U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

MATTER OF C-U-G- CORP.

APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: MAY 26, 2017

PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER

The Petitioner, an importer and seller of cabinets and home decor, 1 seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as a manager under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(I)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(I)(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign employee to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity.

The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish, as required, that: (I) in the three years preceding the filing of the petition or the Beneficiary's entry into the United States to work for the Petitioner, the Beneficiary has been employed by a qualifying entity abroad for at least one year in a managerial or executive capacity; and (2) the Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity.

On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition.

Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.

I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act makes an immigrant visa available to a beneficiary who, in the three years preceding the filing of the petition, has been employed outside the United States for at least one year in a managerial or executive capacity, and seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render managerial or executive services to the same employer or to its subsidiary or affiliate.

A United States employer may tile Fom1 I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, to classify a beneficiary under section 203(b)(I)(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. This classification does not require a labor certification.

1 On several documents, including the Form 1-140 petition and its own company letterhead, the Petitioner places the suffix ·'LLC" after its name, indicating that the Petitioner is a limited liability company. The record shO\VS, hovvever. that the Petitioner is a corporation, not a limited liability company.

Maller ofC-U-G- Corp.

The pe!Illon must include a statement from an authorized official of the petitioning United States employer which demonstrates that the beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition, that the beneficiary is coming to work in the United States for the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer, and that the prospective U.S. employer· has been doing business for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3).

II. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT

The Director denied the petition based, in part, on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad by its foreign affiliate for at least one year during the relevant three-year period.

The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i) addresses two possible scenarios regarding this "one-in­three" requirement. If the beneficiary is outside the United States at the time of filing, then the beneficiary must have held qualifying employment for at least one year in the three years immediately preceding the filing of the petition. If the beneficiary is in the United States working for the petitioner or a related employer, then the year of qualifying employment must have occurred in the three years preceding the beneficiary's entry as a nonimmigrant. The latter subsection of the regulation accommodates beneficiaries who have been working for the respective petitioners, or related entities, in nonimmigrant status, and who for that reason alone were not employed abroad for at least one year of the three years immediately preceding the filing of the immigrant petition.

Employment with the petitioner or a related entity in the United States maintains continuity of employment within the multinational organization, but employment with an unrelated entity, either abroad or in the United States, interrupts a beneficiary's qualifying employment. Both the statute and regulations establish that a beneficiary cannot qualify for the classification if there has been an interruption of more than two years following the beneficiary's year of qualifying employment abroad.

For these reasons, we must examine the Beneficiary's employment history both abroad and in the United States, to determine if he meets the foreign employment requirement.

We must tirst determine whether the Petitioner has demonstrated that the foreign employment took place. If the Petitioner does not meet this first threshold, then it serves no purpose to analyze whether the claimed foreign position was in a managerial or executive capacity.

The Beneficiary entered the United States in June 2011 as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure. The Petitioner filed the Form 1-140 petition in September 2014, more than three years later. The Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary had changed status to an L-1 A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee, but did not initially say who had employed the Beneficiary in the United States. A translated letter indicated that, from March 2009 to June 2011, the Beneficiary "was the manager of

2

.

Matter ofC-U-G- Corp.

the company which is the Petitioner' s affil iate.

Concurrent with the Petitioner's filing of Form I-140, the Beneficiary fi led Form 1-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. That application included form G-325A, Biographic Information. On Form G-325A, where asked to identify his employment over the past five years, the Beneficiary stated that he \VOrked for from May 2009 to June 2011, and thereafter for the Peti ~ioner in the United States. The form had space for three more employers, but the Beneficiary listed no other U.S. or foreign employment.

During routine verification efforts, the Director consulted U .S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USClS) records, which showed that the Beneficiary changed from B-2 to L-1 A nonimmigrant status through a petition filed by in December 2011. ln February 2013,

fi led another petition, the approval of which extended the Beneficiary's L-1 A status. fn May 2013, filed a Form l- I 40 immigrant petition on the Beneficiary's beha1f, seeking to classify him as a multinational manager or executive based on hi s continuous employment with and its foreign parent company, That petition, which is part of the instant record of proceeding, included pay receipts that issued to the Benet1ciary in late 2010 and early 2011 , and a letter signed by the Beneficiary, indicating that h e ''had been working for . . . in Brazil for more than 23 years." This evidence confl icts with the Petitioner's claim that the Benefici ary worked for from May 2009 to June 20 11 .

