dismissed L-1A Case: Sportswear Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF K-, LTD. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 8, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a sportswear design and manufacturing company, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's 
temporary employment as its administrator and project manager under the L-1A nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-1A classification allows a corporation or other legal 
entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States 
to work temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive position. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director should take into consideration the needs of the Petitioner in light of the 
overall purpose and stage of development of its business. 
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.P.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. 
Matter of K-, Ltd. 
(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. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to 
whether the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" 
as "an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily": 
(i) directs the management of the organization or a major component or 
function of the organization; 
(ii) establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or 
function; 
(iii) ·exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level executives, 
the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must take into account 
the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of 
the organization. See section 1 01 (a)( 44 )(C) of the Act. -
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-, Ltd. 
A. Evidence of Record 
On the Form I-129, t~e Petitioner indicated that it has six current employees in the United States and 
a gross annual income of $956,867. Initially, the Petitioner provide'a a very brief description of the 
Beneficiary's proposed duties in the United States stating that she would be responsible for opening 
a 
manufacturing facility in the United States. 
) 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) instructing, in part, the Petitioner to submit 
evidence that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United 
States. The Director suggested that the Petitioner submit evidence demonstrating the U.S. entity's 
organizational structure and staffing levels, along with copies of the Petitioner's quarterly wage 
reports. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a letter which stated the following (verbatim): 
[The Petitioner] is seeking a L-1A Executive position. The additional submitted 
documentation clearly establishes [the Beneficiary] meets the qualifications of an 
executive. This is 1an extension request. She is currently on a L-1A petition with the 
same employer. The previous petition was very similar in that she had the same job 
duties and was trying to establish an manufacturing operation in North Carolina. 
However, from the recent documents submitted, they may have more success in their 
backyard of Texas. 
The Petitioner submitted a letter, signed by its CEO, further describing the organization's business 
activities (verbatim): 
We have been and are currently investigating and researching the feasibility of setting 
up our own manufacturing operation here in the United States. The logical place for 
us to do this would be here in TX where our offices and warehouse already 
are, or, in North or South Carolina where there is existing apparel manufacturing and 
suppliers. 
* * * * 
Our previous I-129 applications for [the Beneficiary] have been approved on the same 
basis that [the Beneficiary] is researching and planning for the setting up of our own 
local manufacturing .facility. 
I note in your request for further evidence for our latest application that you suggest 
her role has changed from before. It has not. She is still performing the same duties 
for [the Petitioner] as stated in our previous applications. When her I -140 application 
is approved she will continue to head up the research and development of the 
manufacturing project. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-, Ltd. 
* * * * 
You have raised the question as to whether [the Beneficiary] is in a managerial or 
executive position in the United States. Using the criteria that you set out in your 
RFE, it is clear that [the Beneficiary] is an executive. You will note from the minutes 
from the resolution of niembers submitted, that [the Beneficiary] was appointed as a 
director on the 6th December 2013. It should also be noted that [the Beneficiary]: 
• Has total autonomy over the reshoring project and decision making ability 
• Directs our research and planning of this major manufacturing project 
• Established the goals and policies of the reshoring project 
• Receives very little direction from myself. 
The Petitioner also submitted a copy of email correspondence between the Beneficiary and 
indicating that the Beneficiary inquired about the feasibility of 
building a manufacturing facility, along with a sales summary for the Petitioner for 2014. The 
Petitioner also submitted an undated organizational chart. This chart depicts the Beneficiary as 
"Director Project Mgr Reshoring," reporting to the "Vice President Graphics." The Beneficiary does 
not oversee subordinate employees. The organizational structure also includes a "Board Chairman," 
"Vice President," "President & CEO," "CPA-New Zealand," and "LLP-New York," along with a 
"Vice President Sales" and subordinate employees reporting to both the "Vice President Sales," and 
"Vice President Graphics." 
The Petitioner also submitted a second undated organizational chart entitled, "[Petitioner]­
Manufacturing Proposed Organizational Chart." This proposed chart depicts the Beneficiary as 
"Director Factory Mgr," and includes three subordinate department managers along with eleven 
additional subordinate positions and staff within each department. None of the positions appear 
filled and no actual names are listed except the Beneficiary. 
