified direct or subordinate employees 
to perform the day-to-day operational tasks of the petitioning company or the affiliated businesses. 
The record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary will primarily focus on the broad goals and 
policies of the organization rather than the day-to-day operations of the company and the affiliated 
enterprises. 
Although the Petitioner does not assert that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial 
capacity, we will address this component of the L-lA classification. The statutory definition of 
"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function managers." See sections 
101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and 
control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. The statute plainly 
states that 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)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(4). If a beneficiary directly 
1 
In evaluating whether the Beneficiary manages professional employees, we must evaluate whether the subordinate 
positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) 
(defining "profe'ssion" to mean "any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent 
is the minimum requirement ,for entry into the occupation"). Section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(32), 
states that "[t]he 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." Here, there is no evidence that the 
positions subordinate to the Beneficiary are professional positions. 
7 
Matter of A-H-E-G- Corp. 
supervises other employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire those 
employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(3). 
Again, we refer to the lack of evidence in the record regarding the Petitioner's employees and the 
employees of the affiliated companies. Without this basic evidence, the Petitioner cannot establish 
that any of the Beneficiary's subordinates hold supervisory, managerial, or professional positions. 
The record does not include sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary would be relieved 
from performing non-qualifying operational, administrative, and first-line supervisory duties of 
non-professional employees. Upon review of the totality of the i,nformation in the record, the 
Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would be primarily supervising and controlling the 
work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. 
The Petitioner has not established, in the alternative, that the Beneficiary will be employed primarily 
as a "function manager." The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does 
no_t supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for 
managing an "essential function" within the organization. See section 101 (a)( 44 )(A)(ii) of the Act. 
The term "essential function" is not defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims that a 
beneficiary will manage ah essential function, a petitioner must clearly describe the duties to be 
performed in managing the essential function, i.e., identify the function with specificity, articulate 
the essential nature of the function, and establish the proportion of a beneficiary's daily duties 
attributed to managing the essential function. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). In addition, a 
petitioner's description of a beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary will 
manage the function rather than perform the duties related to the function. 
Here, the Petitioner does not identify a specific function that the Beneficiary will manage. 
Additionally, the general description of the Beneficiary's duties does not include sufficient 
information regarding what the Beneficiary will actually do, such that we may conclude that the 
Beneficiary will manage a specific function. The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature 
ofthe employment. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108. 
We note that a company's size alone, without taking into account the reasonable needs of the 
organization, may not be the determining factor in denying a visa petition for classification as a 
multinational manager or executive. See section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(44)(C). Howeve;, it is appropriate for USCIS to consider the size of the petitioning 
company in conjunction with other relevant factors, such as the absence of employees who would 
perform the non-managerial or non-executive operations of the company, or a "shell company" that 
does not conduct business in a regular and continuous manner. See e.g. Family Inc. v. USCIS 469 
F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 2006); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). The size of 
a company may be especially relevant when USCIS notes discrepancies in the record and does not 
believe that the facts asserted are true. See Systronics, 153 F. Supp. 2d at 15. 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-H-E-G- Corp. 
Here, the Petitioner claimed to employ 24 workers and documented its employment of no more than 
12 employees in 2015. Upon close review of the descriptions of duties set out in the record and the 
lack of substantive information regarding the Beneficiary's and the claimed subordinates' actual 
roles in the business, the record does not include sufficient probative details demonstrating that the 
Petitioner's organization is sufficiently developed to support a managerial or executive position as 
statutorily defined. Based on the deficiencies and inconsistences as discussed above, the Petitioner 
has not established that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. 
III. ONE YEAR FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT ,REQUIREMENT 
The next issue before us is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary had one year of 
continuous full-time employment with the foreign entity during the relevant three-year time period. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(A) defines "intracompany transferee" as: 
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. Periods spent in the United States in lawful status for a branch of the 
same employer or a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary thereof and brief trips to the United 
States for business or pleasure shall not be interruptive of the one year of continuous 
employment abroad but such periods shall not be counted toward fulfillment of that 
requirement. 
A. Evidence ofRecord 
On the Form I-129, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has been employed as the president, 
director, and majority shareholder of smce 
1999. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has been "mainly" in the since 2010. 
