dismissed EB-1C Case: Clothing Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF L-L-A- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 30, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a clothing manufacturer, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its 
managing director under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or 
managers. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 153(b)(l)(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by focusing on the compensation of 
subordinates, not considering the Beneficiary's detailed job description, and imposing unreasonable 
requirements for what constitutes a multinational organization. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
An immigrant visa is 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. Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act. 
The Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, 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). 
Matter of L-L-A- LLC 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that it will employ the Beneficiary in a 
managerial or executive capacity. On appeal, the Petitioner consistently refers to the Beneficiary as 
an executive, and does not claim that it seeks to employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity. 
Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in an 
executive capacity. 
"Executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization; 
establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; exercises wide 
latitude in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction from 
higher-level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. Section 
101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
Based on the statutory definition of 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 executive duties, as opposed to ordinary operational 
activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 
1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner's initial submission included a one-and-a-half page job description, which the 
Petitioner later expanded to nearly three pages in response to a request for evidence (RFE). The 
Director did not discuss this job description in the denial notice. On appeal, the Petitioner repeats 
the job description and asserts that the Director erred by not discussing it. While the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(5) requires every petitioner to submit a clear description of the beneficiary's 
intended duties, eligibility does not rest on the job description alone. Beyond the required 
description of the job duties, we examine the company's organizational structure, the duties of a 
beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to relieve a beneficiary from 
performing operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that will contribute to 
understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
Furthermore, the statutory definition of executive capacity requires that the beneficiary directs the 
management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization. Section 
101(a)(44)(B)(i) of the Act. The Petitioner asserts, both in the job description and elsewhere, that 
the Beneficiary meets this requirement through his authority over management-level subordinates. 
Therefore, a key issue in this case is whether or not the Beneficiary controls the work of managers, 
as claimed. 
The Petitioner divided the Beneficiary's duties into four broad categories: 
• Setting goals and policies (40% of the Beneficiary's time) 
2 
Matter of L-L-A- LLC 
• Controlling the company's finances (30%) 
• Directing employees, reviewing reports and recommendations (20%) 
• Conferring with management and controlling subordinate management employees (10%) 
Throughout the job description, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary achieves the company's 
goals by directing the efforts of subordinate managers. 
The Petitioner had 25 U.S. employees at the time of filing. The Petitioner stated that, below the 
Beneficiary, "[s]ubordinate management personnel receive annual salary between $30,000 to 
$50,000." Tax documents show that five employees earned between $30,000 and $50,000 in 2016, 
the year the Petitioner filed the petition. Most other employees earned less than $10,000. 
In the denial notice, the Director noted the low number of employees who earned what the Petitioner 
specified as a managerial salary in 2016 and 2017. The Director concluded that most of the 
Petitioner's employees "were most likely seasonal or part-time workers" in low-paying, non­
professional positions, for instance involving sales or sewing garments. The Director also cited data 
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to indicate that each of the Petitioner's claimed managers earns 
well below the average salary of a manager. 
The Director acknowledged that the Beneficiary would be the Petitioner's highest-ranking official, 
but the Director found that the Petitioner lacks "a core predominantly professional cadre of 
employees, and management teams who primarily manage professionals." Asserting that "[t]he 
prototypical multinational corporation ... generally generate[ s] billions, or at least multi-millions of 
dollars in annual revenue," the Director concluded that "the Petitioning Entity's organizational 
structure is not sufficiently mature, developed and complex" to warrant an executive position, and 
that the Beneficiary likely must perform many non-qualifying operational or clerical tasks. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the law sets no minimum size for an employer, and no 
minimum salary for that employer's managers. These are valid observations, but our de nova review 
of the record supports the basic finding that the Petitioner has not sufficiently established a level of 
managerial authority below the Beneficiary. 
The Petitioner stated that the "subordinate management personnel will include General Manager, 
Financial and Operations Manager," and that "[ e Jach of the managerial positions is supported by 
assistants and subordinate employees within the respective departments (Exhibit 8)." Exhibit 8 
included a list of employees' names and salaries, but not titles or organizational structure. 
Therefore, the list does not show who the managers are, or which employees report to which 
manager. 
Following the RFE, the Petitioner submitted an organizational chart, dated March 2018, that listed 
six managers, matched here with the salaries stated on the employee list: 
• General Manager, $50,000 per year 
3 
Matter of L-L-A- LLC 
• Store Manager, $35,100 per year 
• Design Manager, $39,000 per year 
• Production Manager, $46,000 per year 
• Purchasing Manager, $52,000 per year 
• Accounting Manager, $33,800 per year 
The chart also referred to 37 unnamed subordinate employees, a number that exceeds the Petitioner's 
staff at the time of filing. The Petitioner did not explain which of these positions existed at the time 
of filing. The Petitioner must meet all eligibility requirements at the time of the filing and 
continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )( 1 ). 
The Beneficiary's own job description, submitted in the same RFE response, referred to a human 
resources department that did not appear on the organizational chart. 
The Petitioner also submitted a resume for an individual identified as the Petitioner's chief operating 
officer. The resume included job descriptions for past positions, but not for the claimed current 
position with the Petitioner. The resume indicated that this individual had held the position since 
September 2016 (before the December 2016 filing date), and payroll documents from 2018 showed a 
biweekly salary of $1618 and a 40-hour work week, but there is no reliable evidence that the 
individual was working those hours, for that pay, in 2016. The evidence relating to the chief 
operating officer's employment is inconsistent: 
• An IRS Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, showed that the Petitioner paid the individual 
$3230.77 in 2016, which is about four weeks' pay at the salary rate shown in the 2018 
payroll records, and less than two months' full-time pay at California's 2016 minimum wage 
of $10.00 per hour. 1 
• An IRS Form W-2 for 2017 showed only $19,416.00 for the year, which was too low for a 
40-hour work week even at California's 2017 minimum wage of$10.50 per hour. 
• The individual's name does not appear on the November 2016 employee list. 
• The March 2018 organizational chart does not show the person's name, nor does it show any 
chief operating officer. 
All materials requested in an RFE must be submitted together at one time. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(11 ). 
Nevertheless, the Petitioner submitted a second response, identifying two "U.S. Managerial 
Employees subordinate to [the Beneficiary]," specifically a head designer and a sales and operations 
manager. The March 2018 organizational chart does not show a head designer, and the Petitioner 
claimed to have hired the head designer in July 2017, more than seven months after the filing date. 
The above inconsistencies undermine the Petitioner's claim that the company had a dedicated, stable 
layer of management between the Beneficiary and the front-line employees. Furthermore, the 
Petitioner did not provide job descriptions for the claimed subordinate managers, although the 
1 See https://www.dir.ca.gov/iwc/MinimumWageHistory.htm (last visited Nov. 14, 2018). 
4 
Matter of L-L-A- LLC 
Director had requested that information in the RFE. The minimal and inconsistent information about 
the Petitioner's claimed subordinate managers is not sufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden of 
proof. 
Based on the deficiencies and inconsistencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary's position meets the requirements of an executive capacity. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish that it seeks to employ the Beneficiary in a primarily executive 
capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of L-L-A-LLC, ID# 1800615 (AAO Nov. 30, 2018) 
5