dismissed L-1A Case: Commodity Trading

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10831589 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 26, 2021 
The Petitioner seeks to continue employing the Beneficiary as its general manager under the L-lA 
nonimmigrant visa classification for intracompany managers and executives. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's employment abroad in the claimed managerial or 
executive capacity. The Director also found the record insufficient to demonstrate the Beneficiary's 
proposed U.S. employment in the required managerial or executive capacity. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. L-lA MANAGERS AND EXECUTIVES 
An L-lA petitioner must demonstrate that, in the three years before a beneficiary's admission to the 
United States, the petitioner or a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary employed the beneficiary 
abroad full-time for at least one continuous year in a capacity that was managerial, executive, or 
involved specialized knowledge. 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(I)(3)(i), (ii) , (iv). An L-lA petitioner must also 
establish a beneficiary's qualifications for an offered position, and their proposed U.S. employment in 
a managerial or executive capacity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(3)(ii), (iv). 
A petition to extend L-lA status does not require supporting documentation, but a director may request 
it. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(14)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) need not approve 
petitions that do not demonstrate eligibility merely because of prior, potentially erroneous approvals. 
Matter of Church Scientology lnt'I, 19 l&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988) (citations omitted). 
II. PROPOSED U.S. EMPLOYMENT 
A. Managerial Capacity 
The term "managerial capacity" means employment that would "primarily" involve 1) managing an 
organization or a department, subdivision, function or component of it; 2) supervising and controlling 
the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or managing an essential 
function of an organization, department, or subdivision; 3) having authority to hire and fire or to 
recommend those personnel actions and others, or, if a beneficiary would not directly supervise others, 
functioning at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or regarding the function managed; 
and 4) exercising discretion over the daily operations of the activity or function for which the employee 
has authority. Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(1)(ii)(B). 
The definition of the term "managerial capacity" recognizes managers of both personnel and essential 
functions. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary would manage both personnel and functions. 
We will therefore consider the Beneficiary's qualifications as both a personnel and function manager. 
The job duties of a personnel or function manager must meet all four elements of the definition of the 
term "managerial capacity." A petitioner must also demonstrate that a foreign national "primarily" 
performed managerial duties, as opposed to operational tasks. Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 
1316 (9th Cir. 2006).1 
In determining the managerial nature of a proposed position, USCIS considers descriptions of the job 
duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(3)(ii) (requiring an L-lA petitioner to submit "a detailed description 
of the services to be performed"). The Agency also considers: the business's organizational structure 
and nature; the existence of other workers who would relieve a beneficiary from performing 
operational tasks; the job duties of subordinate workers; and other factors affecting a beneficiary's 
proposed business role. 
1. Personnel Manager 
A personnel manager must primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, 
or managerial employees. Section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(1)(ii)(B)(2). "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)(iv) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(1)(ii)(B)(4). 
The record describes the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's former employer in India as brokerages in 
the trading of cashews and other nuts. The companies serve as intermediaries in transactions, 
providing market information and choices of buyers and sellers. The companies also purportedly 
negotiate transactions and execute contracts. 
1 Family involved an immigrant visa petition for a multinational manager. See section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(C). The job duties of both nonimmigrant L-1A managers and immigrant multinational managers, however, 
must meet the definition of the term "managerial capacity." See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act (defining the term 
"managerial capacity"); also compare 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(ii)(B) with 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(2) (providing the same definition 
of the term for nonimmigrant and immigrant purposes). 
2 
The Petitioner states that, as its general manager, the Beneficiary would assume responsibility for all 
U.S. operations, including managing and implementing plans to broaden the Petitioner's activities. 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary would spend the following percentages of his time on the 
following duties: 
I 15%. Adding new customers and increasing business with existing customers. Interacting 
regularly to discuss market trends and product development. Matching customer needs with 
offers from supplies in Asia and Africa. 
I 15%. Adding to product range. Interacting closely with U.S. tree-nut suppliers. Managing 
information collection from Asia to encourage suppliers to offer products. 
I 10% International Trading. Leveraging U.S. presence to trade with partners in various 
countries. 
I 10%. Negotiating and finalizing contracts. Interacting closely with suppliers and customers 
to enable them to make sales and purchase decisions. Advising on strategies based on 
production and demand prospects. 
