dismissed L-1A Case: Haircare Products

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7098927 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 8, 2020 
The Petitioner, describing itself as an importer of wholesale haircare products, filed a Form I-129, 
Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive seeking to temporarily employ the Beneficiary in the United 
States as its general manager. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad. 
In addition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would 
act in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary qualified as a personnel manager abroad based 
on his supervision of professional subordinates and it points to submitted foreign employer invoices 
reflecting his signature. The Petitioner states that the scope of the foreign employer's business 
demonstrates that the Beneficiary acted in a managerial capacity abroad. The Petitioner further asserts 
that the Beneficiary would act in a managerial capacity in the United States, emphasizing submitted 
invoices, his attendance at tradeshows, and a lease agreement he executed for the company. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonirnmigrant 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. The petitioner 
must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or her 
to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. MANAGERIAL CAP A CITY WITH THE FOREIGN EMPLOYER 
The first issue to analyze is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad in an executive capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial 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. 
When examining the foreign managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the 
petitioner's description of the foreign job duties. The petitioner's description of the foreign job duties 
must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties 
are in a managerial capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description of the 
job duties, we examine the foreign employer's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's 
foreign subordinates, the presence of foreign employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing 
operational duties, the nature of the foreign business, and any other factors that will contribute to 
understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role abroad. Accordingly, we will discuss evidence 
regarding the Beneficiary's foreign job duties along with evidence of the nature of the foreign 
employer's business, its staffing levels, and its organizational structure. 
A. Duties 
Based on the definition of managerial capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the Beneficiary 
performs 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 is primarily 
engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the foreign 
employer's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); 
Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary established the foreign employer in 1999, stating that it 
"specializes in producing various beauty care and body health products" and that it "has a proven 
record of reliable products as it works with major brands and distributors." The Petitioner farther 
explained that the Beneficiary was employed as the foreign employer's general manager from 1999 
until his entry into the United States as a nonimmigrant in August 2016. It indicated that the 
Beneficiary performed the following duties abroad: 
• Design and develop the company's general developmental goals and expansion 
strategies. Review and approve business plans and goals proposed by department 
managers (15%); 
2 
• Plan and decide annual financial budget. Review proposed financial reports and 
make improvement instructions. Prepare for the Company's profit distribution 
plans and plans for making losses for review of the Shareholders (15%); 
• In charge of hiring, promoting and firing decisions of key managerial personnel. 
Review and approve promotion and compensation plans (12%); 
• Direct department manager[ s] to prepare for competitive quotes of various sizes for 
entire projects, estimate the cost of materials, labor and equipment and set price 
aimed at securing a strong profit margin; review and approve reports on formulation 
of new products, and pricing and client relationship strategies (15%); 
• Review and approve performance reports submitted by department managers. 
Provide guidelines and instructions to department managers on improvement of 
business performance and efficiency of business operations (15%); 
• Plan and direct the creation of company operational policies including but not 
limited to hiring and promotion policies, compensation policies, manufactory 
Safety Manual, employee training policies, marketing policies, accounting policies 
and protocols. Review and approve proposals and protocols presented by 
department managers (8%); 
• Review the recommendation of updated technology for manufacturing; discuss 
possible technical improvements with Technology Manager; direct department 
managers to conduct safety trainings and operation trainings to all manufacturing 
workers and to ensure all machinery in the factories are made to operate safely, 
properly, efficiently and effectively (8%), 
• Supervise and oversee the negotiations and executions of the sales agreements, and 
maintaining communications with major clients (12%). 
The Beneficiary's foreign duty description includes several generic duties, such as stating that he 
"decided[d] [the] annual financial budget," made "promoting and hiring decisions of key managerial 
personnel," provided "guidelines and instructions to department managers on improvement of 
business performance," reviewed recommendations "of updated technology," and supervised and 
oversaw "negotiations and executions of sales agreements." These duties could apply to any general 
manager in any business or industry and they do not sufficiently substantiate the Beneficiary's former 
role abroad. The Petitioner provided insufficient examples and little supporting documentation to 
demonstrate the Beneficiary's performance of qualifying duties abroad, such as general development 
goals and expansion strategies he developed, annual financial budgets he planned, profit distribution 
plans he prepared, key managerial personnel he promoted or fired, or promotion and compensation 
plans he approved. Likewise, it did not sufficiently detail or document the projects the Beneficiary 
directed, new products he was involved in formulating, pricing and client relationship strategies he 
created, or guidelines and instructions he provided to his department managers to improve business 
performance. 
