dismissed L-1A Case: Business Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 14735067 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 9, 2021 
The Petitioner, a data-as-a-service company, seeks to extend the temporary employment of the 
Beneficiary in the position of Vice President of Business Development under the L-lA nonirnrnigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 101(a)(15)(L). 
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 
in the United States. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 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 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). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAP A CITY 
The 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 it will employ the Beneficiary in an 
executive 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 proposed position, which must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the 
beneficiary. 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 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. 
To be eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, the Petitioner must show that 
the Beneficiary will perform the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition at 
section 101 ( a)( 44 )(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act. If the Petitioner establishes that the offered position meets 
all elements set forth in the statutory definition, 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). 
The Petitioner stated that it is an Information As A Service firm that designs and executes short-term 
cohort-based acceleration programs in I I for senior executives, investors, and 
entrepreneurs, noting that its services are based in the global training industry. Regarding the 
Beneficiary, the Petitioner stated that she is responsible for the development of its brand, I I 
I I a systematic method of learning in the area of employee training. As vice president of 
business development, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary manages two sales and business 
development teams ( one in the U.S. and one in Russia). Specifically, the Petitioner stated that she 
supervises recruitment and training of a sales and business development team of two U.S.-based 
employees and 10 Russia-based employees. 
The Petitioner described the duties of the proffered position in farther detail as follows: 
[The Beneficiary] manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, 
function or component of the organization. 
[The Beneficiary] is tasked with building and leading a U.S.-based sales and business 
development team that will closely coordinate with our Russia-based sales and business 
development team, to aid in our expansion efforts to many countries. [The Beneficiary] 
remotely manages the Russia-based team that is charged with making initial contact 
with prospective clients, and oversees the U.S.-based sales team as they continue 
communications with the foreign clients once they arrive in the U.S. 
2 
[The Beneficiary] 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. 1 
In addition to Marketing management, [the Beneficiary] is charged with supervising 
the recruitment process of an additional U.S.-based employees. She determines staff 
salaries, work assignments, and promotions. She supervises employee performance to 
ensure revenue and contract targets are met. She develops, improves and implements 
policies and training programs for the employees she manages. 
[The Beneficiary] Has the authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well 
as other personnel actions (such as promotion and leave authorization) if another 
employee is or other employees are directly supervised; if no other employee is 
directly supervised, functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy 
or with respect to the function managed; and 
[The Beneficiary] has the authority to hire and fire or recommend personnel actions for 
the 21 professionals and managers she manages in the U.S. and in Russia. She will 
advise and counsel company executives and other managers regarding business 
development and expanding the client base. 
[The Beneficiary] Exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the 
activity or function for which the employee has authority. 
A breakdown of the Beneficiary's duties as Vice President of Business Development 
location in our U.S. office follows: 
• Recruit, interview, hire and supervise a sales team of 2 U.S.-based employees 
and 2 Russia-based employees. (20%) 
• Manage sales and marketing efforts with a focus on developing a strong client 
base of entrepreneurs and investors from Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and 
Eastern Europe. (20%) 
• Provide advice and counsel to [the Petitioner's] executives and other managers 
regarding expanded client base. (10%) 
• Develop, improve and implement policies and training programs for the 
managed employees. (10%) 
• Evaluate employees, and determine staff salaries, work assignments, and 
promotions. (10%) 
• Set priorities and schedule project resources. (10%) 
1 The Petitioner also provided several cha1is, which identified her direct and indirect reports, their duties, and their 
educational backgrounds. The Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary directly supervised three employees in the United 
States: an Administrative Services ManagerNP of Events; a Sales Manager/Director of Business Development; and a 
Frontdesk Assistant and Community Associate (under office agreement with Regus Management Group). The Petitioner 
also indicated that she will remotely manage two Russia-based managers, who in tum would oversee eight professional 
employees, and that she would also oversee eleven U.S.-based contractors. 
3 
• Manage employees to ensure revenue and contract targets are met. For 2020 
the goal is to achieve quarterly sales of $400,000. (20%) 
[The Beneficiary] manages her team by setting strategic goals and directing her 
subordinates to achieve these objectives by designing efficient processes and 
measuring key performance indicators. 