I 10%. Making recommendations to clients. Supervising collection of information and 
interacting with trade organizations and market participants. Analyzing production and trade 
statistics. Preparing recommendations for clients and discussing procurement and sales 
strategies. 
I 10%. Logistics. Managing logistics team to interact with suppliers to ensure optimum 
inventories and reduce chances for unavailability or late deliveries. 
I 10%. Collections. Supervising accounts team to ensure prompt payments from customers to 
suppliers and regular commissions from suppliers. 
I 10%. Participating in conferences and trade shows. Participating in trade organization 
committees and conferences as a visitor, presenter, or moderator. Networking with decision 
makers. 
I 10%. Product Development. Working with suppliers to meet customer needs regarding 
product development and quality, and food safety. Developing long-term, sustainable 
relationships between suppliers and customers. 
In response to the Director's written request for additional evidence (RFE), the Petitioner also stated 
that the Beneficiary would: contract with outside vendors to provide necessary business services, such 
as tax return preparation and accounting; manage and guide staff, including hiring and firing; and work 
closely with the Beneficiary's former employer in Indian to ensure consistent business operations and 
investment decisions. 
As the Director found, the descriptions of the Beneficiary's proposed duties do not demonstrate that 
he would primarily serve as a personnel manager. The descriptions indicate job duties - such as 
managing logistics and accounting teams, and supervising collection of information - that appear to 
involve supervising and controlling the work of others. But the descriptions indicate that the 
Beneficiary would devote less than 30% of his time to these duties. The descriptions indicate that the 
Beneficiary would spend most of his time on duties - such as interacting with new clients, existing 
clients, and suppliers, and participating in conferences and trade shows - that the record does not 
establish as involving supervision and control of others' work. Thus, contrary to the definition of the 
term "managerial capacity," the proposed job duties do not indicate that the Beneficiary would 
"primarily" supervise and control of the work of others as a personnel manager. See Matter of Church 
3 
Scientology lnt'I, 19 l&N Dec. at 604 (stating in L-1 proceedings for a manager or executive that "the 
employee's duties must be primarily at the managerial or executive level"). 
As the Director also found, the record does not demonstrate the Petitioner's ability to support a 
managerial position at the time of the petition's filing in November 2019. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1) 
(requiring a petitioner to demonstrate eligibility for a requested benefit "at the time of filing"). The 
Petitioner's organizational chart places the Beneficiary at the company's top, above six other 
employees. The chart indicates the Beneficiary's direct supervision of five of the six employees. The 
chart, however, identifies two of the supervised workers - a chief accountant and an executive assistant 
- as employees of the Beneficiary's former employer in India. An L-1A manager may supervise 
employees of a foreign affiliate. See Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 
2016) (approving a petition for a beneficiary who would rely on the support of eight foreign employees 
as a manager in the United States). But, unlike in Z-A-, this Petitioner has not demonstrated the 
amounts of time the foreign workers would devote to the U.S. operations or explained who would 
assume their foreign duties. 
Also, the Petitioner's organizational chart identifies two of the remaining three proposed subordinates 
of the Beneficiary as independent vendors. The record does not indicate whether either of the vendors 
would work on a full-time basis or whether either would provide support beyond accounting and tax 
preparation services. In addition, although the chart indicates that a vendor would file tax returns, the 
Petitioner described a proposed U.S. duty of the chief accountant as "[p]reparing and filing tax 
returns." A petitioner must resolve inconsistencies of record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to whether the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). Thus, the chart 
and a copy of the Petitioner's payroll tax return for the third quarter of 2019 identify an executive 
assistant as the only full-time employee who would support the Beneficiary in the United States. The 
record therefore does not establish the Petitioner's ability to relieve the Beneficiary from the need to 
primarily engage in operational tasks in the United States.2 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary would primarily 
work in the United States as a personnel manager. 
2. Function Manager 
To establish a beneficiary's proposed employment in a managerial capacity as a "function manager," 
a petitioner must demonstrate that: (1) the function is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is 
"essential," i.e., core to the organization; (3) the beneficiary would primarily manage, as opposed to 
perform, the function; (4) the beneficiary would act at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy 
or with respect to the function managed; and (5) the beneficiary would exercise discretion over the 
function's day-to-day operations. Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 {AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
A function manager may directly oversee personnel if the supervision is incidental to management of 
the function. Id. 
