dismissed L-1A Case: Business

,*nti*g drtr ddded to 
prevent clearly unwDllaaM 
:m& sf vernal ariva~ 
U.S. Department of Itomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave, N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
D f 
File: SRC 04 199 5 1677 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN () 2 2006 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Ro /&-- ert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 04 199 5 1677 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as an L-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. $ 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L). The U.S. petitioner, a corporation organized in the State of Florida that is engaged 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that (I) the beneficiary had at 
least one continuous year of employment with a qualifying foreign entity out of the preceding three; or (2) the 
beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive position in the United States. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. 
 The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner 
had in fact satisfied all regulatory requirements, since the beneficiary had taken a temporary leave of absence 
from the foreign entity and had consequently not interrupted her continuous employment with the foreign 
entity. In addition, counsel reasserted the managerial qualities of the beneficiary's proposed position in the 
United States and concludes that she has therefore satisfied the criteria for manager and/or executive. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section IOl(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) 
 Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the 
alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) 
 Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 
(iii) 
 Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
(iv) 
 Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
SRC 04 199 5 1677 
Page 3 
education, training, and employment qualifies himher to perform the intended 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
(v) 
 If the petition indicates that the beneficiary is coming to the United States as a manager 
or executive to open or to be employed in a new office in the United States, the 
petitioner shall submit evidence that: 
(A) 
 Sufficient physical premises to house the new office have been secured; 
(B) 
 The beneficiary has been employed for one continuous year in the three year 
period preceding the filing of the petition in an executive or managerial capacity 
and that the proposed employment involved executive or managerial authority 
over the new operation; and 
(C) 
 The intended United States operation, within one year of the approval of the 
petition, will support an executive or managerial position as defined in 
paragraphs (I)(l)(ii)(B) or (C) of this section, supported by information 
regarding: 
(I) 
 The proposed nature of the office describing the scope of the entity, its 
organizational structure, and its financial goals; 
(2) 
 The size of the United States investment and the financial ability of the 
foreign entity to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing 
business in the United States; and 
(3) 
 The organizational structure of the foreign entity. 
The first issue in this matter is whether the beneficiary has at least one continuous year of full time 
employment abroad with a qualifLing organization within the three years preceding the filing of the petition. 
See 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
The petition in this matter was filed on July 14, 2004. According to the regulations, therefore, the beneficiary 
is required to have at least one year of continuous and uninterrupted employment with the foreign entity 
during the period beginning July 14, 2001 to July 14, 2004. On the L Supplement to the Form 1-129, the 
petitioner indicated that the foreign parent employed the beneficiary without interruption from August 3 1, 
2000 to October 15, 200 1. 
In response to the director's request for evidence dated July 22, 2004, clarification on this issue was 
requested. Specifically, the director noted that the beneficiary had entered the United States on November 8, 
2001 on an H-4 visa. In a response dated August 18,2004, the petitioner responded by explaining that, due to 
the beneficiary's husband's employment in the United States, she requested and was granted an unpaid leave 
SRC 04 199 5 1677 
Page 4 
of absence from the foreign entity so that she could accompany her husband while he worked in the United 
States. The petitioner admitted that although the beneficiary's exact position, duty or work area may not be 
available to her if she were to return, the foreign entity would make every effort to accommodate her if she 
did return. 
The director found this evidence insufficient to establish compliance with the regulatory requirements, and 
denied the petition on September 1, 2004. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner submits copies of the 
petitioner's request for a leave of absence as evidence that this was the situation under which she remained 
affiliated with the foreign entity after October of 2001. 
Upon review, the AAO is not persuaded that the beneficiary satisfied the regulatory requirements. 
The regulations clearly state that an alien must have one year of continuous employment out of the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). As discussed above, since this petition 
was filed on July 14,2004, the period in which this one continuous year of employment had to take place was 
from July 14, 2001 through July 14, 2004. Based on the beneficiary's employment history with the foreign 
entity, the AAO must examine her eligibility from July 14,2001 through July 14,2002, since the employment 
prior to this date falls outside the requisite three-year period. 
The record clearly indicates that the beneficiary resigned her position with the foreign entity in October of 
2001 and left to join her husband in the United States on November 8, 2001. In her request for a leave of 
absence dated October 18, 2001, the beneficiary even admits that she may never return to the petitioner. 
Specifically, she states: "I appreciate your offer of leaving the door open in case I return, in a prudent time to 
rejoin my actual job." (Emphasis added). The beneficiary's own admissions in this letter clearly show that 
even she did not know whether she would ever return to this position. 
Generally, time spent employed abroad or on similar, detailed assignments for the same foreign entity will 
generally not be considered disruptive of the continuous year of employment when sufficient evidence is 
submitted to show that a beneficiary is still continuing to perform his or her duties for the foreign employer. 
In this case, however, the beneficiary left the employment of the foreign entity to join her husband in the 
United States. There is no evidence that her travel to the United States was to perform job related duties for 
the foreign parent. In fact, all evidence in the record directly contradicts this possibility, as the beneficiary 
clearly indicates that she chose to leave the employment of the foreign entity in order to evaluate the 
possibility of staying in the United States. 
The record, therefore, indicates that in the three years prior to the filing of the petition, the beneficiary had, at 
best, three full months of continuous, uninterrupted employment with the foreign entity. As the regulations 
clearly require one full year of continuous employment with a qualifying organization abroad, the beneficiary 
has not met this requirement. For this reason, the petition may not be approved. 
