dismissed L-1A Case: Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-S-E-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 13,2016 
CERTIFICATION OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a gas station and convenience store, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its 
president/CEO 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 an executive or 
managerial capacity. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, originally denied the petition on four alternate grounds. The 
Petitioner subsequently filed an appeal with this office. Upon de novo review, we withdrew the 
Director's decision and remanded the matter to the Director with instructions to request additional 
evidence and enter a new decision that was to be certified to us if adverse to the Petitioner. 
The Director complied with those instructions and issued a new decision on April 20, 2016, denying 
the petition on the grounds raised in our remand decision. Specifically, the Director found that the 
evidence of record did not establish that: (1) the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the 
foreign entity; (2) the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United 
States; (3) the Beneficiary had one year of continuous full-time employment abroad in the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition; and ( 4) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity. The record shows that the Petitioner has not provided any further evidence or 
information addressing the April 20, 2016, decision that has been certified to this office for review. 
Upon review, we will affirm the Director's decision and deny the petition. 
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. 
Matter ofG-S-E-, Inc. 
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. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The Director denied the petition, in part, based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that it 
has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
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: 
(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) of this section; 
(2) Is or will be doing business (engaging in international trade is not 
required) as an employer in the United States and in at least one other 
country directly or through a parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary for 
the duration of the alien's stay in the United States as an intracompany 
transferee[.] 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofG-S-E-, Inc. 
(I) Parent means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity which has subsidiaries. 
(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 of 
the entity, but in fact controls the entity. 
A. Evidence of Record 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-129 on March 22, 2013. On the L Classification Supplement to Form 
I-129, the Petitioner identified the Beneficiary's last foreign employer as The 
Petitioner indicated that the foreign and U.S. companies have a parent-subsidiary relationship and 
simply stated India," where asked to describe the stock ownership and control 
of each company on the Form I-129. 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner submitted its Articles of Incorporation, dated March 5, 2013, 
indicating that it is authorized to issue 1000 shares of stock. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) advising the Petitioner that the evidence submitted 
was insufficient to establish the ownership and control of the U.S. company. The Director instructed 
the Petitioner to submit evidence of its qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a letter from the foreign entity, dated August 6, 2013, 
indicating that it was written by however, the letter is not signed. The 
letter states that the foreign entity "is 100% stockholder of [the Petitioner]." In support of this claim, 
the Petitioner submitted a stock certificate and stock ledger. The stock certificate, numbered 
"COM101," indicates that the Petitioner· issued 1000 shares of its stock, without par value, to 
on April 28, 2013. The stock ledger indicates that the Petitioner issued the 
foreign entity 1000 shares of stock on April28, 2013 and on stock certificate "COM1001." 
The Director originally denied the petition on January 17, 2014, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary's foreign employer and the U.S. company are qualifying organizations. 
The Director's conclusion was based on a finding that the terms of the Petitioner's lease agreement 
impacted its ability to control the operation of the company. We withdrew the Director's finding, but 
instructed the Director, on remand, to request additional evidence to establish that the foreign entity 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofG-S-E-, Inc. 
had actually purchased the lOOO shares of the Petitioner's stock, as stated on the share certificate 
provided. 
On remand, the Director issued a second RFE advising the Petitioner that the evidence submitted was 
insufficient to establish the ownership and control of the U.S. company due to the discrepancy in the 
certificate numbers and the· lack of supporting evidence to show that the foreign entity paid for its 
claimed shares. The Director instructed the Petitioner to submit evidence to overcome these 
deficiencies. 
In response to the second RFE, the Petitioner stated that the inconsistent certificate numbers appearing 
on the stock certificate and stock ledger were a typographical error and the correct certificate number is 
reflected on the actual certificate. The Petitioner contended that "this typographical error is not fatal to 
the approvability of the Petitioner nor does it negate the ownership of the stock since the copy of the 
actual certificate is in the record and clearly shows the number." The Petitioner asserted that evidence 
of the transfer of funds was previously submitted for the record. 
The Petitioner submitted copies of what appear to be two wire transfer receipts from 
of Texas. Both receipts have the same numbers and are dated 
December 23, 2009. Both receipts show that in 
Texas received the transferred funds ($4995.00), and both receipts have a handwritten note stating 
"Remittance towards personal gifts and donations." The two receipts are almost identical, except one 
bears a typewritten "IN-WIRE FM" name of and on the other, the "IN-
WIRE FM" name has been obscured, and the name' has been handwritten in its 
place. 
