dismissed L-1A Case: Engineering Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF K-USA, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 3, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an engineering services company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its 
"Manager of North America" 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 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 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 
in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary would qualify as a personnel manager based on 
his supervision of subordinate managers and professionals. The Petitioner also contends that the 
Beneficiary would act as a function manager overseeing an essential function of its foreign parent 
company; namely, its relationship with a contracted sales organization. The Petitioner further asserts 
that the Beneficiary would qualify as an executive based on his full authority over the U.S. company. 
Upon de nova 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 their services to the same employer 
or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. The petitioner must also 
establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify them to perfonn the 
intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
Matter of K-USA, Inc. 
II. DEFINITIONS 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or 
manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
"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. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The sole issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
When examining the managerial or 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 a 
managerial or 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 managerial or 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 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 1533. 
The Petitioner stated that its foreign parent company "is a leader in the design, manufacture, and sales 
of jig tool, prototype parts, ceramic products and set of machinery; [ and] production and regrinding of 
quartz glass." The Petitioner emphasized that it has worked for over a decade with a U.S. company 
2 
Matter of K-USA, Inc. 
that is a "top rated supplier of customized precision metric tools" who "interacts with [the parent 
company's] customers in the North American market, place[s] orders on their behalf, receives 
shipments from Japan and forwards them to their final destination." The Petitioner further indicated 
that it was established in 2013 to "better serve customers in the North American market" and that it is 
dedicated to "support[ing] ... customers across North America, improving delivery schedules, 
facilitating a quicker response to design challenges and enhancing customer service." 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has been, and would be, tasked with some of the following 
duties: 
• Direct and manage the Petitioner financial and budget act1v1t1es, max1m1ze 
investments, increase efficiency, coordinate activities and resolve problems; 
• Analyze operations to evaluate performance of the company and staff: determine 
areas of cost reduction, program improvement, and policy change; 
• Manage, plan, and implement policies, objectives, and activities, maximize return 
on investments, and increase productivity; 
• Negotiate and approve contracts and agreements with suppliers, distributors, 
federal and state agencies, recommend approval and suggest changes; 
• Manage staff and professional contractors, including sales engineers in Japan, make 
or recommend personnel decisions; 
• Supervise contracted Sales Engineers and other professionals to ensure the smooth 
and on-time supply of customized foreign parent products; 
• Prepare and present reports concerning activities, expenses, budgets, government 
statues and rulings, establish departmental responsibilities and coordinate functions 
sales, administration, client services departments and sites; 
• Implement corrective action plans to solve organizational and departmental 
problems, coordinate the development and implementation of budgetary control 
systems, recordkeeping systems, and other administrative control systems; 
• Review and analyze legislation, laws, and public policy, and recommend changes 
to promote and support interests of both the general population and special groups, 
refer major policy matters to lower management for final decisions; 
• Administer programs for selection of sites, construction of future office location 
and provision of equipment and supplies; and 
• Organize and approve promotional strategies. 
In addition, in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided additional 
explanation of the Beneficiary's role, noting that he was tasked with "overseeing the Business 
Development and Marketing division." The Petitioner further indicated that the Beneficiary used 
"specialized knowledge of the manufacturing industry to determine goods and services to be sold" and 
that he "set process and credit terms based on forecasts of customer demand." It also stated that the 
Beneficiary was "responsible for planning and directing activities such as sales promotions" and 
coordinating "a wide range of business activities and entire departments, as well as negotiating and 
approving contracts on behalf of the company with no oversight." In addition, it indicated that the 
Beneficiary was tasked with "leading and controlling at a broad level the direction of the entire U.S. 
company by establishing company norms for all subordinates to follow." 
3 
Matter of K-USA, Inc. 