The Petitioner submitted a copy of the Beneficiary's Form I -797 A, Approval Notice, indicating that 
it had filed a Form I~129 requesting E-2 Investor (E2C) classification on December 27, 2011, 
which USC IS approved for the period August 4, 2014, to December 31, 2014. The Petitioner also 
provided evidence that it had timely filed for an extension of the Beneficiary's E2C status, which 
remained pending at the time this petition was filed. On the Form I-129, the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary 
"was admitted under umbrella permit on November 28, 2009, when USCIS extended US 
immigration laws to the through th'e Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA)" 
as he had previously been "accorded investor's status by government prior to CNRA." 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-H-E-G- Corp. 
In its initial letter in support of the petition, dated November 10, 2015, the Petitioner noted that the 
Beneficiary founded the foreign entity in China in 1999, and assumed the position of its Chairman of 
Board and President until 2010, when the Beneficiary began to reside primarily in 
The initial record also included the Petitioner's initial and annual corporation reports filed with the 
Treasurer identifying the Beneficiary's immigration status in the as in the 
company's initial report filed on May 2009, as ' in 2010 and 2011, and as E2C in 2012,2013, 
and 2014. 
In an RFE, the Director noted that USCIS records show that the Beneficiary was admitted into the 
United States on August 4, 2014, the date the Beneficiary's Form 1-129 petition for E2C 
immigration status was approved.2 To comply with the L-1A regulatory requirements, regarding 
foreign employment, the Director requested evidence that the Beneficiary was employed 
continuously for one year during the period from August 4, 2011, to August 4, 2014, in a managerial 
or executive capacity for the foreign entity. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary was a long-term 
investor prior to November 28, 2009, and that he began to invest in the in 2008, as supported 
by evidence submitted with the petition. The Petitioner emphasized that the Beneficiary was the 
foreign entity's chairman of the boar'a and president until 2010, when he became president of the 
companies. The Petitioner also claimed that the Beneficiary had employment authorization 
before he was accorded E2C visa status on August 4, 2014.3 The Petitioner maintained that the 
Beneficiary's admission into the United States occurred on November 28, 2009, and thus the. 
Petitioner must establish the Beneficiary's continuous year of foreign .employment occurred between 
November 28,2006, and November 28,2009. 
Upon review, the Director determined that the Beneficiary's admission date into the United States 
was August 4, 2014, the date his E2C immigration status was approved, and thus, the Petitioner must 
establish the Beneficiary's foreign employment for one continuous year between August 2011 and 
August 2014. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's admission into the United States occurred on 
November 28, 2009, the transition date for the extension of U.S. immigration law to the The 
Petitioner asserts that all residents at that time were paroled in place into the United States 
2 Public Law 110-229, the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), amended the covenant between the 
United States and the by extending U.S. immigration law to the beginning on November 28, 2009 (the 
transition date). Specifically, the CNRA 
provided for classifying an alien as a only nonimmigrant (under the E2C 
visa) if the alien had been admitted to the in long-term investor status under the immigration laws prior to 
the transition date, had continuously maintained residence in the under long-term investor status, is otherwise 
admissible, and maintains the investment or investments that formed the basis of the investor status. The statutory sunset 
date for this nonimmigrant visa has been extended to December 31, 2019 . 
3 As noted, the Petitioner filed a Form 1-129 petition on behalf of the Beneficiary on December 22, 20 II ( 
requesting his E2C immigration status . The Form 1-129 was approved for a validity period beginning August 4, 
2014, and ending on December 31 , 2014. 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-H-E-G- Corp. 
and were considered in the United States as an act of law. The Petitioner cites the Memorandum 
from Donald Neufeld, Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations, USCIS, HQ 70110.10, Effect 
of the CNRA, Title VII of Public Law 110-229, Class?fication of Aliens under Section 1 OJ (a)(l5)(L) 
and 203(b)(l)(C), (Nov. 23, 2009). The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary was a long-term 
investor prior to November 28, 2009, and concludes t4at as such the Beneficiary was 
automatically admitted into the United States on November 28, 2009. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the Petition, including the evidence submitted in support of the appeal, the record is 
insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary had one year of continuous full-time employment with 
the foreign entity. 
