dismissed L-1A Case: Cleaning Services

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 03 240 50144 Office: CAJXORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: &@ (1 3 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 240 50144 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
According to the documentary evidence contained in the record, the petitioner was established in 1997 and 
claims to be a cleaning products manufacturing and distribution company. The petitioner claims to be an 
affiliate of Safisa Servicios Inmobiliarios, located in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The petitioner's previous 
petition was approved allowing the beneficiary to enter the United States in an L-1A classification. The 
petitioner now seeks to extend its authorization to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as 
its quality control manager for three years, at an annual salary of $42,000.00. The director determined that 
the petitioner had failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary would be employed by 
the U.S. entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel disagrees with the director's determination and asserts that the beneficiary's duties have 
been and will be managerial or executive in nature. 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(15)(L), the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary, within three years preceding 
the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving specialized knowledge, for one continuous year 
by a qualifying organization, and seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render 
his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof, in a capacity that is managerial, 
executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(l)(ii) states, in part: 
Intracompany transferee means an alien who, within three years preceding the time of his or 
her application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad continuously 
for one year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or parent, branch, affiliate, or 
subsidiary thereof, and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to render his 
or her services to a branch of the same employer or a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary thereof in 
a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the 
alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
WAC 03 240 50144 
Page 3 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies hirnlher to perform the intended 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
The tenn "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily- 
(1) Manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the organization; 
(ii) Supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the 
organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) If another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the 
authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel 
actions (such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no other 
employee is directly supervised, functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and 
(iv) Exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or 
function for which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is 
not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of 
the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are 
professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily- 
6) Directs the management of the organization or a major component or 
function of the organization; 
(ii) Establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or 
function; 
(iii) Exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) Receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
Section 10 l(a)(44)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(44)(C), provides: 
WAC 03 240 50144 
Page 4 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a 
managerial or executive capacity, the Attorney General shall take into account the reasonable 
needs of the organization, component, or fkction in light of the overall purpose and stage of 
development of the organization, component, or function. An individual shall not be considered 
to be acting in a managerial or executive capacity (as previously defined) merely on the basis of 
the number of employees that the individual supervises or has supervised or directs or has 
directed. - 
The petitioner initially described the beneficiary's job duties as: 
[The beneficiary] [is] in charge of property quality control with the US company . .. [The 
beneficiary] will continue to cany similar responsibilities and oversee all quality control on 
services performed by the employees. She also designs maintenance manuals, procedures 
and logistics for company. [The beneficiary] [has a] long history in personnel management 
and service industry, experience in supervising quality control, handling international 
contracts, and extensive experience in operations and management. 
In a letter dated July 25, 2003, the petitioner described the beneficiary's duties as: 
The job position which [the beneficiary] will continue holding entails the function in a 
managerial capacity above two supervisors and many personnel. She will maintain her 
supervisory authority on over 6 employees of CDL. Further, the nature of the job itself will 
clearly demand her active involvement in the company's overall policy malung related to the 
allocation and distribution of manpower to the scheduled cleaning services as well as special 
projects. 
In a letter dated April 16,2003, the petitioner described the beneficiary's duties as: 
A. To inspect work sites and advice [sic] as to required man hours to accomplish specific 
work to be done. Look at type of flooring and recommend type of coating to be used, 
procedures to be followed, amount of man hours needed and equipment to be utilized . . . . 
Percentage of workday: 50% - 
B. To provide with operations cost analysis as they refer materials and 
tasks .. .. [The beneficiary] reports total figures as it 
relates to each specific job: total dollars to be utilized for man hours, materials, 
equipment, tools and transportation. Percentage of workday: 10% 
C. To confer with supervisor in scheduling each specific job. Once [the beneficiary] 
determines amount of material, man-hours and equipment [the beneficiary] coordinates 
with supervisor so that job is scheduled and all logistics provided, equipment and 
supplies provided. Percentage of workday: 20% 
D. To report to office in Argentina matter of general accounting. Makes available to home 
office a Performa evaluation for every job so that the home office in Argentina is well 
informed as to profitability of every job performed. Percentage of workday: 10% 
E. Miscellaneous office work. Turns in payroll reports, general expense reports, equipment 
status reports, transportation reports, etc. Percentage of workday: 10% 
WAC 03 240 50144 
Page 5 
NOTES: [The beneficiary] is an expert on floor coating and procedures particularly as it 
relates to certain types of imported marbles used in show rooms in shopping malls, car 
dealers and lobbies. 
The petitioner submitted as evidence, copies of the U.S. entity's payroll records and IRS Form 1120, U.S. 
Corporation Income Tax Return for 2001 in which it is indicated that the petitioning entity is a "cleaning 
service." 
In the request for evidence, dated November 4,2003, the director requested in part: 
U.S. Company's Organizational Chart: Submit a copy of the U.S. company's line and 
block organizational chart describing its managerial hierarchy and staffing levels. The 
chart should include the current names of all executives, managers, supervisors, and 
number of employees within each department or subdivision. Clearly identify the 
beneficiary's position in the chart and list all employees under the beneficiary's 
supervision by name and job title. Also, include a brief description of job duties, 
educational level and annual salaries for all employees under the beneficiary's 
supervision. 
