dismissed L-1A Case: Air Cargo

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-C-S-C- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 14, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an air cargo charter company, seeks temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its 
manager, commercial jets, under the L-1A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(L). 
The L-lA 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 that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad, or would be employed in the 
United States, in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary is employed in a managerial capacity abroad 
and would continue to act in this capacity in the United States. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a position involving 
specialized knowledge, for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's 
application for admission into the United States. 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. Section l0l(a)(15)(L) of the 
Act. 
The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad, or that she would be 
employed in the United States, in an executive capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to 
whether the Beneficiary will has been, and will be, employed in a managerial capacity. 
The term "managerial capacity" is defined as "an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily": 
Matter of A-C-S-C- Inc. 
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component 
of the organizatio11; 
(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. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Further, "[a] first-line supervisor is not considered to be acting in 
a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees 
supervised are professional." !d. Additionally, 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. 
Based on the definition of managerial 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 duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside 
the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. U.SCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); 
Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
II. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of the 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 capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description of the job 
duties, we also examine the claimed managerial 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. 
2 
.
Matter of A-C-S-C- Inc. 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary's foreign employer is a charter air service provider that 
has been operating in the United Kingdom since 1990. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has 
been employed with the foreign employer since 2010 in the positions of flight services manager, 
broker, and, since May 2015, as a senior charter account manager. The Petitioner provided an 
organizational chart for the foreign entity's division which reflects that she 
reports to an assistant director, who in turn is supervised by the director of the ' 
division of the business. The Petitioner provided a duty description for the Beneficiary's 
foreign position indicating that she spends 40% of her time on "management of the 
key operations," 30% on "management of the professional subordinate staff of the 
' and 30% on "establishing international sales strategies and representing the company in 
matters involving external parties, and negotiating contracts with high level client organizations." 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary acts as a personnel manager overseeing professional 
subordinates and that she also qualifies as a function manager overseeing an essential function of the 
organization. Although a beneficiary is not required to supervise personnel, if a petitioner claims 
that a beneficiary's duties involve supervising employees, then a petitioner must establish that the 
subordinate employees are supervisory, professional, or managerial. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of 
the Act. 
The Petitioner indicated that 30% of the Beneficiary's time is spent overseeing subordinates. The 
Petitioner provided an organizational chart reflecting 
that the Beneficiary supervises a senior broker 
and a trainee broker and does not assert that either of these subordinates are supervisors or managers. 
As such, we will assess whether the Beneficiary's subordinates are professionals. 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. C'{ 
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 101(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." Therefore, we must focus on the level of 
education required by the position, rather than the degree held by the subordinate employees. The 
possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee does not automatically lead to the 
conclusion that an employee is employed in a professional capacity. 
The Petitioner has not established that a bachelor's degree is actually necessary to perform the duties 
of the senior or trainee broker positions. We acknowledge that the resumes of the senior and trainee 
broker indicate that they hold bachelor's degrees in marketing and air transport planning and 
management respectively, and that these degrees are generally relevant to their positions. However, 
the Petitioner does not establish that a bachelor's degree is required to perform the duties of these 
positions, or articulate or support why these broker positions require a bachelor's degree as a 
minimum requirement. We note that the Beneficiary, who does not have a bachelor's degree based 
on the Petitioner's description of her qualifications, previously served in the broker position with the 
foreign entity. Therefore, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the position requires a 
.
Matter of A-C-S-C- Inc. 
bachelor's degree, that the Beneficiary's subordinates qualify as professionals as defined by the 
regulations, or that she devotes 30% of her time to supervising professional subordinates. 
Further, the Petitioner has not adequately supported its claim that the Beneficiary spends 40% of her 
time making management decisions related to the entire division. For instance, the 
Beneficiary's duties indicate she is responsible for "business development and sales operations," 
"business plan and direction and marketing plans," and "overall corporate business development 
plans and client satisfaction" for the division. However, the organizational chart indicates that the 
Beneficiary reports to an assistant director and director of the division. Given the 
titles of these employees, it is reasonable to conclude that the employees who supervise the 
Beneficiary have far ranging responsibility for the development, operations, business and marketing 
plans, and direction of the department. Further, the organizational chart shows four other 
subordinate managers within this department who also overseeing brokers and other administrative 
employees. Out of 21 department employees, the Beneficiary has authority over two trainees and 
one senior broker. The Petitioner submits. little supporting evidence to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary spends a significant portion of her time directing the 
department, such as documentation substantiating her overall management of this division. 
In fact, the supporting documentation indicates that the Beneficiary is significantly focused on 
identifying and closing deals with clients, and on the training of her subordinate brokers. For 
instance, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary has previously trained 28 brokers and that she is 
"9th out of 49 brokers" in sales. A paystub for the Beneficiary also shows that two-thirds of her pay 
was based on sales commission. This evidence indicates that the Beneficiary more likely acts in the 
capacity of a sales manager, pursuing clients and getting assistance from her subordinates on closing 
accounts, while also training them on these sales skills. In fact, the foreign employer directly states 
this in its support letter submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence, and the 
Petitioner provides performance evaluations and emails relevant to her subordinates reflecting her 
day-to-day involvement with sales activities and the arrangement of services for clients. 
Therefore, the evidence does not support the Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary devotes 40% 
of her time making higher level management decisions with resp~ct to the 
department. Indeed, the preponderance ofthe evidence suggests that she will act primarily as a first 
line supervisor of non-professional employees working on closing sufficient client deals to meet a 
sales target. 
Given this evidence, the record does not support a finding that the foreign entity employs the 
Beneficiary, in the alternative, as a function manager. 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 clearly 
describe the duties to be performed in managing the essential function, or more specificaJ.ly, identify 
the function with specificity, articulate the essential nature of the function, and establish the 
4 
.
