dismissed L-1A Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-S-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN.31,2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a company operating an after school education facility, seeks to continue the 
Beneficiary's employment as its president under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. 1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section IOI(a)(I5)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(l5)(L). The L-IA 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity under the 
extended petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director overlooked internal payroll documentation 
reflecting that it employs managers and professionals subordinate to the Beneficiary who support her 
employment in an executive capacity. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-l A nonimmigrant visa classification for a new office, 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 I 0 I (a)(IS)(L) of the Act. In 
addition, the beneficiary must seck 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. !d. 
1 
The Petitioner previously filed a "new office'' petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
July I, 2016, until June 30, 2017. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United States 
through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary 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 one year within the date of approval of the petition to 
support an executive or managerial position. 
Matter ofS-S-A-
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-1 A 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). 
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 IOI(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) takes into account the 
reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the 
organization. See section IOI(a)(44)(C) ofthe Act. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The first issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary would 
act in an executive capacity under the extended petition. The Petitioner does not claim that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to 
whether the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner submitted a vague job description 
for the Beneficiary that did not demonstrate her actual day-to-day tasks. The Director emphasized 
the Beneficiary's focus on sales and marketing duties and the lack of employees to relieve her from 
these non-managerial tasks. The Director further determined that the Petitioner did not establish that 
the Beneficiary supervised managerial or professional subordinates, pointing to discrepancies in 
submitted tax documentation. The Director concluded that the evidence indicated that the 
Beneficiary would likely act as a first line supervisor of non-managerial and non-professional 
subordinates. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director overlooked internal payroll documentation 
supporting its employment of managerial and professional employees subordinate to the Beneficiary. 
The Petitioner further emphasizes that the Beneficiary oversees professionals whose positions 
require bachelor's degrees, including elementary level teachers, an accountant, and school 
administrators. In addition, the Petitioner states that it employs subordinate managers who supervise 
its several independent contractor teachers and instructors. 
2 
Matter ofS-S-A-
When exammmg the executive capacity of the 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, USCIS 
examines the claimed executive capacity of a beneficiary, including 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 business and its staffing levels. 
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. USCJS, 469 F.3d 1313. 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); 
Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner stated that it was established in 2016 as a school focused on "education, esp[ ecially] 
after school, summer camp, winter camp, and Chinese language and culture." The Petitioner 
indicated that the Beneficiary would devote 20% of her time to "short-term and long-term business 
plans and goals for the company" and implementing "strategies and policies to guide the expansion 
of the company's business." The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary would spend another 20% 
of her time on handling the "recruiting process," including taking recommendations from the 
school's principal on the appointment of employees and making final decisions on "hiring, 
terminating, promoting, demoting, evaluating [the] performance of executive personnel and 
managerial personnel for compliance with established policies and objectives." In addition, the 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary is responsible 20% of the time for directing the company's 
"financial administration," including determining areas of "cost reduction and program 
improvement." 
Furthermore, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would devote 20% of her time to setting 
the company's "sales and marketing strategies" and another 5% to evaluating and advising "on the 
impact of long range planning [and] the introduction of new programs/strategies." The Petitioner 
also explained that the Beneficiary would spend 5% of her time on enforcing "policies and 
procedures" and promoting ''great performance and positive morale,'' and another 5% on 
determining "business expansion policies,'' adding "promising programs and eliminating outdated 
programs," and defining "operational policies." Lastly, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
would devote a nominal amount of time to improving the budgeting process, providing strategic 
financial input, and developing a "reliable cash flow projection process and reporting mechanism.'' 
3 
Matter of S-S-A-
The Petitioner has submitted a vague duty description for the Beneficiary that does not convey her 
actual day-to-day tasks or establish that she would devote her time primarily to executive duties. 
The Beneficiary's duty description includes several general duties that could apply to any executive 
acting in any business or industry and they do not provide insight into the actual nature of her role. 
The Petitioner provided few examples and little supporting documentation to demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's performance of her stated duties, such as short-term and long-term business plans and 
goals for the company she has set, strategies and policies for expansion she has implemented, hiring 
recommendations she accepted from the school's asserted principal, policies and objectives she has 
established, areas of cost reduction and program improvement she has identified, sales and 
marketing strategies she has set, or new programs or strategies she has introduced. 
Indeed, the Beneficiary's duties are repetitive, referring several times to strategies, policies, 
procedures, processes, and programs which have not been described in detail. The Beneficiary's 
stated duties make few references to the Petitioner's specific business operations and they are nearly 
identical to those she performed under the new otlice petition, despite the changes in the company's 
level of operations and development. 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. II 03, II 08 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the organization, the fact that she 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 IOI(a)(44) of the 
Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a position be "primarily'" 
executive in nature. Sections 10l(A)(44)(B) of the Act. 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 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner stated that it employs seven individuals as "employees·· and 
19 "contractors." The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart reflecting that the Beneficiary 
oversees two subordinates, a principal of the school and a deputy principal- manager of international 
communication. The principal is shown to supervise several departments and employees, including 
a finance department consisting of an independent contractor accountant and a "HR and accountant 
employee," a teaching department led by a contracted teaching department head, and a logistics 
department including an employee devoted to organizing and picking up students and a contracted 
dance teacher. Further, the principal is also shown to supervise an "enrollment receptionist."" The 
chart also indicates that the teaching department head oversees several teachers, including three 
contracted math teachers, one computer teacher, two Chinese language teachers, and three English 
teachers. 