In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director stated that the two Form I-140 petitions included conflicting employment histories for the Beneficiary. The Director asked for clarification and fo r documentary evidence to support the Petitioner's claims about the Beneficiary's past and present employm ent. The Director specifically requested copies of the Beneficiary's 20 15 pay receipts and his 2014 IRS Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, to show that the Beneficiary worked for the Petitioner in the United States at the time of fil ing.

In response, the Beneficiary stated:

In 2011 ' in \Vhich I was a shareholder, decided to m ake investments in a distribution of kitchen cabinets called ' For that reason requested the L 1 A nonimmigrant visa .. . . However, in 2013 the shareholders of ' dec ided to go out of business and in 2014 l started to \Vork fo r [the Petitioner). . . . [F) rom 2009 to 20 II I have al so worked for

The employm ent history that the Beneficiary described above is disqualifying on irs face. The Beneficiary entered the United States in June 2011 and did not work for any entity related to

during the next two and one half years. Assuming that the Beneficiary actual ly worked for the Petitioner beginning in 2014, he would need to establish that he worked abroad for

3

.

Matter ofC-U-G- Corp.

during the three year period immediately preceding that first day of employment in 2014. The Beneficiary does not state that he had one year of employment with during that period. He could not have had the required year of foreign employment, because he was outside the United States for less than one year during the period in question. Therefore, the Beneficiary is currently ineligible for the classification sought; he did not work abroad for a qualifying employer for at least one year during the relevant three-year period.

Furthermore, we cannot ignore conflicting and unsubstantiated claims regarding the Beneficiary's past employment. In the RFE response, the Beneficiary stated that he "started to work for" the Petitioner "in 2014." On Form G-325A, however, the Beneficiary stated that he had worked for the Petitioner since June 2011 - which cannot be correct, because the Petitioner filed its articles of incorporation in March 2013.

The Beneficiary did not mention or on the Form G-325A filed concurrently with the present petition. However, the Petitioner has not identified pay receipts or comparable contemporaneous documentation from 2009-20 ll in the record to support its claim that he worked for at that time. Given that the record does contain pay receipts that issued to the Beneficiary during this time period, the record tends to support a conclusion that and not was the Beneficiary's actual foreign employer in the period preceding his initial entry to the United States. The Petitioner claims no qualifying relationship with

In the denial notice, the Director found that the Petitioner had not corroborated the claim that the Beneficiary worked for in 2009-2011, or that he now works for the Petitioner. The Director noted that the Petitioner did not submit the requested pay receipts and IRS Form W-2. The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that the Beneficiary worked abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for a qualifying organization for at least one year during the three years preceding his admission to the United States.

On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary "is already ... working for [the Petitioner] on a[n] L1 Visa."2 The Petitioner submits copies of pay receipts and an IRS Form W-2 issued to the Beneficiary, but these documents all show compensation paid to the Beneficiary in 2015, not in 2014. The Petitioner also submits a letter from the president of who stated that the Beneficiary worked for that company "as a manager from July/2009 to October 20 11." The Petitioner did not submit pay records from the foreign company, stating that it would need additional time to obtain that evidence.

The Director had requested evidence of salary payments to the Beneficiary from the foreign company in the RFE, issued in May 2015. The Petitioner did not submit that evidence in response to

2 The Beneficiary held L-1 A status in 2014, but it only permitted him to work for If the Petitioner did employ the Beneficiary under an L-1 A nonimmigrant visa issued for a different employer, then the Beneficiary violated his nonimmigrant status by accepting that employment. See 8 C. F. R. §§ 274a.l2(b)( 12), 214.1 (e).

4

.

