dismissed L-1A Case: Herbal Medicine Export

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 6668258 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 17, 2020 
The Petitioner, describing itself as an exporter and seller of herbal medicines, supplements, and other 
food products, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its chief executive officer (CEO) under 
the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees . Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center revoked the approval of the instant petition, concluding 
that the Beneficiary would not be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not cite a specific basis upon which the petition 
was revoked in the notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) or her final decision. The Petitioner asserts that 
the immigration officer (IO) was mistaken about several observations and conclusions after a site visit 
in December 2018. In addition, the Petitioner states that the Director did not sufficiently analyze its 
asserted organizational structure in determining that the Beneficiary would not act in an executive 
capacity in the United States. 
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 
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). 
Under U.S . Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations, the approval of an L-lA 
petition may be revoked on notice under six specific circumstances . 8 C.F .R. § 2 l 4.2(1)(9)(iii)(A) . To 
properly revoke the approval of a petition, a director must issue a notice of intent to revoke that 
contains a detailed statement of the grounds for the revocation and the time period allowed for 
rebuttal. 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(B). 
II. GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION 
The Director revoked the approved petition on April 27, 2019, following the issuance of a NOIR on 
January 30, 2019. The Director stated in the NOIR, and in her later revocation decision, that the 
Petitioner "ha[ d] not established that the beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or 
executive capacity in the United States." Based on the level of detail provided in the NOIR, we find 
that the Petitioner was provided with a sufficiently detailed statement of the potential grounds for 
revocation and given an appropriate time period for rebuttal in accordance with the regulation at 
8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(B). As such, we will consider whether the Beneficiary was employed in an 
executive capacity in the United States; and in tum, whether the approved petition was properly 
revoked. 
III. U.S EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary was, and 
would be, employed in an executive capacity in the United States. The Petitioner does not claim that 
the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to 
whether the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity. 
The statute defines an "executive capacity" 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 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 performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties were in an executive capacity. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 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 abroad 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 the business. Accordingly, we will discuss evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties 
along with evidence of the nature of the company's business, its staffing levels, and its organizational 
structure. 
A. Duties 
Based on the definition of executive capacity, the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary was 
performing certain high-level responsibilities. Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. The Petitioner must 
also prove that the Beneficiary was primarily engaged in executive duties, as opposed to ordinary 
2 
operational activities alongside the company's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 
1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). 
The Petitioner indicated in a submitted support letter that its foreign parent company established it "to 
import some high[-]quality medicine and supplements to the U.S., and to develop the North American 
herbal and medicine market." The Petitioner also provided invoices and other transactional 
documentation reflecting the purchase of oranges, apples, spices, avocados, and wines in the United 
States and their shipment to China. The Petitioner provided the following duties for the Beneficiary 
in support of the petition, and submits them again on appeal: 
1. The Beneficiary spent 15% of his time working on the representation of the company: 
Meeting with other company's executives or CEOs in establishing cooperation or 
signing major general contracts, 
• Gave guidance to subordinates on signing more detailed contracts, 
• Represent the company to make final decisions, in participating and making final 
decisions in major contracts negotiations and signing of the contracts. 
• Set guidelines for subordinates in major contract review, 
• Review and give guidance in the contract negotiation process, and 
• Supervise and monitor the contract signing process. 
2. The Beneficiary used about 10% of her time working on the company's direction and 
strategic planning; including determining the company's development direction and 
strategies. 
• Develop specific strategic plan for the company and make adjustments to the plan 
according to the performance of the company development. 
• Determine and adjust company mission and direction, 
• Set the business focus in developing international businesses, and 
• Determine strategies such as using high quality products instead of low quality. 
3. The Beneficiary will use 10% of her time working to edit and adjust company rules and 
policies and ensure implementation: 
• Observe the effectiveness of rules and policies, edit or adjust internal rules and 
policies, 
• Lead manager and provide input or feedback for improving rules and policies, 
• Chair weekly, monthly, and quarterly meetings of managers and key personnel for 
the interpretation of specific rules and policies, and 
• Give guidance and instructions to subordinates on following rules and policies. 
4. The Beneficiary spent 10% of her working time continuing to set up the structure and 
organization. 
