dismissed L-1A Case: Clothing And Textiles

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OFT- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 29, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which describes itself as an importer and wholesaler of clothing and textiles, seeks to 
employ the Beneficiary as president of a "new office" under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification 
for intracompany employees. 1 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(L). This classification allows a business to transfer a qualifying foreign 
employee to the United States to temporarily work in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that, 
contrary to regulations, the Petitioner did not demonstrate its ability to support a managerial or 
executive position within a year of the petition's approval. The Director also found that the 
Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's required employment abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence. It asserts that its foreign parent company 
employed the Beneficiary in an executive capacity and that it already supports him in that capacity in 
the United States. 
The Petitioner has demonstrated the Beneficiary's employment abroad in an executive capacity. 
Upon de nova review, however, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed a beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one continuous year 
within the three years preceding his or her application for U.S. admission. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(i)­
(iv). The beneficiary must also seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his 
or her services to the same employer or its parent, branch, subsidiary or affiliate. Id 
1 The term "new office" means an organization that has been doing business in the United States for less than a year. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F). 
Matter ofT-Inc. 
If a beneficiary will work at a new office, a petitioner must also submit evidence demonstrating that 
the office will support a managerial or executive position within one year of his or her admission. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). The evidence must establish the petitioner's securement of sufficient 
premises to house its operations 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). 
11. DEFINITIONS 
As previously indicated, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary worked for its foreign parent 
company in an executive capacity and that the U.S. entity will also employ him in that capacity. The 
term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization where an employee 
primarily: directs the management of an organization or a major component or function of it; 
establishes the goals and policies of it, its component, or function; exercises wide latitude in 
discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction from its higher­
level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders. Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
Under this definition, the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary will perform the high-level 
responsibilities described in the statute. See Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 
1991) (unpublished table decision). The Petitioner must also prove that the Beneficiary will 
primarily engage in those executive duties, as opposed to day-to-day operational activities. See 
Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d at 1533. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
In the case of an executive at a new office, we review a beneficiary's proposed job duties and a 
petitioner's business and hiring plans. We also consider evidence of whether a petitioner's business 
will grow sufficiently to support the beneficiary in an executive capacity. A petitioner must 
establish that its development within one year of a beneficiary's admission will require him or her to 
primarily perform duties in an executive capacity. Accordingly, we must consider the totality of the 
evidence in analyzing the plausibility of a proposed executive position in light of a petitioner's 
anticipated staffing levels and business development stage. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
A Duties 
The Petitioner states that it will: import clothing and textiles from its parent company in Mexico; 
coordinate clothing and textile contracts between U.S. garment makers and suppliers in Mexico and 
South America; and import and sell women's clothing in the United States under its own brand. The 
Petitioner indicates that, as its president, the Beneficiary will spend 10 percent of his time on each of 
the following duties: 
• Directing the Petitioner's management team to review and verify the required papers needed 
to make sure that the import/export rules and regulations are adhered to; 
2 
Matter ofT-Inc. 
• Overseeing the management team regarding the transfer of products to clients and achieving 
company targets; 
• Overseeing functional operations by directing management teams; 
• Supervising sales representatives and a marketing team, including a trade show team, to 
increase sales; 
• Overseeing the management team in strategizing, planning, and enforcing the company's 
rules regarding import/export activities, including tariffs and licenses; 
• Supervising the internal transfer of products and commodities to verify the management 
team's adherence to rules, regulations, and policies of governing authorities; 
• Overseeing the management team to ensure the accurate transfer of global products within 
allotted time frames; 
• Supervising, overseeing, and enforcing client-specified methods by directing the 
management team for trade safety; 
• Overseeing the accounting team as they prepare the company's financial documents and 
direct the management team to keep the company's resources within budgetary guidelines; 
and 
• Overseeing human resources, such as preparing an employee manual with a legal 
professional. 
These ten job duties virtually match the ten duties stated in experience certificates regarding the 
Beneficiary's role as president of the Petitioner's parent company, which operates a bakery 
shop/restaurant. The two sets of job duties appear to tailor the same duties to the industry of the 
corresponding entity. For example, the Beneficiary's first listed, proposed duty in the United States 
includes "[d]irecting the management team to review and verify the required papers needed to make 
sure that the import/export rules and regulations are adhered to." The experience certificates from 
the parent company list a similar first duty in Mexico: "Directing the management team to review 
and verify the required papers needed to make sure that the rules and regulations of the federal and 
other governmental organizational bodies are adhered to." The record, however, indicates that the 
parent company is more than five years old and employs about 20 people. The Petitioner formed in 
2017 and, as of the appeal's filing, submitted evidence of five employees. The record does not 
explain how, upon transferring to a new office in a different industry, the Beneficiary's job duties 
will remain virtually unchanged. Thus, the similarities between the Beneficiary's job duties in the 
United States and Mexico cast doubt on the accuracy of his proposed duties as the Petitioner's 
president. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii) (requiring a petitioner to submit "a detailed description of 
the services to be performed"). 
