dismissed L-1A Case: Dry Cleaning

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6336512 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 8, 2020 
The Petitioner, a holding company operating a dry cleaning business, seeks to continue 1 the 
Beneficiary's employment as its general manager in the United States 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 Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity under an 
extended petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the submitted evidence clearly demonstrates that the Beneficiary 
would primarily devote his time to executive-level duties and contends that the Director did not take 
into account all of his subordinates, including claimed independent contractors working for the 
company . The Petitioner states that the Director improperly overemphasized its size in denying the 
petition. 
Upon de novo 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 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 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. 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary 's behalf which was approved for the period 
from February 23, 2017, to February 12, 20 I 8. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the 
United States through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidimy for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F). The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 2 I 4.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation one year within the date of approval of the 
petition to support an executive or managerial position . 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-lA petition that involved a new office must submit a statement of 
the beneficiary's duties during the previous year and under the extended petition; a statement 
describing the staffing of the new operation and evidence of the numbers and types of positions held; 
evidence of its financial status; evidence that it has been doing business for the previous year; and 
evidence that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(14)(ii). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The sole issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would act in 
a managerial or executive capacity under an extended petition. The Petitioner does not claim that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to 
whether the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity. 
"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 101 (a)( 44 )(B) of the 
Act. 
When examining the 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 to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in an executive capacity. 
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 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 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 
Based on the definition of executive capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the Beneficiary will 
perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 
1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary will be 
primarily engaged in executive duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the 
Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); 
Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner indicated that it is a holding company with two wholly owned subsidiaries in the United 
States I i(Dry Cleaning LLC), operating a purchased dry cleaning business, and 
I I (Franchising LLC). The Petitioner stated that it originally intended that 
Franchising LLC would import and export motorcycle parts, similar to the Beneficiary's foreign 
2 
employer, but explained that he "decided to modify the plan and use [Franchising LLC] to assist our 
plans of franchising our dry cleaning business." In support of the petition and in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner listed a variety of duties for the Beneficiary, but 
did not provide one comprehensive duty description with the percentages of time he devoted to each 
task, as requested by the Director. For instance, it listed some of the following duties and 
responsibilities for the Beneficiary: 
General Management: 
• Responsible for developing the policies and procedures that determine how the 
Petitioner's works, 
• Create policies and procedures to develop systems and an operational manual which 
can be replicated so that the Petitioner's subsidiary can sell franchise opportunities, 
such as how to greet customers, accept payment, keep track of customer clothing, 
properly hang and present them, clean and maintain them, close the registers at night, 
market to potential customers, and use social media. 
• Finalize and perfect the operations manual over the next several years, 
• Determine how to report the financial success of our business and create templates that 
detail the past week, month and quarter sales, 
• Determine global policies such as the paid time off, dress code, independent contractor 
file, and team evaluation policies based on various procedures and key performance 
indicators, 
• Determine the direction of the company, which markets its enters, and change the plans 
for its subsidiaries, 
• Made the executive decision to focus more on the dry cleaning company, and helped 
develop this business by developing a dry cleaning smart phone application, 
• Developed a franchise model for the business, determine which locations to offer this 
model, and set forth various parameters on what could make a successful franchise, 
• Set franchise offering prices and the percentages of monthly sales, and set prices for 
the dry cleaning business, 
• Determine if and when the Petitioner should open additional subsidiaries, 
• Determine where each employee fits within the structure, the financial, marketing, and 
administrative aspects of the business, and which aspects would be handled by the 
Petitioner as supposed to its subsidiaries, and 
• Determine whether the team members will be direct hires or independent contractors. 
Marketing: 
• Responsible for overseeing our marketing plan and budget, 
• Determine which third party specialists would help us in these efforts, by hiring various 
contractors, such as website developers and our SEO specialist, 
• Determine how much to spend on marketing plan and make changes based on expenses, 
and 
• Determine when to hire a marketing assistant and formulate the positions minimum 
requirements. 
