dismissed L-1A Case: Countertop Sales And Installation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-C- LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC.14.2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129. PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner. a countertop sales and installation company. seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as general manager of its new office 1 under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101 ( a)(15 )(L ). 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-1A 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 denied the petition. concluding that the record did not 
establish. as required. that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity. The Director also concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the new office would 
support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of approval of the 
petition. 
On appeal. the Petitioner submits additional evidence relevant to the Beneficiary"s foreign 
employment and asserts that the foreign organizational chart establishes that he acts in a managerial 
or executive capacity. Further. the Petitioner contends that it has submitted sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary would act in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of 
the approval of the petition. 
Upon de novo review. we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification for a new office. a qualifying 
organization must have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity for one 
continuous year vvithin three years preceding the beneticiary·s application for admission into the 
United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3 )(v)(B ). In addition. the beneticiary must seck to enter the 
1 
The term '"new office'" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the lJnited States 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 no 
more than one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
Matler of'B-C- Lf[ 
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. Section 101 (a)( 15 )(L) of the 
Act. The petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary·s prior education. training. and 
employment qualifies him or her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. 
~ 214.2(1)(3). 
The petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new of1ice will be able to support a 
managerial or executive position within one year. This evidence must establish that the petitioner 
secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation and disclose the proposed nature and 
scope of the entity. its organizational structure. its financial goals. and the size of the lJ .S. 
investment. See ~enerally. 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(1)(3 )(v). 
""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 
IOI(a)(44)(A) ofthe Act. 
'·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 
10l(a)(44)(B) ofthe Act. 
II. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The tirst issue we will address is whether the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
When examining the managerial or executive 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 or executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description of 
the job duties. we also examine the foreign employer·s organizational structure. the duties performed 
by the beneticiat-y"s subordinate foreign 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 the business. 
2 
Matter olB-C- LLC 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary's foreign employer is engaged in the manufacturing and 
installation of countertops. In a support letter provided in response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE). the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary exercises full control over the foreign 
employer's operations. that he implements its "practices and policies." allocates resources. 
"determines areas of cost reduction and program improvement, .. directs '"efficacy of sales:· '"import 
distribution activities," and investment decisions. and approves distribution partnership negotiations. 
In addition. the Petitioner submitted a duty description for the Beneficiary indicating that he devotes 
20% of his time to "'planning administration." including '"developing long range and annual plans. 
preparing financial reports on the progress of short and long range plans. and researching and 
analyzing documents and proposals... The Petitioner further stated that the Beneficiary spends I 0% 
of his time on '"HR management.'' including supervising and recruiting stan: overseeing training and 
development. and focusing on ··policy development and documentation... The Petitioner also 
explained that the Beneficiary allocates 25% of his time to ·'services management ... performing such 
duties as negotiating deals and overseeing the prompt delivery of services. The Petitioner stated that 
the Beneficiary spends 5% of his time on '·marketing and PR ... and another 20% on ''commercial 
management" by providing recommendations on investment and cash strategies and vision on long 
range fiscal planning. Lastly. the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary devotes 20% of his time to 
·'administration management," including establishing "goals and policies" and assisting '"in the 
development of forms and tools in increase company efficiency and risk management." 
In denying the petition. the Director concluded that the Beneficiary's foreign duty description was 
overly vague and did not convey his actual day-to-day tasks. The Director emphasized that the 
Petitioner did not provide documentary evidence to substantiate the Beneficiary's performance of 
managerial or executive-level duties. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has submitted a vague duty description for the 
Beneficiary that does not convey his actual day-to-day tasks or establish that he devotes his time 
primarily to managerial or executive duties. The Beneficiary's duty description includes several 
general duties that could apply to any executive or manager acting in any business or industry and 
they do not provide insight into the actual nature of his role. For example. the Petitioner stated that 
the Beneficiary develops short-range, long-range. and annual plans. researches documents and 
proposals related to these plans. oversees employee development and training. creates policies and 
documentation related to human resources management. negotiates deals. directs advertising. makes 
recommendations on investment and cash strategies. provides vision and leadership on long range 
fiscal planning. and establishes goals and policies to ensure client and vendor tile integrity. 
