dismissed L-1A Case: Consulting And Concierge Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 18848802 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition forL-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 11, 2022 
The Petitioner, a provider of consulting and concierge services, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's 
temporary 1 employment as its general manager under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101 (a)(l 5)(L), 8 U .S.C. 
§ 1101 (a)(15XL). The L-1 A classification allows a corporation orotherlegal entity(includingits 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 has been employed abroad, and will be employed in the 
United States, in a managerial or executive capacity. 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, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has been employed 
abroad, and will be employed in the United States, in a managerial or executive capacity. The 
Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary has been and will be employed in a managerial capacity, and 
therefore, we need not consider the requirements for an executive capacity. 
1 An introductory letter submitted with the petition referred to the Beneficiary's position as "permanent," although the 
Petitioner seeks a nonimmigrant classification that, bylaw, is time-limited. 
"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 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
To be eligible for L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, a petitioner must show that the 
beneficiary will perform all four of the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition 
at section 10 I (a)(44)(A) of the Act. If a petitioner establishes that the offered position meets all four 
elements set forth in the statutory definition, the petitioner must then 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 
determiningwhetherthe beneficiary's duties will be primarily managerial, we consider the description 
of the job duties, the company's organizational structure, the duties of the 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 the 
beneficiary's actual duties and role in the business. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
capacity, we must take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall 
purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section IO I ( a)( 44)(C) of the Act. 
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. 
The Petitioner's initial job description lists six responsibilities and the approximate percentage of time 
that the Beneficiary would devote to each of them: 
Manage and supervise the work of the Financial Manager, the Purchasing 25-30% 
Specialist and Marketing Manager; 
Manage general activities related to consulting and concierge services of the 20% 
Petitioner by supervising the Purchase Specialist; 
Manage[] the Marketing Manager in establishing sales strategies and 10% 
marketing goals, evaluating his performance and determining areas of cost 
reduction and program improvement; 
Supervise the implementation of the corporation's accounting practices and 15-20% 
financial policies, analyzing reports, audits, deciding investment risks, 
budget, allocation of resources prepared by the Financial Manager; 
2 
Hire and supervise the training of professionals to work in the company; and 10-15% 
Supervise the Financial Manager in an[a]lyzing financial information, such 5-10% 
as price, future trends, and investment risks, making investment decisions, 
estimating forecast of business and preparing plans of action. 
The Petitioner claims eight employees in the United States, with the followingpersonnel structure: 
Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 
I 
General Manager (the Beneficiary) 
Administrative Assistant 
Financial Mgr. Digital Media & Mktg. Mgr. Purchasing Specialist 
I I I 
Financial Assistant Digital Media & Mktg. Asst. Customer Service Clerk 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner indicated that the marketing assistant position was vacant, but the 
Petitioner provided the names of the other claimed employees. 
The Petitioner describes its claimed business activities: 
Our Consulting and Concierge services include but are not limited to assisting clients 
on how to open a business, acquire Tax Id number, translations, personal shopper, 
renting virtual offices, filing mail and packages for international customers, interpreter 
services, company referrals, vacation rentals and more. 
The job descriptions for the Petitioner's eight claimed employees, however, do not show who provides 
any of the named services, and they leave other questions unanswered. For example, the job 
description for the purchasing specialist states that he "[f]orwards available inventory items by 
verifying stock," but the record does not indicate what inventory a consulting and concierge service 
would need to maintain, or to whom the Petitioner would forward those unspecified items. 
in the record indicate that the Petitioner billed customers for services such as "Accounting Services," 
"Translation," and "Opening a Company," but the record does not show who performed those services 
and none of the job descriptions include those responsibilities. The submitted invoices do not appear 
to identify transactions involving the purchase, sale, or other handling of inventory. 
The Petitioner submits copies of quarterly tax returns and wage and tax statements showing the 
following salaries paid in 2017, 2018, and the second and third quarters of 2019: 
Title 
CEO 
General Manager (the Beneficiary) 
Purchasing Specialist (the Beneficiary's spouse) 
3 
2017 
$12,000 
46,200 
8700 
2018 
$12,000 
50,400 
21,000 
2019 
$9000 
25,200 
9000 
Customer Service Clerk 11,600 7200 
Digital Media & Marketing Manager 12,000 12,000 6000 
Financial Manager 21,000 12,000 6000 
Financial Assistant 21,000 
Administrative Assistant 12,000 12,000 6800 
Most of these amounts are inconsistent with full-time, year-round employment at Florida's minimum 
wage ($8.10 per hour in 2017, $8.25 in 2018, and $8.56 in 2019). 2 As a result, these low salaries raise 
questions about the true nature and extent of these individuals' responsibilities and employment. 
