dismissed L-1A Case: Escape Room Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Q-G-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB.27,2018 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an escape room operator and franchisor, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as its president under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. ~ 1101(a)(15)(L). The 
L-1 A classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its afliliate 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, as claimed, that: (1) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in an executive capacity; 
and (2) the Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in an executive capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence 
regarding its U.S. employees. and asserts that the Director erred by applying the standards for a 
managerial capacity rather than an executive capacity. The Petitioner also maintains that it had 
provided sufficient details regarding the Beneficiary's past and intended future duties. 
Upon de novo review. we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification. a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary ''in a 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 atliliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. !d. 
II. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAP A CITY 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary has been, and will be. employed in an executive capacity. The Petitioner does not claim 
that the Beneficiary has been. or will be, employed in a managerial capacity, or that the Beneficiary 
.
Matter qf Q-G-, LLC 
worked abroad in a capacity involving specialized knowledge. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to 
whether the Beneficiary has been and will be employed in an executive capacity. 
An executive capacity is 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 
10l(a)(44)(B) ofthe Act. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in an executive 
capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must take into account the reasonable 
needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the 
organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
A. Foreign Employment in a Managerial or Executive Capacity 
1. Duties 
The definition of executive capacity has two parts. First, the petitioner must show that the position 
entailed 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 position primari~v 
involved executive duties , as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside other employees. 
See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006) ; Champion rVorld, 940 F.2d 1533. 
When examining the past executive capacity of the Beneficiary , we will review the Petitioner's 
description of the Beneficiary's job duties. The Petitioner 's description of the job duties must 
establish that those duties were primarily in an executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(1)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner identified the Beneficiary 's foreign employer as The Petitioner has 
submitted several configurations of the Beneficiary 's foreign job description , which listed various 
responsibilities and the approximate percentage of time devoted to each. Below, we reproduce the 
version offered on appeal: 
Communication with outside parties regarding the direction of the company 
(14.5%) 
• Reviews proposals and 
negotiates new business partnerships ( 1.5%) 
• Retains and terminates services of the employees and independent contractors 
based on the changes in business plans and individual performance (2%) 
• Enters into contractual relationship with the suppliers of decorations, equipment 
and construction materials and ensures quality and timely deliveries (2%) 
2 
Matter of Q-G-, LLC 
• Identifies new locations suitable for the business of the company and negotiates 
lease agreements (2%) 
• Negotiates and executes various contracts on behalf of the organization, including 
lease agreements, project contracts with construction and interior design 
organizations (7%) 
Communication with those inside the company regarding the direction of the 
company (18.5%) 
• Works with finance team to ensure the revenue collection is set up and regularly 
monitored (2%) 
• Works with independent marketing and business advisors to develop 
comprehensive marketing and PR policies for the organization: reviews and 
approves the brand and marketing strategy of the company (5%) 
• Ensures that implemented policies are continuously maintained by the 
organization's representatives ( 10%) 
• Completes quarterly and year end performance appraisal (1.5%) 
Setting proper company goals/policies (35%) 
• Risk management - early identification and preparation of mitigation strategies 
(1%) 
• Reviews and approves chosen project metrics to monitor cost, effort. service 
quality and customer satisfaction (2%) 
• Identifies new opportunities I projects which will contribute to the business 
growth and ensure revenue targets are met (5%) 
• Plans the near and long term resource count and skill set requirements to 
implement strategic staffing of the company's game facilities (2%) 
• Develops the company's strategic and operational plans ( 15%) 
• Develops the business growth strategy of the organization (4%) 
• Reviews clients' surveys and feedback reports and develops the organization 
policies in alignment with the received information (2%) 
• Establishes quarterly and annual financial and overall business performance goals 
of the organization (4%) 
Being responsible to ensure that the company goals/policies are met (13%) 
• Oversees overall operations ofthe company (1 0%) 
• Ensures compliance with the legal standards and quality assurance procedures 
(1%) 
• Mentors the individual team members and evaluates their performance (2%) 
Matter of Q-G-. LLC 
Staying informed of everything necessary to make good executive decisions 
(19.5%) 1 
• Reviews performance metrics on a weekly/monthly basis (1 %) 
• Orders and revie\v[s] market research pertaining to the company's services and 
revises operational strategies to meet changing market requirements (2%) 
• Completes quarterly and year end performance appraisal ( 1.5%) 
• Studies and implements ne\v games, quests, methodologies for the development 
of new services and supply of the new experiences to the clients (4%) 
• Attends conferences and meets with the national and international communities of 
business people in the relevant industries (3%) 
• Analyzes strengths and weaknesses of key competitors and maintains av-.rareness 
of the latest trends in the industry (2%) 
• Conducts market research and reviews various statistical reports to identify the 
requirements of the prospective clients, then establishes the policies of the 
organization to meet changing market requirements (4%) 
• Meets with the key managers and executives of the potential franchisees and 
business partners ( 3%) 
The stated percentages exceed 100% and the item, ··completes qumierly and year end performance 
appraisal," appears twice. 