The Petitioner provided few examples and little supporting documentation to demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's performance of these duties. such as short- and long-range plans he developed. 
documents and proposals he researched. human resources policies he developed. deals he negotiated. 
services he oversaw. marketing and publicity he implemented. fiscal planning he directed. or goals 
Matter ofB-C- LLC 
and policies he established. This lack of detail is especially noteworthy since the Petitioner states 
that the Beneficiary has been acting in his role as executive director of the foreign employer since 
2009. Specifics 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 the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co .. Ltd \'. Sava. 724 F. Supp. 1103. 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). 
affd. 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
The fact that the Beneficiary manages or directs a business does not necessarily establish eligibility 
for classification as an intracompany transferee in an executive capacity within the meaning of 
section 101(a)(44) of the Act. By statute. eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of 
a position be .. primarily" executive in nature. Sections IOI(A)(44)(A) and (B) ofthe Act. While the 
Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the foreign employer's day-to-day operations and possess 
the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making. the position description 
alone is insufficient to establish that his actual duties are primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
B. Staffing 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart in response to the RFE reflecting that the 
Beneficiary oversees four subordinates including an administrative manager. a commercial manager. 
a marketing assistant. and a production manager. The chart indicated that the administrative 
manager supervises a secretary. a financial assistant. and a human resources employee, that the 
commercial manager oversees two sales representatives. and that the production manager supervises 
a department of several operational employees including ··processors." ''installers.'' and •·polishers." 
However, similar to the Beneficiary's duties, the Petitioner provides duty descriptions for the 
Beneficiary's asserted subordinates that are also vague and which do not convey their actual day-to­
day activities. For instance, the Petitioner states that the administrative manager develops efficiency 
procedures. engages in project planning and management. and that she handles ·'technology 
integration." However. the Petitioner provides no specific examples of procedures she implemented. 
projects she managed. or technology she integrated. 
Likewise. the Petitioner submits ambiguous duties for the asserted commercial director. indicating 
that she ··makes recommendations for necessary changes" to company rules, that she .. looks for 
opportunities to grow the business and new initiatives. and that she provides insight on how the 
company can improve performance." Again. the Petitioner submits no details on recommendations 
she made, opportunities she discovered, or insights she introduced. Finally, the Petitioner states that 
the production manager liaises with other managers .. to formulate objectives and understand 
requirements" and that he organizes "workflow to meet specifications and deadlines." but it again 
does not provide examples of these objectives, requirements, or work flows within the context of the 
foreign entity's countertop manufacturing and installation business. In sum. the Petitioner has not 
provided sut1icient duty descriptions for the Beneficiary's direct subordinates to substantiate that he 
supervises other managerial or professional subordinates as asserted. 
4 
Matter olB-C- LLC 
Furthermore, the Petitioner does not submit sufficient documentary evidence to corroborate the 
foreign entity's claimed stat1ing levels. The organizational chart submitted in response to the RFE 
reflected that the foreign employer has 21 employees. However. the Petitioner provided the foreign 
entity's payroll listing for only the month of November 2016. which is insufficient to substantiate 
that the Beneficiary has been overseeing the claimed managerial or professional subordinates and 
that he is sufficiently relieved from performing non-qualifying operational tasks. Although the 
Director pointed out a discrepancy between this sole payroll document and the number of employees 
depicted in the foreign entity's organizational chart. the Petitioner did not submit additional evidence 
to clarify the foreign entity's staffing levels. 
The Petitioner provides little documentation to corroborate the Beneficiary's subordinates or their 
performance of duties delegated by the Beneficiary. FUJiher. the Petitioner does not submit payroll 
documentation specific to the Beneficiary's subordinates or documentation to substantiate their 
education levels. In sum. the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the 
Beneficiary supervises a team of managerial and professional subordinates abroad. A managerial or 
executive employee must have authority over day-to-day operations beyond the level normally 
vested in a first-line supervisor. unless the supervised employees are professionals. Malter of 
Church Scientology Jnt '!. 19 I&N Dec. 593. 604 (Comm'r 1988). 
On appeal, the Petitioner merely points to the foreign employer's organizational chart and asserts 
that it demonstrates that the Beneficiary acts in a managerial or executive capacity abroad. 
However, the Petitioner does not sufficiently suppmi this organizational chart with documentary 
evidence and provide sut1iciently detailed duties for the Beneficiary and his subordinates. The 
evidence must substantiate that the duties of a beneficiary and his or her subordinates correspond to 
their placement in an organization's structural hierarchy. Managerial job titles alone arc not 
probative and will not establish that an organization is sut1iciently complex to support a managerial 
or executive position. The Petitioner has not corroborated that the Beneficiary is relieved from 
performing non-qualifying operational duties in his position with the foreign entity. 