In this matter, the Director found that the Beneficiary was admitted into the United States on August 
4, 2014, the date USCIS approved the Petitioner's E2C petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary. 
The Director concluded that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary had one year of foreign 
employment in the three years preceding that date. We withdraw the Director's determination that 
August 4, 2014, is the Beneficiary's admission date and that the Petitioner must establish that his one 
year of foreign employment occurred between August 2011 and August 2014. 
However, we do not find sufficient evidence in the record to support the Petitioner's assertion that 
the Beneficiary was admitted into the United States on November 28, 2009, the transition date for 
the extension of U.S. immigration law to the 
Contrary to the Petitioner's assertions, the record does not include evidence of the Beneficiary's 
employment or immigration status under law as of November 28, 2009. We note that the 
Petitioner identified the Beneficiary as a short-term business permit holder on its May 2009 initial 
report filed with the Registrar of Corporations. We also note that the Petitioner identifies the 
Beneficiary as a long-term investor on its annual reports filed with the Registrar of 
Corporations in February 2010 and February 2011. However, the record before us does not include 
supporting evidence establishing that the Beneficiary had been admitted to the in long-term 
investor status as of November 28, 2009, and that the Beneficiary had continuously maintained 
residence in the prior to or subsequent to November 2009.4 Such evidence is necessary when 
the Petitioner has submitted statements indicating that the Beneficiary did not begin to reside in the 
until 2010, and there is no evidence in the record of his actual residence or the continuous 
nature of that residence during the transition period. Further, the record does not include any 
documentary evidence establishing that the Beneficiary was paroled into the United States on 
November 28,2009 . 
4 While evidence of the Beneficiary's long-term investor status may have been submitted with the Beneficiary ' s E2C 
petition that record of proceeding is not before us. Each nonimmigrant petition filing is a separate proceeding with a 
separate record and a separa~e burden of proof. In making a determination of statutory eligibility, USC IS is limited to 
the information contained in t~at individual record of proceeding. See 8 C.F .R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(ii) . 
II 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-H-E-G- Corp. 
We acknowledge that employment prior to November 28, 2009, inside the is considered 
overseas employment for L1A visa adjudication purposes. However, in this matter, we reiterate that 
this record does not include supporting evidence that the Beneficiary was employed in the 
prior to November 28, 2009. 
We have reviewed a copy of the Beneficiary's current ten-year Chinese passport issued August 22, 
2012, which includes: the Beneficiary's U.S. B1/B2 nonimmigrant visa issued May 21, 2012, which 
is valid until May 20, 2012; a Chinese exit stamp dated September 5, 2012; and a U.S. parole stamp 
dated September 6,: 2012, for the Beneficiary's entry to the United States which is valid to 
September 30, 2012'. However, as the passport was issued in August 2012, it does not include 
information that establishes the Beneficiary's employment or immigration status prior to or 
during the CNRA transition period. Moreover, upon review of the totality of the record, the record 
does not include any evidence of the Beneficiary's foreign salary, his tax returns, or any Chinese 
work documents establishing his work for the foreign entity or in the during any time period. 
"[G]oing on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings." Matter of So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
The record does not include probative evidence establishing the Beneficiary's employment or 
immigration status prior to or during the CNRA transition period or supporting evidence to confirm 
his actual dates of residence and employment in China and While we will withdraw the 
Director's determination that August 4, 2014, is the Beneficiary's admission date, the record before 
us does not include sufficient evidence to allow us to determine the Beneficiary's admission date, 
and therefore we cannot determine whether he had one year of employment with the foreign entity 
during any relevant three-year time period. Accordingly, the evidence of record does not establish 
that the Beneficiary has met the one year of foreign employment requirement. 
IV. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The next issue to be discussed in the present matter is whether the Petitioner has established that it 
has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. To establish a "qualifying 
relationship" under the Act and the regulations; the 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) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1). 
The pertinent regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(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: 
12 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-H-E-G- Corp. 
/\ 
(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. 
