dismissed L-1A Case: Hardware Supply

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 1-0-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 12, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a hardware supplier for retail stores and building contractors, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as its president under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. 1 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(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 the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director's decision contains 
legal and factual errors and reflects a failure to carefully review the totality of the evidence. The 
Petitioner maintains that it has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary 
would be employed as an executive or manager. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary must 
1 The Petitioner indicated on the Form T-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, that it was seeking a "continuation of 
previously approved employment without change" but did not have a valid approved petition at the time of filing. See 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(i)(stating that "[a] petition extension may be filed only if the validity of the original petition has not 
expired"). The Beneficiary was previously authorized to work for the Petitioner in L-1 A status rrom May 2015 until May 
2018. In April 2018, the Petitioner filed a petition to extend the Beneficiary's status. The Director of the California Service 
Center denied that petition in July 2018. The Petitioner filed this new petition in September 2018, but did not disclose the 
denial of the immediate prior petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(2)(i) (stating that "failure to make a full disclosure of 
previous petitions may result in a denial of the petition"). 
Matter of 1-0-, LLC 
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. DEFINITIONS 
"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 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
The term "executive capacity" is defined as an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of 
the organization; establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or 
direction from higher-level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
Based on the definitions of managerial and executive capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the 
Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 
1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, the Petitioner must prove that the 
Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial or executive duties, as opposed to ordinary 
operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 
1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d at 1533. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that it will employ the Beneficiary 
in a managerial or executive capacity. 
When assessing the managerial or executive nature of an offered position, we examine a petitioner's 
description of the job's duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii) (requiring an L-1 petitioner to submit "a 
detailed description of the services to be performed"). Beyond the required description of the job 
duties, we examine the company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate 
employees, the presence of other employees to relieve the beneficiary from performing operational 
duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding the 
beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
2 
Matter of 1-0-, LLC 
A. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner claimed seven employees and submitted an organizational chart 
showing that the Beneficiary, as president, would directly supervise an office manager and a sales 
manager. The chart also depicts one sales agent reporting to the sales manager and four employees 
reporting to the office manager: an administrative assistant, a logistics and purchasing specialist, a 
warehouse specialist, and a logistics and warehouse specialist. Finally, the chart shows that the 
Petitioner uses the services of an attorney, a CPA, a payroll services provider, and a broker. 
The Petitioner's supporting evidence included copies of its IRS Forms 941, Employer's Quarterly 
Federal Tax Return, and state quarterly wage reports for 2017 and the first two quarters of 2018, as 
well as monthly payroll statements for the period January 2018 through September 15, 2018. 
In November 2018, in response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted an updated 
organizational chart, a copy of its Form 941 and state quarterly wage report for the third quarter of 
2018, and its payroll summaries for October 2018. At the time it responded to the RFE, the Petitioner 
indicated that it had eight employees (including the Beneficiary), plus the four external service 
providers identified on the original organizational chart. 2 
In the denial decision, the Director found that there were inconsistencies between the Petitioner's 
claimed number of employees and the information reported on its quarterly tax returns. Specifically, 
the Director noted that, while the Petitioner claimed seven employees at the time of filing and "8 direct 
workers and 4 contractors" in response to the RFE, the Petitioner reported four employees in each of 
its Forms 941 for the first three quarters of 2018. 
On appeal, the Petitioner explains that some of the staff counted among its direct workers are paid as 
independent contractors on Form 1099, and therefore are not reported on the Form 941. The Petitioner 
emphasizes that these individuals are nevertheless part of the Petitioner's staff and were identified as 
1099 contractors on the submitted payroll summaries. Therefore, the Petitioner contends that it 
sufficiently documented its payments to persons named on the organizational charts, and that the 
Director incorrectly found that there were inconsistencies in the record with respect to the Petitioner's 
staffing. In support of the appeal, the Petitioner submits "Earnings Records" for all employees and 
independent contractors for the first 10 months of 2018, as well as copies of 2018 IRS Forms 1099 
and W-2 showing year-end earnings for its contract and payroll employees. 
Upon review, the Petitioner has resolved the Director's specific concern regarding its staffing levels 
at the time of filing. However, the evidence submitted on appeal has introduced a new inconsistency. 
Specifically, we note that each employee's total earnings through October 31, 2018 (as reported on 
their individual earnings records) exactly matches their year-end 2018 earnings as reported on Form 
1099 or Form W-2. As such, the newly submitted evidence reflects that the Petitioner did not pay any 
employees or contractors for their services in November 2018 or December 2018. 
2 The revised chart indicated that the individual previously identified as the office manager had moved to the sales manager 
position, while the office manager position was filled by the Petitioner's co-owner. The eighth employee was the 
Beneficiary, who, subsequent to the filing of this petition, obtained employment authorization based on a pending 
adjustment of status application. 
