dismissed L-1A Case: Distribution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8977840 
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: AUG. 3, 2020 
The Petitioner, a newspaper and magazine distributor, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its 
chief executive officer (CEO) under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
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, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that: ( 1) the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity in the United States, and (2) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not apply the preponderance of the evidence 
standard to the facts presented. 
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 nova review, 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 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 their services to the same employer 
or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. The petitioner must also 
establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or her to perform 
the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The primary issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that it will employ the Beneficiary 
in an executive capacity . 
"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 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
When examining the managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the petitioner's 
description of the proposed position, which must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the 
beneficiary. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description of the job duties, we 
examine the company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, 
the presence of other employees to relieve a beneficia1y 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, its staffing levels, and its organizational 
structure. 
A. Duties 
To be eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, the Petitioner must show that 
the Beneficiary will perform the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition at 
section 10l(a)(44)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act. 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 managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the 
Petitioner's other employees. See FamUy Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). 
The Petitioner is engaged in the distribution and circulation of magazines inl I California and 
has distribution centers i~ I and I O I In addition, the Petitioner states that it provides 
parcel deliveries for Amazon and other Internet retailers. It seeks to employ the Beneficiary in the 
position of CEO, which appears to be a newly created position. 
The Petitioner submitted a letter outlining the Beneficiary's proposed duties, indicating that he will 
allocate 70% of his time to "[ d]aily operational and managerial works, supervising the overall 
operation of the company's two distribution centers." The description identifies the following 
responsibilities within this broad area: 
• He will supervise the logistics flows of each distribution center to make sure that the 
daily distribution of the newspapers and magazines run smoothly and timely from our 
receipt of the newspapers and magazines, sorting, staging, picking and distributing, 
during the busiest period of I am to 6 am. 
• From 6 am to 11 am, [he] also needs to supervise and control the works of some after­
distribution and customer services performed by our independent contractors in the 
centers. 
2 
The Petitioner further noted the Beneficiary's authority to "arrange the manpower at each location if 
necessary" and explained that he would need to "go to the locations alternatively to supervise the 
logistics and operations." 
In addition, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would spend an additional 20% of his time on 
personnel duties, noting that he "will have the absolute power and authority to terminate, promote or 
demote the senior level staff - the two managers and three full-time assistant managers, and three 
contract based assistant managers." The Petitioner also discussed the Beneficiary's responsibilities 
for performance evaluations, approval of leave, promotions, and salary increases, and creation of new 
departments, if necessary. Finally, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would spend 10% of his 
time on "certain functional duties" including budgeting and financial planning, developing and 
implementing marketing and promotional plans, representing the company in customer meetings, and 
signing contracts. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director advised the Petitioner that the Beneficiary's position 
description lacked sufficient detail to establish that he would be performing primarily managerial 
duties. We agree with this assessment as the initial description was overly broad and did not 
adequately convey the nature of the specific tasks the Petitioner would perform on a day-to-day basis. 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would allocate 70 percent of his time to "daily operational 
and managerial works" and supervise the "overall operations" but did not describe the specific tasks 
associated with this primary area of responsibility, other than stating that the Beneficiary would 
supervise "logistics flows" and "after-distribution and customer services." 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. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner explained that "the CEO is responsible for operations, personnel, 
contracts, and revenue management primarily based at two warehouses." With respect to personnel, 
the Petitioner stated that the CEO "holds personnel accountable to written quality standards, then 
supervises and manages to ensure the standards can be met," noting that he may use incentives 
(bonuses, promotions, paid time oft) and disciplinary tools (counseling, reprimands, demotions, 
termination). The Petitioner further stated that the CEO must "ensure that revenue streams are 
sufficient to cover all expenses and provide a profit that is at least five percent of gross revenue." 
Finally, the Petitioner explained that the CEO must meet regularly with vendors to ensure that 
confidence in the company's delivery services remains high so that the company is positioned for 
additional business in its market. 
The Petitioner's response to the RFE did not further clarify the nature of the Beneficiaiy' s primaiy 
day-to-day tasks. It described how personnel and contractors would be evaluated based on 
performance and briefly explained the Beneficiary's general profit and loss goals and contract-related 
responsibilities. However, the initial description indicated that personnel, finance and contract-related 
duties would account for only 30 percent of the Beneficiary's time. The letter submitted in response 
to the RFE did not elaborate on the "daily operational and managerial works" that would require 70 
percent of the Beneficiary's time and therefore did not meet the Petitioner's burden to clearly describe 
the proposed duties and to establish that the Beneficiary's actual duties would be primarily managerial 
in nature. Reciting a beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not 
3 
sufficient; the regulations require a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. The 
actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros., 724 F. Supp. at 
1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Here, the Petitioner has not provided the 
necessary detail or an adequate explanation of the Beneficiary's proposed activities in the course of 
his daily routine. 
The fact that a beneficiary will manage or direct a business does not necessarily establish eligibility 
for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial 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 or managerial. Here, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary will 
exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of 
authority with respect to discretionary decision-making and personnel matters. However, due to the 
deficiencies discussed, the submitted position descriptions do not establish that his actual duties would 
be primarily managerial in nature. 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
At the time of filing in June 2019, the Petitioner indicated that it had 28 employees, including five 
full-time workers, and "over 100 independent contractors" working at its two distribution centers. The 
Petitioner submitted a copy of its most recent California state quarterly wage report confirming that it 
had 28 employees on its payroll as of March 2019. The Petitioner also provided copies ofIRS Forms 
W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, for 2018, but did not submit evidence to document its payments to 
staff identified as independent contractors. 
