dismissed L-1A Case: Textile Manufacturing/Sales

MATTER OF L-P- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 21, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in the import and sale of bags for bedding, seeks to continue the 
Beneficiary's temporary employment as its president under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. 1 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(L). The L-IA classification allows a corporation or other legal entity 
(including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to 
work temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary's former foreign employer was doing business as defined 
by the regulations. In addition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity under the extended 
petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it submitted certified translations of documents reflecting the 
Beneficiary's former foreign employer doing business in a regular, systematic, and continuous 
fashion. The Petitioner also contends that the Beneficiary would qualify as a function manager 
under the extended petition. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-IA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity for one continuous year within 
three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). In addition, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States temporarily to 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
December 9, 2016, until December 8, 2017. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the 
United States through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(F). The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation one year within the date of approval of the 
petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
.
Matter of L-P- Inc. 
continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a 
managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-lA petition that involved a new office must submit a statement 
of the beneficiary's duties during the previous year and under the extended petition; a statement 
describing the staffing of the new operation and evidence of the numbers and types of positions held; 
evidence of its financial status; evidence that it has been doing business for the previous year; and 
evidence that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii). 
II. FOREIGN EMPLOYER DOING BUSINESS 
The first issue we will analyze is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary's former 
foreign employer was doing business as of the date the petition was filed. 
The regulations indicate that the Petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that it maintains a 
qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer; further, the regulations define 
qualifying organizations as those doing business "as an employer in the United States and in at least 
one other country." See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(G) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii). "Doing 
business," is defined as the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods or services. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(H). 
The Petitioner indicated in a support letter provided along with the petition that the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer was founded in 2010 and that it focused "on producing high quality textile 
products to satisfy the high demand on the Chinese market." The Petitioner also stated that the 
foreign employer "stands among the most successful companies in the Chinese textile industry." In 
support of these assertions, the Petitioner provided two purchase orders from January and February 
2017 reflecting the sale and shipment of "pillow bags" between two companies, 
and The Petitioner also submitted a few untranslated transactional documents 
specific to the foreign employer. A description of the Beneficiary's duties further indicated that the 
foreign employer "operates its own manufacture ring plant [sic] in China, employs 15 people, [ and] 
gross[ ed] nearly $2 million in 2015." In addition, the Petitioner provided a marketing document 
stating that the foreign employer had three factories in China. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director stated that the provided evidence was insufficient and 
requested additional documentation to substantiate that the foreign employer was doing business, 
including a most recent foreign employer annual report, foreign tax documents, audited financial 
statements, purchase orders, invoices, bills of lading, U.S. customs documentation, or foreign 
employer contracts. The Director also indicated that any submitted documents must be complete 
English translations and include a certification from a translator that they are accurate and complete 
and that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
2 
.
Matter of L-P- Inc. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted one "Sea Waybill" dated in January 2017 reflecting the foreign 
employer's shipment of approximately 640 vinyl bags to a company in the United States. The 
Petitioner again provided a purchase order specific to "pillow bags" dated in January 2017 between 
two vendors, and Further, it submitted two translated sales contracts 
dated in January and July 2017 reflecting the foreign employer's sale of bags to companies in China. 
It also submitted a Certificate of Real Estate Ownership" indicating that the foreign 
employer had a "state-owned construction land use right" with respect to a "Room 1305" in a 
building in China. In addition, the Petitioner provided a printed copy of its website which 
stated "in the past 10 years, we have been cooperating with many famous Importers from [the] 
USA." Lastly, the Beneficiary stated in a letter that the foreign employer had earned a net profit of 
$11 million RMB (equivalent to 1.7 million USD) in 2016" and that it was "able to successfully 
establish a long-term relationship with the company, _______ for exporting textile 
bags." 
