dismissed L-1A Case: Furniture Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10742858 
Appeal of California Service Center 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, which intends to operate a furniture manufacturing and distribution business, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as the President/General Manager of its new office 1 under the L- lA 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-lA classification allows a corporation or 
other legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the 
United States to work temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that (1) it has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office, (2) 
it will employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity within one 
year, and (3) the Beneficiary has been employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad. The 
Director dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent motion to reconsider, and the Petitioner filed an appeal. 
We withdrew the Director's motion decision and remanded the matter to the Director.2 On remand, 
the Director issued a new decision denying the petition on the same three grounds, and that decision 
is now before us on appeal. 
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. Upon de nova review, the Petitioner has not met this burden. 
Accordingly , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving a new 
office, 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 
1 The term "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States 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 no more than 
one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or manageri al position. 
2 On appeal, the Petitioner claims that our remand decision, dated December 11, 2019, "shows that Petitioner successfully 
demonstrated eligibility for the immigration benefit sought" and "confoms that the California Service Center's decision 
denying the I-129 Petition was incorrect." We did not reach these conclusions in our remand decision. We determined 
that the Director's decision dated December 17, 2018, in which he dismissed the Petitioner's motion to reconsider, did not 
sufficiently address the merits of the brief submitted in support of that motion. 
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. 
The petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new office will be able to support a 
managerial or executive position within one year. This evidence must establish that the petitioner 
secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation and disclose the proposed nature and scope 
of the entity, its organizational structure, its financial goals, and the size of the U.S. investment. See 
generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
II. PHYSICAL PREMISES 
The Director denied the petition, in part, based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that it 
had secured sufficient physical premises to house its new office, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). 
To establish that it met the physical premises requirement, the Petitioner submitted a lease agreement 
specifying the amount and type of space it had secured, color photographs of the premises, a letter 
from its landlord confirming its occupancy, and evidence of its rental payments. The Director 
dete1mined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the 2500 square foot premises would 
accommodate the company's projected staffing levels. 
Upon review, we conclude that the Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence that the secured 
premises, which includes warehouse/manufacturing space, offices, a loading area and parking spaces 
for employees, will more likely than not accommodate the company's intended operations and its 
projected staff of seven employees. Accordingly, the Petitioner has established that it meets the 
sufficient physical premises requirement, and the Director's decision with respect to this issue is 
withdrawn. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The next issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial capacity within one year. Although it initially described the Beneficiaiy' s 
proposed duties as "managerial and executive," the Petitioner has since clarified that it does not intend 
to employ him in an executive capacity. 
"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 supervis01y, 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 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
2 
In the case of a new office petition, we review a beneficiary's proposed job duties as well as the 
petitioner's business and hiring plans and evidence that the business will grow sufficiently to support 
a beneficiary in the intended managerial or executive capacity. A petitioner has the burden to establish 
that it would realistically develop to the point where it would require the beneficiary to perform duties 
that are primarily managerial or executive in nature within one year. 
Accordingly, the totality of the evidence must be considered in analyzing whether the proposed 
managerial position is plausible considering a petitioner's anticipated staffing levels and stage of 
development within a one-year period. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
A. Job Duties 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as the president/general manager of its new furniture 
manufacturing and distribution company. 
The Petitioner has consistently submitted the same proposed job description for the Beneficiary. 
While the description is lengthy, we note that many of the 39 listed duties are repetitive and stated in 
broad terms that provide little insight into the nature of his expected day-to-day tasks. For example, 
the description indicates that the Beneficiary will "exercise discretion over the operations of the 
organization," "plan, develop and recommend policies and procedures for successful company 
operations," "plan and develop policies and procedures in order to successfully complete sales," 
"establish procedures to regulate the activities of each department," "supervise and train subordinate 
managers and professionals (including hiring and firing)," and "exercise final hiring authority on new 
personnel." While these duties paraphrase portions of the statutory definitions of managerial and 
executive capacity, we note that conclusmy assertions regarding the Beneficiaiy' s employment 
capacity are not sufficient. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy 
the Petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), ajf'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Aiyr Assocs., Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 
(S.D.N.Y.). 