2 In determining the Beneficiary's qualifications as a personnel manager in the United States, we considered the number 
of employees that he would supervise. But we also examined the job duties, hours, and employment terms and conditions 
of the proposed supervised workers. Thus, consistent with section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act, we did not base our decision 
solely on the number of subordinates the Beneficiary would supervise. 
4 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner asserted the Beneficiary's management of "all 
functions of the US office." The record, however, does not support the Petitioner's assertion. In its 
RFE response, the Petitioner stated that the chief accountant would "[o]versee[] the Accounts 
Department." Thus, the record does not establish the Beneficiary's purported management of all the 
Petitioner's functions. The discrepancy casts doubt on the reliability of the Petitioner's claims. See 
Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. at 591 (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies of record). 
Also, as previously discussed and found by the Director, the record does not establish the Petitioner's 
ability to support the Beneficiary as a manager at the time of the petition's filing. The Petitioner has 
not demonstrated sufficient resources to relieve the Beneficiary from primarily performing operational 
tasks in the United States. The record therefore does not establish the Petitioner's proposed 
employment of the Beneficiary as a function manager. 
B. Executive Capacity 
The term "executive capacity" means employment where a beneficiary would "primarily:" 1) direct 
the management of an organization or a major component or function of it; 2) establish goals and 
policies of the organization, component, or function; 3) exercise wide latitude in discretionary 
decision-making; and 4) receive only general supervision or direction from higher-level executives, a 
board of directors, or shareholders of an organization. Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(I)(1)(ii)(C). 
The job duties of an executive must meet all four elements of the definition of the term "executive 
capacity." A petitioner must also demonstrate that a noncitizen would primarily perform executive 
duties, as opposed to operational tasks. Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d at 1316. 
As in determining a job's managerial nature, USCIS considers descriptions of the job duties when 
assessing a position's executive nature. The Agency also considers: the business's organizational 
structure and nature; the existence of other employees who would relieve a beneficiary from 
performing operational tasks; the job duties of subordinate employees; and other factors affecting a 
beneficiary's business role. 
As the Director found, the descriptions of the Beneficiary's proposed job duties do not demonstrate 
employment in an executive capacity. The descriptions do not indicate that he would "primarily" 
establish goals and policies of the Petitioner or its components. See section 101(a)(44)(B)(ii) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(1)(ii)(C)(2). Also, for the reasons discussed in the context of the Beneficiary's 
proposed employment in a managerial capacity, the Petitioner has not demonstrated its ability to 
relieve the Beneficiary from primarily performing operational tasks. Thus, the record does not 
establish the Petitioner's proposed employment of the Beneficiary as an executive. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that, under USCIS' findings, the company "is a business association 
without an executive or senior manager." The Petitioner asserts that "[t]his does not make logical 
sense." The company therefore contends that USCIS "must have used a standard [of proof] other than 
preponderance of the evidence." See, e.g., Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010) 
(stating that, except where otherwise specified by law, a petitioner must prove eligibility for a 
requested benefit by a preponderance of evidence). 
5 
In its argument, the Petitioner appears to assign the terms "manager" and "executive" their plain, 
ordinary meanings. To qualify for L-lA status, however, proposed U.S. employment must meet the 
statutory definition of the term "managerial capacity" or "executive capacity." See sections 
101(a)(44)(A), (B) of the Act. As previously discussed, a preponderance of the evidence does not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary's proposed employment meets all the elements of the definition of 
"managerial capacity" or "executive capacity." Thus, contrary to the Petitioner's argument, our 
findings use the proper standard of proof and "make logical sense." 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated its proposed U.S. employment of the 
Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
Ill. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
A. Managerial Capacity 
1. Personnel Manager 
The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary worked as general manager for his former Indian 
employer for about seven years before beginning L-lA employment with the Petitioner in 2017. The 
Petitioner stated that, as general manager in India, the Beneficiary was "involved in management of 
all key functions of the business including trading, finance, and administration." He purportedly 
developed and implemented strategies for building long-term relationships between suppliers and 
customers and oversaw data collection and preparations of market analyses for clients. The Petitioner 
also stated that the Beneficiary negotiated contracts and supervised execution. 
