dismissed L-1A Case: Dry Cleaning

MATTER OF P-D-C- LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 10, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a company operating dry cleaners, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as the 
chief executive officer (CEO) of its new office1 under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(l5)(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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary acted in a managerial or executive capacity abroad. The 
Director also determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of an approval of the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director incorrectly concluded that the Beneficiary would 
not act in a managerial or executive capacity within one year. The Petitioner emphasizes its already 
existing operations and its plans to hire managers subordinate to the Beneficiary during the first year. 
In addition, the Petitioner asserts that the Director ignored evidence of the Beneficiary's engagement 
in tactical and strategic decisions, negotiation with third parties, and involvement in hiring and firing 
decisions abroad indicating that she oversees an essential function. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving a new 
office, a qualifying organization must have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity 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)(3)(v)(B). In addition, the beneficiary must 
1 The tenn "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one 
year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(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. 
.
Matter of P-D-C- LLC 
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. 
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 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 U.S. 
investment. See generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
We will first analyze whether the Petitioner established that it would employ the Beneficiary in a 
managerial or executive capacity within one year of the petition's approval. 
"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. 
The statute defines an "executive capacity" as 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) of the Act. 
In order to determine whether the Petitioner established that its new office will support a managerial 
or executive position within one year, we will review the Beneficiary's proposed job duties, along 
with the Petitioner's business and hiring plans and evidence that the business will grow sufficiently 
to support the Beneficiary in the intended managerial or executive capacity. The totality of the 
evidence must be considered in analyzing whether the proposed managerial or executive position is 
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). 
A. Duties 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner stated that it had purchased a dry cleaning business, P-D-C­
(Dry Cleaner A), using funds invested by the foreign employer. The submitted evidence reflected 
that the Petitioner was owned by the following members: 55% by _____ 15% by 
15% by ___ , and 15% by the Beneficiary. 
2 
.
Matter of P-D-C- LLC 
Later in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner indicated that it had 
also purchased two other dry cleaning businesses, I-C- (Dry Cleaner B) and S-C- (Dry Cleaner C). 
The Petitioner also provided supporting documentation reflecting that Dry Cleaner B had been 
purchased by a separate legal entity, P-USAG- LLC, and that Dry Cleaner Chad been purchased by 
I- LLC. The submitted evidence indicated that P-USAG- LLC, the purchaser of Dry Cleaner B, was 
50% owned by and 50% owned by Further, the provided 
documentation reflected that I- LLC, the company that purchased Dry Cleaner C, was owned by the 
same members and in the same membership percentages as the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner explained in a RFE response letter that the Beneficiary would work at Dry Cleaner C, 
while her asserted subordinate managers would operate out of Dry Cleaner A. In a separate letter, 
the foreign employer stated that the Beneficiary would act as CEO of the Petitioner and Dry Cleaner 
A performing the following duties: 
• Ensure ongoing local programmatic excellence, 
• Recommend timelines and resources needed to achieve strategic goals, 
• Support strong communication with the foreign employer board of directors, 
• Develop an organizational plan incorporating goals and objectives that work 
towards the strategic direction, 
• Oversee the efficient and effective day-to-day operation of the organization, 
• Draft policies for the approval of the foreign employer board, review existing 
policies, and recommend changes, 
• Monitor the day-to-day delivery of the programs and services, and 
• Recruit, interview and select staff that have the right technical and personal 
abilities. 
In addition, in a business plan, the Petitioner also provided a separate U.S. duty description specific 
to the Beneficiary's oversight of Dry Cleaner A. This duty description set forth some of the 
following tasks: 
• Measure productivity and goal achievement, 
• Direct, design, and implement strategic plans, 
• Manage integrated project plans and develop scope of work documents for all 
projects, 
• Review and improve production processes , 
• Determine new staff requirements and oversee training of new personnel through 
staff, 
• Direct and approve service and product strategies, price policies , and discounts , 
• Establish and communicate goals and objectives , 
• Plan weekly meetings , 
• Prepare documents , reports , and financial statements for the foreign employer , 
• Promote [the] company on social media, and 
3 
Matter of P-D-C- LLC 
• Develop new innovative marketing campaigns. 
