dismissed L-1A Case: Electronics Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 1-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 20, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which sells mobile phones, tablets, photographic equipment, and accessories, seeks to 
continue the Beneficiary's temporary employment as its president and general manager under the L-1 A 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees.' See Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-1A 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, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity 
under the extended petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director mischaracterized 
the nature of the Beneficiary's primary duties and over-emphasized the company's staffing levels in 
reaching her decision. The Petitioner maintains that it submitted sufficient evidence to show that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity, and maintains that his duties could also be 
classified as primarily managerial. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. 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. !d. 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a ''new office'' petition on the Beneficiary"s behalf which was approved for the period 
January 25, 2016, until January 24, 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(1)(1)(ii)(F). The 
regulation at 8 C. F. R. § 214.2(1)(3 )( v )(C) allows a "new office'' operation one year with in the date of approval of the 
petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
Matter of/-, Inc. 
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). 
"Managerial capacity" means as 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) ofthe Act. 
"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) ofthe 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 101(a)(44)(C) ofthe Act. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
In the denial decision, the Director concluded that the Beneficiary's job description included various 
non-managerial and non-executive tasks and did not identify how much time he would spend on 
them. The Director also reviewed the Petitioner's claimed staffing levels and organizational charts 
and determined that it did not establish that it had grown to the point where it could support a 
managerial or executive position. Finally, the Director noted that there were unexplained 
inconsistencies between the Petitioner's initial organizational chart (which depicted the Beneficiary 
as both president and purchase manager) and the organizational chart submitted in response to a 
request for evidence (RFE), which listed the Beneficiary solely as president. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a position description for the Beneficiary, evidence related to its 
opening of a branch office in Florida, and an expert opinion letter in support of its claim that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity. The Petitioner also claims, in the alternative, 
that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity based on his discretionary 
2 
Matter of 1-, Inc. 
authority over the company as a whole, his ability to hire and fire staff~ and his supervision of 
subordinate supervisory personnel. 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look first to 
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 
a managerial or executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description 
of the job duties, USCIS examines 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 ofthe Petitioner's business and its staffing levels. 
A. Duties 
Based on the definitions of managerial and executive capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the 
Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. r. INS, 940 F.2d 
1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). 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 Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 
F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d at 1533. 
The Petitioner states that it is engaged in the ''wholesale, retail, and online sales of smartphones, 
tablets, cameras, photographic equipment, and mobile phone accessories.'' However, based on the 
terms of the Petitioner's lease, it does not have a retail location and is only authorized to warehouse 
and distribute these products from its premises. 
In a supporting letter, the Petitioner listed the Beneficiary's duties as president and general manager 
as: 
• Develop and cultivate relationships with the customers, both present and future. 
• Oversee day-to-day projects and/or events to ensure that the quality of [the 
Petitioner's] services meets clients' business objectives and provides value. 
• Accountable for the financial stability of [the Petitioner], including the 
development of annual budgets as well as the management and oversight of 
revenue and expenses .... 
• Manage stock of merchandise levels, organize special promotions, displays and 
events in order to maintain clear and consistent communications between the 
customers and [the Petitioner]. 
• Maintain professional and technical knowledge by attending educational 
workshops; reviewing professional publications; establishing personal networks; 
benchmarking state-of-the art practices; participating in professional societies and 
Matter of 1-, Inc. 
attending international business meetings to keep up with products and new 
technologies. 
The Petitioner stated that the position is primarily executive in nature, as the Beneficiary ""possesses 
autonomous control over, and the exercise of wide latitude in discretionary decision-making, in 
deciding the most advantageous courses of action for the most successful management and direction 
of [the Petitioner's] developmental activities. The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart 
which depicted the Beneficiary in the distinct positions of both president and purchase manager, but 
did not provide a position description for the purchase manager position or indicate how the 
Beneficiary would divide his time between these different roles. 
In response to an RFE, the Petitioner provided a statement from the Beneficiary, who provided an 
overview of his duties which was similar to that provided at the time of tiling. He stated that he: 
directs and coordinates financial activities and monitors revenues and profits; attends meetings 
relevant to consumer electronics to keep up with industry developments and attract potential new 
business; determines staffing needs and hires and supervises personnel; reviews sales and activity 
reports; makes ultimate decisions regarding purchases of stock items; calculates weekly budgets 
based on accounts payable and receivable; directs and approves services, product strategies, and 
price policies; and visits vendors and customers. The Petitioner also submitted an updated 
organizational chart in response to the RFE. This chart did not include the purchase manager 
position previously attributed to the Beneficiary. 
We agree with the Director's determination that the submitted descriptions did not establish that the 
Beneficiary would perform primarily managerial or executive-level duties under the 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 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 he "directs" 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 ofthe organization." !d. 
