dismissed L-1A Case: Transportation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-T- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 21,2016 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a transportation business, seeksto temporarily employ the Beneficiary as the president 
of its new office under the L-1A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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 an executive or 
managerial capacity. 
The Director, California Service Center, originally denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
did not establish that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity for one year within the three years preceding the filing of the petition. We summarily 
dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal because the record at the time of adjudication did not 
show that the Petitioner had submitted a brief or otherwise identified an erroneous conclusion of law 
or statement of fact in the Director's decision. 
The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. On motion, 
the Petitioner provides evidence that it submitted a timely brief in support of its appeal. 
Upon de novo review, we will reopen the matter for the purpose of considering the appellate brief 
and the merits of the appeal. However, as the Petitioner has not overcome the original grounds for 
denial, we will deny the combined motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A. Overarching Requirement for Motions by a Petitioner 
The regulations state that "the official having jurisdiction may, for proper cause shown, reopen the 
proceeding." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i). This provision limits our authority to reopen the proceeding 
to instances where "proper cause" has been shown for such action. Thus, to merit reopening, the 
submission must not only meet the formal requirements for filing, but the petitioner must also show 
proper cause for granting the motion. 
Matter of G-T- Corp. 
B. Requirements for Motions to Reopen 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.P.R. § 1 03.5(a)(2). Also, the new facts 
must possess such significance that, "if proceedings ... were reopened, with all the attendant delays, 
the new evidence offered would likely change the result in the case." Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N 
Dec. 464,473 (BIA 1992); see also Maatougui v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1230, 1239-40 (lOth Cir. 2013). 
C. Requirements for Motions to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent 
precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or 
Service policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an application or petition must, when filed, 
also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial 
decision. 8 C.P.R. § 1 03.5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider contests the correctness of the prior 
decision based on the previous factual record, as opposed to a motion to reopen which seeks a new 
hearing based on new facts. Compare 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(3) and 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(2). 
II. DISCUSSION 
The Petitioner submitted no brief or evidence with its Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, but 
stated that it would submit those materials within 30 days. When we reviewed the record of 
proceeding several months later, it did not include any supplement to the appeal. As a result, we 
summarily dismissed the appeal, because the appeal, as presented to us, did not identify any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's denial ofthe.petition. See 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a copy of an appellate brief with supporting exhibits. The 
Petitioner had timely submitted these materials to supplement the appeal but, for reasons the record 
does not explain, they did not reach the record of proceeding. 
We will deny the motion to reconsider, because the Petitioner has not shown that the summary 
dismissal was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. The 
evidence of record, at that time, did not include any supplement to the appeal. Given the state of the 
record at the time, our summary dismissal of the appeal was consistent with US CIS regulations and 
policy. 
We will grant the motion to reopen in part, because the recovered supplement to the appeal 
comprises new facts that were not available to us at the time of our prior decision. While we cannot 
approve the petition, the Petitioner's timely submission of substantive appellate materials entitles the 
Petitioner to a decision on the merits. 
2 
Matter of G-T- Corp. 
III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To estab;lish 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. ld. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129, 
I 
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 
(1)(1)(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 of managerial 
authority over the new operation; and 
3 
Matter of G-T- Corp. 
(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 (l)(l)(ii)(B) or (C) of this section, supported by information 
regarding: 
(I) The proposed nature of the office describing the scope of the entity, its 
organizational structure, and its financial goals; 
(2) The size of the United States investment and the financial ability of the 
foreign entity to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing 
bu~iness in the United States; and 
(3) The organizational structure of the foreign entity. 
IV. ONE YEAR OF QUALIFYING FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary was employed by a qualifying foreign entity in a managerial or executive capacity for 
one continuous year within the three year period preceding the filing of the petition, pursuant to 8 
C.F.R. §§ 214.2(1)(3)(iii) and 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(A) states: 
Intracompany transferee means an alien who, within three years preceding the 
time of his or her application for admission into the United States, has been 
employed abroad continuously for one year by a firm or corporation or other legal 
entity or parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary thereof, and who seeks to enter the 
United States temporarily in order to render his or her services to a branch of the 
same employer or a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary thereof in a capacity that is 
managerial, executive, or involves specialized knowledge. Periods spent in the 
United States in lawful status for a branch of the same employer or a parent, 
affiliate, or subsidiary thereof and brief trips to the United States for business or 
pleasure shall not be interruptive of the one year of continuous employment 
abroad but such periods shall not be counted toward fulfillment of that 
requirement. 
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; 
4 
Matter of G-T- Corp. 
(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 
(v) 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." Id. 
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; 
1 (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 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
A. Evidence of Record 
The Petitioper filed the Form I-129 on July 16, 2015. On the L Classification Supplement to Form 
I -129, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary was employed by the qualifying foreign entity from 
September 8, 2008 to December 15,2014, explaining that the "Beneficiary has been sent to the US 
to set up new business." The Beneficiary was last admitted to the United States in B-2 visitor status 
on January 22, 2015. 
