dismissed L-1A Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF J~.__ _ _ __,. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 9, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner,.__ ________ ___,seeks to employ the Beneficiary as its controller under the 
L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 10l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L) . The L-lA classification allows a business to 
transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to temporarily work in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 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 Director ignored the details of 
the anticipated executive duties of the Beneficiary submitted by the Petitioner; that she failed to 
consider that the Beneficiary will serve as a function manager in the United States; and that she failed 
to consider the needs of the corporate international parent. 
Upon de nova 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 affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE OR MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The primary issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in an executive or managerial capacity in the United States. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
that the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity, and also as a function manager. We 
will address both assertions below. 
Matter of J-~I ---~ 
A. Executive Capacity 
The term "executive capacity" is defined as 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. 
When examining the executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look to the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Based on the definition of 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 
executive duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other 
employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 
F.2d at 1533. 
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. 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. 
1. Duties 
The Petitioner sells I I tools. The petition indicated that the Beneficiary will "assume all 
executive management, financial, and accounting control of [the Petitioner]. He will be responsible 
for all financial accounting functions, preparation of U.S. tax returns and payment of all necessary 
U.S. taxes, and report profit and loss and all other financial issues to the parent headquarters in Spain." 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner submitted a declaration from the President and Chief Executive 
Officer of.__ _______ __, stating that the Beneficiary will "have managerial and executive 
responsibility for USA, including supervision of employees and responsibility for all financial, 
business management, and tax functions." 
In the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Director advised the Petitioner that the duty 
description lacked sufficient detail regarding what the Beneficiary would be doing on a day-to-day 
basis. In response, the Petitioner submitted a declaration of its Secretary stating the following 
proposed duties for the Beneficiary in the United States, and percentages of time to be devoted to those 
duties: 
• Finance & Budget (30%) - includes budget, finance, accounts payable, commercial credit 
policies, and tax compliance; 
2 
Matter of J~.__ ___ _. 
• Marketing (45%) - includes market analysis, market strategy, hiring and supervising the 
marketing team, and branding; 
• Personnel (5%) - responsible for all personnel decisions; 
• Legal (5%)-work with outside legal counsel; and 
• Other Executive Duties (15%) - includes collaborating with the foreign entity's semor 
management team and representing the company at industry and trade events. 
In her decision, the Director determined that the position description was vague and did not provide 
sufficient insight into the Beneficiary's proposed daily activities. On appeal, the Petitioner states that 
the Director "ignored the specific detail of the executive work to be performed by the Beneficiary" 
and that the description of the duties provided was "quite detailed." 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position within 
an organization or major component or function of the organization, and that person's authority to 
direct the organization, major component, or function. 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. Thus, to show that a beneficiary will "direct the management" of an 
organization or a major component or function of that organization, a petitioner must show how the 
organization, major component, or function is managed and demonstrate that the beneficiary primarily 
focuses on its broad goals and policies, rather than the day-to-day operations of such. An individual 
will not be deemed an executive under the statute simply because they have an executive title or 
because they "direct" the organization, major component, or function 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. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed 
in an executive capacity in the United States. The Petitioner initially provided broad statements that 
do not meaningfully describe what the Beneficiary will be doing on a daily basis. 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 of reiterating the regulations. 
Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990). Reciting a beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not 
sufficient; the regulations require a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner changed the description of the Beneficiary's proposed job duties. 
Specifically, the revised duties focus primarily on marketing, but the Petitioner did not indicate that 
marketing would be the primary duty of the Beneficiary in its original submission. Instead, it initially 
stated that the Beneficiary's duties would be primarily financial. Thus, the substance of the 
Beneficiary's duties changed. The purpose of the RFE is to elicit further information that clarifies 
whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). When 
responding to an RFE, a petitioner cannot offer a new position to a beneficiary, or materially change 
a position's title, its level of authority within the organizational hierarchy, or its associated job 
responsibilities. A petitioner must establish that the position offered to a beneficiary, when the petition 
was filed, merits classification as a managerial or executive position. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). If 
3 
Matter of J~~---~ 
significant changes are made to the initial request for approval, a petitioner must file a new petition 
rather than seek approval of a petition that is not supported by the facts in the record. 
