dismissed L-1A Case: Shipping

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-G-T- CO. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 27,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a shipping company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as the executive 
director of its new office under the L-1A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The L-1A classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to 
transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to work temporarily in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record did not establish that: (1) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a 
managerial or executive capacity; (2) the Petitioner had secured sufficient physical premises to begin 
doing business; and (3) the Petitioner will be able to employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or 
executive capacity within 1 year after the approval of the petition. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence 
(some previously submitted) and a brief in which the Petitioner asserts that it had met its burden of 
proof, and that the Director erred by requiring information beyond what the regulations require. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge 
((apacity, for 1 continuous year '7'ithin 3 years preceding the Beneficiary's application for admission 
into the United States. In addition, under section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Act, 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. 
The term "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States 
for less than 1 year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F). If the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker, indicates that the Beneficiary is coming to the United States in L-1A status to open or to be 
Matter of H-G-T- Co. 
employed in a new office, the Petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new office 
will be able to support a managerial or-executive position within 1 year. This evidence includes 
information regarding the new office's physical premises, the proposed nature and scope of the 
entity, its organizational structure, its financial goals, and the size of the U.S. investment. See 
generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
II. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director denied the petition based, in part, on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that 
the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii)(v)(B) states that the Petitioner must submit evidence that 
the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for 1 continuous 
year in the 3-year period preceding the filing of the petition. 
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 
(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. 
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) 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; 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-G- T- Co. 
(iii) exercises wide latit~de 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 of the overall purpose and stage of development of 
the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(C) ofthe Act. 
A. Duties 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of the Beneficiary, we will look first to the 
Petitioner's description of the job duties. The Petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly 
describe the duties performed by the Beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in a 
managerial or executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
The record reflects that the Beneficiary's foreign employer, based in the region oflraq, is 
Translated official documents 
identify the Beneficiary as "the authorized manager of the company." A "general summary" on the 
Beneficiary's resume stated that the "company offers services for import, export, customs clearance 
and shipping for the Arab States and foreign countries and airline reservations, hotels and tourist 
organize a group for the entire world" [sic]. has ot1ices in the United Arab Emirates and 
China. 
The Beneficiary's resume identified him as executive director , and the company's articles 
of association indicate that he owns a 50% interest in the company. A letter from the general 
chairman of referred to the Beneficiary as 
"authorized man[ a ]ger," and a certificate shows that the Beneficiary "[p ]articipated in the 
workshop of Leadership · and Strategical Planning" at the 
These documents linked the Beneficiary to the company but did 
not explain his role therein. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), stating that the Petitioner's initial submission did 
not include a description of the Beneficiary 's day-to-day duties at The Director asked for 
payroll documentation to confirm the Beneficiary's continuous employment abroad and additional 
information to show that the Beneficiary's duties qualified as either managerial or executive. 
In response, the Petitioner listed the following staff in Iraq: 
1 The stated name is taken from the company 's printed letterhead. The record includes several alternative translations of 
the foreign compan y's full name . 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-G-T- Co. 
• General Manager (the Beneficiary) 
• Assistant Manager 
• Logistics Manager 
• Marketing Manager 
• Marketing Person 
• Warehouse Manager 
• Assistant to Warehouse Manager 
• Four Laborers (subordinate to Warehouse Manager) 
• Accountant 
• Secretary 
Writing in his capacity as 
Beneficiary stated that he: 
general manager, and referring to himself in the third person, the 
[W]orks directly with the Warehouse Manager, Logistics Manager, and Accountant 
on a daily basis, and their primary duties [are] to monitor and report all activities to 
him. He directly supervises their work and ensures that client goals are met. 
primarily deals in logistics, specifically the transportation of goods 
from China to Iraq (primarily to and 1. 
[The Beneficiary] meets with clients after his secretary does the initial intake and 
schedules the meetings for him. Upon meeting with the client, he makes the 
determination as to whether the company is able to undertake the project and then he 
properly assigns the job to the appropriate staff member. [The Beneficiary] also 
works with the marketing manager to make sure advertisement of their services is 
placed in local newspapers, online, and on television. 
The Beneficiary also cited "the duties of a chief executive" as described by the U.S. Department of 
Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. 
The Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary's resume includes a job description, but that document 
consists primarily of an overview of the foreign company, with no discussion of the Beneficiary's 
specific role therein except the annotation that he is the executive director. 