The proposed U.S. duties submitted for the Beneficiary are overly vague and they do not effectively 
convey the Beneficiary's actual day-to-day managerial or executive tasks. The Beneficiary's job 
description includes several generic duties that could apply to any manager or executive acting in 
any business or industry; such duties do not provide insight into the actual nature of her role. The 
Petitioner provided few specifics related to how the Beneficiary's day-to-day duties fit specifically 
within the company's first year business plans. For instance, the Petitioner did not specify the 
actions the Beneficiary would take during its first year of operation to assure that the business 
develops as necessary to support her in a managerial or executive capacity within one year. In fact, 
the Beneficiary's duty description includes few references to the company's intended business, the 
operation of a dry cleaning business or businesses. 
The Petitioner submits few examples of how the Beneficiary would ensure "programmatic 
excellence," timelines and resources she would recommend, strategic goals she would set, 
operational plans she would implement, policies she would draft, review, and change, or "programs" 
she would monitor. Further, the Petitioner did not articulate "integrated project plans" the 
Beneficiary would manage, scope of work documents she would develop, production processes she 
would review and improve, service and product strategies she would approve, goals and objectives 
she would communicate, or innovative marketing campaigns she would develop. The record 
requires more detail as to the Beneficiary's specific tasks to assess whether she would act primarily 
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 ofreiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 
724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Moreover, the Petitioner appears to have provided two materially different U.S. duty descriptions 
leaving question as to the actual managerial and executive-level duties the Beneficiary would 
perform during the first year. For instance, the Petitioner offers conflicting statements as to the 
Beneficiary's responsibilities during the first year, at times indicating that she would exclusively 
oversee the Petitioner and Dry Cleaner A, while elsewhere asserting that she would manage three 
separate legal entities and dry cleaners. The Petitioner also does not clearly articulate what 
percentages of time the Beneficiary would devote to each business and legal entity, leaving 
uncertainty as to her actual role. In addition, some of the Beneficiary's duties appear to bear little 
relation to managing a dry cleaning business or businesses, such as delivering "programs," managing 
"integrated project plans," and reviewing and improving "production processes." 
The fact that the Beneficiary would manage the business does not necessarily establish eligibility for 
classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity within the 
meaning of section 10l(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. Section 101(A)(44)(A) and 
(B) of the Act. Even though the Beneficiary would exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to­
day operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-
4 
Matter of P-D-C- LLC 
making, these elements are not sufficient to establish that the actual duties the Beneficiary would 
perform within one year of the petition's approval would be primarily managerial or executive in 
nature. The actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd., 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108. Here, the Petitioner provided a vague job description that does not 
adequately convey the Beneficiary's actual proposed day-to-day tasks or establish that she would 
devote her time primarily to managerial or executive duties within one year. 
B. Business Plan and Projected Staffing 
In the case of a new office petition, we review the petitioner's business and hiring plans and 
evidence that the business will grow sufficiently to support a beneficiary in the intended managerial 
or executive capacity. A petitioner has the burden to establish that it would realistically develop to 
the point where it would require the beneficiary to perform duties that are primarily managerial or 
executive in nature within one year of the petition's approval. Accordingly, we consider the totality 
of the evidence in analyzing whether the proposed managerial or executive position is plausible 
based on 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). 
