dismissed L-1A Case: Automotive Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF L-N-&S- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 7, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which operates an auto body repair shop and sells automotive security products, 
seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary employment as its president1 under the L-lA 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees.2 Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(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 would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity 
under the extended petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director's decision was based on "far-fetched reasoning" 
and asserts that it submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary will be employed in 
a managerial capacity. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
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 10l(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. Id. 
1 The Petitioner also refers to the Beneficiary's position title as "General Manager." 
2 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
January I, 2017, until December 30, 2017. 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(1)(1 )(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. 
Matter of L-N-&S- Inc. 
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). This evidence must demonstrate that the beneficiary will be employed in 
a managerial or executive capacity, as defined at sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act, under 
the extended petition. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary will be 
working in a managerial capacity. The Petitioner did not claim that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in an executive capacity; therefore, our analysis will address only the Petitioner's claim 
that the Beneficiary's proposed position would be 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 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
When examining the managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look 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. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(ii). Beyond the required 
description of the job duties, we examine 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. Accordingly, we will discuss 
evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of the nature of the Petitioner's 
business, its staffing levels, and its organizational structure. 
A. Duties 
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. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); 
Champion World, 940 F.2d at 1533. 
2 
Matter of L-N-&S- Inc. 
In a statement submitted at the time of filing in December 2017, the Petitioner submitted a statement 
of the duties the Beneficiary performed during the previous year, along with a list of duties he would 
perform under an extended petition. The Beneficiary's proposed duties included the following: 
1. Continuing to create corporate culture and building the senior management team; 
(10%) 
2. Adjusting the next short-term plan and long-term plan, based on the business 
operations and its financial status of the previous year; (5%) 
3. Implementing strategic plans and corporate policies approved by the board; ( 15%) 
4. Reporting to the board of directors and shareholders regarding the substantial 
business decision; ( 10%) 
5. Building and developing a sales division for the company and exerc1smg 
discretionary authority on the hiring and firing of the sales manager; (20%) 
6. Supervising and overseeing the making and implementing of monthly and annual 
budget; (15%) 
7. Allocating capitals to the company's priorities; (10%) 
8. Effectively managing the human resources of the company according to 
authorized personnel policies and procedures that fully conform to current laws 
and regulations. (15%) 
This description of duties was too broad to establish what the Beneficiary will be doing on a day-to­
day basis within the context of the Petitioner's auto body repair shop and security products business. 
The Petitioner did not provide examples of specific short- and long-term plans the Beneficiary was 
expected to implement, the policies and strategic plans approved by the board, or the company 
priorities expected to receive capitalization under the extended petition. Further, the Petitioner 
indicated that the company already had an established a sales division during the previous year, so it 
is unclear why the Beneficiary would need to establish this division in the future. The description of 
the Beneficiary's duties was also confusing as it referred to a "customer service manager" position 
and an "accounting division" that do not exist in the Petitioner's organizational structure. 
Overall, the initial description did little more than establish that the Beneficiary occupies the senior 
role in the company; it did not provide the required detailed description of his specific daily tasks 
and was therefore insufficient to demonstrate how his duties would be primarily managerial in 
nature. 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), 
aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
In response to the Director's request for a more detailed description of the Beneficiary's duties and 
the amount of time he would allocate to specific tasks, the Petitioner submitted a lengthy "Letter of 
Explanation" which indicated that the Beneficiary would have the following areas of responsibility: 
I. Preside the production and operation management of the company, organize 
personnel to implement Board of Directors' resolutions 
,., 
Matter of L-N-&S- Inc. 
II. Organize to implement the annual business plan and investment plan of the 
company, manage the financial affairs of the company 
III. Formulate the establishment plan for internal management organization of the 
company 
IV. Draw up the basic management system of the company 
V. Organize to formulate bylaws of the company 
VI. The request for personnel appointment and dismissal 
Despite the fact that the Petitioner's statement was 13 pages long, the description was broad, 
repetitive, and lacked the requested details regarding the specific duties the Beneficiary performs on 
a regular and ongoing basis. Much of the description appears to have been copied from the 
description of job duties the Beneficiary performed abroad for the Petitioner's parent company, 
which has a significantly larger and more complex organization. Therefore, it contained few details 
relevant to the Petitioner's actual business operations. 