• Observe the functions of the organizational structure, make adjustment to the 
structure, and 
• Delete or add departments. 
3 
5. Continue to spend about 15% of the working time to give instructions and guide the 
subordinate managers to edit or adjust the procedure of operation for the company and 
each department: 
• Define and set up the company's operation methods and steps to conduct daily 
business, 
• Determine reporting/monitoring methods and procedures in day-to-day operations 
for the managers and employees to follow, 
• Define responsibilities and steps to follow for accountability, 
• Define guidelines for each department, and 
• Make necessary changes or adjustments to the company's day-to-day management 
and operation system. 
6. Continue to spend 10% of her working time budgeting for the company's development: 
• Make budgeting decisions for the company, and 
• Receive proposals from each department manager regarding budgets in each 
department and give final adjustments. 
7. Continue to use about 10% of her working time to control the company's finance and 
accounting: 
• Make important decisions regarding financial operations, 
• Direct subordinates to follow accounting procedures to control and monitor income 
and spending, and 
• Make final decisions in major investment or usage of funds decisions. 
8. Spent about 10% of her working time making decisions regarding the company's 
human resources: 
• Hire/fire subordinate supervisors, professionals or managers, and 
• Set up the company's employee hiring standard and policy. 
9. Continue to spend about 5% of time on setting goals and targets: 
Set goals and targets for the company for each major function, including marketing 
development and international business development for short-term and long-term. 
Revise the objectives for each function. 
10. Cooperation: continue to ensure the cooperation relationship among departments. Give 
guidance to department managers on this issue and solve conflicts. (5%). 
In revoking the approved petition, the Director concluded that the Beneficiary's duty description 
lacked sufficient detail to establish that she acted primarily in an executive capacity. Upon review, 
we concur with the Director's conclusion that the Beneficiary's duties are overly generic and that they 
do not credibly set forth her day-to-day executive level tasks. The Beneficiary's duty description 
includes several generic duties that could apply to any executive acting in any business or industry 
and they do not provide insight into the actual nature of her role. 
The Petitioner provided insufficient examples and little supporting documentation to demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's performance of qualifying duties, such as guidance she provided to the company's 
4 
claimed marketing team, guidelines she set for contract review, strategies for the company she 
developed, or adjustments she made to them. Likewise, the Petitioner did not articulate or sufficiently 
document rules and policies she implemented or adjusted, internal rules she changed, departments she 
added or deleted, procedures of operation she put in place, or responsibilities or "steps to follow for 
accountability." In addition, the Petitioner did not sufficiently detail or provide supporting evidence 
to substantiate the budgets the Beneficiary set for development, important financial decisions she was 
tasked with, final decisions on major investments she was faced with, hiring standards and policies 
she set up, or goals or objectives she set for marketing and international business development. 
To farther illustrate, the Petitioner provided evidence of two claimed meetings involving the 
Beneficiary and her claimed subordinates, including one from August 2018 and another from 
December 2018. However, the asserted meeting notes also included overly vague statements that 
lacked credibility and they did not substantiate the Beneficiary's executive-level role. For instance, 
the meeting notes from December 2018 stated that the company had "considerable amount[ s] of orders 
directly from end user, and our services have been improving" and noted that the members of the 
meeting "discussed the wine business and avocado oil business," but there are no credible details as 
to the nature of the product orders, what services the company provides, or what the claimed 
employees at the meeting discussed related to the wine and avocado oil business. 
Similarly, the meeting notes from August 2018 generically stated that "the business to consumer as a 
business model differs significantly from the business-to-business model," "there is great demand in 
China for products made in the U.S. for various products, including high-end luxurious products," and 
that it "has the potential to develop other products and services." However again, there is little 
indication from the notes who discussed these issues, what clear directions were provided by the 
Beneficiary, what "luxurious products" were in demand, or what other products and services they 
would develop. 