Further, the Petitioner has not established that the newly introduced marketing duties are executive 
duties. The marketing duties include "analysis of the U.S. and North American market to develop 
strategic understanding of the market preferences and opportunities forc=]product sales;" approval 
of market strategy and "ensuring that it is being effectively implemented by the sales and marketing 
team;" and approving all branding initiatives. The Petitioner has not demonstrated how these activities 
represent primarily directing the management of the organization. Other duties assigned to the 
Beneficiary, such as reviewing financial reports and representing the company at industry and trade 
events, are not readily apparent executive duties. The Petitioner has not demonstrated how those 
activities represent primarily directing the management of the organization. 
Additionally, many of the Beneficiary's assigned duties do not provide a meaningful understanding of 
how the Beneficiary will actually spend his time. For example, proposed duties contained in his 
finance and budget responsibilities include establishing policies for the payment of creditors; 
establishing commercial credit practices and policies; and ensuring that the Petitioner complies with 
all applicable tax laws. These duties are overly broad and do not indicate what the Beneficiary will 
actually be doing. Reciting a beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business 
objectives is not sufficient; the regulations require a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job 
duties. The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108. Further, if the Petitioner has been operating in the United States 
since 1999 as claimed on the petition, it is not clear why it does not already have creditor payment 
policies and commercial credit practices in place. 
The Beneficiary's duties also include supervising the senior marketing managers and approving 
financial projections and budgets prepared by the finance team. However, as farther detailed below, 
the Petitioner's organizational chart does not include senior marketing managers or a finance team. In 
addition, the Petitioner initially indicated that the Beneficiary will be responsible for all financial 
accounting functions, preparation of U.S. tax returns, and payment of all necessary U.S. taxes. 
However, as farther detailed below, its organizational chart indicates that it will engage an independent 
CPA. It is not clear whether the CPA will be performing the duties allocated to the Beneficiary. The 
Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies 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). 
We farther note that the Beneficiary's management of the business does not necessarily establish 
eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in an executive capacity within the meaning 
of section 101 (a)( 44)(B) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties 
of a position be "primarily" executive in nature. Sections 101(A)(44)(B) of the Act. Here, as farther 
detailed below, the Beneficiary will be overseen by a President, but the President's duties are not 
listed. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary will exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to­
day operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision­
making, but it does not indicate the President's role in oversight of the Petitioner's business. Even if 
the Beneficiary will exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess the 
requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making, these elements alone are not 
4 
Matter of J~._ ___ ____, 
sufficient to establish that his actual duties would be primarily executive in nature. As such, a detailed 
job description is critical to a determination of whether the Beneficiary would be employed in an 
executive capacity. Here, at the time of filing, the record lacked a job description that delineated the 
Beneficiary's specific proposed tasks. 
By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a position be primarily executive 
or managerial in nature. Here, the job description does not establish that the Beneficiary's actual day­
to-day duties would be executive in nature. 
2. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
The Petitioner claimed to have two employees at the time of filing the petition in March 2018. As 
noted by the Director in her decision, the Petitioner did not identify the two employees. Instead, it 
submitted copies of 2017 IRS Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statements, for eight employees, and other 
tax and payroll documentation showing up to 13 employees. 1 The Petitioner also submitted 
employment agreements for six of the Form W-2 employees, which list their job titles and descriptions 
of their duties. 2 They include an office manager, an area sales manager, a sales technician, customer 
service, a sales assistant, and inside sales. 
The record also contains two conflicting organizational charts for the U.S. entity. The first chart was 
submitted with the initial petition and shows the President overseeing the Beneficiary, and the 
Beneficiary overseeing an independent CPA, an office manager, and a national sales manager. The 
second chart, submitted in response to the RFE, lists the Beneficiary who is overseen by the President 
of the foreign entity. The chart shows the following individuals below the Beneficiary: an independent 
counsel; an independent CPA; an office manager; a national sales manager; and a product manager. 