;\!alter ofC-U-G- Co17J.

the RFE. The Petitioner fi led the appeal more than a year later, in October 20 16. The Petitioner claims that it requires still more time to obtain the payroll records, but provides no evidence that those records exist. As noted before, earlier petiti on on the Beneficiary' s behalf did not incl ude any indication that the Benef:i ciary had ever worked for

There have been conflicting claims regarding the Beneficiary's employment history. The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 59 1-92 (BIA 1988). The Petitioner has not submitted contemporaneous corroborating documentation from Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and suffi ciency o f other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. !d. The re fore, the Petitioner has not established that its claims are credible. Under the circumstances, we will not grant the Peti tioner additional time to submit payroll records that it should have submitted in response to the RFE when the Director specifically requested them. The D irector a llowed the Petitioner a fair opportunity to perfect the record, and we consider the record to be complete as it now stands.

The preponderance of the available ev idence indicates that the Beneficiary worked for not in the years immediately preceding his 2011 entry into the

United States. Therefore, the Petitioner has not credibly establi shed that the Benefi ciary worked for before he entered the United States. Because the Petitioner has not shown that

this employment took place, it necessarily fo llows that the Peti tioner has not shown that the employment was in a managerial or executive capac it y_ and we will not further address the Beneficiary's claimed employment with

Ill. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY

The Director found that the Petit ioner did not establ ish that the Beneficiary will be employed in the Un ited States in a managerial capacity with the Petitioner or a related entity. The Petiti oner specifically claims that it will employ the Beneficiary as a function manager. Therefore, we need not discuss the requirements to qualify as an executive, or as a personnel manager (whose managerial duties relate primarily to supervision of managerial, supervisory, or professional subordinates).

3 On appeal, rhe Peti tioner states that the Director denied the petition, in part, because the Petitioner had not estab lished a qual ify ing relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. The Petitioner, ho wever, has ne ither demonstrated nor cla imed that it has a qual ify ing relationship with Instead, the Petitioner' s c laims of a quali fying re lationship re ly on the shared ownership of and the petitioning U.S. company. The record establishes a qualifying relat ionship between and but th is evidence is not re levant here because is not the petitioner in this proceed ing. The Director denied the petition not because of the lack of a qua li fy ing re lationship, but because of the apparently fi ctitious nature o f the Petitione r's cla im that the Benefic iary worked for from 2009 to 20 II .

5

Matter ofC-U-G- Corp.

The definition of the term "managerial capacity" is "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. A tirst-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) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A). 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 pmfessional'' !d.

If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial or executive capacity, 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.

The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5) requires the Petitioner to submit a statement which indicates that the Beneficiary is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. The statement must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary.

On his Form G-325A the Benellciary claimed to have begun working for the Petitioner in June 2011. This claim cannot be correct, because the Petitioner liled its articles of incorporation in March 2013. The record does not suppmi the Petitioner's initial claim that it first employed the Beneficiary in 2011, or the Petitioner's revised claim that it hired the Beneficiary in 2014. This issue is not a prima facie bar to consideration as it is with the Beneficiary's claimed foreign employment, because there is no requirement that the Petitioner already employ the Beneficiary at the time of filing.

6

Matter ofC-U-G- Corp.

A. Duties

When examining the executive or managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look first to 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. § 204.5(j)(5).

The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary qualities as a function manager. The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary's managerial role arises not from supervising or controlling the work of a subordinate staff but instead from responsibility for managing an "essential function" within the organization. See section 101 (a)( 44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The statute and regulations do not define the term "essential function." If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary will manage an essential function, that petitioner must clearly describe the duties to be perfom1ed in managing the essential function, i.e., identify the function with speciJicity, articulate the essential nature of the function, and establish the proportion of the beneficiary's daily duties dedicated to managing the essential function. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). In addition, a petitioner's description of a beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary will manage the function rather than perform the duties related to the function.

The Petitioner stated:

This position requires the beneficiary to establish the operations of the company. Organize and oversee[] all administrative matters, exercise full responsibility for recruiting, hiring, training and dismissing employees. He will ensure the coordination of the departments and workers, implement policies and adopt strategies to improve [the] business holding full authority over all executive decisions aiming to achieve the profitability goals set by the company .... He will handle all policies and business decisions such as negotiation of contracts to provide for services, purchases, sales pricing, banking insurance and credit terms. He is also responsible for insuring that sales and profit goals are met each quarter, has discretionary authority to reduce costs as he sees fit. His position will be fully managerial in nature since responsibilities and duties were limited to managerial level activities.

