dismissed L-1A Case: Tourism And Import/Export

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-V-USA, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 16,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a tourism and import/export company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
the chief executive of its new office under the L-1 A 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, California Service Center, denied the petitiOn. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a 
a managerial or executive capacity within one year of the approval of the new office petition. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by 
evaluating only the Beneficiary's proposed role in the U.S. entity and not his responsibility for 
managing an essential function within the qualifying international organization. 
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 1-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, shall be accompanied by: 
Matter of A-V-USA, 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 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v) further provides that if the petition indicates that the 
beneficiary is coming to the United States as a manager or executive to open or to be employed in a 
new office in the United States, the petitioner shall submit evidence that: 
(A) Sufficient physical premises to house the new office have been secured; 
(B) The beneficiary has been employed for one continuous year in the three year 
period preceding the filing of the petition in an executive or managerial 
capacity and that the proposed employment involved executive or managerial 
authority over the new operation; and 
(C) The intended United States operation, within one year of the approval of the 
petition, will support an executive or managerial position as defined in 
paragraphs (1)(1 )(ii)(B) or (C) of this section, supported by information 
regarding: 
(1) The proposed nature of the office describing the scope of the entity, its 
organizational structure, and its financial goals; 
(2) The size of the United States investment and the financial ability of 
the foreign entity to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence 
doing business in the United States; and 
(3) The organizational structure ofthe foreign entity. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
2 
Matter of A-V-USA, LLC 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of the 
approval of the new office petition. 
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 operations of the activity or function 
for which the employee has authority. 
Further, "[a] first-line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by 
virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional." !d. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) 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 Ol(a)( 44)(C) of the Act. 
3 
Matter of A-V-USA, LLC 
A. Evidence ofRecord 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-129 on December 11, 2015, and requested that the Beneficiary be 
granted a one-year period of approval to serve as its chief executive. The Petitioner stated that it had 
one employee at the time of filing and described its intended business as "Tourism and imports." 
The Petitioner listed its projected gross and net annual income as "TBD." 
On the L Classification Supplement to Form I-129, the Petitioner described the Beneficiary's 
proposed duties as follows: 
Chief Executive and development manager tasked with managing its staff, and 
establishing and accomplishing business objectives. [The Beneficiary] will also be 
managing multiple units of the company, hiring and training employees, preparing 
reports a~d setting up the budget and the salaries. He will be responsible for the 
development of a strategic plan by studying financial opportunities, presenting 
assumptions and recommending objectives. He will handle employee relations, attend 
and preside over meetings, and manage the overall operations of the company. [The 
Beneficiary] will therefore oversee the expansion and growth of [the Petitioner] as its 
Chief Executive Officer. 
The Petitioner submitted its business plan, with the following description of the Beneficiary's 
proposed duties for the first year of operations: 
Export Marketing and Sales Department 65% 
• Review and analyze sales and activity reports, potential sales, and performance 
data in order to measure productivity and goals achievement that will help ... 
determine where company improvement is needed - 8% 
• Direct, design and implement strategic plans in a cost-effective and time-efficient 
manner- 8% 
• Direct integrated export plans in order to ensure successful on-time, on-budget 
delivery of products by developing scope of work documents to define tasks, 
deliverables, cost estimates and timing - 8% 
• Analyze market offering to find products that will best satisfy customers' needs -
5% 
• Stay alert to new industry and market trends - 5% 
• Determine staff requirements, hire personnel, oversee training of new personnel 
and monitor personnel activities and reports of lower level personnel - 8% 
• Direct and approve products' strategies, price policies, and discounts and 
promotions in order to ensure the required competitive level, cost recovery and 
profitability expected by the company - 8% 
• Direct and supervise the company promotion through social media- 3% 
• Develop new innovative marketing campaigns that will continuously increase the 
customer base - 7% 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-V-USA , LLC 
• Direct a competitive analysis - 5% 
Supply Chain Department 23% 
• Establish and communicate goals and objectives- 3% 
• Work on the time efficiency strategy and, therefore, reduce costs- 4% 
• Plan a weekly meeting to coordinate the operations of the company - 2% 
• Perform financial forecasts and analysis - 4% 
• Prepare financial statements - 5% 
• Seek out, communicate, and meet with suppliers' representatives m order to 
secure desirable procurement deals- 3% 
• Perform a thorough procurement analysis in order to lower the cost of goods sold 
while maintaining the same or increasing obtained product quality - 2% 
Customer Relationship Department 12% 
• Perform an automatic email notification preference for field personnel - 2% 
• Work on improving the draft reports and implementing service agreements- 4% 
• Meet customers' service expectations - 6% 
The job description indicated that the Beneficiary would oversee the following personnel in the 
initial year: an export marketing and sales officer, a marketing/sales coordinator, and a business 
developer in the export marketing department; a supply chain employee and logistic coordinator in 
the supply chain department; and a customer relationship employee in the customer relationship 
department, for a total of six subordinate staff. However, the Petitioner's personnel plan at section 
8.10 of the business plan indicates that the staff to be hired during the first year include the 
Beneficiary, the marketing and sales employee a supply chain employee, and a 
customer relationship employee, with the company reaching a staff size of seven by its third year. 