In the denial notice, the Director acknowledged that the Beneficiary had a high level of discretionary 
authority over the foreign entity. but the Director found the job description to be generic and vague. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not established that the foreign entity employed the 
Beneficiary in a primarily executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director '·provided no analysis to support [the] conclusion'' 
that the job description was unacceptably vague. Therefore, it is appropriate to ofter such analysis 
here. 
Some elements ofthe above list appear to be redundant, even if we disregard the duplicate listing for 
performance appraisals. For example, the Petitioner did not specify the difference between 
monitoring client satisfaction and reviewing client surveys and feedback reports. The Petitioner did 
not explain why developing growth strategy would not be part of developing strategic plans. One 
item indicates that the Beneficiary evaluated employee performance; another item referred to 
performance appraisals. Yet another item refers to review of performance metrics. 
Other elements are vague because they do not tell us vvhat the Beneficiary actually did on a day-to­
day basis. The Petitioner does not say how the Beneficiary ensured that the company maintained 
implemented policies and ensured timely deliveries. The Petitioner has not explained how the 
1 The percentages in this section add up to 20.5%, not 19.5%. 
4 
Matter C!f Q-G-, LLC 
Beneficiary "[ o ]versees overall operations of the company'· in ways not covered by other listed 
items. 
The Petitioner lists several activities that the Beneficiary "is NOT responsible for'·: 
• Running the games 
• Taking payment for tickets 
• Maintaining/fixing/replacing the equipment 
• Scheduling/paying employees 
• Paying employees [sic] 
• Communicating with customers 
• Supervising low level employees running games/tickets 
• Financial accounting 
• Marketing 
The Petitioner has not established who is responsible tor many of those functions at the foreign 
company. As explained below, the Petitioner has provided a list of subordinates. but no job 
descriptions or hierarchy to establish the relationships between the various positions. Also. the list 
of excluded activities does not include designing escape rooms, which appears to be a core business 
function. 
The listed duties establish a high level of discretionary authority, but do not tell us enough about the 
Beneficiary's activities to show that she performed primarily executive functions abroad. 
2. Staffing 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when 
examining a beneficiary's claimed executive capacity, 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 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 a 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 an owner or sole 
managerial employee. A beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision 
5 
Matter of Q-G-, LLC 
making" and receive only "general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization.'' !d. 
An organizational chart, which identified the Beneficiary as the ''deputy director [and] mam 
manager," listed 15 subordinate positions: 
Human Resources & Management 
Financial Control 
Franchise Consulting 
Social Media Marketing & Design 
Calculation of Royalties 
Quest Planning Consulting 
3 Scriptwriters 
Property Master 
Electronic Devices Developer 
4 Call Center Workers 
The chart did not show any internal hierarchy among the Beneficiary's identified subordinates. 