3 
Matter of 1-0-, LLC 
This apparent reduction in staffing levels while the petition was pending is relevant because the 
Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been 
satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The 
Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary has a "growing staff of managers, who in tum manage sales 
agents, administrative assistant, warehousing specialists, and purchasing and requisition agents." 
However, based on the evidence as a whole, it appears that the Petitioner only temporarily expanded 
its staffing levels. 
In June 2018, the Petitioner employed the Beneficiary as president, the administrative assistant (who 
earned $600), the sales manager (who earned $578), the logistics and warehouse specialist (who was 
paid by Form 1099 and worked 36 hours during the month), and a sales agent (another 1099 employee, 
who earned $421.39). The Beneficiary was the Petitioner's only foll-time employee, and the record 
shows that the company operated with a core group of four employees throughout 2017 and most of 
the first half of 2018. Although the Beneficiary held L-lA status during this time, it is not clear how 
this structure was sufficient to support him in a managerial or executive position or to relieve him from 
involvement in the day-to-day operations of the company. 
The payroll evidence shows that the Petitioner added the office manager, the warehouse specialist, 
and the logistics and purchasing specialist as payroll employees in July 2018, while salaries and wages 
for other staff increased that month. 3 However, as noted above, the evidence submitted on appeal 
indicates that the Petitioner did not pay these employees, or any employees, after October 2018. Even 
if we determined that the Petitioner established the ability to support a managerial or executive position 
at the time of filing, we cannot conclude that it could continue to do so by the time the petition was 
adjudicated. Nevertheless, we will briefly address the Director's specific findings. 
The Director addressed the Petitioner's structure in analyzing whether the Beneficiary, in an executive 
capacity, would supervise subordinate managers. The Director, determining that the sales manager 
had only one subordinate 4 and that the office manager had two subordinates, concluded that "these 
positions are not considered to be acting in [a] managerial capacity." On appeal, the Petitioner 
emphasizes that the organizational charts submitted at the time of filing and in response to the RFE 
reflect that the office manager has four subordinates. 
The Director's determination that the office manager had only two subordinates appears to be based 
on the Petitioner's job description for this position, rather than on the organizational chart. The job 
description submitted at the time of filing stated that the office manager was responsible for 
supervision of the administrative assistant and the purchasing specialist, but did not mention the other 
staff reflected as subordinates on the chart. 
The Petitioner's claim that the office manager was, at a minimum, acting as a supervisor is noted; 
however, the earning statement for this employee indicates that she earned $8948 for her services from 
the time she joined the company in July 2018 through October 2018. The 2018 IRS Form W-2 for 
3 For example. the administrative assistant earned $1800 in each of the first two quarters of 2018 and $5112 in the third 
quarter. 
4 The Petitioner's payroll records reflect that the sales agent subordinate to the sales manager may have left the company 
in the first half of October 2018 as he did not receive a paycheck for the second pay period ended on October 31, 2018. 
4 
Matter of 1-0-, LLC 
this employee indicates that she earned $8498 for the entire year and therefore did not earn wages after 
October 2018. Further, the Petitioner indicates that its co-owner assumed the office manager position 
in October 2018. The record reflects that the new office manager received $300 in wages in October 
2018 and no wages during the remainder of the year. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established its 
ongoing employment of an office manager. 
A company's size alone may not be the only factor in determining whether the Beneficiary is or would 
be employed in a managerial or executive capacity, and we must also take into account the reasonable 
needs of the company in light of its purpose and stage of development. See section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of 
the Act. However, it is appropriate to consider the 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. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
Absent evidence that the Petitioner continued to pay employees and/or contractors after October 2018, 
it is reasonable to believe that the Beneficiary and the Petitioner's co-owner, would share 
responsibility for all aspects of the day-to-day activities of the company, including routine operational 
and administrative tasks associated with purchasing, selling, and distributing its products to its 
customers. The Beneficiary's significant involvement in such tasks would prohibit him from spending 
his time primarily on managerial or executive duties. 
Finally we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertion that the Director failed to consider the Beneficiary's 
continuing management of subordinate staff abroad. Citing to Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 
2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016), the Petitioner contends that an L-lA beneficiary "can use his or her 
staff abroad to qualify as a manager or executive in the United States if such staff support the 
operations of the U.S. qualifying organization." We note that while the Petitioner has consistently 
indicated that the Beneficiary will continue to spend 20% of his time overseeing the foreign affiliate's 
operations, the Petitioner has not explained or documented whether or how the foreign entity's staff 
support the Petitioner's day-to-day U.S.-based operations from Venezuela. The Petitioner submitted 
the foreign entity's current organizational chart, but did not provide descriptions of job duties for its 
employees to corroborate a claim that they regularly assist with the U.S. entity's operations. 
