dismissed L-1A Case: Automotive Parts Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 9895099 
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 : FEB. 12, 2021 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as its general manager under the L-lA nonimmigrant visa 
classification for intracompany managers and executives . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 10l(a)(15)(L) , 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a)(15)(L) . 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition . The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's employment abroad, or his proposed U.S . work, in 
the claimed managerial capacity. 1 
The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. L-lA MANAGERS AND EXECUTIVES 
An L-lA petitioner must demonstrate that, in the three years before a petition's filing, the petitioner 
or a parent, branch , affiliate, or subsidiary employed a beneficiary abroad full-time for at least one 
continuous year in a capacity that was managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge. 
8 C.F.R. §§ 214 .2(1)(3)(i), (ii), (iv) . An L-lA petitioner must also establish a beneficiary's 
qualifications for an offered position, and his or her proposed U.S. employment in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii), (iv). 
II. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
The tenn "managerial capacity" means employment in which a beneficiary "primarily:" 1) managed 
an organization or a department , subdivision, function or component of it; 2) supervised and controlled 
the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or managed an essential 
function of an organization, department , or subdivision; 3) had authority to hire and fire or to 
recommend those personnel actions and others , or, if he or she did not directly supervise others , 
functioned at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or regarding the function managed; 
1 In its letters supporting the petition , the Petitioner asserts the Beneficiary 's employment abroad and in the United States 
in only a managerial capacity . The company has not claimed that he has or would work in an executive capacity . 
and 4) exercised discretion over the daily operations of the activity or function for which the employee 
had authority. Section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B). 
The definition of the term "managerial capacity" recognizes managers of both personnel and essential 
functions. On appeal, the Petitioner faults the Director for not considering the Beneficiary as a 
function manager. The Petitioner did not specifically claim the Beneficiary to be a function manager. 
But the company stated generally that he managed various functions abroad and would also do so in 
the United States. We will therefore consider the Beneficiary's qualifications as both a personnel and 
function manager. 
The job duties of both a personnel and function manager must meet all four elements of the definition 
of the term "managerial capacity." An L-lA petitioner must also demonstrate that a foreign national 
primarily performed managerial duties, as opposed to operational tasks. Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 
F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). 2 
In determining the managerial nature of a foreign position, USCIS considers descriptions of the job 
duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii) (requiring an L-lA petitioner to submit "a detailed description" 
of services performed). The Agency also considers: the organizational structure and nature of the 
foreign business; the existence of other employees who relieved a beneficiary from performing 
operational tasks; the job duties of subordinate employees; and other factors that affected a 
beneficiary's business role abroad. 
A. Personnel Manager 
A personnel manager must primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, 
or managerial employees. Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(2). "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." Section 
10l(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(4). 
Here, the Petitioner claims that its affiliate in China has employed the Beneficiary as general manager 
since the foreign company's formation in 2010. 3 The record indicates that the affiliate employs about 
150 people and manufactures and sells auto parts, specifically wheel bearings and hub assemblies. 
The Petitioner states that it seeks to employ the Beneficiary in connection with expanding its sales 
territory and possibly beginning manufacturing operations in the United States. 
2 Unlike this case. Family involved an immigrant visa petition for a multinational manager. See section 203(b)(l)(C) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b )(1 )(C). The job duties of both non immigrant L-1 A managers and immigrant multinational 
managers, however, must meet the definition of the term "managerial capacity." See section 101 (a)(44)(A) of the Act 
(defining the term "managerial capacity"); also compare 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(ii)(B) with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) (providing 
the same definition of the term for nonimmigrant and immigrant purposes). 
3 The Petitioner submitted documents indicating that Chinese authorities did not approve the foreign company's business 
registration and license until October 2016. The later date of these business approvals casts doubts on the company's 
purported employment of the Beneficiary before 2016. 
2 
In response to the Director's written request for additional evidence (RFE), the foreign affiliate's 
deputy general manager stated that the Beneficiary spent the following percentages of his time in 
China on the following duties: 
• 25%. Identified and pursued global sales opportunities. Created business model strategy and 
proposed budgets, ensuring their successful implementations, improvement of company 
products and services, customer satisfaction, cost reductions, and increased revenues. 
• 60%. Oversaw and managed various company departments, including: production; research 
and development; marketing; sales; and human resources. Managed customer relationships, 
assessing customer satisfaction levels, attending international automotive technology shows, 
and negotiated business contracts. Met regularly with business heads ensuring required actions 
to achieve business objectives. Mentored company management, stressing the importance of 
the company's strategic direction. Identified issues affecting management's relationship with 
employees and customers and analyzed potential solutions. Oversaw company performance 
by ensuring successful execution and planning. Reviewed and analyzed performance reports 
and set new business goals. Conducted regular meetings with management to review action 
plans and goal achievements. Ensured employees' receipt of performance objectives and 
regular feedback. 
• 15%. Managed internal and external communications. Ensured all communication tools 
served the company's functional and business goals. Ensured achievement of product quality, 
revenue, and promotional targets. 