The Director denied the petition and certified it to us for review on April 20, 2016, concluding, in part, 
that the Petitioner did not establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. In 
denying the petition, the Director found that the certificate and the ledger are not sufficient evidence to 
show ownership and control as the Petitioner did not provide sufficient corroborating evidence of the 
stock purchase. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
established that it has a qualifying affiliate 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. Matter of Church Scientology Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593; see also 
Matter ofSiemens Medical Sys., Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 
289 (Comm'r 1982). In the context ofthis visa petition, 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 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ofG-S-E-, Inc. 
direct or indirect legal right and authority to direct the establishment, management, and operations of 
an entity. Matter of Church Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
Here, the Petitioner claimed that it is 100% owned and controlled by the foreign entity. The only 
evidence the Petitioner provided of said ownership was a stock certificate and a stock ledger, both 
stating that the petitioning U.S. company issued 1000 shares of stock to the foreign entity. As general 
evidence of a petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship, stock certificates alone are not sufficient 
evidence to determine whether a stockholder maintains 
ownership and control of a corporate entity. 
The corporate stock certificate ledger, stock certificate registry, corporate bylaws, and the minutes of 
relevant annual shareholder meetings 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 actual control ofthe entity. See Matter ofSiemens Medical Systems, Inc., 19 
I&N Dec. 1632. Without full disclosure of all relevant documents, USCIS is unable to determine the 
elements of ownership and control. 
The regulations specifically allow the director to request additional evidence in appropriate cases. See 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(viii). As ownership is a critical element of this visa classification, the Director 
reasonably inquired beyond the issuance of paper stock certificates into the means by which stock 
ownership was acquired. 
The Petitioner attempted to provide evidence of the foreign entity's stock purchase by way of a wire 
transfer from December 2009. However, there are several concerns raised by these wire transfer 
receipts. First, the receipts show that the funds were transferred to 
not to the petitioning U.S. company. Second, the receipts are dated 
December 23, 2009, while the petitioning U.S. company was established in March 2013. Tllird, the 
receipts clearly state "remittance towards personal gifts and donations," rather than referencing the 
purchase of any stock. And fourth, the Petitioner submitted two different versions of the same receipt, 
one of which had been altered and neither of which identified the foreign entity as the originator of the 
transferred funds. These inconsistencies raise doubts as to the validity of the documentation provided 
to demonstrate the petitioning U.S. company's ownership and control. Doubt cast on any aspect of the 
Petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the 
remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 
1988). The Petitioner did not provide probative evidence of the foreign entity's purchase of the 
Petitioner's stock. 
Further, in its response to the second RFE, the Petitioner referred to the Beneficiary as the "prime 
owner" of the petitioning company. This statement raises additional concerns in regards to the U.S. 
company's actual ownership and control and undermines its claim that the Petitioner is wholly owned 
by the foreign entity. 
5 
Matter ofG-S-E-, Inc. 
For these reasons, the evidence of record does not establish that the Petitioner has a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director denied the petition, in part, based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the 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 supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the 
organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the 
authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions 
(such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly 
supervised, functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or 
with respect to the function managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function 
for which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is not considered 
to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's 
supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) ofthe 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. 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter ojG-S-E-, Inc. 
Finally, if staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a 
managerial or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must take into 
account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of 
development ofthe organization. Section 101(a)(44)(C) ofthe Act. 
A. Evidence of Record 
The Petitioner filed the Form 1-129 on March 22, 2013 and stated that it would operate as a "retailer 
and wholesaler of miscellaneous consumer goods." On the L Classification Supplement to Form I-
129, where asked to describe the Beneficiary's proposed duties in the United States, the Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary "will continue to work as President/Director. Will be responsible for overall 
operation of the company and continue to function in the same capacity as oflast three years." 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from the foreign entity dated March 18, 2013, stating that the 
Beneficiary "will have full authority and responsibility to establish, build and manage the business in a 
manner, which is in line with the company's interest and complies with the local rules and 
regulations." 
The Petitioner submitted a job description for the Beneficiary's position and listed the names of both 
the foreign entity and the petitioning U.S. company, 1 stating that he would devote 40% of his time to 
financial responsibilities, such as maintaining the enterprise on sound financial footing, making 
deposits and timely payments to international suppliers, arranging working capital necessary to 
purchase inventory, arranging payment of employee salaries, and arranging payment of running 
expenses of the operation; 40% of his time to operational responsibilities, such as inventory 
management, personnel managemert, and premises management; and 20% of .his time to regulatory 
responsibilities, such as ensuring that all relevant licenses have been obtained and remain current, 
ensuring proper procedures for maintenance of books of accounts, and ensuring proper calculation of 
taxes and timely payments to the local, provincial, and federal government of India. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of business activities for a company called 
which is located in Florida and does business as but 
it did not explain the significance of this evidence. On the Form I -129, the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary would be working at m Florida and listed this 
same address as his current residential address. 