Other broad duties attributed to the Beneficiary's proposed position include "make decisions and solve 
problems," "analyze information and evaluate results to choose the best solution," "maintain contact 
with employees of the company to encourage a harmonious work environment," "establish constant 
communication with staff members," "direct service provision simplification and standardization," 
"analyze reports provided by personnel" and "oversee the resolution of problems." While these duties 
suggest the Beneficiary's heightened level of authority, they do not convey an understanding of the 
nature of his daily activities. 
Many of the remaining job duties listed relate to the company's sales activities and suggest that the 
Beneficiary would be required to perform both managerial and non-managerial duties in order for the 
Petitioner to meet its sales goals. For example, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary will 
establish sales and market share targets and formulate pricing policies, but also states that he would 
be responsible to cultivate business relationships with U.S. clients, "pursue new markets and new 
customers for the sale of furniture," "direct institutional sales, including large clients, regular as well 
as sporadic clients," "supervise the negotiation of sales," and "support sales by attending important 
negotiation meetings with clients." As discussed further below, the Petitioner does not indicate that it 
3 
intends to employ any sales personnel, nor has it assigned sales activities to any of the subordinate 
personnel. 
Therefore, based on the position description provided, we are unable to determine whether the claimed 
managerial duties would constitute the Beneficiary's primary activities within one year, or whether he 
would primarily perfmm non-qualifying administrative or operational duties, such as sales functions. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director noted the lack of specificity and observed that the 
Petitioner had not provided the percentage of time that the Beneficiary is expected to dedicate to 
specific tasks. Although the Petitioner provided this information for the Beneficiary's subordinates in 
response to the RFE, it did not address the Director's concerns regarding the Beneficiary's job duties 
and simply re-submitted the same job description. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's job duties does not establish what 
proportion of the duties is managerial in nature, and what proportion is non-managerial. See Republic 
of Transkei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1991). 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. F edin Bros., 724 F. Supp. at 1108, aff'd, 905 F .2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Here, 
the Petitioner has not provided the necessary detail or an adequate explanation of the Beneficiary's 
proposed activities in the course of his daily routine. 
The fact that the Beneficiary will manage or direct a business does not necessarily establish eligibility 
for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity within the 
meaning of section 101(a)(44) of the Act. We acknowledge that the Beneficiary, as the Petitioner's 
senior employee, would have authority to establish goals for the company, oversee its finances, supervise 
its employees, and make decisions regarding the company's overall management. However, the 
Petitioner must also establish that these types of responsibilities would primarily occupy the 
Beneficiary's time within one year, and to make this determination, we review the totality of the 
evidence. The Beneficiary's discretionary authority is only one of several factors we consider in 
determining whether the Petitioner would employ him in a qualifying capacity at the end of the one-year 
new office period. We must also consider the evidence as a whole to determine whether the Petitioner 
met its burden to show that it would have a reasonable need for the Beneficiary to primarily perform 
the claimed managerial duties within one year. For the additional reasons discussed below, the 
Petitioner has not met this burden. 
B. Business Plan and Proposed Staffing 
The Petitioner indicates that it would employee seven employees during its first year of operations, 
including the Beneficiary, a vice president (his spouse, whose employment authorization is contingent 
upon approval of this petition), and five staff who have already been hired. 
The Petitioner's proposed organizational chart depicts a four-tier structure among the seven-person 
staff. Specifically, it shows that the Beneficiary would directly supervise a vice president, who would, 
in turn, supervise an administrator who oversees the lower-level staff (a painter, a carpenter, an 
4 
upholsterer, and a seamstress). The Petitioner indicates that it will initially rely on an "outsourced 
transport company" and "outsourced finishing company." 3 
The Petitioner's initial evidence included position descriptions for the subordinate staff and the 
Petitioner later added the percentage of time the subordinates would allocate to each duty. The 
Petitioner indicated that the vice president would allocate 25% of her time to directing financial or 
budget activities, 15% to analyzing operations to evaluate the company's performance, 15% to 
directing and planning policies, objectives and activities of the company, 15% to implementing plans 
to solve problems, and 10% to establishing departmental responsibilities. These duties, accounting 
for 80% of her time, are not demonstrably different from the duties assigned to the Beneficiary and 
the Petitioner did not explain why it would require two employees to perform the same duties. 