Budgetary Concerns: 
• Create and implement the budget and the budgets of our subsidiaries, 
3 
• Create an 18-month budget and prepare a financial plan on how the Petitioner will reach 
goals, 
• Formulate when the Petitioner is expected to offer franchise business, 
• Determine how much to spend on marketing and increase sales accordingly, formulate 
budget detailing how much is spent on marketing and costs needed to upgrade 
equipment, use this information to create the short and long-term financial goals, 
• Provide budget information to outsourced accountant who prepares various financial 
statements, review them and revise budget, and 
• Use financial reports to determine cost cuts. 
Team Oversight: 
• Determine how to hire and fire, including employees and contractors, and 
• Determine salaries, bonuses, fringe benefits, sick days, vacations, and msurance 
packages. 
The Petitioner submits substantial documentation reflecting that the Beneficiary was likely engaged 
in most of the non-qualifying operational aspects of the dry cleaning business operated by its 
subsidiary. For instance, the Petitioner provided several invoices from dry cleaning contractors 
including the Beneficiary's name dated near the time the petition was filed. In fact, one such invoice 
showed the Beneficiary purchasing plastic coverings for clothing, hangers, stain removing powder, 
and stickers as late as January 2018. 2 In addition, the Petitioner submitted several invoices dated in 
late 201 7 reflecting the Beneficiary ordering cleaning supplies and equipment parts for the dry 
cleaning business, and another document dated in October 2017 indicating that he arranged drivers for 
its dry cleaning service. Likewise, the Petitioner's bank account records show the Beneficiary writing 
checks for the payment of cleaning supplies, paying the dry cleaning business' rent, and handling the 
company's payroll as of the date the petition was filed. This documentary evidence is in contrast to 
the Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary delegates the non-qualifying operational aspects of its 
administrative and payroll functions to his subordinates. Indeed, there is no documentary evidence 
corresponding with the date the petition was filed indicating that the Beneficiary was delegating non­
qualifying duties to his subordinates or demonstrating his subordinates performing these tasks. 
The Beneficiary's duty description also emphasized that the Beneficiary would create operational 
procedures for franchising its dry cleaning business. However, the Petitioner stated that this would be 
a wholly prospective enterprise, noting that this effort had "only just begun" and that it would happen 
"over the next several years." It further explained that these franchising plans would likely not be 
ready until the summer of 2019. Likewise, the Petitioner emphasized its development of a mobile dry 
cleaning application for this franchising business; however, there is no evidence to support this 
assertion or its claimed engagement of contracted software developers it asserts have been working on 
this project. Further, the Beneficiary's duties also point to the Beneficiary's marketing efforts, 
including formulating a marketing plan and budget, and hiring contractors for this purpose. But again, 
there is little supporting evidence that the Petitioner or its subsidiaries are engaged in substantial 
marketing activities such that this would make up a significant portion of the Beneficiary's time. In 
fact, submitted finances for the Petitioner and its subsidiaries showed little expenses for marketing 
activities. For instance, Dry Cleaning LLC's finances from January through October 2018, 
2 The petition was filed on February 12, 2018. 
4 
corresponding to a time after the date the petition was filed, showed only $1,695.71 in "advertising 
and promotion" expenses during this period. 
In contrast, the Beneficiary's duty description suggested that the Beneficiary would likely be involved 
in all of the day-to-day operational aspects of its subsidiary's dry cleaning business, such as 
determining how to greet customers, accept payment, close registers, clean clothes, amongst other 
non-qualifying aspects of the business. Although the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary would 
only focus on these operational aspects with respect to its asserted franchising plan, its timetable for 
rolling out this business plan suggests otherwise. In light of the lack of evidence of its claimed 
franchising business and the substantial documentation showing the Beneficiary's involvement in non­
qualifying operational tasks, it appears likely that he is primarily engaged in operating the dry cleaning 
business. 