In an organizational chart provided with the petition, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary 
would oversee a manager and an outsourced accountant. The chart further reflected that a manager 
subordinate to the Beneficiary would oversee a supervisor who would in tum supervise two shirt 
pressers, two pressers, a "steamer," a general helper, and customer attendant/driver. In a business 
plan for Dry Cleaner A submitted in response to the RFE, the Petitioner projected that it would have 
three full-time employees and six part-time employees during the first year, including an operational 
supervisor (laundry expert), a general helper, two pressers, a "steamer," two shirt pressers, and a 
driver. The Petitioner also provided a Florida quarterly wage report indicating that it had paid wages 
to these asserted employees as of June 2017.2 Further, it also stated in the Dry Cleaner A business 
plan that it would hire an operational supervisor and an administrative supervisor subordinate to the 
manager reporting to the Beneficiary in its second year of operation. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted business plans specific to Dry Cleaner B and Dry Cleaner C, 
which as we have noted, are owned by separate legal entities. Organizational charts specific to these 
legal entities and dry cleaning businesses listed the Beneficiary as CEO overseeing two general 
helpers and a tailor working at Dry Cleaner B and a general helper working for Dry Cleaner C. As 
previously discussed, the Petitioner stated in the RFE response that the Beneficiary would be 
"working at [Dry Cleaner C] and the Manager, Operational Supervisor, and Administrative 
Supervisor will be working at the offices of [Dry Cleaner A]." 
First, on appeal, the Petitioner does not clearly articulate whether the Beneficiary would act in a 
managerial or executive capacity within one year, but only vaguely indicates that the Beneficiary 
will have supervisory subordinates and act in both capacities. A petitioner claiming that a 
2 We note that the petition was filed on July 11, 2017. 
5 
Matter of P-D-C- LLC 
beneficiary will perform as a "hybrid" manager/executive will not meet its burden of proof unless it 
has demonstrated that the beneficiary will primarily engage in either managerial or executive 
capacity duties. See section 101(a)(44)(A)-(B) of the Act. While in some instances there may be 
duties that could qualify as both managerial and executive in nature, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish that the beneficiary's duties meet each criteria set forth in the statutory definition for either 
managerial or executive capacity. A petition may not be approved if the evidence of record does not 
establish that the beneficiary will be primarily employed in either a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary would act as a 
personnel manager during the first year. The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for 
both "personnel managers" and "function managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the 
Act. We note that the Petitioner does not contend that the Beneficiary would act as a function 
manager within one year; as such, we will only analyze whether she would act as a personnel 
manager. Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and 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." Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. If a beneficiary directly 
supervises other employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire those 
employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner submits an unclear hiring timeline that does not sufficiently demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary would supervise managerial or professional subordinates within one year. For instance, 
the Petitioner indicates that during year one (listed as eight months) it would employ an operational 
supervisor and seven operational level employees working at Dry Cleaner A. The Petitioner also 
stated that during "Year 2" it would add other subordinate managers, including a manager above the 
operational supervisor and an administrative supervisor. However, elsewhere in the same business 
plan, it indicated that all the projected managers would be hired during the first year. As such, given 
this ambiguity, it is difficult to discern the Petitioner's actual first year hiring timeline. 
Regardless, the duties of these proposed managers do not sufficiently establish that these managerial 
positions would be required during the first year. The duties of the projected managers significantly 
overlap with each other and with the duties of the Beneficiary, leaving question as to whether the 
Petitioner would require multiple managers to operate its projected business within the first year. 
For instance, the operational supervisor/laundry expert's duty description indicated that he or she 
would be tasked with controlling the operations and production of the laundry and dry cleaning 
process and ensuring proper processing between the three referenced dry cleaners. This duty 
description also explained that the supervisor/laundry expert would focus on "the development of 
plans and projects to optimize production processes, supporting reports and productivity 
improvement plans," and the "development and implementation of marketing campaigns." These 
6 
Matter of P-D-C- LLC 
duties significantly overlap with the duties of the Beneficiary which also discuss responsibility for 
plans, projects, production, and marketing plans. 
Likewise, the duties of the projected "manager" indicate that he or she would be responsible for 
supervising the administrative and operations managers, "measur[ing] sales and business 
productivity through performance review," and "develop[ing] feature reports, statistics of production 
and sales, [and] financial and political forecasts." Again, these duties significantly overlap with 
those of the projected operations manager and Beneficiary, whose duties also include developing 
reports, financial forecasts, and analysis of "production." Lastly, the Petitioner stated that the 
administrative manager would be devoted to controlling the reports and budgets related to all three 
dry cleaners, "developing with the Manager measurable plans for financial control of the company," 
and controlling "payroll, hiring and firing of employees." However, again, the Beneficiary's duties 
also include substantial responsibility for hiring, firing, and training employees, and financial 
matters. As such, the Petitioner has not submitted credible day-to-day duty descriptions for the 
Beneficiary's proposed subordinate managers. In fact, it is unclear how the dry cleaning business 
would require the projected level of managerial support during the first year. 