The Petitioner has submitted a vague U.S. duty description and little documentation to substantiate the 
Beneficiary's daily qualifying managerial and executive level tasks. The Beneficiary's duty 
description includes several generic duties that could apply to any manager or executive acting in any 
industry and they provide little insight into his actual day-to-day managerial or executive tasks. For 
instance, the Petitioner did not sufficiently detail or document financial or budget activities that the 
Beneficiary directed, investments he maximized, problems he resolved, or areas of cost reduction, 
program improvement, or policy change he determined. Likewise, it did not articulate or document 
policies or objectives he managed, productivity he increased, contracts with suppliers, distributors, or 
governments he negotiated and approved, reports he prepared, or departmental responsibilities he 
established. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not detail or substantiate with supporting evidence the corrective actions 
he implemented to solve organizational and departmental problems, budgetary control systems he 
developed and coordinated, administrative control procedures he put in place, law and public policy 
he reviewed and recommended changes based upon, or promotional strategies he organized and 
approved. In fact, despite asserting that the Beneficiary oversees a business development and 
marketing division the record includes almost no supporting documentation to corroborate this, such 
as him delegating duties to subordinates in these departments or evidence of him "leading and 
controlling at a broad level the direction of the entire U.S. company by establishing company norms 
for all subordinates to follow." This lack of detail and documentation is particularly notable since the 
Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary has been acting in his asserted capacity in the United States since 
December 2013. 1 Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are 
primarily executive or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a 
matter ofreiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted an expert opinion letter from a finance professor at the 
however, this letter also included few credible details as to the .__ __________ ____, 
Beneficiary's duties in the United States over the last several years. For example, the professor 
vaguely noted that the Beneficiary was responsible for "managing various crucial and firm-wide sales 
and business development initiatives for major business clients, strategies, and internal business 
operations." The letter also indicated that the Beneficiary acted as a "key liaison between the parent 
company and its U.S. client base and supplier network," conducted "market strategy development 
initiatives," and "assign[ ed] tasks and overs[ aw] projects to professionals." The professor also 
ambiguously stated that the Beneficiary oversees "organizational and analytical process resources, and 
initiatives which are characterized by significant complexity" and that he broadly orchestrates "diverse 
geographic elements" and manages "advanced technical, human, financial, and logistical elements." 
However, much like the Beneficiary's duties, this document includes a questionable lack of detail; for 
instance, the letter does not include credible explanations of the business development initiatives the 
Beneficiary worked on, major business clients he worked with, strategies he implemented, or projects 
he managed. Further, the professor does not credibly explain in his letter the specifics of 
"organizational and analytical processes," "diverse geographic elements," and "logistical elements." 
1 The petition was filed on October 22, 2018. 
4 
Matter of K-USA, Inc. 
In sum, the record includes little substantiating documentation of the Beneficiary's actual duties on a 
day-to-day basis and the explanations of his tasks include few credible details. 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the organization, the fact that they 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 
10l(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties 
of a position be "primarily" managerial or 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 his actual duties would be primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
B. Staffing 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial or 
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 indicating that the Beneficiary supervises a business 
development manager overseeing a "Manager." The chart farther reflected that the manager 
supervises an administration department including an executive administrative coordinator, a business 
development and marketing department with a vacant market research analyst position, and an 
engineering and services division consisting of sales engineers working for another U.S. based 
company. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary oversees managerial and professional 
subordinates and asserts that he acts as more than a first line supervisor. The statutory definition of 
"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function managers." See section 
10l(a)(44)(A) 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." Id. If a beneficiary directly supervises other 
employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or 
recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary oversees 
subordinate managers as necessary to qualify him as a personnel manager. First, the Petitioner has 
not submitted sufficient documentation to substantiate its asserted organizational chart. For instance, 
the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary supervises a business development manager overseeing a 
manager. However, the Petitioner's payroll documentation and the most recent state quarterly wage 
report from the third quarter of 2018 only reflects wages paid to the claimed manager and executive 
administrative coordinator. The Petitioner questionably only provides one asserted pay stub for the 
asserted business development manager and this claimed employee does not appear in its payroll or 
tax documentation. Further, the Petitioner's organizational chart indicates that the manager oversees 
5 
Matter of K-USA, Inc. 
the executive administrative coordinator, but the manager's duties include no apparent responsibility 
for overseeing this administrative employee. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies 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 asserted manager's duties indicate that he is largely tasked with leading engineering teams; 
presumably, contractors the Petitioner claims are being provided by another U.S. company. We 
acknowledge that the Petitioner submits a letter from this company stating that the foreign parent and 
Petitioner "work closely" with "sixty sales engineers" from that company. However, there is 
insufficient evidence to demonstrate that these contractors are under the supervisory authority of the 
Beneficiary and his asserted subordinate managers. 
