dismissed L-1A Case: Software Engineering

MATTER OF S-US LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a sports data management company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"senior software engineer - technical lead" under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 1 01 (a )(15)(L ), 8 
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-1A classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including 
its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to work 
temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary is employed in a managerial or executive capacity 
abroad. Further, the Director found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary has 
been and will be employed as a function manager. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge 
capacity, for one continuous year within three years preceding the Beneficiary's application for 
admission into the 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. 
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: 
Matter of S-US LLC 
(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 of1the 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. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The first issue to addres~ is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary has been 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad. The Petitioner does not claim that the 
Beneficiary has been employed in an executive capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to 
whether the Beneficiary has been employed in a managerial capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" 
as "an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily": 
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the organization; 
(ii) supervises and controls the work of other 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 operation~ of the activity or 
function for which the employee has authority. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-US LLC 
Further, "a first-line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by 
virtue ofthe supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional." !d. 
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. Evidence of Record 
In the Form I-129, the Petitioner identified the Beneficiary's foreign employer as 
an affiliate located in Slovenia. 
In a support letter the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has been acting in a "functional manager 
position" as software engineer - technical lead since 2011. The Petitioner explained that the 
Beneficiary "manages the software development process that controls the collection of real-time 
sports data gathered by [the foreign employer] and [the company's] other subsidiaries throughout 
Europe, and he optimizes it for use in the U.S." The Petitioner explained that "the U.S. and 
in particular, have specific regulations governing how sports data is collected and disseminated." 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "oversees the development of the software," which has the 
function of translating "raw data into usable, desirable format that meets customers' needs and 
complies with local regulations." 
The Petitioner further explained the Beneficiary's duties abroad as follows: 
Oversee the creation, development, and modification of software and web-based 
applications to optimize data dissemination according to customer specifications; 
review client requirements and manage client r~lationships during the specification 
phase; and develop the specified applications; design high performance, scalable 
and potentially distributable applications; design databases and optimize them for 
specific tasks, working individually or as part of a team; resolve issues with existing 
software by modifying or replacing subsystems and improve performance of 
existing programs through optimization; coordinate deployments with system 
engineers; coordinate with other engineers to design interfaces, agree upon design 
limitations and performance requirements; analyze client needs and determine the 
feasibility of implementing a solution within the specified time frames; and design, 
develop and modify software systems with observable performance and reliability. 
The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary "manages the process of reconfiguring, logging, 
hiding, and disseminating the data [the company] had collected for use in The Petitioner 
stated that this is an "essential function" as it allows the data to be used by the company in the 
United States thereby "expanding the usability of [its] products and services in a new market." The 
3 
(b)(6)
( 
Matter of S-US LLC 
Petitioner explained that the foreign entity "leverage[es] the [the Beneficiary's] unique skills" to 
serve clients. 
The Petitioner stated that in his role abroad, the Beneficiary "indirectly oversees the work" of other 
technical staff and that he has the authority to recommend personnel actions to his superiors or to 
these employees' direct supervisors. The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart reflecting that 
the Beneficiary reports to the head of technology and operations and indirectly oversees the 
following positions: a software developer, a project manager, a product manager, an applications 
engineer, a mathematician (risk/data scientist), and a visualization team/front end developer. The 
Petitioner provided duty descriptions for each of these positions and emphasized that the Beneficiary 
"functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy of the function" and "exercises 
discretion over the day-to-day operations" of the function he manages. 
The Petitioner provided the Beneficiary 's resume, dated June 20 15, reflecting that he has held the 
following roles and assignments with the foreign entity: 
Jan 2014- Present Senior Software Developer 
project (Technical Lead): 
• Front end (Java, JavaScript, Html5, Css3, Apache 
Velocity) 
Jul 2013 - Present Senior software developer 
(Technical Lead): 
• Distributed processing system for calculating odds 
• API layer for front end communication 
• Database layer architecture and development 
Current project (cannot disclose client- one person project): 
• Backend for data acquisition and transformation (Java, 
MySQL, Active MQ,-Zookeeper) 
• Master - Slave architecture for acquisition 
• Multiple nodes active for rest of system 
June 2012-Jan 2014 Project Manager 
Project and team management 
WebSphere application server development, WCM, 
WebSphere Portal Server, Python 
programming , 
Bash scripting etc. 
