dismissed L-1A Case: Cabinetry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF WAC-, CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 27, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner , a cabinet store, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as general manager of its 
new office I under the L-1 A 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 Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that (1) it had a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer 
at the time of filing; (2) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity ; 
and (3) the new office would support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive position within one 
year of the petition's approval. On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the three grounds for denial, 
claiming that it meets all eligibility requirements . 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
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. 
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 
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 WAC-, Corp. 
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. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The first issue to be addressed in this decision is whether the Petitioner established that it has a 
qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's employer abroad. To establish a "qualifying 
relationship" under the Act and the regulations, a petitioner must show that the beneficiary's foreign 
employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (i.e., one entity with "branch" 
offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See generally section 101(a)(l5)(L) 
of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1). 
The Petitioner asserts that it is the wholly-owned subsidiary of.__ _______ -,,-----~ 
in Brazil. With the petition and in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner 
submitted a copy of its Articles of Incorporation and a copy of a stock certificate issued toD 
.__ ___________ _,showing that the foreign entity owns 1,000 shares of the Petitioner. 
The stock certificate and the Articles of Incorporation indicate that the cor oration is authorized to 
issue 1,000 total shares. The record also shows that is owned in 
equal shares by the Beneficiary and .__ ____________ ____. 
The Director determined that the record did not contain sufficient evidence of the Petitioner's 
capitalization or the type of stock authorized to be issued. Regulation and case law confirm that 
ownership and control are the factors that must be examined in determining whether a qualifying 
relationship exists between United States and foreign entities. See, e.g., Matter of Church Scientology 
Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (Comm'r 1988); Matter o_fSiemens Med. Sys., Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (Comm'r 
1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm'r 1982). Ownership refers to the direct or indirect 
legal right of possession of the assets of an entity with full power and authority to control; control 
means the direct or indirect legal right and authority to direct the establishment, management, and 
operations of an entity. Matter of Church Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
As general evidence of a petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship, stock certificates alone are not 
sufficient evidence to determine whether a stockholder maintains ownership and control of a corporate 
entity. The corporate stock certificate ledger, stock certificate registry, corporate bylaws, and the 
minutes of relevant annual shareholder meetings must also be examined to determine the total number 
of shares issued, the exact number issued to the shareholder, and the subsequent percentage ownership 
and its effect on corporate control. 
The Articles of Incorporation and the 2018 Florida annual report submitted on appeal show thatc=] 
~-----------~ is the President of the Petitioner and that the Beneficiary is its 
Director. However, the Petitioner did not submit its stock certificate ledger, stock certificate registry, 
corporate bylaws, or the minutes of relevant annual shareholder meetings to determine ownership and 
control. 
2 
Matter of WAC-, Corp. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the parent company made wire transfers totaling $87,500 to 
establish a qualifying relationship. It submits its bank statements showing wire deposits made bye=] 
as follows: 
April 18, 2018: $9,000 
May 4, 2018: $8,000 
May 10, 2018: $9,000 
June 12, 2018: $9,500 
August 14, 2018: $9,000 
August 31, 2018: $9,000 
October 15, 2018: $7,000 
November 5, 2018: $4,000 
November 23, 2018: $9,500 
November 30, 2018: $13,500 
In the present matter, the stock certificate was issued on February 16, 2018, prior to the corporation's 
incorporation in Florida on I I 2018. Although the Petitioner provided bank records showing 
deposits into its bank account starting on April 18, 2018, these transactions took place months after 
the date on the stock certificate and thus were not contemporaneous with the stock issuance. The 
Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
In light of the lack of sufficient supporting evidence showing a nexus between the deposits starting in 
April 2018 and the Petitioner's stock issuance, we agree with the Director's finding that the Petitioner 
did not establish its ownership and, therefore, it did not show that a qualifying relationship existed 
between it and the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
III. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has been employed 
abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. Because the Petitioner has not specified whether the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity, we will address both below. 
The term "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. 
The term "executive capacity" is defined as an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of 
the organization; establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
3 
Matter of WAC-, Corp. 
exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or 
direction from higher-level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Based on the definitions of 
managerial and executive 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 or executive 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 at 1533. 
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. If staffing levels 
are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial or executive 
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. 
A. Duties 
In its letter in support of the petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary had worked forD 
.__ ___________ __. in Brazil since 2007 in the position of executive director. It stated 
that the foreign entity "specializes in the retail trade of furniture, hardware tools, construction materials 
and articles of personal and domestic use." 
It stated that "he was responsible for all departments, directing subordinates on all commercial aspects 
as well as strategic planning and performance goals." It stated that he "contributed to the development 
of business solutions and associated business plans to share best practice within the company; he 
identified and managed risk in the stone business activities and took responsibility for reporting risks 
in a timely, open and appropriate manner." It further stated that he 
provided commercial and administrative support for the sales, production, and logistics 
in their business activities to effectively manage risks attached to the operations of the 
company, in its domestic and international markets. He ensured that the purpose, 
justification and cash flow profile of proposed capital spending is aligned with the 
Capital Plan and meets both short and long term strategies. He assisted in the 
preparation of yearly marketing and sales plan and prepares overall market strategy 
which identifies target customers and the best method of pursuit. The Beneficiary 
maintained constant and ongoing market identification of customers, markets and 
competition. Managed overall international marketing budget and program execution. 