(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 half o!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 
The Form I-129 identifies the Petitioner as the 100 percent subsidiary of the foreign entity. The 
Petitioner's Articles of Incorporation, dated May 16, 2009, shows that the Petitioner had a total 
capitalization of $150,000 and had issued 150,000 shares at one dollar per share to the Beneficiary. 
The Petitioner's annual reports filed with the Treasurer show that changes in ownership 
occun:ed in subsequent years. The shareholders are identified as: the Beneficiary with 120,000 
shares and with 30,000 shares in 2010 and 2011; the Beneficiary with 500,000 shares in 
2012 and 2013; and the foreign entity with 870,000 ofthe issued and outstanding stock in 2014. The 
Petitioner's 2014 IRS Form 1120, shows the value of the Petitioner's common stock issued at the 
beginning ofthe year as $150,000 and at the end of the year as $870,000. 
In response to the Director's RFE requesting 
evidence of the foreign entity's contribution to the 
Petitioner to demonstrate ownership and control, the Petitioner claimed that the foreign entity had 
made contributions in the form of wire transfers and credit card payments for expenses incurred by 
the companies. The Petitioner submitted a list of 23 wire transfers dated between March 
13 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-H-E-G- Corp. 
2011 and October28, 2014, and copies of its bank statements showing the deposit of funds from the 
various wire transfers. The record also included copies of what the Petitioner claimed were credit 
card payments made by the foreign entity for its expenses. The Petitioner asserted that these 
documents demonstrated "that [the foreign entity] has been a de facto, owner of the 
companies whether through [the Beneficiary] or directly." 
The Director noted that the record did not identify the source of the wire transfers credited to the 
Petitioner's account, nor did the foreign entity's statements indicate that it had transferred funds to 
the Petitioner. The Director determined that the Petitioner had not established a qualifying 
relationship between the two entities. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has always been the majority owner of the 
foreign entity and was the majority shareholder of the Petitioner until the end of 2014. The 
Petitioner asserts that even though the foreign entity did not make a lump sum payment of $870,000 
for the Petitioner's shares, it has shown that the foreign company's investment in the Petitioner 
greatly exceeded $870,000. The Petitioner notes that its bank statements showed it had received 
almost $1.4 million in wire transfers. THe Petitioner notes further that expenses accrued by the 
Petitioner and the other subsidiaries had been paid through a credit card issued to the Beneficiary on 
the foreign entity's account. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review, we find that the record does not establish that the Petitioner has a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
In this matter, the record does not include sufficient probative evidence supporting the Petitioner's 
claim that it is wholly-owned by the Chinese foreign entity. While the record indicates that the 
Petitioner received numerous wire transfers, the record does not include evidence of the source of 
those funds. We note, for example, that the Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary, the 
former owner of the Petitioner's outstanding shares, received payment for his interest. Rather, the 
Petitioner seems to claim that the foreign entity directly capitalized the Petitioner. The Petitioner 
also seems to assert that the capitalization was initiated in March 2011, even though the foreign 
entity does not appear as an owner of the Petitioner's outstanding shares until 2014.5 Here, we must 
see evidence that the foreign entity transferred funds or services in exchange for its ownership of the 
Petitioner and that the Petitioner or the Beneficiary properly: transferred a controlling number of 
shares to the foreign entity.6 We must also see evidence of the cancellation of any shares issued to 
5 While the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary owns the foreign entity, the foreign entity's audited financial reports 
for the 2012, 2013, and 2014 years show that the Beneficiary has no ownership of the company but rather that the 
foreign entity is 95 percent owned by and five percent owned by 
6 Evidence of this nature should include documentation of monies, property, or other consideration furnished to the entity 
in exchange for stock ownership. Additional supporting evidence would include stock purchase agreements, 
subscription agreements, corporate by-laws, minutes of relevant shareholder meetings, or other legal documents 
governing the acquisition of the ownership interest. The corporate stock certificate ledger and stock certificate registry, 
14 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-H-E-G- Corp. 
the Beneficiary and other parties, or, if the shares are still outstanding, that those shareholders' 
interest has been diluted so that the foreign entity was the majority shareholder when the petition 
was filed. 