The business plan includes position descriptions for all proposed subordinates to be hired within five 
years. It indicates that the marketing and sales employee will: produce marketing communications , 
such as flyers, brochures, and exhibition-related projects; set up tracking systems for marketing 
campaigns and online activities; track competitor activity; and product written correspondence such 
as letters and emails. The business plan states that the customer relationship employee will: provide 
help and advice to customers; communicate by telephone, email and in person to handle customer 
complaints; and analyze statistics and write reports to develop feedback and complaint procedures 
and policies. Finally, the business plan states that the supply chain employee will be responsible for 
the entire export process from the manufacture and supply of the products to the direct delivery to 
the client, including planning delivery timetables, ensuring clients have stock to meet demand, and 
overseeing the ordering and packing process. 
The Petitioner states in its business plan that it expects 70% of its revenue to derive from export 
services and 30% of its revenue to derive from export brokerage services. The specific product 
offerings include beverages, automobiles, vehicle spare parts, medical equipment, medical supplies, 
"other goods," and travel and tourism. The Business ,plan indicates that the Petitioner received 
capitalization in the amount of $250,000 from the ·Beneficiary 's foreign employer, but it did not 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-V-VSA , LLC 
include financial projections or outline its projected start-up costs and first year operating expenses 
in the business plan. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) asking the Petitioner to provide additional 
information and evidence to demonstrate how it would support a managerial or executive position 
within one year. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a letter from the foreign entity ' s 
general manager, who stated that the. Beneficiary would perform the following duties as 
chief executive: 
Directing, coordinating, and participating in merchandising travel agency services , 
such as a sale of transportation company carrier tickets, packaged or specialized tours, 
or vacation packages. Plans work schedules for employees. Training employees in 
advising customers on current traveling conditions, planning customer travel and 
itineraries, ticketing and booking functions, and in calculating costs for transportation 
and accommodations from current transportation schedules and tariff books and 
accommodation rate books. Selling travel tickets packaged and specialized tours, and 
advising customers on travel plans. . Reviewing employee ticketing and sales 
activities to ensure cost calculations , booking, and transportation scheduling are in 
accordance with current transportation carrier schedules, tariff rates, and regulations 
and that 
charges are made for accommodations. Reconciling sales slips and cash · 
daily.· Coordinating sales promotion activities approve advertising copy and travel 
display work. Keeping employee records and hiring and discharging employees. 
further stated that the Beneficiary would be in charge of expanding the scope of the U.S. 
company to engage in the import of beverages and other goods into the United States and to export 
beverages, automobiles , spare parts, medical equipment, medical supplies and other goods out of the 
United States. He reiterated that the Beneficiary would supervise the aforementioned marketing and 
sales, supply chain and customer relationship employees during the first year of operations. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the evidence did not establish that the Beneficiary 
would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity within one year. The Director found that 
the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would supervise a subordinate staff of 
managerial , supervisor y, or professional employees , or that he would primarily manage an essential 
function of the company. Rather, the Director determined that the Beneficiary would be primaril y 
involved in the performance of routine operational duties and that the Petitioner had not established 
that it could support a managerial or executive 
position within one year. 
