dismissed L-1A Case: Agriculture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 25, 2024 In Re: 32656305 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a company owning and operating a free-range chicken farm, seeks to extend the 
temporary employment of the Beneficiary as its chief executive officer under the L-lA nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees.1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 101(a)(15)(L). The L-IA classification allows a corporation or other legal 
entity, including its affiliate or subsidiary, to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United 
States to work temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity or that he 
would be employed in the United States in this same capacity. The matter is now before us on appeal 
under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal as the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed 
in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. Since this identified basis for denial is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve its appellate arguments 
regarding the Director's other basis for denying the petition. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 
(1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is 
unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for a one-year 
period ending on June 5, 2023. 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. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity for one continuous year within 
three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). 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 or executive capacity. Id. 
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. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial capacity in the United States under an extended petition. The Petitioner 
does not claim on appeal that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive 
capacity. Therefore, 
we restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity. 
"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. 
When examining the managerial capacity of a given 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 
capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
A. Duties 
To be eligible for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, the Petitioner must show 
that the Beneficiary will perform the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition at 
section 10l(a)(44)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act. If the record does not establish that the offered position meets 
all four of these elements, we cannot conclude that it is a qualifying managerial position. 
If the Petitioner establishes that the offered position meets all elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial 
2 
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). In determining whether a given 
beneficiary's duties will be primarily managerial, we consider the Petitioner's description of the job 
duties, the company's organizational strncture, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, 
the presence of other employees to relieve the 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 Petitioner indicated when the petition was filed in October 2023 that it had "quickly established 
a viable farm from ground zero" since the Beneficiary's admission into the United States in January 
2023. The Petitioner submitted the following general duty description for the Beneficiary: 
• Manage the U.S. Company (50%) 
• Supervise, control the work of operations manager and manage essential functions of 
the US company (25%) 
• Hire and fire all employees ( 10%) 
• Exercise discretion oversee the day-to-day operation and function of the farm (15%) 
In addition, the Petitioner listed the following tasks for the Beneficiary: 
• Livestock Health Management. Currently the farm has over 40 breeder goats, 5,000 
guinea fowl chicken, 1,000 free range chickens, and 1,000 quails. The task of 
managing livestock health requires [ the Beneficiary] to develop a way to monitor health 
to ensure the farm facility and surrounding environment is optimal for brooding, 
rearing, growing, and laying conditions, while ensuring that the livestock are provided 
with natural feeds that offer adequate nutrition, water and clean environment. 
• Environmental Management. To ensure successful livestock farm operation, [the 
Beneficiary] will develop proper recordkeeping that includes regular cleaning and 
disinfection schedule of the farm facility and surrounding areas. [The Beneficiary] will 
also develop a waste management plan to ensure that the farm operation meets the 
regulatory and environmental compliance. [The Beneficiary] will work with local farm 
expert and consultant to achieve this objective. 
• Production Management. [The Beneficiary] will need to find ways for disease 
prevention and control measures that can reduce mortality and increase livestock 
production. Because of the objective of having an organic farm, [the Beneficiary] must 
develop plans to achieve the production objectives without using antibiotic or other 
enhancement medicine to treat the livestock. 
• Finance Management. [The Beneficiary] will review the farm's financial reports and 
work with Operations Manager to find ways to improve efficiency of the farm operation 
while cutting cost. [The Beneficiary] as the top manager, has the discretion and 
authority to approve all spendings. [The Beneficiary] will manage all financial aspects 
of the business, including budgets, planning loans and taxes of the company by 
3 
analyzing financial statements, sales reports, etc. and guide the company's finances to 
achieve financial health for the farm. 
• Business Marketing. [The Beneficiary] will work with Operations Manager to initiate 
the business marketing and social media for the farm ... 
• Human Resources and Corporate Related Policies. [The Beneficiary] will work with 
HR consultant to develop HR management and corporate related practices ... 
