dismissed L-1A Case: Event Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6176700 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 23, 2020 
The Petitioner, an event management company, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment as its general manager under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees.1 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, as required, that the Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. The Director granted the Petitioner's combined motion to reopen and reconsider, 
and affinned the denial of the petition. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal from that decision. The 
matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. We will grant the motion in part and dismiss it in part, and 
affirm the denial of the petition. 
I. MOTION TO RECONSIDER 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that the decision was 
incorrect based on the evidence ofrecord at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A 
motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
A brief review of the chronology of these proceedings illustrates that we erred in our adjudication of 
the appeal. 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiaiy 's behalf which was approved for the period 
May 7, 2015 to May 6, 2016. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United States through 
a parent , branch , affiliate , or subsidiary for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F) . The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an 
executive or managerial position . 
The Director initially denied the petition in June 2017. In July 201 7, the Petitioner filed a combined 
motion to reopen and reconsider. This motion did not include any substantive content. Instead, the 
Petitioner requested an additional 30 days to submit a supplemental brief In August 2017, the 
Petitioner submitted a "Brief in support of APPEAL" directly to the Administrative Appeals Office 
(AAO), rather than to the Vermont Service Center where the motion was pending. (There was no 
pending appeal in August 2017.) It is not clear when this submission was matched with the record of 
proceeding. Because the Petitioner filed a motion on the Director's decision, rather than an appeal, 
the Director had jurisdiction over the motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). Therefore, the file was 
not forwarded to the AAO. 
In a decision dated May 2018, the Director did not address the August 201 7 submission. Instead, the 
Director correctly observed that there is no provision for a petitioner to file a deficient or skeletal motion 
and then supplement it at a later time. 2 As a result, the Director concluded that the Petitioner's July 201 7 
filing did not meet the requirements of either a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. This 
conclusion would have justified, and arguably required, dismissal of the motion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .5( a)( 4 ); however, the Director did not dismiss the combined motion. Instead, the Director granted 
the motion, even while explaining why it could not be granted, and affirmed the previous denial. 
The Petitioner appealed that decision in June 2018, and submitted a brief and evidence intended to 
address the merits of the underlying petition. Our appellate decision did not address those merits. We 
dismissed the appeal in March 2019, stating: "The Director denied the combined motion without 
disturbing the denial of the petition. . . . Because the Petitioner established no error in the denial of the 
motions, we will dismiss the appeal." 
Our decision, however, was in error. The Director did not "den[y] the combined motion without 
disturbing the denial of the petition." Rather, the Director granted the motion and affirmed the denial, 
thereby effectively incorporating the June 201 7 denial into the May 2018 decision. As such, the issues 
in the June 201 7 denial were ripe for discussion in the Petitioner's June 2018 appeal. 
Because this error directly affected the content and outcome of our appellate decision, we grant the 
Petitioner's motion to reconsider for the limited purpose of addressing the issues raised in the initial 
denial (and affirmed in the Director's second decision). Because we do not withdraw the Director's 
decision or approve the petition, we also dismiss the motion in part. 
II. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity for one continuous year within 
three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). 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. Id. 
2 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) and (3) establish that motions to reopen and motions to reconsider must meet the applicable 
requirements at the time of filing. 
2 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-lA 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). 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Petitioner describes the Beneficiary's position as managerial. The Director determined that the 
Petitioner did not establish that it will employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity under the 
extended petition. 
"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. 
To be eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, a petitioner must show that the 
beneficiary will perform all four of the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition 
at section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. If a petitioner establishes that the offered position meets all four 
elements set forth in the statutory definition, the petitioner must then prove that the beneficiary will 
be primarily engaged in managerial 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). In 
determining whether the beneficiary's duties will be primarily managerial, we consider the description 
of the job duties, the company's organizational structure, the duties of the beneficiary's subordinate 
employees, the presence of other employees to relieve the beneficiary from performing operational 
duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding the 
beneficiary's actual duties and role in the business. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
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. See section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. 
Accordingly, we will discuss evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of 
the nature of the Petitioner's business and its staffing levels. 