The Beneficiary's overall authority over the company and discretion to select, hire. and supervise 
employees and contractors is noted, but the position description does not convey sut1icient 
information about what the Beneficiary would be doing on a day-to-day basis as of the date of tiling. 
Further, we agree with the Director that several of the duties potentially involved non-qualifying 
tasks. For example, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary would ··develop and cultivate 
4 
Matter of 1-, Inc. 
relationships with customers" and "manage stock of merchandise levels" but has not distinguished 
these responsibilities from involvement in routine sales and purchasing activities. The Petitioner 
provided extensive evidence of its activities during the previous year, including invoices, purchase 
orders, and e-mails with customers related to its sales transactions. Many of these documents 
identify the Beneficiary as the person involved in the individual sales and purchases, including those 
which post-date the Petitioner's hiring of sales staff. 
Further, we cannot overlook the Petitioner's inclusion of a "purchase manager'' role filled by the 
Beneficiary on its initial organizational chart. The Petitioner reported over $1 million in purchases 
in 2015 and has not indicated that its other personnel are engaged in purchasing activities. On 
appeal, the Petitioner explains that "this 'Purchase Manager' distinction was simply integrated into 
the President position in its later version," noting that amendments to the organizational structure 
were "intended to provide greater clarification of staff duties given USCIS' perception of [the 
Beneficiary] as being bogged down by low-leveled, day-to-day tasks.'' 
The Petitioner goes on to state that "to the extent that [the Beneficiary's] initial title of 'Purchase 
Manager' was perceived as indicating that [the Beneficiary] takes stock of inventory and consumer 
demand and orders electronic parts himself: the label was later omitted." However, the Director's 
RFE did not mention the purchase manager title that was initially assigned to the Beneficiary or 
suggest that the Director perceived the Beneficiary as performing inventory and stock ordering 
duties. For this reason, it is unclear why the Petitioner would change its organizational chart for 
clarification purposes. As noted, the extensive documentation submitted with the petition tends to 
support a finding that the Beneficiary was and would be responsible for the company's purchasing 
activities regardless of whether he holds a second "purchase manager'' job title. 
In addition, some of the duties attributed to the Beneficiary were too vague to provide insight into 
the nature of his day-to-day tasks, and some are inconsistent with the nature of the Petitioner's 
business. For example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would ''oversee the day-to-day 
project and/or events to ensure that its services meet clients' business objectives." The Petitioner 
buys and sells cell phones and cameras with most of its sales and purchase transactions handled 
online. It is unclear what "projects and/or events" the Beneficiary would oversee or what ··services'' 
the company provides to clients. The Beneficiary is also charged with ''organizing special 
promotions, displays and events" but, the Petitioner has no retail store at which to display its 
products or hold promotional events. 
In sum, the job descriptions provided prior to the denial of the petition included a mix of qualifying 
duties, some non-qualifying duties, and some duties that were too vaguely described to be classified 
as managerial or executive. The job description did not support a finding that the Beneficiary would 
be employed in an executive capacity in which he would be primarily focused on the broad goals 
and policies of the organization, rather than being significantly involved in its day-to-day operations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides a "re-organized" description of the Beneficiary's job duties in 
which it assigns a percentage of time to various areas of responsibility. Briefly, the Petitioner 
indicates that the Beneficiary would allocate his time as follows: 
5 
.
Matter of 1-, Inc. 
• 25% on "financial planning, monitoring and stabilizing activities of the sort" 
• 25% on "tracking analytics and adapting the company's sales strategy with these 
patterns in mind" 
• 15% on "company-based travel and other strategies tailored to acquiring and 
maintaining a steady supply of vendors and customers" 
• 1 0% on "taking notice of industry trends and setting [the Petitioner] up to be 'ahead 
ofthe game"' 
• 15% on "determining personnel, coordinating their activities, and assuring their 
efficiency" 
• 5% on "reviewing and keeping stock of staff sales reports and company bank 
statements, and adjusting weekly purchase budgets accordingly'' 
• 2.5% on "quality control" 
• 2.5% on "marketing and public relations" 
The Petitioner maintains that this description establishes that low-level tasks amount to only 1 0% of 
the Beneficiary time while he spends 90% of his time "directing the management of the 
organization, establishing company policies and goals, and using executive privilege for overall 
decision making." 
As noted, the Petitioner has de-emphasized the Beneficiary's involvement in sales and purchasing 
activities, but its supporting evidence presents a different picture and reflects the Beneficiary's 
involvement in routine purchase and sales transactions. Therefore, while the Beneficiary may be in 
charge of the company's finances, personnel, and sales strategies, we cannot determine that any of 
the submitted descriptions fully convey the Beneficiary's actual day-to-day duties. In addition, the 
Petitioner has not explained how the Beneficiary's responsibilities for studying industry trends and 
acquiring vendors and customers qualify as executive or managerial tasks. 
