dismissed L-1A Case: Airline Ticket Wholesale

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Z-INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. I I. 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-129. PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a four-employee airline ticket wholesaler. seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as its vice president under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10 l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § II Ol(a)( 15)(L). The L-1 A 
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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity for the U.S. 
. I 
entity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's proposed position satisfies all four 
regulatory requirements of executive capacity. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary was 
previously employed in an executive capacity for the foreign entity and that her intended U.S. 
position is almost identical to the foreign position. The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will 
have executive level responsibilities and answer only to the Petitioner's chief executive officer. 
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 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 l 01 (a)(l5)(L) of the Act. 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. !d. 
1 
The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity. Thus, we will restrict our 
analysis to the Beneficiary's claimed executive capacity. 
Matter of Z- Inc. 
An individual L-1A petition tiled on Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, must include 
evidence that the petitioner will employ the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, 
including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had not submitted sut1ident consistent evidence to 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity for the U.S. entity. The 
Director noted the insufficiency of the proposed position's descriptions, the inconsistencies in the 
organizational charts submitted, and the lack of evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary would 
be relieved from performing non-qualifying duties. 
The Act defines the term "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 
thereof; 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. 
We will address both the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary"s intended duties as well as the 
Petitioner's staffing to determine whether the Petitioner has established this eligibility requirement. 
We note that when reviewing staffing levels as a factor in determining whether an individual is 
acting in a managerial or executive capacity, we 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) ofthe Act. 
A. Duties 
When examining the executive capacity of a beneficiary, we review the description of the job duties. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The definition of executive capacity has two parts. First, the 
petitioner must show that the beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion 
World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991 ). 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. e.g, FamizF Inc. 1·. 
US CIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World. 940 F .2d at 1533. 
The Petitioner's initial description of the Beneficiary's duties was general and essentially re-stated 
portions of the statutory definition of executive capacity. 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. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). af('d, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
2 
Matter of Z- Inc. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) the Petitioner provided a lengthy narrative 
describing the Beneficiary's business responsibilities and an additional description of the 
Beneficiary's management responsibilities. The Petitioner did not provide a division of the 
Beneficiary's time between the business responsibilities and the management responsibilities. The 
Petitioner also did not allocate the Beneficiary's time amongst the various responsibilities in either 
of these categories. 
The Beneficiary's business responsibilities included understanding the market conditions, organizing 
and implementing internal audit activities, and participating in the development of the company's 
budget. The Petitioner added that the Beneficiary would "'[g]rasp the company's financial situation, 
operating results and changes in funds'' and "[p ]reside over the development of the company's 
financial management." The Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary would also be "responsible for the 
audit of the company's budget, financial revenue and expenditure plans, cost-effective plans, credit 
plans, financial reports, accounting statements, major business plans related to the financial revenue 
and expenditure: economic contracts, economic agreements and etc.'' 
The Petitioner's two-page description of the Beneficiary's business responsibilities is generic. The 
Petitioner does not relate any of these general responsibilities to the Petitioner and its airline ticket 
wholesaler business. Thus, these responsibilities could apply to any organization. Moreover, the 
Petitioner does not describe the Beneficiary's specific tasks. Reciting the Beneficiary's vague job 
responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the regulations require a detailed 
description of the Beneficiary's daily job duties. The Petitioner has not provided the necessary detail 
or explanation of the Beneficiary's activities in the course of her daily routine. The actual duties 
themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Jd. 
The Petitioner's separate description of the Beneficiary's management responsibilities also lacks 
specificity and detail. The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's management responsibilities will 
include organizing the Petitioner's structural hierarchy, recruiting, hiring, training, evaluating, and 
dismissing employees, and reviewing subordinate departments' expenditures. These responsibilities 
appear to relate more to supervision of personnel and not to executive duties. 
In addition to the generic descriptions of the Beneficiary's proposed position, the Petitioner does not 
allocate the Beneficiary's time to any of the responsibilities listed. Although the Director 
specifically requested that the Petitioner provide the percentage of time the Beneficiary will spend 
on any executive or managerial duties, the Petitioner did not provide this information. Thus. we arc 
unable to determine whether the claimed generally described executive duties even constitute the 
majority of the Beneficiary's duties. As the record does not establish what proportion of the 
Beneficiary's duties is executive in nature, if any, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary will perform primarily in an executive capacity. 