In denying the petition, the Director stated that the Petitioner did not submit certified translations of 
the aforementioned foreign employer documents and further determined that, even when considered, 
this evidence did not demonstrate that the foreign employer was involved in the regular, systematic, 
and ?ontinuous provision of goods and services. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that a translation affidavit was submitted in its RFE response and 
asserts that previously submitted bills of lading, purchase orders, and contracts demonstrate that the 
foreign employer was doing business. The Petitioner also states that the "foreign entity's bank 
statements and related documents were provided to show a continuous generation of income in 
China." 
Upon review, we concur with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
foreign employer was doing business. First, a review of the record shows that the Petitioner did not 
provide certified translations of the submitted foreign employer documents as requested by the 
Director. We note that any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English 
language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The translator must certify that the English language 
translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign 
language into English. Id. Because the Petitioner did not submit a properly certified English 
language translation of the documents specific to the foreign employer; namely the bill of lading, 
purchase orders, or sales contracts, we cannot meaningfully determine whether these documents are 
accurate and thus support the Petitioner's claims. 
Regardless , even after considering these documents , we conclude that they are insufficient to 
establish that the foreign employer is doing business regularly , systematically , and continuously. 
The Petitioner asserts that the foreign employer is "among the most successful companies in the 
Chinese textile industry " and indicates that it earned over $2 million dollars in profit in 2015 and 
2016 . The Petitioner also stated that it has three manufacturing plants in China. However , it submits 
little supporting documentation to substantiate these assertions , including only one bill of lading and 
two sales contracts reflecting two sales approximately six months apart. In addition , it also provides 
3 
.
Matter of L-P- Inc. 
unexplained purchase orders between two vendors, and and it is not 
clear how these documents relate to the foreign employer's operations abroad. Further, despite 
asserting that the foreign employer operates three manufacturing facilities, the Petitioner ' s 
organizational chart lists only twelve employees and departments devoted to quality control, 
marketing, business, and administration and finance, but no apparent employees or departments 
devoted to operating three manufacturing facilities. The Petitioner also submitted a 
Certificate of Real Estate Ownership " indicating that the foreign employer had a "state-owned 
construction land use right" to use only one room in a building in China, space that does not appear 
commensurate with its stated operations abroad. The Petitioner must resolve discrepancies in the 
record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Therefore, the evidence submitted with respect to the foreign employer ' s operations is inconsistent 
and does not sufficiently establish that it was engaged in the regular, systematic, and continuous 
provision of goods or services as of the date the petition was filed. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The next issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would act in 
a managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. The Petitioner asserted in support of 
the petition and in response to the RFE that the Beneficiary acted in an executive capacity. On 
appeal, it stated that the Beneficiary would act as both a manager and an executive, but primarily 
emphasizes that the Beneficiary would qualify as a function manager. 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization ; 
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; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
The statute defines an "executive capacity" as an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of 
the organization; establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or 
direction from higher-level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
Section 101 ( a)( 44 )(B) of the Act. 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the 
petitioner ' s description of the job duties. 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 
4 
Matter of L-P- Inc. 
managerial or executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description of 
the job duties, we examine 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. Accordingly, we will discuss 
evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of the nature of the Petitioner's 
business, its staffing levels, and its organizational structure. 
A. Duties 
Based on the definition of managerial or executive capacity, the Petitioner must first 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. 
The Petitioner stated that it "is in the business of international trading, particularly specializing in 
producing and distributing bags for bedding." In support of the petition, the Petitioner provided two 
different duty descriptions for the Beneficiary, the first indicating that he devoted his time to the 
following duties, among others: 
• preparing marketing strategies for product and designs- 20% of his time, 
• organizing direct sales channels for the Sales Manager and Marketing Manager, 
maintaining cooperative relationships between vendors, and discussing long term 
strategies and plans in order to draft practical and realistic goals for the 
subordinates to follow- 40% of his time, 
• forecasting future trends, orienting strategies to capture maximum benefits and 
potentials- 20% of his time, and 
• reviewing operating costs and appraising the performance of multiple assets-
20% of his time. 