In addition, despite the Director's request for additional detail in the request for evidence (RFE), the 
Petitioner provided few credible specifics and documents to sufficiently substantiate the Beneficiary's 
daily tasks, including the hiring, compensation, safety, employee training, marketing, and accounting 
policies he planned and directed. It also did not articulate or document updated technology the 
Beneficiary reviewed and approved, technical improvements he implemented, or negotiations and 
sales agreements he oversaw. The lack of detail regarding the Beneficiary's asserted foreign capacity 
3 
is particularly notable given that the Petitioner asserts that he acted in this role for approximately 17 
years prior to his entry into the United States in 2016. The Petitioner has not submitted a sufficiently 
detailed duty description describing the Beneficiary's actual day-to-day managerial level duties abroad 
or which credibly establishes that he devoted his time primarily to qualifying tasks. Specifics are 
clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily 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), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the foreign employer, the fact that he 
manages or directs the business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an 
intracompany transferee in an managerial capacity within the meaning of section 101(a)(44)(A) of the 
Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a foreign position be 
"primarily" managerial in nature. Id. The Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the foreign 
employer's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to 
discretionary decision-making; however, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish 
that his actual duties abroad are primarily managerial in nature. 
B. Staffing 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
capacity, the reasonable needs of the organization are taken into account in light of the overall purpose 
and stage of development of the organization. See section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. 
As discussed, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary acted in a managerial capacity abroad. The 
statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 101(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 
supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional." 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(l)(l)(ii)(B)(3). Since the Petitioner does not specifically assert that the Beneficiary acted as a 
function manager abroad and states that he supervised subordinate managers and professionals we will 
only analyze whether he acted as a personnel manager abroad. 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart indicating that the foreign employer had over 140 
employees; and specifically, that the Beneficiary supervised a vice general manager overseeing 
department managers of general affairs, quality, product, purchase, technology, financial, and business 
departments. Each one of these department managers was shown to oversee operational subordinates, 
including the general affairs manager supervising a personnel employee and an administration 
employee. The chart also reflected that the quality department manager oversaw two feedstock check 
employees, a process check employee, and product check employees. Meanwhile, the chart showed 
that the product department manager supervised several technical and manufacturing employees, such 
as those working in the "wooden cup workshop" and the "assemble workshop." Further, the purchase 
department manager was shown to oversee three buyers, the technology department manager a 
4 
network administrator and a technician, and the financial department manager three subordinates. 
Finally, the chart indicated that the business department employee supervised three salesman and two 
vouching clerks. 
There is substantial uncertainty as to whether the Beneficiary acted as a personnel manager abroad 
because the Petitioner submitted a conflicting "staff roster" along with the asserted foreign 
organizational chart. For instance, the staff roster reflected that the foreign employer employed 15 
individuals devoted to "sand machines," while the organizational chart did not reflect this department 
or these employees. Likewise, the roster showed eight employees working with "milling flutes;" 
however again, these employees and this department were not apparent on the foreign organizational 
chart. Furthermore, the staff roster also listed 23 employees working on "packing," but again, these 
employees and this function did not appear on the foreign organizational chart. These material 
discrepancies leave question as to the identity and nature of the Beneficiary's actual subordinates in 
his former capacity abroad. The Petitioner must resolve this discrepancies 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). 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary supervised subordinate managers and supervisors abroad; 
however, it has submitted little supporting documentation to substantiate this assertion. In support of 
the petition and in response to the RFE the Petitioner provided little evidence to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary oversaw a vice general manager and seven department heads. For instance, the record 
included no evidence reflecting the Beneficiary directing these subordinate managers or delegating 
tasks and duties to them. Further, the Petitioner did not submit duty descriptions for these subordinate 
supervisors. 