1 The Petitioner did not indicate whether this list of job duties specifically pertains to the Beneficiary's position abroad or 
proposed position in the United States. However, the Petitioner consistently refers to this list of job duties when 
discussing the Beneficiary's proposed employment in the United States throughout its letters in the record. Therefore, 
we will consider this a description of his proposed U.S. position. 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter ofG-S-E-, Inc. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted additional letters, including a new letter 
from the foreign entity, describing the Beneficiary's proposed duties in similar terms. The Petitioner 
stated that in the initial phase of the U.S. business, the Beneficiary will hire three subordinate 
supervisors for operations, marketing and procurement, as well as store clerks, cashiers and 
inventory handlers. The Petitioner submitted job descriptions for the proposed positions of 
marketing manager, operations manager, and procurement manager and stated that these employees, 
once hired, would report to the Beneficiary. 
The Director originally denied the petition concluding, in part, that the Petitioner did not meet the 
regulatory requirements for a new office petition. On remand, we found that the Petitioner did not 
establish that it qualifies as a new office 
and instead must show that it was able to support the 
Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity as of the date of filing. 
In the second RFE, the Director instructed the Petitioner to submit evidence to overcome the 
deficiencies in the record. In response, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "is the driving force 
behind the proposed operation." The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "will have to wear many 
hats" as the CEO of the U.S. company and provided examples from other sources as evidence that an 
executive position must be flexible and may involve operational tasks 
depending on the size of the 
organization. The Petitioner also submitted a "non-exhaustive and partial list" of examples of the 
Beneficiary's proposed activities for the U.S. company in its initial phase, such as monitoring 
business 
performance and expanding into other markets/areas; making decisions to diversify offered 
products and services in the retail locations; making personnel decisions, including hiring, training, 
retention, performance review, and promotions; conceptualizing, designing, and executing the look 
and feel of the retail outlets; creating, negotiating, and maintaining vendor relations; making product 
selections; setting pricing, credit terms, product display policies, and all related issues to maximize 
product offerings; and determining and executing marketing strategies to increase community 
involvement, product offerings, customer traffic, and customer retention. 
The Petitioner submitted a copy of a bachelor of arts degree from the for 
and an evaluation of her credentials from a Canadian university stating that her degrees are 
equivalent to a four-year bachelor's degree at a reputable Canadian university. The Petitioner 
provided evidence that it employed in 2013 and 2014, but 
did not provide her job title or 
job duties in support of the petition. 
The Petitioner submitted its 2014 IRS Form 1120S, U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation, 
indicating that it earned $870,334 in gross receipts or sales and paid $20,000 in salaries and wages 
during 2014. The Petitioner also submitted its IRS Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax 
Return, for the fourth quarter of2013, indicating that it had one employee and paid $7500 in wages, 
tips, and other compensation during that period. 
The Petitioner submitted an IRS Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, for 2013 indicating that 
earned $7500 in wages, tips, and other compensation from the U.S. company during 2013. 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter ofG-S-E-, Inc. 
The Petitioner also submitted a Form W-2 for 2014 indicating that 
wages, tips, and other compensation from the U.S. company during 2014. 
earned $20,000 in 
The Director denied the petition and certified it to us for review concluding, in part, that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity in the United States. The Director noted that the Petitioner demonstrated that the 
Beneficiary will function at a senior level within the company, but did not demonstrate that he will 
primarily perform managerial duties consistent with the statutory definition. The Director further 
found that since the Petitioner has only one employee, the Beneficiary would be handling the day-to­
day tasks of operating the business rather than performing managerial or executive duties. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United 
States. 
As a preliminary matter, we note that, in response to the second RFE, the Petitioner refers to itself as 
a new office. However, on remand, we found that the Petitioner, which claimed to have at least one 
affiliate that had been operating in the United States for more than one year at the time of filing, does 
not qualify as a new office as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F), and instead must show that it 
was able to support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity when it filed this petition. 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the Beneficiary, we will look first to the 
Petitioner's description ofthejob 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 an executive or a managerial capacity. !d. 