The Petitioner submitted a duty description for the Beneficiary and other supporting evidence leaving 
substantial uncertainty as to whether he would devote a majority of his time to qualifying managerial 
duties under an extended petition. The Beneficiary's duty description includes several apparent non­
qualifying operational tasks indicating his direct involvement in the operation of the Petitioner's farm, 
including: "developing a way to monitor health to ensure the farm facility and surrounding 
environment is optimal for brooding, rearing, growing, and laying conditions;" "finding ways for 
disease prevention and control measures that can reduce mortality and increase livestock production;" 
and "overseeing all [emphasis added] financial aspects of the business." Similarly, the Petitioner 
stated that during the daily operation of the farm, the Beneficiary would be directly involved in 
decisions related to "animal welfare, waste management, food safety, and environmental protection," 
as well as "immediate resolutions or counter-measure[ s] to ensure compliance [ with regulations]" and 
"repairs or renovations of the premises ... required to improve the welfare of the livestock." These 
duties suggest the Petitioner's direct involvement in nearly all the operational aspects of the business, 
and at minimum, they reflect him working alongside operational employees within the business in 
performing ordinary non-qualifying operational tasks. 
The Beneficiary's focus on non-qualifying operational tasks is further reflected in submitted 
supporting documentation, including receipts showing him purchasing bushels of oats, a washer and 
dryer, a kennel, materials to repair a stoop, an excavator and documentation showing him selling 
chickens, quails, and goats. Likewise, provided evidence also reflects the Beneficiary being 
responsible for paying water and electric bills and includes photographs showing him transporting 
livestock. The Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary would delegate a majority of these non­
qualifying operational tasks to his subordinate operation manager, subordinate farm workers, and later 
on appeal, independent contractors. However, the Petitioner provided little supporting evidence to 
reflect his delegation of non-qualifying tasks to these subordinates and contractors, in contrast to the 
substantial documentation reflecting his performance of seemingly all the day-to-day operational tasks 
of the farm. Again, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in 
managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside its other employees. See 
Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d at 1313. 
Whether the Beneficiary is a managerial employee turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained its 
burden of proving that their duties are "primarily" managerial. See sections 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Here, the Petitioner does not credibly document what proportion of the Beneficiary's duties would be 
managerial functions and what proportion would be non-qualifying. The Beneficiary's duties reflected 
on the record are largely administrative or operational, but the Petitioner does not sufficiently quantify 
the time he would spend on these duties as opposed to qualifying managerial tasks. For this reason, 
4 
we cannot determine whether the Beneficiary would primarily perform the duties of a manager under 
an approved petition. See IKEA US, Inc. v. US. Dept. ofJustice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
For instance, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary would perform certain managerial-level tasks 
consistent with delegating policies and goals to his subordinates, such as developing proper 
recordkeeping, a regular cleaning and disinfection schedule, plans to achieve production objectives, 
business marketing and social media, as well as guiding the company's finances from a managerial 
level. However, the Petitioner provided little supporting evidence to substantiate his primary 
performance of these policy related tasks or his delegation of non-qualifying operational duties to his 
claimed subordinates and contractors. Although we do not expect the Petitioner to articulate and 
document every managerial task to be performed by the Beneficiary, it is reasonable to expect that it 
would provide sufficient detail and documentation to corroborate his primary performance of 
qualifying duties as of the date the petition was filed. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that there was an unnecessary delay in his entry into the country from 
Vietnam frustrating his ability to sufficiently launch the business as of the date the petition was filed 
in late October 2023. 2 Here, the initial new office petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary was 
approved from June 6, 2022, through June 5, 2023. Although we acknowledge how the Beneficiary's 
delay entering the United States was likely difficult, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) only 
allows the intended U.S. operation one year within the date of approval of the petition to support a 
managerial position. There is no provision in the regulations allowing for an extension of this one­
year period. If the business does not have the necessary staffing after one year to sufficiently relieve 
the Beneficiary from performing operational and administrative tasks, the Petitioner is ineligible for 
an extension. Further, it is also noteworthy that the Petitioner asserted its farm was sufficiently 
operational and staffed when the petition was filed in October 2023 and when it responded to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE) in January 2024. However, when the appeal was filed in 
February 2024, the Petitioner provided no additional supporting evidence to substantiate the 
Beneficiary's primary performance of managerial duties or his delegation of non-qualifying tasks to 
his asserted subordinates and contractors. The affected party has the burden of proof to establish 
eligibility for the requested benefit at the time of filing the benefit request and continuing until the 
final adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); see also Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 
1971) (providing that "Congress did not intend that a petition that was properly denied because the 
beneficiary was not at that time qualified be subsequently approved at a future date when the 
beneficiary may become qualified under a new set of facts."). 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a position with a managerial title 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 a managerial capacity within the meaning of section 101(a)(44)(A) of 
the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a position be "primarily" 
managerial in nature. Id. The Beneficiary may exercise discretion over some of the Petitioner's day­
to-day operations and possess some requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision­
making; however, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that her actual duties 
would be primarily managerial in nature. 