For example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary, while presiding over "production and 
operation management," will be responsible to "boost the marketization, scientific and 
modernization of the company management," "organize to implement the company development 
strategy," "actively mobilize the creativity and initiative of business assistants," and "organize all 
strengths of the company," but these are not discrete job duties that provide insight into what he 
actually does on a typical day. 
The Petitioner stated that this area of responsibility also requires the Beneficiary to "coordinate the 
relationships with relevant automobile manufacturers, suppliers of parts, taxation bureau, transport 
authority," and noted that he signs and issues all daily administrative and business documents. 
Without more detail, we cannot determine that these are managerial, rather than routine operational 
and administrative duties. The Petitioner does not have an administrative employee or department 
and none of the Beneficiary's subordinates are claimed to handle administrative matters or deal with 
suppliers. Similarly, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's production and operation 
management duties require him to directly supervise salespersons who, as discussed further below 
are non-professional employees, and "marketing personnel," which the Petitioner does not otherwise 
claim to have. Therefore, these duties are not clearly classifiable as managerial functions. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's responsibility for organizing the annual business and 
investment plan and managing the financial affairs of the company involves directly managing the 
"Finance Department, and General Manager of Finance Department." The Petitioner's 
organizational chart does not include a finance department, a general manager for a finance 
department, or any subordinate managers at all. The Beneficiary's responsibility to "draw up the 
basic management system of the company," contains a reference to the company's "Human 
Resource Department," which also does not appear on the chart as part of the Petitioner's 
organizational structure. This duty also refers to an employee labor union and "Congress of 
Workers," an "Assistant," department managers, and "sub-departments," which do not appear to 
exist within the petitioning company. Similarly, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary's 
personnel responsibilities include the ability to appoint and dismiss the "Deputy Manager," and 
4 
.
Matter of L-N-&S- Inc. 
"Financial Director," positions that are not found on the Petitioner's organizational chart. The 
Petitioner must resolve this these inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Here, the 
Petitioner's frequent references to non-existent departments and subordinate staff throughout the 
Beneficiary's job description have not been adequately explained or resolved. 
Overall, the lengthy description provided in response to the RFE has limited connection to the 
Petitioner's actual business activities as an auto body repair shop with two departments and five to 
six employees. It did not provide credible information regarding the Beneficiary's actual tasks and 
was lacking in probative value because it contains several references to positions and departments 
that do not exist within the organization. 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 any detail or explanation of the 
Beneficiary's activities in the course of their daily routine. The actual duties themselves will reveal 
the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros., 724 F. Supp. at 1108., aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990). 
Here, the Petitioner did not provide any concrete examples of policies, strategies, or goals the 
Beneficiary would develop and implement in support of its claim that he would spend his time 
primarily focused on higher-level planning and decision-making responsibilities associated with the 
company's overall development. The fact that the Beneficiary will manage the business as its 
senior employee 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. Even 
though the Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and 
possess the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making, a broad 
overview of his responsibilities is insufficient to establish that his actual duties would be primarily 
managerial in nature as of the date of filing, especially when that broad overview contains 
information that conflicts with the company's actual organizational structure. 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive 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. 
The Petitioner stated that it had six employees as of the date of filing on December 11 , 2017. 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). 
The Petitioner did not provide an organizational chart at the time of filing. 
stated that it employs two sales employees in its sales department 
worker) ; and four employees in its "technical engineering department" 
In response to the RFE, it 
and a part-time 
and . Based on the Petitioner ' s state quarterly wage reports , we note that the company had 
six employees in November and December 2017, but only four employees by the end of the first 
5 
.
Matter of L-N-&S- Inc. 
quarter of 2018. It appears that was one of the employees who left the company, as he 
received only $640 in wages in the first quarter of 2018. Further, the record does not contain 
evidence of wages paid to in the last two quarters of 2017 or the first quarter of 2018. 
This individual received an IRS Form W-2 in 2016 and was one of three employees paid in the 
second quarter of 2017, but we cannot determine that he or she worked for the Petitioner at the time 
of filing. 
The Petitioner indicated that both members of the sales department are "sales" employees, hold 
bachelor's degrees, and are responsible for product sales and promotion. It did not provide job titles 
for the employees in the technical engineering department but stated that all employees have a 
"college degree." The Petitioner stated that all four employees provide installation and 
commissioning of company products, while two also provide product training, and the other two 
(including whose ongoing employment was not documented in the record) also perform 
auto repairs. 