The Director denied the petition, in part because the job description did not contain enough 
information about the Beneficiary's duties. The Director noted that the Beneficiary claimed to be a 
"chief executive" while also citing duties that are more akin to those of a personnel manager. The 
Director stated that the Petitioner cannot establish eligibility with a "hybrid" position that combines 
some elements of a managerial capacity with some elements of an executive capacity; the 
Beneficiary's position must meet every element of either a managerial or an executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states: clearly described [the Beneficiary's] duties and role in the 
Iraqi office, and the Service merely copied and pasted sections to use as a basis of justifying what is 
4 
iifatter of H-G-T- Co. 
an incorrect decision." The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary has the broad discretionary 
authority of an executive, while also performing a managerial function by controlling and 
supervising the work of professional subordinates. Therefore, the Petitioner contends that the 
Director erred in concluding that "the beneficiary may not claim to be employed as a hybrid 
'executive/manager.'" 
The Petitioner does not clarify whether it claims that the Beneficiary has been primarily engaged in 
managerial duties under section 101(a)(44)(A) ofthe Act, or primarily executive duties under section 
101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. The Petitioner must clearly describe the Beneficiary's duties and indicate 
whether such duties are either in an executive or managerial capacity. The Petitioner must 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary's responsibilities meet all the requirements of one or the other 
capacity. It is for this reason that the Director stated that the Beneficiary cannot occupy a "hybrid" 
position that meets only some elements of each type of capacity. 
Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive 
or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the 
regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afrd, 905 F.2d 
41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. !d. 
In this case, the Petitioner has provided minimal information about the Beneficiary's duties at the 
foreign company, except to state that he meets with clients, approves jobs, and ensures that the 
marketing director places advertisements. The description does not address his authority related to 
hiring and other personnel matters, which is a core element of managerial capacity, and it does not 
establish the extent to which the Beneficiary establishes the goals and policies of the organization, as 
required for executive capacity. The Beneficiary has essentially asserted that he runs the foreign 
company, without providing substantial evidence and information as to how he does so. The only 
specific duty attributed to him suggests that he is solely responsible for selling the company's 
services to clients, a task that is not shown to be managerial or executive in nature. 
First, the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary performs certain high-level responsibilities 
specified in the statutory definition of managerial or executive capacity. Champion World. Inc. v. 
Ll\fS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). Second, the Petitioner must 
prove that the Beneficiary is primarily engaged in managerial or executive duties, as opposed to 
ordinary operational activities alongside the foreign entity's other employees. See, e.g., Family Inc. 
v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533. The 
Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's job duties does not establish what proportion of the 
duties is managerial or executive in nature. See Republic £~l Transkei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 177 
(D.C. Cir. 1991). 
B. Staffing 
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 
5 
Matter of H-G- T- Co. 
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 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(1)(1 )(ii)(B)( 4). If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary directly supervises other employees, 
those subordinate employees must be supervisory, professional, or managerial, and the beneficiary 
must have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other 
personnel actions. Sections 101(a)(44)(A)(ii)-(iii) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(B)(2)-(3). 
The Petitioner has not provided enough information about the Beneficiary's duties or the roles of his 
subordinates to demonstrate that the Beneficiary primarily acts as a function manager or as a 
personnel manager of the foreign company. The Petitioner listed the foreign entity's employees by 
name and job title, but did not provide information regarding their duties or educational 
qualifications. Without this evidence, we cannot determine whether there are any supervisory, 
professional or managerial employees, nor can we discern whether the staff relieves the Beneficiary 
from involvement in the foreign entity's day-to-day operations. The Petitioner did not articulate or 
attempt to support a claim that the Beneficiary primarily manages a specific function of the 
company. 
Further, the Beneficiary's high level of authority at that company does not suffice to establish 
eligibility. The existence of a hierarchy of managers or supervisors under the Beneficiary's 
authority is not prima facie evidence that the Beneficiary primarily supervises the subordinates who 
are, themselves, supervisors or managers. In addition, as noted, the subordinates' job titles alone are 
sufficient to establish that their managerial or supervisory roles. · 
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. § !101(a)(44)(B). Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the 
management" and "establish the goals and policies" of that organization. Inherent to the definition, 
the organization must have a subordinate level of managerial employees for a beneficiary' to direct 
and a beneficiary must primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than 
the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. Again, the Petitioner has not provided enough 
information to show that the Beneficiary primarily directs the lower-level managers and otherwise 
directs the operation of the business, rather than primarily performing lesser tasks. 
