dismissed L-1A Case: Façade Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7536843 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 4, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as managing director of a new office I under the L-1 A 
nonimmigrant classification for managers and executives . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L) . 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate, as required: (1) its acquisition of sufficient physical premises to 
house the new office; (2) the managerial or executive nature of its proposed employment; or (3) its 
financial ability to support an executive or managerial position within one year of the petition's 
approval. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit. See section 291 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
An L-lA petition involving a new office must establish that, for at least one continuous year in the 
three years before the petition's filing, the petitioner or its parent, branch, subsidiary , or affiliate 
employed the beneficiary abroad in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a position involving 
specialized knowledge. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). The beneficiary must also seek to enter the 
United States temporarily to render services in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
A petitioner must submit evidence demonstrating that, within one year of the petition 's approval, the 
new office would support a managerial or executive position. 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). The 
evidence must establish the petitioner's acquisition of sufficient physical premises to house the new 
office . 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). The evidence must also disclose the office's proposed nature 
and scope, financial goals, and amount invested in it. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A), (C). 
1 The term "new office" means an organization that has been doing business in the United States for less than one year . 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F). 
II. PHYSICAL PREMISES OF THE NEW OFFICE 
As previously indicated, an L-lA petition involving a new office must include evidence that 
"[s]ufficient physical premises to house the new office have been secured." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). Here, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary would be its initial employee. 
By the end of its first year of operation, however, the Petitioner indicates that it would also employ 
two other workers. The company submitted a copy of a lease indicating that it rented a famished 
office in Texas with receptionist service. In a written request for evidence (RFE), the Director stated 
that the lease did not demonstrate the sufficiency of the office space for the proposed business. 
Although the Petitioner's business plan describes the office as encompassing 800 square feet, the 
Director noted that the lease does not mention the office's area. 
In its RFE response, the Petitioner submitted copies of a floor plan and photographs of the office. 
The Petitioner also described its lease as "flexible," purportedly allowing the company to rent 
additional office space in the same building "as needed." The Director found that the floor plan did 
not indicate the office's area, and that, by mentioning only one person as an office occupant, the 
lease did not demonstrate its purported flexibility. The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not 
establish the office's sufficiency for the proposed operations, or the landlord's ability to provide the 
company with additional space to accommodate two future employees. 
The record lacks sufficient evidence of the office's claimed square footage. But the office photos 
show four chairs around two large tables, indicating that four people could comfortably work in the 
room. A preponderance of evidence therefore demonstrates the sufficiency of the Petitioner's office 
for its initial year of operations. We will therefore withdraw this denial ground. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Petitioner asserts that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment where an employee would primarily: 
1) manage an organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of it; 2) supervise 
and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or manage an 
essential function within the organization, department, or subdivision; 3) have authority over 
personnel actions or function at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or regarding the 
function managed; and 4) exercise 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. 
Proposed employment in a "managerial capacity" may involve management of personnel or an 
essential function. The Petitioner does not contend that the Beneficiary would manage an essential 
function. We will therefore consider his qualifications as a personnel manager. Personnel managers 
must primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees. Section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. A first-line supervisor does not act in a managerial 
capacity merely by supervising workers, unless they are professionals. Id. 
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment where an employee would primarily: 1) direct 
the management of an organization or a major component or function of it; 2) establish the goals and 
policies of the organization, component, or function; 3) exercise wide latitude in discretionary 
2 
decision-making; and 4) receive 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. 
When determining the managerial or executive nature of a job, USCIS examines the position's job 
duties. USCIS also considers: a petitioner's organizational structure; the nature of its business; 
whether other employees would relieve a beneficiary from performing operational or administrative 
duties; the job duties of subordinate employees; and other factors affecting the nature of the 
proposed employment. 
Here, the Petitioner would, like its parent in India, provide fac;ade design services to businesses. The 
parent states that, because of increased demand for such services in the United States, it decided to 
establish the new office. The Petitioner states that it would sell the organization's design services to 
architectural and commercial construction companies in the United States. 
A. Job Duties 
During the new office's first year of operation, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary would focus 
on business development. The Petitioner's parent also states that he "will invest a significant 
amount of time recruiting, interviewing, and hiring employees." By the end of the new office's first 
year, the Petitioner and its parent stated in letters that the Beneficiary would devote the following 
amounts of time to the following duties: 
• Oversee the Petitioner's daily tasks (25%) - Assign tasks to employees. Monitor their 
progress and ensure they have necessary resources. Determine and plan employee 
workloads. Make personnel decisions, such as hiring, firing, and promotions. Conduct 
performance reviews. Determine salaries, overtime, bonuses, rewards, etc. Devise and 
enforce company policies. Devise strategic plans roadmaps for company departments. Build 
efficient management teams. Establish company's goals and objectives. 
• Oversee the Petitioner's daily activities (15%) - Coordinate and lead business promotion 
meetings. Set company's goals and objectives. 
• Coordinate and control the Petitioner's drawing submissions (40%) - With assistance of 
liaison engineer, modify, amend, and revise submissions based on client feedback. Direct the 
monitoring of drawings' progress and ensure they are error-free. 