Matter of A-C-S-C- Inc. 
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). 
Although the Beneficiary is "financially accountable for a significant portion of the company's 
revenue" through her sales efforts, this does not demonstrate that she is tasked with managing an 
essential function of the organization. The organizational chart reflects that she reports to two other 
senior managers and that she acts parallel to several other similarly placed managers overseeing 
brokers in the division. Further, as noted, the evidence also suggests that 
the Beneficiary devotes a substantial portion of her time pursuing and closing deals with clients, 
operational tasks not consistent with the overall management of an essential function of the 
organization. Further, even if we accept that the Beneficiary's role involves an essential function, 
the Petitioner has not established that she will primarily manage the function rather than perform 
duties related to the function. In fact, as we have discussed, the weight of the evidence suggests that 
the Beneficiary acts a sales manager, pursuing clients with the help of two to three subordinate 
brokers and trainees, and is not relieved from performing non-qualifying operational tasks alongside 
these employees. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is employed abroad in a 
managerial capacity. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
Next, we will analyze whether the Petitioner demonstrated with sufficient evidence that the 
Beneficiary would act in a managerial capacity in the United States. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would be transferred to the United States to oversee the 
company's ' division" and report to this company's president. Similar to the 
Beneficiary's asserted foreign employment, the Petitioner asserts that she would act as a personnel 
manager supervising professional subordinates and as a function manager overseeing an essential 
function of the organization. The Petitioner sets forth duties for the Beneficiary's role in the United 
States similar to those provided with respect to her foreign employment. Specifically, the Petitioner 
states she would be spending 45% of her time providing for the overall direction and management of 
the division; 25% "establishing, developing and managing the implementation of 
corporate policies and business plans" for this department, including "advanced business and 
marketing plans" and building relationships with "major airlines within the United States"; 20% 
overseeing and managing professional subordinates; and 10% "participating in 
executive/management meetings, developing promotional plans, and negotiating contracts with high 
level client organizations." 
However, the Petitioner's statements and submitted documentation with respect to the Beneficiary's 
proposed role in the United States do not indicate that it has stati in place to relieve her from 
5 
.
----------------------
Matter of A-C-S-C- Inc. 
significant involvement in non-managerial tasks. For instance, the Petitioner acknowledges the 
underperformance of the department within its California office and states that the 
Beneficiary will be tasked with building up this portion of the business. The Petitioner notes in the 
Beneficiary's duty description that she will be responsible for "creating four ( 4) new jobs and 
eventually ten (1 0) new jobs" within the department. However, these statements leave question as to 
whether the department was sufficiently operational to sustain the Beneficiary in a qualifying 
managerial capacity at the time it filed the petition. For instance, the provided organizational chart 
indicates that the Beneficiary will have one subordinate, a trainee broker responsible for performing 
duties consistent with a sales representative. An email from the Beneficiary dated a few months 
prior to the petition reflects that the trainee broker has just begun to "take the lead on communicating 
with the client[ s ]" and goals listed in his performance review just prior to the date of the petition 
indicate that he planned to book his first flight by February 2017. 
This evidence suggests that the Beneficiary will devote a significant portion of her time to non­
qualifying operational tasks, such as pursuing and closing deals with clients, and making 
arrangements for the provision of their flights, duties more consistent with a sales representative than 
a qualifying personnel manager. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established with sufficient 
evidence that the Beneficiary will be primarily responsible for the qualifying managerial tasks listed 
in her duties such as "monitoring sales operations," creating "business development plans," 
implementing "effective business development strategies," and overseeing a team of professional 
employees. Indeed, the Beneficiary's duties state that she will oversee a team of professional 
brokers "in due course," not upon the approval of the petition. The Petitioner must establish that all 
eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing 
and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). 
Further, as previously discussed, the Petitioner has not established that a bachelor's degree is 
necessary to perform the duties of the trainee broker or broker positions in support of its claim that 
the Beneficiary will eventually manage a team of professionals. We acknowledge that the resume of 
the U.S.-based trainee broker indicates that he holds a bachelor's degree in entrepreneurship, a 
degree generally relevant to the position. However, the Petitioner does not corroborate this degree 
with supporting documentation, nor does it establish that a bachelor's degree is a minimum 
requirement for the position. Further, as the Beneficiary will initially have only one subordinate, the 
record does not establish that she will be primarily engaged in supervising subordinates. In fact, as 
we have stated, the Petitioner suggests that this will only become a significant responsibility once 
her department is sufficiently developed through her sales efforts and when additional brokers have 
been hired. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would be employed as 
a personnel manager. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would be employed as a function 
manager. Although we acknowledge that the Beneficiary would likely have some responsibility for 
the direction of her new department, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is an essential 
function· as of the date of the petition and that she will be relieved from primarily performing non­
qualifying operational tasks. As we have discussed, the Petitioner acknowledges that the 
.
Matter of A-C-S-C- Inc. 
department within its California affiliate has not been sufficiently developed and that 
it has been lagging behind projected growth, thus the reason for the Beneficiary's transfer. The 
Petitioner's organizational chart indicates that this department is essentially the Beneficiary and her 
subordinate trainee broker. As such, it appears likely that the Beneficiary would be significantly 
tasked with non-qualifying operational tasks such as identifying and closing deals with clients, and 
arranging for their services within this region. The Petitioner has not credibly demonstrated how the 
Beneficiary would be relieved ofthese non-qualifying tasks. 
The record does not establish that the Beneficiary would act in a managerial capacity in the United 
States. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary Is 
employed abroad and will be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-C-S-C- Inc., ID# 607162 (AAO Sept. 14, 2017)