4 
.
Matter ofS-S-A-
Moreover, the provided organizational chart reflected that the deputy principal supervises an '"art 
group" consisting of two contractors acting as managers overseeing contractors teaching architecture 
modeling and "Chinese papercut," a "special camp group" made up of a contractor running a "robot 
camp," and a contracted ping pong teacher, and a science teacher. rn sum, the organizational chart 
indicated that the Petitioner is staffed by seven employees and nineteen contractors. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Director overlooked evidence indicating that 
the 
Beneficiary oversees several subordinate managers and professionals. However, the Petitioner has 
not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary supervises subordinate managers 
as necessary to allow her to primarily direct the management of the organization and establish its 
goals and policies. First, the Petitioner provides a California state quarterly contribution return and 
report of wages from the first quarter of 2017 indicating that it paid the following amounts to its 
employees : $800 to the accounting and HR employee, $6420 to the principal, $1692 to the deputy 
principal, $12,500.0 I to the Beneficiary, and $3865 to one of its Chinese language teachers. 
On appeal, the Petitioner further points to internal payro11 documentation as support of its extensive 
organizational chart. Specifically, the Petitioner provides a payroll summary covering the period 
from January 1, 2016, through June 23, 2017 reflecting that it paid seven employees and 
"contractors" the following: the Beneficiary ($45,833.37), the deputy principal ($4000), the Chinese 
teacher ($7576.75), the principal ($46,590), the Chinese teacher ($4941.25), the 
accounting and human resources employee ($2400), and the logistics employee ($1200). 
Meanwhile, the Petitioner provided other payroll documentation in support of the petition retlecting 
that its employees were paid the following in April 2017: the Beneficiary ($4166.67), the deputy 
principal ($2000), the Chinese teacher ($971.25), the logistics employee ($600), the 
accounting and human 
resources employee ($800), the principat ($1570), and the Chinese teacher 
($1416.25). 
The Petitioner's internal payroll documentation indicates that beyond the Beneficiary and the 
principal, it has paid relatively nominal amounts to its other support employees during its eighteen 
month period of operation. Two of the employees, the logistics employee and accounting and 
human resources employee are shown to earn less than minimum wage for full-time \Vork. 
Specifically, the Petitioner states that the logistic employee and accounting and human resources 
employee work full-time, yet the evidence indicates that they only earn $600 and $800 per month 
respectively. 2 Further, April 2017 payroll documentation submitted in support of the petition 
indicates that the principal devotes significant time to teaching, as she earned a substantial portion of 
her salary in "teaching hours" during that month, or $570 out of a total of $1570 earned. Further, the 
principal ' s most recent payroll slip tram April 2017 indicates that she earned $1570 that month and 
$8,000 to date during that year, while the Petitioner elsewhere on the record indicates that this 
2 Projected over a full year, this would indicate that the logistics employee would eam $7200 and the accounting and 
human resources manager $9600 annually for full-time work, or well less than the $15,080 that [s required pursuant to 
the federal minimum \"age to.be paid to a full-time employee during one year. Indeed, the California minimum wage is 
significantly higher at $10.00 per hour. 
5 
Matter ofS-S-A-
subordinate manager earns $3,000 per month, which we note would suggest that she should have 
earned $12,000 in salary by April 2017. This evidence leaves question as to the assertion that the 
principal is acting at the head of the school overseeing four departments and the 26 employees and 
contractors reflected in its organizational chart. 
In fact, beyond the staff set forth in its payroll summaries, the Petitioner provides little support that it 
regularly engages its numerous independent contractors. Most notably, the Petitioner contends that 
it employs a head of teaching subordinate to the principal who oversees several teachers, including 
three math teachers, a computer teacher, two Chinese teachers, and three English teachers. 
