dismissed L-1A Case: Glass Fabrication And Installation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-C- LLC 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 10, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which intends to operate a glass structure fabrication and installation business, seeks 
to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as president of its new office I under the L-lA nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) the new office would support a managerial or executive position within 
one year; (2) the Beneficiary has been employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad; (3) the 
Petitioner has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office; and (4) the Beneficiary is 
qualified to perform the intended services in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director made conclusory 
findings without taking into account all evidence and facts presented . 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal as the Petitioner has not overcome three of the four 
grounds for denial. However, we find that the record contains sufficient evidence to establish that the 
Beneficiary is qualified to perform the intended services in the United States and will withdraw the 
Director's adverse detennination with respect to this issue. 2 
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(1)(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 managerial position. 
2 The Petitioner provided the Beneficiary's educational credentials and evidence that he has relevant industry experience 
gained with the related foreign entity, which operates the same type of business the Petitioner intends to operate. 
Matter of G-C- LLC 
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. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The first issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that its new office would support 
a managerial position within one year. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary would be 
employed 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 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. 
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 intends to operate a glass structure fabrication and installation business and seeks to 
employ the Beneficiary as its president. The Petitioner stated that he "will operate and direct 
company's marketing, advertisement, hiring and firing, make vital financial decision, including 
banking and future investment." However, it did not provide a detailed description of the duties to be 
performed by the Beneficiary, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
In the denial decision, the Director noted the lack of information regarding the Beneficiary's expected 
day-to-day duties in the United States, and stated that the broad responsibilities listed "could apply to 
2 
Matter of G-C- LLC 
any manager or executive acting in any business or industry." We agree that the brief description 
provided by the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would have the appropriate level of decision­
making, but did not explain what types of activities would occupy his time on a regular basis as the 
president of a new glass construction and installation business during the first year of operations and 
beyond. 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.2d41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
The Petitioner has not directly addressed the Beneficiary's job duties in its appellate brief: other than 
noting that the evidence "clearly shows that the Beneficiary will be performing the type of managerial 
duties one would expect are required in the corporate office of a glass and glazing services company." 
The Petitioner has submitted a business plan in support of the appeal which addresses the Beneficiary's 
responsibilities, noting that these will include "developing and implementing high-level strategies, 
making corporate decisions, managing the overall operations and resources of a company and 
demonstrating safety leadership." 
The position description included in the business plan is not specific to the Petitioner's business and 
portions of it read as if they were derived from a general template. For example, it states: 
In this role, it is imperative he leads by exercising the five critical components of safety 
leadership, including field presence, effective communication feedback, accountability 
and bench-marking. Safety Leadership by example is critical in keeping EMR rates, 
OSHA recordables and zero incident philosophy. In smaller companies, the 
CEO/President will often have a much more hands-on role in safety. The 
CEO/President should always routinely communicate and stress their company's safety 
mission statement and culture to all of their employees to ensure safety leadership. 
The business plan also attributes the following responsibilities to the Beneficiary (bullets added): 
• Advocating and promoting the organization and stakeholder changes related to the 
organization's mission; 
• Supporting the motivation of employees in the organization's products/programs 
and operations, ensure that the staff have sufficient and up to date information; 
• Looking to the future for change opportunities; 
• Interfacing between the management and the employees; 
• Interfacing between the organization and the community 
• Formulating policies and planning recommendations, deciding and/or guiding 
courses of action . . . , overseeing operations of organization, creating and 
implementing plans; 
• Managing human resources of the organization, managing financial and physical 
resources; and 
• Oversees design, marketing, promotion, delivery of quality programs, all products 
and services, also recommends the yearly budget for Board approval and prudently 
manages organization's resources. 