5 
Matter of G-T- Corp. 
In its letter of support, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has been running the foreign entity 
abroad and has been advising and informing board members; supervi~ing and evaluating the work 
performance of the managers; overseeing marketing, promotion, delivery, and quality of products 
and services; recommending yearly budgets; and managing the organization's resources. 
The Petitioner submitted an Employment Verification letter from the foreign entity's CEO, dated 
March 2, 2015, certifying that the company employed the Beneficiary as an IT officer and an 
administration assistant between September 8, 2008 and December 15, 2014. The CEO further 
stated that upon the company founder's retirement, the Beneficiary inherited the company and 
became the sole shareholder of the foreign entity. 
As further evidence of the Beneficiary's employm'ent, the Petitioner submitted copies of his 
employment contracts and appointment letters from the foreign entity. The evidence reflects that the 
foreign entity hired the Beneficiary as an IT officer in September 2008 and later assumed the 
position of administration assistant in January 2012. 
The Petitioner also submitted a Terminating Labor Contract, stating that the Beneficiary's 
employment contract at the foreign entity was terminated on December 15,2014 due to his 
appointment to another position. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), instructing the Petitioner to submit evidence that 
the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in 
the three years immediately preceding the filing of the petition. The Director stated that such 
evidence may include pay or personnel records, a detailed organizational chart for the foreign entity, 
and a letter clearly describing the Beneficiary's duties and the amount of time he allocated to each 
duty. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "has been working for many years 
in the parent company and more than a year as an executive, first by assisting his parents in running 
and administrating the company, then fully promoted to the position of executive director in 2914." 
The Petitioner submitted a Certificate of Employment from the foreign entity, dated 
October 25, 2015, describing the Beneficiary's position and job duties abroad as follows: 
This is to certify that [the Beneficiary] has been working with [the foreign entity] as 
IT Officer from September 2008 to December 15, 2014. He has also been assisting 
the administration of his mother, the Chief Executive Director of the company. 
Thereafter, on December 15,2014, [the Beneficiary] was promoted to the position of 
an Executive Director by the board of directors. 
As an executive Director, [the Beneficiary] was responsible for the overall 
management of the company and his duties included: 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of G-T- Corp. 
a. To provide agenda of the meetings and inform the Board of Directors of the 
internal and external issues faced by the company. 
b. To review existing policies, recommend changes, if required, draft new 
policies and prepare procedure to implement those policies, for the review and 
approval of the board. 
c. To introduce . rigorous programs of evaluation, quality consistency, 
administration, communication and liaison between different departments of 
the company. 
d. To oversee the implementation of company's policies and programs. 
e. To ensure that the services offered by the company contribute to the 
objectives of the organization. 
f. To review and approve the contracts and services offered to the clients and 
vendors. 
g. To review financial reports and budget proposals prepared by the manager of 
the company for the final approval from the Board. 
The Petitioner also provided an organizational chart for the foreign entity depicting the Beneficiary 
at the top tier of the hierarchy as the executive director, directly supervising a CEO, who supervises 
a vice president. The chart shows that the vice president directly super~ises four divisions, each with 
at least five employees: finance, sales, production, and human resources. 
The Petitioner submitted the foreign entity's payroll records for the Beneficiary for the years 2012 
through 2015. The Beneficiary's position title in 2012 and 2013 was listed as "administration 
assistant." In 2014 and 2015, the records identify him as "executive director" earning the same 
monthly salary he earned as an administration assistant. 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary 's resume listing his professional expenence as 
follows: · 
• Executive Director, [the foreign entity], Mongolia, 2014-present 
• Administration assistant, [the foreign entity], Mongolia, 2012-2014 
• First Officer: Mongolia 2014 
• First Officer Mongolia, 2012-2014 
• Information Technology Officer, [the foreign entity], Mongolia, 2008-2012 
The Beneficiary's resume lists his education as follows: 
• Professional Commercial Pilot License, 
FL, USA, 2010-2012 
• MN, USA, 2012 
• 
Sweden, 2014 
7 
Matter ofG-T- Corp. 
The Director denied the petition on January 28, 2016, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish 
that the Beneficiary had been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for one year in 
the three years immediately preceding the filing of the petition. In denying the petition, the Director 
found that the Beneficiary was first employed as executive director on December 15, 2014, and as 
the petition was filed on July 16, 2015, the Beneficiary had not been employed in that position for 
one year prior to the filing of the petition. The Director noted that the Petitioner did not provide job 
descriptions for the Beneficiary's two previous positions at the foreign entity in order to establish 
that they were managerial or executive. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submitted a brief stating that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a 
managerial position and described this employment as follows: 
[T]he beneficiary has been working in the parent company in various positions prior 
to being elevated to the position of Executive after the retirement of his father. The 
Beneficiary ... has been responsible for the success of the parent company. The 
foreign company provided a letter stating the job duties performed by the 
beneficiary. He has been advising and informing board members, besides 
supervising and evaluating the work performance on the managers. He has been. 
overseeing marketing, promotion, delivery and quality of products and services. He 
would recommend yearly budgets and mange [sic] organization's resources. 