• Prepare the Petitioner's budgets (10%) - Set company budgets and determine how best to 
allocate resources to meet business needs. 
• Recruit and train new employees (10%) - Establish team of designers. Conduct employee 
performance reviews. Ensure employees have resources they need. Terminate employees 
when necessary, and determine promotions, bonuses, salaries, etc. 
Some job duties described in the letters are redundant. The Beneficiary's duties in both the areas of 
"overseeing daily tasks" and "recruiting and training new employees" involve making personnel 
decisions. Similarly, the duties in both the areas of "overseeing daily tasks" and "overseeing daily 
activities" include setting the company's goals and objectives. Thus, the description casts doubt on 
whether the Beneficiary would spend all his time on the proposed job duties as listed. See Matter of 
Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies of record 
with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies). 
3 
Also, the proposed U.S. job duties closely resemble the Beneficiary's current duties as a managing 
partner abroad. A letter from the Petitioner's parent indicates that the Beneficiary does not spend 
time "overseeing daily activities" in India and devotes more time to "coordinating designs and 
drawings" and "preparing budgets." But the Beneficiary's current and proposed job duties are 
otherwise identical. The record shows that the Petitioner's parent has conducted business for about 
three years and employs almost 60 people. The Petitioner has not explained why the Beneficiary 
would perform virtually the same duties he now does for the more mature parent at a new office that 
is only starting operations. The unexplained similarities between the Beneficiary's current and 
proposed job duties cast further doubt on the accuracy of the proposed tasks. 
In addition, as the Director noted, the Petitioner's business plan proposes different job duties for the 
Beneficiary at the time the new office completes its first year of operation. The business plan states 
the following duties: 
• Project Management - Responsible for "all aspects" of company's projects, including project 
estimation, pricing, resource allocation, client coordination, quality checking, design 
coordination, leading project team meetings, site visits, and preparing submission schedules. 
• Business Development - Establishing business partnerships with new customers in the United 
States. 
• Sales - Selling services to existing U.S. clients. 
• Growth - Increasing sales by establishing new client relationships in the United States. 
• Operations - "Handle all aspects of operational, financial, and administrative management of 
the company." 
The business plan also states that, by the Petitioner's fifth year of operation, the Beneficiary would 
handle additional responsibilities, including increasing revenue through strategic planning to secure 
more design projects. 
Unlike the descriptions of the Beneficiary's proposed job duties in the company letters, the business 
plan indicates that, even after the Petitioner's first year of operations, the Beneficiary would spend 
significant amounts of time managing customer projects and developing business in the United 
States. The record does not indicate whether the duties described in the business plan would 
supersede tasks stated in the company letters or add to them. Thus, the inconsistent job duties 
prevent us from determining what tasks the Beneficiary would perform and how much time he 
would spend on them. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that USCIS "grossly mischaracterize[ d]" the sets of described job 
duties as inconsistent. The Petitioner states that it "is now enclosing a new job duties chart to 
address the Service's allegation that the brief listing of duties in the company's business plan was 
not the same text as listed elsewhere. (Exhibit C)." Exhibit C, however, includes only a letter from 
the Petitioner's parent. Exhibit G contains a 'job descriptions" chart listing eight positions. But the 
titles of these positions do not match the proposed jobs listed on the Petitioner's organizational chart. 
Rather, the titles appear to refer to positions at the company's parent in India. Thus, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated USCIS' mischaracterization of the company's sets of job duties as 
inconsistent. For the foregoing reasons, the job duties of the offered position do not demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's proposed employment in a managerial or executive capacity. 
4 
B. Organizational Structure and Staffing 
The Petitioner states that it would initially employ only the Beneficiary. By the end of its first year 
of operation, however, it indicates that it would also employ two professional employees: a liaison 
engineer; and a junior designer. The Petitioner's most recent organizational chart indicates that the 
Beneficiary would directly supervise the liaison engineer, who in tum would oversee the junior 
designer. The Petitioner states that designers at its parent would help prepare designs for U.S. 
customers. The Petitioner's business plan indicates the company's future intention to hire additional 
designers, a receptionist/administrative assistant, and an accountant. 
The Petitioner asserts that, at the end of its first year of business, the liaison engineer and junior 
designer, with help from employees of its parent in India 2, would handle its day-to-day operational 
tasks, freeing the Beneficiary to focus on managerial- or executive-level duties. But the record does 
not support the Petitioner's contention. The proposed job duties in the Petitioner's business plan 
regarding "business development," "sales," and "growth" appear to be operational in nature, not 
managerial or executive. Also, the company has not demonstrated the qualifying nature of the 
proposed duties involving recruiting and training new employees as described in the company 
letters. The job duties of the liaison engineer and junior designer do not include the foregoing 
operational tasks. Nor does the record indicate that employees of the Petitioner's parent or the 
receptionist included with the new office's lease would perform them. Thus, the record does not 
establish that, by the end of the Petitioner's first year in business, it would have sufficient 
organizational structure and staffing to relieve the Beneficiary from performing non-qualifying 
duties. 3 The Petitioner has not indicated how much time the Beneficiary would devote to the non­
qualifying duties stated in its business plan. The record therefore does not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary would primarily work in a managerial or executive capacity within one year. 