3 
Matter of G-C- LLC 
While lengthier than the previous description, this description does not provide further insight into the 
nature of the Beneficiary's proposed day-to-day tasks. The Petitioner does not describe the types of 
policies and plans the Beneficiary is expected to formulate, the nature of his interactions with the 
community, or the specific tasks associated with "overseeing operations of organization," or delivering 
quality programs. 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., 724 
F. Supp. at 1108. 
We acknowledge that the Beneficiary, as the Petitioner's most senior employee, would have authority 
to establish plans, policies, and objectives for the company, supervise any employees hired, and make 
decisions regarding the company's overall direction. However, the Petitioner must also establish that 
these types ofresponsibilities 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. 
The Director's decision reflects that he properly considered 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 
In order to qualify for L-lA nonimmigrant classification during the first year of operations, the 
regulations require a petitioner to disclose the proposed nature of the business and the size of the U.S. 
investment, and establish that the proposed enterprise will support an executive or managerial position 
within one year of the approval of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). This evidence should 
demonstrate a realistic expectation that the enterprise will succeed and rapidly expand as it moves 
away from the developmental stage to full operations, where there would be an actual need for a 
manager or executive who will primarily perform qualifying duties. 
The Petitioner's initial evidence did not include a business plan or any statement regarding the new 
office's proposed staffing or organizational structure. In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director 
requested a statement from the foreign entity explaining the proposed number of employees and the 
types of position they will hold, as well as a business plan describing the new office's start-up plan 
and actions to be taken during the first year. The Director also requested a copy of the Petitioner's 
proposed organizational chart, listing all proposed positions with a summary of proposed duties and 
expected educational levels. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted an organizational chart depicting the Beneficiar as "director" 
and showing that he would supervise a business development specialist and a sales 
department staffed by an office assistant! I and an account manage .__ ____ ...,......... The 
Petitioner did not provide position descriptions, educational credentials, or evidence that it had hired 
4 
Matter of G-C- LLC 
the named individuals. 3 Further, the organizational chart did not include any vacant positions or any 
indication that the company, which intends to fabricate and install glass structures, anticipates hiring 
any fabricators, installers, or other personnel to actually provide these products and services. 
In the denial notice, the Director acknowledged the organizational chart, but emphasized that the 
Petitioner did not provide the requested business plan or other evidence detailing its intended staffing 
plan, nor did it provide supplemental information regarding the positions identified on the chart to 
establish that the Beneficiary would be sufficiently relieved from performing non-managerial activities 
associated with the business' day-to-day operations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits for the first time a business plan, which contains the company's 
personnel plan for its first five years of of era ti on. According to the personnel plan, the Petitioner 
intends to employ the Beneficiary as CEO, I as a part-time office manager and dispatcher, 
two fabricators, and two sales people during its initial year of operations and it has no plans to hire 
additional staff at any point during the four years thereafter. The Petitioner does not provide a new 
proposed organizational chart or explain why the business plan's proposed staffing structure differs 
from the information provided on the previously submitted organizational chart. 
At the same time, the Petitioner states in its brief that it "has hired an Account Manager, Business 
Manager, and Marketing & Office Manager to handle the day-to-day functions of the business." The 
Petitioner does not attempt to reconcile this staffing with the personnel plan described in the 
concurrently-submitted business plan, nor does it mention who would be responsible for fabricating 
and installing the company's products. Due to the unexplained inconsistencies in the submitted 
staffing plans, the Petitioner has not met its burden to describe the proposed organizational structure 
of its new office. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(]). 
Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the Petitioner has submitted resumes for its claimed current 
employees as of the date of the appeal. I I resume states that he has been employed by 
the Petitioner in a business development role since October 2017 (while concurrently employed by 
three other companies), and I I resume indicates that the Petitioner hired her in a sales 
role in 2019. The Petitioner also submits a resume for I I its newly claimed marketing 
and office manager, but she does not indicate any employment with the petitioning company. The 
record does not contain any additional evidence of wages paid to employees to confirm that the 
Petitioner has hired these individuals, or evidence that it has hired or contracted lower-level workers 
to fulfill its contracts with clients, some of which were signed prior to the date of filing. 
