dismissed L-1A Case: Construction

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13621444 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV . 24, 2020 
Form 1-129, Nonimmigrant Petition for an Intracompany Transferee (L-lA) 
The Petitioner, a construction and heavy machinery rental services company, seeks to extend the 
temporary employment of the Beneficiary as its Vice President under the L-lA nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. 1 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity under an extended petition. The matter is now 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 novo review, the Petitioner has not met this burden 
and we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a position requiring 
specialized knowledge 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)(1). The prospective U.S. 
employer must also be a qualifying organization that seeks to employ a beneficiary in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(i). 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-lA petition that involved a new office must submit a statement of 
the beneficiary's duties during the previous year and under the extended petition; a statement 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiaiy 's behalf which was approved for the period 
July 6, 2018, until July 5, 2019. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United States through 
a parent , branch , affiliate, or subsidiary 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 one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an 
executive or managerial position. 
describing the staffing of the new operation and evidence of the numbers and types of positions held; 
evidence of its financial status; evidence that it has been doing business for the previous year; and 
evidence that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(14)(ii). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in an executive capacity. 2 
"Executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization; 
establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; exercises wide latitude 
in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. Section 101 (a)( 44 )(B) of the 
Act. 
To be eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as an executive, the Petitioner must show 
that the Beneficiary will perform the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition at 
section 101(a)(44)(B)(i)-(iv) of the Act. If the record does not establish that the offered position meets 
all four of these elements, we cannot conclude that it is a qualifying executive 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 executive 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 executive, 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. 
Accordingly, we will discuss evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of 
the nature of the Petitioner's business and its staffing levels. 
A. Duties 
In its initial letter of support, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would continue to work in its 
U.S. offices in Florida, and also develop a site in Texas. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
would continue to perform the following duties under the extended petition: 
2 The Director determined that the Beneficiary would not be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. On appeaL 
the Petitioner does not argue that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity. Rather, it argues that the 
Director's decision "failed to recognize that the Beneficiary's duties are primarily executive in nature and ened in its 
reasoning." 
2 
[The Beneficiary] reports to the President of [ the Petitioner]. He assists the President 
in the establishment of operations and in building the Company's headquarters in 
Texas. He also plays an important role in engaging in negotiations with suppliers to 
purchase heavy machinery and equipment that are necessary to the Company's 
operations. The Vice President provides global direction for the Company by 
developing short-term and long-term financial and operational goals. He works with 
the Company's staff to implement plans and policies. He is responsible for managing 
operations and technical support functions to meet target performance goals. He leads, 
plans, and administers all phases of the Company's operational activities. His main 
responsibilities include ensuring that all services are processed within contracted 
turnaround times, maintaining high quality standards and cost targets, and establishing 
objectives, policies, standards and schedules to ensure quality and cost effectiveness. 
He is responsible for complying with all environmental, health, and safety requirements 
and will propose improvements to eliminate or reduce risks. [The Beneficiary] serves 
as the liaison between clients and the Company on critical issues as well as between 
the Company and equipment and machinery suppliers. He engages in high-level 
negotiations to generate lucrative contracts and build beneficial relationships with 
clients and partners. The Vice President represents the organization at conferences, 
meetings and trade shows to increase brand awareness as well as to learn about new 
market and technology developments. He is also in charge of recruiting, hiring, 
providing training, and supervising the work of employees and independent 
contractors. [The Beneficiary] also manages special projects as assigned by the 
President. 
The Petitioner listed the following specific duties of the Beneficiary as Vice President: 
• Oversee the purchase and sale of the U.S. manufactured heavy equipment and 
concrete. 
• Manage operations and technical support functions to meet target performance 
goals, ensuring that the Company's efficiency level are optimized. 
• Monitor [the Petitioner's] revenues and profits and review financial and non­
financial reports to devise solutions and improvements. With the Financial 
Director, manage the Company's costs and maintain operations at cost-effective 
levels. 
• Analyze the Company's expenditures and other financial information in order 
to develop plans, policies, and budgets for increasing profits. 
• Manage performance indicators such as average margins, cost of services, and 
various commercial details to measure how efficiently the Company achieves 
its goals. 
• Oversee the recruitment and hiring of personnel and ensure that employees and 
independent contractors receive adequate training to perform their duties. 
3 
• Interact regularly with the parent company in Venezuela and Aruba to discuss 
operational and financial performance as well as discuss investment decisions 
to advance the business and increase profits. 
• Facilitate the Company in creating and maintaining a positive reputation in the 
market by ensuring that all services are processed within contracted turnaround 
times, maintaining high quality standards and cost targets. 
• Interact with clients and suppliers to discuss and solve critical issues regarding 
equipment and machinery purchases. 
