dismissed L-1A Case: Heavy Cargo Transportation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF L-T-S-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 29,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a heavy cargo transportation company, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment as its president under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101 ( a)(15)(L ). The L-1 A 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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition and affirmed the denial of the petition 
after reviewing the Petitioner's subsequent motion to reopen. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity under the extended petition. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the evidence of record establishes that the Beneficiary would perform primarily 
managerial duties and manage an essential function of the company. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge 
capacity, 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 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, executive, or specialized knowledge 
capacity. /d. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form I-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, shall be accompanied by: 
Matter of L-T-S-, LLC 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will 
employ the alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph 
(l)(l)(ii)(G) ofthis section. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or 
specialized knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the 
services to be performed. 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time 
employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition. 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position 
that was managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the 
alien's prior education, training, and employment qualifies him/her to perform 
the intended services in the United States; however, the work in the United 
States need not be the same work which the alien performed abroad. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. The 
Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity. Therefore, 
we restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary win be employed in a managerial capacity. 
A. Law 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" 
as "an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily": 
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the organization; 
(ii) 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; 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the 
authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel 
actions (such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is 
directly supervised, functions at a senior level within the organizational 
hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of L- T-S-, LLC 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function 
for which the employee has authority. 
Further, "[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." ld. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must take into account 
I 
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. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, including materials submitted in support of 
the appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be employed 
in a managerial capacity under the extended petition. 
When examining the managerial or exeGutive capacity of the Beneficiary, we will look first to the 
Petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(3 )(ii). 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 a managerial or executive capacity. ld. 
In a letter in support of the petition, the Petitioner provided the following description of the 
Beneficiary's duties as president and chief executive officer of its ground transportation company: 
[The Beneficiary] will continue to manage and oversee all company activities 
including purchases, contracts, employment of drivers, payroll and wage decisions, 
insurance, accessories, office systems, and any required bank financing. Under the 
immediate supervision of the beneficiary will continue to be and 
the operations manager, 
More specifically, [the Beneficiary] will meet with company consultants and 
professionals to continue company's expansion, and will supervise company efforts 
to attract additional clients as well as making decisions regarding investment of 
additional funds over the initial start up capital of $440,000.00. [The Beneficiary] 
will also oversee the addition of six additional trucks in 2015 as well as doubling the 
fleet to 24 trucks. 
In response to the Director's request for a more detailed description of the Beneficiary's duties, the 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary: 
• Provides guidance and leadership. 
• Provides financing for expansion efforts. 
• Overseas [sic] all things. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-T-S-, LLC . 
• Manage[ s] all matters alon[g] with General Manager. 
• Make[ s] financial decisions. 
• Explains company mission to drivers and other personnel: 
• Negotiates with mechanics' shop. , 
• Analyze[ s] industry trends and makes decisions on types of trailers to lease or 
buy. 
• Seeks talents, strong connections with growth potential and partnership within the 
transportation industry. 
Finally, in support of its motion to reopen, the Petitioner described the Beneficiary's duties as 
follows: 
1. Develop a strategic plan to advance the company's mission and objectives and to 
promote and implement strategies for generating resources and/or revenues , 
profitability as an organization . Analyzes industry trends and makes the final 
decisions on types oftrailers , trucks to acquired [sic], when to lease, when to buy, 
based on the company's and industry position. 
2. Direct company planning and policy-making committees. Developed the 
company's manual and makes sure all employees understand and follow the 
procedures. This is done by daily monitoring the activities through the General 
Manager and the main Dispatcher 
3. Review activity reports and financial statements to determine progress and status 
in attaining objectives and revise objectives and plans in accordance with current 
conditions. 
4. Weekly meetings with our General Manager , to review the 
goals of the week and plan the strategies to ensure the most efficient and effective 
ways to improve the company's objective to optimize the time and productivity of 
the trucks and drivers. (Load Reports and mileage invoice average report). 
5. Approve company operational procedures, policies and standards. 
and report daily activities to [the Beneficiary], in 
order to receive final approval of any decision that impacts the financial and 
operational activities ofthe company . . .. 