Whether the Beneficiary is an executive employee turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained its 
burden of proving that their duties are "primarily" executive. See sections 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
Here, the Petitioner does not sufficiently document what proportion of the Beneficiary's duties would 
be executive functions and what proportion would be non-qualifying operational duties. The 
Petitioner lists the Beneficiary's duties and provides documentation indicating his involvement in 
operating its subsidiary's dry cleaning business, but does not adequately quantify the time he spends 
on these non-qualifying tasks. For this reason, we cannot determine whether the Beneficiary was 
primarily performing executive capacity duties as of the date the petition was filed. See IKEA US, Inc. 
v. US. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). We acknowledge that the Petitioner 
lists several prospective duties that may be qualifying, such as those related to its proposed franchising 
business, but there is little evidence that the Beneficiary was primarily performing these duties as of 
the date the petition was filed. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the 
immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through 
adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
Further, to the extent the Petitioner articulates apparent qualifying duties for the Beneficiary they are 
generic and could apply to any executive working in any industry. These vague duties do little to 
substantiate that the Beneficiary was primarily involved in executive-level tasks on a daily basis. For 
instance, there is little detail or documentation to substantiate the policies and procedures the 
Beneficiary set, the budgets he created, investors he attracted, administrative aspects he delegated to 
subsidiary companies, or pricing policies he established. The Petitioner did not clearly articulate the 
qualifying duties the Beneficiary performed daily, beyond noting one-off business decisions he made, 
such as his decision to pursue its unsupported franchising business. In addition, the Petitioner did not 
detail or document the "global policies" the Beneficiary implemented, the performance indicators he 
set, personnel decisions he made, sales or financial goals he implemented, or budgetary decisions he 
promulgated. In fact, the Beneficiary's duty description indicated that he spent a "majority of his 
time" on budgetary matters, including coordinating with an outsourced accountant and reviewing 
financial reports submitted by this contractor; however, there is little supporting documentation to 
substantiate these activities. 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the organization, the fact that he will 
manage or direct 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 )(B) of the 
5 
Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a position be "primarily" 
executive in nature. Id. The Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day 
operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making; 
however, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that her actual duties would be 
primarily executive in nature. 
B. Staffing 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in an executive 
capacity, we take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose 
and stage of development of the organization. See section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart reflecting that the Beneficiary supervised the 
Petitioner and both of its subsidiary companies. Within Dry Cleaner, LLC, the Beneficiary was shown 
to supervise an office manager overseeing a cashier, "laundrymen," ironers, and drivers; however, 
only the office manager and cashier were identified by name, while the ironers and drivers were shown 
as "outsourced." Further, the chart indicated that the Beneficiary also oversaw its franchising 
subsidiary which was shown to employ a software developer (listed as outsourced), a sales manager 
(shown as "to be hired"), and "attorneys" (outsourced) as well as a "sales team" (outsourced) reporting 
to the sales manager. It also showed that the Beneficiary supervised an administration and marketing 
department consisting of a "to be hired" marketing director overseeing a marketing division, including 
a "to be hired" marketing assistant, an outsourced website developer/SEO, and "additional service 
providers" utilized "on an as needed basis." Within the administration and marketing department there 
was also an administration division including an administrative assistant, who was identified by name, 
and outsourced "payroll services." Finally, the chart reflected that the Beneficiary supervised a 
financial department consisting of an "outsourced" accountant. 
As noted, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary would qualify as an executive under an extended 
petition. 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 beneficiary 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 submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary acted within a 
complex organizational hierarchy as of the date the petition was filed. For example, although the 
Petitioner submits a robust organizational chart, several of its positions, such as those related to its 
prospective franchising business were listed as "to be hired." However, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) only allows the intended U.S. operation one year within the date of approval of the 
petition to support an executive position. There is no provision in United States Citizenship and 
6 
Immigration Service (USCIS) regulations allowing for an extension of this one-year period. If the 
Petitioner does not have the necessary staffing after one year to sufficiently relieve the Beneficiary 
from performing operational and administrative tasks, they are ineligible for an extension. As such, 
we will only consider those employees and contractors employed by the business as of the date the 
petition was filed. Again, the Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the 
immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through 
adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
State quarterly wage documentation from the first quarter of 2018 corresponding with the date the 
petition was filed reflects that the Petitioner employed only the Beneficiary and the claimed 
administrative assistant, while this same documentation specific to Dry Cleaner, LLC indicates that 
this subsidiary had two employees at this time, the asserted cashier and office manager. However, it 
is noteworthy that the asserted office manager was shown to earn only $3,600 during that quarter, as 
compared to the $5,591.71 paid to the cashier, leaving question as to whether the office manager was 
acting as a subordinate supervisor as claimed. Further, the duties of the office manager did not 
sufficiently substantiate his role, noting only that he "prepares a budget detailing how he expects the 
company will operate" and that he is "responsible for staffing this subsidiary." 