The Petitioner further stated that the Beneficiary and her team identified opportunities, developed 
service offerings to satisfy identified demand, and lead generation and sales process. The Petitioner 
also provided an hourly breakdown of a typical workday for the Beneficiary, in addition to copies of 
payroll records and miscellaneous income forms (IRS Form 1099) evidencing payments made to 
employees and contractors. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director requested additional evidence demonstrating that the 
Beneficiary would be performing primarily managerial duties, noting that the record did not establish 
that the Beneficiary would be managing a subordinate staff of managerial, supervisory or professional 
employees. Specifically, the Director noted that the U.S. contract personnel appeared to work 
sporadically and earned less than part-time wages based on the low earnings reported on their Forms 
1099, thus raising whether the Petitioner's claimed staffing and organizational structure was able to 
employ the Beneficiary in a primarily managerial capacity. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a letter and additional evidence regarding the day-to-day duties 
of the Beneficiary's subordinate employees. In its letter, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary 
was both managing the essential function of developing the Petitioner's brand as well as managing 
and controlling the work of professional employees, who would in tum supervise other professional 
employees. 
Regarding the Beneficiary's management of an essential function, the petitioner stated: 
[The Beneficiary] is tasked with building and leading a U.S.-based sales and business 
development team that will closely coordinate with our Russia-based sales and business 
development team, to aid in our expansion efforts in Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and 
other countries. [The Beneficiary] remotely manages the Russia-based team that is 
charged with making initial contact with prospective clients and oversees the U.S.­
based sales team as they continue communications with the foreign clients once they 
arrive in the U.S. 
Regarding the claim that the Beneficiary will supervise a subordinate staff of managerial, supervisory, 
or professional employees, the Petitioner stated that she will supervise three professional employees, 
and was also charged with "supervising the recruitment process of an additional six U.S.-based 
employees." Specifically, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "develops, improves, and 
implements policies and training programs for the employees she manages," and "will oversee 
employee performance to ensure revenue and contract targets are met." 
The Petitioner also provided the following revised breakdown of the percentage of time the 
Beneficiary would devote to making decisions on the daily operations of the Petitioner: 
4 
• Oversee the recruitment, interviewing, and hiring of 6 U.S.-based employees and 2 
Russia-based employees. (10%) 
• Manage sales and marketing efforts with a focus on developing a strong client base 
of entrepreneurs and investors from Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Eastern 
Europe. (25%) 
• Provide advice and counsel to [the Petitioner's] executives and other managers 
regarding expanded client base. (10%) 
• Develop, improve and implement policies and training programs for the managed 
employees. (10%) 
• Evaluate employees, and determine staff salaries, work assignments, and 
promotions. (10%) 
• Set priorities and schedule project resources. (10%) 
• Manage employees to ensure revenue and contract targets are met. (25%) For 2020 
the quarterly sales goal is $200,000. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that the 
organizational structure of the Petitioner elevated the Beneficiary to where she could function in a 
primarily managerial capacity. Focusing on the sporadic work of the contract employees, 2 and the 
administrative and operational duties apparently performed by the Beneficiary's direct subordinates 
in the United States, the Director determined that the Beneficiary was acting as a first-line supervisor 
as opposed to working in a capacity that was primarily managerial. 
On appeal, 3 the Petitioner asserts that the Director's findings were erroneous. The Petitioner asserts 
that the Beneficiary is employed as a function manager, and submits arguments and additional 
evidence in support of this contention. The Petitioner also submits a detailed overview of the roles 
played by each of the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates, noting that the two subordinate 
Russia-based employees are responsible for the making initial contact with prospective clients, and 
the U.S.-based employees continue conversations with clients once they arrive in the United States. 
After reviewing the record and the assertions of the Petitioner on appeal, we concur with the Director's 
conclusions. Preliminarily, we note that the Petitioner abandons its previous assertion that the 
Beneficiary was acting as a personnel manager and provides arguments solely in support of its 
assertion that the Beneficiary will serve as a function manager. The Petitioner indicates that the 
Beneficiary will be responsible for performing the business development function of the Petitioner. 