In addition, the duties of the Beneficiary's proposed managerial subordinates are generic and provide 
little insight into the actions of these projected managers in launching the business during the first 
year. For example, much like the Beneficiary's duties, the duties of the Beneficiary's proposed 
subordinate managers mention plans, projects, production, reports, improvement plans, marketing 
campaigns, and financial plans; however, the Petitioner provides few details regarding how these 
generic tasks translate to specific actions to grow the business during the first year. 
In fact, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary would work at Dry Cleaner C, a business it does 
not own, and which is stated to employ only one "general helper." The Beneficiary's presence at 
this location with only one operational employee suggests that she would be significantly involved in 
the non-qualifying operational aspects of this location. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary's projected first year 
subordinates would act as professionals. The Petitioner has not articulated bachelor's degree 
requirements for these positions and the duties of these positions do not indicate that such degrees 
would be required.3 Therefore, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that 
the Beneficiary would act as a personnel manager within one year. 
3 In detennining 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 tenn profession 
shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or 
secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." 
"'I 
Matter of P-D-C- LLC 
The Petitioner also vaguely indicates that the Beneficiary would act in an executive capacity within 
the first year. The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's 
elevated position within a complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or 
functions of the organization, and that person's authority to direct the organization. Section 
10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the 
management" and "establish the goals and policies" of that organization. Inherent to the definition, 
the organization must have a subordinate level of managers for a beneficiary to direct and they must 
primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than the day-to-day 
operations of the enterprise. An individual will not be deemed an executive under the statute simply 
because they have an executive title or because they "direct" the enterprise as the owner or sole 
managerial employee. A beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision 
making" and receive only "general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization." Id. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary would likely act in an executive capacity 
within the first year. As we have discussed, it has submitted a vague duty description for the 
Beneficiary that does not sufficiently detail the executive-level duties she would perform within one 
year. The Petitioner also has not credibly articulated and documented how its dry cleaning location 
would support the Beneficiary in an executive capacity and the proposed subordinate managers 
within one year. The Petitioner's business plans and timeline do not adequately detail the first year 
actions it will undertake to successfully launch the business such that it would support the 
Beneficiary in an executive capacity within one year. The evidence does not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary would primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than the 
day-to-day operations of the enterprise. 
In conclusion, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would act in managerial or 
executive capacity within one year of an approval of the petition. 
III. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Director also denied the petition concluding the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary had 
been employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity abroad. In denying the petition, the 
Director concluded that the Beneficiary's foreign duties, and the duties of her foreign subordinates, 
were broadly cast and generic. On appeal, the foreign employer asserts that the Beneficiary oversaw 
four subordinates and contends that the evidence clearly demonstrates that the Beneficiary was involved 
in strategic decision making, negotiations with third parties, and hiring and firing of employees. The 
Petitioner specifically claims that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 
In its appeal, the Petitioner does not definitively address this basis for denial or provide any additional 
evidence related to the Beneficiary's foreign employment; for instance, it does not submit additional 
details regarding the Beneficiary's foreign duties or the duties of her claimed foreign 
subordinates. Following a review of the evidence, we find that the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. Since the above ground of dismissal is 
8 
Matter of P-D-C- LLC 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we will not address this issue further. Nevertheless, we note 
that if the Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary in this classification in the future, it will need to 
submit sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial capacity. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the record does not include sufficient evidence to establish that 
the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of the 
petition's approval and it does not demonstrate that she was employed in a managerial capacity 
abroad. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of P-D-C- LLC, ID# 1488780 (AAO Aug. 10, 2018) 
9