dismissed L-1A Case: Health And Wellness Supplements

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 24, 2025 In Re: 36618501 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a health and wellness supplement company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as the president of its new office I under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The L-lA classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to 
transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to work temporarily in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. The 
Director further determined the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would be employed 
in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States within one year of an approval of the petition. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter ofChristo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal as the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed 
in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity within one year. Since this issue is 
dispositive, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner 's arguments with respect to the 
Director's other ground for denial. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and 
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results 
they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
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 
1 The term "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one year. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F) . The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation no more than 
one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
capacity for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
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. § 2 l 4.2(1)(3)(v). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY WITHIN ONE YEAR 
The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary 
would be employed in a managerial capacity. 
Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in an executive capacity in the United States within one year of an approval of the petition. 
"Executive capacity" means 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 10l(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. 
When examining the executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly describe the 
duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in an executive capacity. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner stated that it would operate "within the direct selling industry, where [they] connect 
consumers directly with high-quality health and wellness products." The Petitioner described the 
Beneficiary's proposed duties during its second year of operation as follows: 
1. Build, manage, and empower the Independent Contractor Community (Whole 
year). Continually create a thriving independent contractor environment to create 
drive and equip them with the necessary skills, foundation, mindset, and the 
opportunity to be recognized and rewarded. 
• State meeting and events. Identify states with a high concentration of 
independent contractors and customers and collaborate with top performing 
independent contractors to set activities that promote growth and sales. 
• Set weekly and monthly regular online activities to promote products for 
customers and training for all independent contractors. 
• Architect a comprehensive rewards and recognition strategy to motivate 
and retain top tier independent contractors. 
2 
• Develop and execute customer-centric promotions to drive satisfaction and 
brand loyalty. 
• Plan and execute bi-annual and yearly convention. 
• Leverage established social media channels to drive deeper engagement. 
Focus on refining content strategy, expanding audience reach, and exploring 
advanced social media marketing tactics. 
2. E-commerce platform optimization and expansion (start of the year) 
• Strategic Platform Assessment: Conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the 
e-commerce platform to identify opportunities for revenue growth, independent 
contractor, and customer experience enhancement, and overall operational 
efficiency. 
• Functional Enhancement Roadmap: Develop and execute a strategic plan to 
optimize platform functionalities, aligning with evolving customer preferences 
and market trends. 
3. Merchant and Payment Channel Management (Start of the year) 
To assess and evaluate merchant partners to enhance the payment ecosystem to 
ensure seamless customer transactions, minimize processing costs, and mitigate 
risks. 
4. New Product Development and Launch (6th month) 
Lead the development and launch of new products lines to diversify revenue 
streams and capture market opportunities not only locally but internationally. 
5. Oversee and ensure full compliance with all federal, state, and local tax 
regulations (1st month) 
• Collaborate closely with external accountants to ensure accurate tax filings, 
recordkeeping and reporting across all jurisdictions. 
• Develop and maintain comprehensive tax compliance calendars to track 
deadlines, reporting requirements, and necessary actions. 
In addition, the Petitioner further submitted a breakdown of the Beneficiary's day-to-day executive­
level responsibilities, including some of the following tasks: 
• Identify critical travel opportunities to meet with high-impact independent 
contractors within the United States. 
• Conduct comprehensive reviews of online product and order fulfillment 
processes within the Admin Panel. 
• Send out marketing emails to customers and independent contractors within the 
database. 
• Manage US-based company email inquiries, ensuring timely and effective 
responses. 
• Provide strategic direction and approvals for social media content (images, 
videos, captions) proposed by the dedicated team. 
3 
• Evaluate the prior day's social media performance and prepare insightful 
recommendations for improvement. 
• Ensure seamless order fulfillment for both in-office and online channels (Ohio 
office and fulfillment facility). 
• Check and confirm the accuracy of orders. 
• Collaborate within the social media team and US IT department in virtual 
development meetings to optimize website functionality and user experience. 
