dismissed L-1A Case: Electronics And Lighting Distribution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF L-E-(N.A.), INC. 
- Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 31,2017 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an electronics and lighting distributor, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as its senior vice president and general manager under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-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 that the Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a statement in support of the appeal asserting that it submitted 
evidence that the Beneficiary· is an executive with the foreign parent company and will continue as 
an executive for the Petitioner. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge 
capacity, for one continuous year within three years preceding the Beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. 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, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Act. 
An individual petition filed on Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, must include 
evidence that the petitioner will employ the beneficiary in an executive or managerial capacity, or in 
a position requiring specialized knowledge, including a detailed description of the services to be 
performed. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
Matter of L-E-(NA.), Inc. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The only issue in this matter is whether the record establishes that the Beneficiary will be employed 
in an executive capacity for the Petitioner. 1 The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary "is an 
executive with the foreign parent company and will continue in his executive position as Senior Vice 
President and General Manager of the Lighting Business Unit while employed with the American 
subsidiary." 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) ofthe Act defines the term "executive capacity" as "an assignment within an 
organization in which the employee primarily": 
(i) directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of 
the organization; 
(ii) establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
(iii) exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level executives, the 
board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner initially did not provide a description of the duties the Beneficiary would perform for 
the Petitioner. The record included the Petitioner's organizational chart which did not include the 
Beneficiary's name or identify the proposed position. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) on the issue of the Beneficiary's proposed 
employment, the Petitioner submitted a letter prepared by an authorized representative for both the 
foreign parent company and the Petitioner. In the letter, the representative stated that the 
Beneficiary has been an executive while employed with the company and "[h]e is the highest level 
executive for our lighting business unit and reports directly to the CEO of the company." The 
representative continued by paraphrasing the definition of executive capacity as the Beneficiary's 
responsibilities for the foreign parent company's lighting business unit. The representative listed the 
Beneficiary's duties for the foreign parent company as follows (bullet points added and paraphrased 
for clarity): 
• Developing business plans to fulfill the operational, sales, and revenue goals; 
• Manage and direct operations and to achieve operational goals for the Lighting 
Business Unit of [the foreign entity]; 
1 
As the Petitioner does not claim and the record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary will perform duties in a 
managerial capacity, we restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity. 
2 
,----------------------- --------
Matter of L-E-(N.A.). Inc. 
• Manage and direct an account management team to achieve sales and profit goals; 
• Manage multiple regions and adjust sales goals and procedures as appropriate for 
each region and recommend sales programs and set short and long-term sales 
strategies; 
• Manage budget performance and all financial components; Manage and elevate 
the performance of operations and account managers; 
• Develop strategic plans to meet desired business goals. 
The representative noted that it is very difficult to place a particular percentage of time on the 
Beneficiary's specific duties but as the highest level executive for the lighting unit he "must handle 
multiple tasks simultaneously throughout his executive duties." The record also included a letter 
signed by the foreign entity's human resources manager who repeated the foreign entity's 
representative's description of duties for the Beneficiary, and noted that the Beneficiary reported 
directly to the CEO. The letter also listed five people in undefined positions who reported to the 
Beneficiary. 
The Director denied the petition concluding that the record did not include sufficient evidence to 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the 
Petitioner. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's duties for both the foreign parent company 
and the Petitioner include the duties described above. The Petitioner noted the strong client demand 
for its electronic products and, in particular, the company's LED o.utdoor/indoor lighting products 
throughout the United States. The Petitioner claimed that due to the business growth potential and 
the complexity of the engineering, it needed to transfer the Beneficiary "to manage the expansion 
and growth of[the company] in the United States." The Petitioner reiterated that the letter in support 
of the petition, the letters in response to the Director's RFE, and the organizational charts submitted 
establish that the Beneficiary is an executive and will continue as an executive for the American 
subsidiary. 
The record does not include probative evidence of the Petitioner's business or a clear description of 
the Beneficiary's role for the U.S. entity. The Petitioner was incorporated in 2002 and claims on the 
Form I-129, that it employs 10 people. The record does' not include any information describing the 
duties of the Petitioner's claimed employees. Moreover, the record does not include documentary 
evidence to support the Petitioner's claim that it employs anyone. Additionally, the initial 
organizational chart identified only seven employees in the 10 positions listed on the chart. The 
revised organizational chart submitted in response to the Director's RFE depicted eight positions, 
including the Beneficiary. The record also contains uncertified IRS Forms 1120, U.S. Corporate 
Income Tax Returns, for the years 2012 to 2015. The tax returns do not include information on the 
salaries paid to officers or employees. The tax returns also identify the Petitioner as a logistics 
service center and indicate that it provides services. It is unclear from this information, if the 
Petitioner provides services, is involved in the distribution of the foreign entity's products, or if its 
logistical services are related to the distribution of the foreign entity's products. We note, however, 
3 
Matter of L-E-(NA.), Inc. 