The definitions of executive and managerial capacity each have two parts. First, the Petitioner must 
show that the beneficiary performs 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 that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial or executive duties, 
as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family 
Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
Here, the Petitioner characterized the BenefiCiary's role as president/CEO and briefly described his 
duties in very 
broad terms, noting that he will be responsible for the overall operation of the company 
and will have full authority and responsibility to establish, build, and manage the business. The 
Petitioner also provided a brief job description indicating that the Beneficiary will devote 40% of his 
time to financial responsibilities, another 40% of his time to operational responsibilities, and the 
remaining 20% of his time to regulatory responsibilities. The Petitioner provided several tasks the 
Beneficiary will perform within each area of responsibility. However, some of those tasks, such as 
9 
Matter ofG-S-E-, Inc. 
maintaining an optimal level of inventory or making security arrangements, do not provide a clear 
picture of what he will actually be doing. In addition, other tasks demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
would be performing non-qualifying operational and administrative duties on a daily basis, such as 
making timely payments to suppliers, inventory management, vendor relations, ordering inventory, 
preparing work schedules, completing personnel files, lease negotiations, and ensuring that licenses are 
obtained. The Petitioner did not indicate how these duties qualify as managerial or executive. While 
these broadly described responsibilities may indicate the Beneficiary's senior level of authority within 
the company, the listed duties within each area of responsibility indicate that he will be involved in 
running the day-to-day operations of the business. 
In response to the second RFE, the Petitioner stated that executives, like the Beneficiary, must be 
flexible and perform additional operational duties depending on the size of the business. The 
Petitioner provided a new list of job duties for the Beneficiary's proposed position in the United States 
incorporating marketing-related duties that had not been previously described. However, the Petitioner 
did not clarify how these new marketing duties would fit into the previously provided job description 
that, again, had allocated percentages of the Beneficiary's time. Further, these newly listed marketing 
duties, coupled with the job description previously provided, indicate that the Beneficiary would be 
directly involved in the day-to-day routine sales and customer service tasks of the business. An 
employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is 
not considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See sections 
101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial 
or executive duties); see also Matter of Church Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm'r 
1988). 
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 petitioner's 
organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other 
employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, and 
any other factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a 
business. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See sections 10l(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 110l(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii). 
Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, 
professional, or managerial employees. Contrary to the common understanding of the word 
"manager," 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 10l(a)(44)(A)(iv) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(2). If 
a beneficiary directly 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. 8 C.F .R. § 
214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(B)(3). 
10 
Matter ofG-S-E-, Inc. 
Although the Petitioner stated that it would hire three subordinate supervisors and three to four lower­
level employees in the upcoming year, the record reflects that it had no employees at the time of filing 
and therefore it cannot support a claim that the Beneficiary would be employed as a personnel 
manager. The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition 
and must continue to be eligible for the benefit through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). A visa 
petition may not be approved at a future date after the Petitioner or Beneficiary becomes eligible under 
a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). 
The record does show that the Petitioner had one employee beginning in the fourth quarter of 2013 and 
throughout 2014, and it includes evidence that this individual possesses the equivalent of a bachelor's 
degree. However, the Petitioner did not provide her job title or job duties in support of its claim that 
she was hired as a professional. Regardless of whether or not the proposed subordinate positions 
require a professional degree or have supervisory or managerial responsibilities, as required by section 
101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary's duties, as of the 
date of filing, would primarily focus on the management of the organization and the supervision of 
qualifying managerial, professional, or supervisory employees. 
The Petitioner has not established, in the alternative, that the Beneficiary would be employed primarily 
as a "function manager." The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not 
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, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101 (a)( 44 )(A)(ii). The term "essential function" is not defined by statute or regulation. If a 
petitioner claims that the beneficiary is managing an essential function, the petitioner must clearly 
describe the duties to be performed in managing the essential function, i.e. identifies the function with 
specificity, articulates the essential nature of the function, and establishes the proportion of the 
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 the beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the 
beneficiary manages the function rather than performs the duties related to the function. 
In the instant matter, the Petitioner has not articulated a specific function that the Beneficiary would 
manage or provided evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary will primarily perform managerial 
duties related to a specific function. As noted, the Beneficiary's job duties include operational and 
administrative tasks required to run the day-to-day sales, customer service, and marketing operations 
of the business. The Beneficiary is not required to directly supervise subordinate staff if he manages 
an essential function of the U.S. company, but the Petitioner must nevertheless establish that someone 
other than the Beneficiary will be performing the day-to-day operational tasks inherent to the 
Petitioner's business. Here, the Petitioner did not provide any evidence of other employees to perform 
these duties for its retail store. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that it will employ the 
Beneficiary in a managerial capacity, specifically as a function manager. 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position within 
an organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the organization, and that 
ll 
Matter ofG-S-E-, Inc. 