Even though the Beneficiary holds the senior position within the company, the fact that the 
Beneficiary will manage or direct a business does not necessarily establish eligibility for 
classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity within the 
meaning of section 101 (a)( 44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that 
the duties of a position be "primarily" executive or managerial in nature. Sections 101(A)(44)(A) 
and (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, 
the broad position description the Petitioner submitted is insufficient to establish that his actual 
duties would be primarily executive in nature. 
B. Staffing 
The Petitioner stated on the Form 1-129, filed in January 2017, that it had four "independent 
contractors" at the time of filing. Its organizational chart submitted at the time of tiling identified a 
subordinate sales manager a sales executive ( . an accountant 1 
a bookkeeper 1 , an electronics technician ' . and a purchase manager 
(the Beneficiary). 
.
Matter of I-, Inc. 
The organizational chart submitted in response to the RFE identified the Beneficiary as president and 
did not include the purchase manager position. This chart showed that the Beneficiary supervised 
(now identified as "Director of Sales and Marketing''), a newly hired "electronics 
technician and logistic" employee , and the previously identified sales executive, 
accountant, and bookkeeper. The Petitioner noted at this time that had left the company 
in December 2016, before the petition was filed. 
The Petitioner submitted copies of IRS Forms 1099, Miscellaneous Income and Forms W-2, Wage 
and Tax Statement, issued in 2016, 2017 payroll records, and its California quarterly wage reports 
for the fourth quarter of 2016 and the first quarter of 2017. Based on this evidence, the Petitioner 
has established that it employed the Beneficiary, and at the time the 
petition was filed.2 These two subordinate employees are full-time, hourly workers earning $11.00 
and $10.50, respectively. 
In his statement in response to the RFE, the Beneficiary indicated that as sales 
manager, "supervises and handles day to day activities, such as sales, meetings with companies to 
increase sales and he manages the stores which provide our items to the buyers." He further noted 
that reports to him each morning and "[b ]ased on his report, I start purchasing the 
regular inventory items or new orders." The Petitioner provided resume and a 
copy of his bachelor's degree in sociology. The resume lists his job title as "lead account manager'' 
and states that he manages "all major accounts/clients," resolves escalated client issues, leads a four­
member team in account management and business development, collaborates across multiple 
departments to promote client satisfaction, and maintains sales and account information in support of 
"cross-departmental business intelligence." He states that he "successfully added 150 accounts.'' 
The job description in the resume appears to be inconsistent with the scope of the Petitioner's 
business, as there is no indication that the company has a four-person sales team, multiple 
departments, or 150 customer accounts. Further, the Beneficiary's statement appears to confirm that 
he himself makes the Petitioner's purchases, as indicated by much of the supporting documentation. 
The Beneficiary stated that the sales executive, is responsible for "handling sales, 
point to point, and he deals with the customers," reporting to both the Beneficiary and to 
The Petitioner provided evidence that he has a bachelor's degree in business 
administration. 
The Petitioner claims on appeal that the Beneficiary's position, although characterized as primarily 
executive in nature, also satisfies the statutory definition of "managerial capacity," which allows for 
both "personnel managers" and "function managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the 
Act. Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other 
2 The Petitioner paid the bookkeeper $1,633 in 2016 and issued him a Form I 099, but it did not provide evidence of any 
payments to him in 2017, nor does the record include evidence of payments to the Petitioner's accountant, who 
completed an IRS Form W-9, Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification, in March 2017. The 
Petitioner states that the new electronics technician, commenced employment in January 2017. However, 
the payroll record shows that the Petitioner paid him for the first time on March 6, 2017. for work performed during 
February 2017 (I 07 hours). He was paid as a full-time hourly employee thereafter. 
Matter of 1-, Inc. 
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." 3 Section 101(a)(44)(A)(iv) ofthe Act. If a beneficiary 
directly supervises other employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and tire 
those employees, or recommend those actions. and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's position is in a managerial capacity based, in part, on his 
supervision of subordinate supervisors. However, it is not clear that the sales manager or "'Director 
of Sales and Marketing" actually supervises the sales executive based on the Beneficiary's 
description of his job duties. Further, the Beneficiary states that the sales executive directly reports 
to him as well as to the sales manager. While both organizational charts show a contracted 
accountant supervising a contracted bookkeeper, the record does not contain sufficient evidence that 
the Petitioner actually retained these contractors at the time of filing, nor is there a description of the 
scope of the services they provide to the company. For these reasons, the record does not establish 
that the Beneficiary is a personnel manager who primarily supervises a subordinate staff of 
supervisory employees. 