that the record includes purchase orders identifying the foreign entity as the supplier and showing 
the products shipped to third parties, not to the Petitioner at its California location. Without a basic 
understanding of the Petitioner's business operations and purpose it is not possible to ascertain the 
Beneficiary's proposed role for the U.S. entity. 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Beneficiary is being transferred to manage the expansion 
and growth of the company in the United States; however, the Petitioner does not adequately 
describe what the Beneficiary will be doing in this regard. Reciting the Beneficiary's vague job 
responsibilities or broadly cast business objectives is not sufficient; the regulations require a detailed 
description of the Beneficiary's daily job duties. The Petitioner has not provided any detail' or 
explanation of the Beneficiary's activities in the course of his daily routine. The actual duties 
themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. 
,Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), qff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Even if considering that the Beneficiary will perform the same duties for the Petitioner as he 
performs for the foreign entity, we find that duties such as: managing and elevating operations and 
account managers' performance; managing, directing the account management team to achieve sales 
and profit goals; and developing strategic plans to meet desired b4siness goals, do not describe the 
actual tasks involved in carrying out these generally described responsibilities. The record does not 
detail the Beneficiary's proposed involvement in developing business plans, achieving operational 
goals, or managing multiple regions and recommending sales programs and strategies for the U.S. 
entity. The Petitioner's use of the words "manage and direct," without the added context of the 
Beneficiary's duties in carrying out those tasks is, in essence a restatement of the statutory 
definition. General assertions of this type do not tell us what the Benefidary is actually doing and 
who would perform the operational tasks so that the Beneficiary would not have to perform them 
l himself. 
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 101(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 does not describe a subordinate level of managerial employees and their duties for the 
Beneficiary to direct at the U.S. or foreign entity. The Petitioner does not describe the Beneficiary's 
4 
Matter of L-E-(N.A.), Inc. 
daily duties for the Petitioner with sufficient specificity to establish that the Beneficiary's role in the 
organization will be in an executive capacity. 
B. Staffing 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, we review the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed managerial or 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. 
The record included an organizational chart for the foreign parent company depicting the 
Beneficiary as responsible for the foreign entity's lighting product line. The chart does not list any 
positions subordinate to the Beneficiary or indicate that he is responsible for sales, finance, or any 
other department. As noted above, the foreign entity's human resources manager identified five 
individuals at the foreign entity and claimed those individuals reported to the Beneficiary. The 
record does not include a description of these individuals' duties. 
The Petitioner also submitted a revised organizational chart, in response to the Director's RFE, 
which inserted the Beneficiary's proposed position at the U.S. entity. The record, however, does not 
include any job descriptions for any U.S. employees that might be considered subordinate to the 
Beneficiary. The record does not identify any individual or department that would assist the 
Beneficiary in developing the U.S. entity or the foreign entity's expansion and growth in the United 
States. Similarly, the record does not include information or evidence regarding distributorships, 
third party contractors, or budgetary positions. The definitions of executive and managerial capacity 
have two parts. First, the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary will perform certain high-level 
responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. 
July 30, 1991 ). Second, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in 
managerial or executive duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the 
Petitioner's other employees. See, e.g., Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); 
Champion World, 940 F.2d at 1533. Here, the record does not include sufficient probative evidence 
demonstrating that the Beneficiary will be relieved from performing operational tasks necessary to 
expand the company and the other general duties described. 
As required by section 1 01 (a)( 44 )(C) of the Act, if staffing levels are used as a factor in determining 
whether an individual is acting in a managerial or executive capacity, we must take into account the 
reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the 
organization. We have long interpreted the statute to prohibit discrimination against small or 
medium-size businesses. However, we have also consistently interpreted the Act to require 
petitioners to establish that the beneficiary's position "primarily" consists of managerial or executive 
duties, and that it has sufficient personnel to relieve a beneficiary from performing operational and 
administrative tasks. The lack of clarity regarding the Beneficiary's role at the U.S. entity and the 
5 
Matter of L-E-(N.A.), Inc. 
lack of personnel to relieve the Beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties, precludes a 
determination that the Petitioner's reasonable needs justify the Beneficiary's performance of 
non-managerial and non-executive duties. A petitioner's unsupported statements are of very limited 
weight and normally will be insufficient to carry its burden of proof. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
The Petitioner has not submitted evidence to overcome the Director's determination. The record 
does not include probative evidence that the Beneficiary will direct a subordinate' level of managerial 
employees or will primarily supervise managerial, professional, or supervisory employees. The 
record does not include probative evidence that the Beneficiary's primary duties are executive or 
managerial in nature. The appeal must be dismissed for this reason. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that it will employ the 
Beneficiary in an executive or managerial capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of L-E-(N.A.), Inc., ID# 364379 (AAO May 31, 2017) 
6