dismissed L-1A Case: Commercial Real Estate

MATTER OF G-T-P- LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 26, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a commercial real estate management company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as its president and chief executive officer (CEO) under the L-IA 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-IA 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 Vermont Service Center revoked the approval of the instant petition concluding 
that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director was mistaken about the status of its office 
following a site visit and contends that the Beneficiary acted as a personnel manager overseeing 
subordinate managers and professionals. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-IA nonimmigrant visa classification, 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 101(a)(15)(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. Id. The 
petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment 
qualify him or her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
Under U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations, the approval of an L-IA 
pet1t10n may be revoked on notice under six specific circumstances. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A). To properly revoke the approval of a petition, a director must issue a notice of 
Matter ofG-T-P- LLC 
intent to revoke that contains a detailed statement of the grounds for the revocation and the time 
period allowed for rebuttal. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(B). 1 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary was 
employed in a managerial capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was 
employed in an executive capacity. Therefore, we will restrict our analysis to whether the 
Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity. 
"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 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
When examining the managerial capacity of a given 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 performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in a managerial capacity. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description of the job duties, we 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. 
Accordingly, we will discuss evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of 
the nature of the Petitioner's business, its staffing levels, and its organizational structure. 
A. Duties 
Based on the definition of managerial capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the Beneficiary 
performed 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 was 
primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the 
1 An L-1 A non immigrant intracompany transferee petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary was approved on June 17, 
2016, for the period June 9, 2016, to June 8, 2018. The Director later revoked this approved petition on October 17, 
2017, following the issuance ofa notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) on April 5, 2017. The Director concluded that the 
Beneficiary was no longer eligible for the nonimmigrant classification. See 8 C.F.R § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A)(2). 
2 
.
Matter ofG-T-P- LLC 
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 2010 to "develop a property portfolio of strip malls" 
and submitted documentation indicating that it had purchased a commercial shopping center with 
several rentable commercial spaces for approximately $9 million. 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary devoted his time to the following 
duties: 
• 20% overseeing "the business activities and the management [of the] company"; 
• 15% determining "areas needing cost reduction and program improvement"; 
• 10% establishing the "company's policies and initiatives"; 
• 5% managing "successful negotiations leading to the company's growth," 
• 15% coordinating "corporate activities"; 
• 5% training new employees and overseeing personnel processes; 
• 5% monitoring "business and agencies"; 
• 5% overseeing "activities directly related to providing services and planning"; 
• 10% maximizing investments and increasing efficiency; 
• 10% supervising "overall operations and goals setting for each operatinf unit"; and 
• 5% providing "leadership and policies to develop customer portfolios." 
In September 2016, following the approval of the petition, USCIS conducted a site visit to the 
Petitioner's asserted office location at FL. The Petitioner's 
business operations could not be verified so an immigration officer followed up with the Petitioner 
who indicated that it had changed its office location to , FL. 
USCIS then conducted a site visit to the newly asserted office location in December 2016 and 
concluded that it was found locked and vacant with no signage and the Beneficiary was not present. 
The Director later issued a NOIR regarding the site visits and requested that the Petitioner submit 
additional evidence to establish that the Beneficiary acted in a managerial capacity, including a 
description of his responsibilities and typical managerial duties, evidence of managerial decisions he 
made or contracts he signed, copies of correspondence reflecting his responsibilities, or samples of 
work product produced or reviewed by him. In response, the Petitioner submitted the same duty 
description for the Beneficiary it had provided in support of the petition. The Petitioner did provide 
several agreements executed by the Beneficiary in 2016 and 2017, including an engineering 
agreement to expand rental space within one of its commercial properties and several commercial 
lease agreements. The Petitioner also provided evidence indicating that several commercial tenants 
were paying rent according to these lease agreements. The Director later revoked the approved 
petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was acting in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