To reiterate, the Petitioner has not provided a documentary trail establishing that the foreign entity 
owns all of its outstanding shares, and actually controls the Petitioner through its ownership. The 
record does not include probative evidence showing the source of funds for the Petitioner's 
capitalization. In addition, to the lack of evidence establishing the Petitioner's ownership, we also 
note an inconsistency in the record regarding the Petitioner's outstanding shares in the beginning of 
2014. The Petitioner's annual report for 2014 shows that the Petitioner had 500,000 outstanding 
shares, while the Petitioner's 2014 IRS Form 1120 indicates only 150,000 outstanding shares at the 
beginning of2014. There is no explanation for this discrepancy. 
We also note that the Petitioner indicates that the foreign entity pays for the expenses of all of the 
subsidiaries. However, there is insufficient evidence in the record to identify expenses 
particular to the Petitioner as opposed to the other entities. Again, these incorporated entities 
are separate,entities. 
We cannot determine from the record here that the Beneficiary's claimed foreign employer owns a 
controlling interest in the Petitioner. Accordingly we cannot conclude that the Petitioner is a 
subsidiary of the Beneficiary's foreign employer. The Petitioner has not established a qualifying 
relationship between the two entities as defined by the regulations. 
V. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
Although the Director did not address this issue, we also find that even if the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad full-time by the foreign entity for one continuous year in the three years prior to 
his admission into the United States, the record does not include probative evidence of his actual 
duties for the foreign employer. We acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary in the 
position of president, chairman of the board, and majority shareholder was responsibl~ for the 
overall goals and policies of the company. However, the Petitioner's reliance on the Beneficiary's 
position as the president and a shareholder is misguided. · An individual will not be deemed an 
executive under the statute simply because he has an executive title or because he "directs" the 
enterprise as the owner or sole managerial employee. The record does not include additional 
information on his day-to-day duties. 
must also be examined to determine the total number of shares issued, the exact number issued to the shareholder, and 
the subsequent percentage ownership and its effect on corporate control. Additionally, a petitioning company must 
disclose all agreements relating to the voting of shares, the distribution of profit, the management and direction of the 
subsidiary, and any other factor affecting actua} control of the entity. See Matter of Siemens Medkal Sys., Inc .. 19 I&N 
Dec. 362 (Comm 'r 1986). Without full disclosure of all relevant documents, US CIS is unable to determine the elements 
of ownership and control. 
15 
Matter of A-H-E-G- Corp. 
We have reviewed the information submitted regarding the foreign employer. We note that the 
record contains an inconsistency regarding the enterprise and its number of branches or retail stores. 
The Petitioner is also inconsistent regarding the number of the foreign entity's employees, stating 
that the foreign entity has approximately 400 staff and 50 managers or that it has over 200 
employees. We have also reviewed the foreign entity's business license valid to November 2017, 
for hairdressing and to November 2015, for medical cosmetology, as well as its annual audits from 
2011 to 2014. This information is insufficient, however, to ascertain the Beneficiary's actual duties 
in regard to the foreign entity. Again, the actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the 
employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108. 
Upon review, the record does not include documentary evidence supporting the Petitioner's claim 
that the Beneficiary was employed in an executive or managerial capacity for the foreign entity. The 
record does not include evidence of payroll, or the identity of specific employees and their positions 
within the company. Moreover, the record does not include sufficient context identifying the nature 
of the foreign entity's "branches," the positions of the employees, and their duties for the foreign 
entity. The submitted organizational chart does not depict the foreign entity owning 22 branches of 
the enterprise but rather divides the foreign enterprise into seven general departments. Neither the 
Petitioner, nor the foreign entity, has submitted sufficient probative evidence describing the nature of 
the foreign entity, its specific departments, the existence of branch stores, or the Beneficiary's actual 
duties in relation to the foreign enterprise or its employees, other than as a claimed investor. 
Without probative evidence, including a detailed description of the Beneficiary's actual duties, the 
duties of his claimed subordinates, and consistent information supporting the nature of the foreign 
entity, we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary performed duties in a managerial or executive 
capacity for the foreign entity during any time period prior to entering the United States. The record 
is deficient in this regard. For this additional reason, the petition may not be approved. 
VI. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above 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 of A-H-E-G- Corp., ID# 8844 (AAO Oct. 4, 2016) 
16