B. Projected Staffing and Business Plan 
When examining staffing levels in determining the managerial or executive nature of a position, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) considers the reasonable needs of an organization in 
light of its overall purpose and development stage. Section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act. As previously 
indicated, the statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" refers to an elevated position 
within a complex, organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions, and authority 
3 
Matter ofT-Inc. 
to direct the organization. Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. An executive must be able to "direct 
the management" and "establish the goals and policies" of an organization. An organization 
therefore must have a subordinate level of managerial employees for a beneficiary to direct, and he 
or she must primarily focus on the organization's broad goals and policies, rather than on its day-to­
day operations. Under the statute, individuals are not executives simply because they have executive 
titles or "direct" enterprises as owners or sole managerial employees. 
The Petitioner's business plan indicates that the company anticipates $366,720 in sales during its 
first year of operations. Its proposed organizational chart shows that the Beneficiary will supervise a 
general manager, designer, "sales," and "shipping." In response to the Director's request for 
additional evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted an expanded organizational chart, listing the 
following positions as directly subordinate to the Beneficiary: administration; import manager; 
general manager; senior designer; and sales manager. The chart further indicates that: the general 
manager will eventually supervise shipping and warehouse staff; the senior designer will supervise a 
pattern designer and garment cutters and sewers; and the sales manager will supervise two sales 
staff The chart identifies three employees - the general manager, a shipping employee, and a sales 
staff member - by name. 
The business plan includes a "personnel plan" listing four prospective employees during the 
Petitioner's first five years: its president; an import manager; a sales manager; and "administration." 
The personnel plan does not mention any of the other positions listed on the organizational chart. 
Also, a proforma, profit-and-loss statement in the business plan does not account for any salaries 
during the Petitioner's first year of operations beyond those of the four listed employees. Thus, the 
personnel plan casts doubt on the Petitioner's intention to employ support staff during its first five 
years of operation. In addition, the projected annual wages for the import manager, sales manager, 
and administration are $22,500, $20,500, and $20,000, respectively. Based on a 40-hour work week, 
these amounts fall below the annual minimum wage at the proposed worksite in California. See Cal. 
Dep't of Indus. Relations, "Minimum Wage," https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_ minimumwage.htm 
(last visited Mar. 14, 2019). The business plan therefore indicates that these three employees will 
work limited hours, casting further doubt on whether they would relieve the Beneficiary from 
performing primarily operational or administrative tasks within one year of his admission. 
As previously indicated, as of the appeal's filing, the Petitioner claimed five employees. Their 
positions, however, do not match the Petitioner's personnel plan of hiring an import manager, sales 
manager; and administration. The Petitioner identifies only one of the five employees - the general 
manager - as a manager. Thus, the Petitioner's hiring practices do not indicate that, within one year 
of the Beneficiary's admission, he will supervise enough managerial employees to allow his primary 
focus on the organization's goals and policies. Also, the Petitioner has not demonstrated its regular 
payment of wages to all of its claimed employees. The company's bank account records for May 
and June 2018 include copies of checks it issued to three of its claimed employees. But the record 
lacks evidence of payments to its other two employees, including its purported general manager. See 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies of 
record by independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies). 
4 
Matter ofT-Inc. 
The business plan also does not fully explain the nature and scope of the Petitioner's proposed 
business. As previously indicated, the Petitioner's parent company operates a bakery shop/restaurant 
and will purportedly purchase and ship inventory from Mexico to the Petitioner. The business plan, 
however, does not explain how the Petitioner's parent would select and obtain clothing and textiles 
to send to the United States, or where the parent would store the materials. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it currently supports the Beneficiary in the proposed executive 
position. The Petitioner previously documented its receipt of a $40,000 investment from its parent 
company in October 2017. On appeal, it submits evidence that, by the end of June 2018, it had more 
than $190,000 in a bank account. In a June 2018 letter, the Beneficiary stated that the Petitioner 
"has already managed to operate its business on its own with just the initial investment." He stated 
that the Petitioner will not need additional investments from its parent. 
Contrary to the Beneficiary's claim, however, the record does not establish the Petitioner's business 
operations. The record does not demonstrate the company's receipt of sales revenues. The 
Petitioner submitted copies of seven invoices that a company sent it in April and May of 2018 for 
patterns and samples. But the record lacks evidence of invoices from the Petitioner to customers, or 
sales receipts. The Petitioner's bank account statements show deposits of $200,000 in May 2018 
and $190,082 in June 2018. But the record does not identify the deposits' sources. The assets 
therefore do not establish the Petitioner's business operations. 2 
The Petitioner has consistently stated that the Beneficiary will occupy a senior position in its new 
office. But it has not demonstrated that he will primarily engage in executive duties or that the 
office will be able to support an executive position within one year of his admission. We will 
therefore affirm the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has not demonstrated its ability to 
support the Beneficiary in an executive capacity. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has demonstrated the Beneficiary's employment abroad in an executive capacity. But 
the record does not establish the new office's ability to support him in that capacity within one year 
of his admission. We will therefore affirm the Director's decision for the reason stated above. 
Contrary to section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361, the Petitioner has not met its burden of proof in 
these proceedings. 
2 USCIS records also indicate that, five days before the petition's filing, the Beneficiary told a federal officer that he 
worked for a company other than the Petitioner, cutting and sewing fabrics. The Beneficiary's statement to a federal 
officer casts further doubt on the Petitioner's claimed, current support of the Beneficiary in an executive capacity. See 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591 (stating that doubt cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation 
of the reliability and sufficiency of remaining evidence of record). 
5 
Matter ofT-Inc. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofT-Inc., ID# 2151827 (AAO Mar. 29, 2019)