Neither the proposed job duties of the offered position nor the Petitioner's organizational structure or 
staffing establishes that the Beneficiary would primarily work in a managerial or executive capacity 
in the United States within one year. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
IV. FINANCIAL ABILITY TO SUPPORT THE POSITION WITHIN ONE YEAR 
An L-lA petition involving a new office must include evidence that "[t]he intended United States 
operations, within one year of the approval of the petition, will support an executive or managerial 
position." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). The evidence must include information regarding the 
2 Support from employees of a petitioner's parent company may relieve a beneficiary from the performance of non­
managerial or non-executive duties. See Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). 
3 A petitioner's number of employees alone does not determine whether the business would employ a beneficiary in a 
managerial or executive capacity. Section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. Rather, USCIS must consider the reasonable needs 
of the organization in light of its overall purpose and developmental stage. Id. Here, although we consider the 
petitioner's number of employees, we do so in conjunction with other relevant factors, including the absence of 
employees who would perform non-managerial or non-executive operations of the company. See Family Inc. v. USC1S, 
469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Systronics Co1p. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). A company's size 
may be an especially relevant factor when, as here, USCTS notes discrepancies of record. See Systronics, 153 F. Supp. 
2d at 15. 
5 
entity's financial goals, the size of the investment in it, and "the financial ability of the foreign entity 
to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business in the United States." 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(I), (2), (3). 
Here, the record indicates that the Petitioner's purported parent invested $25,000 in the new U.S. 
office. As of January 31, 2019, the Petitioner had $19,800 in its checking account. The Petitioner's 
business plan projects that, in its first year, the company would generate revenues of $400,800 and 
incur operating expenses of $388,857, or about $32,405 a month. Because the Petitioner lacked 
funds to cover its initial month of expenses, the Director found that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate its ability to support an executive or managerial position within one year. 
The Petitioner's business plan, however, states that the company's purported parent would fund the 
new office for the next five years, including providing any money needed after the initial $25,000 
investment. The Petitioner submits a letter from its purported parent promising to "fully fund [the 
Petitioner] for at least the next five years." Also, a copy of the foreign entity's "Indian income tax 
return acknowledgement" indicates that, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018, it generated total 
taxable income of 3,835,412 rupees (or about $53,355). Thus, contrary to the Director's decision, 
the Petitioner demonstrated its ability to pay expenses during its initial month of operation. 
A preponderance of evidence demonstrates the Petitioner's ability to support an executive or 
managerial position within one year of the petition's approval. We therefore withdraw the 
Director's contrary finding. 
V. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
We will dismiss the appeal based on the managerial/executive capacity issue discussed above. Apart 
from that issue, a review of the record reveals an additional issue which the Petitioner must resolve if 
it seeks to pursue this matter further. 
Although not addressed by the Director, the record also does not establish the Beneficiary's 
employment abroad by a qualifying organization. An L-lA nonimmigrant must, within the 
preceding three years, have been: 
[E]mployed continuously [abroad] for one year by a firm or corporation or other legal 
entity or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof and ... seek[] to enter the United States 
temporarily in order to continue to render his services to the same employer or a 
subsidiary or affiliate thereof. 
Section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. 
Here, the petitioning corporation contends that it is the wholly owned subsidiary of the business that 
employed the Beneficiary in India since April 201 7. A subsidiary includes a corporation of which a 
parent owns more than half and controls. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(K). As proof of the foreign 
business's ownership and control of the corporation, the Petitioner submitted a copy of a March 5, 
2018, stock certificate in the foreign business's name, indicating its purchase of all of the 
Petitioner's stock shares. 
6 
The stock certificate, however, contains "white-out" marks over which its day, month, and year of 
issuance are stated. The marks cast doubt on the certificate's authenticity. See Matter of Ho, 
19 I&N Dec. at 591 (BIA 1988) (stating that doubt cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may 
lead to a reevaluation of the sufficiency and reliability of remaining evidence of record). Also, the 
stock certificate's number ("CS-4") suggests the Petitioner's issuance of prior certificates, and the 
company did not provide a copy of a stock ledger showing whether other shareholders existed or 
exist. In addition, the certificate's date of issuance predates the Petitioner's incorporation on I I D 2018. The record therefore does not establish the authenticity or validity of the stock certificate. 
Thus, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the claimed qualifying relationship between it and the 
foreign entity. 
In any future filings in this matter, the Petitioner must explain the discrepancies regarding the stock 
certificate and submit independent, objective evidence of its qualifying relationship to the Indian 
business that employs the Beneficiary. 
VI. CONCLUSION 
Contrary to the Director's decision, the Petitioner demonstrated its acquisition of sufficient physical 
premises to house its new office and its financial ability to support an executive or managerial 
pos1t10n. The record, however, does not demonstrate that the Petitioner would employ the 
Beneficiary as a manager or executive in the United States within one year. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7