dismissed L-1A Case: Beauty Salon

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A- CORP 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 27,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a beauty salon, seeks to extend the temporary employment of the Beneficiary as its 
president and chief executive officer under the L-1A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(15)(L). The L-IA 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 that the Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Beneficiary qualifies as an 
executive, and in the alternative, qualifies as a manager. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge 
capacity, for one continuous year within three years preceding the Beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. 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, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. Section 101 ( a)(l5)(L) of the 
Act. 
An individual petition filed on Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, must include 
evidence that the petitioner will employ the beneficiary in an executive or managerial capacity, or in 
a position requiring specialized knowledge, including a detailed description of the services to be 
performed. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
Matter of A- Corp 
An L-lA nonimmigrant visa petition that involved the opening of a new office may be extended by 
filing a new Form I-129, accompanied by a statement of the duties performed by the beneficiary for 
the previous year and the duties the beneficiary will perform under the extended petition, and the 
staffing of the new operation, including the number of employees and types of positions held 
accompanied by evidence of wages paid to employees. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(C) and (D). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE OR MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Petitioner asserts that its description of duties clearly establishes that the Beneficiary will spend 
55 percent of her time directing the management of the company and will spend 35 percent of her 
time setting the policies and goals of the company. The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is 
"responsible for the directing and management of the entire entity aQ.d not just a component or a 
function thereof." For the first time on appeal, the Petitioner asserts, in the alternative, that the 
Beneficiary's position satisfies the definition of managerial capacity. 
A. Definitions of Executive and Managerial Capacity 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act defines the term "executive capacity" as "an assignment within an 
organization in which the employee primarily": · 
(i) directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of 
the organization; 
(ii) establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
(iii) exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) receives only general supervision or directibn from higher-level executives, 
the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act defines the term "managerial capacity" as "an assignment within an 
organization in which the employee primarily": 
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component 
of the organization; 
(ii) 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; 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the 
authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions 
(such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly 
2 
Matter of A- Corp 
supervised, functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or 
with respect to the function_managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function for 
which the employee has authority. 
Further, "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." !d. 
B. Duties 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position 
within a complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the 
organization, and that person's authority to direct the organization. Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" and "establish 
the goals and policies" of that organization. Inherent to the definition, the organization must have a 
subordinate level of managerial employees for a beneficiary to direct and they must primarily focus 
on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than the day-to-day operations of the 
enterprise. An individual will not be deemed an executive under the statute simply because they 
have an executive title or because they "direct" the enterprise as the owner or sole managerial 
employee. A beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision making" and 
receive only "general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or 
stockholders of the organization." !d. 
The Petitioner provided the following duties and percentages of time the Beneficiary will spend on 
those duties: 1 
• Establish [the Petitioner's] financial goals and oversee cash management 
functions (5%). 
• Oversee the preparation of cash flow forecasts to anticipate the company's 
financial needs and negotiate all business loans (5%). 
• Determine the allocation of funds and distribution of resources among various 
activities (8%). 
• Oversee the investment of excess funds in interest-bearing instruments (2%). 
• Oversee, plan and coordinate [the Petitioner's] service and supply needs (5%). 
• Based on sales volume, consumer demand, market analysis, inventory turnover, 
direct staff to place orders with suppliers locally in the U.S. and internationally, in 
such [sic] countries such as Armenia and those of [the] European Union, with 
which our parent company [] has or shall establish contractual agreements (5%). 
1 In all three submissions outlining the duties and the allocations of the Beneficiary's time, the percentage of time 
allocated to performing the duties totaled 90 percent. The Petitioner does not explain what the Beneficiary will be doing 
during the remaining I 0 percent of her time. 
3 
.
Matter of A- Corp 
• Ensure that there are procedures in place to ensure that products meet the 
company's quality control standards and satisfy customer expectations (1 0%). 
• Set policies to be used in handling inventory control responsibilities and assure 
that merchandise is stocked at proper levels (1 0%). 
• Oversee, monitor and coordinate the 
activities of other managers, including a VP 
of Operations ( 1 0% ). 
• Set policies and strategies related to employees' schedules, their activities, job 
duties and performance (3%). 
• Responsible for hiring and setting the procedures for training management staff 
(3%). 
• Set policies to be used in personnel procedures pertaining to benefits, 
compensation packages, promotional guidelines, and insurance ( 4% ). 
• Responsible for setting policies and strategies for marketing functions (5%). 
• Analyze information regarding competitors ' products, prices, and sales (2%). 
• Review [the Petitioner's] sales records and use this information to predict future 
sales activity ( 1% ). 
• Determine the company ' s distribution system and identify potential markets for 
[the Petitioner's] services, such as surrounding cities and environs of 
(1%). ' 
• Establish the amount of funds to be allocated for advertising (1 %). 
• Plan and direct the expansion of the company's operations in the United States 
(7%). 