Now on appeal, the Petitioner provides claimed performance evaluations the Beneficiary completed 
for the asserted "deputy general manager," "business manager," and "financial manager." First, we 
note that one submitted evaluation refers to a deputy general manager, while the provided 
organizational chart identified only a vice general manager. In addition, the Petitioner only submitted 
evaluations for three of the Beneficiary's asserted eight subordinate managers abroad. The Petitioner 
questionably stated in response to the RFE that "records since the initial hiring of these employees are 
not currently available" and that the foreign employer did not maintain these personnel records "for 
such a long period of time as their business practices differ from the standards of the United States." 
However, the Petitioner does sufficiently explain these asserted foreign employer personnel record 
retention practices or how they differ. The Beneficiary's foreign employment also only ended in late 
2016, seemingly not a "long period of time" since the date the petition was filed. Further, even if we 
accept the lack of personnel documentation specific to the Beneficiary's subordinates, this does not 
explain the lack of evidence of him acting in his claimed managerial role and delegating duties to his 
subordinate supervisors on a daily basis. 
Regardless, we did not find the provided performance evaluations credible in establishing that the 
Beneficiary supervised subordinate managers abroad. First, all three of the evaluations included 
identical language, despite the apparent differences in these asserted positions. In addition, the 
evaluations were questionably generic, indicating that each of these employees were being judged 
based on vague bases, such as "put[ting] the work first, work[ing] hard," "correct[ing] understanding 
of work instructions and guidelines," and "no dissatisfaction or complaints." In each case, the 
5 
performance evaluations included no credible detail on the actual accomplishments of these claimed 
subordinate managers, areas for improvement, or other individualized feedback. In sum, the 
performance evaluations did not credibly demonstrate that the Beneficiary was responsible for 
overseeing subordinate supervisors abroad. 
Furthermore, on appeal, the Petitioner submits duty descriptions for only three of the Beneficiary's 
claimed eight supervisory subordinates; again, these related to the deputy general manager, financial 
manager, and business manager. The submitted duty descriptions, much like the provided 
performance evaluations, were generic and lacked credible detail to sufficiently substantiate these 
positions. For example, the financial manager's duty description could apply to any finance employee 
working for any company in any industry, indicating that this employee was tasked with the 
"development of financial management systems," improving "the company's financial management 
procedures and policies" [ and] "quarterly financial plans," monitoring "major economic activities," 
and managing "relationships with banks and other institutions." Much like the Beneficiary's duty 
description, it included no credible specifics, such as the financial systems the financial manager 
oversaw, procedures or policies they put in place, major economic activities they managed, or banking 
relationships they fostered. 
The duties provided for the deputy general manager were also similarly vague, including no details, 
such as articulating the "development strategy plans" this employee formulated, organizational 
decisions they made, promotional activities they managed, systems they implemented, or corporate 
culture they fostered. Likewise, the duty description submitted for the asserted business manager did 
not credibly detail the markets and customers this claimed manager analyzed, resources and problems 
they dealt with, business plans they organized, or "on-site business workflows" they developed. 
Therefore, in sum, the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish that the Beneficiary supervised 
subordinate managers and supervisors in his former position abroad; as such, it did not establish that 
he qualified as a personnel manager on this basis. 
In the alternative, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary qualified as a personnel manager 
based on his supervision of professional subordinates. 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. C/ 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." 
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. 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary qualified as a 
personnel manager abroad based on the supervision of subordinate professionals. First, as we have 
noted, the Petitioner presented a foreign organizational chart and a staffing list that conflicted, thereby 
leaving uncertainty to his actual subordinates abroad. Further, as discussed, the Petitioner provides 
little supporting documentation to demonstrate that the Beneficiary exercised regular personnel 
authority over his claimed subordinates, beyond generic performance evaluations and duty 
6 
descriptions lacking credibility. Further, as indicated, the Petitioner provided performance evaluations 
and duty descriptions related to only three of the Beneficiary's eight claimed subordinates. Although 
the Petitioner submitted translated documentation indicating that some of the Beneficiary's claimed 
subordinates may have earned bachelor's degrees in China, their generic duty descriptions do not 
adequately demonstrate that these positions required bachelor's degrees to perform their tasks. In 
total, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient supporting evidence to establish that the Beneficiary 
supervised professional subordinates abroad. 