We note that the Petitioner's 2018 and 2019 tax returns in the record do not show that the Petitioner 
claimed salaries, wages, or officer compensation among its expenses. 3 Although the purchasing 
specialist's job description contains references to "inventory" and "stock,"the Petitioner did not report 
any inventory among its assets on the tax returns. The Petitioner does not address or explain these 
discrepancies. Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and 
sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Matter of 
Ho, 19 I&NDec. 582,591 (BIA 1988). 
The Petitioner's lease agreement and an exterior photograph of the Petitioner's business premises 
show that the Petitioner shares the office space with a real estate company. The Petitioner submits 
interior photographs of its office, but the record does not show how many of the materials and 
individuals shown relate to the real estate company rather than to the Petitioner. 
The Director requested additional details about the Beneficiary's work for the Petitioner in the United 
States in a request for evidence (RFE). In the RFE, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner was 
"filing to extend the beneficiary's previously approved stay in L-1 classification." The Director noted 
that, "The description of duties also appear[ s] to lack sufficient detail for USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services] to determine whether these duties are consistent with an executive or manage1ial 
position. You have not adequately addressed or explained how the beneficiary's subordinates relieve 
her from performing non-qualifying [ managerial] duties." Additionally, the Director's RFE noted that 
the Petitioner had not "sufficiently described the subordinates' duties." The Petitioner responded by 
submitting essentially the same job description already included in the initial filing. 
The Director denied the petition. The Director's decision noted that, "USCIS is aware that you are 
requesting an extension of stay; however, it should be noted that each petition filing is a separate 
proceeding with a separate record." Additionally, the Director stated that, "in making a determination 
of statutory eligibility, USCIS is limited to the information contained in the record of proceeding" 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(16)(ii). Further, "USCIS does not have any authority to confer an immigration 
benefit when the petitioner fails to meet its burden of proof in a subsequent petition." See section 291 
of the Act. 
2 See https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/minimum-wage/history. 
3 We note that the returns are IRS Forms I 120S, U.S. Income Tax Returns for an S Corporation. It appears that the 
Petitioner may not be eligible for status as an S corporation. The Petitioner's majority shareholder is a limited company, 
I l registered in Brazil. Partnerships, corporations, and non-resident individuals cannot hold shares 
in an S Corporation. Sec https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/s-corporations. 
4 
Upon review, we agree with the Director's decision. From a review of the record, following an RFE, 
the Director determined that the Petitioner had not met its burden, stating that the Petitioner did not 
provide enough details to establish the actual duties that the Beneficiary and her claimed subordinates 
would perf01m. The Director noted that the Beneficiary's authority over subordinates does not suffice 
to show that her position would be primarily managerial as the statute and regulations require. Also, 
the record of proceedings does not contain copies of the visa petition that was previously approved. 
As noted by the Director, each petition filing is a separate proceeding with a separate record. See 1 
USCJS Policy Manual E.2(A), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (the record of any application or 
petition constitutes a record of proceeding). See also Hakimuddin v. DHS, Civ No. 4:08-cv-1261, 
2009 WL 497141, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Feb.26.2009) (the record of proceeding does not always contain 
the prior approvals). While we recognize that the Director should explain their departure from 
previous approvals, the Petitioner carries the burden of proof and must provide requested evidence. A 
failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for 
denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
The Petitioner also submits "some emails from the Beneficiary showing that she does not perf01m the 
day-to-day activities but manages the company." While the emails include instructions to others 
concerning various matters, they do not resolve whether her duties are primarily managerial. These 
emails, mostly from 2018, existed at the time of filing but the Petitioner did not include them in its 
response to a request for evidence that specifically asked for more details about the nature of the 
Beneficiary's work. This evidence was not available to the Director at the time of the denial, and the 
Petitioner does not explain how these new materials establish an erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact in the denial notice, as required by the regulation at8 C.F.R. § l 03.3(a)(l )(v). Rather, 
the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence initially, and in 
response to the request for evidence, to meet its burden of proof. The submission of new evidence on 
appeal does not suffice to show that the evidence previously in the record was sufficient. 
Where, as here, a Petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given 
an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, we will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. Matter of Soriano, 19I&NDec. 764,766 (BIA 1988). 
For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not established that it seeks to employ the Beneficiary in a 
primarily managerial capacity in the United States. This conclusion, by itself: prevents a determination 
of eligibility and therefore warrants dismissal of the appeal. Detailed discussion of the remaining 
issue, concerning the Beneficiary's prior employment abroad, cannot change the outcome of this 
appeal. Therefore, we reserve this issue. 4 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that it seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary in a primarily managerial capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also MatterofL-A-C-, 26 I&NDec. 516,526 
n.7(BIA2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where anapplicantis otherwise ineligible). 
5