July 2011-Dec 2013 System administrator 
Administration of internal and external systems. IBM 
WebSphere server administration , Linux server 
administration 
July 20 11-Jun 2012 Software Developer 
WebSphere application server, WCM, WebSphere Portal 
Server, Python programming , Bash 
scripting etc. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-US LLC 
The resume highlights the Beneficiary's "Job-related skills" in Java, PHP, JavaScript, Python, 
WebSphere Application Server, WebSphere Portal Server, and Microsoft and Linux administration. 
The Director later issued a request for evidence (RFE) stating that the Petitioner did not submit 
sufficient information specific to how the Beneficiary's function is essential and how he primarily 
manages the function rather than performing operational duties related to the function. The DirectQr 
requested that the Petitioner submit an organizational chart listing all the persons in his immediate 
department including their names, job titles, duties, education levels, and salaries. Further, the 
Director asked that the Petitioner provide the Beneficiary's training or other personnel records 
confirming his managerial capacity and a letter describing his typical managerial duties and 
decisions. The Director noted that the evidence should demonstrate that there are qualified 
employees performing the duties of the Beneficiary's function to relieve him from primarily 
performing non-qualifying operational tasks. 
In response, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has acted as software developer - technical lead 
since 2011. The Petitioner indicated that he is locally supervised in Slovenia by the "manager of 
media web" and that he directly reports to the Petitioner's U.S.-based head of technology and 
operations. The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary "oversees the and 
projects," that he "spends 65% of his time managing the development of software solutions 
for real-time sports date collection and dissemination," and that he "establishes the parameters of the 
software that needs to be developed while other software engineers perform the duties of the 
function by developing the actual software." 
The Petitioner provided the following job description for the Beneficiary's position with the foreign 
entity: 
10% Oversee the creation, development, and modification of software and web­
based application to optimize data dissemination accorqing to customer 
specifications 
• Work with engineers in company (mentoring etc.) 
• Code reviews and discussion 
10% Provide direction to and oversee the work of Software Developers, Project 
Managers, Product Managers, Applications Engineers, Mathematicians, 
and Visualization Team as it relates to data optimization for U.S. markets 
• Mentoring of junior software developers 
• Introduction to best practices in development for (the Petitioner] 
10% Review client requirements and manage client relationships during the 
specification phase 
• Attended meetings with customer to define requirements 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-US LLC 
10% Analyze client needs and determine the feasibility of implementing a 
solution within the specified time frames 
• Meetings with client redefining requirements with more realistic goals, 
feature cuts 
10% Coordinate with other engineers to design interfaces, agree upon design 
limitations and performance requirements ... 
5% Manage the software development process that controls the collection of 
real-time sports data gathered by [the group's] European subsidiaries to 
optimize it for use in the U.S .... 
I 
5% Manage the process of reconfiguring, logging, hiding, and disseminating 
[the foreign entity's] data for use in 
• Coordination with customer 
• Definition of architecture 
5% Coordinate deployments with system engineers 
• Communication with system engineers, explanations of inner workings 
of system 
• Additional changes to accommodate automated monitoring 
5% Resolve issues with existing software by modifying or replacing 
subsystems and improve performance of existing programs through 
optimization 
• Software development with some mentoring 
5% Design databases and optimize them for specific tasks, working 
individually or as part of a team .... 
5% Design, develop and modify software systems with observable 
performance and reliability 
• Integration of metrics on and 
1 0% Design high performance, scalable and potentially distributable 
applications ... 
10% Develop the specified applications ... 
The Petitioner identified eight of the foregoing duties as "managerial" and stated that the 
Beneficiary's position "includes more than 50% managerial duties." 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-US LLC 
The Petitioner submitted a "functional organizational chart" relevant to "the development of 
software solutions for real-time sports data collection and dissemination" reflecting that the 
Beneficiary reports to the head of technology and operations and that he oversees two software 
developers with "bachelor's degrees" responsible for developing data entry applications, engineering 
new products, contributing ideas for software improvement, and delivering code. The chart also 
indicated that the Beneficiary works parallel with a project manager, a product manager, an 
applications engineer, and a visualization team/front end developer, all based in the U.S., and a 
_mathematician (risk/data scientist). The Petitioner also submitted a foreign organizational chart 
titled "[foreign entity] management team" reflecting that the Beneficiary reports to a "media web" 
supervisor, who in 
tum reports to a general manager. 
In denying the petition, the Director stated that the Beneficiary's duties and the organizational 
d structure submitted were more indicative of an employee performing non-qualifying tasks related to 
the provision of services. Further, the Director found that the evidence did not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the 
function he is claimed to manage. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that it commonly organizes "cross-functional teams of managers" to 
provide services to its clients, and that this case is no different. The Petitioner reiterates that the 
Beneficiary has "full discretion over the technological\ aspects of his project," noting that he 
makes managerial decisions regarding the plan and direction of the software development strategy. 
