dismissed L-1A Case: Corporate Travel And Events

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 0-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 15, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a coordinator of corporate travel and events, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as 
marketing manager/executive under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(15)(L). The L-lA classification allows a business to transfer a qualifying foreign 
employee to the United States to temporarily work in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that, 
contrary to the Act and Department of Homeland Security regulations, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director disregarded approvals of a prior L-lA petition and 
its extension for the Beneficiary in an offered position with job duties identical to those in this 
matter. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
An L-lA petitioner must establish that, within the three years before a beneficiary's admission into 
the United States, it or its parent, branch, subsidiary, or affiliate employed the beneficiary abroad 
full-time for at least one continuous year in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge 
capacity. 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.3(1)(3)(i), (iii), (iv). A petitioner must also demonstrate that it would 
employ a beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
1 The Petitioner's Form T-290B. Notice of Appeal, indicated that the company would submit a briet: additional evidence, 
or both within 30 days of the appeal's filing. As of this date, more than five months after the appeal's filing, we have not 
received any further submissions rrom the Petitioner. 
Matter of 0-, LLC 
II. MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY IN THE UNITED STATES 
The Petitioner claims that it would employ the Beneficiary in either a managerial or executive 
capacity. We will therefore examine each claim, beginning with the purported managerial nature of 
the offered position. 
A. Managerial Capacity 
The definition of managerial capacity has two parts. First, the Petitioner must show that the 
Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 
1533 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). Second, the Petitioner must prove that the 
Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational 
activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See, e.g., Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 
1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d at 1533. 
Employment in a "managerial capacity" must 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 the 
organization, or a department or subdivision of it; 3) having authority over personnel actions, or 
functioning at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or regarding the managed function; 
and 4) exercising discretion over day-to-day operations of the managed activity or function. Section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Evidence of managerial capacity must include "a detailed description of the services to be 
performed." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). In addition to the job duties of an offered position, we 
examine a petitioner's organizational structure, the job duties of its other positions, the nature of its 
business, and other factors affecting the proposed employment. 
Here, the Petitioner states that, as marketing manager/executive, the Beneficiary would spend 60 
percent of his time planning, developing, and directing the company's marketing division. His 
duties would include supervising the division's accounting practices, and preparing budgets and 
financial reports. The Petitioner also states that the Beneficiary would spend 10 percent of his time 
on each of the following: directing the division's financial strategy, planning, and forecasts; 
assisting in identifying and assessing new business opportunities; studying, analyzing, and reporting 
on industry trends and expansion opportunities; and assisting in personnel review, development, and 
training. 
As the Director found, the Petitioner's description of the job's duties is vague, lacking details of 
proposed daily activities. See 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) (stating that "[s]pecifics are clearly an important indication 
of whether [a beneficiary's] duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature, otherwise 
meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating regulations"). As the regulations 
require a detailed description of a position's job duties, reciting vague job responsibilities or broad 
business objectives is insufficient. 
2 
Matter of 0-, LLC 
Here, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary will spend 60 percent of his time, planning, 
developing, and directing the marketing division, including supervising the division's accounting 
practices, and preparing budgets and financial reports; but the Petitioner does not explain what that 
means in the context of the Petitioner's specific business model and staffing. Absent an 
understanding of what daily duties would make up 60 percent of the Beneficiary's time, we cannot 
find that the Beneficiary would be primarily employed in a qualifying capacity. With regard to the 
Beneficiary's other claimed duties, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how those duties, which are 
also generally described, would qualify as managerial or executive, rather than operational. For 
example, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary's assisting in identifying and assessing 
new business opportunities or studying, analyzing, and reporting on industry trends would be 
qualifying duties. As noted, managerial duties do not include ordinary operational activities 
performed alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See, e.g., Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d at 
1316; Champion World, 940 F.2d at 1533. The Petitioner did not address the deficiency of the job 
description on appeal. The record therefore does not establish that the Beneficiary would primarily 
perform managerial duties. 