• Review and accuracy check on all transactions in merchant accounts, bank 
accounts, inventory and fulfillment platform tools for the days cut off. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that many of the Beneficiary's duties in his year two 
duty description were not consistent with one employed in an executive-level position and more 
indicative of an employee performing tasks necessary to provide goods and services. The Director 
further reasoned that the Petitioner did not provide a breakdown of the percentages of time the 
Beneficiary would devote to each of his proposed tasks, and therefore, that they could not determine 
whether he would primarily perform qualifying executive-level duties. Therefore, the Director stated 
the Beneficiary's duties were not sufficient to demonstrate that he would primarily act as an executive 
within one year. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends the provided U.S. duties were sufficient to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary would primarily act as an executive within one year. The Petitioner notes that the Director 
did not require an allocation of percentages assigned to each duty in the request for evidence (RFE). 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Director erred in focusing on the Beneficiary's stated duties during 
his second year in his position, rather than his proposed first year duty description. The Petitioner 
emphasizes that it provided a first-year duty description indicating in detail the Beneficiary's duties 
during this time, including "the company's growth strategy, business structure, and policies and 
procedures." 
Upon review, we disagree with the Petitioner that the Director's focus on the Beneficiary's second 
year duties was improper. Although we acknowledge that the new office language indicates the 
Beneficiary should be acting primarily in an executive capacity within one year, the duties provided 
for his second year reflect tasks to be performed at the start of its second year of operation, during the 
first month of his second year of employment, and throughout this second year. Therefore, they are 
probative as to whether the Beneficiary would be acting primarily in an executive capacity towards 
the end of the one-year new office period and more relevant to his potential eligibility than duties he 
would perform throughout the first year while developing the Petitioner's operations. Further, reason 
also follows that if the Beneficiary's duties are insufficient to demonstrate his qualifying executive 
capacity at the start of his second year in the position, then it is questionable that his first-year duties 
could establish this eligibility. 
The Petitioner submitted a duty description for the Beneficiary that does not credibly demonstrate he 
would primarily perform executive-level tasks within the first year. Although we acknowledge that 
the Director did not specifically request percentages of time assigned to each of the Beneficiary's daily 
tasks in the RFE, it is still the Petitioner's burden to demonstrate that he would primarily perform 
executive-level duties during the first year. Further, the Petitioner has not remedied this deficiency on 
appeal, leaving further uncertainty as to whether he would perform qualifying executive-level tasks 
4 
within the first year. The Petitioner must resolve discrepancies and ambiguities in the record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-
92 (BIA 1988). 
As discussed by the Director, the Beneficiary's provided several apparent daily non-qualifying 
operational tasks, including him traveling to meet with independent contractors, reviewing online 
product and fulfillment processes, sending emails to customers and contractors, and managing email 
inquiries directed to the company. Likewise, these daily tasks reflected him reviewing social media 
performance and content, checking orders for accuracy, focusing on optimization of website 
functionality and user experience, and reviewing and confirming the accuracy of all [ emphasis added] 
transactions in merchant accounts, bank accounts, inventory, and fulfillment platform tools. These 
duties suggest that just after the first year period, he would be still primarily responsible for numerous 
non-qualifying operational tasks, or at the very least, engaging in ordinary operational activities 
alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 
2006). 
Whether the Beneficiary is an executive employee turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained its 
burden of proving that their duties are "primarily" executive. See section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
Here, the Petitioner does not sufficiently document what proportion of the Beneficiary's duties would 
be executive functions and what proportion would be non-qualifying operational tasks by the end of 
the first-year new office period. As discussed, the Petitioner lists the Beneficiary's daily tasks as 
including both executive tasks and administrative or operational tasks, but it does not sufficiently 
quantify the time he would spend on these different duties. For this reason, we cannot determine 
whether the Beneficiary would primarily perform the duties of an executive within the first year. See 
IKEA US, Inc. v. US. Dept. ofJustice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
B. Business Plan and Projected Staffing 
In the case of a new office petition, we review the petitioner's business and hiring plans and evidence 
that the business will grow sufficiently to support a beneficiary in the intended 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 executive in nature within one year of the 
petition's approval. Accordingly, we consider the totality of the evidence in analyzing whether the 
proposed executive position is plausible based on 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). 
As discussed, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary would be employed as an executive within 
one year. The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated 
position. Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" and 
"establish the goals and policies" of an organization or major component or function thereof. Section 
10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. To show that a beneficiary will "direct the management" of an organization 
or a major component or function of that organization, a petitioner must show how the organization, 
major component, or function is managed and demonstrate that the beneficiary primarily focuses on 
its broad goals and policies, rather than the day-to-day operations of such. An individual will not be 
deemed an executive under the statute simply because they have an executive title or because they 
"direct" the organization, major component, or function as the owner or sole managerial employee. A 
5 
beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision making" and receive only 
"general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders 
of the organization." Id. 