By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a position be "primarily" 
executive or managerial in nature. Sections I 01 (A)( 44)(A) and (B) of the Act. While the 
Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess some 
3 
Matter (){ Z- Inc. 
level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making, the position descriptions alone are 
insufficient to establish that her actual duties will be primarily executive in nature. 
B. Staffing 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, we review the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed 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 Petitioner's initial organizational chart depicted the Beneficiary as the vice president reporting 
to the chief executive officer. Although the organizational chart also identified a web development 
manager, a sales manager, and two sales representatives, none of these employees report to the 
Beneficiary's position. The Petitioner submitted a revised organizational chart in response to the 
Director's RFE. The revised chart showed the Beneficiary in the position of accounting manager 
and listed two "accountants" as reporting directly to her position. One of the individuals identified 
in the ·•accountant" position is also depicted as providing data management and reporting to the 
website developer. The chart no longer includes a sales department or sales employees. The 
Petitioner does not offer an explanation for the revision to the organizational chart, the deletion of 
the sales department, or the change in the Beneficiary's and other employees' positions. 
The Petitioner also does not provide position descriptions for any employees, other than the 
Beneficiary. Although the record included resumes for four individuals, the resumes do not include 
the work these individuals perform or performed for the Petitioner. Additionally, two of the resumes 
are for individuals not listed on either organizational chart. The two resumes for the individuals 
depicted on the organizational chart show these individuals were previously employed as accounting 
assistants, not accountants. 
The record includes the Petitioner's state quarterly employment report for the first quarter of 2017. 
the quarter in which the petition was filed. This report lists six individuals but only four names 
correspond to positions on the Petitioner's revised organizational chart. These positions are the chief 
executive officer, two website developers, and the "accountant." Without detailed information on 
what the Petitioner's employees do, the Petitioner has not established that these individuals perform 
or will perform duties that will relieve the Beneficiary from primarily performing the Petitioner's 
administrative, financiaL and operational tasks. 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position 
within a complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the 
organization, and that person's authority to direct the organization. Section IOI(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act.
2 
Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" and 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner compares the Beneficiary's foreign and intended duties by emphasizing that her position in 
4 
Matter of Z- Inc. 
"establish the goals and policies" of that organization. Inherent to the definition, the organization 
must have a subordinate level of managerial employees for a beneficiary to direct and they must 
primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than the day-to-day 
operations of the enterprise. An individual will not be deemed an executive under the statute simply 
because they have an executive title or because they "direct" the enterprise as the owner or sole 
managerial employee. A beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision 
making" and receive only "general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization." Jd. Here, the Petitioner has not identified a 
subordinate level of managerial employees for the Beneficiary to direct. The record also does not 
include probative evidence that the Petitioner is sufficiently staffed to allow the Beneficiary to 
primarily direct a major component or function of the organization and delegate the duties necessary 
to carry out the administrative and operational tasks of a component or function. 
We have considered the reasonable needs of the organization in light of the overall purpose and 
stage of development of the organization. To establish that the reasonable needs of the organization 
justify a beneficiary's job duties, a petitioner must specifically articulate why those needs are 
reasonable in light of its overall purpose and stage of development. Here, the Petitioner has not 
explained its deletion of a sales department and creation of an accounting department or how these 
changes impact its actual business. Whether the Beneficiary's position is titled vice president or 
accounting manager, the record does not include probative evidence that the Petitioner has the 
necessary staffing to relieve the Beneficiary from performing primarily non-qualifying duties. The 
Petitioner has not established how its reasonable needs justify the Beneficiary's performance of 
non-executive duties. A petitioner's unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally 
will be insufficient to carry its burden of proof. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369,376 
(AAO 201 0). Furthermore, the reasonable needs of the Petitioner will not supersede the requirement 
that the Beneficiary must be '"primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity, and not 
spending the majority of his or her time on non-qualifying duties. See sections I 0 I (a)( 44 )(A) and 
(B) of the Act. The Petitioner has not established this essential requirement of this visa 
classification. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in a managerial or executive position for the Petitioner. 
the organizational structure of both entities shows that she reports directly to the chief executive officer. However, the 
Beneficiary's placement in the organizational structure is but one factor to consider. The totality of the evidence in this 
matter does not establish that the Beneficiary will be relieved from performing primarily non-qualifying duties enabling 
her to perform primarily executive duties. ~ 
5 
Matter of Z- Inc. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofZ- Inc., ID# 921657 (AAO Jan. II, 2018)