The Petitioner's lease indicates that it is authorized to use its business premises solely for the 
operation of an auto body and repair shop, and the record shows that it does business as 
The Petitioner also appears to sell and install automotive safety and security products 
such as in-vehicle cameras and video recorders. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and 
"function managers." See section 101 (a)( 44 )(A) of the Act. The Petitioner does not claim that the 
Beneficiary will act as a function manager. 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 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)(1 )(ii)(B)( 3). 
In this matter, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be primarily acting as a 
personnel manager. The Petitioner initially indicated that the Beneficiary will allocate 15% of his 
time to human resources functions and would hire additional staff in the sales department, but the 
remainder of his duties were described in abstract terms and did not convey how much time he 
would spend on personnel-related activities. Nevertheless , even if the Petitioner established that the 
Beneficiary's duties are primarily supervisory in nature , it would need to demonstrate that he would 
oversee subordinate supervisory , professional , or managerial employees. 
The record does not establish that any of the Beneficiary's subordinates hold supervisory or 
managerial positions despite the Petitioner ' s claim on appeal that he will supervise managers. Both 
employees in the sales department were claimed to be simply "sales " employees and the Petitioner 
did not distinguish either employee as a supervisor or manager of the department or assign 
managerial or supervisory duties to either worker. As noted , the latest available payroll information 
6 
Matter of L-N-&S- Inc. 
indicates that the staffing of the sales department was reduced to one employee while the petition 
was pending. Similarly, the Petitioner did not assign job titles or provide evidence of a tiered 
hierarchy within its "technical engineering" department. None of the employees are claimed to 
perform supervisory or managerial duties. Rather, the record shows that the Beneficiary directly 
supervises the lower level sales and technical staff. While the Beneficiary's job description indicates 
that he supervises managerial staff such as a deputy manager, financial director, human resources 
director, and other department managers, the Petitioner did not establish that these positions exist 
within its organization. 
The Petitioner has neither claimed nor established that the Beneficiary's direct subordinates are 
professionals. To determine 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.f 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 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. The Petitioner claims that both sales employees have a bachelor's degree while its 
technical staff members all have a "college" degree. The very brief descriptions provided for these 
positions would not support a finding that they hold professional positions. Further, the Petitioner 
did not provide sufficient evidence that the subordinate staff actually have the listed degrees. As 
such, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary's subordinates are managerial, supervisory, 
or professional employees or that he will primarily perform the duties of a personnel manager. 
Rather, the record shows that his personnel-related duties are those of a first-line supervisor of non­
professional personnel. 
Further, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary's 
subordinates are able to relieve him from significant involvement in the non-managerial day-to-day 
operations of the business. As required by section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act, if staffing levels are 
used 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. 
The Petitioner operates its auto body shop with one to two sales employees and three to four 
technical staff. While the available staff may be sufficient to handle a significant portion of the sales 
and automotive work, the Petitioner has not indicated who, other than the Beneficiary, is available to 
perform routine administrative and operational functions necessary to operate the business. As noted 
the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary signs and issues all daily administrative and business 
documents, deals with suppliers, and he is likely responsible for sourcing and purchasing parts and 
the products the Petitioner sells, as the Petitioner has not assigned these duties to his subordinates. 
,.., 
Matter of L-N-&S- Inc. 
The record also reflects fairly significant staff turnover and periodic staff shortages which would 
reasonably require the Beneficiary to at least intermittently perform the duties of the subordinate 
staff. The Beneficiary's job description indicates that he delegates certain functions to various 
subordinate managers and departments, but those claims are not persuasive since the listed 
subordinate managerial positions and departments do not exist within the company. 
Based on the nature of the company, the Petitioner has not shown that it requires the Beneficiary to 
primarily perform the higher level managerial functions attributed to him. Rather, it appears that the 
Beneficiary would more likely than not be required to perform a variety of non-managerial duties 
necessary for the day-to-day operations of the company. Due to the deficiencies in the submitted 
evidence, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish what proportion of the Beneficiary's 
duties would be managerial in nature, and what proportion would be non-managerial. See Republic 
of Transkei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1991 ). Accordingly, it has not established that he 
would be employed in a managerial capacity. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that it will employ the 
Beneficiary in a managerial capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of L-N-&S- Inc., ID# 192523 7 (AAO Jan. 7, 2019)