6 
Matter of H-G- T- Co. 
Based on the deficiencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has 
been employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad. 
III. NEW OFFICE 
The remaining grounds for denial relate to the Petitioner's status as a new office. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A) requires the Petitioner to have secured sufficient physical premises to 
house the new office. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) requires the Petitioner to show 
that the intended United States operation, within 1 year of the approval of the petition, will support a 
managerial or executive position, supported by information regarding: 
(I) The proposed nature of the office describing the scope of the entity, its 
organizational structure, and its financial goals; 
(2) The size of the United States investment and the financial ability of the foreign 
entity to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business in the 
United States; and 
(3) The organizational structure of the foreign entity. 
When a new business is first established and commences operations, the regulations recognize that a 
designated manager or executive responsible for setting up operations will be engaged in a variety of 
low-level activities not normally performed by employees at the executive or managerial level and 
that often the full range of managerial responsibility cannot be performed in that first year. The 
"new office" regulations allow a newly established petitioner 1 year to develop to a point that it can 
support the employment of a beneficiary in a primarily managerial or executive position. The 
Petitioner's evidence should demonstrate a realistic expectation that the enterprise is prepared to 
commence business operations and rapidly expand as it moves away from the developmental stage 
to full operations, where there would be an actual need for a manager or executive who will 
primarily perform qualifying duties. 
A. Executive Capacity in the United States Within 1 Y ear2 
On Form I-129, the Petitioner indicated that it intends to operate a "transportation/logistics" business 
and had one U.S. employee at the time of filing. The Petitioner's initial submission showed that the 
Beneficiary owns a 60% interest in the petitioning company and sits on its board of directors, but 
otherwise the Petitioner provided no information about the new U.S. office or the Beneficiary's 
intended role in the company. 
2 
Early in the proceeding, the Petitioner did not specifY whether the Beneficiary would work in a managerial or executive 
capacity in the United States, but on appeal, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary's intended U.S. position would 
be that of an executive. Therefore, we need not examine the requirements for a managerial capacity. 
7 
D 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-G- T- Co. 
In the RFE, the Director asked for information about the new office, such as a list of intended 
positions with job descriptions, and documentation showing how the foreign company concluded 
that the new U.S. office would be able to support a managerial or executive position within a year: 
The Director suggested the following types of evidence: 
• A letter from the foreign entity describing the new U.S. company , indicating the proposed 
number of employees and types of positions they will hold, the amount of the U.S. 
investment , and explaining how the new office will support a managerial or executive 
position within a year; 
• A copy of a market research or feasibility study showing how the foreign company 
determined that the new U.S. office would support a managerial or executive position within 
a year; 
• A copy of the new office's business plan or executive summary, including a timetable for the 
first year's proposed activities; 
• Meeting minutes' from the foreign entity regarding the decision to open a new U.S. office; 
and 
• An organizational chart for the new U.S. office, with job descriptions and requirements for 
each position. 
In response, the Petitioner stated "the company's goals is to primarily serve the logistic needs of 
Iraqi nationals currently living in the United States by engaging in services such as shipping cars, 
clothes, trucks, heavy duty equipment, and charitable donations from 
the United States to Iraq." 
The Petitioner also submitted an unsigned statement on letterhead stating that the new 
U.S. office currently employs a secretary , and that, within the first year of operation, it intends to 
hire an assistant manager, an accountant, and a logistics manager. The Petitioner did not provide job 
descriptions for these positions. The statement further indicated that the company "also plans to rent 
a warehouse," for which it would hire a warehouse manager and a marketing manager, and use 
contract labor "to load and unload containers." 
In the Beneficiary's statement 
on behalf of he stated: 
[The Beneficiary] intends to hire the following positions in the United States within 
the first year: I) an Assistant ; 2) an Accountant; and 3) a Warehouse Manager. The 
company seeks to advertise in local newspapers for these open three (3) positions 
within the first few monoths of his arrival in the United States. [The Beneficiary] 
also plans to hire a Marketing Manager who will advertise their services in 
community and local newspapers. [The Beneficiary] will be directly responsible for 
overseeing all these positions. He will personally oversee their hiring and will work 
directly with each employee to ensure that their objectives are met and they are 
competent in their position before he departs the United States upon completion of his 
one (I) year assignment. 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-G- T- Co. 