6. Oversee company operations to insure production efficiency , quality , service , and 
cost-effective management of resources . For example , there is a small inventory 
-of spare parts , whichthe purchase and use of is decided by [the Beneficiary]. The 
inventory purchase report is controlled and generated by [the Beneficiary]. 
7. Identify acquisition and merger opportunities and direQt implementation activities. 
Once a week an entrepreneurs meeting is held along with Trucking Services 
Owners. . . 
. During these meetings, the daily operation so the different business 
are discussed in order to provide help among small businesses. Also it helps to 
identify growing business opportunities . 
8. Oversee foreign operations to include evaluating operating· and financial 
performance. r 
4 
Matter of L- T-S-, LLC 
9. Once a year, performance evaluation of executives and employees for compliance 
with established policies and objectives of the company and contributions in 
attaining objectives. 
The definitions of managerial and executive capacity each have 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 (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 1533. 
Here, the evidence indicates that the Beneficiary would exercise the appropriate level of authority 
and perform some qualifying managerial duties. However, taken together, the Petitioner's varied 
descriptions of the Beneficiary's position do not provide a clear description of his actual day-to-day 
responsibilities, such that we can determine whether they would be primarily managerial in nature. 
Although the Petitioner has had multiple opportunities to describe the Beneficiary's proposed daily 
tasks and the amount of time he will allocate to specific tasks, all of the submitted duty descriptions 
state his responsibilities in vague and general terms. 
For example, the Petitioner initially stated that the Beneficiary will "manage and oversee all 
company activities," meet with consultants to continue company expansions, make capital 
investment decisions, and "supervise company efforts to attract additional clients." The Petitioner 
did not list the specific duties the Beneficiary would perform as a part of his daily routine; 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 or executive capacity within the 
meaning of section 101(a)(44) ofthe Act. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a 
beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the 
definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 
724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N. Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Although the Director noted the deficiencies in this initial description and requested a letter 
describing the Beneficiary's typical duties and the percentage of time to be spent on each, the 
Petitioner's response did not offer further insight into the Beneficiary's typical day-to-day duties or 
how such duties qualify as primarily managerial. Rather, the Petitioner once again submitted overly 
broad statements, noting that the Beneficiary "manages all matters," "overse( e ]s all things," 
"explains company mission," and "provides guidance and leadership." Again, conclusory assertions 
regarding the beneficiary's employment capacity are not sufficient. Merely repeating the language 
of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108, aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates. Inc. v. 
Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Further, the Petitioner did not explain how the 
Beneficiary's responsibility for seeking industry connections, negotiating repair rates with 
mechanics, and analyzing industry trends are managerial in nature. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-T-S-, LLC 
Finally, while the Petitioner provided a lengthier job description on motion, it also contained 
generalized statements and did not identify the Beneficiary's specific daily tasks or the amount of 
time he would spend on them. The Petitioner stated that he will "develop a strategic plan" to 
advance company objectives, direct planning and policy-making, review activity reports, hold 
weekly meetings to plan strategies, approve procedures and policies, "oversee company operations," 
and evaluate employees on an annual basis. The level of detail is similar to that previously provided 
and, as noted by the Director, is not sufficient to establish what the Beneficiary would actually do on 
a day-to-day basis. 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. The Petitioner has not provided any detail or explanation of the Beneficiary's activities 
in the course of her/his daily routine. The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the 
employment. Fedin Bros,. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108, aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Whether a beneficiary is a managerial or executive employee turns on whether the petitioner has 
sustained its burden of proving that his duties are "primarily" managerial or executive. See sections 
101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. Without a detailed description ofthe Beneficiary's daily tasks, the 
job descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that he would perform primarily managerial duties 
under the extended petition, and do not support the Petitioner's claim on motion that the Beneficiary 
"only performs qualifying managerial duties." 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed managerial or executive 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. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner stated that it has four employees and six contracted drivers. It 
submitted an organizational chart showing that the Beneficiary supervises a general manager 
who oversees an operations manager 1 The chart shows 
that supervises a dispatcher ~ who in turn supervises six drivers. 