The Petitioner indicates that "other software developers in the company carry out the daily tasks 
required to bring [the Beneficiary's] vision to life." The Petitioner explains that the Beneficiary acts 
in a managerial capacity when he analyzes client needs and determines feasibility, makes strategic 
decisions with a high level of impact, and decides what the software developers will use to create 
solutions for its clients. The Petitioner reiterates that the Beneficiary delegates non-qualifying tasks 
to these developers on "the and projects." 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, including materials submitted in support of 
the appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the foreign entity has employed 
the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity. 
' Whe~ examining the managerial or executive 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 a managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
The definitions of managerial and executive capacity each have two parts. First, the Petitioner must 
show that the Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. 
INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, the Petitioner must prove 
that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial or executive duties, as opposed to 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-US LLC 
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. 
While the Petitioner has consistently stated that the Beneficiary is responsible for managing an 
essential function by managing several development projects and for the 
U.S. market, the record does not support a finding that he has the requisite level of discretionary 
authority or that he primarily performs madagerial duties. At the time of filing, the Petitioner 
indicated that the Beneficiary performs many duties typical of an employee with his senior software 
engineer job title. For example, the Petitioner stated that he is required to "create, develop and 
modify applications and web applications," to "analyze client specifications," "support the client," 
"develop the specified applications," "design . . . applications," "design databases and optimize 
them," "resolve issues with existing software" and "design, develop, and modify software systems." 
While he may work with other engineers and developers to accomplish these 
duties, the record does 
not support a finding that he allocates or oversees the performance of these non-managerial tasks, 
which the Petitioner attributed directly to him in its initial support letter. .In fact, the Petitioner's 
duty descriptio11 submitted in support of the petition states that the Beneficiary's "primary focus" is 
"preparing data' for dissemination to stakeholders in Further, the Beneficiary's duties 
reflect that he has been "coordinating deployments with other engineers" and "agreeing upon" 
design limitations and performance requirements, not leading, dictating, or delegating these matters 
to his colleagues. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner added that the Beneficiary is responsible for "provid[ing] 
direction to and oversee the work of' various employees, "manag[ing] the software development 
process," and "manag[ing] the process ofreconfiguring, logging, hiding and disseminating ... data." 
However, these claimed managerial duties account for only 20% of the Beneficiary's time. Further, 
they appear to include specific duties that are poorly defined and not clearly managerial, such as 
''coordination with customer," "coordinat[ion] with European subsidiaries about available data," and 
"introduction to best practices in development." 
In fact, while the Petitioner characterized more than half of the Beneficiary's duties as "managerial" 
when it responded to the RFE, a significantportion of the Beneficiary's duties appear to be devoted to 
the direct provision of goods and services, including 10% reviewing client requirements, 10% 
analyzing client needs and soluti<;m time frames, 5% resolving issues with existing software, 5% 
designing databases and optimizing them, 5% designing, developing and modifying software systems, 
10% designing applications, and 10% "developing the specified applications." Based on the 
Petitioner's description, it appears that the Beneficiary spends more than half of his time performing 
software analysis, design and development work alongside its other technical employees. Indeed, the 
Petitioner elsewhere states that the Beneficiary leverages "unique skills to serve clients" and his 
resume indicates that he has been working on an unidentified one man project, indicating that he more 
likely devoting the majority of his time to non-qualifying operational tasks. In sum, the Petitioner's 
more detailed breakdown of the Beneficiary's duties indicates that he is devoting a majority of his time 
to non:.qualifying operational tasks abroad, rather than primarily delegating these tasks to others as 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-US LLC 
asserted. The actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. 
v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
In addition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has been directing software development and 
determining technical solutions for the and projects" and that he has held 
his current position as senior software engineer - technical lead, since July 2011. Howeve'i", the 
Beneficiary's resume does not mention the Beneficiary 's involvement in these projects or his 
claimed oversight of software developers, project managers or other professionals. In fact, the 
Beneficiary's resume highlights his programming and development skills, reflects that he has been 
working on the ' and projects since July 2013, and that he is also 
currently working on a "one-man" project. Further, the resume indicates that he has held other 
positions, such as software developer and systems administrator, since joining the company in 2011. 
The Petitioner has not resolved these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing 
to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 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 company's 
organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other 
employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, 
and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a 
business. 