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, a given 
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 the owner 
or sole managerial employee. The 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. While the definition of "executive 
capacity" does not require a petitioner to establish that the beneficiary supervises a subordinate staff 
comprised of managers, supervisors and professionals, we note again that it is the petitioner's burden 
to establish that someone other than the beneficiary carries out the day-to-day, non-executive functions 
of the organization. 
The Petitioner referred to the Beneficiary's proposed position as executive and stated that he will be 
performing executive tasks. However, the Petitioner has not provided evidence to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's proposed duties in the United States will primarily focus on the broad goals and policies 
of the organization rather than on its day-to-day operations. Other than a vague reference to "setting 
the long-term strategic direction of the business," which was not included in the list of duties that were 
allocated percentages of the Beneficiary's time, the job duties provided for the Beneficiary's proposed 
position in the United States do not demonstrate that the Beneficiary will focus the majority of his time 
on executive duties rather than the day-to-day operations of the business. 
Additionally, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that there will be other employees at the U.S. company 
to relieve the Beneficiary from performing the day-to-day routine operational and administrative tasks 
of the business, so that he can focus on directing the management of the organization and establishing 
the goals and policies of the organization. The Petitioner correctly observes 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). However, it is appropriate for 
USC IS 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 fails to believe that the facts asserted are true. See Systronics, 153 F. 
Supp. 2d at 15. 
The Petitioner is doing business as a gas station and convenience store but the record does not support 
a finding that the Beneficiary would be relieved from performing day-to-day routine tasks associated 
with operating the business. While the Petitioner indicated a plan to hire up to seven employees within 
one year of filing, it had no employees at the time the petition was filed and in fact hired only one 
12 
(b)(6)
Matter ojG-S-E-, Inc. 
employee in the 21 months that followed. The Petitioner has not shown how a staff of one employee 
would relieve the Beneficiary from significant involvement in the day-to-day operation of a gas station 
and convenience store which is likely open for business seven days per week. 
The Petitioner further refers to several unpubli.shed decisions in which we determined that the 
beneficiary met the requirements of serving in a managerial and executive capacity for L-1 
classification even though he was the sole employee. The Petitioner has furnished no evidence to 
establish 
that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in the unpublished decisions. 
While 8 C.P.R.§ 103.3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees 
in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
Based on the deficiencies and inconsistencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
IV. ONE YEAR OF EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
The Director denied 
the petition, in part, based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary had one year of continuous full-time employment abroad with a qualifying entity in the 
three-year period preceding the filing of the petition, pursuant to 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(A) states: 
Intracompany transferee means an alien who, within three years preceding the time of 
his or her application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad 
continuously for one year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or parent, 
branch, affiliate, or subsidiary thereof, and who seeks to enter the United States 
temporarily in order to render his or her services to a branch ofthe 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 of Record 
On the Form I-129, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's "date oflast arrival" to the United States 
was July 27, 2008 and his current nonimmigrant status 
was that of a "visitor," valid until March 22, 
2013. On the L Classification Supplement to Form 1-129, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary was 
employed by 
the foreign entity, from January 1, 2004 to May 27, 2011. Where 
asked to explain any interruptions in the Beneficiary's employment, the Petitioner stated "currently on 
assignment in the USA." Finally, the Petitioner did not respond where asked to list the Beneficiary's 
13 
(b)(6)
Matter ofG-S-E-, Inc. 
previous stays in the United States in an H or L status. In its initial letter of support, the Petitioner 
again stated that the Beneficiary has worked as the general manager and CEO of the foreign entity 
since its inception in 2004. 
The Petitioner submitted a Deed of Partnership indicating that the foreign entity was established in 
Pakistan on January 5, 2005. The Petitioner also submitted a letter from Chartered 
Accountant, dated January 9, 2009, who stated the following regarding the Beneficiary's employment 
with the foreign entity: 
This is to certify that [the Beneficiary] is running Item shops on 
the Firm Name since last 10 years. He is running the shop in 
an excellent manner and this shop is one of most famous and reputed shop [sic] for 
electrical and electronic items. 
In the first RFE, the Director advised the Petitioner that the evidence submitted was insufficient to 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary has been employed by the foreign entity since 2004. The Director 
instructed the Petitioner to submit evidence that the Beneficiary was employed full time by a 
qualifying foreign entity for one continuous year within the three-year 
period preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted the exact same letter detailed above from 
new date of January 9, 2013. The Petitioner also submitted a new letter from 
7, 2013, certifying that the Beneficiary "has worked with 
manager for the period from January 1, 2002 to June 30, 2008." 
with a 
dated July 
as the 
The Petitioner submitted copies of hand written "salary receipts" issued to the Beneficiary for the 
months of January through December of 2012, all issued in January 2012, and for the months of 
January to June of2013, all issued in January 2013. 
