dismissed L-1A Case: Automobile Parts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 21562217 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEP. 09, 2022 
The Petitioner, describing itself as a distributor of automobile parts, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary in the United States as a sales manager under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). 
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. The 
Director further determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary would be employed 
in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States . On appeal , the Petitioner contends that the 
Director overlooked and misapplied the submitted evidence . The Petitioner asserts that the provided 
evidence establishes that the Beneficiary qualified as a personnel manager abroad and that he would 
act in the same capacity in the United States . 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova 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). 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA 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 101(a)(15)(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. Id. The petitioner 
must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or her 
to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
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. 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-lA 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 101(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 
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 structure, 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 stated that it was established to increase the foreign employer's presence in North 
America selling automobile parts it manufactures and to "improve delivery times ... and provide faster 
and better sales support." The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary was being transferred from the 
foreign employer for this purpose, to act as a sales manager overseeing its sales and marketing 
department. The Petitioner submitted the following duties for the Beneficiary: 
2 
I. Training the sales team- 25% of her time: 
• Give the sales team an understanding of what our factories are capable of, in 
terms of volume, services, and custom designed products, 
• With this understanding, the sales team will be able to address specific client's 
product designs, 
• Provide intimate knowledge of the foreign employer's specific vertically 
integrated capabilities and train the sales team staff to understand and present 
this to clients. 
II. Managerial authority to hire and fire employees who are professionals- 50% of her 
time: 
• Exercise the authority to hire and fire outsourced sales companies consisting of 
professionals in the automotive sales industry in the interests of the Petitioner's 
objectives, 
• Work with regional managers of the outsourced sales/marketing companies to 
optimize the sales teams, 
• Tasked with expanding our outsourced sales/marketing team to cover regions 
that are currently not covered, and 
• Research and find sales/marketing companies best suited for regions that are 
not currently serviced. 
III. An example of a daily operation which relies on her management decisions, 
Targeted Sales Campaign- 15% of her time: 
• Execute a sales campaign to cement a relationship with Good Year belts and 
Continental, and 
• Fulfill prospective client needs in the water pump and vacuum pump SKUs. 
IV. High Level Bridge between Clients and our Factories- 10% of her time: 
• Serve as a high-level bridge between clients and our factories, 
• Directly relay client requirements and any special demands with our factories, 
and 
• Act in a decision-making role to greatly reduce the length of time it takes to 
communicate and obtain approval of many details to complete the sale. 
The Petitioner submitted a duty description for the Beneficiary that leaves substantial uncertainty as 
to whether she would devote a majority of her time to qualifying managerial duties. The Beneficiary's 
duty description includes several non-qualifying operational tasks indicating her involvement in the 
direct provision of goods and services to clients or her performance of these duties alongside her 
independent contractor colleagues. For instance, the duty description states the Beneficiary would be 
responsible for assisting the independent sales representatives in addressing specific client product 
design needs, coordinating with foreign employer engineers abroad to work with client engineers, and 
assisting in the design, modeling, revision, manufacturing, packaging, and delivery of client solutions. 
Likewise, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would personally research areas for expansion 
and identify independent contractors for certain sales areas, "work with clients from design to 
delivery," and "fulfill specific client's specific needs in water pump and vacuum SKUs." The 
3 
Petitioner further explained that the Beneficiary would be tasked with "directly relaying client 
requirements and any special demands with our factories." 
The discussed operational duties, included throughout the Beneficiary's duty description, indicate that 
she would more likely be engaged in primarily performing duties directly related to the provision of 
goods and services to clients, rather than delegating these tasks to subordinates. Beyond these 
customer support and service-related duties, the Petitioner provides few duties that would not be 
considered managerial, and it does not sufficiently articulate how she would be primarily relieved of 
these tasks. 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 101(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 include 
mostly administrative or operational tasks, but the Petitioner does not sufficiently quantify the time 
she would spend on these duties as opposed to qualifying managerial tasks. For this reason, we cannot 
determine whether the Beneficiary would primarily perform the duties of a manager. See IKEA US, 
Inc. v. US. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 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 her 
primary performance of qualifying duties. 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a position with a managerial title within the organization, the fact 
that he will manage or direct a portion of the business does not necessarily establish eligibility for 
classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial capacity within the meaning of section 
10l(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. 