The Petitioner also provided a list of meeting dates the Beneficiary had with different customer 
executives from March through December 2018 along with very brief explanations of what was 
discussed. Yet again, there was little detail about these individual meetings, the relationships the 
Petitioner had with these entities, and it did not provide any supporting documentation to support these 
meetings. In sum, the evidence provided by the Petitioner was insufficient to corroborate the 
Beneficiary's day-to-day performance of qualifying executive-level duties. In addition, despite the 
Director clearly pointing to the lack of specificity and documentation, the Petitioner has submitted no 
farther details or evidence on appeal to support the Beneficiary's claimed executive-level role. This 
lack of detail and documentation to notable given that the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has 
been acting in her capacity since November 2017. 1 Specifics are clearly an important indication of 
whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive 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). 
Even though the Beneficiary held a senior position within the foreign organization, the fact that she 
managed or directed a business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an 
intracompany transferee in an executive capacity within the meaning of section 101(a)(44)(B) of the 
1 The current appeal was filed on May 24, 2019. 
5 
Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of the foreign position be 
"primarily" executive in nature. Id. The Beneficiary may have exercised discretion over the foreign 
employer's day-to-day operations and possessed the requisite level of authority with respect to 
discretionary decision-making; however, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish 
that her actual foreign duties were primarily executive in nature. 
B. Site Visit and Staffing 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual was acting in an executive 
capacity, we take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose 
and stage of development of the organization. See section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. 
As discussed, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary worked, and would be employed, in an 
executive capacity. The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's 
elevated position within a complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions 
of the organization. Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the 
ability to "direct the management" and "establish the goals and policies" of that organization. The 
beneficiary must primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than the 
day-to-day operations of the enterprise. An individual will not be deemed an executive under the 
statute simply because they have an executive title or because they "direct" the enterprise as the owner 
or sole managerial employee. A 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. 
In denying the petition, the Director pointed to a post adjudicative site visit conducted by an 
immigration officer (IO) in December 2018 and emphasized the Beneficiary's absence from the 
Petitioner's asserted office location during this visit. Further, the Director noted that the IO reported 
that two employees located at the Petitioner's office location did not appear to be aware of who the 
Beneficiary was. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the employees encountered by the IO at its asserted office location 
were only lower level employees and not subordinates of the Beneficiary. The Petitioner asserts that 
these employees were not aware of the I O's reference to tle Benevciary since she was referred to by 
her full Chinese name and not her adopted English name ' ' Further, the Petitioner notes that 
the Director mistakenly interpreted the Beneficiary's absence from its office location as international 
travel and asserts she was in fact at its second claimed office location illll California. It further 
contends that USCIS failed to verify the Petitioner's second asserted~ prior to revoking the 
petition. 
We find the Petitioner's explanations and assertions related to the USCIS site visit insufficient to 
eliminate the uncertainties discussed by the Director. As noted, the Petitioner indicates that the two 
employees encountered by the IO during the site visit in December 2018 were its "lowest level 
employees," new employees to the company, and unfamiliar with its operation, thereby explaining 
their lack of knowledge of the company and the Beneficiary during the site visit. Specifically, these 
employees are listed in its most recent organizational chart as a newly hired marketing specialist and 
an international coordinator. 
6 
However, the Petitioner's assertions on appeal do not appear consistent with its statements on the 
record with respect to these two employees. For instance, the organizational chart, with over ten 
employees, does not reflect that the asserted marketing specialist and international coordinator are the 
company's lowest level employees, but that they operate only one level below the Beneficiary's 
claimed subordinate managers. Further, in response to the NOIR, the Director indicated that these two 
new employees were "hired to strengthen the company's management and professional team" and it 
emphasized their bachelor's degrees and "strong background and knowledge in product development 
and marketing." Likewise, the marketing specialist stated in an affidavit provided with the NOIR 
response that she was hired for "the purpose of marketing analysis and product development," noted 
her "professional knowledge and marketing background" and her responsibility for "introducing U.S. 
products to Chinese customers" and designing promotional materials. These assertions on the part of 
the Petitioner and its two new employees appear inconsistent with its contentions on appeal that these 
two new employees on site were largely unfamiliar with its operations and the Beneficiary's executive 
level role with the company. 