However, the submitted tax documentation indicates that the dry cleaning subsidiary had only one 
other employee on staff beyond the office manager, leaving question as to the assertion that this 
employee would be substantially focused on staffing issues. In addition, the Petitioner indicated that 
the Beneficiary spent a majority of his time on budgetary matters, leaving uncertainty as to its claim 
that it had another manager devoted to these tasks. In addition, it is noteworthy that there is no 
evidence on the record reflecting the Beneficiary delegating tasks to his claimed subordinates; in fact 
as discussed, there is substantial documentary evidence indicating that he was engaged in all of the 
operational matters of the dry cleaning business, such as sending clothes out for cleaning, purchasing 
supplies, arranging drivers, amongst other such non-qualifying tasks. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided little evidence to substantiate the several independent contractors 
listed in its organizational chart. On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Director did not 
properly consider these contractors when assessing the Beneficiary's eligibility. However, as noted 
by the Director, the Petitioner did not, and still does not on appeal, submit supporting documentation 
to substantiate the engagement of these contractors, including its claimed software developers, sales 
team, attorneys, accountant, website developer, and payroll services contractors. Likewise, the 
Petitioner provides little evidence to corroborate that the Beneficiary regularly directs these 
employees, that they under his executive-level control, and that they can be considered a part of its 
organizational structure. 
In fact, the Petitioner provided bank records demonstrating that the Beneficiary was writing checks to 
its few employees, leaving question as to its assertion that it engaged outsourced payroll services 
within its organizational chart. Further, although the Petitioner referred several times to a mobile dry 
cleaning application that would be at the heart of its franchising business plan, there is no evidence of 
this application or the claimed software developers to whom it was outsourcing this work. In addition, 
the Beneficiary's duties reference his regular engagement with an outside accountant; however, there 
is no evidence of this or supporting documentation reflecting him delegating work to this contractor. 
Therefore, although we acknowledge that independent contractors can be considered within a 
7 
Petitioner's organizational structure, it must sufficiently substantiate their engagement and establish 
that they are under the regular control of the Beneficiary or its greater organization. Here, as noted by 
the Director, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient supporting evidence to demonstrate that its 
claimed independent contractors can be considered a part of its greater organizational structure. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Director improperly considered its size in denying the 
petition. The Petitioner correctly observes that we must take into account the reasonable needs of the 
organization and that a company's size alone may not be the only factor in determining whether the 
Beneficiary is or would be employed in an executive capacity. See section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
However, it is appropriate for us to consider the size of the petitioning company in conjunction with 
other relevant factors, such as the absence of employees who would perform the non-executive 
operations of the company or a company that does not conduct business in a regular and continuous 
manner. Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 2006); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 
2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
The supporting evidence reflects that as of the date the petition was filed, the Petitioner and its other 
subsidiaries had only three subordinates below the Beneficiary. This low level of staffing leaves 
uncertainty as to whether it was sufficiently staffed to primarily relieve the Beneficiary from non­
qualifying operational tasks and to support him within a complex organizational hierarchy where he 
would primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than its day-to-day 
operations. As such, the focus of our analysis is not exclusively on the size of the company; but rather, 
whether it had sufficient staffing to primarily relieve the Beneficiary from performing non-qualifying 
operational duties as of the date the extension petition was filed. However, as we have discussed at 
length, the Petitioner submitted substantial documentation reflecting the Beneficiary's involvement in 
non-qualifying operational tasks and it has not sufficiently articulated and documented his qualifying 
executive-level duties, beyond a one-time decision to pursue a prospective franchising business model. 
As such, the submitted evidence indicates that the Petitioner has not developed sufficiently within one 
year to support the Beneficiary within a complex organizational hierarchy. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would act in an 
executive capacity under an extended petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8