2 It is noted that these duties add up to I 05%. 
3 
Matter ofG-T-P- LLC 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary was appointed to be responsible for "planning 
and managing the resources of the Company as well as making decisions involving the Company's 
commercial business investments" and notes that he is in charge of the "short, mid and long-term 
plan[s] of the Company." The Petitioner further indicates that the Beneficiary was tasked with 
communicating with its foreign affiliate's board of directors and liaising between it and "internal and 
external stakeholders." The Petitioner also explains that the Beneficiary was tasked with "working 
with management and department heads to plan, develop, and establish policies and objectives," 
"managing the organization's operations," "increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of support 
services," coordinating "between support and business functions," and overseeing "financial 
management," "systems and controls," and the "development of program budgets." 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient examples or documentation to substantiate his day-to-day 
managerial-level duties. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's 
duties are primarily managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a 
matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The Beneficiary's duty description includes 
several generic duties that could apply to any manager acting in any business or industry and they do 
not provide insight into the actual nature of his role. The Petitioner provided insufficient examples 
and little supporting documentation to demonstrate the Beneficiary's performance of qualifying 
duties, such as areas of cost reduction and program improvement he determined, policies and 
initiatives he established, corporate activities he coordinated, new employees he trained or personnel 
processes he oversaw, business and "agencies" he monitored, or "activities directly related to 
services" he supervised. Likewise, the Petitioner did not articulate or document investments he 
directed, goals he set for operating units or departments, or policies he developed for "customer 
portfolios." This lack of detail is particularly noteworthy since the Beneficiary is stated to have 
acted in his role as president and CEO of the Petitioner since June 2011. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides no additional detail or documentation specific to the Beneficiary's 
managerial duties, but only provides additional vague statements as to his activities, despite the 
Director concluding that his duties were overly vague. For instance, the Petitioner does not describe 
or document company resources the Beneficiary planned and managed, business investment 
decisions he made, internal or external stakeholders he liaised with, policies and objectives he 
established, operations he managed, support and business functions he coordinated, financial 
systems and controls he put in place, or program budgets he developed. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner provided evidence indicating that the Beneficiary executed 
leases and other contracts relevant to the lease of commercial spaces in the strip mall it purchased in 
Florida. However, beyond this, the Petitioner submitted few details and little documentation 
regarding the Beneficiary's actual day-to-day managerial duties. In fact, several of his stated duties 
appear to bear little relation to his stated oversight of a strip mall; such as, references to programs 
and program budgets, "business functions," and "customer portfolios." Likewise, the Petitioner 
indicates that the Beneficiary was tasked with managing department heads; however, its submitted 
4 
Matter ofG-T-P- LLC 
organizational chart does not indicate that it has separate departments devoted to different business 
functions as asserted. In sum, the Beneficiary's duty descriptions do not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary devoted his time primarily to managerial duties. 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the organization, the fact that he manages 
or directs a business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an intracompany 
transferee in an managerial capacity within the meaning of section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. By 
statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a position be "primarily" 
managerial in nature. Sections 101(A)(44)(A) of the Act. The Beneficiary may have exercised 
discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possessed the requisite level of authority 
with respect to discretionary decision-making; however, the job description alone is insufficient to 
establish that his actual duties were primarily managerial in nature. 
B. Staffing 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
capacity, we take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall 
purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
The Petitioner submitted identical organizational charts in support of the petition and in response to 
the Director's NOIR. The charts indicated that the Beneficiary directly oversaw one employee - an 
operations manager - and the operations manager supervised a client relations specialist, a property 
manager, an on-site property supervisor, and contracted accountants. In addition, the chart reflected 
that the client relations specialist oversaw an administrative assistant, the property manager 
supervised a receptionist, and the on-site property supervisor oversaw "general and sub-contractors." 
However, in response to the NOIR and on appeal, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary directly 
oversaw all six subordinate employees, which calls into question the tiered structure depicted in the 
organizational chart. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel manager due 
to his oversight of these subordinate employees. We have reviewed the evidence submitted by the 
Petitioner and conclude that even if the Beneficiary directly oversaw more than one employee, the 
Beneficiary did not qualify as a personnel manager. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and 
"function managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. As the Petitioner does not 
assert that the Beneficiary qualifies as a function manager, we will restrict our analysis to whether he 
acted as a personnel manager. Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and control 
the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. Contrary to the common 
understanding of the word "manager," the statute plainly states 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 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. If a 
beneficiary directly supervises other employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire 
5 
.