In a letter from the Petitioner's asserted sales manager, it also provided a different duty description 
for the Beneficiary which denoted different allocations of the time he devoted to his tasks. For 
instance, it indicated that the Beneficiary would perform the following duties, among others: 
• overseeing all subordinate manager and staff, communicating with the board of 
directors of the foreign employer, overseeing budgets, encouraging business 
investment, promoting economic development, directing the company's financial 
goals, objectives, and budgets, overseeing the investment of funds and managing 
associated risks, supervising cash management activities, executing capital-raising 
strategies to support expansion, and dealing with mergers and acquisitions- 65% 
of his time, 
5 
Matter of L-P- lnc. 
• hiring, trammg and terminating employees, developing and implementing 
strategies, setting the overall direction, directing professional development and 
personnel policies and procedures, providing visionary and strategic leadership 
for the company, and developing policies and direction with the board of 
directors- 30% of his time, 
• miscellaneous related duties- 5% of his time. 
In the RFE, the Director stated that the Beneficiary's duties lacked sufficient detail and requested 
that the Petitioner submit more specifics regarding his daily tasks. In response, the Petitioner listed 
the following duties for the Beneficiary, among others: 
• meetings with the general manager, marketing manager, and sales manager to go 
over company forecast, projections, sales goals, marketing strategies and quality 
control and selections of products, reviewing reports submitted by staff members 
and recommending approval or changes, communicating the company's vision, 
mission and overall direction- 35% of his time, 
• appointing department heads and managers and delegating responsibilities, 
directing and coordinating financial and budget activities, directing, planning, and 
implementing policies, objectives, or activities- 15% of his time, 
• directing human resources activities, including selection of directors and staff, 
implementing corrective action plans to solve organizational problems- 15% of 
his time, 
• negotiating and approving contracts or agreements with suppliers, distributors, 
and federal and state agencies- 25% of his time, 
• participating in civic and professional association responsibilities and liaising 
between the Petitioner and the foreign employer- 10% of his time. 
The Petitioner has questionably submitted three wholly different duty descriptions on the record that 
assign different percentages of time he devotes to vague tasks. For instance, the Beneficiary's first 
duty description emphasized marketing strategies, sales channels, and operating costs and assets, 
while the latter two do not include these tasks or this language. Likewise, the Petitioner's initial 
duty description did not discuss human resources or staffing responsibilities, while the latter two 
duty descriptions emphasize these responsibilities. Further, the Beneficiary's second duty 
description indicated that he would oversee the investment of funds and manage associated risks, 
supervise cash management activities, execute capital-raising strategies to support expansion, and 
deal with mergers and acquisitions, while the description submitted in response to the RFE did not 
include these tasks. Lastly, the Beneficiary's duty description provided in response to the RFE 
makes light of the Beneficiary negotiating and approving contracts or agreements with suppliers, 
distributors, and federal and state agencies, and participating in civic and professional associations, 
whereas the former two duty descriptions do not list these duties. 
In sum, it appears that the Petitioner has submitted three completely different duty descriptions on 
the record, leaving question as to the duties the Beneficiary has performed or those he would 
Matter of L-P- Inc. 
perform under the extended petit10n. Again, the Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies and 
ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 582, 591-92. 
In addition, the three separate duty descriptions do not credibly establish that the Beneficiary would 
devote his time primarily to qualifying tasks. The duty descriptions include several generic duties 
that could apply to any manager acting in any industry and they provide little insight into his actual 
day-to-day managerial tasks. For instance, the Petitioner did not detail or document marketing 
strategies the Beneficiary prepared, sales channels he organized with his managers, goals he drafted, 
or business or economic development he promoted. Further, the Petitioner did not articulate or 
document financial goals or budgets he set, investments he managed, or professional development, 
personnel policies, or procedures he implemented. Likewise, the Petitioner did not describe in detail 
or provide evidence to substantiate visions, mission, or overall direction he communicated, 
corrective actions he implemented to solve organizational problems, contracts he negotiated with 
suppliers, distributors, or government agencies, or civic and professional associations he participated 
m. 