The Beneficiary assisted in the coordination aspects of the Parent Company's 
4 
Matter of WAC-, Corp. 
international business by serving as a liaison to product development, sales, supply 
chain and finance. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE(, the Petitioner submitted a letter from the 
sales manager ot1 J which stated the Beneficiary's duties and 
percentages of time devoted to the duties as follows: 
• Direct the Review financial statements, review sales reports, review sales of the products, 
review equipment leases, and other performance data to measure productivity and goal 
achievement and to determine areas needing cost reduction and program improvement- Up to 
12%; 
• Direct the start: overseeing the preparation of work schedules and assign specific duties to his 
direct subordinates - Up to 10%; 
• Direct staffing requirements, and interview, hire and train new employees, or oversee those 
personnel processes - Up to 15%; 
• Direct in long-range planning and identifying business opportunities in order to grow the 
company's business, by acquiring new clients and business relationships - Up to 30%; 
• Direct and coordinate organization's financial and budget activities to fund operations, 
maximize investments, and increase efficiency- Up to 12%; 
• Direct activities of the subordinate staff and deal with matters directly related to providing 
services - Up to 11 %; and 
• Monitor business to ensure that they efficiently and effectively provide needed services while 
staying within budgetary limits - Up to 10%. 
The letter further detailed the Beneficiary's duties as follows: 
1. Planning administration ( developed long-range and annual plans; oversaw preparation of 
financial report on the progress of the short and long-range plans; researched and wrote 
discussion papers, analysis documents and proposals) 
2. HR management (recruitment; employee development and training; policy development and 
documentation; employee relations; regulatory compliance; and company-wide committee 
facilitation) 
3. Project management (manage hiring and distribution of product sales and management 
training; oversee venue liaison; and oversee organization of company's transport, subsistence 
and accommodation) 
4. Marketing and PR (manage advertising opportunities; oversee content, production and 
distribution of all marketing and publicity materials) 
5. Financial management (provide recommendations regarding investments and cash strategies; 
oversee preparation of annual budget and audit; provide vision on financial health and fiscal 
planning of company; provide debt recommendations) 
6. Production/sales (direct and oversee site activities and personnel; oversee safety standards) 
7. Administrative management ( ensure file integrity; assist in development of forms and tools) 
The Director found that the Beneficiary's foreign job description was insufficient to determine what 
he does on a day-to-day basis. On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary "held an important 
5 
Matter of WAC-, Corp. 
role" in the foreign entity as its executive director. It submits two letters from two sales managers of 
I I The letters provide identical information, identifying the 
Beneficiary as executive director and stating that he "has been central to the growth of this company." 
Neither letter details the Beneficiary's duties. The Petitioner also submits the Beneficiary's paystubs 
from July 2015 to November 2016. They list the Beneficiary's title as executive director but do not 
list his duties. 
We agree with the Director's determination that the submitted pos1t10n description does not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary primarily performs managerial or executive duties. The position 
descriptions vary. The initial description focused on sales, development, and marketing. It did not 
list any human resources functions, and it did not highlight any specific financial duties. The revised 
job description provided in response to the RFE added human resources functions accounting for over 
35% of his time and expanded the descriptions of the Beneficiary's duties in other areas, particularly 
finance. The initial description described the duties as providing support, assisting with sales and 
marketing plans, and assisting with coordination of the business, whereas the revised description used 
the term "direct" repeatedly. Thus, not only did the substance of the duties change, but the level of 
responsibility was elevated, as well. The purpose of the RFE is to elicit further information that 
clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established. 8 C .F .R. § 103 .2(b )(8). When 
responding to an RFE, a petitioner cannot materially change a position's responsibilities. See, e.g., 
Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248,249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). If significant changes are 
made to the initial request for approval, a petitioner must file a new petition rather than seek approval 
of a petition that is not supported by the facts in the record. 
Further, the job descriptions all consist of broad duties that could apply to any senior position. The 
descriptions do not provide insight into the nature of the Beneficiary's day-to-day duties as the 
executive director of a company engaged in the retail trade of furniture and other items. General 
statements, such as "responsible for all departments, directing subordinates on all commercial aspects 
as well as strategic planning and performance goals;" "maintained constant and ongoing market 
identification of customers, markets and competition;" ensured that capital spending is aligned with 
the Capital Plan;" "provided leadership and vision by developing long range and annual plans;" direct 
and coordinate organization's financial and budget activities;" and "provide vision regarding overall 
financial health of the company" do not describe the types of tasks the Beneficiary performs. The 
descriptions do not relate the assigned duties to the specific type of business or the level of staffing 
claimed. Conclusory assertions regarding the Beneficiary's employment capacity are not sufficient. 
Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the Petitioner's burden of 
proof 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). The Petitioner did not provide examples of any plans or goals he developed, or any 
customers, markets, or competition he identified. It did not provide details on the financial activities 
he directs or who helps him with these duties. Further, one of the job duties mentions the company's 
"stone business activities;" however, the foreign entity is not in the stone business. The Petitioner has 
not resolved this inconsistency with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Additionally, several of the duties listed are not managerial or executive duties, including researching 
and writing discussion papers, analysis documents, and proposals; ensuring file integrity; assisting in 
6 
Matter of WAC-, Corp. 
development of forms and tools; staff recruitment and contracting; and overseeing production and 
distribution of marketing and publicity materials. The fact that a beneficiary manages or directs a 
business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in a 
managerial or executive 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" managerial or 
executive in nature. See sections 10l(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. 
Based on the foregoing, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary's actual day-to-day duties 
abroad are managerial or executive in nature. 
B. Staffing 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner stated that the foreign entity employed 10 individuals. According 
to the organizational chart for the foreign entity, the Beneficiary oversees a sales director and a 
manufacturing director. The sales director oversees two sales managers, while the manufacturing 
manager oversees a furniture designer. The furniture designer oversees a handyman, who oversees a 
handyman assistant. The furniture designer also oversees two furniture assemblers. As noted above, 
the duties of the other workers are briefly listed in the record. 
The Director determined that the evidence is insufficient to determine whether the foreign business 
has an organizational structure sufficient to elevate the Beneficiary to a supervisory position or 
whether he primarily supervises a subordinate staff of managers, supervisors, or professionals. On 
appeal, the Petitioner submitted identical letters from two sales managers of the foreign entity stating 
that under the Beneficiary's "leadership and management I have been challenged to improve my 
performance as sales manager and help the company to achieve its success so far." The letters do not 
describe the duties of the Beneficiary or the sales managers, or detail how the Beneficiary leads the 
sales managers. 
The supporting evidence regarding staffing of the foreign entity includes a payroll document with 
English translation for the foreign entity for October 2018. The translation does not match the foreign 
language document, and it does not contain a translation certification. A foll English language 
translation must accompany any document containing foreign language. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The 
translator must certify that the translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent 
to translate from the foreign language into English. Id. Because the Petitioner did not submit a 
properly certified English language translation of the document and the contents of the documents do 
not match, we cannot meaningfully determine whether the translated material is accurate and thus 
supports the foreign entity's organizational chart. The supporting evidence also includes an income 
statement for the period from January 2018 to November 2018, with English translation. However, 
the record does not contain a corresponding expense statement showing the salary and wage costs 
incurred by the foreign entity, which might support the Petitioner's claims regarding the organizational 
structure of the foreign entity. 
The record does not show that the Beneficiary primarily supervises and controls the work of other 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. Although the Director requested the information, 
the record does not provide the level of education required to perform the duties. Thus, the Petitioner 
7 
Matter of WAC-, Corp. 
has not established that any subordinates possess baccalaureate degrees and that their positions require 
such degrees, such that we can consider these employees to be professionals. The Petitioner has also 
not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary's subordinates supervise other 
employees or that they manage a department or function, such that they can be classified as managers 
or supervisors. For example, although the organizational chart shows the manufacture manager above 
the furniture designer, the job description for the manufacture manager does not contain any 
supervisory duties. Additionally, while the organizational chart shows the furniture designer above 
the handyman and furniture assemblers, the job description for furniture designer does not contain any 
supervisory duties. Further, although the organizational chart shows the handyman above the 
handyman assistant, the job description for handyman does not contain any supervisory duties. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel manager 
based on his supervision of managerial, supervisory, or professional employees abroad. 
The Petitioner also has not articulated an essential function that the Beneficiary manages. As 
previously noted, the Petitioner has not clearly described the Beneficiary's duties, and based on the 
overlapping duties in the job descriptions, it is not clear that the Beneficiary acts at a senior level 
within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed, or that he exercises 
discretion over the function's day-to-day operations. 
The Petitioner has not established, in the alternative, that the Beneficiary is employed in an executive 
capacity. The Petitioner has not provided sufficient detail or supporting evidence to support a claim 
that the Beneficiary directs the management of the organization or that he is primarily focused on the 
broad goals and policies of the foreign organization, rather than on its day-to-day operations. Based 
on the job descriptions, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary is relieved from 
performing the operational tasks of the company. 
In light of the Beneficiary's broad position description, changes to the assigned duties and level of 
responsibility, and the absence of credible evidence regarding the foreign entity's staffing and 
organizational hierarchy, the Petitioner has not met its burden to show that the Beneficiary primarily 
manages or directs the foreign entity's activities or that the foreign entity has staff to relieve the 
Beneficiary from performing the operational and administrative tasks associated these activities. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that the Beneficiary is employed abroad 
in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
IV. THE PETITIONER'S ABILITY TO SUPPORT A MANAGERIAL POSITION 
The Director also found that the new office will not support a managerial or executive position within 
one year after the approval of the petition. However, because the issues relating to the Petitioner's 
qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer and the Beneficiary's employment 
abroad in a managerial or executive capacity are dispositive in this case, we need not reach the issue 
of the Petitioner's ability to support a managerial position and therefore reserve it. 
8 
Matter of WAC-, Corp. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. 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 WAC-, Corp., ID# 6058750 (AAO Sept. 27, 2019) 
9