dismissed L-1A Case: Veterinary Products

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-&G-US LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN.31,2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a purchaser and distributor of veterinary products. seeks to continue the Beneficiary's 
employment as its managing director under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. 1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section !Ol(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ IIOI(a)(IS)(L). The L-IA classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its 
aftiliate 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity under the 
extended petition. Further, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that it has a 
qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's former foreign employer. Finally, the Director concluded 
that the Petitioner did not establish that it had secured sufficient premises to conduct business in the 
United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in her conclusions. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for theL-IA nonimmigrant visa classification for a new office, a qualifying 
organization must have employed the beneficiary "'in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or 
involves specialized knowledge,'' for one continuous year within three years preceding the 
beneficiary's application for admission into the United States. Section lOI(a)(IS)(L) of the Act. In 
addition, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
December 12,2016, to May 3, 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(l)(l)(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 qf G-&G- US LLC 
or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive 
capacity. !d. 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-1 A 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. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The first issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's former foreign employer. 
To establish a "qualifying relationship," 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 section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Act; see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii) (providing definitions of the terms "parent," "branch," 
"subsidiary,'' and "affiliate"). 
The Petitioner states that it is a subsidiary of the foreign employer. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)( 1 )(ii)(l) defines the terms "parent" as a "firm, corporation, or other legal entity that has 
subsidiaries." A "subsidiary'' is a firm, corporation , or other legal entity of which a parent owns, 
directly or indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or 
indirectly, half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, 50 percent of a 
50-50 joint venture and has equal control and veto power over the entity; or owns, directly or 
indirectly, less than half of the entity, but in fact controls the entity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(K). 
In concluding that 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate a qualifying relationship , the Director 
emphasized that the evidence submitted with respect to the foreign employer's ownership and 
operations was deficient because it appears to refer to several difTerent foreign entities and was not 
properly translated into English. The Director concluded that the evidence did not establish the 
identity of the foreign employer or whether it was doing business abroad. On appeal, the Petitioner 
attempts to address these apparent discrepancies. 
In the Form 1-129, the Petitioner listed the Beneficiary's last foreign employer as 
The Petitioner indicated that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of this Brazilian entity and stated that the 
Beneficiary worked there from November 2012 until July 2016. However, in an accompanying 
support letter, it identified its foreign parent company as " 
The Petitioner indicated that the foreign employer was a veterinary clinic 
"engaged in the business of provid[ing] health management of livestock species" and that the 
2 
.
Matter ofG-&G-US LLC 
Beneficiary worked for this clinic since it was founded in November 2012. The Petitioner provided 
extensive documentation in support of the petition that was left untranslated. 
The Petitioner explained that it was established in October 2014 and submitted membership 
certificates. The first certificate 
is dated October 27, 2014, 
and listed its sole owner as 
however, this initial certificate was marked ''VOID.'' A second membership certificate dated 
March 1, 2016, indicated that the sole member was ' 
" 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that the foreign entity 
was '1 ' and noted that it was "a sole proprietorship doing business as 
The Petitioner again indicated that it was a wholly owned subsidiary of this 
foreign entity. The Petitioner also stated that the previously referenced foreign entity, 
had been "sold in order to expand The Petitioner also provided a 
document 
related to the establishment of the foreign employer dated in 1999 indicating that the 
company's business name was '' ,. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the qualifying foreign entity is · 
which does business as the The Petitioner submits a foreign entity 
business registration dated in February 2016 indicating that the foreign entity's name is " 
and reflecting a capital value of 150,000 Brazilian Reals. The Petitioner also 
submits a membership certificate Number "03" dated March I, 2016. reflecting that the only 
member of the petitioning company is ' 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish its ownership. As general evidence 
of a petitioner ' s claimed qualifying relationship, a certificate of formation or organization of a 
limited liability company (LLC) alone is not sufficient to establish ownership or control of an LLC. 
LLCs are generally obligated by the jurisdiction of formation to maintain records identifying 
members by name, address, and percentage of ownership, and written statements of the contributions 
made by each member, the times at which additional contributions are to be made, events requiring 
the dissolution of the limited liability company, and the dates on which each member became a 
member. These membership records, along with the LLC's operating agreement, certificates of 
membership interest, and minutes of membership and management meetings, must be examined to 
determine the total number of members, the percentage of each member's ownership interest, the 
appointment of managers, and the degree of control ceded to the managers by the members . 