Form DE-6, Quarterly Wage Report 
Form 94 1, Quarterly Wage Report 
Federal Income Taxes 
State Income Taxes 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an organizational chart and a 
description of the U.S. entity's employee job descriptions to include: 
OperationsPolicy Manager: Pr[o]cedures and general work 
, safety and compliance. Education: high school, 2 years trade 
Operations Supervisor: Scheduling. Education: Bachelors 
Degree, Art and Interior Design. Annual salary $32,400.00. 
Service Technician: Marble flooring. Education: high school. 
Service Technician: Carpet Specialist. Education: high school. 
ervice Technician: Floor coatings. Education: high school. 
ervice Technician: General help. Education: high school. 
Semce Technician: General help. Education: high school. 
The petitioner submitted copies of the U.S. entity's Form DE-6, and Form 941, Quarterly Wage Report, for 
the quarters ending March 31, 2003, June 30, 2003, and September 30, 2003. The petitioner also submitted 
copies of the U.S. entity's federal and state income tax returns for 2002. 
WAC 03 240 50144 
Page 6 
The director determined that the beneficiary would be a supervisor, supervising slulled and semi-slulled 
contractor workers rather than performing managerial or executive duties. The director stated that although 
the petitioner listed thirteen U.S. entity employees in its organizational chart, five which were listed as 
corporate officers, the company's IRS Form 1120 for 2002 showed that none of the officers had been 
compensated in that year. The director further stated that the other eight employees were also contractors 
since the entity's Form 1120 did not demonstrate that any salaries or wages had been paid in 2002. The 
director stated that with the number of managerial and executive staff and the fact that the organization has no 
salaried employees, it was questionable as to whether the officers andfor the beneficiary engaged in primarily 
managerial or executive duties. The director concluded by stating that with the current executive staff, the 
petitioner had failed to demonstrate the need to fill another position involving primarily managerial or 
executive responsibilities. 
On appeal, counsel argues that a mistake was made in the preparation of the U.S. entity's organizational chart 
submitted in response to the director's request for evidence. Counsel argues that managerial and officer's 
positions within the foreign entity were intertwined with that of the U.S. entity because the beneficiary reports 
directly to the foreign entity the progress being made by the U.S. organization. On appeal, the petitioner 
submits a revised organizational chart and IRS Form 1120 for 2003 as evidence. The organizational chart 
depicts Luis Salazar as company CEO, Jorge Podboj as marketing manager, and the beneficiary as service 
manager with Miguel Martinez as service dispatcher, and seven semi-skilled workers under her direction. 
Counsel's argument is not persuasive. When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the 
beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the petitioner's description of the job duties. See 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 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 either in an executive or managerial 
capacity. Id. The actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The definitions of 
executive and managerial capacity have two parts. First, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary 
performs the high-level responsibilities that are specified in the definitions. Second, the petitioner must prove 
that the beneficiaryprimarily performs these specified responsibilities and does not spend a majority of his or 
her time on day-to-day functions. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 
(9th Cir. July 30, 1991). The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary is employed by the U.S. entity in a 
managerial capacity in that she spends 50 percent of her time inspecting work sites and advising potential 
clients of the man-hours and materials needed to complete the cleaning assignments. The petitioner also 
asserts that the beneficiary spends 20 percent of her time coordinating work assignments with supervisors. It 
appears from the record that the beneficiary spends more than half her time performing non-managerial 
duties. The evidence demonstrates that the beneficiary will, at best, continue to supervise shlled and semi- 
skilled contract workers and continue to perform non-qualifying day-to-day business activities associated with 
operating a cleaning company rather than performing the high-level responsibilities of a manager or 
executive. Further, it does not appear that the U.S. entity has reached a level of complexity sufficient to 
support a managerial or executive position. 
On review, the petitioner has provided a vague and nonspecific description of the beneficiary's duties that 
fails to demonstrate what the beneficiary does on a day-to-day basis. For example, the petitioner states that 
the beneficiary's duties include establishing policies and supervising quality control. The petitioner did not, 
however, define the policies, or clarify the quality control procedure. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). Specifics are clearly an 
WAC 03 240 50144 
Page 7 
important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature, 
otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ard, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
In addition, the petitioner describes the beneficiary as being involved in the negotiating process, marketing the 
petitioner's product, preparing business reports, accounting, and scheduling. Since the beneficiary actually 
performs administrative work, sells the product, negotiates the contracts, and markets the petitioner's product, 
she is performing tasks necessary to provide a service or product and these duties will not be considered 
managerial or executive in nature. An employee who primarily perforiiis the taslts necessary to produce a 
product or to provide services is not considered to be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. Matter 
of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593,604 (Comm. 1988). 
Although the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary is managing a subordinate staff, the record does not 
establish that the subordinate staff is composed of supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. See 
section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. A first-line supervisor will not be considered to be acting in a 
managerial capacity merely by virtue of his or her supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are 
professional. Section 101(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. Because the beneficiary is primarily supervising a staff of 
non-professional employees, the beneficiary cannot be deemed to be primarily acting in a managerial 
capacity. For this reason, the petition may not be approved. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligbility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.