dismissed L-1A Case: Coffee Importing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 15324039 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 3, 2021 
The Petitioner, a coffee bean importer, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as "General 
Manager" of its new office I under the L-lA nonirnmigrant classification for intracompany transferees . 
See 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's employer abroad. 
The matter is before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonirnmigrant 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 
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). 
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(l)(l)(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. 
II. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The primarily issue in this matter 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). 
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'!, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (Comm'r 1988); Matter o_f Siemens Med. 
Sys., Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (Comm'r 1986); Matter o_f 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'!, 19 
I&N Dec. at 595. 
The Petitioner in this matter provided information in the L Classification Supplement to Form I-129 
listing! las the Beneficiary's foreign employer and stating that the Petitioner is 
related to the foreign entity as its subsidiary based on the foreign entity's "100% ownership and 100% 
control" of the Petitioner. 2 As supporting evidence, the Petitioner provided an operating agreement 
which referenced "Exhibit A" as an addendum containing the Petitioner's ownership breakdown. 
Although no explanation was offered, the Petitioner provided two iterations of this exhibit, both 
iterations containing the same title, date of execution, and the Beneficiary's signature as "Manager"; 
both iterations also listl land the Beneficiary as the Petitioner's owners, owning 53% 
and 47% of its membership units, respectively. By naming two parties with ownership interests in the 
Petitioner, the addendum directly contradicts the L Classification Supplement, which states that the 
Petitioner is wholly owned and entirely controlled by the foreign entity. 3 
Further, despite containing identical ownership breakdowns, the two iterations of Exhibit A are 
inconsistent in their designation of the Beneficiary's ownership interest as voting or non-voting. 
Although both iterations of the addendum designatd Is units as voting, the same is 
not true of the Beneficiary's ownership, which one iteration describes as voting, while the other 
iteration shows as non-voting. Thus, not only did the Petitioner provide addendum exhibits that 
contradict the claim thau I has "100% ownership and 100% control" of its membership 
units, but it also provided two inconsistent versions of the same exhibit, thereby precluding a 
determination as to whether or not the Beneficiary's ownership includes voting rights, which in turn 
2 The term "subsidiary" is defined as a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent owns more than half of the 
entity, owns half and controls the entity, owns half of a 50-50 joint venture and has equal control and veto power, or owns 
less than half but in fact controls the entity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(K). 
3 The record also contains evidence showing that the Beneficiary has a 15% ownership interest in the foreign entity, thereby 
indicating that she derives an 8% indirect ownership interest in the Petitioner. Adding the 8% to the 47% ownership 
depicted in both iterations of Exhibit A would result in a 55% ownership interest, thereby making the Beneficiary majority 
owner of the Petitioner. 
2 
precludes a determination as to who actually controls the U.S. entity. In a parent-subsidiary 
relationship, the Petitioner would have to establish that the foreign entity has ownership and control 
of its membership units. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(K). The unresolved inconsistencies described 
herein undermine the validity of the Petitioner's claims and supporting evidence regarding its 
ownership and control. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Given the deficiencies described above, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner is owned and controlled 
by the foreign entity as in a parent-subsidiary relationship or that the two entities are owned and 
controlled by the same individual as affiliates. 4 
III. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAP A CITY 
In addition, although not discussed in the Director's decision, the record lacks sufficient evidence 
showing that the Beneficiary's position abroad was in a managerial capacity and that the Beneficiary 
would, within one year of the petition's approval, perform primarily managerial job duties in her 
position as the Petitioner's general manager. 
To be eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, the Petitioner must show that 
the Beneficiary performed and will perform the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory 
definition at section 101(a)(44)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act. If the record does not establish that the foreign 
position meets all four of these elements, we cannot conclude that it is a qualifying managerial 
position. 
If the Petitioner establishes that the offered position meets all elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial 
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). In determining whether a given 
beneficiary's duties will be primarily managerial, we consider the Petitioner's description of the job 
duties, the company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, 
the presence of other employees to relieve the 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. 
Although the Petitioner briefly discussed the Beneficiary's employment abroad and claimed that such 
employment was managerial in nature, it did not provide a detailed account of the Beneficiary's actual 
job duties within the context of the foreign entity's coffee importing and exporting operation or discuss 
the foreign entity's staffing and the Beneficiary's placement within the organizational hierarchy. The 
Petitioner also did not adequately describe the Beneficiary's proposed job duties in the new office or 
provide a hiring timeline stating what positions it plans to fill and the timeframe for such hires. As 
such, it is unclear how the company will operate within its first year and whether it would adequately 
4 The term "affiliate" applies when two enries ore owrwd and controlled by the same parent or individual. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1)(L). The record indicates that ~ I owns 70% of the foreir entity and is therefore 
its majority owner. Although this ownership interest results inl 's indirect ownership of 
37% of the Petitioner, this does not amount to a majority and no evidence was provided showing that this minority owner 
has control of the U.S. entity. As such, the degree of shared ownership between the Petitioner and the foreign entity is not 
sufficient to create an affiliate relationship. 
3 
grow and develop so that it could support the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity within one year of 
the petition's approval. 
In light of these deficiencies, we cannot adequately evaluate the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed 
positions or reach a determination as to whether it is more likely than not that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad and would more likely than not be employed in the United States in a managerial 
capacity within one year of the petition's approval. 5 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 The Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed positions are in a managerial capacity and did not 
claim that either position was or would be in an executive capacity. 
4