2 The record reflects that the Beneficiary entered the United States on his initial L-lA nonimmigrant visa in January 2023. 
5 
B. Staffing 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
capacity, we 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. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted an organizational 
chart reflecting that he oversaw an operation manager, "human resources ( outsource services)," and 
"business and marketing (outsource services)." In addition, the chart reflected that the operation 
manager supervised a farm manager overseeing two farm workers. At that time, the Petitioner 
emphasized that the Beneficiary would be primarily relieved from day-to-day operational level tasks 
by his subordinate operation manager and this claimed manager's subordinate operational employees. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary would qualify as a function manager, 
overseeing, but not performing, the essential functions of the business such as livestock health, 
environmental, production, and finance management, among others. 3 The statutory definition of 
"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function managers." See section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not 
supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing 
an "essential function" within the organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The term 
"essential function" is not defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary 
will manage an essential function, a petitioner must furnish a written job offer that clearly describes 
the duties to be performed in managing the essential function, or more specifically, identify the 
function with specificity, articulate the essential nature of the function, and establish the proportion of 
a beneficiary's daily duties attributed to managing the essential function. See 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(3)(ii). In addition, a petitioner's description of a beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate 
that the beneficiary will manage the function rather than perform duties related to the function. See 
Matter ofZ-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). 
However, as we have already discussed at length, the record includes substantial documentary 
evidence reflecting the Beneficiary's direct performance of nearly all the non-qualifying operational 
tasks of the Petitioner's farm. The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the Beneficiary 
would be primarily responsible for managing a function, rather than performing it, as it is not clear 
who would perform the tasks of his claimed functions other than him. The Petitioner previously 
asserted on the record that his subordinate operation manager and other subordinates would relieve 
him from these tasks, but has not submitted supporting evidence to substantiate this, nor 
documentation to corroborate their employment beyond one internal payroll document from 
September 2023. For instance, the Petitioner did not provide tax documentation from the Internal 
Revenue Service (IRS), state quarterly wage forms, paystubs, or other similar documentation to 
substantiate the payment of its claimed employees. Likewise, on appeal, the Petitioner points to the 
3 We acknowledge that previously on the record the Petitioner also contended that the Beneficiary qualified as a personnel 
manager overseeing subordinate managers and professionals. However, the Petitioner appears to have abandoned this 
assertion on appeal. 
6 
Beneficiary's collaboration with an independent expert in developing livestock health management 
programs for the farm, asserting this reflects his primary performance of managerial tasks. But again, 
the Petitioner provided little supporting evidence to demonstrate its regular engagement of an 
independent expert or contractors, or other employees, to relieve the Beneficiary from performing the 
non-qualifying tasks of operating the farm, which he is exclusively reflected as performing on the 
record. Therefore, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed as a function manager. 
Lastly, the new office extension regulation also requires that the Petitioner submit evidence of its 
financial status and that it has been doing business for the previous year. See 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(14)(ii). Part 5, item 15 of the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker lists its gross 
annual and net annual income as "start-up," indicating that it was not earning regular income when 
the petition was filed. In addition, the Petitioner submitted information or evidence reflecting its 
income, salaries, or financial status, such as tax documentation, audited financial statements, or any 
other similar supporting documentation to substantiate that it is sufficiently operating to support the 
Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial capacity as of the date the petition was filed. The Petitioner 
must resolve inconsistencies and ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
For the foregoing reasons, the evidence reflects that the Director was correct in denying the petition 
as the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial 
capacity in the United States. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7