dismissed L-1A Case: Car Rental

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-R-A- INC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 9. 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a car rental company, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary employment as its 
vice president under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 1 See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(I5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(I5)(L). The 
L-1 A classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to 
transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to work temporarily in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition. concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity under the 
extended petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary oversees a supervisory subordinate who 
relieves him from primarily performing non-qualifying operational duties. The Petitioner contends 
that the Beneficiary will act in as a qualifying executive under the extended petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification for a new office. 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 IOI(a)(IS)(L) of the Act. 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. !d. 
1 
The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
May 24,2016, to May 23, 2017. A ·•new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United States 
through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F). The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office'' operation one year within the date of approval of the petition to 
support an executive or managerial position. 
Matter of M-R-A- Inc 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-1 A petition that involved a new otlice must submit a statement 
of the beneficiary's duties during the previous year and under the extended petition: a statement 
describing the staffing of the new operation and evidence of the numbers and types of positions held: 
evidence of its financial status; evidence that it has been doing business for the previous year; and 
evidence that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii). 
The statute defines an "executive capacity" 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: 
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 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) takes into account the 
reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the 
organization. See section 1 01 (a)( 44 )(C) of the Act. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The first issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary would at 
in an executive capacity under the extended petition. The Petitioner does not claim that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to 
whether the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary has supervisory or professional subordinates. The Director emphasized that the 
Petitioner employed only two individuals subordinate to the Beneficiary, neither of whom were 
shown to perform managerial duties. The Director also determined that the duties of the 
Beneficiary's subordinates were not reflective of professional level employees. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary primarily performs executive level duties 
focusing on securing financing to expand the company's rental car fleet and acquiring business 
partners. The Petitioner states that the operational tasks of the business are handled by a fleet 
manager subordinate the Beneficiary. The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary will act as an 
executive under the extended petition. 
When examining the executive capacity of the Beneficiary, we will review the Petitioner's 
description of the job duties. The Petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly describe the 
duties to be performed by the Beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in an executive 
capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description of the job duties, USC IS 
examines the claimed executive capacity of a beneficiary, including the company's organizational 
structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to 
2 
Matter of M-R-A-Jnc 
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 business and its staffing levels. 
A. Duties 
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 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 1533. 
The Petitioner stated that it was established in the United States to operate a rental car business 
focusing on Brazilian tourists visiting central Florida. The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary's 
primary responsibility under the extended petition would be to expand the Petitioner's rental car 
fleet. The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary would be tasked with developing ''management 
staff," identifying and promoting "growth opportunities,'' implementing "company policies around 
recruiting, staffing, training and account management," and working "with management to address 
issues creating barriers to company growth." The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary was 
responsible for supervising "all aspects of the management team," searching for ·'sources of 
financing," identifying ''new business opportunities" and participating in "new business pitches." 
Further, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary would be tasked with expanding "existing 
accounts," maintaining "commercial connections,·· developing and conducting ''trainings,·· training 
and educating "management to apply customer service standards and practices," creating and 
implementing ''strategic marketing plans,,. creating and implementing ·'financial and marketing 
goals,·· and creating and maintaining "budgets." 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides an additional duty description for the Beneficiary indicating that 
the Beneficiary would be devoted to representing the company in ·'legal or extra judicial 
proceedings," negotiating "business contracts," implementing a "process of internal procedures'' and 
"quality assurance policy and protocols," acquiring "fleet vehicles,'' "hiring and terminating 
employees," assigning goals and objectives to company personnel. guiding "company expansion." 
setting "marketing, sales, business development and financial goals,'' reviewing "financial 
statements." identifying "areas of improvement,'' and supervising "educational. Infonnation 
Technology, accounting and financial departments," The Petitioner also submits a hourly 
breakdown of the Beneficiary's typical daily work week indicating that he devotes a significant 
portion of his day meeting with "potential clients," a "marketing contractor." '·financing partners.'' 