For instance, the letter from this U.S. company makes no reference to the Beneficiary or his 
subordinates overseeing and directing the discussed sales engineers. In addition, a provided 
"Exclusive Distribution Agreement" reflects that the U.S. company coordinating with the Petitioner 
was granted an exclusive right to sell the foreign parent company's products, but there is no indication 
in this agreement that the Petitioner or the Beneficiary manage and direct the sales engineers as 
subordinates or make personnel decisions with respect to them, as asserted in the Beneficiary's duties. 
Indeed, despite claiming that a vast majority of its organizational chart consists of contracted sales 
engineers, the Petitioner provides almost no supporting documentation to substantiate the Beneficiary 
directing his subordinate managers or this claimed network of sales engineers. Further, the Petitioner's 
2017 Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return does not reflect that it devoted substantial costs 
to employing a network of sales engineers; for instance, this document demonstrated that it spent only 
$12,948 on "professional fees" during that year. Otherwise, the Petitioner does not submit evidence 
to substantiate that the referenced sales engineers are under the direction of the Petitioner and 
Beneficiary or that it is paying these contractors. 
Furthermore, the aforementioned expert opinion letter from a professor of finance at thel 
I lappears to make conflicting statements as to the Petitioner's asserted o._r_g_a_n-iz-a-ti_o_n_a_l_. 
chart and the Beneficiary's claimed managerial capacity. For example, the letter ambiguously states 
that the Beneficiary has direct reports "in the larger sense" and that he has "at least one professional 
sub[ ordinate]." These statements appear questionable in light of the Petitioner's claimed 
organizational structure, including two subordinate managers and approximately 60 sales engineers. 
The opinion letter also appears to confirm that the Beneficiary does not have personnel or supervisory 
authority over the contracted sales engineers, stating that they "ultimately report to that firm." 
Otherwise, the Petitioner provides little documentation to substantiate that he manages a vast network 
of sales engineers or that he has personnel authority over them. Likewise, the record includes no 
evidence of the Beneficiary delegating to his claimed subordinate business development manager and 
manager despite claiming that he has acted in his role for several years. Therefore, in sum, the 
Petitioner has provided insufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel 
manager based on his supervision of subordinate managers and supervisors. 
The Petitioner further asserts that the Beneficiary oversees professional subordinates thereby 
qualifying him as a personnel manager. To determine whether a beneficiary manages professional 
employees, we must evaluate whether the subordinate positions require a baccalaureate degree as a 
6 
Matter of K-USA, Inc. 
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 10l(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." 