• Exercise total discretion over the selection of new sites, oversee the opening of 
additional salons in Southern California, and execute capital raising stra~egies to 
support the firm's expansion (2%). 
• Hire managerial staff to manage the operations of future salons[] (1% )[.] 
The Petitioner provided a broad description of the proffered position's duties which generally 
describe an individual performing the day-to-day operations of the company as its owner. For 
example, overseeing cash management functions , preparation of cash flow forecasts, and the 
investment of excess funds in interest-bearing instruments , overseeing and coordinating the 
Petitioner's service and supply needs, as well as negotiating business loans and determining the 
allocation of funds and distribution of resources, all may involve decision-making by the 
Beneficiary/owner ; however, the performance of each of these duties is also a necessary factor in 
operating the Petitioner 's beauty salon. 
Similarly, the 
record does not detail the Beneficiary's ongoing involvement in establishing policies 
and procedures to meet quality control standards, ensure inventory, and establish financial and 
marketing goals, among others. These broadly stated tasks also appear to be short-term or one-time 
responsibilities that would not make continued demands on the Beneficiary ' s time. The Petitioner' s 
use of the words "establish," "oversee," and "direct," without the added context of the Beneficiary 's 
duties in carrying out those tasks is, in essence, a restatement of portions of the executive capacity 
statutory definition. General assertions of this type do not tell us what the Beneficiary is actually 
4 
Matter of A- Corp 
doing and who would perform the operational tasks so that the Beneficiary would not have to 
perform them herself. 
Additionally, the record does not include information supporting the Beneficiary's involvement in 
expanding the company's business. Other than the Petitioner's assertion and the business plan 
provided, the record does not include evidence that the Petitioner has begun negotiations or research 
into finding a second location for an additional salon. Further, we also note that the Beneficiary will 
be performing duties related to marketing, such as analyzing competitors' products, prices, and sales, 
reviewing its own sales records, and identifying potential markets. 
The Petitioner has not described the Beneficiary's daily duties with sufficient specificity to establish 
that the Beneficiary's role in the organization will be in an executive capacity. Reciting the 
Beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the 
regulations require a detailed description of the Beneficiary's daily job duties. The Petitioner has not 
provided the necessary detail or explanation of the Beneficiary's activities in the course of her daily 
routine. The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. 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). 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary's position also satisfies the definition of 
managerial capacity. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary supervises and controls the work of 
other managerial employees, the vice president of operations, and potentially the vice president of 
marketing who is to be hired. The Petitioner also claims that the vice president of operations 
supervises the hairstylist supervisor who in tum supervises the activities of employees who perform 
the day-to-day duties of providing the Petitioner's services. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and 
"function managers."2 See section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) 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." Section 101(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. 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 duties of the position, as described by the Petitioner, do not suggest that the Beneficiary will be 
performing managerial duties. The Petitioner's vague reference to overseeing, monitoring, and 
coordinating the activities of other managers and directing employees to place orders with suppliers 
is insufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary will be involved primarily in personnel 
management. The Petitioner does not allocate the Beneficiary's time to primarily supervising and 
2 The Petitioner does not claim and the record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary is a "function manager." 
5 
.
Matter of A- Corp 
controlling the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. The broadly 
stated duties do not establish that the Beneficiary will perform primarily in a managerial capacity. 
We have reviewed the opinion prepared by Associate Dean - Academic 
Affairs, restates the description of the 
proffered position and concludes, without analysis, that each of these duties fall within the 
parameters of the statutory definition of "executive capacity." He does not opine that the duties 
described are manageriaLduties. does not list any reference materials on which he 
relies, he does not indicate he visited the Petitioner's salon, and he states that the Beneficiary will be 
responsible for two upper-level managerial employees. However, as will be discussed, the Petitioner 
did not employ any managerial employees when the petition was filed. We may, in our discretion, 
use as advisory opinions statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources 
submitted in evidence as expert testimony. However, where an opinion is not in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable, we are not required to accept or may give less weight to 
that evidence. Matter of Caron Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm'r 1988). 
C. Staffing 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, we review the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, including the company's 
organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other 
employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing operational/ duties, the nature of the business, 
and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a 
business. 
The record includes evidence that the Petitioner employed five individuals, including . the 
Beneficiary, when the petition was filed. In addition to the Beneficiary, the Petitioner identified the 
positions of vice president of operations, hairstylist supervisor, hairstylist, and a part-time marketing 
and sales representative.3 The Petitioner states that the vice president of operations opens and closes 
the salon, makes daily bank deposits, performs general bookkeeping duties, is in charge of in-store 
displays including marking items with codes and prices, investigates customer complaints, arranges 
for the import and delivery of merchandise, and with the help of the supervising hairstylist 
supervises the service personne( The Petitioner notes that the vice president of operations reports 
directly to the Beneficiary and the organizational chart submitted identifies the vice president of 
operations as supervising the supervisory hairstylist. The supervisory hairstylist's duties include 
temporarily performing the duties of a receptionist and cashier, taking care of the day-to-day issues 
3 The Petitioner submitted checks made out to each of these individuals, dated August 3 I, 20 16. The check issued to the 
'marketing and sales representative is significantly lower than the checks to the other individuals, which indicates the 
position is a part-time position. The record does not include quarterly wage reports submitted to the state, despite the 
Director's request for this information. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry 
shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l4). 