The Petitioner has provided evidence of wages paid to each claimed employee, as well as evidence 
of payments made to drivers. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that (the Petitioner's co-owner and 
general manager), has a master's degree in business administration and is responsible for negotiating 
contracts with new shippers, managing company financial reports, ensuring compliance with 
transportation regulations, working directly with freight accounts, arranging drug testing for drivers, 
and providing training to company personnel. The Petitioner stated that also has a 
degree in business administration and is responsible for recruiting and hiring, accounts receivables 
and payables, assisting drivers, managing cash advances and driver payments, negotiating with 
brokers, dispatching drivers, creating fuel tax reports, renewing registrations and permits, reviewing 
toll charges, and checking drivers' logbooks. Finally, the Petitioner stated that is 
employed in the area of maintaining a software platfomi for the dispatch system, however, the 
(b)(6)
Matter of L- T-S-, LLC 
attached list of duties indicates that he handles phone calls, negotiates rates and details for loading 
trucks, dispatches drivers, helps drivers with navigation and road side assistance, "helps with the 
mail," and provides 24/7 assistance to drivers. 
On motion, the Petitioner submitted an expanded organizational chart which included vanous 
contractors under the general manager and operations manager. These included 
(factoring/finance), three brokers, an accounting office, three shippers, a DOT compliance 
contractor, two repair/maintenance persons, and an insurance group. Otherwise, the chart included 
the same four employees and a total of eight drivers. 
The Petitioner also submitted additional position descriptions for the Beneficiary's subordinates, 
noting that the general manager oversees 
various departments including fixed operations (sales and 
finance), the business office (accounting and administration), and fixed operations (service and parts, 
inspections and permits). The newly submitted descriptions indicated that both and 
are employed as dispatchers, although the revised organizational chart lists 
in a senior position as operations manager. The overview of their duties states that they 
coordinate the activities of the driving staff and third party driving service providers, route outgoing 
sales orders, establish priorities and schedule deliveries. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and 
"function managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers are 
required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees. 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." 1 Section 101(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(B)( 4). 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). 
On motion, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary oversees two subordinate managers, namely 
and "company dispatch manager" Notably, the Petitioner has 
provided three different job titles and two different job descriptions for The most 
recent description of his duties states that he is a dispatcher performing the same duties as 
the employee he is claimed to supervise. The Petitioner has not resolved the 
inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Based on these unresolved discrepancies, 
1 In evaluating whether the Beneficiary manages professional employees, we must evaluate whether the subordinate 
positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) 
(defining "profession" to mean "any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent 
is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation"). Section IOI(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(32), 
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." 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-T-S-, LLC 
the Petitioner has not established the nature of his position and the record does not support a finding 
that is acting in a managerial, supervisory, or professional capacity. 
The Petitioner's initial description of the general manager's duties did not establish that he is acting 
in a supervisory, managerial, or professional capacity, notwithstanding his business degree and 
placement on the organizational chart. The Petitioner stated that he negotiates with shippers, ensures 
compliance with transportation regulations, coordinates drug testing for drivers, trains personnel, and 
handles freight accounts. The revised position description submitted for this employee on motion 
states that he oversees multiple departments and department managers that are not depicted on the 
organizational charts, plans and develops short- and long-term goals, supervises the daily operations 
of dispatchers, maintains contacts with an accountant and shippers, submits weekly financial reports, 
among other duties. Given co-ownership of the company with the Beneficiary and 
status as one of two member-managers, it is likely that he performs supervisory duties alongside the 
Beneficiary, however, the record does not clearly define his role. Even if we determined that the 
general manager is acting in a supervisory position subordinate to the Beneficiary, the record does 
not establish that the Beneficiary primarily supervises the general manager position in order to 
qualify as a personnel manager. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary "manages the essential Function of the 
company itself, the transportation business," and emphasizes that the company is on track to exceed 
$1 million in sales in 2016. The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does 
not supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for 
managing an "essential function" within the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) ofthe Act. 
