dismissed L-1A Case: Car Wash

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V-E-U-LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 14, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a car wash and detail center, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as general 
manager of its new office1 under the L-lA 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 record did not 
establish, as required: (1) that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity; and (2) that the new office will support a managerial or executive position within 
one year after the approval of the petition. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner asserts that the evidence of record establishes 
that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity, that the U.S. entity will support 
a managerial position within one year of the petition's approval, and that the Beneficiary therefore 
qualifies for the status of intracompany transferee under the Act. 
Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's finding that the Beneficiary has not been 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity, but affirm his finding that the record does 
not establish that the new office will support a managerial or executive position within one year after 
the approval of the petition. Accordingly, 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 
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 from the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
Matter of V-E-U- LLC 
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 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. DEFINITIONS 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or 
manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Based on the statutory 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 1533. 
III. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has been employed 
abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Beneficiary's 
position abroad, with a retail pharmacy in Brazil, qualifies as primarily managerial. 
When examining the claimed managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we look to the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. Beyond the job duties we also 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. 
On appeal the Petitioner supplements previously submitted evidence, which included a description 
of the Beneficiary's job duties with the foreign entity and an organizational chart of that business, 
with an explanation of how the Beneficiary's job duties incorporate the four elements of managerial 
capacity as defined in section 10l(a)(4)(a) of the Act. Based on the entire record we find that the 
Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Beneficiary is employed 
2 
Matter of V-E-U- LLC 
abroad primarily in a managerial capacity. Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's finding to the 
contrary. 
IV. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Director found that the record did not establish that the new office in the United States would 
support a primarily managerial or executive position within one year of the petition's approval. On 
appeal the Petitioner asserts that the new office will require a full-time managerial employee within 
one year. We therefore restrict our analysis to the managerial nature of the offered position. 
A petitioner seeking to employ a beneficiary as a manager or executive of a new office must 
establish that the new office will support a managerial or executive position within one year of the 
approval of the petition. The Petitioner must establish the nature of the proposed office, describing 
its scope, organizational structure, and financial goals; the size of the United States investment and 
the foreign entity's financial ability to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business 
in the United States; and the foreign entity's organizational structure. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
When a new business is first established and commences operations, the regulations recognize that a 
designated manager or executive responsible for setting up operations will be engaged in a variety of 
low-level activities not normally performed by employees at the managerial or executive level and 
that often the full range of managerial or executive responsibility cannot be performed in that first 
year. The "new office" regulations allow a newly established petitioner one year to develop to a 
point that it can support the employment of a beneficiary in a primarily managerial or executive 
position. 
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). However, the position 
description alone is insufficient to establish that a beneficiary's duties would be primarily in a 
managerial or executive capacity, particularly in the case of a new office petition where much is 
dependent on factors such as a petitioner's business and hiring plans and evidence that the business 
will grow sufficiently to support a beneficiary in the proposed position. 
A. Staffing and Business Plan 
A new office petition must include evidence of the proposed nature of the office, describing the 
scope of the entity, its organizational structure, and its financial goals. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(I). This evidence should demonstrate a realistic expectation that the enterprise 
will succeed and rapidly expand as it moves away from the developmental stage to full operations, 
where there would be an actual need for a manager or executive who will primarily perform 
qualifying duties by the end of the one-year period. See generally 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner is a car wash and detailing service co-owned by the Beneficiary and her husband. 
Documentation in the record shows that the Petitioner was legally formed in October 2016 and that 
the co-owners purchased the property for their business that same month for $180,000, $45,000 of 
3 
Matter of V-E-U- LLC 
which was covered by a mortgage loan. The Petitioner has submitted two business plans, the first in 
October 2017 along with the petition and the second in June 2018 as part of its response to a request 
for evidence (RFE) from the Director. 
The first business plan stated that the co-owners had already invested $180,000 for property 
acquisition, building construction, equipment and supplies, personnel, marketing, and miscellaneous 
operating expenses, and that the car wash would begin operating in 2017. With respect to personnel, 
the business plan states that during Year One the U.S. entity would have six positions on the payroll 
at a total cost of $123,440, including the co-owners for $50,000 ($25,000 apiece), three car washers 
for $60,000 ($20,000 apiece), and one administration/sales employee for $13,440. 