In conclusion, the Petitioner provided a generic foreign duty description for the Beneficiary and 
submitted little detail and supporting documentation to substantiate his primary involvement in 
qualifying managerial level tasks abroad. Further, the Petitioner submitted a conflicting foreign 
organizational chart and staffing list, leaving uncertainty as to the Beneficiary's actual subordinates 
abroad. The record also included no credible evidence of the Beneficiary delegating duties to his 
claimed subordinates or documentation reflecting his personnel authority over them. In addition, the 
Petitioner submitted vague duty descriptions for the Beneficiary's claimed professional subordinates 
that did not sufficiently demonstrate that these positions required bachelor's degrees. In sum, the 
provided evidence does not sufficiently establish that the Beneficiary acted in a managerial capacity 
abroad. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
As we have discussed, the Director also denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity in the United States. 1 
Because of the dispositive effect of the above finding of ineligibility; namely, our affirmation of the 
Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary acted in a managerial 
capacity in his former position abroad, we will only briefly address the remaining issue addressed by 
the Director. 
Upon review, the provided evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary would act 
in a managerial capacity in the United States under an extended petition. The Petitioner indicated that 
it acted as a distributor of the foreign employer's haircare products in the United States. Again, the 
U.S. duty description submitted for the Beneficiary was vague and the record lacked supporting 
documentation to substantiate that he would be primarily engaged in qualifying tasks in the United 
States. Once again, specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are 
primarily 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. at 1103, 1108. 
For instance, the Petitioner did not sufficiently detail and document the daily operations the 
Beneficiary managed, strategies and solutions he devised, plans he set for the marketing manager and 
"sales reps," key issues he handled vis-a-vis the foreign parent, or "strategic solutions," "company 
direction," or "policy development" he directed. Similarly, the Petitioner did not articulate or 
document the "creative promotional plans" the Beneficiary worked on with the marketing manager, 
1 Similar to the Beneficiary's asserted foreign employment, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary would be employed 
in a managerial capacity and not as an executive consistent with the regulations. Therefore, we will only briefly analyze 
whether the Beneficiary would qualify as a manager in the United States. 
7 
business strategies he adjusted, budgets he set, training he provided to subordinates, or relationships 
he built with other business entities, banks or clients. In fact, the Petitioner provided little 
documentation reflecting the Beneficiary managing his claimed subordinate managers and delegating 
tasks to them on a daily basis. This lack of detail and documentation is notable considering the 
Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has been acting in a managerial capacity in the United States for 
approximately two years since February 2017. 2 
However, to the extent that the Petitioner provided detail and documentation specific to the 
Beneficiary's activities in the United States, this evidence appeared reflective of his performance of 
non-qualifying operational duties. For instance, in support of the petition, the Petitioner detailed the 
Beneficiary's direct involvement in networking events and his arrangement of booths at industry 
conventions. Submitted documentation also reflected that the Beneficiary was directly involved in all 
the operational aspects of arranging for and setting up these booths at networking events. In contrast, 
the record includes no evidence of the Beneficiary delegating non-qualifying operational level duties 
to his claimed subordinate managers or the other claimed operational employees of the business. 
Again, whether the Beneficiary is a managerial employee turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained 
its burden of proving that their duties are "primarily" managerial. See sections 10l(a)(44)(A) of the 
Act. Here, the Petitioner lists duties and provided evidence reflecting the Beneficiary's involvement 
in non-qualifying tasks, but does not sufficiently document what proportion of the Beneficiary's duties 
would be managerial functions and what proportion would be non-qualifying. For this reason, we 
cannot determine whether the Beneficiary is primarily performing the duties of a manager in the 
United States. See IKEA US, Inc. v. US. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d at 22, 24. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in 
a managerial capacity in the United States. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that Beneficiary was 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad or that he would be employed in a managerial 
or executive capacity in the United States under an extended petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 The petition was filed on February 25, 2019. 
8