The Petitioner has not established that it would have the personnel necessary to support the Beneficiary 
in an executive or managerial position. 
B. Job Duties 
Next, we will address the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's job duties in his proposed 
position. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner submitted the following description of the Beneficiary's duties at the time of filing: 
Financial Accounting - 25% 
• Review weekly, monthly, quarterly, and annual accounting reports generated by the 
accounting team 
• Set financial strategies such as policies regarding working capital reserve levels, 
5 
Matter of 1-0-, LLC 
approval of budget, approve capital expenditure plans, etc. 
• Supervise the accounting team and approve their procedures 
Marketing - 3 % 
• Approve marketing budget and strategies put forth by subordinates 
Client Relations - 15% 
• Meet with potential and current clients to develop relationships through lunches, 
networking, etc. 
• Enter into contracts with client executives ... or agree general terms for future sales 
• Approve pricing for particular items as suggested by Sales Manager from time to 
time 
• Supervise the Sales Manager 
Human Resources - 7% 
• Approve hiring or firing of staff, Office Manager provides such recommendations 
for all operational employees 
• Approve salaries and bonuses depending on company performance ... 
• Set vacation policies for all employees 
Procurement (product suppliers)- 12% 
• Request subordinates to research new products (suppliers and cost) ... 
• Meet with potential and current supplier executives or managers to develop 
relationships ... 
• Enter into contracts with supplier executives and managers or agree general terms 
for future purchases 
Warehouse Management - 10% 
• Oversee budgets and performance reports of warehouse activities 
• Review inventory reports 
• Approve capital expenditures requested by Office Manager and warehouse team 
• Review and approve plant procedures set forth by Office Manager and warehouse 
team 
Logistics - 5% 
• Review delivery reports and ensure corrective measures for on time deliveries are 
continually improved by approving procedures of warehouse team, drivers, and 
logistics providers 
• Approve logistics vendors and their service fees 
Management of [the Petitioner's foreign affiliate] - 20% 
In the RFE, the Director advised the Petitioner that the submitted description was too generalized and 
requested a more detailed description as well as information regarding the percentage of time the 
Beneficiary would allocate to each specific task. The Petitioner submitted the same description of 
6 
Matter of 1-0-, LLC 
duties in response to the RFE, with the same percentages assigned to each broad areas ofresponsibility. 
Rather than explaining the Beneficiary's specific tasks and the amount of time to be spent on each job 
duty, the Petitioner explained why it believes that the duties were consistent with the definitions of 
managerial or executive capacity. The Petitioner noted that many of the duties involve supervising 
subordinate staff: while others establish that the Beneficiary has the authority to establish the 
company's policies and goals, to exercise wide latitude in making discretionary decisions, to make 
personnel decisions, and to be "the face of the organization" in dealing with clients and suppliers. 
The position description clearly indicates that the Beneficiary relies on subordinate staff to perform 
the company's routine day-to-day tasks related to sales, marketing, purchasing, warehousing, logistics, 
accounting, client relations, human resources, and administrative functions. It is evident that the 
Petitioner considers the subordinate staff of seven employees to be critical to its claim that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. However, as discussed above, 
the Petitioner has not established that it would continue to employ workers to perform these 
operational and administrative duties, and in the absence of such employees, we cannot conclude that 
the job description accurately reflects the Beneficiary's expected duties under an extended petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also contends that the Beneficiary's proposed duties are comparable to those 
typically performed by chief executives according to the U.S. Department of Labor's O*Net Online 
occupational classification resource. The Petitioner is expected to provide a detailed description of the 
beneficiary's actual duties within the context of its day-to-day operations and to demonstrate that the 
duties are reasonable in light of the nature, scope, and purpose of that organization. Accordingly, 
comparing the Beneficiary's job description to a general listing of job duties within a broad occupational 
classification does not assist us in understanding what the Beneficiary actually does or whether his actual 
duties would be primarily managerial or executive in nature. The evidence submitted on appeal indicates 
that the Beneficiary would continue to perform the same duties described at the time of filing, but also 
reflects that the company no longer pays any staff as of November 2018. The Petitioner did not submit 
an explanation to reconcile this incongruity in the record. 
The fact that the Beneficiary will manage or direct the business does not necessarily establish 
eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity within 
the meaning of the statutory definitions. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the 
duties of a position be "primarily" managerial or executive in nature. Section 10l(A)(44)(A) or (B) 
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, these 
elements alone are not sufficient to establish that his actual duties would be primarily managerial or 
executive in nature. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that it would employ the Beneficiary in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
7 
Matter of 1-0-, LLC 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 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 1-0-, LLC, ID# 4113514 (AAO July 12, 2019) 
8