• Directly assist the President in the establishment of operations and the building 
of the Company's headquarters in Texas. 
• Engage in negotiations with suppliers to purchase heavy machinery and 
equipment that are necessary to the Company's operations. 
• Engage in high-level negotiations to generate lucrative contracts and build 
beneficial relationships with clients and partners. 
• Represent the organization at conferences, meetings, and trade shows to 
increase brand awareness as well as to learn about new market and technology 
developments. 
• Recruit, hire, and provide training to upper-level employees. Ensure that the 
upper-level employees and properly supervising the work of lower-level 
employees and independent contractors. 
• Manage special projects as assigned by the President. 
• Lead, plan and administer all phases of the Company's operational activities. 
Manage operations and technical support functions to meet target performance 
goals. 
• Ensure that all services are processed within contracted turnaround times, 
maintaining high quality standards and cost targets, and establishing objectives, 
policies, standards, and schedules to ensure quality and cost effectiveness. 
• Ensure compliance to environmental, health, and safety requirements and 
propose improvements to eliminate or reduce risks. 
• Interact with clients to discuss and solve critical issues as well as with suppliers 
regarding equipment and machinery purchases. 
• Ensure that the Company has up-to-date equipment and machinery to perform 
services and negotiate new purchases with suppliers. 
• Represent the organization at conferences, meetings, and trade shows to 
increase brand awareness as well as to learn about new market and technology 
developments. 
• Assist the President to set the Company's strategies, including expansion plans, 
in order to increase revenues and profits in a sustainable manner. 
The Petitioner further broke down the Beneficiary's duties into the following percentages: 
• Corporate strategy and goals, 30% 
• Negotiations on behalf of the company with respect to suppliers, 30% 
• Human resources, 10% 
• Operational administration, 25% 
• Representing the company at conferences and events, 5% 
4 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the description of duties provided by the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would primarily perform the high level responsibilities of an 
executive or manager. Rather, the Director determined that the description of duties indicated that the 
Beneficiary would devote the majority of his time to day-to-day functions of the business, such as 
sales, technical support, finance, operations, and negotiations. The Director also determined that the 
Petitioner did not sufficiently denote the percentages of time to be devoted to each of the Beneficiary's 
duties, thereby precluding a determination that the majority of his time would be devoted to primarily 
managerial or executive tasks. 
Upon review, we agree with the Director's determination that the job description includes numerous 
duties that fall outside the statutory definition of executive capacity. Despite asserting that it has hired 
seven subordinate employees to assist with its operations, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will 
continue to perform numerous non-executive duties initially delegated to him as he opened the 
Petitioner's new office. Specifically, many of the tasks listed by the Petitioner indicate that the 
Beneficiary will be directly engaged in the business operations of the company. 
For example, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will continue to "oversee the purchase and sale 
of the U.S. manufactured heavy equipment and concrete" and "negotiate new purchases with 
suppliers," which are typically duties attributed to purchasing agents or buyers and not corporate 
executives. We farther note that the Petitioner claims that 30% of the Beneficiary's time will be 
devoted to these tasks - more specifically, to "negotiations on behalf of the company with respect to 
suppliers." Based on these statements, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary will continue to 
perform purchasing responsibilities that, as of the date of filing, apparently had not been delegated in 
their entirety to subordinate staff It is unclear why the Beneficiary would continue to devote such a 
large percentage of his time to performing direct negotiations with suppliers when the organizational 
chart indicates that the Petitioner has hired a purchasing agent and a customer service representative. 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will continue to "monitor [the Petitioner's] revenues and 
profits and review financial and non-financial reports to devise solutions and improvements," and 
"analyze the Company's expenditures and other financial information in order to develop plans, 
policies, and budgets for increasing profits." The Petitioner farther states that he "will manage the 
Company's costs and maintain operations at cost-effective levels" with the "Financial Director." 
There is no indication that the Petitioner employs a "Financial Director." Moreover, while these stated 
duties indicate that the Beneficiary is likely responsible for both qualifying and non-qualifying 
financial tasks, the Petitioner does not employ any administrative or bookkeeping staff A petitioner's 
unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally will be insufficient to carry its burden 
of proof The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
The Petitioner also indicates that the Beneficiary will continue to perform human resources tasks, such 
as "oversee the recruitment and hiring of personnel" and "provide training to upper-level employees," 
and that 10% of time would be devoted to such tasks. The Petitioner does not explain why the 
Beneficiary, and not a dedicated human resources employee or personnel manager, would continue to 
hire and train the company's new personnel. Although the record indicates that a general manager 
5 
was hired at the time of filing, the Petitioner does not assert that the general manager ( or other 
employee) would relieve the Beneficiary from performing these duties. 