The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would divide his time as follows:

• Directing the ongoing development of new projects, 30% • Establishing appropriate contact and business relationships with customers,

distributors and others, reviewing terms and negotiating most favorable deals for the corporation, 40%

• Managing and directing marketing efforts in emerging markets, 10% • Assigning sales, setting goals, and analyzing sales statistics to determine sales

potential and inventory requirements[,] 20%

7

Mauer ofC-U-G- Corp.

In the RFE, the Director asked the Petitioner to list the Beneficiary's duties, rather than broad categories or areas of responsibility. In response, the Petitioner stated that it had "previously submitted ... a very detailed statement" establishing the Beneticiary's managerial role.

In denying the petition, the Director concluded that "the beneficiary will be performing the daily duties associated with the business activity of the petitioner." On appeal, the Petitioner repeats the narrative job description quoted above, and adds the following passage (note: errors in the original have not been changed):

Directs and coordinates promotion of products or services performed to develop new markets, increase share of markets, and obtain competitive position in industry. Analyzes division or department budget requests to identify areas in which reductions can be made, and allocates operating budget. Confers with administrative personnel and reviews activity, operating, and sales reports to determine changes in programs or operations required. Presides over all company wide employees meeting and formal meeting of directors and managers. Maintains full and final signature authority for the corporation and its bank accounts plans and develops industriaL labor and public relations policies designed to improve company and relations with customers, employees, and public.

The first three sentences in the above passage are copied almost verbatim from the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The generic language, such as "products or services" and "division or department," is consistent with a general template rather than a specific description of the particular position that the Petitioner wishes the Beneficiary to tilL The remaining sentences are equally generic. There is a reference to "directors" although the record does not show that the petitioning company has directors. The Petitioner manufactures no products, and therefore the reference to "industrial ... relations policies" is unexplained. Therefore, it appears that the Petitioner derived the last sentences in the above passage from a different, unidentified template.

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 .. Lid. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. !d. The regulations require a detailed description of the Beneficiary's intended duties with the Petitioner. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5G)(5). This requirement is meaningless if the Petitioner can satisfy it simply by quoting templates or generic detinitions from the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, the Occupational Outlook Handbook, or other publicly available sources such as job announcements posted by other employers. The question is not what a manager does, but what this particular job entails.

The Petitioner repeats the four-part list of duties with time percentages on appeal, with one significant substitution. The Petitioner initially stated that the Beneficiary would spend 10% of his time "[ m ]anaging and directing marketing efforts in emerging markets." The new list indicates that

8

Maller of C- U-G- Corp.

the Beneficiary would be "[m]onitoring consumer preference and possible marketing opportunities. assuring a correct positioning within the market promotion of the product or service offered." The narrative description contains no reference to development of new projects, yet this activity would supposedly occupy 30% of the Beneficiary's time.

The Beneficiary's job description lacks verifiable, reliable details. The Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary's duties would be primarily those of a function manager.

B. Staffing

Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when examining the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, including the company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees. the presence of other employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business.

The fact that the Beneficiary manages or directs a business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial capacity within the meaning of section 10l(a)(44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a position be "primarily" of a managerial nature. Section 101(A)(44)(A) of the Act. While the Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possesses the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making, the position description alone is insufficient to establish that his actual duties, as of the date of filing, would be primarily managerial in nature.

We also consider the proposed posttton in light of the nature of the Petitioner's business, its organizational structure, and the availability of staff to carry out the Petitioner's daily operational tasks. Federal courts have generally agreed that, in reviewing the relevance of the number of employees a Petitioner has, USCIS "may properly consider an organization's small size as one factor in assessing whether its operations are substantial enough to supp011 a manager.''4 Furthermore, it is appropriate for USCJS to consider the size of the petitioning company in conjunction with other relevant factors, such as a company's small personnel size, the absence of employees who would perform the non-managerial or non-executive operations of the company, or a "shell company" that does not conduct business in a regular and continuous manner. See. e.g., Syslronics Corp. v. INS, !53 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001).

The Petitioner provided three similar, but not identical, accountings of the company's staffing. The "Executive Summary" of the Petitioner's business plan staled that the company "has a showroom

4 Family, Inc. v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing with approval Republic ofTrunskei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 178 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Fedin Bros. Co. v. Suva, 905 F.2d at 42; Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25, 29 (D. D.C. 2003).