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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary would hold the authority to hire and fire 
subordinates; specifically, independent contractor sales representatives it engages to sell and distribute 
the foreign employer's automobile parts in the United States. The statutory definition of "managerial 
capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function managers." See section 10l(a)(44)(A) 
of the Act. Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. Contrary to the common understanding of the 
word "manager," the statute plainly states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting in 
4 
a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees 
supervised are professional." Id. If a beneficiary directly supervises other employees, the beneficiary 
must also have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or recommend those actions, and take 
other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart reflecting that the Beneficiary would oversee the 
"outsourced sales/marketing" department shown to include five regional managers covering the 
following territories: Puerto Rico, Guatemala, Guam, and the Bahamas, 2) andl 3) 
I I Texas, 4) Florida, and 5) Venezuela and Panama. The regional managers were 
reflected on the organizational chart as working for independent companies and were not offered as 
employees of the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner does not specifically articulate how the Beneficiary's employment would qualify as a 
managerial position as defined by law, whether as a personnel or function manager. Further, with only 
first-line subordinates, the Beneficiary could not qualify as a personnel manager based on her 
supervision of subordinate managers or supervisors, since her subordinates are not shown to have their 
own subordinates despite their "regional manager" titles. The Petitioner provides no explanation as 
to how the Beneficiary's subordinates could be classified as supervisors or managers. 
In the alternative, the Petitioner does not substantiate that the Beneficiary had personnel authority over 
subordinate professionals. To determine whether a beneficiary managed professional employees, we 
must evaluate whether the subordinate positions required a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for 
entry into the field of endeavor. Cf 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 10l(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 
employee. 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. 
Here, the Petitioner provided no evidence to establish that the Beneficiary's independent contractor 
subordinates hold bachelor's degrees. The Petitioner only provided a generic duty description 
applying to all the "outsourced companies" indicating that they would be tasked with conducting 
market research and demand analysis, attending trainings hosted by the sales manager, visiting and 
communicating with customers, and following up on part orders. The duty description provided for 
the Beneficiary's subordinates indicates that they would perform the duties of sales representatives, 
and there is no indication that a bachelor's degree would be required to perform these tasks, nor has 
the Petitioner articulated that such a degree is required to these positions. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided a 2020 IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return 
reflecting that it paid only $16,100 in commissions and $10,464 to "outside services" during that year, 
leaving substantial uncertainty as to the level at which it engages independent sales contractors and 
whether they could be considered subordinates to the Beneficiary. 1 On appeal, the Petitioner submits 
1 The petition was filed on November 30, 2021. 
5 
two checks in the amount of $489.74 and $581.34 paid to two individuals for "commissions." 
However, neither of these individuals are listed in its organizational chart nor asserted as subordinates 
of the Beneficiary. The Petitioner also provides an asserted commission check paid to its claimed 
regional sales manager covering I andl I in the amount of $1120.81 and dated in January 
2022. A single check paid to one of the Petitioner's claimed independent contractor sales 
representatives in a nominal amount after the date the petition was filed does not sufficiently establish 
that the Beneficiary would oversee several professional subordinates on a fulltime basis. The 
Petitioner otherwise provides little evidence to substantiate regular payments to its claimed regional 
sales managers or to demonstrate that the Beneficiary would have personnel authority over these 
independent contractors. The Petitioner must resolve discrepancies and ambiguities in the record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-
92 (BIA 1988). 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)(l). Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would qualify as a 
personnel manager based on her supervision of subordinate supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees. 
As noted, the statutory definition of "managerial capacity" also allows for "function managers." See 
section 101(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 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If 
a petitioner claims that a beneficiary will manage an essential function, it must clearly describe the 
duties to be performed in managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate 
that "(l) the function is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is 'essential,' i.e., core to the 
organization; (3) the beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the function; (4) the 
beneficiary will act at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function 
managed; and (5) the beneficiary will exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day 
operations." Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
However, the Petitioner does not specifically articulate how the Beneficiary would qualify as a 
function manager. The Petitioner does not clearly describe and define the Beneficiary's function, nor 
does it indicate how it would be essential. In addition, as we have discussed, the Beneficiary's duty 
description included numerous non-qualifying operational duties, such as her assisting independent 
sales representatives in addressing specific client product design needs, coordinating with foreign 
employer engineers abroad to work with client engineers, assisting in the design, modeling, revision, 
manufacturing, packaging, and delivery of client solutions, amongst others. As such, the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently demonstrated that the Beneficiary would be primarily responsible for managing a 
function, assuming this function had been clearly defined, rather than performing it. Further, as stated, 
the Petitioner provides little detail and supporting documentation to substantiate that the Beneficiary 
would have a function to manage; namely, an asserted team of regional sales managers devoted to a 
certain essential function. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed as a function manager. 
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. 
6 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7