The Petitioner does not specifically articulate why the Beneficiary's subordinates qualify as 
professionals. For instance, it only vaguely indicated that the claimed "manager" holds a "BA [in] 
Commerce." It also stated that the executive administrative coordinator holds only a secondary degree 
and it did not indicate the claimed business development manager's level of education, even if his 
employment with the Petitioner was properly substantiated. As such, the Petitioner only clearly 
articulates that one of the Beneficiary's subordinates has a bachelor's degree in commerce; but it does 
not explain how this demonstrates that this employee is a professional, nor does it submit evidence to 
substantiate that this subordinate holds this degree. Beyond this, the Petitioner vaguely indicates that 
its "partner" company in the U.S. employs approximately 60 sales engineers and asserts that they are 
professionals. However, the Petitioner does not sufficiently establish the degrees held by these sales 
engineers nor that they are under the supervisory control of the Beneficiary. The Petitioner also does 
not adequately articulate why the sales engineers should be considered professionals consistent with 
the regulations. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary qualifies as a 
personnel manager based on his supervision of professional subordinates. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also contends that the Beneficiary qualifies as a function manager. The term 
"function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the work of a 
subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" within the 
organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary will 
manage an essential function, it must clearly describe the duties to be performed in managing the 
essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that "(l) the function is a clearly 
defined activity; (2) the function is 'essential,' i.e., core to the organization; (3) the beneficiary will 
primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the function; (4) the beneficiary will act at a senior level 
within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and ( 5) the beneficiary 
will exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day operations." Matter of G- Inc., Adopted 
Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
The submitted evidence is not sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary would act as a function 
manager under an extended petition. When asserting that the Beneficiary qualifies as a function 
manager on appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary reports only to the president of the 
parent company in Japan, points to the "number of contracts signed by the beneficiary," and notes that 
he is one of two corporate officers of the company. However, these assertions and the referenced 
evidence are not sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary would devote his time primarily to 
qualifying managerial tasks. As we discussed at length, the Petitioner has submitted little detail and 
documentation to substantiate the Beneficiary's qualifying managerial duties despite claiming that he 
has acted in this role since 2013. 
For instance, the Petitioner points to the "number of contracts signed by the beneficiary," but it 
provided no specific examples of these contracts nor is there supporting documentation of them on the 
record, beyond a few employment contracts he signed in 2014 with the company's few employees. 
7 
Matter of K-USA, Inc. 
Further, the Beneficiary's appointment as a corporate officer does not demonstrate that he devotes a 
majority of his time to qualifying managerial tasks. In fact, the Petitioner indicates that it was 
established to "serve customers, generate quicker response times, improve delivery, and enhance 
customer service." Given the lack of detail and supporting evidence and employees to relieve the 
Beneficiary from these apparent operational functions, it appears more likely that he is primarily 
devoted to these duties and providing these services to customers rather than managing a function. 
For example, as we noted, the Petitioner submits little evidence to demonstrate the Beneficiary 
primarily delegating non-qualifying operational tasks to his subordinates or reflecting his oversight 
and managerial authority over a network of sales engineers. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary would act as a function manager under the extended petition. 
Lastly, the Petitioner also asserts that the Beneficiary's work is "executive in nature," stating that he 
is "the key point of escalation for all internal and operational issues, including logistics, 
manufacturing, product engineering, sales engineering, and business strategy development" with full 
authority over the work of "every internal team." 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 provided sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary would act in an 
executive capacity under the extended petition. Again, the Petitioner submitted little detail and 
documentation to substantiate that the Beneficiary primarily devotes his time to executive-level duties. 
For instance, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary oversees "every internal team" and a wide range 
of executive-level strategy aspects related to these teams. First, the Petitioner submits no evidence to 
substantiate the Beneficiary setting strategy for the company's asserted organizational hierarchy. As 
discussed, the Petitioner has only established that it has two employees beyond the Beneficiary; as 
such, we presume that the "internal teams" it references are teams of sales engineers working for the 
U.S. company it has contracted with. 
However, again, the Petitioner submits little evidence to establish that these claimed sales engineers 
can be considered part of its organizational hierarchy or that they are under the executive authority of 
the Beneficiary. There is no supporting documentation to demonstrate the Beneficiary's executive 
authority over these employees and the provided exclusive distribution agreement only reflects that 
this company has the right to sell the foreign parent's machined components, but provides no 
indication that the Petitioner has authority over this company's sales engineers. Although we 
acknowledge that it is possible that the Petitioner's employees and the U.S. company selling its 
products cooperate to meet customer's needs, this evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary acts at the top of a complex organizational hierarchy with executive authority over these 
contractors. Indeed, the expert opinion letter provided by the Petitioner acknowledges that the 
8 
Matter of K-USA, Inc. 
referenced sales engineers "ultimately report to that firm." As such, the Petitioner has not established 
that the Beneficiary would act as an executive under the extended petition. 
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would act 
in a managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of K-USA, Inc., ID# 5134055 (AAO Sept. 3, 2019) 
9