The second business plan stated that the car wash was already operational, apparently since October 
2017 and projected Year One sales figures significantly higher than those figures presented in the 
first business plan, the result of adding sales figures for detailing and tinting services to the 
previously projected sales figures for vehicle (car and truck) washes. With regard to personnel, the 
second business plan states that during Year One the U.S. entity would have five positions on the 
payroll at a total cost of $120,400, including a manager (the Beneficiary) for $43,200, one employee 
of unidentified job title for $25,000, and three employees of unidentified job titles for $17,400 
apiece. This employee listing differs from that in the first business plan insofar as it deleted the 
Petitioner's other co-owner, who was remaining in Brazil and not directly participating in the 
operation of the U.S. entity, did not identify the job titles of the four other employees, and listed 
different dollar amounts for the wage obligations. 
As part of its response to the Director's RFE the Petitioner submitted an organizational chart for the 
U.S. entity that listed seven employees, headed by the two co-owners (including the Beneficiary as 
"Owner, operator"), an office manager directly subordinate to the Beneficiary, and three car wash 
techs and a tinting tech subordinate to the office manager. This organizational chart included more 
employees than either business plan, and the Petitioner has not explained or reconciled these 
differences. 2 
The job duties of the U.S. entity's employees, aside from the Beneficiary, are not specifically 
described in the record. It is clear from their job titles and the nature of the Petitioner's business, 
however, that the car wash techs and the tinting tech perform the daily operational tasks of the 
business. The office manager listed in the organizational chart may be the same position as the 
administration/sales employee identified in the first business plan, but the lack of any job 
descriptions makes it impossible to determine whether the job titles apply to one and the same 
position. The lack of a job description for the office manager and/or administration/sales position 
also prevents us from determining this position's role in the business and what the position's 
responsibilities are, specifically whether it includes any supervisory or managerial duties. The lack 
2 It is incumbent upon a petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. 
Attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice without competent evidence pointing to where the 
truth lies. See Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's 
evidence also reflects on the reliability of the petitioner's remaining evidence. See id. 
4 
Matter of V-E-U- LLC 
of a job description also prohibits us from analyzing how this pos1t10n would support the 
Beneficiary's position, if at all, and whether it would relieve the Beneficiary of having to perform 
the ordinary operational duties of the business within one year of approval. 
Moreover, there is no evidence that the car wash techs, the tinting tech, and the office manager 
and/or the administration/sales employee are supervisory, professional, or managerial employees 
within the meaning of section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, there is no evidence that 
the Beneficiary, as general manager, supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, 
professional, or managerial employees, as required to meet the statutory definition of acting in a 
"managerial capacity." 3 Rather, the Beneficiary's duties appear to be those of a first-line 
supervisor. 4 The statute specifically provides that "[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 10l(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. A profession is any 
occupation whose minimum educational requirement is a U.S. baccalaureate or foreign equivalent 
degree. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). A professional is an individual who holds a U.S. baccalaureate 
or a foreign equivalent degree and works in a professional occupation. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2). 
Car wash techs, tinting techs, office managers, and administration/sales jobs are not professions, and 
the Petitioner's employees in those positions are not professionals. Since the Beneficiary does not 
supervise any professional employees, nor any supervisory or managerial personnel as far as the 
record shows, she does not meet the definition of acting in a "managerial capacity' under section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
On appeal the Petitioner concedes that the car wash business, standing alone, does not require a 
managerial employee within the meaning of the Act and its implementing regulations. But it asserts 
that it has plans to expand its business into a chain of car washes and/or other retail operations which 
will have the scope, organizational structure, and financial goals to support a foll-time managerial 
employee. No such expansion proposal is incorporated in the Petitioner's business plans, and there 
is no evidence thereof elsewhere in the record. Thus, the Petitioner has not demonstrated its need for 
a "managerial capacity" employee based on the establishment of additional car washes and/or other 
retail businesses within a year of the petition's approval. The new office regulations are premised 
on the understanding that a new company will progress to a stage of development that will support a 
beneficiary in a primarily managerial or executive capacity within one year. Given the inconsistent 
and deficient information provided regarding the staffing of the business, the record does not 
demonstrate that the business as described would have sufficient staff to support a managerial 
employee within a year of approval. 
3 The statute provides that "managerial capacity" may also be exercised by individuals who manage an "essential 
function" within an organization. Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The Petitioner has not claimed or described any 
"essential function" in its car wash business, however, nor asse1ied that the Beneficiary is managing an essential 
function. 
4 Although the organizational chart submitted with the RFE shows the office manager above the car wash and tinting 
techs, the record does not demonstrate that the office manager position actually has any supervisory or managerial duties. 
The lack of a job description, in conjunction with the inconsistent title of this claimed position, preclude a finding that it 
is supervisory or managerial in nature. 