The Petitioner submitted a U.S. organizational chart reflecting that it planned to hire an administrative 
officer, a trainer, and a cashier/customer service representative. The Petitioner's hiring projections 
indicated that it planned on hiring the administrative officer during the first year and the trainer and 
the cashier/customer service representative during its second year of operation. 
When a new business is established and commences operations, the regulations recognize that a 
designated executive responsible for setting up operations will be engaged in a variety of activities not 
normally performed by employees at the executive-level and that often the full range of executive 
responsibility cannot be performed. To qualify for the L-1 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 the executive 
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 an executive who will primarily perform qualifying executive-level duties. 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner emphasized that it had "taken the necessary steps to have its 
health and wellness products lines pass US Food and Drng Administration (FDA) inspection to be 
designated as US FDA compliant," including projections that this would be finalized within three to 
four months within its first year of operation. However, although the Petitioner provided some 
supporting documentation indicating that it had consulted a professional as to the prospects of getting 
clearance on the approval of its products for sale in the United States market, there is little indication 
that documentation to this effect was filed or evidence to corroborate that this would likely take place 
within the first year. In addition, the Petitioner projected it would spend only $100 on "licenses and 
dues" and $1000 on "legal and accounting," seemingly inadequate amounts in light of its product 
investment. This is particularly noteworthy since the Petitioner asserts that the most significant 
investment in the new venture would be a shipment of the foreign employer's inventory of wellness 
products in the amount of approximately $58,000. 
Likewise, the Petitioner stated in the business plan that in its first six months of operation it would 
"onboard 100-300 independent contractors" and "equip them with in-depth product knowledge, 
effective sales techniques, and essential marketing skills." However, the Petitioner provided little 
explanation or supporting evidence to demonstrate that it would likely engage hundreds of independent 
contractor sales representatives within the first six months. First, it is questionable that the Beneficiary 
would be able to handle this level of recrnitment and training alone within six months, particularly 
since it did not project to hire a sales training employee until its second year of operation. Further, the 
Petitioner indicated it had only otherwise invested $30,000 in the business venture which had already 
been spent in securing its offices and for other initial expenses when the petition was filed, as such, it 
is not clear how it would fund such a large recrnitment effort without further investment. The 
Petitioner also projected it would spend $19,000 on stated "sales expenses" during the first year, 
including only $15,000 in commissions. It is difficult to discern how the Petitioner would engage 
hundreds of independent contractor sales representatives during the first year while only paying 
6 
$15,000 in projected commissions and meet its financial projections while spending only $4000 on 
advertising and marketing during the first year. Similarly, the Petitioner further projected that it would 
again pay only $15,000 in commissions during its second year of operations, again leaving substantial 
question as to whether it would have sufficient sales employees to sell its products during the first year 
as claimed. This also leaves doubt as to the Beneficiary's asserted duties at the end of the first year, 
which are heavily focused on overseeing an "independent contractor community." 
It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to assert that the foreign employer will simply cover additional 
expenses, it must have credible and supported business, investment, and hiring plans to sufficiently 
establish it is more likely than not to start operations quickly and support the Beneficiary in an 
executive capacity within the first year. For instance, it is also not clear how the Petitioner would pay 
its sole projected employee during the first year, the administrative officer, or the Beneficiary without 
any apparent ability to sell goods or sales representatives to sell. Further, the Beneficiary's duties also 
discuss a "social media team" and an "IT department" he would manage, neither of which are included 
in its first year hiring projections, even if it had sufficient investment funds to pay these components. 
Again, the Petitioner must resolve discrepancies and ambiguities in the record with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 582, 591-92. 
As discussed, the Petitioner submitted daily duties for the Beneficiary relevant to the time just after 
the first year reflecting his wide involvement in non-qualifying operational tasks. The Petitioner 
further indicated it would hire only one employee during the first year, whom it did not demonstrate 
it could pay, and it did not sufficiently substantiate it would likely have personnel and resources to 
engage and train hundreds of independent contractors during the first year as claimed. Therefore, it is 
not clear how the Beneficiary would operate in an elevated position focusing primarily on the broad 
goals and policies of the organization and how he would be primarily relieved from the non-qualifying 
operational tasks of the business, such as the Petitioner's proposed sales and marketing and order 
fulfillment activities. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would be employed 
in an executive capacity within one year of an approval of the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7