Additionally, a petitioning company must disclose all agreements relating to the voting of interests, 
the distribution of profit, the management and direction of the entity, and any other factor affecting 
control of the entity. Malter of Siemens Med. Sys .. Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (Comm'r 1986). 
As ownership is a critical element of this visa classification , a director may reasonably inquire 
beyond the identification of a member of an LLC into the means by which this membership interest 
was acquired. Evidence should include documentation of monies, property, or other consideration 
.
Matter of G-&G- US LLC 
furnished to the entity in exchange for the membership interest. Additional supporting evidence 
could include an operating agreement, minutes of relevant membership or management meetings , or 
other legal documents governing the acquisition of the ownership interest. 
However, the Petitioner has submitted little of the documentation referenced above to demonstrate 
its actual ownership and control. For instance, the Petitioner does not submit the company's articles 
of organization or operating agreement, documentation of monies, property, or other consideration 
furnished in exchange for membership , minutes, or other such documentation to substantiate the 
asserted ownership in the Petitioner. 
In fact, the Petitioner submits questionable membership certificates and other evidence relevant to its 
ownership. In support of the petition, the Petitioner provided a membership certificate number one 
indicating that the company's sole member was the foreign employer listed in 
the Form I-129, and a certificate number two dated March 1, 2016 reflecting the sole member as 
Now, on appeal, the Petitioner 
questionably provides a third membership certificate, also dated March 1, 2016, indicating that the 
sole member is " a foreign 
entity not previously referenced on the record. 
Moreover , the Petitioner provides 2015 and 2016 IRS Forms 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership 
Income , reflecting in Schedule K-1 that it is jointly owned between the Beneficiary and 
The Petitioner does not clarify these discrepancies in its asserted ownership or 
submit documentation to address these discrepancies . The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencie s 
and incongruities 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 Petitioner has not submitted 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate its ownership. 
Likewise, the Petitioner has also provided little evidence to substantiate the ownership in the foreign 
entity and to corroborate that it is a qualifying organization doing business. As noted, the Petitioner 
only provides business registration documents in Brazil, with the most recent documents dated in 
February 2016. However , thi s documentation is not sufficient to establi sh ownership in the fore ign 
entity. The Petitioner has not submitted the foreign entity ' s articles of organization or operating 
agreement, documentation of monies , propert y, or other consideration furnished in exchange for 
membership interest, minutes , or other such documentation to substantiate its asserted ownership. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has at times referred to the foreign entity as a ''sole proprietorship'' 
owned by 
the Beneficiary. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(G)(2). Unlike a corporation, a sole 
proprietorship does not exist as an entity apart from the individual owner. Matt er ol United Jnv. 
Grp., 19 l&N Dec. 248 (Comm'r 1984). A sole proprietorship is a business in which one person 
personally owns all of the assets and liabilities , and operates the business in his or her personal 
capacity. Black ·s Law· Dictionary 1520 (9th ed. 2009). 
4 
Matter ofG-&G-US LLC 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the claimed foreign sole 
proprietorship continues to do business. The presence of the Beneficiary in the United States raises 
question as to whether the foreign entity continues to do business abroad. The Petitioner submitted 
substantial documentation relevant to the foreign entity that is left untranslated. This evidence is 
especially material since the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary is a licensed veterinarian in Brazil 
who previously operated a clinic there prior to his arrival in the United States. It is unclear whether 
the entity still operates in Brazil with the Beneficiary absent. Therefore. the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated both the ownership of the foreign entity and whether it can still be considered a 
qualifying organization doing business. 
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. 
!d. Because the Petitioner did not submit a properly certified English language translation of the 
majority of the documentation relevant to the foreign entity, we cannot determine whether the 
translated material supports the Petitioner's claims regarding its name. ownership, and business 
activities abroad. 
The Petitioner has not established that it has qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer. For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
Ill. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The next issue to address is whether the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary will act in a 
managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. 
"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 
10l(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 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
5 
Matter ofG-&G-US LLC 
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) takes into account the 
reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the 
organization. See section I 0 I (a)( 44 )(C) of the Act. 