Also, the record does not establish the ability of the Petitioner's staff to support the Beneficiary's 
employment in a managerial capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary would 
manage an essential function. Thus, to qualify as employment in a managerial capacity, the offered 
position must involve supervising and controlling the work "of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees." Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
The company submitted an organizational chart indicating that the Beneficiary would directly 
supervise an operational director and a sales director. The chart indicates that, in tum, the 
operational director would supervise 10 workers, including four managers, and the sales director 
would oversee three workers. Despite the Director's written request for additional evidence (RFE), 
the Petitioner did not provide job duties of the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates or the other 
workers. The unsupported representation of the Beneficiary's position on the organizational chart is 
not sufficient to demonstrate that he actually oversees professional, managerial or supervisory 
employees. The record must substantiate that the duties of a beneficiary and his or her subordinates 
correspond to their placement in an organization's structural hierarchy. Artificial tiers of 
subordinate employees and inflated job titles are not probative and will not establish that an 
organization is sufficiently complex to support an executive or managerial position. As the record 
lacks sufficient evidence that the Beneficiary would oversee other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary would work in a 
managerial capacity, 
Inconsistencies in the record also raise doubt about the credibility of the organizational chart. It is 
incumbent upon a petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective 
evidence. Attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice without competent 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Copies of the Petitioner's most recent federal payroll tax records indicate that, in the second quarter 
of 2018, the Petitioner employed only six people. The organizational chart indicates that these six 
people were all directors or managers of the company. Thus, the record lacks evidence of the 
Petitioner's employment of workers who would perform daily operational and sales activities that 
the Beneficiary would allegedly oversee. Without evidence of lower-level employees, it is not clear 
3 
Matter of 0-, LLC 
who would be performing the day-to-day operational and sales duties, or that the Beneficiary would 
be relieved from these duties. Also, the most recent payroll records list only five of the 15 people 
that the Petitioner claims the Beneficiary would directly or indirectly oversee as employees of the 
Petitioner. 
The Petitioner's organizational chart indicates that the operational director would oversee three 
"Freelance" workers. The chart therefore suggests that these workers may be independent 
contractors who were not reflected on the Petitioner's payroll tax records. However, the Petitioner 
has not submitted evidence to corroborate its payments to these claimed freelance workers, nor 
documented how their work supports the Petitioner's operations and relieves the Beneficiary from 
performing non-qualifying duties. 
The organizational chart also indicates that the operational director would oversee two workers in 
Mexico - an air coordinator and a congresses supervisor - who are paid by a company related to the 
Petitioner. In addition, in response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner's chief executive officer 
(CEO) described the sales director and the three workers she would supervise as "freelancers 
operating in Mexico, Spain [and] India" whom the Petitioner pays commissions. Staff in foreign 
countries may support an L-lA manager in the United States. See Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted 
Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). In Z-A-, however, the petitioner submitted "substantial 
evidence relating to the support provided by the overseas staff/' and "[t]he record amply 
substantiate[ d] the existence of the foreign staff and the nature of and need for the services they 
provide to the Petitioner and the organization as a whole." Id. The Petitioner here has not 
documented the existence of its purported foreign sales staff or corroborated its claimed payments to 
these workers. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not explained how these alleged overseas positions 
support the Petitioner's work nor documented how they are managed by the Beneficiary. Likewise, 
the record does not establish the Petitioner's claim that a foreign affiliate employs an air coordinator 
and a congresses supervisor in Mexico who are allegedly overseen by the operational director. 
Because of the evidentiary deficiencies discussed above, the record does not establish that the 
Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity. The Petitioner has not 
sufficiently detailed the job duties of the offered position. The Petitioner also has not demonstrated 
who would perform its day-to-day, operational and sales activities. The record therefore does not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has sufficient staff to relieve the Beneficiary from significant 
involvement in non-managerial duties. The record also does not establish that the Beneficiary 
would oversee professional, managerial or supervisory employees, as required. 
