dismissed L-1A Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF K-A-H-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 22, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an international commuter airline company, seeks to extend the temporary employment 
of the Beneficiary as its "International Business Services 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 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 had been employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity . Further, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary oversees its international business services 
division, asserts that this is an essential function of the business, and that he qualifies as a function 
manager. The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary devotes 95% of his time to qualifying 
managerial duties overseeing this function in the United States. It also states that the Beneficiary will 
continue to oversee the operations of his former foreign employer and notes that two of his 
subordinates abroad are professionals. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonirnmigrant 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 their 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). 
Matter of K-A-H-, Inc. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The first issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial capacity. The Petitioner does not claim 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. § 2 l 4.2(1)(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 1533. 
The Petitioner stated that it "has developed a worldwide reputation asll operators and experts 
in aircraft modifications and restoration," noting that it is the "largestc=::lompany in the United 
States offering I airline transportation services to more than 45 destinations" using a fleet of 
25 planes. The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would work in the United States as its 
international business development manager to continue to "develop business opportunities 
internationally," while also overseeing the operations of his former foreign employer in Uganda. It 
explained that while working for the foreign employer prior to his entry into the United States as a 
non-immigrant in 2015 the Beneficiary had created "a business concept to a full-service ground 
2 
Matter of K-A-H-, Inc. 
transportation company with three safari vans and a 24-passenger bus, offering both guided safari trips 
and self-service rental services." 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary had been responsible for continuing to expand the foreign 
employer into the "motorcycle taxi business" and exploring an affiliation with "Uber Uganda." It 
further indicated that the Beneficiary had "procured a contract with Restore International NGO." In 
addition, it explained that the Beneficiary "oversees every single transaction regarding our 
international part sales, including customer relationship management" and that he was "currently 
developing a plan to brin~ !service tol I fin Africa]." 
The Petitioner also listed the following duties for the Beneficiary in his proposed role in the United 
States: 
• plan, direct and manage [ foreign employer] Managers and staff in support services of 
the organization, such as recordkeeping, communication, facility management, and 
maintenance; as well as managing records pertaining to payroll, vehicle maintenance, 
customer billing, and building maintenance, 
• responsible for overseeing all customer communication, from first contact to customer 
satisfaction measurement metrics, 
• continue to control the work for five full-time employees of [the foreign employer], as 
well as two contract employees, 
• evaluate sites for opera[ional fe:sibility for I I operation locations in the 
I LI Janel J 
• oversee an economic viability study to evaluate the feasibility of operations in these 
international locations, 
• develop local East African contacts for the development of the shore-side 
infrastructure, 
• oversee business operations to ensure regulatory compliance and the consistent use of 
best business practices, 
• ensure proof of insurance, mechanical reliability, and legal compliance of all company 
vehicles, 
• responsible for [foreign employer] customer care, facilitating safe work offices, 
ensuring accurate and compliant accounting practices, and direct timely company 
communication, 
• oversee and expand Petitioner's international parts sales, 
• oversee compliance with all operating certification requirements, including limitations 
for N-registered aircraft, charter and scheduled air services in Uganda, Tanzania, and 
Kenya related to its potential expansion aroundl I 
• oversee all required customs processes and duty obligations, 
• provide the staff in his division with valuable insight into the regulatory environment 
in Tanzania and Kenya, 
• implement measures to protect the safety and security of office staff and facilities, 
• create and oversee budgets for office contracts, equipment, and supplies, and develop 
and manage suppliers to provide the necessary equipment for [the foreign employer's] 
office, 
3 
Matter of K-A-H-, Inc. 
• responsible for the purchase/lease for all company vehicles (motorcyles, cars, buses, 
etc.), and 
• create and oversee best practices to help resolve cultural differences and environmental 
challenges. 
The Petitioner submitted a duty description for the Beneficiary indicating his primary involvement in 
non-qualifying operational tasks related to the foreign employer's operations in Africa. The Petitioner 
asserts that the Beneficiary would be "overseeing" the company's foreign activities; however, it has 
not established that he would primarily delegate these tasks to subordinates. For instance, the 
Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary was tasked with overseeing "all international parts sales" and 
"all customer communication," but there is no explanation as to how he delegates these functions to 
subordinates nor did it submit documentation to substantiate that he is relived from the operational 
sales and order processing tasks inherent in these asserted duties. Likewise, the Petitioner stated that 
the Beneficiary would himself evaluate the operational feasibility of various locations in the I I 
I I and I I and develop local contacts in East Africa. These duties appear 
consistent with a sales representative, but not a personnel or function manager primarily delegating 
operational tasks related to these responsibilities. For instance, the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary would "oversee" an economic feasibility study related to international locations, but there 
is no indication who he would oversee in performing this task. 