The Petitioner submitted two dissimilar position descriptions for the administrator position. The first 
indicated that he would "supervise and coordinate all activities," "review the productivity of each 
department," "ensure the company is running at its most optimum levels," "ensure that the company's 
mission and vision is being fulfilled," "develop and implement policies and procedures for each 
department," approve the use of vendors, review and approve major contracts with clients, and "meet 
with subordinate assistants" to review departmental productivity and "enforcement of policies and 
procedures." Some of these duties also overlapped with the Beneficiary's own duties, and the record 
did not support the Petitioner's statements that the company would have multiple departments to be 
managed or that the administrator will have multiple "assistants." 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a list of 20 duties for the administrator that bore little 
resemblance to the initial description. The Petitioner indicated that he would implement furniture 
manufacturing policies, organize carpentry materials, read blueprints and other specifications to 
determine requirements, estimate material and worker requirements to complete jobs, assign work, 
examine and inspect work progress, enforce safety regulations, order materials and supplies, perform 
general office duties, and handle payroll and other human resources documents. The Petitioner did 
not provide an explanation for the substantial changes made to the position description. 
The Petitioner claimed that the administrator position, unlike the general manager and vice president 
positions, was already filled at the time of filing. Because the Petitioner claimed to have five 
employees, the Director requested that the Petitioner provide evidence of wages paid to its staff. The 
Petitioner did not respond to this request; however, its initial evidence had included copies of 
paychecks issued to some of the claimed staff. According to the Petitioner's organizational chart and 
business plan, it employs! I in the full-time administratoryosition at a monthly. salary of$2500. 
The Petitioner provided a copy of a check issued tol on August 1, 2018, just prior to the 
filing of the petition. The check was for $1,000 and indicates that he was paid for "servicio tapiceria," 
which translates to "upholstery services." A petitioner that files a new office petition is not required 
to establish that it is fully staffed at the time of filing. Here, however, the Petitioner claimed that most 
of its staff were already in place at the time of filing, and it is reasonable to expect it to submit credible 
3 The Petitioner provided letters from representatives of both companies. The transport company indicated that its services 
would be provided "two to three times per month," while the finishing company indicated that it expects to provide its 
services "fifteen days per year." 
5 
documentation of that staffing. If the claimed administrator is in fact working as an upholsterer, this 
raises questions as to whether or when the administrator position would be filled. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. The Petitioner has not claimed that the Beneficiary 
will be employed as a function manager. Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and 
control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. Contrary to the 
common understanding of the word "manager," the statute plainly states that a "first line supervisor is 
not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory 
duties unless the employees supervised are professional. "4 Id. If a beneficiary directly supervises 
other employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or 
recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary would supervise two tiers of managerial or supervismy 
employees (the vice president and administrator). As discussed, the Petitioner indicates that the vice 
president will perform duties that are also included in the Beneficiary's job description, while it 
submitted two very different job descriptions for the administrator and did not sufficiently corroborate 
its claim that it already filled the position. The Petitioner's evidence must substantiate that the duties 
of a beneficiary and his or her subordinates correspond to their placement in an organization's 
structural hierarchy; a chart depicting tiers of subordinate employees and managerial job titles are not 
probative and will not establish that an organization will be sufficiently complex to support a 
managerial position. Further, even ifwe found that the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary will 
supervise a subordinate supervisor, it must still establish that his actual duties will be primarily 
managerial in nature within one year. 
According to the Petitioner's business plan, it has projected sales of more than $490,000 in its first 
year of operations. The Beneficiary is the only employee in the company whose duty description 
includes any sales and business development responsibilities and therefore it is reasonable to 
determine that he will spend a substantial amount of his time on attracting clients and selling the 
company's products and services in order to ensure that it reaches its goals. Further, the Petitioner 
does not indicate that it anticipates hiring any staff to assist with these duties in its first year of 
operations, or even in its first five years. 
After reviewing the totality of the evidence, we find that the Petitioner has not adequately described 
what the Beneficiary will be doing during the initial year of operations or beyond, nor has it sufficiently 
explained how the Beneficiary would be relieved from significant involvement in the non-managerial 
day-to-day sales activities of the business within one year. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary would primarily engage in managerial duties, or that the new office 
would support a managerial position, within one year of approval of the petition. For this reason, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
4 To determine whether a beneficiary manages professional employees, we must evaluate whether the subordinate positions 
require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining 
"profession" to mean "any occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum 
requirement for entry into the occupation"). Section 101 ( 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." 
6 
IV. RESERVED ISSUE 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve its appellate arguments regarding whether the Beneficiary has been employed abroad 
in an executive capacity. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are 
not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); 
see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7