The statutory definition of"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 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 
3 The Petitioner submitted a partial copy of its New York state quarterly wage report for the fourth quarter of 2018. This 
document shows that the Petitioner had two employees as of December 2018, and paid total wages of $3,400 during this 
13-week period. However, the one page that was submitted did not provide employee names. 
5 
Matter of G-C- LLC 
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). 
Here, while the Petitioner consistently indicates that the Beneficiary will supervise subordinate 
personnel, it has not consistently identified what positions it intends to fill. As noted, the business 
plan indicates that the company will operate with two fabricators, two sales people, and a part-time 
office worker, while the Petitioner elsewhere asserts that all of the Beneficiary's subordinates will 
have managerial job titles. The record does not contains sufficient detailed, consistent, and credible 
information for us to determine the number or types of positions that would be filled within on year. 
Although the Director requested the information, the Petitioner did not provide an adequate summary 
of duties for all proposed subordinate positions, nor did it provide the level of education required for 
those positions. Therefore, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary would supervise 
subordinate professionals. Further, the Petitioner has also not shown that the Beneficiary's 
subordinates would supervise other employees, such that they can be classified as managers or 
supervisors, other than in position title. Thus, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary would 
be supervising a subordinate staff of supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, as required 
by section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that it submitted copies of contracts valued at $477,271.86 as 
proof that it already has "an established and ongoing stream of business" generated by its new office. 
However, as discussed above, it remains unclear how it intends to fulfill the contracts for fabrication 
and installation of glass structures if it plans to employ only a president, sales and business 
development staff, and a marketing employee. The submitted contracts indicate that the Petitioner 
may use subcontractors for some work, but the financial projections in its business plan do not account 
for any contractor expenses. Therefore, the signed contracts alone are not sufficient to show that the 
company will be able to support the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity within one year. 
We must take into account the reasonable needs of the organization and the company's size alone may 
not be the only factor in determining whether the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity. See section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act. However, it is appropriate to consider the 
proposed size of the petitioning company in conjunction with other relevant factors, such as the 
absence of employees who would perform the non-managerial or non-executive operations of the 
company. Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 2006); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 
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 IO I (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." 
Therefore, we must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree held by subordinate 
employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee does not automatically lead to the conclusion 
that an employee is employed in a professional capacity. 
6 
Matter of G-C- LLC 
2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). The size of a company may be especially relevant when USCIS notes 
discrepancies in the record. See Systronics, 153 F. Supp. 2d at 15. 
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 
or consistently explained the intended staffing of the new office. 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. 
III. PHYSICAL PREMISES 
The next issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that it has sufficient physical 
premises to house the new office. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). 
At the time of filing in September 2018, the Petitioner submitted a~------------~ 
which indicated that the Petitioner had leased a six-person office. In the RFE, the Director requested 
additional evidence to establish that a standard office lease would be sufficient premises to house the 
staff: materials and equipment needed for a glass fabrication and installation business. The Petitioner 
re-submitted its membership agreement in response to the RFE. 
Accordingly, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet its burden, as it did not identify 
the specific amount and type of space requirement to operate its business, or provide sufficient 
evidence of its expected staffing levels for the first year of operations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits photographs of its New York office and states that it is intended "to 
provide work space for the beneficiary and his staff'' to perform their "managerial, corporate and 
administrative duties," and not to manufacture or store glass products. The Petitioner maintains that 
the space is sufficient to accommodate the "first year growth projected in the Business Plan." 
While the space secured appears to be sufficient to accommodate up to six office workers, the 
referenced business plan states that the Petitioner would be hiring fabricators and that it will offer its 
clients more than 15 types of glass structures and systems. While we agree with the Petitioner that it 
does not need to demonstrate that its leased office is suitable for the manufacture and storage of glass 
products, it is reasonable to expect that the Petitioner have some physical premises to accommodate 
its "fabricators" and the products it intends to customize and install. Accordingly, we find that the 
evidence submitted on appeal does not overcome the Director's determination. 