"staff." "suppliers:· "business partners," and contacts in the community. In addition. the daily work 
schedule also reflected that the Beneficiary follows up on ongoing projects. visits with financial 
partners. and deals with "solving and pending matters." 
3 
Matter of M-R-A- Inc 
The Petitioner has submitted a vague duty description for the Beneficiary that does not convey his 
actual day-to-day tasks or establish that he would devote his time primarily to executive duties. The 
Beneficiary's duty description includes several general duties that could apply to any executive 
acting in any business or industry and they do not provide insight into the actual nature of his role. 
The Petitioner provided few examples and little supporting documentation to demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's performance of his stated duties, such as growth opportunities he promotes. company 
policies he has implemented, growth issues he has addressed, sources of financing he has sought. 
new business opportunities he is exploring, trainings he has developed, customer service practices he 
has applied, strategic marketing plans he has put in place. budgets he has set, contracts he has 
negotiated, quality assurance policies and protocols he has established, goals and objectives he has 
set, or areas of improvement he has identified. 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 .. Lid. v. Sava, 
724F.Supp.1103, 1108(E.D.N.Y.1989),affd,905F.2d41 (2d.Cir.1990). 
In the Beneficiary's weekly schedule, the Petitioner indicated that he meets with several different 
persons throughout the week, including marketing contractors, financing partners. potential clients. 
suppliers, business partners, and community contacts. The Petitioner does not articulate any 
examples of these parties nor submitted supporting documentation to substantiate these relationships. 
In fact, in apparent contradiction, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary would supervise 
"educational, Information Technology, accounting and financial departments," despite these 
departments not being included in the submitted organizational charts or the company's hiring plans. 
The Petitioner also emphasizes the Beneficiary's responsibility for hiring employees and references 
his regular interaction with a "management team.'' However, the Petitioner does not articulate any 
additional hiring plans during the first two years of operation and it has not substantiated that it has. 
or will have, a management team. Indeed the most specific duty referenced in the Beneficiary's duty 
descriptions is his responsibility to expand the company's "f1eet" of rental cars. an apparent non­
qualifying operational duty which would be delegated by an executive level employee. 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the organization, the fact that he will 
manage or direct a business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an 
intracompany transferee in an 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'" 
executive or managerial in nature. Sections 101 (A)( 44 )(A) and (B) of the Act. The Beneficiary may 
exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of 
authority with respect to discretionary decision-making; however, the position descriptions alone are 
insufficient to establish that his actual duties would be primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
B. Staffing 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner submitted an organizational chart indicating that the 
Beneficiary supervised an "operational staff' employee and an "administrative staff' employee. The 
Petitioner provided a "personnel plan" specific to its first five years of operation indicating that it 
4 
Matter of M-R-A-lnc 
only planned to employ the Beneficiary and its two other current employees during its first two years 
of operation. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a second 
organizational chart indicating that the Beneficiary oversaw a fleet manager who in turn supervised 
an operational employee. The Petitioner also provided duties for these employees, indicating that 
the fleet manager was responsible for "supervising operations services," greeting customers. 
recovering items left in rental cars, providing accurate receipts to customers. inquiring as to 
customer satisfaction, checking returned vehicles for damage, managing the recall and scheduled 
maintenance of rental vehicles, fulfilling scheduled reservations, and keeping the rental car lot 
organized. Meanwhile, the Petitioner stated that the operations services employee was tasked with 
vacuuming and prepping rental cars, shuttling cars to car washes and dealerships. cleaning the 
vehicles, managing vehicle fluids, performing basic maintenance on the vehicles, verifying 
registration and plates, and delivering rentals to customers. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the fleet manager oversees the operations level employee 
thereby qualifying him as a manager and making the Beneficiary a supervisor of other managers. 