In addition, the Petitioner also explained that the Beneficiary would be responsible for ensuring proof 
of insurance and the handling all of the purchasing and leasing of vehicles used in its foreign 
transportation business in Uganda. Similarly, it stated that the Beneficiary would handle all operating 
requirements and certifications on seaplanes used by the foreign employer and all customs processes 
and duty obligations. In contrast, the Petitioner provides few examples and little supporting 
documentation to corroborate that the Beneficiary had been and would be primarily delegating the 
non-qualifying operational tasks inherent in his duty description to subordinates. In fact, it is 
noteworthy that the record includes no evidence of the Beneficiary delegating duties to his 
subordinates abroad and it provided little indication as to what he would specifically be doing in the 
United States. In sum, the Beneficiary's stated duty descriptions reflect that he would more likely 
than not be primarily involved in non-qualifying operational level duties related to the operation of 
the Petitioner's operations in Africa, rather than performing managerial level tasks. 
Whether the Beneficiary is a managerial 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 submits an explanation of the Beneficiary's role and a duty description including several 
non-qualifying operational duties, but it does not sufficiently document what proportion of his duties 
would be managerial and what proportion would be non-qualifying. In fact, the Petitioner vaguely 
stated on appeal that 95% of the Beneficiary's duties are managerial; however, this statement does not 
appear credible given the high incidence of apparent operational level tasks in his duty description. 
For this reason, we cannot determine whether the Beneficiary is primarily performing the duties of a 
manager. See IKEA US, Inc. v. US. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
In contrast, the Petitioner has submitted few details and little supporting documentation to demonstrate 
his qualifying tasks, such as how he managed payroll, customer billing, or business maintenance, best 
4 
Matter of K-A-H-, Inc. 
practices he put in place related to customer care or accounting, guidance he provided as to 
certification and operating requirements, measures he implemented to ensure the safety of facilities 
and staff: or budgets or relationships with suppliers he managed. This lack of detail and documentation 
to particularly noteworthy since the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary has been acting in his 
claimed managerial role since his entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant on January 2016. 1 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the organization, the fact that he will 
manage or direct a 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 the Petitioner's day-to-day 
operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making; 
however, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that his 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. 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary "does not directly manage any [Petitioner] employees in 
the United States," but that he would "continue to manage [the foreign employer's] five full-time 
employees and two contract employees." A submitted organizational chart reflected that the 
Beneficiary supervised a manager overseeing an employee responsible for motorcycle, taxi, and Uber 
services. The manager was also shown to supervise a lead driver overseeing two drivers. On appeal, 
the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary qualifies as a function manager overseeing its 
"international services division" and that he also acts as a personnel manager supervising subordinate 
managers and professionals working for the foreign employer. 
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 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(l)(l)(ii)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary oversees 
subordinate managers and supervisors as necessary to qualify him as a personnel manager. First, the 
Petitioner submitted vague duty descriptions for the Beneficiary's claimed subordinate managers 
abroad that do not sufficiently establish that they act as supervisors. For instance, the Petitioner stated 
1 The petition was filed on October 15, 2018. 
5 
Matter of K-A-H-, Inc. 
that the Beneficiary's immediate subordinate abroad was tasked with managing "[the foreign 
employer's] office and drivers," but otherwise provided no further detail as to her duties. Beyond this, 
the only other employee it asserts acts as a subordinate supervisor is the lead driver; and again, the 
Petitioner only generically indicated that he was responsible for operating vans and buses and 
overseeing drivers. However, it provides few details to substantiate the duties of his claimed 
subordinate managers abroad and little supporting documentation to demonstrate their asserted roles. 
In fact, the record includes no evidence of the Beneficiary delegating duties to these claimed 
subordinate supervisors abroad. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
qualifies as a personnel manager based on his supervision of subordinate supervisors or managers. 