Further, the Petitioner has not established that the two-person support staff in place at the time of 
filing was sufficient to relieve the Beneficiary from significant involvement in the day-to-day 
operations of the company. 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 
denying a visa petition for classification as a multinational manager or executive. See section 
101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. However, it is appropriate for USCIS 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-managerial or non-executive operations of the company. 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 size of a company may be especially relevant when USCIS notes discrepancies in the 
record. See Systronics, 153 F. Supp. 2d at 15. 
While the Petitioner established that it employs sales people, it originally identified the Beneficiary 
as its purchase manager and has not established that any other employees are involved in the 
3 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. 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 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." 
Therefore, we must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree held by a subordinate 
employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee does not automatically lead to the 
conclusion that an employee is employed in a professional capacity. While both of the Petitioner's sales employees have 
bachelor's degrees, the Petitioner does not claim that the positions require a degree and did not object to the Director's 
finding that the Beneficiary's subordinates are not professionals. 
8 
.
Matter of/-, Inc. 
company's substantial purchasing activities. Further, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary 
spends 25% of his time overseeing the company's financial and banking activities, but has not 
established that it actually paid for the services of the claimed bookkeeping/accounts payable and 
receivable employee at the time of filing. Finally, the Petitioner appears to have hired a technician 
and logistics employee (also referred to as a "distribution manager") in February 2017, after the 
petition was tiled, but it is unclear who was responsible for handling shipping, packing, inventory 
and technical support issues at the end of the Petitioner's initial year of operations in January 2017. 
These facts, when considered in light of the evidence in the record reflecting the Beneficiary's 
involvement in routine sales and purchasing activities, do not support the Petitioner's claim that the 
Beneficiary would be allocating his time primarily to managerial or executive duties. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also submits an expert opinion letter from Principal 
Consultant with who maintains that the Director's application 
of the statutory definition of executive capacity "reflects a lack of understanding of an executive 
position in a small private business organization." emphasizes that some types of 
executive duties, such as establishing goals and annual budgets, identifying markets and strategies, 
and expansion-related activities are not reasonably performed on a day-to-day basis. Referencing 
the statutory definition of "executive capacity" at 101 (a)( 44)(B) of the Act, he states that the 
Beneficiary is the only employee of the petitioning company involved in directing the management 
of the company and the strategic, financial, operational and marketing aspects of the business, is the 
sole employee authorized to establish its goals and policies, has complete latitude in all discretionary 
decisions, and receives no supervision, as he is a stockholder and member of the Board of Directors. 
goes on to cite to various industry and regulatory definitions of '·executive,'· 
(including references found in U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), U.S. Securities and Exchange 
Commission, and Internal Revenue Service documents) and emphasizes that no definition of 
"executive" implies that an executive cannot spend some time performing non-executive duties. He 
particularly emphasizes the "executive exemption" under the DOL's Fair Labor Standards Act, 
noting that the Beneficiary qualifies for the executive exemption based on his salary, his 
responsibility for managing the petitioning enterprise, his direction of the work of at least two full­
time subordinates, and his authority to hire employees. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements fl·om universities. professional 
organizations. or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter (~!Caron lnt '!, 19 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding a foreign national's eligibility. The submission of letters from experts 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. /d. We have already 
acknowledged the Beneficiary's managerial or executive level authority over the petitioning 
company and do not doubt that he is the only employee who exercises that level of authority within 
the company. Further, we agree that there is no requirement that an L-1 A employee perform 
exclusively managerial or executive duties. However, for the reasons already discussed, the record 
does not establish that the Beneficiary's primary duties would be executive or managerial in nature. 
The only definition of "executive capacity" applicable to the adjudication of this petition is found at 
section 10l(a)(44)(B) ofthe Act. The Beneficiary may perform a mix of duties typical of a senior 
9 
Matter of 1-, Inc. 
employee within a small private business organization; however, consistent with the statutory 
definition, all petitioners, regardless of size, are required to establish that a given beneficiary's 
position consists of primarily managerial or executive duties and that it will have sufficient 
personnel to relieve the beneficiary from performing operational and administrative tasks alongside 
the company's other employees. The reasonable needs of a petitioner will not supersede the 
requirement that a beneficiary be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity as 
required by the statute. Brazil Quality Stones v. Cherto.ff; 531 F.3d 1063, 1070 n.l 0 (9th Cir. 2008). 
Finally, we acknowledge that the Petitioner has opened a branch office in Florida as of the date of 
the appeal, which is supported by evidence that the Beneficiary signed a lease and began hiring 
additional, Florida-based staff. All of the evidence related to this expansion post-dates the tl.ling of 
the petition and will not be considered. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) only allows 
the "new office" operation one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an 
executive or managerial position. If a business does not have the necessary staftlng after one year to 
sufficiently relieve the beneficiary from performing operational and administrative tasks, the 
petitioner is ineligible for an extension. 
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 of/-, Inc., ID# 745887 (AAO Oct. 20, 2017) 
10