On the petition form, the Petitioner indicates that the company had three U.S. employees and gross 
annual income of$16,845. The Petitioner states that it seeks "to extend [the Beneficiary's] L-lA Visa 
for another 3 years, so he can complete setting up a new office and starting-up business in the U.S." 
To qualify for an extension following a new office petition, however, the Petitioner must establish that 
it has already been doing business, defined as the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of 
3 
goods, services, or both. 3 If: at the end of the one-year new office period, the Petitioner is still "setting 
up a new office and starting-up business," this delay is grounds for denial of the petition, rather than 
extension of the benefit. 
The Petitioner listed the Beneficiary's intended duties and the approximate percentage of time to be 
devoted to each: 
• Management of recruiting, selecting and training newly hired managers and employees 
-5% 
• Adjust work force to comply with social needs and specifics of the local community to 
maximize the results and generate income - 5% 
• Negotiate key contracts and agreements with major suppliers - 5% 
• Management of Purchasing Manager on current business flow, events schedule and 
results on the events recently held and events in progress, receiving results of the work 
performed by ... Sales Manager - 45% 
• Management of Administrative Manager through meetings to receive ... feedback on 
sales, payments by clients, timely invoicing and job performance of ... Administrative 
Assistant - 25% 
• Management of the events implementation and execution of the business goals by 
establishment plan, budget, and results management; allocating resources and 
reviewing progress - 5% 
• Building company image by collaborating with customers, suppliers, employers, 
enforcing ethical business practices - 5% 4 
A new office extension petition must include a statement describing the staffing of the new operation, 
including the number of employees and types of positions held accompanied by evidence of wages 
paid to employees. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(D). The above job description lists four different 
subordinates under the Beneficiary's direct or indirect authority. At the time of filing, however, the 
Petitioner claimed only three employees, and did not identify any employee by name except the 
Beneficiary, who began receiving semimonthly $1666 paychecks in March 2016. 5 
A business plan, submitted after the Director requested farther evidence, indicates that the petitioning 
"Company is expected to have five employees in 2017," but does not specify who worked for the 
company at the time of filing in May 2016. The business plan includes a new job description for the 
Beneficiary, which overlaps with the earlier version but also differs from it considerably. Some of the 
differences are as follows: 
• Time negotiating contracts and agreements increases from 5% to 10% of the Beneficiary's 
time; 
• Time spent in meetings with the administrative manager decreases from 25% to 5% of the 
Beneficiary's time; and 
3 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B), (l)(ii)(H). 
4 The listed percentages add up to only 95%. 
5 The petition form states the Beneficiary's salary as $60,000 per year, but the salary checks annualize to $40,000 per year, 
and a subsequent business plan reduces the figure again to $38,000 per year. 
4 
• Tasks such as "Preparing financial statements" and "Stay alert to new industry and market 
trends" have been added. 
Perhaps most significantly, the original job description indicated that the Beneficiary would spend 
45% of his time working with the purchasing manager and sales manager, but the Petitioner did not 
submit any evidence to show that it employed individuals in those positions. The new business plan 
does not indicate that the company employs, or plans to employ, a purchasing manager, and it indicates 
that "[t]he Company will hire one Sales Manager in 2017," indicating that the position was vacant in 
2016 when the Petitioner filed the petition. 
The business plan states that the Petitioner "has already hired one Administrative Manager," "one 
Wedding Planner," and "a Procurement Coordinator." An organizational chart indicates that the latter 
two positions are subordinate to the administrative manager. In its July 201 7 submission, the 
Petitioner claimed to have employed all three of these individuals since April 2015. 
The record, however, does not support this new claim. As noted above, the Beneficiary's initial job 
description referred mostly to different subordinates. The initial job description did refer to an 
administrative manager, but that position's only stated subordinate was an administrative assistant. 
Also, these individuals received no salary before mid-2016. The Petitioner's 2015 income tax return 
does not report payment of any salaries. A quarterly tax return for the first quarter of 2016 shows only 
a single paycheck paid to the Beneficiary in mid-March. The return for the second quarter shows 
payments to the procurement coordinator and administrative manager starting in June. The wedding 
planner does not appear on quarterly returns until the last quarter of 2016. The salary information on 
the Petitioner's 2016 tax return is consistent with the quarterly returns. 