IV. BENEFICIARY'S EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
The Director also determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. The Director determined that the Petitioner 
submitted a very general position description for the Beneficiary and did not provide sufficient 
evidence of the foreign entity's staffing and organizational structure. The Director also emphasized 
that the Petitioner did not submit relevant evidence requested in the RFE, such as the job duties of the 
7 
Matter of G-C- LLC 
Beneficiary's subordinate staff or independent documentation of the subordinates' salaries and 
educational levels. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the petition and the previously submitted letter state that the 
Beneficiary's duties included "supervising the company's production, marketing, finances and budget, 
approving contracts and making hiring and firing decisions." In addition, the Petitioner notes that the 
organizational chart showed that the Beneficiary supervised department managers (sales manager and 
technical director) with their own subordinate employees, as well as a chief accountant, a marketing 
director, and two drivers. The Petitioner maintains that "the picture painted by these documents makes 
it clear that the Beneficiary was working in a managerial capacity at [the foreign entity] and was not 
responsible for the day-to-day functions of the company." 
The Petitioner's appeal does not adequately address the deficiencies discussed in the Director's 
decision. Accordingly, we will affirm the Director's adverse determination with respect to the 
Beneficiary's employment capacity abroad. We agree with the Director's determination that the 
submitted position description is not sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary's actual duties have 
been primarily managerial in nature. In the RFE, the Director requested a statement describing the 
Beneficiary's specific duties and the percentage of time he allocated to each task. While the Petitioner 
submitted a letter from the foreign entity's deputy director, the duties contained therein were too vague 
to provide any meaningful insight into the nature of the Beneficiary's day-to-day tasks while employed 
abroad. 
For example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's duties included "to ensure that state taxes, 
insurances and other payments are made timely and correctly," "to carry out works in the direction of 
improving the living conditions of employees," "to conduct personal meetings with employees to take 
care for the purpose of improving their social life," "to control over execution of decisions she/he/it 
took," "to control over not going beyond the law of the official documents of the company and 
displaying indifference to the preparation of orders," and "to control that employees are folly provided 
a technical security in working condition." This position description was not responsive to the 
Director's request for a description of the specific, day-to-day tasks the Beneficiary performed as the 
director of the foreign entity, a glass manufacturing company. The description noted that the 
Beneficiary was charged with determining the targets and strategies of the company, which is 
indicative of his senior most placement in the hierarchy, but it did not provide the detail necessary to 
establish that his actual duties were primarily managerial or executive in nature. Conclusory assertions 
regarding the Beneficiary's employment capacity are not sufficient. Fedin Bros., 724 F. Supp. at 1108 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Assocs., Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 
at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
The Director had also requested an organizational chart along with job duties for all subordinate 
employees and evidence of their educational qualifications and salaries. The Petitioner submitted an 
organizational chart depicting the Beneficiary as the foreign entity's "director" with a total of 11 direct 
and indirect subordinates; however the Petitioner did not provide the evidence necessary to establish 
that the Beneficiary supervises subordinate managers, supervisors or professionals as it did not provide 
job descriptions or evidence of the educational qualifications of subordinate staff. The Director had 
also requested supplemental evidence establishing the Beneficiary's managerial authority over 
8 
Matter of G-C- LLC 
subordinate employees, such as performance reviews or evidence of hiring and firing decisions, as 
well as information regarding the subordinate employees' salaries, which would have assisted in 
corroborating their employment with the foreign entity. 
Contrary to the Petitioner's assertion, an overly broad position description and an organizational chart 
alone are not sufficient to paint a "clear picture" of the Beneficiary's actual job duties within the 
foreign entity. Further, the Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). The fact that the Beneficiary 
managed or directed the business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an 
intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity within the meaning of section 
10l(a)(44) of the Act. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not overcome the Director's determination with respect to the 
Beneficiary's employment abroad, and the appeal will be dismissed for this additional reason. 
V. 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 G-C- LLC, ID# 5902508 (AAO Sept. 10, 2019) 
9