Instead, the chart appeared to indicate that each subordinate reported directly to the Beneficiary. 
(Arrows on the chart led from the Beneficiary directly to each subordinate.) 
In the denial notice, the Director found that the Petitioner had not provided job descriptions for the 
Beneficiary's subordinates or established that any of them "are management level employees" who 
"relieved the beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by applying the standard for a managerial 
capacity rather than an executive capacity. The decision does include some references to managerial 
capacity, but only in introductory language that includes lengthy quotations from the statute and 
regulations. In the body of the decision, the Director repeatedly acknowledges the Petitioner's claim 
that the Beneficiary has served, and will serve, in an executive capacity. The appearance of the 
phrase "managerial capacity'' earlier in the decision does not discredit the entire decision. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Director's "mistake wrongly stained the Service Center's analysis 
throughout the denial.'' The Director found, for example, that the Petitioner had not established that 
the Beneficiary "is overseeing a staff of professionals, managers, or supervisory employees.'' The 
Petitioner states that these categories of subordinates are "relevant only to analysis of whether an 
employee is operating in a managerial capacity pursuant [to] Section 10l(a)(44)(A) ofthe INA.'' 
The Petitioner is correct that references to professionals and supervisors appear only in the definition 
of managerial capacity. We will therefore set aside any discussion as to whether the Beneficiary's 
subordinates are professionals or supervisors. The definition of executive capacity, however, 
requires that the executive ''directs the management of the organization or a major component or 
function of the organization.'' Section 10l(a)(44)(B)(i) of the Act. This definition presumes the 
.
Matter of Q-G-, LLC 
existence of management, separate from the executive and subject to the executive's authority, tor 
the executive to direct. If a beneficiary does not oversee any managers, then it is the petitioner's 
responsibility and burden to explain how the beneficiary nevertheless directs the management. 
(Managing an organization is not the same thing as directing the management, and the Petitioner 
emphasizes on appeal that the Beneficiary is not a manager.) 
The Petitioner denies that the Beneficiary supervised "low level employees running games /tickets" 
(who are not shown on the organizational chart) but does not say who did supervise them. The 
Beneficiary's job description includes several items relating to employee evaluations, which arc not 
incompatible with a supervisory role even if the Beneficiary was not on-site at each of the foreign 
entity's escape room locations. 
Beyond duties and staffing, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary ' s "salary is much higher than 
the salary of the average office employee in the company's region ; ' which "indicates ... the 
executive level of the Beneficiary's position vvithin the company.'' This assertion is not dispositive, 
for several reasons. First , the statutory definition centers around duties and responsibilities rather 
than compensation. Level of compensation is not prima .fctcie evidence that a given beneficiary 
works primarily in an executive capacity . 
Second, the Petitioner did not provide evidence of executive compensation in the region that would 
allow a meaningful comparison. Instead, the Petitioner's evidence indicated that the Beneficiary is 
paid more than people who are not executives. This does not justit)' the inference that the 
Beneficiary's salary must therefore be that of an executive. 
Third, the Petitioner is inconsistent in relying upon salary information. With respect to the 
Beneficiary's compensation in the United States , the Petitioner asserts that "[p]ayment ... is not 
material.'' (The Petitioning company is operating at a loss even before paying the Beneficiary's 
salary.) The Petitioner has not offered any evidence to show that the Beneficiary· s proffered salary 
of $60,000 per year is commensurate with executive compensation in where the 
Petitioner operates. 
The Beneficiary held a high-ranking position at the foreign entity , but the Petitioner has not provided 
enough information to show that her primary responsibilities and duties were at an executive level. 
B. U.S. Employment in an Executive Capacity 
1. 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). 
Matter of Q-G-, LLC 
The Petitioner stated: "As the co-owner and managing member of [the petitioning entity]. 