The second basis for the director's denial in this matter was based upon the finding that the beneficiary would 
not be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
SRC 04 199 51677 
Page 5 
Section 101 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 101 (a)(44)(A), 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 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. 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)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(44)(B), 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 direction from higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
In the initial petition, the petitioner provided the following overview of the beneficiary's proposed duties in 
the United States. Specifically, the petitioner stated: 
As General Manager, [the beneficiary] will use [her] independent discretion and authority in 
identifying and cultivating new information sources, and developing strong and mutually 
beneficial relationships with [the petitioner's] officials at Miami and New Jersey offices. In 
identifying, developing and maintaining these sources, [the beneficiary] will ensure that [the 
petitioner] is provide[d] immediate, first hand information on breaking developments and 
changes. This is particularly critical to our business which has built its reputation on 
SRC 04 199 5 1677 
Page 6 
providing accurate and up to the minute services on changes and developments in 
international cargo and courier worldwide. In managing these developments [the beneficiary] 
will ensure that [the petitioner] receives priority treatment in receiving details on the 
availability, terms and conditions, and special features of cargo and courier services. When 
details are received, [the beneficiary] will direct [the petitioner's office in] Orlando. In 
addition, [the beneficiary] will execute the following duties: - Establish and maintain 
appropriate systems for measuring necessary aspects or organizational performance. 
- 
 Monitor, measure and report on organizational development plans and achievements 
within agreed formats and timescales. 
- 
 Manage and develop direct reporting staff. [sic] 
- 
 Manage and control departmental expenditure within agreed budgets. 
- 
 Liaise with other functional/departmental managers so as to understand all necessary 
aspects of organizational development, and to ensure they are fully informed of 
organisational development objectives, purposes and achievements. 
- 
 Maintain awareness and knowledge of contemporary organisational development theory 
and methods and provide suitable interpretation to directors, managers and staff within 
the organization. 
- 
 Ensure activities meet with and integrate with organisational requirements for quality 
management, health and safety, legal stipulations, environmental policies and general 
duty of care. 
The petitioner continued by stating that the beneficiary would devote approximately 70% of her time 
performing these functions, and an additional 20% of her time would be devoted to overseeing the 
establishment of training programs and materials for the petitioner's personnel and clients. The remainder of 
her time would be devoted to developing overall financial plans and accounting practices for the petitioner. 
On July 22, 2004, the director requested additional evidence with regard to the beneficiary's duties as well as 
those of her fellow employees, including their position titles, duties, and educational backgrounds. The 
director further requested an organizational chart showing the hierarchical structure of the petitioner's 
business in order to ascertain the beneficiary's level of responsibility within the organization. Finally, copies 
of quarterly state and federal tax returns were requested in order to determine the actual number of employees 
currently retained by the petitioner as active employees. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
 , the Director of the petitioner's Miami 
office, which clarified the beneficiary's proposed duties. Specifically, the letter stated that the beneficiary 
"will have to carry out the sales job and insertion of the company's name in the market." He further stated 
that she would be responsible for organizing the logistics of package pick-up and that she would address 
"citations" dealing with dissatisfaction of the logistics process. 
Furthermore, in addition to the educational degrees and position titles of the petitioner's four employers, the 
petitioner submitted an overview of the petitioner's entire global organization as well as an organizational 
SRC 04 199 51677 
Page 7 
chart for the foreign entity. The petitioner failed, however, to submit an organizational chart for the U.S. 
entity. 
On September 1, 2004 the director denied the petition. The director determined that the evidence in the 
record did not establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive 
capacity while in the United States. 
On appeal, counsel provides no new evidence and merely reasserts that, based on her experience abroad and 
the proposed managerial position in the United States, the beneficiary will soon oversee the Miami and 
Orlando offices and therefore qualifies as a manager for purposes of this evaluation. 
The AAO, upon review of the record of proceeding, concurs with the director's finding. Specifically, upon 
review of the beneficiary's stated duties, the petitioner has failed to establish that it will be able to support the 
beneficiary in a capacity that is primarily managerial or executive at the end of the first year of operations. In 
addition, the AAO notes that the description of duties was too vague to ascertain whether the beneficiary will 
be acting in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
In this case, the initial description of the beneficiary's duties and her role within the petitioner's hierarchy was 
vague and lacked detail with regard to the petitioner's planned objectives for her as general manager. In 
response to the request for evidence, more information regarding other employees of the petitioner was 
provided and, simultaneously, the petitioner claimed that the beneficiary would be responsible for the sales 
and marketing functions of the company. An employee who primarily performs the tasks necessary to 
produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). In this case, the 
letter from the Miami office's director clearly confirms that she will be responsible for the sales and 
marketing of the U.S. company. For the reason discussed above, these duties suggest that the beneficiary's 
duties will not be primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
A further problem, however, is the lack of an organizational chart or a discussion of the organizational 
structure of the petitioner. While the petitioner did in fact provide educational backgrounds and position titles 
for the petitioner's current employees, the petition omitted to state where the beneficiary would fall among 
these employees. For example, the AAO cannot determine from the record whether the beneficiary will 
oversee a staff of subordinates, or whether she will be the least senior employee upon her employment in the 
United States. 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 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. 
Cir. 1990). Furthermore, the vague discussion of her proposed duties makes it extremely difficult to ascertain 
the exact nature of her proposed position. 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 failed to answer a critical question in this case: What does the beneficiary primarily 
do on a daily basis? The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. 
Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1 108, aff d, 905 F.2d 4 1. 
SRC 04 199 5 1677 
Page 8 
Prior to adjudication and again on appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary is a qualified manager. The 
record, however, is devoid of any concrete evidence to support these assertions. While the beneficiary may in 
fact have gained valuable knowledge and experience from her previous position with this employer, the fact 
remains that there is no credible evidence in the record to corroborate the claims of counsel that the 
beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofjci, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972)). Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
For this additional reason, the petition may not be approved. 
When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only 
if she shows that the AAO abused it discretion with respect to all of the AAO's enumerated grounds. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afyd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.