The Director originally denied the petition concluding, in part, that the Petitioner did not establish that 
the Beneficiary had at least one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying 
organization. In remanding the petition, we found that, if the Petitioner could establish that it has a 
qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's prior L-1 employers, it may be able to establish that the 
Beneficiary's period of stay in L-1 A status for those employers would not be deemed interruptive for 
purposes of determining whether he met the one year foreign employment requirement.2 We also 
2 Although the petitioner did not indicate any prior periods of stay in the United States in L status on the Form 1-129, 
USC IS records reflect that the beneficiary has been granted L-1 A status on two previous occasions since his initial 
admission as a B-2 nonimmigrant in July 2008. The Beneficiary was granted L-1 A status from February II, 2009 to 
January 24, 20 I 0, based on a petition filed by The 
14 
(b)(6)
Matter ofG-S-E-, Inc. 
found that the Petitioner submitted contradictory statements regarding the Beneficiary's dates of 
employment at the foreign entity. Specifically, we noted several discrepancies in the dates listed on 
the Form I-129 and between the various letters of support, such that we were not able to determine the 
Beneficiary's actual dates of employment at the foreign entity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submitted evidence of ownership for one of 
the Beneficiary's prior L-1 employers, by way of a stock certificate and stock ledger. The stock 
certificate, numbered "COM 101," indicates that issued 1000 shares of 
stock, without par value, to on April28, 2010. The stock ledger indicates that 
issued the foreign entity 1000 shares of stock on April 28, 2010, and on 
stock 
certificate "COM1001." 
In the second RFE, the Director instructed the Petitioner to submit evidence to overcome and clarify 
the deficiencies and discrepancies in the record. In response, the Petitioner stated that the foreign 
entity operated as a sole proprietorship concern prior to being converted into a partnership on 
January 5, 2005. The Petitioner also stated that its "qualifying relationship with 
and is established by virtue of the common 
ownership due to the involvement of [the Beneficiary] as the prime owner of the same." The 
Petitioner further stated that all of the documentation provided to establish that the Beneficiary was 
employed by the foreign entity for one continuous year clearly covers the three-year period 
immediately preceding February 11, 2009. 
The Petitioner submitted another letter from dated September 29, 2015, stating that 
the Beneficiary served as the general manager/CEO at the foreign entity from January 9, 1999 to 
June 30, 2008. The letter explained that the two previously submitted letters mentioned the same date 
range but made some errors regarding the length of employment (10 years) which led to the confusion 
mentioned on remand. · 
The Petitioner submitted the foreign entity's "salary sheet" for the peri9d January 13, 2007 to 
December 13, 2007. The document shows that the Beneficiary was paid an amount of 22500 per 
month in the position of"manager-CEO." 
The Director denied the petition and certified it to us for review concluding, in part, that the Petitioner 
did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed full time by a qualifying foreign entity for one 
continuous year within the three-year period preceding the filing of the petition. In denying the 
petition, the Director found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that it has a qualifying relationship 
with the Beneficiary's prior L-1 employers. The Director found that the Beneficiary was last 
Beneficiary was also granted L-lA status from April 27, 2011 to April 26, 2012 based on a petition filed by 
15 
(b)(6)
Matter ofG-S-E- , Inc. 
employed by the foreign entity in June 2008, which was five years prior to the filing of the instant 
petition. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary was employed by a qualifying foreign entity for one continuous year 
within the relevant three-year time period. 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-129 on March 22, 2013, and the Beneficiary has been in the United 
States since July 27, 2008. However, the beneficiary was previously granted L-1A status from 
February 11, 2009 to January 24, 2010 based on a petition filed by 
and again from April 27, 2011 to April 26, 2012 based on a petition filed by 
On remand, the Director advised the Petitioner that if it could establish that it 
has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's prior L-1 employers, it may be able to establish 
that the Beneficiary's period of stay in L-1 A status for those employers would not be deemed 
interruptive of his period of employment abroad. 
The Petitioner Sl!bmitted a stock certificate and stock ledger indicating that the foreign entity has an 
ownership stake in which could support its claim that this entity is its 
affiliate. However, the record contains no evidence of the ownership of 
the Beneficiary's initial L-1A employer. Further, as discussed above the petitioning 
U.S. company's qualifying relationship to the foreign entity has not been established through sufficient 
evidence. Nevertheless, even if we concluded that the Beneficiary's period of employment with 
was employment for a qualifying entity, the period between the 
Beneficiary's admission to the United States and his commencement of employment for 
was nearly three years and would be deemed interruptive of any qualifying employment with the 
foreign entity. See 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(A). 