Below the office manager is an "inside sales and customer service" position, and below the national 
sales manager are "Reps." The chart lists the salaries of all positions except the independent counsel; 
the independent CPA, and the Reps. On appeal, the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain the addition 
of several positions to the second chart. These inconsistencies raise doubt about the credibility of the 
organizational charts. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. Therefore, the actual staffing of the 
U.S. entity is not clear. 
Also, as previously noted, some of the Beneficiary's duties are not supported by personnel in the 
organization. For example, although the Beneficiary's proposed duties include supervising the senior 
marketing managers and approving financial projections and budgets prepared by the finance team, 
the Petitioner's organizational chart does not include senior marketing managers or a finance team. 
Further, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence to corroborate its payments to the claimed 
independent CPA and counsel, nor documented how their work supports the Petitioner's operations 
1 On a 2019 E-2 nonimmigrant visa application submitted by the Beneficiary for employment with the Petitioner, the 
Petitioner listed four employees: an office manager and three inside sales managers. None of the employees listed on the 
application were previously named as employees of the Petitioner on its second organizational chart submitted in response 
to the RFE in this case. 
2 The record also contains employment agreements for four other employees who did not have Forms W-2 submitted to 
the record. The four employees' job titles include one sales assistant and four inside sales positions. 
5 
Matter of J-1~--~ 
and relieves the Beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties. With regard to the CPA, it 
appears that the duties may overlap with those of the Beneficiary. 
Additionally, some of the individuals listed on the second organizational chart do not match the 
individuals listed on the Petitioner's Forms W-2 and in the employment agreements submitted. For 
example,! lis listed as the national sales manager on the organizational chart, but there is 
no employment agreement or Form W-2 submitted on his behalf. I I is listed on the 
organizational chart as inside sales and customer service, but there is no employment agreement or 
Form W-2 submitted on her behalf. The Petitioner has not resolved these inconsistencies with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-
92. Thus, the record lacks evidence of the Petitioner's employment of workers who would perform 
daily operational, sales, financial, and marketing activities that the Beneficiary would allegedly 
oversee. Without evidence of sufficient lower-level employees, it is not clear who would be 
performing the day-to-day operational, sales, financial, and marketing duties or that the Beneficiary 
would be relieved from these duties. 
The Director noted in her decision that the Petitioner's work force varied from quarter to quarter and 
that it did not appear based on the Petitioner's staffing that the Beneficiary would be employed 
primarily in a managerial or executive capacity. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary 
has served as controller abroad and that he was responsible for all of its parent company's Asian 
operations, including oversight of all of its Chinese sales. It states that the Beneficiary will work with 
the parent company in Spain and its Chinese subsidiaries to support the Petitioner's operations in 
North America. It cites Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016), in 
support of its assertion that we must consider the Beneficiary's role within the wider qualifying 
international organization. In Z-A-, however, the petitioner submitted "substantial evidence relating 
to the support provided by the overseas staff:" and "[t]he record amply substantiate[d] the existence 
of the foreign staff and the nature of and need for the services they provide to the Petitioner and the 
organization as a whole." Id. The Petitioner here has not documented the existence of its purported 
foreign staff or corroborated its assertion that these workers would support the Beneficiary's efforts 
in the United States. 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity. 
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 101(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 sufficient employees to 
relieve the Beneficiary from performing operational duties and to allow the Beneficiary to 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. 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient detail or supporting evidence to support a claim that he 
would direct the management of the organization and that he would primarily focus on the broad goals 
and policies of the organization, rather than on its day-to-day operations. Based on the discrepancies 
6 
Matter of J-1,__ __ ___, 
in the staffing, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary is relieved from performing 
the operational tasks of the business. It has not shown that it has the infrastructure to support the 
Beneficiary in an executive capacity. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in 
a primarily executive capacity. 
B. Function Manager 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Beneficiary will be a function manager. The statutory definition of 
"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function managers." See section 
10l(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and 
control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. 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 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the 
Director erroneously reviewed the Beneficiary's duties in the context of a personnel manager, and that 
instead, she should have analyzed his duties as a function manager. 
If, as here, 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 Petitioner 
asserts on appeal that, similar to the beneficiary in Matter of G-, the Beneficiary here will have 
executive responsibility for the finance and marketing functions of the Petitioner. 