For these reasons. the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is employed abroad in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
III. NEW OFFICE 
We will now determine whether the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary will act in a 
managerial or executive capacity in the United States within one year. 
If the beneficiary is coming to the United States in L-1 A status to open or to be employed in a new 
office. the petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new office will be able to support 
a managerial or executive position within one year. This evidence includes information regarding 
the new office· s physical premises. the proposed nature and scope of the entity. its organizational 
structure. its financial goals. and the size of the U.S. investment. See l{enerally. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(l)(3)(v). 
Matter ofB-C- LLC 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner stated that it was established in the United States to provide ··international support for 
the [foreign employerr and to utilize existing partnerships and programs to provide countertop sales 
and services in the United States. The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would lead this effort 
as general manager and ··be responsible for defining and directing new strategies for the company's 
business tools to achieve strategic sales and marketing goals:· The Petitioner explained that the 
Beneficiary would exercise full control over the company's operations, including ··the growth and 
development of corporate management practices and policies." 
Further. the Petitioner provided a duty description indicating that the Beneficiary would be tasked 
with overseeing a sales manager and ·'other employees:· including an administrative assistant, three 
''installers ... and two '·polishers," all to be hired during the tirst year of operation. The Petitioner 
also stated that the Beneficiary would be responsible for managing ''general activities related to 
making products and providing services." establishing .. sales strategies and marketing goals," 
determining ''areas of cost reduction and program improvement."' supervising the .. implementation 
of the corporation's accounting practices and financial policies ... and hiring and supervising the 
training of professionals. 
In denying the petition. the Director concluded that the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. duty description 
was overly vague and did not convey his actual day-to-day tasks. We agree with the Director that 
the Beneficiary's duty description is too general to establish that he would devote his time primarily 
to managerial or executive duties. The duty description includes several vague duties that could 
apply to any executive or manager acting in any business or industry and they do not provide insight 
into the actual nature of his role. For example. the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would 
manage ''general activities related to making products and providing services:· establish '·sales 
strategies and marketing goals." determine "areas of cost reduction and program improvement ... 
supervise the .. implementation of the corporation· s accounting practices and financial policies," and 
hire and supervise the training of professionals. 
The Petitioner provided little explanation of how he will develop the business during the first year. 
such as "corporate management practices and policies·· he will establish. "general activities" he will 
manage. ·'sales strategies and marketing goals" he will implement. ··areas of cost reduction and 
program improvement" on which he will focus. or corporate accounting practices or financial 
policies he will put in place. The Petitioner has provided few specifics related to how the 
Beneficiary's day-to-day duties tit specifically within the company"s first year business plans: for 
instance, what specific actions he will take during the tirst year to assure that the business develops 
as necessary to support him in a managerial or executive capacity within one year. Specifics 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 the 
regulations. Fedin Bros. Co .. Ltd. 724 F. Supp. at 1103. 1108. 
Matter olB-C- LLC 
The fact that the Beneficiary manages or directs a business does not necessarily establish eligibility 
for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity within the 
meaning of section 101(a)(44) of the Act. By statute. eligibility for this classification requires that 
the duties of a position be ··primarily'' managerial or executive in nature. Sections 101(A)(44)(A) 
and (B) of the Act. While the Beneficiary would likely exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day­
to-day operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision­
making, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that his actual duties would be 
primarily managerial or executive in nature within one year. 
B. Business Plan and Staffing 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart reflecting that the company would hire a sales 
manager, an administrative assistant, three installers, and two polishers by the end of its initial year 
of operations. 2 The chart indicates that the employees, with the exception of the polishers. would 
report directly to the Beneficiary. The Petitioner indicated that the sales manager would need three 
years of experience and a bachelor's degree in business or accounting. 
The new ot1ice regulations recognize that a designated manager or executive responsible for setting 
up operations will be engaged in a variety of low-level activities not normally performed by 
employees at the executive or managerial level and that often the full range of managerial 
responsibility cannot be performed in that first year. However. a petitioner's evidence in support of 
a new office petition should demonstrate a realistic expectation that the enterprise is prepared to 
commence business operations and rapidly expand as it moves away from the developmental stage 
to full operations. where there would be an actual need for a manager or executive who will 
primarily perform qualifying duties. Accordingly. the entire record must be considered to determine 
whether the proposed duties are plausible considering a petitioner's anticipated staffing levels and 
stage of development within a one-year period. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3 )(v)(C). 