Finally, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will "lead, plan and administer all phases of the 
Company's operational activities," as well as "manage operations and technical support functions to 
meet target performance goals." While we do not doubt that the Beneficiary, as Vice President of the 
company, will be engaged and knowledgeable regarding the company's operational activities, we 
cannot conclude that the listed tasks are executive job functions. For example, the Petitioner also 
indicates that the Beneficiary will "represent the organization at conferences, meetings, and trade 
shows to increase brand awareness," and that he will continue to devote 5% of his time to these duties. 
Combined with his "operational administration" of the company, to which he devotes 25% of his time, 
it appears that the majority of the Beneficiary's duties under the extended petition will continue to be 
non-qualifying, operational duties essential to the company's continued business operations. 
The Petitioner's overview of the duties, and the breakdown of the percentage of time the Beneficiary 
will devote to each duty, indicate that the Beneficiary will continue to perform the same duties 
previously delegated to him under the initial new office petition. Despite indicating that it has hired 
several subordinate staff members, the Petitioner does not explain the roles of these individuals with 
regard to the duties of the Beneficiary. There is no indication that any of the newly hired employees 
will relieve the Beneficiary from the non-qualifying duties identified in our discussion above; rather, 
the Petitioner indicates that they will perform their own roles and their own specific duties 
simultaneous to those of the Beneficiary. Absent evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner has 
sufficient staff to relieve the Beneficiary from primarily performing non-qualifying duties, we cannot 
determine that he will be employed in a capacity that is primarily executive under the extended 
petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not directly address the Director's determination regarding the 
non-qualifying duties included in the Beneficiary's job description. Rather the Petitioner asserts that 
the Director's decision was arbitrary, capricious, and constitutes an abuse of discretion because the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE) did not ask for additional details regarding the duties of the 
Beneficiary's position or the percentages of time devoted to the duties. Upon review, the Petitioner's 
assertions are not persuasive. As indicated above, the Petitioner provided a detailed overview of the 
duties of the proffered position, along with a general breakdown of the time devoted to each area of 
the proposed duties. On appeal, the Petitioner repeats its previous description of the duties of the 
position and does not address the deficiencies noted in the Director's decision. 3 
The Petitioner also submitted a description of 'Top Executives" from U.S. Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Occupational Outlook Handbook (Handbook) as well as the O*NET OnLine Summary Report 
3 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8) permits the Director to deny a petition for failure to establish eligibility without 
having to request evidence regarding the ground or grounds of ineligibility identified by the Director. Where evidence of 
record indicates that a basic element of eligibility has not been met, it is appropriate for the Director to deny the petition 
without a request for evidence. Also, even if the Director had erred as a procedural matter in not issuing an RFE relative 
to the Petitioner's lack of evidence to establish that the duties of the proffered position were primarily managerial or 
executive, it is not clear what remedy would be appropriate beyond the appeal process itself. If the Petitioner has rebuttal 
evidence, the administrative process provides for a motion to reopen or an appeal as a forum for that new evidence. As 
6 
for "11-1011.00, Chief Executives," and asserts that the Beneficiary's duties closely align to the duty 
descriptions listed in the summaries for each of these occupations. While acknowledged, the issue 
before us is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated that the Beneficiary will primarily perform 
executive tasks. While we note that the generic duty descriptions in the Handbook and O*NET 
include similar duties to those listed in the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's duties, these 
documents do not demonstrate that the Beneficiary will be relieved from performing the 
non-qualifying duties discussed above and that his role will be primarily executive in nature. 
Again, the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary will continue to perform the same duties 
previously delegated to him as he opened the Petitioner's new office, which include numerous 
non-qualifying tasks. Despite indicating that it has hired additional employees, the Petitioner provides 
no explanation as to how those individuals will interact with the Beneficiary and relieve him from 
performing non-qualifying duties. Rather, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will continue in 
his prior role without modification. We do not question that the Beneficiary, as the U.S. entity's Vice 
President, is responsible for directing the company and establishing its goals and policies. However, 
the fact that the Beneficiary will manage or direct a business does not necessarily establish eligibility 
for classification as an intracompany transferee in an executive capacity within the meaning of section 
10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a 
position be "primarily" executive or managerial in nature. Sections 101(A)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. 
While the Beneficiary exercises discretion over the U.S. entity's day-to-day operations and possesses 
decision-making authority, the position description does not establish that his day-to-day duties would 
be primarily executive in nature. 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
Next, we will address the U.S. company's staffing at the time of filing. If staffing levels are used as a 
factor in determining whether an individual is acting in an executive capacity, the reasonable needs of 
the organization must be considered in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the 
organization. See section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. As noted, the U.S. company was established as 
a new office and its prior petition was approved for one year, with a validity period that ended on 
March 29, 2020. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation one 
year from the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
The Petitioner provided evidence that it employed seven individuals at the time of filing, in addition 
to the Beneficiary and the Petitioner's president. According to its organizational chart, the president 
oversees the Beneficiary and the general manager, and the general manager oversees an assistant 
manager, an equipment service coordinator, a purchasing agent, a customer service representative, a 
sales and marketing agent, and a clerk. 