In the instant matter, the Petitioner has shown that the Beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity 
prior to his date oflast arrival to the United States on July 27, 2008, and that he has not maintained his 
continuous lawful status for a qualifying organization in the intervening five years preceding the filing 
of the instant petition. As such, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was employed 
full-time by a qualifying foreign entity for one continuous year within the three-year 
period preceding 
the filing of the petition. 
V. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director denied the petition, in part, based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity in a managerial or executive capacity. 
16 
Matter ofG-S-E-, Inc. 
A. Evidence ofRecord 
On the L Classification Supplement to Form I-129, where asked to describe the Beneficiary's duties 
abroad for the three years preceding the filing of the petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
"acted as President/Director. Responsible for operation of a[ n] electronics and other appliances 
distribution establishment." 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from the foreign entity, dated March 18, 2013, stating that the 
Beneficiary has been employed since the company's inception as its general manager and CEO. The 
letter states that the Beneficiary is authorized to make day-to-day and long-term strategic decisions and 
has been responsible for directing the management of the organization and establishing the goals and 
policies ofthe company. 
The Petitioner submitted the foreign entity's organizational chart, depicting the Beneficiary as general 
manager, reporting directly to the president. The chart shows that the Beneficiary supervised a finance 
manager, a procurement manager, a marketing and sales manager, and a customer service manager, 
along with "temporary staff and labors as per ongoing needs (5-7 persons)." The chart also shows that 
each manager had one subordinate office assistant and one subordinate "outdoor assistant." The 
organizational chart further stated that the management positions required a bachelor's degree. 
In the RFE, the Director instructed the Petitioner to submit evidence that the Beneficiary's position 
abroad was in a managerial or executive capacity. In response, the Petitioner submitted a letter from 
the foreign entity, dated August 6, 2013, stating that the Beneficiary was the managing partner at the 
foreign entity, entrusted with senior level functions in the organization and charged with the 
responsibility and authority to make day-to-day and long-term strategic decisions on the foreign 
entity's behalf. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary was responsible for directing the 
management of the organization and for establishing its goals and policies. 
The Director originally denied the petition concluding, in part, that the Petitioner did not establish that 
the Beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity in a managerial or executive capacity. In 
remanding the petition, we found that the Petitioner's descriptions of the Beneficiary's position abroad 
were too broad to demonstrate his actual daily duties and mostly paraphrased the statutory definition of 
executive capacity. We further found that although the foreign entity's organizational chart 
specifically stated that the subordinate management positions require a bachelor's degree and the 
subordinate clerical positions require an associate's degree, the Petitioner did not provide any position 
descriptions for the subordinate positions to show that the positions are professional, supervisory, or 
managerial in nature. Finally, we found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the foreign entity 
actually employed any of the listed subordinates or that they actually have the professional degrees 
listed as requirements in the organizational chart. 
17 
Matter ofG-S-E-, Inc. 
In the second RFE, the Director instructed the Petitioner to submit evidence to overcome the 
deficiencies in the record. In response, the Petitioner stated that since the Beneficiary was one of two 
partners with a 50% stake in the foreign entity, he was one of the two executives in the business. 
The Petitioner submitted a different organizational chart for the foreign entity, depicting the 
Beneficiary at the top tier of the hierarchy as the CEO/manager, supervising two senior managers, who 
supervise a junior manager and an electrician. The organizational chart states that the Beneficiary has 
a master's degree in commerce and the rest of his subordinate staff were "high school graduates." The 
organizational chart also includes a brieflist of job duties for each of the positions as follows: 
CEO/Manager - Manages the company and keeps the company running. Signs 
contracts with product vendors. He also monitors the company budget and makes 
executive decisions like changing suppliers and business expansions. 
Senior Managers - Manage all lower level employees and keep the business running. 
They also perform duties on the daily schedule and makes sure to look at the 
customers' complaints and requests. 
Junior managers/electricians - These employees tend to the shop and work under the 
orders of the Senior managers and the CEO. They perform repairs on the customers' 
items if needed and show them how the electronic item works. 
The Petitioner submitted a salary chart for the foreign entity's employees from January to 
December 2014, showing that it employed two senior managers, two junior managers, and two 
electricians during that period. 