A separate summary of the Beneficiary's foreign duties indicates that he also oversaw "selection, 
hiring, promotion and discharge of employees and contract staff by lower level company 
management." 
As the Director found, the descriptions of the Beneficiary's foreign job duties are too vague to 
demonstrate the claimed managerial nature of his position. "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 ofreiterating the regulations." Fedin Bros. 
Co., Ltd. v Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D. N.Y. 1989), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990). The 
job-duty descriptions submitted by the Petitioner indicate the Beneficiary's creation of goals and 
strategies and his regular meetings with subordinates to ensure implementation. But the descriptions 
do not detail or provide examples of the goals and strategies he purportedly created. The lack of 
specifics casts doubts on the accuracy of the claimed job duties. 
The Director also noted that the record lacks sufficient documentary evidence to support the 
Beneficiary's claimed job duties abroad. For example, the Beneficiary purportedly met regularly with 
department managers to review their performances. But the record lacks copies of performance 
evaluations or other evidence of the Beneficiary's purported performance reviews. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director disregarded copies of 2019 company decrees 
showing the Beneficiary's supervisory role. The documents indicate the Beneficiary's approval of 
decrees establishing employee penalties for certain product and equipment losses and employee 
rewards for meeting certain performance standards. But the Beneficiary's signings of these policy 
decrees do not demonstrate his supervision and control over others as required of a personnel manager. 
3 
See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(B)(2). The record does not 
demonstrate that he supervised and controlled the employees who prepared the decrees. The record 
therefore supports the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's 
foreign employment as a personnel manager. 
Although unaddressed by the Director, the record also does not demonstrate the Beneficiary's primary 
performance of personnel management duties. The affiliate's deputy general manager asserted that 
the duties on which the Beneficiary purportedly devoted 60% of his time "involve[ d] personal 
interaction with the subordinate managerial personnel in the company departments." But the group's 
job duties do not demonstrate that the Beneficiary spent most of his time supervising and controlling 
the work of others. Duties such as managing customer relationships, assessing customer satisfaction 
levels, attending international automotive shows, and negotiating contracts do not indicate supervision 
of workers. Nor do identifying issues affecting management's relationship with employees and 
customers, reviewing and analyzing performance reports, and setting new business goals. Because 
the Petitioner has not specified how much time the Beneficiary spent on these individual duties, the 
record does not establish that he primarily supervised and controlled the work of others. In any future 
filings in this matter, the Petitioner must submit additional evidence that the Beneficiary primarily 
supervised and controlled the work of others abroad. 
B. Function Manager 
To establish a beneficiary's employment in a managerial capacity as a "function manager," a petitioner 
must demonstrate that: (1) the function was a clearly defined activity; (2) the function was "essential," 
i.e., core to the organization; (3) the beneficiary primarily managed, as opposed to performed, the 
function; (4) the beneficiary acted at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect 
to the function managed; and (5) the beneficiary exercised discretion over the function's day-to-day 
operations. Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). A function manager 
may directly oversee personnel if the supervision is incidental to managing the function. Id. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner asserted the Beneficiary's management of "some of 
the [foreign] company's essential functions (such as [the] company's business development)." 
Business development appears to be an essential function of a for-profit company, and the descriptions 
of the Beneficiary's foreign job duties indicate that he managed business development activities. 
Contrary to the requirements stated in G-, however, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary 
primarily managed business development activities. The descriptions of the Beneficiary's foreign job 
duties indicate that some of his duties related to business development, while others didn't. The 
Petitioner has not specified how much time the Beneficiary spent on individual job duties. The record 
therefore does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary primarily managed the foreign company's 
business development activities. 
Also, the record does not establish the Beneficiary's management of the business development 
function, as opposed to his actual performance of its activities. The descriptions of the Beneficiary's 
foreign job duties indicate that he identified and pursued global sales opportunities, attended 
international automotive technology shows, and negotiated business contracts. Also, the foreign 
affiliate's deputy general manager stated that the Beneficiary "researche[d] possible new market 
opportunities." The statements indicate that the Beneficiary performed these duties himself. Also, 
4 
the descriptions of the job duties of the Beneficiary's foreign subordinates do not indicate the workers' 
assistance with his business development activities. The record therefore does not establish the 
Beneficiary's management of the foreign affiliate's business development activities, as opposed to his 
performance of them. See Brazil Quality Stones, Inc. v Chertoff, 531 F.3d 1063, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 
2008) (holding that a petitioner must demonstrate that a claimed function manager "was primarily 
engaged in overseeing essential functions of the business rather than performing them himself'). 
The Petitioner also asserted the Beneficiary's management of other essential functions of its foreign 
affiliate, including: production; research and development; marketing; sales; and human resources. 
As previously discussed, however, the Petitioner has not sufficiently specified how much time the 
Beneficiary spent on individual job duties, including duties related to these functions. Thus, the record 
does not demonstrate the Beneficiary's primary management of the functions. Also, the Petitioner did 
not specify the duties involved in these activities or who performed them. See Matter of G-, supra, at 
*3 (requiring a petitioner to "describe with specificity the activity to be managed"). The record 
therefore does not establish the Beneficiary's employment abroad as a function manager. 