The duties of the Beneficiary's proposed subordinates are overly vague and do not convey their 
anticipated day-to-day tasks in the context of the Petitioner's first year of operations. For instance. 
the Petitioner provided a list of non-specific duties for the proposed sales manager that could apply 
to any such employee in any business. including stating that he would be responsible for 
"implementing marketing strategies." establishing "sales objectives ... "projecting sales volume." 
implementing "sales programs.·· establishing and adjusting "selling prices by monitoring costs." and 
completing '"sales operational requirements by scheduling and assigning employees." 
The Petitioner has not provided any examples of marketing strategies the sales manager will 
implement, sales objectives he will set, sales programs he will establish. pricing or costs he will set 
and monitor. or operational requirements he will manage. This evidence would be probative in 
corroborating the proposed role of the sales manager and provide valuable insight into the 
' The Petitioner provided a second cha11 indicating that it would add a commercial manager. sales representative. 
production manager. and an additional installer and polisher during its second year. 
Matter ofB-C- LLC 
company's first year plans, including whether it is likely that the company will develop sutliciently 
during the first year to support the Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. The 
same can be said with respect to the duties of the proposed administrative assistant as the 
Beneficiary has provided tasks for this employee that could apply to any administrative position in 
any business. As such. the Petitioner has not submitted sufliciently detailed duties for the 
Beneficiary's proposed subordinates. 
Further, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient detail regarding its first year hiring and business 
plans, information that is critical to assessing whether it is likely that the business will develop 
sufficiently during the first year. For instance, the Petitioner states that it will hire a sales manager. 
administrative assistant and five other operational employees during the first year, but does not 
indicate when it will do so. nor does it specify how much these employees will be paid. In fact. the 
Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary will earn $65.000 per year, or approximately $5.417 per 
month. However. the Petitioner's business plan projects that it will pay only $7.000 in wages per 
month, leaving question as to whether it legitimately plans on hiring seven additional employees 
during the first year. The Petitioner's business plan lacks detail and it has not provided projections 
regarding its other operating expenses or anticipated revenues for the first year of operations. We 
are provided with little detail on how the Petitioner would pay the proposed statT of seven employees 
or when these employees will be hired. 
Similarly, the Petitioner submits little detail regarding its first year actions to substantiate that it will 
develop sufficiently during the first year to support the Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity. The Petitioner asserts that the foreign employer will invest $100.000 in the 
company during the first three months. However. it does not provide sut1icient detail on hO\v this 
money will be spent during the first year to develop the business. For example. the Petitioner states 
that $29.850 will be spent on ··machinery and equipment purchases.'' but it did not indicate the 
nature of these purchases or specifics on what actions it will undertake during the first year to launch 
the business. The Petitioner states that it will utilize the foreign employer's ·'existing partnerships 
and programs" in order to provide services in the United States; however, it did not provide any 
examples of these partnerships and programs or submit documentary evidence to substantiate these 
business relationships. In sum, the Petitioner has provided few details regarding its first year 
business plans and it has not sufficiently established that it is likely to develop adequately during the 
first year to support the Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
Lastly. in order to qualify for L-1 nonimmigrant classification during the first year of operations, the 
regulations require a petitioner to disclose the size of the U.S. investment as necessary to establish 
that the proposed enterprise will support an executive or managerial position within one year of the 
approval of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3 )(v)(C). As noted. the Petitioner asserts that the 
foreign employer will invest $100,000 in the new enterprise. However. the Petitioner has not 
substantiated the foreign employer's proposed investment. First. the Petitioner's business plan 
ret1ects that an initial investment of $40,895 will be made to finance this petition. machinery and 
equipment. ''plant refurbishment," and other expenses, of which little explanation is provided. 
However. financial projections indicate that the remaining $51,888 of the claimed $100.000 
Matter ofB-C- LLC 
investment will be generated based on the Petitioner·s cash flow during the first six months. The 
Petitioner provides bank records which indicate that the foreign employer has contributed 
approximately half of the stated $100.000 investment. Therefore. these discrepancies leave question 
as to the foreign employer·s asserted investment in the Petitioner. and in turn. the company"s stated 
first year business plans. 
The record does not include sufficient probative evidence establishing that the Beneficiary will be 
relieved from performing non-qualifying duties within one year of approval of the petition. The 
Petitioner has not fully developed the record so that we may analyze the viability of its plans to open 
and operate a new office in the United States. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the record does not include sufficient evidence to establish that 
the Beneficiary acts in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity with the foreign employer or 
that the Petitioner will support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity within a 
one-year period. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter oj'B-C- LLC ·. ID# 73 7600 (AAO Dec. 14. 201 7) 
9