dismissed L-1A Case: Beauty Supply Distribution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-B-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 31, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, intending to operate as a beauty supply distributor , seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as the business development manager of its new office 1 under the L-lA nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 10l(a)(l5)(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 Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity; and (2) the new office would support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive position 
within one year of approval of the instant petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the denial asserting that it has submitted sufficient evidence to show 
that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in the position 
of "Executive Manager." 
Upon de nova review, we find that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. Therefore, we will dismiss the appeal. Because of the 
dispositive effect of this finding, we will reserve the remaining issue. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving a new 
office, a qualifying organization must have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). 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 term "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States 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 no more than 
one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
Matter of C-B-, Inc. 
The petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new office will be able to support a 
managerial or executive position within one year. This evidence must establish that the petitioner 
secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation and disclose the proposed nature and scope 
of the entity, its organizational structure, its financial goals, and the size of the U.S. investment. See 
generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Petitioner states that the foreign entity offers transportation services for various goods and that 
the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial capacity as the foreign entity's general 
manager. As the Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive 
capacity, we will not address that issue and will focus on determining whether the record demonstrates 
that the Beneficiary was employed abroad 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. 
Based on the statutory 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). The Petitioner must also 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. 
Further, the job description must clearly state the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary and 
indicate whether such duties are in a managerial capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the 
required description of the job duties, we examine the company's organizational structure, the duties 
of the Beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to relieve the Beneficiary 
from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that will 
contribute to understanding the 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 and its staffing levels. 
A. Duties 
First, we will discuss the duties performed by the Beneficiary during her period of employment with 
the foreign entity. The actual duties themselves 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). 
2 
Matter of C-B-, Inc. 
In a supporting cover letter, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's position as the foreign entity's 
general manager involves managing staff and overseeing the warehousing and moving of goods. The 
Petitioner also provided a separate job duty breakdown listing the following as part of the 
Beneficiary's required activities: 
• Ensure "high level of customer service" and adherence to safety procedures for transporting 
hazardous and non-hazardous material; 
• Develop policies and procedures and adhere to such in the course of executing supervisory 
responsibilities; 
• Review staff requirements and assist with personnel recruitment, training, and scheduling; 
• Conduct performance reviews, "resolve employee problems," and mentor and assist staff; 
• Assess business opportunities and customer and market needs after conducting analysis; 
• Communicate frequently with staff and management; 
• Help develop and implement market strategies and budget and inventory controls and 
"[p ]rovide checks and balances"; and 
• Ensure that administrative requirements are satisfied. 
In a request for evidence (RFE) the Director asked the Petitioner to provide a job duty breakdown 
identifying and showing the percentage of time the Beneficiary spends on typical managerial duties 
along with a description of how the Beneficiary's position and job duties fit the statutory definition of 
managerial capacity. The Director stated that if claiming that the Beneficiary was employed abroad 
in the role of a function manager, the Petitioner would need to provide evidence demonstrating that 
the function managed was essential to the foreign entity and that the Beneficiary occupied a top-level 
position with respect to that function. 
In response, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has discretion to make decisions on debt 
reduction, offer financial rewards and other incentives to help achieve sales goals, help with decisions 
to add or eliminate product lines, and revise training programs. The Petitioner resubmitted the job 
duty list that was included in the initial support letter and did not comply with the Director's request 
for a percentage breakdown. 
In denying the petition, the Director found that the Beneficiary appears to assume the role of a "team 
lead" who assists subordinates with their daily tasks rather than primarily performing managerial or 
executive job duties. The Director also found that the Petitioner did not provide evidence of the 
Beneficiary's claimed discretionary authority over hiring and firing of the foreign entity's employees 
and did not establish that the Beneficiary assumes the role of a function manager that involves 
primarily managing, rather than primarily performing duties that are related to an essential function of 
the foreign entity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner highlights the duration of the Beneficiary's foreign employment, stating that 
the Beneficiary has more than 15 years of "specialized knowledge, training, education, and skills" that 
have contributed to the company's growth and success. The Petitioner asserts that it offered sufficient 
evidence "to clearly define the [B]eneficiary's position as an Executive Manager." 
3 
Matter of C-B-, Inc. 
The Petitioner does not, however, acknowledge or explain its reference to the Beneficiary's foreign 
position as that of general manager, as opposed to "executive" manager, nor does it state or provided 
evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary performed primarily managerial or executive job duties. 
Rather, the Petitioner focuses on the term "function manager," asserting that a beneficiary need not 
necessarily manage people in order to qualify for the LIA classification. 
The statutory definition of"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to primarily 
supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. The term 
"function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary is primarily responsible for managing an 
"essential function" within the organization. See id. The term "essential function" is not defined by 
statute or regulation. However, a petitioner claiming that a beneficiary will manage an essential 
function must famish a written job offer that clearly describes the duties to be performed in managing 
the essential function, or more specifically, identify the function with specificity, articulate the 
essential nature of the function, and establish the proportion of a beneficiary's daily duties attributed 
to managing the essential function. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). In addition, a petitioner's 
description of a beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary will manage the 
function rather than perform duties related to the function. See Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 
2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). 