. ' . 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not properly address the evidence submitted to 
establish that the Beneficiary would manage an essential function of the organization and reached an 
unsubstantiated conclusion in determining that the Beneficiary would be primarily engaged in the 
performance of routine operational activities . Further, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not 
take into account Matter of Z-A-. Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016), which 
clarifies that "when determining whether the beneficiary of an L-1 A nonimmigrant classification 
will primarily manage an essential function , USCIS officers must weigh all relevant factors 
6 
Matter of A-V-USA, LLC 
including, as pertinent in the instant case, evidence of the beneficiary's role within the wider 
qualifying international organization." 
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 Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of approval of the new office 
petition. 
The "new office" regulations allow a newly established petitioner one year to develop to a point that 
it can support the employment of an alien in a primarily managerial or executive position. See 8 
C.P.R.§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). Accordingly, if a petitioner indicates that a beneficiary is coming to the 
United States to open a "new office," it must show that it is prepared to commence doing business 
immediately upon approval so that it will support a manager or executive within the one-year 
timeframe. This evidence should demonstrate a realistic expectation that the enterprise will succeed 
and rapidly expand as it moves away from the developmental stage to full operations, where there 
would be an actual need for a manager or executive who will primarily perform qualifying duties. 
See generally, 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(v). 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of the Beneficiary, we will look first to the 
Petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The Petitioner's description 
ofthe 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 initially described the Beneficiary's position as executive in nature and its 
business plan includes a description of the Beneficiary's proposed duties with the percentage of time 
he would allocate to tasks, noting generally that he would allocate 65% of his time to overseeing the 
export marketing and sales department, 23% of his time to overseeing the supply chain department, 
and 12% of his time to overseeing the customer relationship department. Although the duty 
description indicated that he would be responsible for higher level duties such as strategic planning, 
hiring staff, establishing goals and objectives, and directing and overseeing promotion, the specific 
tasks attributed to him included a number of non-managerial and non-executive duties. For example, 
the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will analyze marketing offerings, monitor industry and 
market trends, develop marketing campaigns, perform financial forecasts and analysis, prepare 
financial statements, perform procurement analysis, seek out and meet with supplier representatives, 
perform procurement analysis, work on implementing service agreements, and meet customers' 
7 
Matter of A- V- USA, LLC 
service expectations. None of these tasks, which the Petitioner projects would require approximately 
one half of his time, fall within the statutory definition of managerial or executive capacity and 
instead indicate that the Beneficiary would be directly involved in procurement, market research, 
marketing, financial and customer service activities alongside the three subordinate employees to be 
hired during the first year. An employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a 
product or to provide services is not considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity. See also, sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one 
"primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); Matter of Church Scientology 
Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593,604 (Comm'r 1988). 
Moreover, while the Petitioner initially provided the above-referenced positiOn description 
accounting for 100% of the Beneficiary's time, it submitted a completely different account of the 
Beneficiary's duties in response to the RFE. Notably, the foreign entity's letter in response to the 
RFE provided a detailed list of duties the Beneficiary would perform in relation to the Petitioner's 
provision of travel services, duties which were both primarily non-managerial and not included in 
the previously submitted job description. Specifically, the foreign entity's representative stated that 
the Beneficiary's role in the United States will involve "participating in merchandising travel agency 
services," training employees who sell travel services, selling travel tickets and tours, advising 
customers on travel plans, reconciling sales slips and cash on a daily basis, and coordinating sales 
promotion activities. The Petitioner offered no explanation for this considerable change in the 
Beneficiary's proposed duties and did not provide an amended breakdown indicating how much time 
he would spend providing travel services or an amended proposed organization chart that includes 
subordinate staff engaged in travel services. As noted, the Petitioner indicated previously that it 
would derive 1 00% of its revenue from export and export brokerage services. The Petitioner has not 
resolved these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
In sum, while it appears that the Beneficiary will have the authority to make decisions, establish 
policies, hire employees, and holds a senior position in the petitioning company, the number of non­
qualifying duties attributed to him is significant and there are unresolved inconsistencies in the 
submitted job descriptions. The record does not clearly establish what he duties he would perform 
within one year and does not support a finding that such duties would be primarily managerial or 
executive in nature. Again, whether the Beneficiary is a managerial or executive employee turns on 
whether the Petitioner has sustained its burden of proving that his duties are "primarily" managerial 
or executive. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. 