For the foregoing reasons, the record does not demonstrate the Beneficiary's foreign employment in 
the claimed managerial capacity. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
III. PROPOSED U.S. EMPLOYMENT 
A. Personnel Manager 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's proposed supervision and 
control of professional employees in the United States. Personnel managers, however, need not 
necessarily oversee professionals. They may also supervise and control supervisory or managerial 
employees. Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(2). The Petitioner's 
most recent organizational chart, submitted with its RFE response, shows that the Beneficiary would 
directly supervise three workers, each of whom would in tum oversee at least one subordinate. The 
information on the chart is credible. The chart identifies the workers by name, and the Petitioner 
submitted copies of IRS Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statements, and Forms 1099-MISC, 
Miscellaneous Income, indicating that it paid all but one of them in 2018. Thus, consistent with the 
requirements for a personnel manager, the record demonstrates that the Beneficiary may supervise and 
control supervisory workers. 
As the Director found, however, the descriptions of the Beneficiary's proposed job duties are too vague 
to demonstrate the claimed managerial nature of his position. See Fedin Bros., 724 F. Supp. at 1108 
(stating that "[s]pecifics are clearly an important indication of whether [a beneficiary's] duties are 
primarily executive or managerial in nature"). The descriptions of the Beneficiary's proposed duties 
in the United States mirror those of his purported duties abroad. Like the descriptions of the foreign 
job duties, the U.S. job-duty descriptions indicate the Beneficiary's creation of goals and strategies 
and his regular meetings with subordinate managers. But the descriptions of the proposed duties do 
not detail or provide examples of the types of goals and strategies the Beneficiary would purportedly 
create. The lack of specifics cast doubt on the accuracy of the proposed job duties. 
5 
We also agree with the Director that the Petitioner did not establish its possession of sufficient staffing 
and organizational structure to relieve the Beneficiary from having to perform operational tasks. The 
Petitioner's most recent organizational chart lists 10 workers under the Beneficiary. Descriptions of 
their job duties indicate that only an administrative/payroll assistant would "[p ]rovide administrative 
support to the [Beneficiary]." Also, the Petitioner's payroll records indicate that five of its nine 
workers in 2018 earned less than $19,110, the minimum annual wage then required for a California 
employee who worked at least 35 hours a week. Thus, the record appears to indicate that most of the 
Petitioner's staff work on a part-time basis, including the administrative/payroll assistant who would 
administratively support the Beneficiary. The record therefore does not establish that the Petitioner's 
operations would relieve the Beneficiary from performing operational tasks, freeing him to focus on 
high-level, managerial duties. 
On appeal, the Petitioner accuses USCIS of improperly focusing on the company's size. In 
determining whether a beneficiary would work in a managerial capacity, USCIS cannot base its 
decision solely on the number of employees a beneficiary would supervise. Section 10l(a)(44)(C) of 
the Act. We concede that USCIS considered the Petitioner's number of employees. But the Agency 
also examined the company's organizational structure, the job duties of its workers, and the foll- or 
part-time nature of their work. Consistent with the Act, USCIS therefore did not base its decision 
solely on the number of supervised employees. See Family, Inc., 469 F.3d at 1316 ( citations omitted) 
(holding that "USCIS may properly consider an organization's small size as one factor in assessing 
whether its operations are substantial enough to support a manager"). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. work 
as a personnel manager. 
B. Function Manager 
In the Petitioner's RFE response, the affiliate's deputy general manager asserted that the Beneficiary 
would "[o]versee and manage various company functions [in the United States] including Business 
Development, Marketing, and Human Resources." The record, however, does not adequately support 
the assertion. 
As in its descriptions of the Beneficiary's employment abroad, the Petitioner has not specified the 
amount of time he would spend in the United States on individual job duties relating to the asserted 
functions. The record therefore does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would primarily manage 
any of the functions. 
Also, the record does not establish the Beneficiary's management of the functions, as opposed to his 
performance of their activities. See Matter of G- Inc., supra. The descriptions of the Beneficiary's 
proposed job duties indicate that he would identify and pursue sales opportunities in North America, 
evaluate and pursue new market opportunities, engage in business negotiations, and conclude 
agreements on behalf of the company. The Petitioner states that its sales/shipping manager would 
"[p ]ropose plans to acquire new customers or clients." But the record indicates that the Beneficiary 
would perform a majority of the business development duties himself. Also, the Petitioner's most 
recent organizational chart does not list marketing or human resources (HR) managers. The job-duty 
descriptions of the Beneficiary's proposed subordinates also do not mention marketing- or HR-related 
6 
duties. Thus, the record indicates that the Beneficiary would perform marketing and HR-related duties 
himself For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's proposed 
work in the United States as a function manager. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The record does not establish the Beneficiary's employment abroad, or his proposed U.S. work, in the 
claimed managerial capacity. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7