The Petitioner provides an updated duty description emphasizing the fleet manager's supervision of 
"operations services employees," including directing them to clean and prepare vehicles and 
instructing them on repairs and organization of the vehicle lot. 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has sufficient operational. 
managerial, and professional staff to allow the Beneficiary to act in an executive capacity. The 
statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person· s elevated position within a 
complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the organization, and 
that person's authority to direct the organization. Section IOI(a)(44)(B) of the Act. Under the 
statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" and ''establish the goals and 
policies" of that organization. Inherent to the definition, the organization must have a subordinate 
level of managerial employees for a beneficiary to direct and they must primarily focus on the broad 
goals and policies of the organization rather than the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. An 
individual will not be deemed an executive under the statute simply because they have an executive 
title or because they ''direct" the enterprise as the owner or sole managerial employee. A beneficiary 
must also exercise ·'wide latitude in discretionary decision making'' and receive only "general 
supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the 
organization." I d. 
As noted by the Director, an executive employee must have authority over day-to-day operations 
beyond the level normally vested in a first-line supervisor, unless the supervised employees are 
professionals. Mauer of Church Scientology Int '!, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm'r 1988). 
The Petitioner has not credibly established that the Beneficiary supervises a subordinate level of 
managerial employees that relieve him from primarily performing non-qualifying operational level 
tasks. First, as we discussed previously in this decision, the Petitioner has articulated and 
5 
Matter of M-R-A- Inc 
documented few executive level duties for the Beneficiary. The duties of the Beneficiary"s asse11ed 
managerial subordinate also do not indicate that he acts in a managerial capacity. It is noteworthy 
that the Petitioner originally indicated that the fleet manager and operational employee both reported 
directly to the Beneficiary; however, later it modified the record to reflect that the fleet manager 
supervised the operational employee. Now on appeal the Petitioner modi ties the duties of the fleet 
manager to emphasize his supervision of the operational employee. As such. the Petitioner's 
contention that the Beneficiary spends significant time directing managerial subordinates is left 
questionable. Further, it has provided no documentary evidence of the Beneficiary, or his claimed 
managerial subordinate, delegating tasks to subordinates. 
In addition, discrepancies in provided payroll documentation when compared to employer's 
quarterly tax documentation leave question as to the asserted employment of the Beneficiary's 
claimed fleet manager and operational subordinate. In support of the petition, the Petitioner 
submitted a "payroll summary" covering January through May 19, 2017. This document reflected 
that the claimed fleet manager earned $1 ,524, and the operational employee $1 ,3 70, during the 
second quarter of 2017. However, later in response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided a Florida 
Employer's Quarterly Report for the second quarter of 2017 indicating that the fleet manager had 
earned only $1,188 and the operational employee $1,070 during the second quarter of 2017. The 
Petitioner does not address this discrepancy, and it leaves question as to the asserted employment of 
the Beneficiary's asserted managerial and operational subordinates. Indeed. the Petitioner's state 
employer's quarterly report from the second quarter of 2017, corresponding with the petition, 
indicates that the fleet manager, an asserted supervisor, earned only $118 more than his claimed 
subordinate. The Petitioner must resolve discrepancies in the record with independent. objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582. 591-92 (BIA 1988). In 
sum, the submitted evidence does not indicate that the Beneficiary oversees a subordinate level of 
managerial employees allowing for him to primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the 
organization rather than the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. 
Moreover, the provided evidence does not indicate that the Petitioner was sufficiently operational as 
of the date of the petition to support the Beneficiary in an executive capacity. The Petitioner 
correctly observes that we must take into account the reasonable needs of the organization and that a 
company's size alone may not be the only factor in denying a visa petition for classification as a 
multinational executive. See section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. However. it is appropriate for users 
to consider the size of the petitioning company in conjunction with other relevant factors. such as the 
absence of employees who would perform the non-executive operations of the company or a 
company that does not conduct business in a regular and continuous manner. Family Inc. v. USC!.'-.', 
469 F.3d 1313 (9th eir. 2006); Systronics Corp. v. INS. 153 F. Supp. 2d 7. 15 (D.D.e. 2001). The 
size of a company may be especially relevant when USers notes discrepancies in the record. See 
Systronics, 153 F. Supp. 2d at 15. 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it is sut1iciently operational 
to support the Beneficiary in an executive capacity. First, as we have covered. the Petitioner only 
employs two operational subordinates with duties reflecting that they are exclusively devoted to the 
Matter of M-R-A-Inc 
tasks of renting vehicles, including prepping them for rental, maintaining them, dealing with daily 
customer service, and other similar duties. However, there is little indication that these employees 
are primarily relieving the Beneficiary from the non-qualifying operational aspects of the business. 