The Petitioner provides a list of the duties of each of these individuals, which indicates that several of 
these individuals perform day-to-day tasks for the company not previously attributed to the 
Beneficiary. For example, the equipment manager is tasked with warehouse safety, monitoring 
inventory, and tracking and tracing goods, and the equipment service coordinator oversees scheduled 
noted above, the Petitioner did not supplement the appeal with additional details regarding the proffered position to address 
the deficiencies noted by the Director. 
7 
maintenance of equipment, tests major components, and inspects, repairs and replaces worn parts. The 
sales and marketing manager identifies prospective customers and helps customers select products, 
whereas the customer service representative takes customer orders, answers customer questions, and 
handles complaints. The clerk is tasked with answering phones, handling mail, arranging staff 
meetings, filing, and basic bookkeeping. 
The roles of the remaining employees, namely, the general manager and the purchasing agent, are 
somewhat unclear with regard to their interaction with the Beneficiary and whether they relieve the 
Beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties. For example, the purchasing agent "negotiates 
contracts with buyers on behalf of the company" and "attends meetings and trade shows." As 
discussed above, the Petitioner claims that 30% of the Beneficiary's time is devoted to negotiating 
contracts with clients and 5% of his time to attending trade shows. The general manager's duties 
include tasks such as "establish company policies, goals, objectives, or procedures," "monitor 
suppliers," "perform personnel functions," and "review financial statements." The general manager's 
vaguely stated duties appear to encompass numerous duties of the Beneficiary, but no explanation is 
provided as to how much time is devoted to each stated duty or whether the general manager relieves 
the Beneficiary from any portion of these duties. 
While the Petitioner has demonstrated that it employs several individuals to carry out many of the 
day-to-day functions of the company, it has not explained why the primary duties of the Beneficiary 
include so many non-qualifying tasks that overlap with the duties of the general manager and 
purchasing agent, and it is farther unclear how these employees are able to support the Beneficiary in 
a primarily executive position. 
Again, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary's time is spent as follows: 
• Corporate strategy and goals, 30% 
• Negotiations on behalf of the company with respect to suppliers, 30% 
• Human resources, 10% 
• Operational administration, 25% 
• Representing the company at conferences and events, 5% 
Here, while we acknowledge the presence of subordinate start: the Petitioner did not establish how 
they relieve the Beneficiary from performing the day-to-day activities of the U.S. company or 
otherwise support a position in which his actual duties would be primarily executive in nature. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not address the organizational structure of the company at all. As 
currently constituted, the record simply identifies the positions mentioned above and provides a 
generic list of duties for each individual, including the Beneficiary. There is no discussion or 
explanation in the record as to how all of these individual interact with each other, and there is no 
assertion or indication that any of these employees relieve the Beneficiary from performing the duties 
stated above. Although the Petitioner claims that the purchasing agent negotiates contracts and attends 
trade shows, there is no explanation as to why the Beneficiary still spends a combined 35% of his time 
devoted to these tasks. Similarly, although the Petitioner states that the general manner handles 
personnel and financial matters, as well as general operational matters, there is no explanation why 
8 
the Beneficiary still devotes another combined 35% of his time to human resources and operational 
administration. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) only allows the "new office" operation one year within 
the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. If a business does 
not have the necessary staffing after one year to sufficiently relieve the beneficiary from performing 
operational and administrative tasks, the petitioner is ineligible for an extension. Here, although the 
organizational chart suggests that a subordinate staff is available to perform many non-qualifying 
operational duties, the Petitioner has not explained why 70% of the Beneficiary's time continues to be 
devoted to non-qualifying tasks. 
The record reflects that the Beneficiary is a partial owner and the Vice President of the company. 
However, the record does not establish that his duties are primarily executive in nature. The Petitioner 
simply lists the duties of the Beneficiary, and the duties of its other employees, without providing any 
discussion or explanation regarding the manner in which the employees interact or support each other 
within the claimed organizational hierarchy. The Petitioner does not state that the subordinate 
employees relieve the Beneficiary from performing the non-qualifying tasks discussed above. Instead, 
it holds steadfast to its claim that the Beneficiary will continue to perform the numerous non-qualifying 
duties he performed during the company's first year of operations. Again, despite the presence of 
subordinate staff: the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary will continue performing primarily 
non-executive tasks. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that he would be employed in the 
United States in an executive capacity as defined at section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in the United States in an executive capacity. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9