The Petitioner further emphasizes on appeal that two of the Beneficiary's foreign based subordinates 
have bachelor's degrees, noting that this qualifies him as a manager of 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. 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." 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 submits evidence indicating that the Beneficiary's subordinate "manager" abroad 
earned a bachelor's degree in development studies and that the employee responsible for taxi and Uber 
services received a degree in business. However, the Petitioner has not established that a bachelor's 
degree is actually necessary to perform the duties of either of these positions. First, it does not appear 
without further explanation and evidence, that an employee tasked with coordinating taxis, Ubers, 
motorcycles, and automobiles would perform duties requiring a bachelor's degree. In addition, the 
Petitioner provides an extremely brief and vague duty description for the claimed manager working 
directly below the Beneficiary abroad, this duty description does not demonstrate that this position 
requires a bachelor's degree. Again, it is also noteworthy that the Petitioner provides no evidence of 
the Beneficiary delegating duties to these two claimed professional subordinates. As such, the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would qualify as a personnel manager based on his 
supervision of subordinate professionals. 
As previously noted, the Petitioner further contends that the Beneficiary qualifies as a function 
manager in the United States overseeing its "international services division." 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. 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 
6 
Matter of K-A-H-, Inc. 
will exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day operations." Matter of G- Inc., Adopted 
Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary would act as 
a function manager in the United States. Indeed, as we discussed in the previous section, the Petitioner 
submitted a duty description for the Beneficiary including several apparent operational duties, but it 
does not detail or document how he would be relieved from these non-qualifying tasks. For instance, 
the Petitioner regularly states that the Beneficiary is responsible for "overseeing" or "managing" 
various activities, such as economic viability studies related to I I operation, customer care, 
compliance with aircraft certifications, international parts sales, customs and duties obligations, and 
contracts for equipment and supplies. However, the vague duty descriptions provided for the 
Beneficiary's few subordinates abroad do not demonstrate that they would have any responsibility 
related to these tasks, only that they would perform duties related to the operation of its transportation 
business in Uganda. 
Therefore, it appears likely that the Beneficiary is alone tasked with all of the operational aspects 
inherent in the function he is said to oversee, including scouting locations forl I operations, 
making contacts at these locations, submitting necessary paperwork for aircraft certifications, 
processing customs and duty paperwork, paying for these certifications and customs fees, and 
processing international part orders. In other words, the Beneficiary's duty description strongly 
indicates that he would be almost entirely responsible for performing his function, rather than 
managing it. 
The Petitioner points to Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017) as 
persuasive in demonstrating that the Beneficiary qualifies as a function manager. In that matter, the 
petitioner provided substantial evidence to establish that the beneficiary directed the work of various 
teams across its five business units and six geographic delivery areas and that they provided revenue 
estimates to the chief executive and board of directors. In addition, the evidence in that case reflected 
that the beneficiary's subordinate personnel performed the routine duties associated with the function, 
enabling them to primarily develop policies and goals and oversee the execution of long-term 
strategies. Ibid. at 5. However, in the current matter, the Petitioner has provided no evidence to 
corroborate that the Beneficiary would be primarily relieved from performing the non-qualifying 
operational tasks of his claimed function. In fact, it submits a duty description reflecting that the 
Beneficiary would likely perform nearly all of the duties of his claimed international business function, 
beyond certain aspects of its vehicle transportation business in Uganda. As such, the Petitioner has 
not established that the Beneficiary would qualify as a function manager. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the 
Beneficiary would act in a managerial capacity under an extended petition. 
III. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAP A CITY 
As we have discussed, the Director also denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity in his former position abroad. 
Because of the dispositive effect of the above finding of ineligibility; namely, our affirmation of the 
7 
Matter of K-A-H-, Inc. 
Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would act in managerial 
capacity in the United States, we will only briefly address the remaining issue addressed by the 
Director. 
In denying the petition on these grounds, the Director emphasized that the Petitioner had submitted 
insufficient evidence to substantiate that the Beneficiary's foreign subordinates acted as supervisors 
or professionals. As we discussed in the previous section, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary 
had and would continue to oversee the same foreign employer organizational structure in the United 
States that he did abroad. Therefore, our analysis of this organizational structure in reference to his 
proposed U.S. employment is the same with respect to his former foreign employment; namely, that 
the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary acted as a supervisor of subordinate managers 
or professionals or that he primarily managed a function abroad. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed in a 
managerial capacity abroad. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of K-A-H-, Inc., ID# 6441672 (AAO Oct. 22, 2019) 
8