The Petitioner submitted a description of the Beneficiary's duties as follows (verbatim): 
1. Research and Development for new manufacturing facility (70%) 
a. Undertake the research and development requirbd to determine 
where/when/how to set up 
a new manufacturing facility. 
b. Research the ideal location for said facility in business friendly cities 
c. Establish contact with applicable county, city and state officials regarding 
establishing a manufacturing facility 
d. Research the staffing requirements as well as the availability of required 
personnel 
e. Research current machine technology and equipment suppliers 
f. Optimizing plan layout for optimum production/ Production engineering 
4 
Matter of K-, Ltd. 
g. Research local (if any) ink suppliers 
h. Distribution warehouse management 
1. Material requirements planning 
J. Customer order processing 
k. Production orders 
1. Production planning 
m. Supply chain management 
n. Sourcing production equipment outside of machinery requirements such as 
cutting tables, bundling tables, pattern storage systems, fabric storage 
o. Source suppliers (local if any) of notions, threads, zips, elastics, buttons, 
domes, cording etc. for production 
p. Plan the QC department systems 
q. Research employment law and payroll systems 
2. Oversee all facets of the manufacturing production line ( 1 0%) 
a. Production Meetings 
b. Customer order processing 
c. Production orders 
d. Production planning 
e. Supply chain management 
f. Determining storage and printing controls for sublimation discharge paper 
3. Pattern Making (5%) 
a. Construct pattern blocks 
b. Pattern drafting 
c. Fitting and sampling & finalizing patterns 
d. Ordering pattern making supplies 
e. Liaising with the Design Department on upcommg styling and pattern 
requirements 
f. Production meetings 
4. Pattern Grading (2%) 
a. Establishing size charts 
b. Establishing grade rules on new styles 
c. Drafting pattern nests 
d. Establishing fabric yields to be within the company guidelines 
5. Style Production Systems (3%) 
a. Setting and maintaining operational sequences for style 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-, Ltd 
b. Production engineering 
6. Sourcing sports specific fabrics (1 %) 
a. Maintaining relationships with fabric suppliers 
b. Sourcing new suppliers 
c. Negotiation contracts with suppliers 
7. Maintain intimate knowledge of specialty fabrics (2%) 
a. Ensuring fabric content percentages are maintained for suitability of 
sublimation 
b. Determining the wicking capacity of dri fit fabrics 
c. Setting of content percentages for compression type fabrics 
d. Ensuring the knit quality and structure of fabrics and determining the correct 
weight of gsm is maintained so that performance guidelines are kept. 
8. Sublimation Inks (1 %) 
a. Sourcing suitable sublimation ink suppliers. 
b. Determining that manufacturing parameters for dye pigment and ink viscosity 
are maintained 
c. Setting the humidity and temperature control settings for the storage of 
sublimation inks 
d. Setting the humidity and temperature control settings for the printing 
environment of sublimation inks. 
9. Recording Systems (3%) 
a. Weekly records of production, i.e.: number of gannets cut, sewn, QC failed, 
shipped, returned etc and reporting at Production meetings. 
b. Costing sheets per style 
per customer order 
10. Assist the Company President with day to day operations (4%) 
a. Duties will vary from time to time depending on availability of and time. 
b. Will inclt1de emailing invoices for purchase orders from High Schools, 
receivables and assisting with MYOB postings. 
c. Maintaining updates 
d. Filing IRS for P AYE and GST for New Zealand (NZ) operation. 
e. Monthly reconciliations and accounting reports for NZ operation 
f. Processing NZ payroll and calculation of weekly and holiday pay 
schedules. 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-, Ltd 
-g. Updating ofNZ employment contracts. 
h. Liaising with NZ Company Accountant. 