9

Matter ofC-U-G- Corp.

with 2 sales people, 01 designer, 01 Accountant, 01 Financial Manager and 01 Operational manager, who is the officer for the corporation, and will help [the Beneficiary] in the expansion of the company." Elsewhere in the same document, the "Personnel Plan" listed the above workers plus two more sales workers, a second designer, and a marketing manager. The Petitioner's organizational chart showed some of the above listed employees, but it did not show a financial manager or a marketing manager. Therefore, the Petitioner's statements have been inconsistent regarding, for instance, the presence of a subordinate marketing staff

In the RFE, the Director asked the Petitioner to conoborate its staffing by submitting copies of tax documents and evidence of contract labor. The Director specifically asked for IRS Forms 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Returns, for late 2014 and early 2015, and IRS Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statements, for 2014.

The Petitioner's response included a copy of its 2014 IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, showing $104,490 in salaries, $44,454 in commissions, $35,085 in consulting fees, and a $49,312 design fee. The Petitioner did not submit the requested IRS Forms W-2 and 941, which would have shown how many employees the Petitioner employed during 2014. or documentation relating to contract labor to show the number of workers and the type of work performed.

In the denial notice, the Director stated that the Petitioner had not submitted the necessary evidence to show that other employees are relieving the Beneficiary from performing the company's operational and administrative functions. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director has been unfair in assessing the Petitioner's evidence, but the Petitioner does not address the specific points that the Director raised in the denial notice.

The Petitioner submits copies of!RS Forms W-2, showing payments to six employees in 2015. This evidence does not establish the Petitioner's personnel structure as of September 2014, when the Petitioner filed the petition. Only two of the names on the Forms W -2 correspond to names on the Petitioner's initial organizational chart- those of the Beneficiary and the designer. Only four of the six employees earned amounts commensurate with year-round, full-time employment; the other two earned $3000 and $6000 respectively. The six employees earned a total of$187,975 in 2015. The 2015 amount is almost twice the salary figure reported on the Petitioner's 2014 income tax return, which suggests that the Petitioner paid fewer than four full-time salaries during the earlier year.

We further note that the Petitioner paid the Beneficiary $36,400 in 2015. Three other employees each earned between $39,000 and $62,770. These figures do not readily support the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary is the highest-ranking employee at the petitioning company.

The evidence submitted on appeal undermines, rather than supports, the Petitioner's unsubstantiated claim that the company had sufficient staff at the time of filing to relieve the Beneficiary from having to perform non-qualifying operational and administrative tasks.

The Petitioner has not shown that it seeks to employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity.

10

Matter ofC-U-G- Corp.

IV. DOING BUSINESS

Beyond the Director's decision, the record does not establish that the Petitioner has been doing business for at least one year prior to the date of tiling the petition as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(D). The regulations define "doing business" as the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods or services by a firm, corporation, or other entity. The term does not include the mere presence of an agent or office. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2).

On Form 1-140, the Petitioner stated that it was established in March 2013. Copies of business permits in the record are dated December 2013, less than a year before the September 2014 filing date. The earliest invoices and bank statements in the record date from February 2014. The Petitioner has not shown that it was regularly, continuously, and systematically providing goods, services, or both in September 2013, a year before the filing date.

In the RFE, the Director asked for evidence that the Petitioner had been doing business for at least one year. In response, the Petitioner submitted a copy of its 2014 income tax return. The Petitioner had previously submitted a copy of its 2013 tax retum. These documents do not show when in 2013 the Petitioner began providing goods or services.

Because the Petitioner has not established the extent of its business activity in 2013, it has not met its burden to show that it has been doing business since no later than September 2013.

V. CONCLUSION

Because a prior immigrant petition tiling conflicts with the Petitioner's claims, the Petitioner has not established that a qualifying entity employed the Beneficiary abroad for at least one year during the three years prior to the filing of the petition. Also, the Petitioner has not submitted enough evidence to show that it will employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity, or that it has been doing business for at least a year prior to the l1l ing date.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Cite as Matter ofC-U-G- Corp., ID# 452427 (AAO May 26, 2017)

II