5 
Matter of V-E-U- LLC 
B. Duties 
When examining the managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, in addition to the staffing and 
structure of the organization as discussed above, we will look to the petitioner's description of the 
job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). In a letter submitted with its original filing the Petitioner 
described the duties of its general manager as follows: 
[The Beneficiary] will be responsible for planning, directing and coordinating all 
operations of the carwash business including its marketing and sales activities. She 
will be charged with formulating policies and managing the carwash in all areas 
(marketing, sales and operations), planning the use of materials, finances and human 
resources. More specifically she will be responsible for reviewing the company's 
financial statements, sales, marketing and activity reports and other performance data 
to measure productivity or goal achievement, and to identify areas needing cost 
reduction or program improvement; she will direct and coordinate activities of the 
carwash production, pricing and sales, and direct the carwash personnel and prepare 
staff work schedules and assign specific duties; she will also direct and manage 
independent contractors in all areas related to the construction, maintenance and 
operation of the carwash; she will also monitor suppliers to ensure that they 
efficiently and effectively provide needed goods within budgetary limits. 
In denying the petition the Director cited the Petitioner's organizational chart and stated that it did 
not appear the U.S. entity would have an organizational structure sufficient to elevate the 
Beneficiary to a position that is primarily executive or managerial, and relieve her from non­
qualifying duties, within one year of the petition's approval. The Director discussed the lack of 
managerial and professional positions subordinate to the Beneficiary and concluded that the 
Beneficiary would not be employed in a primarily managerial capacity within the requisite year. 
The Petitioner has submitted no further evidence on appeal to address the Director's findings. 
The fact that the Beneficiary will direct or manage a business as its co-owner and senior employee 
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. In order for us to find that 
the Beneficiary is, or wi 11 be, a personnel manager, as argued here, the Petitioner must demonstrate 
that the Beneficiary will primarily perform managerial duties, including supervising and controlling 
the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, rather than on the day-to-day 
tasks of running the business. 
The Beneficiary's job duties, as described by the Petitioner, do not demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
would be primarily engaged in managerial duties, as required by section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
As noted, there is no evidence that any of the employees subordinate to the Beneficiary is a 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employee; rather the Beneficiary would serve as a first-line 
supervisor of non-professionals. A first-line supervisor of non-professionals is not considered to be 
acting in a managerial capacity. Therefore, the Beneficiary's duties of directing the carwash 
6 
Matter of V-E-U- LLC 
personnel and directing independent contractors in all areas related to the construction, maintenance 
and operation of the carwash are non-qualifying duties. 
The Petitioner has also not shown how the Beneficiary would perform other claimed duties, given 
the nature of its staff The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will be responsible for "planning, 
directing and coordinating all operations of the carwash business including its marketing and sales 
activities," and "be charged with formulating policies and managing the carwash in all areas 
(marketing, sales and operations), planning the use of materials, finances and human resources," as 
well as "be responsible for reviewing the company's financial statements, sales, marketing and 
activity reports and other performance data to measure productivity or goal achievement, and to 
identify areas needing cost reduction or program improvement." However, the Petitioner has not 
identified any personnel that would actually perform the human resources, sales, marketing, 
operations, and financial tasks associated with running the business. Without personnel to actually 
perform these non-qualifying operational duties, it is not clear how the Beneficiary would be 
primarily spending her time directing and coordinating, rather than performing, these tasks. Thus, 
the job duties described above do not appear credible given the Petitioner's staffing. 
A petitioner has the burden to establish that it would realistically develop to the point where it would 
require the beneficiary to perform duties that are primarily managerial in nature within one year of 
the petition's approval. The totality of the evidence must be considered in determining whether the 
new U.S. operation will support a primarily managerial position within the requisite year, including 
such factors as the nature of the business, the scope of its activities, and its organizational structure. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). While the record indicates that the Petitioner's business is up and 
running with adequate financing from its foreign affiliate, the Petitioner has not established that its 
U.S. operation - a car wash and vehicle detailing business with four or five employees subordinate 
to the Beneficiary who perform the daily operational tasks of the business - will support a position 
with managerial capacity duties no later than one year after the petition's approval. The Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the size, scope, and nature of the U.S. business warrant a position with 
primarily managerial duties as defined in section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act within one year of 
approval. 
V. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the new office in the United 
States will support a managerial position within one year after the approval of the petition. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reason. In visa 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 ofV-E-U-LLC, ID# 3351681 (AAO June 14, 2019) 
7