dismissed L-1A Case: Grocery

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B.M.T- , INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 25, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner , a six-employee grocery business , 1 seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment as its general manager under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompan y 
transferees. 2 See 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 subsidiar y) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to work 
temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity . 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that (1) the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a 
managerial capacity under the extended petition; and (2) it has a qualifying relationship with the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer. . 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it submitted sufficient evidence to establish the above elements 
and states that it will be submitting additional supporting documentation to demonstrate the petition 
was approvable when filed. The Petitioner checked the box on the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal 
or Motion, indicating that a brief and additional evidence would be submitted within 30 days of 
filing the appeal. To date, no additional evidence or argument has been submitted. Accordingly , the 
record is considered complete. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
1 
In a letter submitted in support of the Form 1- 129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, the Petitioner stated that it 
originally planned to operate a retail and wholesale clothing business in California ; however, that business did not 
perform well and was closed. The Petitioner determined that 
a specialty grocery store business in the State of Georgia 
would be more viable and profitable. The Petitioner obtained authorization from the State of Georgia to conduct 
business in that state in 2015, and entered into a lease for the operation of a grocery store in the same month. 
The Petitioner asserted that it commenced business operations in the State of Georgi a in 2016 and opened the 
grocery store to the public in 2016. 
2 The Petitioner previousl y filed. a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
November 1, 2015 , until October 31 , 2016. A " new office " is an organization that has bee n doin g business in the United 
States through a parent , branch , affiliate , or subsidiary for less than one year. 8 C. F.R. § 214 .2(l)(l)(ii){F) . The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a " new office " operation one year within the date of approval of the 
petition to support an executive or managerial position . 
Matter of B.M T-, Inc. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for theL-IA 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. !d. 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-1 A new office petition must also submit a statement of the 
beneficiary's duties during the previous year and under the extended petition; a statement describing 
the staffing of the new operation and evidence of the numbers and types of positions held; evidence 
of its financial status, evidence that it has been doing business for the previous year; and evidence 
that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(14)(ii). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Director found that the Petitioner submitted a vague and general description of the Beneficiary's 
proposed duties, submitted two different versions of its organizational structure, and did not submit 
sufficient evidence of its staffing and financial status to demonstrate that it would employ the 
Beneficiary in a primarily managerial capacity under the extended petition. The Petitioner asserts on 
appeal that it submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary will be employed in a 
managerial capacity.3 
The Act defines the term "managerial capacity" as an assignment within an organization in which 
the employee primarily manages the organization or a department, subdivision, function, or 
component; supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees, or manages an essential function; if the employee directly supervises other employees, 
has the authority to take personnel actions, or if no other employee is directly supervised, functions 
at a senior-level within the organization 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. 
We will address both the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's intended duties as well as the 
Petitioner's staffing to determine whether the Petitioner has established this eligibility requirement. 
We note that when reviewing staffing levels as a factor in determining whether an individual is 
acting in a managerial or executive capacity, we must take into account the reasonable needs of the 
organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. See 
section 101(a)(44)(C) ofthe Act. 
3 
As the Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary will perform duties primarily in an executive capacity, we will 
restrict our analysis to the Beneficiary's claimed managerial capacity. 
2 
Matter of B.M T-, Inc. 
A. Duties 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of a beneficiary, we look first to a petitioner's 
description ofthejob duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The definition ofmanagerial capacity 
has two parts. First, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary will perform certain high-level 
responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. 
July 30, 1991 ). Second, the petitioner must prove that the beneficiary will be primarily engaged in 
managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the petitioner's other 
employees. See, e.g., Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006): Champion World, 
940 F.2d at 1533. 
In the letter of support, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will continue to "control and 
oversee the management of the company's operations and employees," "be responsible for planning 
and ensuring the implementation of the strategies of the business operations and expansion," and 
"oversee the execution of his goals, policies and plans." These vaguely described duties do not 
convey an understanding of what the Beneficiary will do for the Petitioner on a daily basis. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a lengthy narrative 
describing the Beneficiary's duties and allocating the time the Beneficiary would spend on those 
duties. The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would spend: 10 percent of his time negotiating 
contracts and establishing protocols; 20 percent of his time hiring, training, and conducting 
performance evaluations in addition to supervising the sales and assistant managers; and 20 percent 
of his time determining budgetary needs, preparing budget requests, and reviewing economic 
forecasts to determine hiring additional personnel and expanding into other markets. This portion of 
the description does not relate any of the duties specifically to the Petitioner's operation of a grocery 
store except in the most general way. Reciting the 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. This generic overview is insufficient to establish the Beneficiary's 
actual role within the petitioning organization. 
The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary would spend 50 percent of his time establishing 
procedures for product and supply chain management, including product demand reports, marketing, 
distribution planning, sales, and advertising. These duties are not sufficiently detailed to determine 
whether the duties will include managerial duties or will include the non-qualifying tasks necessary 
to operate the business. The Petitioner further explains this responsibility by stating that the 
Beneficiary has visited "various markets in the United States, in order to understand the available 
products and the market gaps, consumer profiles, price positioning space, distribution channels, 
packaging formats and branding opportunities." It is not clear from the record whether the Petitioner 
expects the Beneficiary to continue to engage in these activities, but if so, these duties are not 
managerial in nature. Researching potential markets, pricing, and consumers' profiles and exploring 
distribution channels, packaging formats, and branding are not managerial duties as defined in the 
statute, but rather are non-qualifying duties required to operate and expand the Petitioner's business. 
3 
Matter of B.M T-, Inc. 