To the extent that the Beneficiary submits detail and documentation regarding the Beneficiary's 
daily duties, this evidence reflects his involvement in non-qualifying operational tasks. For instance, 
the Petitioner submitted an invoice from a marketing company signed by the Beneficiary for the 
provision of the company's logo, website design, and product photography. In addition, the 
Petitioner provided an invoice from its website provider dated in September 2017 which includes the 
Beneficiary's name. Although the Beneficiary may perform some non-qualifying duties during the 
first year while launching the new business, it has only provided evidence indicating that he 
performs these tasks rather than qualifying managerial or executive-level duties. 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the organization, the fact that he will 
manage or direct a business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an 
intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity within the meaning of section 
101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties 
of a position be "primarily" managerial or executive in nature. Id. The Beneficiary may exercise 
discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of authority 
with respect to discretionary decision-making; however, the position descriptions alone are 
insufficient to establish that his actual duties would be primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
B. Staffing 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, we 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) of the Act. 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart reflecting that the Beneficiary supervised a general 
manager who oversaw a marketing manager and a sales manager. The chart further indicated that 
Matter of L-P- Inc. 
the marketing manager supervised a marketing assistant and the sales manager oversaw two sales 
executives/representatives. 
First, the regulations require that a Petitioner seeking the extension of a new office petition submit 
evidence of its financial status after one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14 )(ii)(E). However, the 
Petitioner provides no details or documentation regarding its financial status after one year, such as 
evidence indicating how much revenue it earned or documentation to substantiate this income. We 
acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted evidence indicating that it is likely paying the asserted 
members of its organizational structure, but it is not clear how it is sustaining this organizational 
structure after one year without evidence to demonstrate its financial status as of the date of the 
petition. This lack of evidence leaves question as to whether the Petitioner has developed 
sufficiently during the first year to support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. 
For instance, the Petitioner submits little evidence to substantiate its operations during the first year. 
In fact, the only evidence of its operations submitted were invoices from February to October 2017 
reflecting the purchase and shipment of bags to one purchaser in California. However, the 
Petitioner's asserted organizational structure does not include employees devoted to the duties 
inherent in these transactions, including processing orders, arranging shipments, issuing invoices, 
and collecting payments. The Petitioner provides vague duties for the Beneficiary's subordinates 
that do not appear credible given its apparent level of operations after one year. For example, the 
Petitioner states that the general manager subordinate to the Beneficiary is tasked with several 
generic duties such as holding weekly meetings, going over concrete plans and strategies, setting up 
short and long term goals, establishing plans, budgets, and results, and developing strategic plans. 
Not only do these duties significantly overlap with the Beneficiary's asserted duties, there is also no 
indication what plans, strategies, goals, budgets, or strategic plans the general manager was setting, 
or would implement. 
Likewise, the Petitioner provides similarly vague duties for the general manager's asserted 
subordinates, noting that the sales manager is responsible for going over concrete plans and 
strategies for sales development, setting up long term and short term goals for the sales department, 
dealing with complicated plans to pitch to important clients, and advising on finances related to 
contracts the company enters into. However, again, the Petitioner submits no detail as to the sales 
plan and strategies this asserted manager set or would implement, goals he would determine, clients 
he would work with, or contracts he entered into. In fact, as we have noted, the submitted 
documentation indicates that the Petitioner has only one client, and it does not indicate which 
employees are tasked with providing these goods. As such, it has not credibly demonstrated that the 
Petitioner requires a sales manager as well as two sales representatives. 