The Director denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 
will be employed in an executive capacity under the extended petition. In denying the petition, the 
Director found that the Petitioner's organizational chart and proposed job duties indicate that the 
Beneficiary will oversee a manufacturing plant; however, this plant does not yet 
exist. The Director 
found that the Petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence that the Beneficiary would have 
staffing in place to relieve her from performing the day-to-day tasks of the operations and that the 
Beneficiary's proposed duties indicate that she will be performing the function of researching and 
developing the manufacturing facility instead of overseeing this function. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a statement as follows (verbatim): 
The USCIS appears to hinge their denial upon she currently has no employees and 
that she has no management to direct. The regulations do not require that [the 
Beneficiary] have "management to direct". It only requires that she direct a major 
component or function of the organization. The USCIS is interpreting this to mean 
"people to direct". This interpretation is incorrect. The USCIS should take into 
account the reasonable needs of [the Petitioner] in light of the overall purpose and 
stage of development of their manufacturing plant. The number of employees 
supervised should not be determinative. 
The Petitioner also submits a letter from signed by Ph.D., 
J.D., D. Ph., along with a copy of his curriculum vitae. The Petitioner does not explain 
the purpose of this letter or explain how the author is in a position to comment on the issues in this 
proceeding beyond requesting that we "accept this letter as corrections and additional evidence 
regarding the denial of the petition." claims that the Beneficiary is "now qualified by her 
specialized knowledge alone" and implies that the Beneficiary is not yet qualified as an executive. 
Specifically, he states: "There is strong evidence that she is now qualified or in the alternative will 
. soon be qualified as an executive under Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act." 1 The letter also states that "[the Beneficiary] is the sole senior executive responsible for 
planning, opening, and managing the Factory and the sole senior executive supervising the managers 
of the Factory. The Factory will employ 350 employees." 
1 We will discuss below the claim that the Beneficiary is now qualified under a different classification, i.e., L-1 B 
classification. 
7 
Matter of K-, Ltd 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the pe~ition and the evidence of record, including materials submitted in support of 
the appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be employed 
in an executive capacity under the extended petition. 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of the Beneficiary, we will look first to the 
Petitioner's description ofthe job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The Petitioner's description 
of the job duties must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary and indicate 
whether such duties are in a managerial or executive capacity. !d. 
The definitions of managerial and executive capacity each have two parts. First, the Petitioner must 
show that the Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. 
INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, the Petitioner must prove 
that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial or executive duties, as opposed to 
ordinary operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 
469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
Here, the Petitioner submitted a detailed list of job duties indicating that the Beneficiary would 
spend 70% of her time conducting research and development to establish a new manufacturing 
facility. This includes identifying a location for the factory, staffing, production requirements, 
researching and ordering machinery, and complying with regulatory requirements. The Petitioner is 
clear that this factory is still in the planning stage and the record does not include evidence that a 
location has been secured or construction has begun on the factory. The remaining job duties, 
comprising the other 30% of the Beneficiary's time, all relate to functions required of the 
Beneficiary once the factory has been built. For example, the Beneficiary will oversee the 
production line, pattern making, pattern grading, production engineering, and sourcing. Therefore, 
at the time of filing, the Beneficiary's job duties relating to researching and developing the 
construction of the factory were the only duties that could be accomplished. The Petitioner states on 
appeal that "[the Beneficiary] now performs only the duties of the senior executive of [the 
Petitioner] as she prepares to hire management staff to supervise the construction contractor and to 
oversee the progress and quality of the construction of the Factory," and that she is "now qualified 
by her specialized knowledge alone." 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will now oversee the construction of the 
factory; however, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that the factory construction is currently 
underway. Even if we were to find evidence that the factory was being built at the time of appeal, 
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 )(1 ). 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 Ma(ter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). For 
this reason, we find that the Beneficiary's job duties consist primarily of research and development 
for the construction of a factory still in its planning stages. The Beneficiary's proposed tasks related 
8 
Matter of K-, Ltd 
to management of the factory are merely prospective and not determinative of her executive duties, 
as the factory did1 not exist at the time of filing. 