The term "essential function" is not defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims that the 
beneficiary will manage an essential function, a petitioner must provide a clear description of the 
beneficiary's duties that identifies the function with specificity, articulates the essential nature of the 
. function, and establishes the proportion of a beneficiary's daily duties attributed to managing the 
essential function. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). In addition, the petitioner's description of a 
beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary will manage the function rather than 
performs the duties related to the function. 
Here, as discussed above, the Petitioner has not clearly articulated the duties the Beneficiary 
performs to manage an essential function, nor has it established that the Beneficiary's actual job 
duties are primarily managerial in nature. While we do not doubt the Beneficiary's authority to 
manage the business as a whole, simply stating that he has managerial authority over the 
"transportation" function of the company is not sufficient to explain how he qualifies as a function 
manager. A petitioner's unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally will be 
insufficient to carry its burden of proof. See Matter of So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 
1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)); see also 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). The Petitioner must support its assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
A company's size alone, without taking into account the reasonable needs of the organization, may 
not be the determining factor in denying a visa petition for classification as an L-1 A manager or 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-T-S-, LLC 
executive. See section 101(a)(44)(e) of the Act, 8 U.S.e. § 1101(a)(44)(e). However , it is 
appropriate for users 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, or a "shell company" that does not conduct business in a 
regular and continuous manner. See. e.g., Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313 (9th eir. 2006); 
Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.e. 2001) . 
Further, in the present matter, the regulations require USeiS to examine the Petitioner 's 
organizational structure and staffing levels. See 8 e.F .R. § 214.2(1)( 14 )(ii)(D). The regulation at 8 
e.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(e) only allows the "new office" operation one year within the date of 
approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. There is no provision in 
Users regulations that allows for an extension of this one-year period. If a business does not have 
the necessary staffing after one year to sufficiently relieve the beneficiary from performing 
operational and administrative tasks, the petitioner is ineligible by regulation for an extension. 
The Petitioner operates a heavy freight trucking company with six trucks , four employees , and a 
team of contracted drivers. In addition, on appeal, the Petitioner submits a ')oint venture agreement 
for managing carrier company" which indicates that the Petitioner will be providing services to 
as a "transportation administrator" in exchange for a management fee. Although 
the Petitioner has corroborated its employment of four employees and a number of contracted 
drivers, it has not provided a detailed description of the Beneficiary's day-to-day duties, nor has it 
provided consistent position descriptions for his subordinates. As such , we cannot determine what 
duties the Beneficiary will primarily perform under the extended petition , how work is allocated 
among the employees, or whether the Beneficiary 's three subordinates would sufficiently relieve 
him from performing non-managerial duties associated with operating the Petitioner ' s business. 
Further, the Petitioner has not addressed who will perform duties associated with acting as a 
transportation administrator for under the terms · of the newly submitted joint 
venture agreement, which the company signed just as the one year new office approval was expiring. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner has made a large capital investment in the company and had a 
successful first year of operations in terms of its income. However , the regulations governing a new 
office extension require us to consider the totality of the evidence in determining whether the 
Petitioner has grown to the point where the Beneficiary would be primarily performing managerial 
duties under the extended petition. All petitioners seeking to classify a beneficiary as an L-1 A 
manager, regardless of the size of the company, must establish that the beneficiary's position 
consists of "primarily" managerial duties and that the petitioner has sufficient personnel to relieve 
the beneficiary from performing the operational and administrative tasks inherent to its specific 
business.. The reasonable needs of the petitioner will not supersede the requirement that the 
beneficiary be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity as required by the statute. 
See Brazil Quality Stones v. Chertoff, 531 F.3d 1063, 1070 n.1 0 (9th eir. 2008). 
Based on the deficiencies and inconsistencies discussed above , the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity under the extended petition. 
Matter of L-T-S-, LLC 
III. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reason. In visa petition 
proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the petitioner. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.fL-T-S-, LLC, ID# 72893 (AAO Nov. 29, 2016) 
10