/ 
6 
Matter of A- Corp 
related to customer care, supervising the hairstylist(s), and also performing as a hairstylist. The 
Petitioner describes the marketing and sales representative's position as marketing the company 
through mailer campaigns, as well as establishing partnerships and contacts with local businesses to 
promote the Petitioner's services. 
The description of duties performed by the Petitioner's staff does not include any duties that are 
primarily managerial or supervisory duties.4 For example, the vice president of operations is 
responsible for various duties, but the duties as described do not show that she is a managerial 
employee. The record does not include an allocation of her time amongst her various duties and 
although she may have some supervisory duties, the record does not support a claim that this is her 
primary responsibility. Similarly, the Petitioner does not allocate the supervisory hairstylist's time 
spent on advising or otherwise supervising the Petitioner's one other hairstylist. Thus, we cannot 
conclude that the "supervisory hairstylist" position is actually a managerial or supervisory position. 
The Petitioner does not claim and the record does not demonstrate that the hairstylist and the 
marketing and sales representative are supervisory or managerial employees1 The record does not 
support the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary directs the management of the company, as the 
organization does not have a subordinate level of managerial employees for the Beneficiary to direct. 
Also, the record does not support the Petitioner's claim on appeal that the Beneficiary primarily 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, as the 
record shows that the Beneficiary's subordinates perform the operational and administrative tasks of 
the salon, not managerial or supervisory duties. 
When reviewing the Petitioner's limited employment records and the descriptions of duties for its 
employees, the evidence does not support the Petitioner's claimed organizational structure. The 
evidence submitted must substantiate that the duties of a beneficiary and his or her subordinates 
correspond to their placement in an organization's structural hierarchy and artificial tiers of 
subordinate employees and inflated job titles are not probative and will not establish that an 
organization is sufficiently complex to support an executive or manager position. In this matter, the 
record does not include probative evidence establishing who will actually perform the first-line 
supervisory tasks of the employees subordinate to the Beneficiary's position, if not the Beneficiary. 
That is, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that either the vice president of operations or 
the individual in the claimed supervisory hairstylist position, supervise either of the Petitioner's two 
other employees. 
4 The Petitioner does not claim and the record does not support that the positions of vice president of operations and 
supervisory hairstylist are professional positions. In evaluating 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 10 I (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 focus on 
the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree held by subordinate employee. The record does not 
establish that either the position of vice president of operations or supervisory hairstylist, as described, requires a 
baccalaureate degree. 
Matter of A- Corp 
The Petitioner correctly observes that we must take into account the reasonable needs of the 
organization and that a company's size alone may not be the only factor in denying a visa petition 
for classification as a multinational manager or executive. See section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
However, this petition is an extension of a "new office" petition and the regulations provide strict 
evidentiary requirements for such a petition which require the examination of the organizational 
structure and staffing levels of the Petitioner. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(D). The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) only allows the "new office" operation one year within the date of 
approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. There is no provision in the 
pertinent regulations that allows for an extension of this one-year period. If a business does not have 
the necessary ·staffing after one year to sufficiently relieve the beneficiary from performing 
operational and administrative tasks, the petitioner is ineligible for an extension. 
Although the Petitioner references the potential employment of a vice president of marketing and 
additional hairstylists, the record does not include evidence that these additional individuals were 
employed when the petition was filed. Thus, these potential positions do not factor into our review 
of the Petitioner's actual staffing levels. Based on the general descriptions of duties for the 
Beneficiary and the Petitioner's other employees, the organizational chart, and staffing level when 
the petition was filed, the Petitioner does not have staffing sufficient to relieve the Beneficiary from 
primarily performing non-qualifying duties. 
Here, the Beneficiary as the sole owner and the chief executive officer of the company will exercise 
"wide latitude in discretionary decision making" and as she is positioned at the highest level on the 
Petitioner's organizational chart will not receive supervision or direction from higher-level 
executives. However, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will direct a subordinate 
level of managerial employees or will primarily supervise managerial, professional, or supervisory 
employees. The record does not include probative evidence that the Beneficiary's primary duties are 
executive or managerial in nature, rather than performing the operational and administrative tasks 
necessary to run the beauty salon. The appeal is dismissed for this reason. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that it will employ the 
Beneficiary in an executive or managerial capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A- Corp, ID# 326593 (AAO Apr. 27, 2017) 
8