Therefore, contemporaneous tax documents conflict with the Petitioner's 2017 claim that it employed 
three subordinate workers in April 2015. The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-
92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and 
sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. 
The record does not consistently indicate that the company was adequately staffed at the time of filing 
to relieve the Beneficiary from having to primarily perform non-qualifying operational tasks. Future 
hiring plans can help meet the Petitioner's burden of proof in a new office petition, but a new office 
extension petition must show that the company is already fully operational, with the Beneficiary 
occupying a primarily managerial position. The Petitioner has not shown that it had sufficient 
organizational complexity to warrant a primarily managerial position at the time of filing. 
The Petitioner's submissions in 2017 presume a company structure that was supposedly in place in 
April 2015, but that structure does not match what the Petitioner claimed in May 2016. 
Aside from the very significant and material changes to the Petitioner's claimed organizational 
structure, the Petitioner disputes the Director's conclusion that the Beneficiary's subordinates do not 
qualify as professionals. To determine whether the Beneficiary manages professional employees, we 
must evaluate whether the subordinate positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry 
5 
into the field of endeavor. C/ 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(k)(2) ( defining "profession" to mean "any occupation 
for which a United States 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 contends: "It is not required those supervised have degrees, only that their functions 
be essential, and their duties professional." The Petitioner cites no source for this circular definition 
of a "professional" being one whose "duties are professional." 
The Petitioner contends that the professional nature of the positions is evident from the complexity of 
the business. The Petitioner states: 
Today, event planning is a complex enterprise. So complicated, that most event 
planners work in teams of logistics specialist, marketing specialists, and even data 
analytics specialists. What isn't done by the event team is outsourced to specialists, 
either elsewhere in the company or to event planning agencies. That's right: We now 
have a whole industry dedicated to planning events. 
The above quotation is a general statement rather than a corroborated assertion specifically about the 
petitioning entity. The Petitioner has not shown that its business fits the above description. Instead, 
the petitioning entity appears to be a side venture that the Beneficiary operates from a convenience 
store owned by a separate companyJ I which the Beneficiary incorporated in late 2015. 
The Petitioner's business cards and stationery both show the same address as the convenience store; 
the Beneficiary is named ad~--~b incorporator on state filings; and local licenses and certificates 
identify the Beneficiary as the owner of the store. 
When the Director asked for evidence to establish the connection betwee~ I and the petitioning 
entity, the Petitioner did not establish a qualifying relationship between the entities or explain the 
Beneficiary's role with I I Instead, the Petitioner asked the Director "to disregard! I 
... and let us focus solely on growing" the petitioning entity. Nevertheless, the Petitioner submitted 
the materials showing that the petitioning entity OP,erates fro~ I's convenience store. This 
evidence raises questions regarding the demands tha~ lmakes on the Beneficiary's time, which 
would clearly affeT the deree of his involvement with the petitioning entity. The Petitioner took 
active steps to link with this petition, submitting several unrequested documents about the 
convenience store with the petition, and these questions do not disappear with the Petitioner's request 
"to disregard! I 
Apart from the issues surrounding the convenience store at the Petitioner's stated place of business in 
Georgia, the assertion that event planning can involve a team of meticulously coordinated 
professionals does not show that the petitioning entity has such a team. The Petitioner does not show 
that it has engaged the services of logistics specialists, marketing specialists, or data analytics 
specialists, either as in-house employees or outsourced contractors. The record also does not indicate 
that the Petitioner's claimed staff brought specialized expertise to their respective positions. The 
administrative manager's prior experience was as a beautician; the procurement coordinator managed 
a hotel; and the event planner had no prior employment experience at all. 
6 
As explained above, the Petitioner has provided inconsistent information about the structure of the 
organization, and various inconsistencies in the record raise doubts about the credibility and 
sufficiency of the Petitioner's evidence and information. We conclude that the Petitioner has not met 
its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, and therefore the petition cannot be approved. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has shown proper cause for reconsideration, but has not 
overcome the grounds for denial of the petition or established eligibility for the benefit sought. The 
petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is granted in part and dismissed in part. 
7