The Beneficiary ' s other executive duties will involve handling financial obligations, 
· meeting with financial firms to prepare financial documents, reports and taxes, as 
well as, meeting with legal counsel to make sure service contracts were on terms 
favorable to [the Petitioner], and to ensure that they are in compliance with U.S. laws. 
[The Beneficiary] will directly train the chief operating oHicer to manage and run the 
U.S. office .... 
'· The two statements in the RFE response are not consistent with respect to the Petitioner's intended 
staffing. Most significantly, the Beneficiary referred to a chief operating officer, a position not 
mentioned on the unsigned statement , while the statement refers to an assistant 
manager, a position not mentioned in the Beneficiary's statement. As with the Beneficiary's foreign 
duties, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information about the duties the Beneficiary will 
perform in the United States. Instead, the emphasis has been on his oversight of duties to be 
performed by others . Concerning the training of the chief operating office r, employee training is not 
an executive function . 
Overall, the position description alone is insufficient to establish that a beneficiary ' s duties would be 
primarily in a managerial or executive capacity , particularly in the case of a new office petition 
where much is dependent on factors such as a petitioner's business and hiring plans and evidence 
that the business will grow sufficiently to support a beneficiary in the intended managerial or 
executive capacity. A petitioner has the burden to establish that it would realistically develop to the 
point where it would require the beneficiary to perform duties that are primarily managerial or 
executive in nature within 1 year. Accordingly , the totality of the record must be considered in 
analyzing whether the proposed duties are plausible considering a petitioner ' s anticipated stafting 
levels and stage of development within a 1-year period . See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
The Petitioner submitted copies of bank statements showing that the company received an 
international wire transfer for $209,950 on April 19, 2016, and a 
that contains very little information about the Petitioner except to say that the 
company began operations in 2016. This material establishes the existence and starting capital of the 
company, but does not address the Director ' s other stated concerns regarding the new office 's 
business plan. 
In the denial notice , the Director stated that the list of four cunent or prospective positions at the 
new office was not sufficient to show the natur e of their duties or establish how they would support 
the Petitioner's business operation. The Director also found that the submitted bank statements did 
not show that the funds were sufficient to start up the U.S. company or establish the foreign entity's 
ability to pay the Beneticiary and commence business in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner stated that the prospective "positions listed are pretty self-explanatory ," 
and that "[t]he regulations .. . do not require that the petitioner provide details regarding the nature 
of the proposed subordinate staffs duties and how they \vill support the compan y's business 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-G-T- Co. 
operations." The Petitioner adds that the regulations contemplate that, during the first year of a new 
office's existence, a beneficiary may temporarily have to perform non-qualifying functions. 
Regarding foreign funding and support, the Petitioner maintains that it has shown that the foreign 
company has provided a substantial sum to the new office, and that documented shipments to Iraq 
from the United States and Canada show an ongoing relationship between the Petitioner and the 
foreign entity. 
The regulations, as worded, require the Petitioner to submit information regarding "[t]he proposed 
nature of the office describing the scope of the entity, its organizational structure, and its financial 
goals." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(J). The Petitioner did not satisfy these requirements. A list of 
four subordinate positions does not establish the new office's organizational structure, and the 
Petitioner has not described the scope of the entity or its financial goals. The Petitioner has offered 
only the general assertion that it seeks to ship, or facilitate the shipment, of goods from the United 
States to Iraq. The Petitioner has received funds from overseas, but has not shown how these funds 
compare to the Petitioner's anticipated start-up costs and initial operating expenses. The Petitioner 
is required to disclose the size of the financial investment, but must also show hmv that investment is 
sufficient for the company to carry out its specific first-year business plans. See generally 8 C.F.R. 
214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(2). Without this information, we cannot determine whether it would even be 
feasible for the petitioner to hire the stated number of employees within the first year. 
For these reasons, the Director's request for a business plan, information regarding the proposed 
employees, and similar information describing the intended nature, scope, organizational structure 
and financial goals of the new office was reasonable and well within her discretion. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(viii) (providing that a service center director has the discretion to request "such other 
evidence ... he/she may deem necessary"). 
Due to the above deficiencies, we find that the Petitioner has not established that it would be able to 
employ the Beneficiary in an executive capacity within 1 year after approval of the petition. 
B. Sufficient Physical Premises 
As noted above, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(v)(A) requires the Petitioner to show that it 
has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office. The Director found that the 
Petitioner's evidence in this regard is insufficient and lacking in credibility. 