B. Executive Capacity 
Employment in an "executive capacity" must primarily involve: directing an organization's 
management ( or a major component or function of it); establishing its goals and policies ( or those of 
its component or function); exercising wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and receiving 
only general supervision or direction from higher-level executives, a board of directors, or 
stockholders. Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. The term describes an elevated position within a 
complex, organizational hierarchy. A beneficiary must be able to "direct the management" and 
"establish the goals and policies" of an organization. Id. An executive position therefore must 
focus on an organization's broad goals and policies, rather than on its day-to-day operations. 
4 
Matter of 0-, LLC 
For the same reasons the record does not establish the managerial nature of the offered position, the 
evidence also does not demonstrate that the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in an executive 
capacity. The Petitioner's description of the job duties of the offered position lack sufficient detail 
to determine the job's daily duties. Also, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated who would 
perform day-to-day, operational and sales activities that the Beneficiary claims to oversee. The 
record therefore does not establish that the company has sufficient staff to relieve the Beneficiary 
from significant involvement in non-executive duties. 
When USCIS uses staffing levels to determine the managerial or executive nature of an offered 
position, the Agency must consider "the reasonable needs of the organization, component, or 
function in light of [its] overall purpose and stage of development." Section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the 
Act. USCIS cannot impose a minimum size requirement on an L- lA petitioner. But the Agency 
may consider size as a factor in assessing whether a business can support a manager or executive. 
See, e.g., Brazil Quality Stones, Inc. v. Chertoff, 531 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that 
"size is nevertheless a relevant 'factor in assessing whether [ the petitioner's] operations are 
substantial enough to support a manager"') ( citation omitted). 
Here, in our analyses of the managerial and executive natures of the offered position, we considered 
the Petitioner's size. But we also examined: its organizational structure; its other positions; the 
nature of its business; and the existence of foreign staff Our analyses therefore do not improperly 
focus on the Petitioner's size. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director disregarded evidence. Specifically, the Petitioner 
submitted copies of an L-lA petition and its extension that USCIS previously approved on behalf of 
the Beneficiary for another Petitioner. The Petitioner argues that "the beneficiary's L-1 visa was 
originally approved and later extended on the same information provided by the Petitioner." 
However, a different petitioner filed the prior petitions for the Beneficiary and submitted different 
evidence to support them. The prior L-lA grants for the Beneficiary therefore do not require USCIS 
to approve this petition. 
III. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
Although unaddressed by the Director, the record also does not establish a qualifying relationship 
between the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's foreign employer. As previously indicated, an L-lA 
petitioner must establish that, within the three years before a beneficiary's admission into the United 
States, he or she worked abroad for the petitioner or its parent, branch, subsidiary, or affiliate. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.3(1)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner, a limited liability company (LLC), submitted copies of its operating agreement and 
federal income tax returns indicating that its CEO owns 60 percent of the LLC, with her spouse, the 
company's chief financial officer, owning the remaining 40 percent. Minutes of a shareholders' 
meeting also document the CEO' s ownership of about 25 percent of the Mexican company, with 
four other individuals owning the balance of the stock. Contrary to the Petitioner's claims, the 
record does not establish the Mexican company as the Petitioner's affiliate. The term "affiliate" 
means "[ o ]ne of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of individuals, each 
5 
Matter of 0-, LLC 
individual owning and controlling approximately the same share or proportion of each entity." 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(L)(2).2 Here, the record indicates that different groups own and control 
the Petitioner and the Mexican company. The only common owner of the companies is the 
Petitioner's CEO. The record therefore does not establish the Beneficiary's foreign employer as the 
Petitioner's affiliate. Thus, in any future filings in this matter, the Petitioner must submit additional 
evidence to establish a qualifying relationship between itself and the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The record on appeal does not establish that the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in a 
managerial or executive capacity. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. A petitioner bears 
the burden of proving eligibility for a requested benefit. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
The Petitioner here has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of 0-, LLC, ID# 3997231 (AAO July 15, 2019) 
2 An "affiliate" may also be one of two subsidiaries owned and controlled by the same parent or individual, or a foreign 
partnership or similar organization that provides accounting services marketed under the same internationally recognized 
name as a U.S. partner. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(L)(l), (3). These other definitions, however, do not apply to the facts 
of this case. 
6