The Director denied the petition and certified it to us for review concluding, in part, that the Petitioner 
did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity in a managerial or executive 
capacity. In denying the petition, the Director found that the Beneficiary's listed duties abroad are 
broad and do not demonstrate executive or managerial duties. The Director found that the fact that the 
Beneficiary is at the top of the hierarchy on the foreign entity's organizational chart is not sufficient to 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary was employed as an executive or manager. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity in a managerial or executive 
capacity. The Petitioner refers to the Beneficiary's position abroad as executive. As a result, we will 
evaluate the Beneficiary's position exclusively under the criteria for executive capacity. 
The Petitioner characterized the Beneficiary's role at the foreign entity as general manager/CEO and 
briefly stated that he was authorized to make day-to-day and long-term strategic decisions and 
18 
Matter of G-S-E-, Inc. 
established the goals and policies of the company. The Petitioner initially did not provide any 
additional information pertaining to the Beneficiary's foreign employment. The brief description 
provided simply paraphrases the statute for executive capacity and does not establish that the 
Beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity in an executive or managerial capacity. In response to 
the RFE, the Petitioner again paraphrased the statute for executive capacity and stated that the 
Beneficiary was in charge of the strategic operation, in addition to his involvement in day-to-day 
operations, was responsible for directing the management of the organization, and for establishing its 
goals and policies. Again, these statements do not provide any insight as to what he actually did at the 
foreign entity on a routine basis. The Petitioner did not provide a clear picture of how the Beneficiary 
spent his day at the foreign entity and what tasks he actually performed that would establish he was 
employed in an executive capacity. 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. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 
(S.D.N.Y.). 
In response to the first RFE, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary supervised all projects 
undertaken by the company from start to finish and had the authority to make all decisions. In 
response to the second RFE, the organizational chart submitted stated that, as CEO/manager, the 
Beneficiary signed contracts with product vendors, monitored the company budget, and made 
decisions such as changing suppliers and business expansions. Here, it appears that the Beneficiary 
performed some of the non-qualifying routine operational and administrative tasks required to continue 
operations. The Petitioner, again, did not indicate how these duties are executive in nature and did not 
provide sufficient information about the actual tasks he performed to demonstrate that he was 
employed in an executive capacity. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (quoting Matter of Treasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1972)). 
Further, the Petitioner made a vague reference to the Beneficiary's involvement and guidance in day­
to-day operations, but did not provide any additional information clarifying what that means or what it 
includes in terms of the Beneficiary's position and duties. The Petitioner's blanket statement raises 
questions about his involvement in non-qualifying operational tasks and how much time he devoted to 
non-qualifying duties and executive duties. Based on the current record, we are unable to determine 
whether the claimed executive duties constituted the majority of the Beneficiary's duties, or whether 
the Beneficiary primarily performed non-executive administrative or operational duties. The 
Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's job duties does not establish what proportion of the 
Beneficiary's duties was executive in nature, and what proportion was actually non-executive. See 
Republic ofTranskei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1991). 
Again, 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 
19 
Matter ofG-S-E-, Inc. 
Petitioner's organizational structure, the duties of the Beneficiary's subordinate employees, the 
presence of other employees to relieve the Beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature 
of the Petitioner's business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a Beneficiary's 
actual duties and role in a business. 
The Petitioner provided two different organizational charts for the foreign entity. The first 
organizational chart indicated that the Beneficiary supervised a finance manager, a procurement 
manager, a marketing and sales manager, and a customer service manager, who in tum each supervised 
subordinate personnel. It also indicated that these management positions require a bachelor's degree. 
The second organizational chart indicated that the Beneficiary supervised two senior managers, who 
supervise a junior manager and an electrician. The Petitioner did not provide an explanation for the 
changes in the foreign entity's structure, or provide sufficient evidence of who actually worked for the 
company during the Beneficiary's employment abroad or what duties they performed during the 
relevant time period preceding the Beneficiary's last entry to the United States in 2008. As such, the 
Petitioner has not resolved these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth lies. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Accordingly, we conclude that the. Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary's duties 
primarily focused on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than on its day-to-day 
operations. As noted above, the Petitioner did not submit a detailed description of the Beneficiary's 
foreign position sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary's daily routine consisted of primarily 
executive duties, nor did it provide evidence that the foreign entity had sufficient staff to relieve the 
Beneficiary from performing non-qualifying operational and administrative duties at the foreign entity. 
Based on the deficiencies and inconsistencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity in a managerial or executive capacity. 
VI. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The initial decision of the Director, Vermont Service Center, dated April 20, 2016, is 
affirmed, and the petition is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofG-S-E-, Inc., ID# 8027 (AAO Sept. 13, 2016) 
20