The Petitioner initially submitted a copy of a lease agreement, dated April 25, 2016. The agreement 
described the leased property as "a Leasable Area of 1100 square feet" at 
Illinois. (That same address is also the stated address of the landlord named on the lease 
agreement.) The lease agreement specified that the only "Permitted Use" of the property was as a 
"retail store." 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-G- T- Co. 
In the RFE, the Director stated that the Petitioner had not provided enough details to show that the 
leased space would be sufficient for the Petitioner to conduct its business. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted an unsigned statement indicating that the rented 
space "will be converted into open space cubicles for workers to sit in, and that the company "also 
plans to rent a warehouse" for which it would hire additional staff as described previously. The 
statement indicated that the Petitioner needs the warehouse as "a secure place to store cars, clothes , 
charitable donations to be sent to Iraq, trucks , and heavy duty equipment. " The Petitioner did not 
specify when it intended to rent the warehouse , but it did state that it intended to hire a warehouse 
manager "within the first year." 
The Petitioner submitted four photographs of its intended place of business: 
• An interior photograph of an empty and unfinished commercial space shows the address 
number visible through a window above a glass door that is largely blocked by a 
wooden panel. Vertical blinds obscure a plate glass window. 
• An exterior photograph shows part of a glass door. Decals on the door and an adjacent 
mailbox show the address number 
• A second exterior photograph shows a plate glass window with vertical blinds inside. To the 
left is another plate glass window, with nothing visible inside except a "For Rent" sign. To 
the right is a pharmacy, its windows filled by a promotional display. 
• A third exterior photograph shows the door numbered next to the window with vertical 
blinds, with the pharmacy visible to the right. 
In the denial notice, the Director noted that "the photographs show the interior of a space numbered 
and the exterior of a space numbered No explanation was provided to address this 
discrepancy." The Director also noted that the lease specifies that the tenant may only use the space 
for a "retail store." Finally, the Director found that, although the Petitioner stated that it will need 
warehouse space and employ a warehouse supervisor, the Petitioner had not secured a warehouse. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that all the photographs show the same space. Closer examination 
of one of the exterior photographs shows that the same space, for reasons unexplained , is numbered 
both and This resolves the issue of the numbering, but other questions remain. 
A copy of the plat of survey for the building shows handwritten annotations on three adjacent 
properties: "Pharmacy For Rent ' The document does not identify who 
made these handwritten additions to the plat, or explain the apparent absence of a property numbered 
Also, the Petitioner does not explain ho\V it will be able to operate out of 
if the landlord operates out of the same address as the lease agreement indicates. 
The above issues may relate to peculiarities in address designations over which the Petitioner had no 
control, but other questions are of more direct concern. The Director noted that the lease requi_res 
II 
Matter of H-G- T- Co. 
the Petitioner to use the space as a ~'retail store," whereas the Petitioner has stated that it will use the 
space only for offices. The Petitioner does not address this significant concern on appeal. 
Regarding the warehouse, the Petitioner states: 
There is no requirement in the statute for [the Petitioner] to have a warehouse open 
prior to filing 'of the petition. [The Petitioner] clearly explained its operations, and 
has been currently operating without a warehouse. To get about the issue of not 
having a warehouse shipping directly without warehouses for example, if a client 
wants to buy a car and send it to Iraq, [the Petitioner] provides direct shipping and 
give [sic] shippers information. A typical example will be if you want to buy a car 
from a Toyota dealership, [the Petitioner] contacts the dealership directly, makes the 
purchase and ha[s] Toyota directly ship the car to Iraq, and then they collect directly 
from the client in Iraq or the United States. (see Invoices, Bill of Lading, and 
Waybills, hereto attached as Group Exhibit E). 
The documents in group exhibit E do not document any business activity by the Petitioner, although 
some of the documents identify a U.S.-based shipper. They show the name and address of the 
foreign entity. Therefore, the documents do not show that the petitioning U.S. office has been, or 
will be, able to conduct business without a warehouse. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner had previously indicated that its business plans included renting a 
warehouse as "a secure place to store cars, clothes, charitable donations to be sent to Iraq, trucks, 
and heavy duty equipment." It had previously described the warehouse as an integral element of its 
business. If the Petitioner had not acquired any warehouse space at the time it tiled the petition, then 
we must conclude that the Petitioner had not secured sufficient physical premises to house the new 
office as the regulations require. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
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. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofH-G-T- Co., ID# 227575 (AAO Feb. 27, 2017) 
12