However, the current organizational structure of the Petitioner, coupled with the generalized list of the 
Beneficiary's duties, does not support a finding that the Beneficiary will manage the organization, or 
primarily manage the business development function of the organization. 
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 101(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 
2 The record indicates that the contract employees are promotional speakers that provide services on an as-needed basis. 
3 We note that the Petitioner's submission on appeal is entitled "Motion to Reopen and/or Reconsider." The Petitioner, 
however, indicated on the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, that it was filing an appeal of the Director's adverse 
decision dated August 6, 2020. Therefore, we will treat the submission as an appeal despite the title used by the Petitioner. 
5 
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 will exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day operations." Matter of G- Inc., 
Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). A beneficiary that supervises others may also 
qualify as a function manager. Id. 
In this matter, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence that the Beneficiary manages an 
essential function. In its supporting documentation, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would 
be acting as a personnel manager by virtue of her oversight of four professional employees (two in 
Russia and two in the United States). The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "is tasked with building 
and leading a U.S.-based sales and business development team that will closely coordinate with our 
Russia-based sales and business development team, to aid in our expansion efforts to many countries." 
The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary "determines staff salaries, work assignments, and 
promotions," "supervises employee performance to ensure revenue and contract targets are met, and 
"develops, improves and implements policies and training programs for the employees she manages." 
The Director found these assertions insufficient, and determined in the denial decision that the 
Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial 
capacity based on her supervision of managerial, professional, or supervisory employees. The 
Director also determined that the Petitioner's simultaneous assertion that the Beneficiary was a 
function manager was not supported by the evidence of record. 
Upon review, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary will primarily manage the 
business development function of the company. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary will devote 25% of her time to "manag[ing] employees to ensure revenue and contract 
targets are met," and another 25% of her time to "manag[ing] sales and marketing efforts with a focus 
on developing a strong client base of entrepreneurs and investors from Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan 
and Eastern Europe." While the stated duties provide a general overview of the requirements of her 
position, it is unclear exactly what the Beneficiary will do on a day-to-day basis, and how she will 
primarily manage the business development function of the Petitioner, as opposed to engaging in tasks 
that equate to performing or contributing to the Petitioner's business development. 
For example, the Petitioner provided a breakdown of a typical day for the Beneficiary in its response 
to the RFE. This breakdown indicated that the Beneficiary "attends a dinner with a client to negotiate 
a contract to bring more executives to the immersion programs developed by [the Petitioner]," as well 
as "works on new procedures to onboard key partners - established foreign management travel 
companies." In addition, the overview of duties indicates that she participates in numerous conference 
calls, at least one of which the Petitioner claims is arranged by the Beneficiary's executive assistant. 4 
The Petitioner's description of duties is insufficiently detailed to understand the Beneficiary's role 
within the U.S. organization and that the actual duties are managerial functions and not primarily 
administrative and operational tasks. Here, despite abandoning its claim that the Beneficiary is a 
C:~~~rrs that the "executive assistant" is the front desk assistant provided to the Petitioner through its agreement with 
6 
personnel manager, the claim that she qualifies as a function manager relies heavily on the services of 
subordinate employees to carry out the business development function of the Petitioner. As discussed 
previously, the U.S entity employs an administrative services manager/VP of events and a sales 
manager/director of business development. According to the Petitioner, the two claimed managerial 
employees are tasked with setting program goals, conducting market research, and implementing 
promotional campaigns. As noted above, a typical daily task of the Beneficiary is to meet with clients 
to negotiate contracts, a task which would not typically be considered primarily managerial in nature. 
The Petitioner's organizational structure within the U.S. entity does not identify any individuals 
responsible for sales, nor does it explain how the administrative and operational tasks of the Petitioner, 
such as accounting, payroll, clerical tasks and human resources, are performed. Although the record 
indicates that a front desk assistant is delegated to the Petitioner through an office agreement with 
~---------__.the extent of this individual's role within the company is not well defined. 