However, the Petitioner submits little evidence to support that it regularly paid this claimed 
managerial subordinate as of the date of the petition. Indeed, although it provides some evidence, 
such as independent contractor agreements with some of its asserted contractor teachers, the 
Petitioner provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate that its many asserted contractor teachers 
can be considered subordinates within the Petitioner's organizational chart. In sum, this evidence 
indicates that the Petitioner has likely submitted an organizational chart with artificial tiers of 
management. The Petitioner must resolve this discrepancies and ambiguities in the record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 
591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Further, the Petitioner has submitted vague position descriptions for the Beneficiary's claimed 
subordinate managers that do not demonstrate the nature of their asserted roles. For instance. the 
Petitioner indicates that the principal is tasked with supervising the daily operation of the school and 
implementing "effective instructional programs." However, as noted, the Petitioner's recent payroll 
documentation from April 2017 appears to indicate that she spends a significant amount of her time 
teaching students. The Petitioner also provided vague duties for the deputy principal position and 
did not articulate "new business ideas" she has offered or "international cooperation'· she has 
fostered. Further, the Petitioner provides no supporting documentation to substantiate that the 
Beneficiary is primarily delegating operational tasks to her subordinate managers: in fact, the record 
includes little evidence of the claimed principal or deputy principal performing duties for the school. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner sets forth other managerial subordinates in its organizational 
chart, such as the head of teaching reporting to the principal overseeing nine employees and 
contractors teaching math, computers, Chinese, and English. However, the Petitioner provides 
insufficient evidence to establish that this contracted staff member acts in a managerial role within 
the organization. For instance, the Petitioner submits an IRS 1099, Miscellaneous Income report 
indicating that it paid the head of teaching $19,311 during 2016: but otherwise, it provides no 
evidence that it continued to engage this individual on a regular basis at the time of filing or that this 
individual is working in a managerial capacity within the organization. Indeed. this claimed 
manager does not appear in the organization· s most recent payroll documentation. Further, the 
submitted organizational chart suggests that two contractors oversee an "art group," consisting of 
two contractors teaching architectural modeling and Chinese paper cutting. However, the Petitioner 
again provides little supporting evidence to support the regular engagement of these contractors, or 
that these employees act in supervisory capacities within the organization. In sum, the Petitioner has 
Matter ofS-S-A-
submitted insufficient evidence to corroborate that the Beneficiary primarily delegates duties to 
subordinate managers as necessary to allow her to primarily focus on the goals and policies and 
overall management of the organization. 
As noted, the Petitioner also emphasizes on appeal that the Beneficiary supervises numerous 
professional subordinates. Although a beneficiary is not required to have professional subordinates 
in order to qualify as an executive, we will nonetheless address the Petitioner's assertion to assess 
the credibility of the record, and also to address whether the Beneficiary may qualify, in the 
alternative, as a "personnel manager."3 The Petitioner notes the educational nature of its business 
and emphasizes that elementary level teachers and administrators, as well as accountants, are 
required to hold bachelor's degrees.
4 
First, the evidence does not support that the Petitioner employs 
professional level accounting employees. As discussed, the employee devoted to accounting and 
human resources was shown to earn less than the federal minimum wage for full-time work, leaving 
question as to whether a bachelor's degree is required for this position. Likewise. the Petitioner lists 
a certified public accountant in its organizational chart and further suggests that he qualifies as a 
professional subordinate. However, although we acknowledge there is some evidence on the record 
that the Petitioner pays this independent contractor for accounting services, this is not sufficient to 
demonstrate that this service provider can be considered a professional subordinate regularly 
reporting to the Beneficiary. 
In addition, the Petitioner submits little evidence to establish that any of its employees or its many 
asserted contractors hold specific bachelor's degrees required for their positions. It is notable that 
the Petitioner operates an after care and camp facility for children of various ages, not an elementary 
school. Although we acknowledge that bachelor's degrees might assist those teaching Chinese, 
English, computers, math. or other topics in an after school program, there is little evidence to 
support that specific bachelor's degrees are required to fill these various positions. In fact, the 
Petitioner did not provide supporting documentation to substantiate the degrees held by the 
individuals included in its organizational chart. For instance, the Petitioner states that its principal 
earned a Chinese degree in drama, while its deputy principal holds a "Master'[s] degree." However, 
the record includes no evidence of these degrees, nor has the Petitioner stated explicitly what 
The statutory definition of"managerial capacity'' allows for both "'personnel managers" and "function managers." See 
section I 0 I (a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 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 
IOI(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. 
4 
In evaluating 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. q: 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 I 0 I (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." 
Matter ofS-S-A-
specific bachelor's degrees are required for these positions. Therefore, the record does not support 
the Petitioner's claim that most of the Beneficiary's subordinates are professional employees. 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has sufficient managerial 
and support staff to allow the Beneficiary to act in an executive capacity. 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 
managerial employees 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." !d. 
The Petitioner has not credibly established that the Beneficiary supervises a subordinate level of 
managerial employees or that the company regularly employs sufficient staff to relieve her from 
primarily performing non-qualifying operational level tasks. First, as we discussed previously in this 
decision, the Petitioner has articulated and documented few executive level duties for the 
Beneficiary. The duties of the Beneficiary"s asserted managerial subordinates also do not 
demonstrate that they act in managerial capacities. Here, even though the Beneficiary has the 
appropriate level of authority, the Petitioner has not established that, as of the date of filing, she was 
primarily concerned with the broad policies and goals of the organization, that the day-to-day 
management rested with a subordinate tier of management, or that she would be relieved from 
substantial involvement in the day-to-day operations of the business. Further, the evidence indicates 
that the Beneficiary is likely substantially involved in the operational matters of the business and it 
has submitted little evidence to indicate that she will delegate operational tasks to managerial 
employees or other subordinates. As such, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
would act in a qualifying executive capacity. For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed as the Petitioner did not establish that it will employ the Beneficiary 
in a managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-S-A -, ID# 93 7168 (AAO Jan. 31, 20 18) 
8