Overall, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary's duties 
would be primarily in a managerial or executive capacity, particularly in the case of a new office 
petition where much is dependent on factors such as the Petitioner's business arid hiring plans and 
evidence that the business will grow sufficiently to support the Beneficiary in the intended 
managerial or executive capacity. The Petitioner has the burden to establish that the U.S. company 
would realistically develop to the point where it would require the beneficiary to perform duties that 
are primarily managerial or executive in nature within one year. Accordingly, the totality of the 
record must be considered in analyzing whether the proposed duties are plausible considering the 
8 
Matter of A-V-USA, LLC 
Petitioner's anticipated staffing levels and stage of development within a one-year period. See 
generally, 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
The Petitioner is self-described as a "tourism and imports" business; however, the business plan 
describes the company as an exporter and export broker and indicates that it will derive 100% of its 
total revenuesc from these lines of business. The business plan identifies six or more lines of goods 
that it plans to import and export, and only briefly mentions the company's plan to offer travel and 
tourism services. However, the Beneficiary's job description submitted in response to the RFE 
suggests that he will be actively involved in marketing and selling travel services and overseeing 
travel agents who do not appear in the company's personnel plan or in the submitted proposed 
organizational charts. The business plan does not include information regarding the Petitioner's 
anticipated sales, expenses, or financial objectives for the first year of operation which would help to 
clarify the proposed nature of the business. 
Absent a clear picture of the nature and scope of the Petitioner's business activities for the first year 
and beyond, we cannot determine that the proposed staff of three employees would relieve the 
Beneficiary from performing non-qualifying operational tasks associated with the operation of the 
business. As noted, the Petitioner initially indicated that the Beneficiary, while exercising decision­
making authority over the business, would also be performing a number of non-qualifying duties 
associated with the Petitioner's import and export business. While the business plan indicates that 
the Petitioner's proposed staff for the first year would assist with some of these duties, the record 
does not establish that these three staff would reasonably relieve him from primarily engaging in 
non-qualifying duties associated with the sourcing, procurement, logistics, marketing and sales of six 
or more product lines, particularly given the number of administrative, financial and operational 
tasks directly attributed to the Beneficiary. Rather, the business plan reflects that the Beneficiary 
would be performing a number of duties that would be assigned to staff hired in subsequent years, 
which include business developer, additional marketing and sales staff, a purchase assistant, a 
logistics coordinator, and an administrative assistant. 
As noted, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would be directly 
involved in marketing and selling travel services, as well as supervising employees engaged in these 
duties. However, as the Petitioner does not claim that any of the Beneficiary's proposed 
subordinates will engage in providing travel services, the record does not establish that anyone 
would relieve him from directly providing these services during the first year of operations and 
beyond. Again, while performing non-qualifying tasks necessary to produce a product or service 
will not automatically disqualify the Beneficiary as long as those tasks are not the majority of his 
duties, the Petitioner still has the burden of establishing that the Beneficiary would be "primarily" 
performing managerial or executive duties. See section 101 (a)( 44) of the Act. 
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. Personnel managers are 
required to primarily supervise and control· the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees. On appeal, the Petitioner acknowledges the Director's finding that the 
evidence does not establish that any of the Beneficiary's proposed subordinates to be hired during 
9 
I 
Matter of A-V-USA, LLC 
the initial year would serve in a managerial, supervisory, or professional position. However, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Director did not properly analyze the evidence submitted to establish that 
the Beneficiary will manage an essential function of the organization, or take into account his role 
within the larger intematibnal organization. 
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 the beneficiary will manage an 
essential function, a petitioner must furnish a written job offer that clearly describes the duties to be 
performed in managing the essential function, i.e., identify the function with specificity, articulate 
the essential nature of the function, and establish the proportion of a beneficiary's daily duties 
attributed to managing the essential function. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(ii). In addition, the 
petitioner's description of the beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary will 
manage the function rather than performs the duties related to the function. In this matter, the 
Petitioner has not provided evidence that the Beneficiary would manage an essential function. 