The Petitioner's RFE response also states that the Beneficiary had "[o]verall charge of the business 
including trading." He purportedly managed the staff, oversaw their work, and hired and fired 
personnel. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary assisted his spouse - a manager and partner of 
the Indian firm - in investment decisions, maintained relations with suppliers and customers, and 
attended conferences and business promotion events. 
As the Director found, the descriptions of the Beneficiary's foreign duties do not demonstrate his 
primary supervision and control over the work of others as a personnel manager. Some of his duties 
- such as managing staff and overseeing data collection and preparations of market analyses - appear 
to have involved personnel management. But the record does not establish that other duties - such as 
negotiating contracts, assisting in investment decisions, and attending conferences - involved 
supervision and control of others' work, as opposed to performing the work himself. The Petitioner 
has not indicated the amounts of time the Beneficiary spent on individual duties. The descriptions of 
the job duties therefore do not establish that the Beneficiary "primarily" served as a personnel manager 
in India. 
Also, although unaddressed by the Director, the organizational chart of the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer conflicts with other evidence of record. The chart from the time of the Beneficiary's tenure 
lists him on the top row, along with two other partners. The chart shows that the Beneficiary directly 
supervised three of the six employees below the partner-level. The Beneficiary's three subordinates 
6 
included: the chief accountant; a coordination assistant; and an executive assistant. The chart 
identifies the Beneficiary as the only partner who directly supervised employees in India. 
Describing the job duties of another Indian partner, however, the Petitioner stated that she was "[i]n 
charge of office administration, including supervising the work of the staff handling logistics." The 
job-duty descriptions also state that the third partner - the Beneficiary's spouse - oversaw the accounts 
department. By indicating that the two other partners supervised employees, the job-duty descriptions 
contradict the organizational chart. The discrepancies cast doubts on the credibility of both the 
descriptions and the chart. See Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. at 591 (requiring a petitioner to resolve 
inconsistencies of record). The evidence therefore does not reliably demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
primarily supervised and controlled others' work abroad. Thus, in any future filings in this matter, the 
Petitioner must explain the inconsistencies of record with independent, objective evidence. 
For the foregoing reasons, the record does not establish the Beneficiary's foreign employment as a 
personnel manager. 
2. Function Manager 
As previously indicated, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary's employment abroad involved 
"management of all key functions of the business including trading, finance, and administration." The 
record, however, does not support the Beneficiary's management of "al I key functions." As previously 
discussed, job-duty descriptions of the Beneficiary's spouse indicate that she - rather than the 
Beneficiary - was in "[o]verall charge of finance, such as banking, investment, etc." Also, the third 
partner in India - rather than the Beneficiary- purportedly was "[i]n charge of office administration." 
The inconsistent job-duty descriptions of the Indian partners cast doubts on the credibility of the 
Beneficiary's claimed management of essential functions abroad. See Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. at 
591 (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies of record). We therefore agree with the Director 
that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's role as a function manager abroad. 
For the foregoing reasons, the record does not establish the Beneficiary's foreign employment in the 
claimed managerial capacity. 
B. Executive Capacity 
The Director found that the Petitioner "did not indicate that the position abroad was executive. Even 
if this was your intent, the submitted evidence was insufficient to show that the position abroad was 
executive." 
Contrary to the Director's finding, however, the record indicates that the Petitioner claimed the 
Beneficiary's foreign employment in an executive capacity. The company's letter with the petition 
referred only to his "Past Managerial Position in the Indian Company." But the Petitioner's RFE 
response asserted evidence of both his "Managerial Position Abroad" and his "Executive Position 
Abroad." On appeal, the Petitioner further asserts that the Beneficiary "is an executive of [the 
Petitioner] and, previously, was an executive of [his former employer in India]." (emphasis in 
original). Thus, a preponderance of evidence indicates that the Petitioner claimed the Beneficiary's 
foreign employment in an executive capacity. 
7 
An adverse petition decision must "explain in writing the specific reasons for denial." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(1)(i). The Director's decision found insufficient evidence of the executive nature of the 
Beneficiary's foreign employment. But, contrary to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(i), the decision did not 
specifically explain the insufficiencies of the evidence. The Petitioner claimed the Beneficiary's 
employment abroad as an executive, but the Director's decision did not specifically explain why the 
Petitioner's evidence was insufficient. We will therefore withdraw this portion of the Director's 
decision. 