Beneficiary is the only individual with the authority to enter into contracts, promulgate employment 
policies, and make investment and financial decisions on behalf of the company." The Petitioner 
listed the Beneficiary's intended duties and responsibilities, with the approximate time dedicated to 
each (as before. the total percentages exceed 100% ): 
Direct the management of the organization 
• Establishment and oversight of the ongoing business development of the company 
(10%) 
• Establishment and oversight of the ongoing marketing strategy and brand 
development ( 1 0%) 
• Development and implementation of the mechanisms of legal and regulatory 
compliance (2%) 
• Review and revision of the operational strategies of the company when needed 
(3%) 
• Interviewing, hiring and training the personnel for the U.S. branch (2%) 
• Ongoing market research and analysis of the relevant industry in the United States 
and requirements of the potential clientele (2%) 
• Review and approval of the chosen project metrics to monitor cost, effort. service. 
quality and customer satisfaction (2%) 
• Identification of the inherent risks at the project/account level and formulation of 
the mitigation plans (2%) 
• Contractual relationship with the suppliers of decorations, equipment and 
construction materials to ensure quality and timely deliveries (2%) 
• Review the performance metrics on a weekly/monthly basis ( 1%) 
• Perform quarterly and year-end performance appraisal (1 %) 
Establish the goals and policies of the organization 
• Establishment of the quarterly and annual financial and overall business 
performance goals ofthe organization (3%) 
• Development of the plan of implementation of new games, quests. methodologies 
in order to provide new services and experiences to the clients (3%) 
• Development ofthe company's strategic and operational plans (8%) 
• Development of the business growth strategy (3%) 
• Review the clients' surveys and feedback reports regularly and develop the 
organization policies in alignment with the received information (2%) 
• Review and approval or disapproval of the marketing and PR policies of the 
company (5%) 
• Ensure that implemented policies are continuously maintained by the company's 
personnel (1 0%) 
Matter (l Q-G-, LLC 
Exercise wide latitude of decision-making in order to use the opportunities and 
mitigate the risks which [sic] pursuing the company's business goals 
• Identify suitable commercial properties, negotiate and execute commercial lease 
agreements ( 3%) 
• Retain services of the contractors for building new game facilities; determine the 
need for equipment and other materials for each project (2%) 
• Identify potential franchisees and conducting business negotiations (2%) 
• Identify business opportunities and make determination whether to pursue them or 
not based on the analysis of the cost/benefit involved (3%) 
• Study business proposals and make a determination regarding new and ongoing 
business pminerships ( 4%) 
• Monitor the finances of the U.S. branch, including reviewing financial records on 
a regular basis, then. determine where to direct the resources of the organization 
(3%) 
• Approve or disapprove all business operation of the organization based on the 
market research, performance metrics. financial state and other indicators of the 
business development (8%) 
• Undertaking any and all other activities that may become necessary or desirable in 
the course of the business to establish and develop the ongoing business 
operations in the United States (8%) 
The U.S. job description is broadly similar to the foreign job description. which is deficient for 
reasons already explained. Also, several listed duties are, on their face. non-executive, such as 
market research and training personnel. "Contractual relationship with . . . suppliers'' does not 
identify any specific activity. 
The Director concluded that the job description included "many day-to-day tasks of the operations of 
the company," and that the Beneficiary would be "performing many functions within the marketing. 
public relation, finance. business development and human resources aspects of the company.'' 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary would oversee, rather than perform, the 
functions listed above. The Petitioner grants that the Beneficiary would make hiring decisions. but 
asserts that "[t]hese duties are incidental to her role as President, taking up only 5% of her time.'' 
The assertion that the Beneficiary would delegate lower functions to subordinates relies on the 
availability of sufficient stafTto perform those functions. We address the staffing issue below. 
2. Staffing 
The Petitioner initially indicated that it "operates three (3) locations in New York'' and ·'retains 
twelve (12) employees,'' but its organizational chart showed ten employees staffing two locations: 
9 
.