Matter ofG-T-P- LLC 
and fire those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(3). 
As noted, a USCIS officer conducted two site visits to the Petitioner's asserted office locations, the 
first to FL, the employment location claimed on the petition, 
and a second to the Petitioner's new location, FL. In the NOIR, 
the Director noted that when the inspector visited in December 2016, it was 
"locked" and "vacant." In response, the Petitioner asserted that the office was closed for the 
holidays and that the Beneficiary had been traveling in Germany at the time, thereby explaining his 
absence from the office location. 
However, the Petitioner provided no explanation as to why this property was vacant. This 
discrepancy leaves question as to whether the Beneficiary was overseeing an office with subordinate 
managers as claimed. The Petitioner provides little supporting documentation to substantiate that the 
Beneficiary oversees an office with multiple managers or evidence indicating his delegation of 
duties and authority to its asserted managers. In fact, there is no documentary evidence on the 
record of the Beneficiary's subordinates performing duties for the company. As noted, the Director 
suggested in the NOIR that the Petitioner submit copies of correspondence reflecting his 
responsibilities or samples of work product produced or reviewed by him. However, there is 
insufficient evidence on the record to substantiate the existence of an office with multiple managers, 
beyond evidence indicating that the company owns several commercial spaces which could be used 
for an office. 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). 
Further, the Petitioner has not submitted a sufficiently detailed duty description for the Beneficiary's 
sole direct subordinate indicated on the organizational chart, the operations manager. For instance, 
the Petitioner stated that the operations manager was tasked with conducting periodic planning 
sessions with other members of the company, identifying operational needs from the on-site property 
supervisor, implementing systems and procedures, supervising outsourced accounting services, 
implementing budget control procedures, and developing service agreements with vendors. 
However, the Petitioner submits insufficient evidence, beyond annual company tax returns, to 
substantiate that the operations manager oversees or supervises outsourced accounting services. The 
operations manager's duties also do not clearly articulate supervisory responsibility, such as his or 
her claimed supervision of a subordinate property manager, an on-site property supervisor, and a 
client relations specialist. 
Moreover, even if the Beneficiary directly managed the operations manager's subordinates depicted 
on the organizational chart, there is a lack of supporting evidence to demonstrate that the client 
relations specialist, property manager, and on-site property supervisor could be deemed managers. 
For example, there is little evidence to establish that the contractors are regularly engaged such that 
they could be considered members of the Petitioner's organizational chart and subordinates to the 
on-site property supervisor. 
6 
Matter ofG-T-P- LLC 
Record evidence does not support that the Petitioner has multiple tiers of management and the record 
does not contain sufficient duty descriptions and other supporting documentation to substantiate that 
the Beneficiary is primarily responsible for managing subordinate managers and supervisors. 
In the alternative, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary supervised professional 
subordinates. In evaluating whether a beneficiary manages professional employees, we must 
evaluate whether the subordinate positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry 
into the field of endeavor. Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining "profession" to mean "any 
occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum 
requirement for entry into the occupation"). Section 101(a)(32) of the Act, states that "[t]he term 
profession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, 
and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." 
The Petitioner indicated that some of the members of its organizational chart hold bachelor's 
degrees; for instance, it stated that the property manager holds a bachelor's degree in nursing and the 
on-site property manager a bachelor's degree in civil engineering. However, the Petitioner submits 
no supporting documentation to substantiate that the Beneficiary's only immediate subordinate on 
the organizational chart, the operations manager, holds a bachelor's degree or that this position 
requires a bachelor's degree. Further, even if we were to consider the other employees of the 
company, we must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree 
held by these subordinate employees. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate 
employee does not automatically lead to a conclusion that an employee is employed in a professional 
capacity. Even if they reported directly to the Beneficiary, the Petitioner does not describe why 
bachelor's degrees are required for the property manager and on-site property manager positions. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
supervised professional subordinates. 
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Director properly revoked the previously 
approved petition, as the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary acted in a managerial 
capacity. For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity; 
therefore, the revocation of the approved petition will not be disturbed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofG-T-P- LLC, ID# 1471656 (AAO Sept. 26, 2018)