Therefore, considering the job duties related to research and development of the factory, we find that 
the Petitioner has not established that these duties are primarily executive. The Petitioner states that 
the Beneficiary will perform the research regarding factory site location, staffing requirements, 
machinery, and suppliers. She will be responsible for contacting state and local authorities and for 
researching employment law and payroll systems ~in preparation for building and operating the 
Petitioner's factory. Thus, the Beneficiary will be performing the functions of research and 
development until such time as the factory is actually operational. At that time, the other 30% of her 
described duties will become relevant as she will then be managing an operational factory. 
However, at the time of filing, the project was merely in the planning stages. Also, the Beneficiary 
does not appear to have any subordinate employees to perform the day-to-day functions of 
researching and developing a manufacturing facility, leaving the Beneficiary to perform all tasks 
related to this function. While performing non-qualifying tasks necessary to produce a product or 
service will not automatically disqualify a beneficiary as long as those tasks are not the majority of 
the Beneficiary's duties, the Petitioner still has the burden of establishing that the Beneficiary is 
''primarily" performing managerial or executive duties. Section 101 (a)( 44) of the Act. Here, the 
Petitioner has not shown how the Beneficiary's duties would be primarily managerial or executive in 
nature. 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, including the company's 
organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other 
employees to relieve. a beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, 
and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a 
business. 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position 
within a complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the 
organization, and that person's authority to direct the organization. Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B). Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the 
management" and "establish the goals and policies" of that organization. Inherent to the definition, 
the organization must have ,a subordinate level of managerial employees for a beneficiary to direct 
and a beneficiary must primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than 
the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. An individual will not be deemed an executive under the 
statute simply because he/she has an executive title or because he/she "directs" the enterprise as an 
owner or sole managerial employee. 
A beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision making" and receive only 
"general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or 
stockholders of the organization." !d. Here, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary has established 
the organizational chart, business plan, financial forecasts, zoning, and loan requests, and is now 
9 
Matter of K-, Ltd. 
focused on the construction ofthe factory. However, little evidence was submitted supporting these 
claims, apart from email correspondence ·regarding a potential site selection and a proposed, yet 
undated, organizational chart. The letter submitted on appeal states that the Beneficiary, "now 
performs only the duties of the senior executive of [the Petitioner] as she prepares to hire 
management staff to supervise the construction contractor and to oversee the progress and quality of 
the construction of the(Factory. Again, prospective duties are not sufficient to determine the 
Beneficiary's eligibility. 
Additionally, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary has no subordinates or staff apart from the 
prospective employees of the manufacturing facility that has yet to be constructed. The Petitioner 
submitted a prospective organizational chart depicting the Beneficiary directing a factory comprised 
of a sales, production, and administrative department, along with six additional departments and 
statements that the Beneficiary will direct a staff of 350. The Petitioner claims on appeal that the 
regulations do not require that the Beneficiary oversee staff and that we should take into account the 
reasonable needs of the Petitioner in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of its 
manufacturing plant. We note that a company's size alone, without taking into account the 
reasonable needs of the organization, may not be the determining factor in denying a visa petition for 
classification as a multinational manager or executive. See section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(C). However, it is appropriate for USCIS to consider the size of the 
petitioning company in conjunction with other relevant factors, such as the absence of employees 
who would perform the non-managerial or non-executive operations of the company, or a "shell 
company" that does not conduct business in a regular and continuous manner. See, e.g., Family Inc., 
469 F.3d 1313; 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. 
~\ 
Here, the Petitioner has not explained how the Beneficiary will be relieved of performing the non­
qualifying tasks related to overseeing the research and development of a factory. While the lack of 
staffing is not necessarily disqualifying, without an explanation of who will perform the day-to-day 
tasks of research and development of the Petitioner's factory, we cannot conclude that the 
Beneficiary will be acting primarily in an executive capacity. ( 
Also, while the Petitioner urges USCIS to consider its rea/onable needs within the startup scope of 
its organization, the record shows that, the Beneficiary has been employed by the Petitioner in the 
United States since 2009. By the Petitioner's own statements, the Beneficiary's duties are the same 
under the extended petition as they were in the initial filing. The \Petitioner still has not provided 
evidence that the factory is being built or that the Petitioner's staffing or organizational structure 
have grown since 2009. Regardless, the reasonable needs of a petitioner serve only as a factor in 
evaluating the lack of staff iq the context of reviewing the claimed managerial or executive duties. 