Although the Petitioner correctly states that USCIS will consider the Beneficiary's role within the 
wider multinational organization when determining whether he will manage an essential function, 
the Petitioner here has not articulated what specific essential function the Beneficiary would manage. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner implied, without using the term "essential function," that the 
Beneficiary is responsible for the expansion of the foreign entity's business to include the import and 
export of goods. Moreover, whether the Beneficiary is an "activity" or "function" manager turns in 
part on whether the Petitioner has sustained its burden of proving that her/his duties are "primarily" 
managerial. For the reasons already discussed, the record does not establish how his duties 
associated with this function would be primarily managerial in nature or how the Petitioner's 
proposed employees, or employees of the foreign entity, would relieve him from significant 
involvement in the routine non-managerial activities of the company at the end of the first year of 
operations and beyond. 
Based on the deficiencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of the approval of a new 
office petition. 
III. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
Beyond the decision of the Director, the evidence of record does not establish that the Petitioner has 
a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
To establish a "qualifying relationship" under the Act and the regulations, the petitioner must show 
that the beneficiary's foreign employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (i.e., 
one entity with "branch" offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See 
generally section 101(a)(l5)(L)ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1). 
10 
l--~~---
(b)(6)
Matter of A- V-USA , LLC 
The Petitioner stated on the L Classification Supplement to the Form I-129 that it is a subsidiary of 
located in Kuwait. 
However, where asked on the same form to describe the ownership and control of each company, the 
Petitioner stated that it is 100% owned by the Beneficiary. The Petitioner has not resolved this 
inconsistency with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. See Matter of 
Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. 
The Petitioner provided evidence that the Beneficiary , as of October 2015, is a majority owner of the 
foreign entity; however, the record contains no evidence of the Petitioner's ownership beyond the 
statements of the Petitioner and the foreign entity. The Petitioner submitted· a joint venture 
agreement between the two entities indicating that the foreign entity was to provide half of the 
investment for the petitioning company and hold veto power over decisions made by the petitioning 
company; however, it also makes multiple claims that it is wholly owned by the Beneficiary, which 
would suggest an affiliate relationship. 
Regardless, the Petitioner has not submitted its operating agreement , articles of association , 
membership certificates or other relevant evidence showing the actual ownership and control of the 
U.S. company and therefore any claim of a joint venture, parent-subsidiary, or affiliate relationship 
cannot be confirmed. A petitioner's unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally 
will be insufficient to carry its burden of proof. See Matter of So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)); 
see also Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). The Petitioner must support its 
assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 
376. 
Based on these inconsistencies and deficiencies , the evidence of record does not establish that the 
Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. 
IV. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii), the Petitioner must establish that the Beneficiary 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. 
The Petitioner stated that the foreign entity employed the Beneficiary from June 2012 through the 
date of filing the instant petition in December 2015. We note that the Petitioner requested that the 
Beneficiary be granted a change of nonimmigrant status from F -1 to L-1 A and the record shows that 
he had made his initial entry to the United States as an F-1 student on August 27, 2014. · 
U.S. Department of State records show that when the Beneficiary applied for an F-1 student visa at 
the U.S. Consulate in in June 2014, he stated on his nonimmigrant visa application that 
his current occupation was as a "mechanical supervisor" for the Ministry of Public Works, with no 
prior employment. While he also stated that he has his own travel agency business, his response on 
this application raises questions as to whether he was a full-time employee of the foreign entity 
during the relevant three-year time period. 
11 
Matter of A-V-USA, LLC 
While we are not making an adverse determination based on this information obtained from the U.S. 
Department of State, the Petitioner may need to address the Beneficiary's statements regarding his 
employment abroad in any future petition filed by the Petitioner on his behalf. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. 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 ofOtiende, 26 I&1;l127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not 
been met. 
ORDER: . The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-V-USA, LLC, ID# 72792 (AAO Nov. 16, 2016) 
12