The Petitioner submitted a proposed organizational chart indicating that the Beneficiary would be 
responsible for overseeing a "Center Manager" at each distribution center. The I ~based 
'"Center Manager" is depicted as supervising three assistant managers (two employees and one 
contractor), who in tum supervise 89 newspaper delivery contractors and 24 warehouse support and 
assembly employees. Thel lbased "Center Manager" position is depicted as supervising three 
contracted assistant managers, who supervise eight warehouse and assembly contractors and 40 
newspaper delivery contractors. 
The organizational chart identifies~-----~ as the company chai1man and "corporate 
security" but depicts his position and area of supervision ( a "management services division") as being 
separate from rest of the company structure. The Petitioner explained thatl I is 
'"responsible for the company's security, meaning that he needs to seek more strategic opportunities 
to secure the company's business" and "does not involve [sic] the daily operation of our company." 
The record reflects thatl !founded the petitioning company in 2006 and wholly owned 
it until selling the Beneficiary a majority share of its stock in June 2019. The Petitioner indicates that 
the Beneficiary was offered the CEO position because he had invested in the company and as part of 
a management restructuring. 
The definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." Here, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity 
based on his proposed supervision and control of subordinate personnel and does not claim that he 
will be employed as a function manager. Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and 
4 
control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. Contrary to the 
common understanding of the word "manager," the statute plainly states that 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." 1 Id. 
In a statement describing the current staffs duties, the Petitioner indicated that its two center managers 
currently "share the managerial work" of the company, with each responsible for "supervising the daily 
operations" of their respective distribution centers. The record reflects that the center managers currently 
work with minimal supervision but would report to the Beneficiary when he assumes the CEO role. The 
Petitioner further explained that the assistant managers "assist the center manager to operate the daily 
works at the center, including assigning and arranging the works to all other center's worker, sorting, 
packing, loading and delivering." The Petitioner stated that assistant managers currently report to their 
respective center managers, but "will be directly under [ the Beneficiary's] management and supervision" 
when he joins the company," with him "supervising and controlling their daily works." Finally, the 
Petitioner indicated that lower level warehouse, assembly and delivery workers report to the assistant 
managers. However, elsewhere, the Petitioner stated that the assistant managers "are mainly responsible 
for performing each step of the distribution together with other workers." 
In the RFE, the Director requested additional infmmation regarding the duties performed by the 
Beneficiary's proposed subordinates, and, if applicable, additional evidence to establish they are 
professional employees. In response, the Petitioner indicated that it had already provided this 
information and referred the Director to some of the initial evidence exhibits. The Petitioner stated 
that it was providing resumes for "some senior staff' and emphasized that they should be considered 
"professional staff'' based on their years of industry experience even if they do not have college-level 
education. The resumes provided for the managers and assistant managers indicate their employment 
with the Petitioner, but do not provide any further information regarding their job duties. 
Based on the above, the record reflects that, with the addition of the new CEO position, the Petitioner's 
distribution centers would be staffed by: (1) a CEO responsible for "daily operational and managerial 
works" and the "overall operations," (2) a center manager who is responsible for "supervising the daily 
operations," and (3) three assistant managers who assist the center managers "to operate the daily 
works." Although the organizational chart shows three tiers of management or supervision over the 
lower-level staff, one of the Petitioner's statements, as noted above, indicates that the both the center 
managers and assistant managers will report directly to the Beneficiary. If this is the case, it is unclear 
how his role would differ from that of the center managers. 
Further, we note that the Petitioner has only documented its payments to the two assistant managers 
who are on its payroll; it indicates that the other four individuals in this position are contractors, but 
1 To determine whether a beneficiary manages professional employees, we must evaluate whether the subordinate positions 
require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. Cf. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining 
"profession" to mean "any occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum 
requirement for entry into the occupation"). Section 101 ( a)(32) of the Act, states that "[t ]he term profession shall include 
but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, 
colleges, academies, or seminaries." 
5 
the record does not contain evidence of payments to contractors. In fact, the Petitioner has documented 
its employment of only one of its staff members at the I I distribution center (the center 
manager), as all other workers at this center are identified as contractors. 
Therefore, while the Petitioner has documented itsl lbased payroll employees, and it 
appears that the Beneficiary's direct subordinates at this distribution center would be responsible for 
assigning tasks to the lower-level warehouse workers during the newspaper sorting, assembling, 
packing and loading process, the evidence as a whole does not establish that they would relieve him 
from performing other non-managerial duties associated with operating the business. The fact that he 
will spend some portion of his time overseeing subordinate supervisors is not sufficient to establish 
that his role is primarily managerial in nature. 
As discussed, the Petitioner did not elaborate on what specific tasks the Beneficiary would perform 
with respect to the centers' "daily operational and managerial works." Because the Petitioner did not 
provide a detailed description of the Beneficiary's duties, or the requested position descriptions for his 
direct subordinates, we cannot determine whether the center managers and assistant managers would 
relieve him from performing other operational tasks that may be required for the business, such as 
reporting to vendors, handling calls from customers, and day-to-day booking and administrative 
functions that would be associated with any business. 
In addition, the Petitioner indicates that the distribution center's main activities take place between 1 
am and 6 am. However, it states that the Beneficiary, from 6 am to 11 am, "needs to supervise and 
control the works of some after-distribution and customer services performed by our independent 
contractors." It is unclear whether the managers and assistant managers would assist with these tasks, 
given the Petitioner's claim that the warehouse is "generally empty" during this time, and the Petitioner 
has not established that the independent contractors who perform these after-distribution and customer 
service functions are managers, supervisors or professionals. 
Overall, the record does not contain sufficient evidence regarding the Beneficiary's proposed role or 
the roles of his subordinates to establish that he would primarily perform qualifying managerial duties. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that he would be employed in a managerial capacity as 
defined at section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
III. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve its arguments regarding whether the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial 
or executive capacity. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not 
required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); 
see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6