The Director concluded that the duties submitted for the Beneficiary included substantial non­
qualifying operational tasks and that it had not demonstrated that he would be primarily relieved of 
these tasks under the extended petition. The Director also indicated that there was substantial 
overlap between the Beneficiary's duties and those of his asserted subordinates. On appeal, the 
Petitioner states that the Beneficiary has the power to hire, fire, and oversee managerial and 
professional subordinates. 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of the 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 
managerial or executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description of 
the job duties, USCIS examines the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary. 
including the company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate 
employees, the presence of other employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing operational 
duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a 
beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. Accordingly, we will discuss evidence regarding 
the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of the nature ofthe business and its staffing levels. 
A. Duties 
Based on the definitions of managerial and 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. USCJS, 469 
F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner indicated that it was established as a new office in the United States to ''purchase. 
export and distribute veterinary care products to the Northern state of BraziL" including products 
related to sedating animals. protecting them from pests, and treating them for diseases. The 
Petitioner also indicated that it would export other goods, such as veterinary instruments, seeds and 
fertilizers, animal foods, and other similar products. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would 
liaise between it and the foreign entity, be responsible for its "contracts and services and policies,'' 
select "banking and financial institutions," define its "long-term growth strategy," build "key 
customers," identify "business opportunities," and negotiate and close business deals. 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary devotes 15% of his time to controlling its financial 
activities, including signing financial agreements with banks. handling employee payroll, using the 
Matter ofG-&G-US LLC 
company's "Expenditure's Credit Card,'' approving the use of funds for investment, "monitoring 
expenses charged to the company's account," and "monitoring all the procedures to ensure that 
expenses charged to the business accounts are controlled.,. The Petitioner explained that the 
Beneficiary spends another 10% of his time on "ensuring that payments are recorded correctly in the 
register," approving expenditures, and authorizing spending limits "for strategic or high-value 
categories." Further, the Petitioner stated that 15% of the time the Beneficiary is responsible for 
"coordinating and supervising the accounting of expenditures and revenues of funds for every 
purchase" and reporting "all expenditures at the end of each month." The Petitioner also indicated 
that the Beneficiary devotes 10% of his time negotiating "terms and contracts with vendors. 
consultants, and financial institutions," including working diligently "to provide solid foundations 
for long lasting vendor and provider relationships.'' 
Furthermore, the Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary spends 10% of his time holding 
"executive meetings with providers, vendors, banks and business analysts to negotiate terms and 
contracts for the northern part of Brazil and managing the "logistics of distribution," and another 
10% of his time ensuring that the "operational procedures and policies of the company abide by all 
current laws and regulations." It also stated that the Beneficiary is responsible I 0% of the time for 
"approving credit accounts" and acting "as the company's banking representative," and another 10% 
analyzing the effect of current regulations on its "economic and financial policies. Lastly. the 
Petitioner explained that the Petitioner spends 1 0% of his time overseeing "three professional 
subordinates who manage the sales, logistics, and distribution for the targeted Brazilian region.'' 
This duty description indicates that the Beneficiary devotes a substantial amount of his time to non­
qualifying operational duties. For instance, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary administers its 
payroll, regularly uses an "expenditure credit card," monitors all expenses charged to the company's 
accounts, ensures that payments are recorded correctly, accounts for "every'' expenditure and 
revenue, reports "all expenditures at the end of the month," and "approves credit accounts.'' In sum, 
the submitted documentation suggests that the Beneficiary is, and will be. responsible for substantial 
operational aspects of the business, and it has provided few examples and little evidence to 
substantiate that he will delegate these tasks to subordinates. 
The evidence does not indicate that as of the date of the petition, or as of the date of this appeal, that 
the Beneficiary has been relieved from primarily performing non-qualifying operational tasks and 
that he spends a majority of his time focusing on the broad goals and policies of the organization or 
managing other supervisory and professional employees. Indeed. the.Beneficiary's duty description 
states that he devotes only I 0% of his time to overseeing "three professional subordinates who 
manage the sales, logistics, and distribution for the targeted Brazilian region." 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. e.g, sections 
10l(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial 
or executive duties): Matter of Church Scientology Int '!. 19 I&N Dec. 593. 604 (Comm'r 1988). 