In its combined motion, the Petitioner submits a brief and states the following about the 
Beneficiary's position abroad: 
The Beneficiary has a long career with the parent foreign company. He started with 
a lower position but with the passage of time and experience he, passing through the 
managerial positions was elevated to the position of Executive Director. . . . 
Therefore, the Beneficiary has been on the pay role [sic] of the company from 2008 
to 2014 in IT and Managerial positions. He worked as Manager from 201 0 to 2014 
and afterwards elevated to the position of Executive Director before coming to the 
U.S. This 2010 to 2014 period of continuous full time employment in the 
qualifying foreign company makes him eligible for L-1 visa. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity in a full-time managerial or 
executive position for one continuous year within the three year period preceding the filing of the 
petition. 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-129 on July 16, 2015; therefore, the Petitioner must show that the 
Beneficiary was employed full-time by the foreign entity for one continuous year, in a managerial or 
executive position, between July 16,,2012, and July 16,2015. Further, the record shows that the 
8 
Matter ofG-T- Corp. 
Beneficiary was admitted to the United States on January 22, 2015. The Petitioner must establish 
that the Beneficiary's qualifying year of employment occurred prior to this admission as a B-2 
visitor, as this time spent in the United States does not count towards his one year of foreign 
employment. See 8 C.F.R. 214.2(l)_(l)(ii)(A). 
The Petitioner initially stated and provided evidence that the Beneficiary commenced his 
employment with the foreign entity in September 2008 as an IT officer, held the position of 
administration assistant from 2012 to 2014, and was promoted to the executive director position on 
December 15,2014, seven months prior to the filing of the instant petition, and just one month 
before he entered the United States. The Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary's qualifying 
managerial or executive employment was in the executive director position and, as noted by the 
Director, did not provide detailed descriptions of the duties he performed in his two prior positions. 
As such, the evidence of record does not support a finding that the Beneficiary was employed abroad 
in a qualifying capacity abroad for a full year, as he held the claimed qualifYing position for only one 
month prior to coming to the United States. 
Rather than submitting additional evidence of the job duties the Beneficiary performed between 
2012 and 2014 as an administration assistant, the Petitioner now states for the first time on motion 
that the Beneficiary held a "manager" position from 2010 until his promotion to the executive 
director position in 2014. However, the Petitioner does not address the fact that it previously 
submitted employment contracts . and appointment letters indicating that the Beneficiary held the 
position of IT officer from 2008 until 2012, and later held the position of administration assistant 
through most of 2013 and 2014. Further, the Petitioner does not submit any employment records, a 
position description, or any other evidence in support of its new claim that the Beneficiary was a 
manager between 2010 and 2014. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sojjici, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm 'r 1998) (quoting Matter o.f Treasure Craft of Cal, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Further, a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an etiort 
to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. Matter o.f Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 
176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Therefore, our assessment of the Beneficiary's claimed employment 
capacity is based on the evidence in the record at the time of the Director's decision. 
Moreover, even if the Beneficiary had held the claimed executive director position for a period of 
one year, we note that the Petitioner provided only a brief list of vague job duties for this position 
which did not provide a clear picture of what he actually did on a day-to-day basis, and thus the 
evidence is insufficient to establish that this was a qualifying managerial or executive position. The 
Petitioner also did not provide any information about his subordinates abroad or their duties to 
demonstrate that they relieved the Beneficiary from performing administrative and operational 
duties, such as sales, finance, and human resource tasks. In fact, the Petitioner did not provide any 
evidence to corroborate the staffing levels illustrated in the foreign entity's organizational chart. 
Again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter o.fSojjici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of G-T- Corp. 
In addition, although not addressed by the Director, the information provided in the Beneficiary's 
resume raises questions as to whether he was a full-time employee of the foreign entity during the 
relevant three-year period. Specifically, the Beneficiary's resume indicates that, during the time the 
Petitioner claims he was employed at the foreign entity, he was simultaneously employed as a pilot 
at in Mongolia, from 2012 to 2014, as well as attending piloting courses at 
in Florida, from 2010-2012, at 
in Minnesota, and at in Sweden in 
Although the Petitioner submitted the internally prepared foreign payroll records for the period 2012 
to 2015, the Petitioner has not submitted an explanation for the Beneficiary's simultaneous 
employment at an unrelated entity listed on the Beneficiary's resume. Additionally, his 
simultaneous employment and his enrollment and attendance at educational institutions in the United 
States and Sweden, for an unrelated trade, raise concerns about the Beneficiary's full-time 
employment at the foreign entity at the time in which in the Petitioner claims he was continuously 
employed. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation 
of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 59l (BIA 1988). The Petitioner has not resolved these 
inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. !d. at 591-92. 