However, as previously noted, the Petitioner added marketing as a primary duty of the Beneficiary in 
response to the RFE. It appears that the primary duty was added to match the parameters of Matter of 
G-. A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition 
conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 
1988). The Petitioner has not sufficiently described the Beneficiary's duties, and its statement on 
appeal does not clarify the record regarding the Beneficiary's duties. Additionally, without an 
understanding of the Petitioner's staffing, it is not clear that the Beneficiary would act at a senior level 
within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed, or that he would exercise 
discretion over the function's day-to-day operations. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that it would employ the Beneficiary as 
a function manager. 
7 
Matter of J-1~--~ 
III. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
Although not addressed in the Director's decision, we further find that the Petitioner has not submitted 
evidence of its qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. As previously 
indicated, an L-lA petitioner must establish that, within the three years before a beneficiary's 
admission into the United States, he or she worked abroad for the petitioner or its parent, branch, 
subsidiary, or affiliate. 8 C.F.R. § 214.3(1)(3)(i). 
To establish a "qualifying relationship," the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (i.e. one entity with "branch" 
offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See section 101 (a)( 15)(L) of the Act; 
see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii) (providing definitions of the terms "parent," "branch," "subsidiary," 
and "affiliate"). On the petition, the Petitioner asserted that it is a subsidiary of I I 
It further asserted that the Beneficiary was most recently employed in China by another purported 
subsidiary of ~---------------~ 
The stock certificate for the Petitioner shows that it is owned solely by '--------~ The 
Petitioner submitted organizational minutes from a rneetin in 2000 showing that 2500 initial shares 
of the Petitioner's stock were issued to In response to the Director's RFE: the 
Petitioner asserted that is the "successor-in-interest" tol _ I It 
stated that "there was a split o ~------~ in November 2010 and~--------' was 
one of two companies created and the one to which [ the Petitioner] was distributed." In support of 
this claim, it submitted an English translation of the "Official Journal of the Commercial Register" 
which states that I I "shall be terminated by means of dissolution without 
liquidation" and that "the entire equity of said company shall be transferred to the cornpaniesc=J 
I I and I I, which shall acquire all the rights and obligations inherent 
to said equity by universal succession, under the terms and conditions set out in the split-up project 
signed by the directors of the companies and filed in the Commercial Register ofl I province." 
Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The translator must certify that the English language translation is complete 
and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
Id. Because the Petitioner did not submit the original foreign language document, we cannot 
meaningfully determine whether the translated material is accurate and thus supports the Petitioner's 
claims. Further, the translation does not state that the 2500 shares of the Petitioner owned bQ 
I I would be transferred solely to.__ ______ ~, and the record does not contain 
stock certificates or stock transfer records showing that such a transfer ever occurred. 
Instead, the Petitioner submitted an Informa and a re ort corn leted b which state 
that the Petitioner is a wholly-owned subsidiary of~--------' However, the Informa states 
that the writer "does not guarantee the absolute correctness of the information, and it is not responsible 
of its use for any specific purpose." Further, the report states that I I does not guarantee the 
correctness or the effective delivery of the information and will not be held responsible for any errors 
therein or omissions therefrom." The Petitioner did not submit credible evidence of its ownership. See 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
8 
Matter of J-.... 1 ___ _. 
Further, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary was employed abroad by a Chinese subsidiary of the 
parent company, but no ownership information was submitted to the record regarding! I I I The Petitioner must establish that it and the foreign employer share common ownership and 
control. Based on the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not established that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 3 For this additional reason, the petition cannot 
be approved. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. 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 J-.__I __ ___.I, ID# 6533650 (AAO Dec. 9, 2019) 
3 We also note that the Petitioner is located in Missouri, but the Missouri Secretary of State's on line records do not indicate 
that it is authorized to do business in Missouri. Mo. Sec'y of State, 
https://bsd.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/BESearch.aspx?SearchType=O (last visited Nov. 11, 2019). Any future 
submissions, whether relating to this case or another filing, must account for this information and demonstrate that it has 
been resolved. We note this additional issue for informational purposes; even without considering the company's status, 
the other issues discussed above warrant dismissal of the appeal. 
9