As discussed, the Petitioner primarily contends that the Beneficiary acts as a function manager 
overseeing development on a handful of projects, but further suggests that he acts as a personnel 
manager through the supervision of professional subordinates . 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) ofthe Act; 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(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.P.R.§§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(2)-(3). 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will 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. The term 
"essential function" is not defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary 
will manage an essential function, a petitioner must clearly describe the duties to be performed in 
managing ,the essential function, i.e., identify the function with specificity, articulate the essential 
9 
Matter of S-US LLC 
nature of the function, and establish the proportion of a beneficiary's daily duties dedicated to 
managing the essential function. See 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(3 )(ii). In addition, a petitioner's 
description of a beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary will manage the 
function rather than perform the duties related to the function. 
As discussed, the_ Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's duties indicates that the Beneficiary 
performs primarily non-managerial duties associated with the analysis, design, and development of 
software applications as part of a team, with some mentoring responsibilities. While the Beneficiary 
may have advanced skills related to his work, the record does not support the Petitioner's claim that 
he primarily ~anages the claimed function. Moreover, the Beneficiary's own resume makes no 
mention of the essential functions he is claimed to manage. 
In addition, the Petitioner submits no supporting documentation to substantiate that he is directing 
his projects or that he has authority over all development and technological aspects. In fact, the 
evidence reflects that there is a great deal of overlap between the Beneficiary's duties and the duties 
of those over which he is claimed to have authority. For instance, the Petitioner provided duty 
descriptions for each of the positions shown as acting parallel to the Beneficiary on his projects, 
including the project manager who was responsible for "coach[ing], mentor[ing], motivate[ing], and 
supervis[ing] project team members," applications engineers that "design and develop sports data 
collection applications," mathematicians which "collaborate with "product Developers/Managers to 
move projects from idea to implementation," and front end developers that "focus on the 
development of web-based tools for the [company] collection environment." 
As such, there appears to be little discernable difference between the Beneficiary's duties and those 
of the employees he is claimed to oversee, and the Petitioner has otherwise not submitted any 
supporting documentation to substantiate that the Beneficiary directly or indirectly oversees other 
employees, rather than directly performing the duties of his function. Indeed, his duties indicate that 
he is more likely coordinating and collaborating with the other function leaders assigned to these 
projects and the Petitioner elsewhere indicates that each one of these functions acts independently, 
noting that each section could be seen as its own function. Further, the Beneficiary's duty 
descriptions suggest that he spends more than half of his time on non-qualifying operational tasks 
and the Petitioner has not provided supporting documentation to overcome this conclusion. 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 ofTreasure Craft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Furthermore, the Petitioner also appears to suggest that the Beneficiary acts as a personnel manager 
through his direct supervision of professional subordinates. To determine whether the Beneficiary 
manages professional employees, we must evaluate whether the subordinate positions require a 
baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) 
(defining "profession" to mean "any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or 
its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation"). Section 
101(a)(32) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(32), states that "[t]he term profession shall include but not 
10 
Matter of S-US LLC 
\ 
be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or 
secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart reflecting that the Beneficiary directly oversees two 
software developers focused on research and development. However, once again, the Petitioner has 
not submitted any supporting documentation to corroborate that the Beneficiary supervises two 
professional-level subordinates. In fact, the Director requested that the PyJitioner provide personnel 
records to support that the Beneficiary acts in a managerial capacity, but it submitted no such 
documentation. Further, the Beneficiary's duty descriptions make no mention of his direct supervision 
ofhis claimed subordinates. In addition, although the Petitioner generally states that the Beneficiary's 
claimed subordinates have bachelor's degrees, it does not specifically articulate the types of degrees 
they hold nor has the Petitioner documented these degrees with supporting evidence. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel manager. 
Based on the deficiencies and inconsistencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary has been employed in a managerial capacity abroad. 
Ill. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The remaining issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would 
be employed in a qualifying managerial capacity in the United States. As noted, the Director found 
that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity in the United States. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the evidence 
demonstrates that the Beneficiary would act as a function manager in his capacity in the United 
States. 
·In visa petition proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit 
sought. Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). The petitioner must prove by a 
preponderance of evidence that the beneficiary is fully qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). Upon reviewing the entire record of proceedings, 
including the information provided on appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has established by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary would more likely than not be employed in a 
managerial capacity in the United States. As such, the Director's decision as to this issue is hereby 
withdrawn. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The petitiOn will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above reason. In visa petition 
ptoceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the petitioner. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, 
' that burden has not been met. 
1 1 
Matter of S-US LLC 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of S-US LLC, ID# 10405 (AAO Sept. 28, 2016) 
12