Based on the deficiencies and inconsistencies addressed above, we conclude that the Petitioner has 
not established that the Beneficiary has one year of full-time continuous employment abroad in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
V. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY IN THE UNITED 
STATES 
Beyond the Director's decision, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of the approval of this new office 
petition. 
The one-year "new office" proviston is an accommodation for newly established enterprises, 
provided for by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulation. When a new 
business is first established and commences operations, the regulations recognize that a designated 
manager or executive responsible for setting up operations may be engaged in a variety of low-level 
1 Further, in reviewing the motion, we reviewed the record of proceeding, as well as USCIS and U.S. Department of 
State records . On his nonimmigrant visa applications (Form DS-160), submitted to the U.S. Consulate in 
Mongolia on December 16, 2014, the Beneficiary identified the Petitioner 's parent company as his current employer. 
However, he stated that he had previously worked as a co-pilot for from January I, 2009 to 
May 22,2014. He did not identify the foreign entity as his employer in prior Forms DS-160 filed with the U.S. 
Consulate in in August 20 I 0, September 20 II, or February 2012. 
10 
Matter of G-T- Corp. 
activities not normally performed by employees at the executive or managerial level and that often 
the full range of managerial responsibility cannot be performed in that first year. The "new office" 
regulations allow a newly established petitioner one year to develop to a point that it can support the 
employment of a beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive position. 
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. See generally, 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v). At the time of filing the petition to open a "new office," a petitioner must 
affirmativ-ely demonstrate that it has acquired sufficient physical premises to house the new office 
and that it will support the beneficiary in a managerial or executive position within one year of 
approval. Specifically, the petitioner must describe the nature of its business, its propos~d 
organizational structure, and financial goals, and submit evidence to show that it has the financial 
ability to remunerate the beneficiary and commence doing business in the United States. !d. 
Here, the Petitioner briefly described the Beneficiary's proposed position in the United States as 
follows: 
Chief Executive Officer will be responsible for overall strategic and operational 
responsibility of [the Petitioner's] staff, programs, expansion, and execution of 
business. 
1. He will initially develop deep knowledge of field, core programs, 
operations, and business plans. 
2. He will be responsible to: 
3. Ensure the maintenance of excellent quality of production and services to 
the local and international market. 
4. Introduce rigorous programs of evaluation, quality consistency, 
administration, communication and liaison between different departments of 
the company. 
5. Ensure the filing of all legal and regulatory documents and monitor 
compliance with relevant laws and regulations. 
6. Keep the Board<fully informed of the condition of [the Petitioner] and on all 
the important factors influencing it. 
7. Actively engage and energize board members, company staff and partnering 
organizations. 
8. Monitor earnings and financial requirements to help shape the timely 
delivery of products and services. 
The Petitioner did not provide any additional information describing the Beneficiary's proposed 
position or outlining what he will do on a routine day-to-day basis, although the RFE had requested 
this information. All of the listed proposed duties are vague and do not impart any insight on what 
he will actually do in relation to these duties; the Petitioner did not articulate what any of these 
1 I 
Matter of G-T- Corp. 
duties mean, how he will carry them out, or how they qualify as managerial or executive. The 
Petitioner did not provide any clarification as to how any of these routine duties qualify as 
managerial or executive, especially in relation to the Petitioner's stated business purpose as a 
trucking company. Therefore, this sole description is insufficient to show that the Beneficiary will 
primarily perform qualifying duties within one year of approval of the petition. Reciting a 
beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the 
regulations require a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. The Petitioner has not 
provided any detail or explanation of the Beneficiary's proposed activities in the course of his daily 
routine. The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. 
Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Further, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
would be relieved from performing non-qualifying operational and administrative duties within one 
year. The Petitioner's business plan outlines its personnel plan and states that it will hire a president, 
executive vice president, operations mahager, and three drivers in its first year, and then hire an 
additional three drivers each year for four more years, for a total of 18 employees at the end of its 
fifth year in operation. However, the Petitioner did not submit a proposed organizational chart or 
information pertaining to the Beneficiary's proposed subordinates, their positions, or job duties, to 
demonstrate that they will relieve him from performing non-qualifying operational and 
administrative duties. Again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. at 165 (quoting Matter of Treasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)). 
Based on the deficiencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary · 
will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. For this additional 
reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
VI. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofG-T- Corp., ID# 44569 (AAO Oct. 21,2016) 
12