7 
Matter ofG-&G-US LLC 
In addition, to the extent that the Petitioner references qualifying managerial or executive level tasks 
in his duty description, these are vague and offer little insight into the actual nature of these 
activities. The Petitioner provides few examples and little supporting documentation to demonstrate 
the Beneficiary's performance of managerial or executive level duties, such as financial agreements 
he has signed with banks, funds he has approved tor investment, financial procedures he has 
established to control expenses, and spending limits he has authorized "for strategic or high-value 
categories." Further, the Petitioner does not explain or document terms and contracts he has 
negotiated with vendors, consultants, and financial institutions, executive meetings he has conducted 
with "providers, vendors, banks and business analysts," or regulations he evaluated in the course of 
the company's asserted export business. The Petitioner notes that the Beneficiary is responsible tor 
liaising with the foreign entity, but as previously discussed, the Petitioner did not adequately 
describe or document the foreign entity's operations and organizational structure. Specifics are 
clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or 
managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the 
regulations. Fedin Bros. Co .. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. II 03, II 08 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afrd, 905 
F .2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the organization, the fact that he will 
manage or direct the business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an 
intracompany transferee in an managerial or executive capacity within the meaning of section 
101(a)(44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a 
position be "primarily" managerial or executive in nature. Sections IOI(A)(44)(A) and (B) of the 
Act. 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 and Operations 
The Petitioner provided an organizational chart ret1ecting that the Beneficiary supervises a general 
manager and an administrative assistant. The chart further indicated that the general manager 
supervises a procurement and logistics specialist who in turn oversees "sales representatives'' and an 
"outsourcing accountant," who supervises "receiving and packing [and] freight forwarding.'' In 
contrast, in a support letter, the Petitioner stated that it employed a general manager supervising a 
procurement/logistics specialist manager and a sales representative. Florida state quarterly tax 
documentation from the first quarter of 2017 suggested that the Petitioner paid the following 
employees during that quarter: the general manager ($5,500), the sales representative ($6.000), and 
the procurement/logistics specialist manager ($7,500). 
The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary will be responsible for supervising managerial and 
professional subordinates. The statutory definition of "managerial capacity'' allows tor both 
''personnel managers'' and "function managers." See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 
Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, 
Matter ofG-&G-US LLC 
professional, or managerial employees. Contrary to the common understanding of the word 
"manager," the statute plainly states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a 
managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees 
supervised are professional.'' Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. If a beneficiary directly 
supervises other employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire those 
employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(J). 
There are several discrepancies which leave question as to whether the Beneficiary devotes a 
majority of his time to the supervision of managerial and professional subordinates. First, the 
Petitioner states in the Beneficiary's duty description that he devotes only 10% of his time to this 
task and sets forth several other operational level duties mostly related to the company's day-to-day 
accounting. Further, the Petitioner submits an organizational chart that cont1icts with its narrative 
description of its structure and staffing levels. As noted, the organizational chart ret1ects that the 
general manager oversees a procurement and logistics specialist who oversees "sales 
representatives" and an "outsourced accountant," in tum supervising "receiving and packing freight 
forwarding." In contradiction, the Petitioner stated that the general manager supervises a 
"procurement/logistics specialist manager'' and the lone sales representative. Indeed, despite the 
Petitioner's claim that the general manager oversees two professionals the record shows that this 
individual earns a lower salary compared to his subordinates. The Petitioner must resolve 
discrepancies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Ho. 
19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. 
Further, the Petitioner makes vague reference in its support letters to "freight forwarding, 
accountants, and distributors," but it provides no details as to their identity, how often and to what 
extent they are engaged, what duties they perform, how much they are paid, nor does it provide 
supporting documentary evidence to substantiate their engagement. It is questionable that the 
Petitioner asserts that it employs accountants considering a substantial portion of the Beneficiary"s 
duties are devoted to these tasks and the general manager's duties include supervising "all financial 
activities," budgets, and the approval of expenditures. In fact, the duties of the Beneficiary's 
claimed managerial and professional subordinates are overly vague and provide little insight into 
their actual day-to-day activities. The Petitioner did not explain the "day-to-day activities'' the 
general manager directs, project schedules he oversees, administrative financial activities he 
supervises, or operations and procedures manuals he has prepared. Likewise, the Petitioner submits 
few details as to the duties of the asserted procurement/logistics specialist manager, such as 
"technical project management tools" she has implemented, "organizational studies'· she has 
conducted, materials, supplies or products she has procured, or "logistics activities'' she has directed. 
Again, the Petitioner provides few examples to substantiate the duties of the claimed sales 
representative, including ''marketing sales information and recommendations to strategic plans" she 
has suggested, "customer service standards" she has implemented, or key accounts with which she 
works. 