Indeed, the Petitioner states directly that the Beneficiary's primary responsibility would be to expand 
the vehicle inventory of the company an apparent non-qualifying operational level task likely 
including shopping around for cars and handling other transactional matter related thereto. 
Otherwise, the Petitioner provides no specific examples or documentation indicating that the 
Beneficiary is primarily performing qualifying executive level tasks related to directing the 
management of the organization and setting its goals and policies. 
In fact, the Petitioner provides little evidence specific to its operations and the evidence does not 
demonstrate that it has developed sufficiently to support the Beneficiary in an executive level 
capacity. For instance, the Petitioner states that it business is struggling that that its business plans 
have "crumbled" due to an economic downturn in Brazil. The Petitioner provides no statements or 
financials indicating the state of the company or the revenue it has earned as of the date of the 
petition. Indeed, the provided payroll and state employer's tax documentation indicates that the 
Petitioner is not paying the Beneficiary's over $75,000 salary. Further. the Petitioner's business 
plans reflects that it only plans on hiring the two asserted subordinates already reflected in its current 
organizational chart during the first two years. Therefore, on whole, the provided evidence does not 
establish that the Petitioner developed sufficiently during the first year to support the Beneficiary in 
a qualifying executive capacity. 
Here, even though the Beneficiary has the appropriate level of authority, the Petitioner has not 
established that, as of the date of filing, he was primarily concerned with the broad policies and 
goals of the organization, that the day-to-day management rested with a subordinate tier of 
management, or that he would be relieved from substantial involvement in the day-to-day operations 
of the business. As discussed, the Petitioner did not consistently or sufficiently describe the 
Beneficiary's duties and we cannot determine that his role would primarily involve executive-level 
tasks. Further, the evidence indicates that the Beneficiary will be substantially involved in the 
operational matters of the business and it has submitted little evidence to indicate that he will 
delegate operational tasks to subordinates. In addition, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
Beneficiary has managerial or professional subordinates as of the date of the petition, or that his 
claimed subordinates would primarily relieve him from performing non-qualifying operational 
duties. As such, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would act in a qualifying 
executive capacity. For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
III. DOING BUSINESS 
Beyond the decision of the Director, we find that the Petitioner has also not demonstrated that it is 
doing business as required by the regulations. When a petition indicates that a beneficiary is coming 
to the United States to open a "new office," the petitioner must show that it is ready to commence 
doing business immediately upon approval. At the time of filing the petition to open a "new office," 
a petitioner must demonstrate that it has acquired sufficient physical premises to commence 
7 
Matter(){ M-R-A- Inc 
business, that it has the financial ability to commence doing business in the United States. and that it 
will support the beneficiary in a managerial or executive position within one year of approval. See 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). If approved, a beneficiary is granted a one-year period of stay to open the 
"new office." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(7)(i)(A)(3). At the end of the one-year period, when a petitioner 
seeks an extension of the "new office" petition. the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)( 14 )(ii)(B) 
requires a petitioner to demonstrate that it has been doing business "for the previous year" through 
the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods or services. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(H) (defining the term "doing business''). The mere presence of an agent or office of 
the qualifying organization will not suffice. !d. 
As we have discussed in the previous section, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to 
indicate that the Petitioner was regularly, systematically. and continuously providing goods or 
services as of the date of the petition. Although the Petitioner has provided what appear to be rental 
contracts for vehicles executed during the first year, it has not substantiated its revenue, financials. 
and ongoing operation. The provided evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner 
was systematically providing goods and services as of the date of the petition for extension. For this 
additional reason. the petition is not approvable. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed as the Petitioner did not establish that it will employ the Beneficiary 
in a managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition or that it was doing business. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o{M-R-A-Inc, ID# 913471 (AAO Jan. 9. 2018) 
8