The Petitioner must still establish that the Beneficiary is to be employed in the United States in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity, pursuant to sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) or the Act. 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not established this essential element of eligibility. 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-, Ltd 
The record also contains several inconsistencies regarding the Petitioner's address. On the Form I-
129, the Petitioner lists its address as Texas Documents contained in 
the record also list the Petitioner's address as Texas However, on 
its Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement, the Petitioner's principal place of business is 
California Furthermore, documents submitted with the Form 
I-129 list the Petitioner's address as Texas Transaction orders 
dated April 2013 until September 2014, copies of invoices and orders with U.S. purchasers from 
2013 to present, and copies of bills of lading, shipping receipts, and U.S. customs declarations from 
2013 and 2014 all contain the address. Given these inconsistencies, we are unable to 
determine the Petitioner's actual place of business. 
A few errors or minor discrepancies are not reason to question the credibility of an alien or an 
employer seeking immigration benefits. See, e.g., Spencer Enters. Inc. v. US., 345 F.3d 683, 694 
(9th Cir. 2003). However, doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may undermine 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). 
Regarding the letter submitted on appeal, we note that USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory 
opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. Matter ofCaron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Furthermore, merely repeating the language of 
the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2nd Cir. 1990). Here, the 
Petitioner has not explained how the author of the letter is qualified to comment on the Beneficiary's 
eligibility, and the Petitioner has not submitted any additional evidence on appeal. 
Based on the deficiencies and inconsistencies 
discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity under the extended petition. 
III. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE CLAIM ON APPEAL 
The Petitioner requested L-lA classification on behalf of the Beneficiary in the Form I-129 and has 
stated throughout the proceeding before the Director that the Beneficiary will work primarily in an 
executive capacity. Now, on ,appeal, the Petitioner submits a letter from Ph.D., 
J.D., D. Ph., claiming that the Beneficiary is "now qualified by her specialized knowledge 
alone" and "[t]here is strong evidence that she is now qualified or in the alternative will soon be 
qualified as an executive under Section 101(a)(15)(L) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act." 
There are no provisions permitting the Petitioner to amend the petition on appeal in order to establish 
eligibility under a different classification. On appeal, a petitioner cannot offer a new position to the 
beneficiary, or materially change a position's title, its level of authority within the organizational 
2 The Form 1-129 indicates that the address is the Beneficiary's home address. 
11 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-, Ltd. 
hierarchy, or the associated job responsibilities. In the instant case, the Petitioner must establish that 
the position offered to the Beneficiary when the petition was filed merits L-1A classification. 
Further, there is no provision in the statute or regulations that compels USCIS to readjudicate a 
petition under a different visa classification in response to a petitioner's request to change it, OJ!Ce 
the decision has been rendered. A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort 
to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 
169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1988). We cannot find that the Director committed reversible error by 
adjudicating the petition under the classification requested by the Petitioner. 
For these reasons, we decline to evaluate whether the Beneficiary meets the requirements for L-1 B 
specialized knowledge status as the instant petition is an L-1 A petition. 
IV. CORPORATE EXISTENCE 
While not a basis for our decision in this matter, we note that a record search of the state ofNevada 
reveals that the Petitioner's business registration (registration has been 
permanently revoked, calling into question whether the Petitioner is an ongoing active enterprise. In 
the event that the Petitionerchooses to file a new petition, the Petitioner's LLC revocation would 
raise questions about whether it continues to exist as an importing employer, whether it maintains a 
qualifying relationship, and whether it is authorized to conduct business in a regular and systematic 
manner. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of 
proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been 
met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of K-, Ltd., ID# 18179 (AAO Sept. 8, 20 16) 
3 The record indicates that the Petitioner was formed as an LLC under the laws of the state of Nevada. A review of 
Texas corporate records confirms that the Petitioner was formed in Nevada. 
12