9 
Matter ofG-&G-US LLC 
In each case, the Petitioner has provided few specific examples of duties the Beneficiary's 
subordinates perform or supporting documentation reflecting their performance of these duties. As 
such, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary supervises subordinate managers and 
professionals or that it has developed sufficiently to support the Beneficiary in a managerial or 
executive capacity. In addition, the Petitioner provides no evidence to substantiate that the 
Beneficiary's claimed subordinates are professionals, as it has not indicated that the Beneficiary's 
subordinates hold positions that require a specific bachelor's degree or that they do in fact hold the 
required bachelor's degrees. 2 
The Petitioner provides assertions on appeal that leave further question as to the sutliciency of its 
operations. For example. the Beneficiary states on appeal that the company has "struggled to 
research the market,'' notes "difficulties," states that equipment sales are not "in rhythm" with its 
business plan, suggests a shift in the business to the importation of cheese, and indicates that the 
business requires more time to develop. However, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) 
indicates that a new office operation must be sufficiently operational after the new otlice period to 
support a beneficiary in the executive or managerial position. There is no provision in USCIS 
regulations allowing for an extension of the new office period. If the business does not have the 
necessary staffing after the new office period to sufficiently relieve the Beneficiary from performing 
operational and administrative tasks, the Petitioner is ineligible for an extension. In addition, the 
Petitioner provides little detail on the nature of its business, only vaguely indicating that it is focused 
on exporting veterinary products to Northern Brazil. It provided little evidence regarding its current 
financial status and the actual nature of its operations. For instance, it is not clear what the 
Petitioner's sales representatives would be selling. It is unclear based on the limited evidence 
submitted how the Petitioner would continue to support its payrolL or how it would support the 
Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. 
Lastly, the Petitioner also suggests that the Beneficiary would act in an executive capacity under the 
extended petition. Here, even though the Beneficiary has the appropriate level of authority, the 
Petitioner has not established that, as of the date of filing, he was primarily concerned with the broad 
policies and goals of the organization, that the day-to-day management rested with a subordinate tier 
of management, or that he would be relieved from substantial involvement in the day-to-day 
operations of the business. In fact, his duties appear to suggest that he will be substantially involved 
in the operational aspects of the business, particularly its daily bookkeeping. We acknowledge that a 
company's size alone may not be the determining factor in denying an L-IA visa petition without 
taking into account the reasonable needs of the organization. See section I 01 (a)( 44 )(C) of the Act. 
' In evaluating whether a beneficiary manages professional employees, we must evaluate whether the subordinate 
positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) 
(defining ·'profession" to mean "any occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the 
minimum requirement for entry into the occupation"). Section I 01 (a)(32) of the Act, states that "[t]he term profession 
shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers. lawyers. physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or 
secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries.'' 
10 
Matter ofG-&G-US LLC 
However, it is appropriate for US CIS to consider the size of the petitioning company in conjunction 
with other relevant factors, such as the absence of employees who would perform the non-executive 
operations ofthe company. Family Inc., 469 F.3d 1313; Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 
15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
As discussed, the evidence indicates that the Beneficiary will be involved in nearly all of the 
operational matters of the business and it has submitted little evidence to indicate that he will 
delegate operational tasks to subordinates. lt has also not sufficiently clarified or documented his 
managerial or executive level tasks. In addition, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
Beneficiary primarily oversees managerial or professional subordinates as of the date of the petition, 
or that his claimed subordinates would relieve him from performing non-qualifying operational 
duties. As such, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would act in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity. For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed. 
IV. SUFFICIENT PHYSICAL PREMISES IN THE UNITED STATES 
As discussed, the Director also denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that it has acquired sufficient physical premises to conduct its business. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). In denying on this ground, the Director pointed to the fact that the Petitioner's 
lease had expired in February 2017. prior to the date of the petition. However, on appeal, the 
Petitioner submits sufficient documentary evidence to confirm that it has extended its lease through 
the requested period of employment. As such, the Director's decision as to this issue will be 
withdrawn. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed as the Petitioner did not establish that it will employ the Beneficiary 
in a managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition or that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's former foreign employer. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofG-&G-US LLC, ID# 862084 (AAO Jan. 31, 20 18) 
11