The Petitioner also claims that the Russia-based staff is responsible for overseeing the daily operations 
of the company; however, these staff member are not in the United States performing these tasks, and 
the extent to which they support the U.S. entity either administratively and/or operationally has not 
been clearly defined. As recognized in Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 
14, 2016), personnel employed by a related entity may be considered in the analysis of whether the 
Beneficiary is relieved from performing day-to-day non-managerial tasks. In this matter, however, 
the Petitioner does not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the individuals on the foreign team 
relieve the Beneficiary from performing the basic operational and administrative tasks necessary to 
continue the operations of the Petitioner. Although the Petitioner claims the Russian employees are 
responsible for managing sales, the Petitioner does not provide sufficient evidence establishing that 
they perform the U.S. sales-based tasks necessary for the Petitioner's business development. 
Moreover, the Petitioner does not articulate who actually discusses sales with potential U.S. customers 
or sales brokers in the U.S., and who performs the routine day-to-day operational and administrative 
tasks of the business. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary will primarily manage 
an essential function. Moreover, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will manage, 
as opposed to perform, the operational and administrative tasks of the organization. 
It is the Petitioner's burden to clearly describe the proposed duties and to establish that the 
Beneficiary's actual duties would be primarily managerial in nature. Reciting a 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 actual duties themselves will reveal the 
true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros., 724 F. Supp. at 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 
(2d. Cir. 1990). While it appears that managing the business development of the Petitioner is an 
essential function, the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's duties, coupled with the 
deficiencies in its organizational structure, do not establish that she will primarily manage that 
function, as opposed to engaging in sales, marketing, and other non-managerial services related to that 
function. Again, the Petitioner indicated that a typical day for the Beneficiary involves meeting clients 
over dinner to negotiate contracts. The claim that she will directly engage in such tasks, and the 
absence of employees to perform this underlying task, suggests that she will be directly involved in 
the sales and marketing required to achieve the Petitioner's business development goals. The actual 
duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Id. at 1108. 
7 
Further, although we do not expect the Petitioner to detail and document every managerial task 
performed by the Beneficiary, the lack of detail and credible documentation related to her asserted 
managerial duties is noteworthy since it claims she has been acting in this role in the United States for 
approximately three years prior to the date the petition was filed. Specifics are clearly an important 
indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the 
definitions would simply be a matter ofreiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. 
at 1108. 
While performing non-qualifying tasks necessary to produce a product or service will not 
automatically disqualify a beneficiary as long as those tasks are not the majority of a beneficiary's 
duties, a petitioner still has the burden of establishing that a beneficiary will "primarily" perform 
managerial duties. See section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Whether a beneficiary is a "function" 
manager turns in part on whether the petitioner has sustained its burden of proving that their duties are 
"primarily" managerial. See Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02. 
The record as constituted does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary will primarily perform the claimed 
duties stated by the Petitioner, and the current organizational structure of the Petitioner strongly 
suggests that the Petitioner does not possess the organizational complexity to effectively support the 
Beneficiary in a primarily managerial position. The Petitioner's description of duties and supporting 
documentation suggests her primary involvement in the non-qualifying operational aspects of the 
business, such as meeting directly with clients to negotiate contracts. By comparison, there is no 
supporting documentation to corroborate that the Beneficiary primarily managed an essential function 
or that she primarily delegated non-qualifying tasks to his claimed subordinates. Therefore, the 
Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate that the Beneficiary primarily managed a function rather 
than performed it. The Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the Beneficiary qualifies as a 
function manager. 
The claim that a beneficiary 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 
101 (a)( 44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a position 
be "primarily" executive or managerial. Here, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary will 
exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of 
authority with respect to discretionary decision-making and personnel matters. However, due to the 
deficiencies discussed, the submitted position descriptions do not establish that her actual duties would 
be primarily managerial in nature. 
Overall, the record does not contain sufficient evidence regarding the Beneficiary's proposed role or 
the roles of her subordinates to establish that she would primarily perform qualifying managerial 
duties. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that she would be employed in a managerial 
capacity as defined at section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8