The Petitioner does not provide further evidence on appeal regarding the Beneficiary's daily duties. 
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 capacity within the 
meaning of section 101 (a)( 44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that 
the duties of a position be "primarily" managerial in nature. Sections IOI(A)(44)(A) of the Act. 
While the Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and 
possess the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making, the position 
descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that his actual duties would be primarily managerial in 
nature. Without additional detailed information on the Beneficiary's proposed position, the 
Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary's actual role within the U.S. company and has not 
established that he will perform in a managerial capacity. 
B. Staffing 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, we review the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed managerial capacity of a beneficiary, including 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. 
The Petitioner submitted two different organizational charts. The first chart identifies the 
Beneficiary at the top of the chart as the general manager, and shows two individuals reporting 
directly to him. His two direct reports are in the (1) purchasing/imports/inventory department, and 
(2) in the accounts and financing department. The chart shows three additional individuals reporting 
to both of the Beneficiary's direct reports. The three individuals on the third tier of the chart are 
identified as a marketing employee, a sales (store manager), and a second store manager. 
The Petitioner offers a revised organizational chart in response to the Director's RFE without 
explanation. The Beneficiary is again at the top of the chart as the general manager, but now one of 
his direct reports is identified as an "assistant manager" and the purchasing/imports/inventory 
department has been eliminated on this organizational tier. Additionally, two of the three 
departments listed on the third tier of the original chart are shown reporting directly to the 
Beneficiary with the revised jobs titles of "meat department manager" and "sales/catering." A third 
department, the warehouse/inventory department, has two vacant positions. 
The Petitioner includes brief descriptions for the positions on the revised chart and its Georgia 
Quarterly Employer's Wage Report for the quarter in which the petition was filed shows that the 
Petitioner employed six individuals. However, neither the position descriptions nor the record 
includes evidence of employees who carry out the day-to-day duties of operating a grocery store. 
The record does not include evidence of stockers or cashiers or other individuals who perform the 
daily tasks of opening, operating, and closing a grocery store. The Petitioner does not include 
evidence of individuals currently employed who order and maintain inventory. The record does not 
include consistent evidence of the positions within the Petitioner's business and evidence of how the 
4 
Matter of B. M T-, Inc. 
Petitioner has the necessary staff to operate the Petitioner's grocery store and relieve the Beneficiary 
from performing primarily non-qualifying duties, including the first-line supervisory duties of 
non-professional employees. 4 
The regulations provide strict evidentiary requirements for the extension of a "new office" petition 
and require USCIS to examine the organizational structure and staffing levels of the Petitioner. See 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(D). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(v)(C) only allows the "new 
office" operation one year within the date of approval of the petition to support a managerial 
position. If a business does not have the necessary staffing after one year to sutliciently relieve the 
beneficiary from performing operational and administrative tasks, the petitioner is ineligible for an 
extension. 
The record does not include sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary will be employed in 
a managerial capacity as defined in the Act. The Petitioner has not submitted additional evidence or 
argument on appeal. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not overcome the Director's decision on this 
ISSUe. 
III. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The record initially did not include sufficient evidence to establish that the Petitioner has a 
qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 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(1)(1)(ii) (providing definitions of the terms "parent," "branch," "subsidiary," and 
"affiliate"). 
The Petitioner's articles of incorporation do not include the filing date the Petitioner was 
incorporated in the State of California; however, the California corporation database shows that the 
Petitioner was registered on April 1, 2015. The Petitioner initially submitted an undated stock 
certificate No. I that did not include the number of shares issued to the foreign entity. In response to 
4 
When evaluating whether a beneficiary manages professional employees, we 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 I 0 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 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. The record here 
does not include sufficient evidence to establish that any of the positions subordinate to the Beneficiary's 
require a bachelor's degree to perform them. 
5 
.
Matter of B.M T-. Inc. 
the Director's RFE on this issue, the Petitioner submitted stock certificate No. 1 showing that the 
Petitioner had issued 21 of its authorized 5000 shares to the Beneficiary's foreign employer on 
August 18,2015. The Petitioner also submitted stock certificates No.2 in the amount of779 shares, 
dated September 18, 2015, and stock certificate No. 3 in the amount of 540 shares, dated January 5, 
2016, both issued to the Beneficiary's foreign employer. The record also includes the Petitioner's 
stock certificate ledger listing the three stock certificates issued which indicated that the 
consideration paid for each share was $500. A review of the Petitioner's bank statements shows 
wire transfers from the foreign entity and deposits made in dollar amounts corresponding to the dates 
and cost for the issuance of these shares. Although the record included confusing language 
regarding the type of qualifying relationship claimed and the Petitioner's initial evidence did not 
meet its burden, the current evidence of record establishes the Petitioner's qualifying relationship 
with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. The Director's decision with respect to this issue is 
withdrawn. 
IV. DOING BUSINESS 
While not addressed in the Director's decision and not a 
basis for our decision in this matter, we note 
that the Georgia State corporate records do not show that the Petitioner continues to do business in 
that state. The Georgia State database shows that the Petitioner's business status was revoked on 
, 2016. A second company with a similar name was administratively dissolved on the 
same date. Thus, we question the Petitioner's continued interest in and operation ofa grocery store 
in Georgia. Although the corporate entity appears to be active in California, the record does not 
include probative evidence that the Petitioner operates a business in California or any other state. 
The issue of if and where the Petitioner is doing business must be addressed in any future 
proceeding. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in a managerial position for the Petitioner. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of B.M T-. Inc., ID# 666855 (AAO Sept. 25, 2017) 
6