Here, not only did the Petitioner provide a deficient job description lacking in a detailed list of duties 
and their respective time allocations, but it also did not identify the essential function the Beneficiary 
purportedly managed or articulate the nature of that function. Further, although the Petitioner is 
correct in stating that a beneficiary is not precluded from qualifying under the LIA nonimmigrant visa 
classification by virtue of managing a function as opposed to managing personnel, it misinterprets the 
crux of this classification when it states that a beneficiary is "deserving of LIA classification" even if 
their role as a function manager requires them to "'primarily perform[] the tasks necessary to produce 
the product and/ or providing [sic] the service( s) of the organization."' In fact, as indicated above, the 
opposite is true. An employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or 
to provide services would not be considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial capacity. See, 
e.g, section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated 
managerial duties); Matter of Church Scientology Int'l., 19 I&N Dec. 593,604 (Comm'r 1988). 
Although the Petitioner focuses on the Beneficiary's discretionary authority over personnel matters 
and her "signatory authority" regarding contracts and corporate bank accounts, these elements are not, 
in and of themselves, sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity 
because they do not establish that the Beneficiary allocated her time to performing primarily 
managerial job duties. Merely claiming that the Beneficiary assumed the role of a function manager 
because she did not manage personnel is not sufficient to show that the Beneficiary performed job 
duties that were consistent with managing an essential function. 
Moreover, by virtue of listing job duties that are indicative of managing personnel and claiming that 
the Beneficiary exercises discretion over personnel matters the Petitioner farther undermines the claim 
that the Beneficiary assumed the role of a function manager during her employment with the foreign 
entity. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See 
4 
Matter of C-B-, Inc. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). Although the Petitioner cites to unpublished 
AAO decisions to support its claims, it has not established that the facts of this petition are analogous 
to those in the cited decisions. Moreover, while 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that our precedent 
decisions are binding on USCIS, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. In sum, the 
Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary performed primarily 
managerial job duties during her employment abroad. 
B. Staffing 
As noted earlier, the foreign entity's staffing and organizational structure are also critical elements in 
this analysis. 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's supporting evidence includes a letter from the foreign entity's president/owner, who 
stated that he had four foll-time employees and used contract labor "as needed." The letter farther 
states, "Our team serves our customers by providing the services they want." The letter does not 
specify the types of contract workers the foreign entity hired, the duties they performed, or the 
frequency of such hiring, nor does it contain farther information about the Beneficiary's placement 
and role within the foreign organization. 
In the RFE response, the Petitioner provided the foreign entity's organizational chart showing a three­
tiered staffing structure. The owner is depicted at the top of that structure president of the foreign 
entity, followed by the Beneficiary as general manager, followed by two drivers and an office manager 
at the bottom tier of the hierarchy. According to the Beneficiary's job duty breakdown, she was 
responsible for "all" supervisory duties, employee performance reviews, and mentoring and assisting 
employees. The Petitioner did not indicate how much time the Beneficiary allocated to these job 
duties, nor did it establish that the Beneficiary's subordinates were supervisory, professional, or 
managerial personnel. 2 Section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The Petitioner also made no farther 
mention of the contract labor that was referenced in the original letter from the foreign entity's owner. 
Further, as previously noted, the Petitioner's recent claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad 
as a function manager is inconsistent with several of the Beneficiary's listed duties, which indicate 
that she was responsible for overseeing the foreign entity's non-supervisory and non-professional staff 
In sum, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary's foreign 
employment involved performing primarily managerial job duties within an organization that was 
adequately staffed and had the ability to relieve the Beneficiary from having to allocate her time 
primarily to operational job duties. 
2 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 IO 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 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. 
5 
Matter of C-B-, Inc. 
In light of the above, we find that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate 
that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 
III. ADMINISTRATIVE DISSOLUTION 
Finally, while not addressed in the Director's decision, we note that according to the records at the 
I !Secretary of State website, the Petitioner's corporate status is currently inactive due to 
administrative dissolution. The Petitioner's dissolution raises serious questions about whether it 
continues to exist as an importing employer, whether the Petitioner maintains a qualifying relationship, 
and whether it is authorized to conduct business in a regular and systematic manner. See section 
214(c)(l) of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(G) and (1)(3). 
While we are not making an adverse finding based on the information obtained from the._! ___ __. 
Secretary of State website, the Petitioner may need to address and resolve this deficiency in any future 
filing where the Petitioner's status as an active business entity is material to eligibility. 
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 ofC-B-, Inc., ID# 2271591 (AAO Oct. 31, 2019) 
6