Matter of Q-G-, LLC 
President [the Beneficiary] 
Manager, Technical Manager Manager, 
I 
3 Room Masters 3 Room Masters 
The Petitioner stated that "[s]uch services as legaL accounting and marketing are provided by 
independent consultants," but the Petitioner did not provide more details or document the claimed 
arrangements. 
In the denial notice, the Director found that the Petitioner had not submitted enough details to show 
that any of the Beneficiary's direct subordinates hold managerial positions (a managerial title alone 
cannot suffice in this regard). The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that the 
company "has been sutliciently staffed to a point that it can support the beneficiary's position as a 
President and relieve the beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties .. , 
The Petitioner 
submits job descriptions for the manager and technical manager. Both descriptions 
include supervisory, operational, or administrative duties. The technical manager's duties include 
repairs and installations, with no identifiable managerial duties despite the position title. The 
manager has hiring authority, which is consistent \Vith a managerial capacity, but also directly 
monitors the work of subordinates, contacts media sources to arrange advertising and marketing, and 
works \vith customers and clients. Overall, the manager appears to be a first-line supervisor. 
The Petitioner submits copies of nine employment contracts, all for the position of ''Escape Room 
Manager," a title that does not appear on the organizational chart. One contract bears 
the name of 
the person identified as the technical manager on the organizational chart, showing a May 2016 
hiring date, but there is no evidence that the Petitioner ever paid him. His name is not on any of the 
IRS Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statements, from that year, and the submitted forms account for all 
of the salaries that the Petitioner reported on its 2016 income tax return. 
The Petitioner has not established that any of its current employees \vork full-time. The Petitioner 
paid $54,24 7 in salaries in 2016, divided among 12 individuals. including 5 named on the 
organizational chart. The highest-paid employee received $12,848 in 201 6; only four employees 
earned more than $5000. The two identified managers for whom payroll documentation is available 
earned between $10,000 and $12,000 each. 
The identified manager for the Petitioner's location on signed an employment contract 
on May 16, 2016. The manager of the Petitioner's location signed his contract 
on July 9, 2016. Their contracts, like the others, specify a probational salary of $10.50 per hour for 
the first ten shifts, and $12.00 per hour thereafter. At those rates, assuming five eight-hour shifts per 
week, and assuming that neither employee received a raise upon promotion to manager, the 
employees should have earned $840 during the training period and then $480 per week thereafter. 
From the hiring date through the rest of the year, the manager should have earned 
10 
.
Matter of Q-G-, LLC 
$15,720 working full time; she actually earned $11,766. The manager should 
have earned $11,880, but earned only $10,119. The managers' salaries therefore indicate part-time 
employment, with most other 
employees earning considerably less. The Petitioner has indicated that 
the Beneficiary \Vould work full-time, but has not shown that any of the subordinates on whom she 
would rely \Vould do the same. 
Although all of the Benefl.ciary' s documented subordinates appear to have the word "manager'" in 
their job title, the Petitioner has not shown that any of those positions are actually managerial. The 
Petitioner has not shown that the organization has any management for the Beneficiary to direct. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary would not work at the escape room locations, but rather at 
a separate headquarters office. The Petitioner has not established its reasonable needs with respect 
to the staffing of that headquarters office. All of the documented subordinates work at one of the 
two escape rooms. The Petitioner, therefore, has not shown that any subordinate employees \Vould 
relieve the Beneficiary of the administrative work to be undertaken at the headquarters location. The 
Petitioner has not established that the organization is sufficiently complex to warrant executive 
leadership, but nevertheless its main oftice does not require any staff other than the Beneficiary. The 
general assertion that contractors will perform certain administrative functions lacks detail and 
corroboration, apart from an accountant's name on some tax documents in the record. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that it will employ the Beneficiary in an executive capacity, or 
that the company has an organizational hierarchy that would support an executive position. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has been, or will be, employed in a primarily 
executive capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o(Q-G-, LLC, ID# 992734 (AAO Feb. 27, 2018)