In addition, the duties of the claimed marketing manager are also generic, stating that this employee 
makes up marketing strategies, marketing plans, and strategizes to "retain clients" and "increase 
word-by-mouth advertisements." However, there is little evidence to demonstrate that the marketing 
manager has clients to retain, that the Petitioner advertises, or that it has a defined marketing 
8 
Matter of L-P- Jnc. 
strategy. Therefore, it is questionable that it would require not only a marketing manager, but also a 
subordinate marketing assistant. 
In total, although the Petitioner submitted evidence indicating that it paid wages to the asserted 
members of its organizational structure, it submits little other evidence to indicate that its operations 
have developed sufficiently to support this claimed organizational structure. Further, the duties of 
the asserted members of its organizational chart are insufficiently vague and do not substantiate that 
it employs three subordinate managers and three other operational level employees. Indeed, there is 
no evidence reflecting the Beneficiary delegating duties to his asserted managers and employees. 
The Petitioner has not established that it has developed sufficiently during the first year to support 
the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner primarily asserts that the Beneficiary would qualify as a function manager. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and 
"function managers." See section 101 (a)( 44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Here, the Petitioner does not 
contend that the Beneficiary would qualify as a personnel manager; as such, we will only analyze 
whether he would qualify 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. If a petitioner claims that a 
beneficiary will manage an essential function, it must clearly describe the duties to be performed in 
managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that "(I) the function 
is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is 'essential,' i.e., core to the organization; (3) the 
beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the function; (4) the beneficiary will act 
at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and ( 5) 
the beneficiary will exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day operations." Matter of G­
Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary would act as a function manager under the 
extended petition. In asserting that the Beneficiary would act as a function manager on appeal, the 
Petitioner merely reiterates the regulatory definition of a manager. The Petitioner does not 
specifically articulate why the Beneficiary would qualify as a function manager; for instance, it does 
not detail the nature of the function, why it is essential, or how the Beneficiary would be primarily 
relieved from performing the function. In fact, as we have discussed, there is no evidence reflecting 
the Beneficiary's subordinates performing their claimed duties or demonstrating his delegation of 
operational tasks to the members of its organizational structure. In contrast, the record includes 
evidence indicating the Beneficiary's performance of non-qualifying operational duties such as 
hiring a contractor to create marketing materials and a website and paying a website provider. 
Further, there are several invoices reflecting the shipment of bags to a purchaser in California, but 
the Petitioner's organizational structure includes no apparent employees devoted to arranging and 
shipping these goods or handling the payments associated with these shipments. As such, the 
9 
Matter of L-P- Inc. 
Petitioner has not adequately established that the Beneficiary has been primarily relieved of non­
qualifying tasks as necessary to qualify him as a function manager. 
Lastly, the Petitioner also indicated that the Beneficiary would qualify as an executive. 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. 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 they must primarily focus on the broad 
goals and policies of the organization rather than the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. An 
individual will not be deemed an executive under the statute simply because they have an executive 
title or because they "direct" the enterprise as the owner or sole managerial employee. 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." Id. 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary would qualify 
as an executive under the extended petition. First, as noted, the Petitioner has submitted three 
conflicting duty descriptions for the Beneficiary leaving question as to the actual duties he would 
perform under the extended petition. In addition, it has not adequately detailed the executive-level 
tasks the Beneficiary has performed or would perform. The Petitioner has also submitted little 
evidence to demonstrate its financial status after one year to substantiate that it has developed 
sufficiently to support the Beneficiary in an executive capacity. Likewise, it provided an overly 
generic duty description for the Beneficiary's lone subordinate, the general manager, and it also did 
not submit credible duty descriptions for the other subordinate members of its organizational 
structure. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would act in an elevated 
position within a complex organizational hierarchy and that he would oversee a subordinate level of 
managerial employees allowing him to primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the 
organization rather than its day-to-day operations. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would act in a 
managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed as the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's former foreign 
employer is a qualifying organization doing business as defined by the regulations and it did not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity under the 
extended petition. 
10 
Matter of L-P- Inc. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of L-P-lnc., ID# 1693925 (AAO Nov. 21, 2018) 
11