Nevertheless, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's foreign employment in an 
executive capacity. The descriptions of the Beneficiary's job duties indicate that he managed staff. 
But the descriptions do not state that he performed executive duties such as establishing goals and 
policies. See section 101(a)(44)(B)(ii) of the Act. The job-duty descriptions also include some duties 
that the record does not establish as executive in nature, such as overseeing data collection and 
preparation of market analyses and attending conferences and business promotion events. The 
Petitioner has not specified how much time the Beneficiary devoted to each foreign duty. Thus, 
contrary to the definition of the term "executive capacity," the record does not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary "primarily" engaged in executive duties abroad. 
In any future filings in this matter, the Petitioner must submit additional evidence demonstrating the 
claimed, executive nature of the Beneficiary's foreign employment. 
IV. QUALIFYING ORGANIZATION 
Although unaddressed by the Director, the record also does not establish the Petitioner as a "qualifying 
organization." A "qualifying organization" must continue to be "doing business ... as an employer 
in the United States and in at least one other country directly or through a parent, branch, affiliate, or 
subsidiary for the duration of the alien's stay in the United States as an intracompany transferee." 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(G)(2); see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(i)(9)(iii)(A)(1) (authorizing revocation of 
the approval of an L-1 petition if "[o]ne or more entities are no longer qualifying organizations"). The 
term "doing business" means "the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or 
services." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(H). 
Here, the record does not establish that the Petitioner does business in another country directly or 
through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary. The Petitioner claims that it and the Beneficiary's 
former employer in India are affiliates because both companies are "owned and controlled by the same 
group of individuals, each individual owning and controlling approximately the same share or 
proportion of each entity." See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(L)(2) (defining the term "affiliate"). 3 
The record, however, does not support the claimed affiliation between the Petitioner and the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer. A copy of the Indian company's partnership deed shows that, since 
late 2015, three people have owned the company together. The deed states that the Beneficiary and 
3 Ownership means the direct or indirect legal right of possession of the assets of an entity with full power and authority 
to control. Matter of Church Scientology lnt'I, 19 l&N Dec. at 595. Control refers to the direct or indirect legal right and 
authority to direct an entity's establishment, management, and operations. Id. 
8 
his spouse each own 45% of the firm, while the third partner holds the remaining 10%. The Petitioner 
asserts that the same three people own it in the same proportions. 
Contrary to the partnership deed, however, notes to the Indian company's financial statements indicate 
that, from at least March 31, 2016, through March 31, 2018, the Beneficiary owned most of the foreign 
firm. The financial notes state that the Beneficiary owned 67.78% of the foreign company; his spouse, 
22.22%; and the third person, the remaining 10%. The discrepancies in the ownership percentages 
between the partnership deed and the financial notes cast doubt that the same individuals own the 
foreign and U.S. entities in approximately the same proportions. The discrepancies also cast doubt on 
the accuracy and authenticity of the Petitioner's evidence. See Matter of Ho, 19 l&N at 591 (stating 
that "[d]oubt cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the 
reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition"). 
Also, as evidence of the Petitioner's ownership, the petitioning U.S. limited liability company 
submitted copies of membership certificates dated November 1, 2016. While the Petitioner asserts 
that three people own it, it submitted only two membership certificates: one in the Beneficiary's name; 
and the other in his spouse's name. The certificate numbers and the amounts of ownership units listed 
on them are illegible. A copy of the Petitioner's federal income tax return for 2018, however, indicates 
that the Beneficiary and his spouse each own 50% of the U.S. company. Online government records 
also do not indicate a third principal's involvement in the U.S. entity. See Cal. Dep't of State, 
"Business Search," https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/ (last visited Feb. 24, 2021). Thus, contrary to 
the Petitioner's claim, the record does not demonstrate that the same group of individuals, holding 
approximately the same proportion of each entity, own the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer. The record therefore does not establish the Petitioner as a qualifying organization. 
Thus, in any future filings in this matter, the Petitioner must explain the inconsistencies of record and 
provide independent, objective evidence of the claimed qualifying relationship between the Petitioner 
and the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The record does not establish the Beneficiary's proposed employment in the United States in the 
required managerial or executive capacity. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9