In addition, both of these employees stated in affidavits that they did not recognize the I O's reference 
to the Beneficiary, since she was referred to by her full Chinese name, not by her adopted English 
namel I In sum, the Petitioner's contentions are not credible. First, the Petitioner emphasized 
previously that the employees encountered at the site visit were higher level professionals; as such, it 
appears unlikely that they were wholly unaware of the Beneficiary's role, particularly since the IO 
referred to her by her last name. In fact, the marketing specialist stated in an affidavit that they knew 
the Beneficiary as '1 rher English name), or General Manager! i(out of Chinese custom, 
addressing a person by her title and last name)." This statement leaves question as to the assertion 
that these employees would did not recognize the Beneficiary's last name when stated by the IO. 
Regardless, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient supporting evidence to suhdtaotiate T' assertion 
that the Beneficiary was traveling or located in its other claimed office location i ~--~at the time 
of the site visit. First, it has not clearly indicated exactly where the Beneficiary was at the time of the 
site visit or provided supporting documentation to substantiate her location at this time. In addition, 
the Petitioner does not clearly describe or document the absence of its nine other employees from 
claimed business location at the time of the site visit in December 2018. The Petitioner appears to 
suggest that these employees were at its second office location inl l but it does not support this 
assertion with documentary evidence. Indeed, it appears questionable that two new "lower level" 
employees with little knowledge of the business were left alone at its primary office location without 
any supervisory attention, as claimed by the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner otherwise provides little detail and supporting evidence to substantiate the Beneficiary's 
executive activities, whether at its claimed second office location inl lor pursuant to her claimed 
business travels. For instance, the Petitioner notes that USCIS failed to verify its second office location 
in I I prior to revoking the approved petition. However, it is the Petitioner's burden to 
demonstrate the Beneficiary's eligibility and it has submitted little evidence to substantiate the 
Beneficiary's presence and duties at its second asserted office location. Therefore, after reviewing a 
totality of the evidence, the Petitioner has submitted insufficient explanations and supporting 
documentation to support its statements in response to the discrepancies noted by the IO during the 
December 2018 site visit. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies and ambiguities with 
7 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-
92 (BIA 1988). 
Furthermore, the evidence provided relative to the Petitioner's claimed staffing and organizational 
structure does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary acted in an executive capacity. In 
response to the Director's NOIR the Petitioner submitted an organizational chart reflecting that the 
Beneficiary supervised an administration department manager, a marketing/sales department manager, 
and an international business development and logistic department manager. Further, the chart 
indicated that the administration department manager supervised the newly hired international 
coordinator overseeing an accounting employee and an international consultant/customer service 
employee. It also showed that the marketing/sales department manager supervised the marketing 
specialist overseeing a sales representative supervising another sales representative. Lastly, the 
international development manager was shown to oversee a products specialist supervising a logistics 
consultant. 
The Petitioner submitted overly generic and conflicting duty descriptions for the Beneficiary's claimed 
subordinates which do not sufficiently establish that she acted within a complex organizational and 
that she was primary focused on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than its the 
day-to-day operations. For example, the Petitioner stated that the marketing and sales department 
manager was tasked with "designing marketing plans and sales strategies and develop[ing] 
international business." However, there is little detail as to the marketing plans and sales strategies 
referred to or the employees they trained, negotiations they handled, "after-sales services" they were 
responsible for, sale promotions they implemented, merchandise they added or deleted, or problems 
they resolved. In fact, the record includes substantial documentary evidence reflecting the claimed 
marketing and sales manager performing various operational tasks for the company, such as ordering 
boxes, handling the order and shipment of oranges and apples, and other such similar duties, rather 
than supervisory level functions within a sales and marketing department. In contrast, there is no 
evidence of the Petitioner's claimed marketing activities or the other asserted activities of this 
department, including the claimed after sales services, sales promotions, promotional literature, or 
surveys mentioned in this claimed manager's duty description. Further, there is no evidence of the 
Beneficiary delegating broad goals and policies or any tasks to his claimed subordinate marketing and 
sales manager. 
The Petitioner also provided vague duty descriptions for the Beneficiary's other asserted supervisory 
subordinates. For example, the Petitioner submitted insufficient details to corroborate these claimed 
subordinate manager positions, such as the product and service determinations made by the 
administration department manager, the rules and policies they established, training they implemented, 
proposals they handled, or what "supervis[ing] the complete process of international trade" refers to. 
Meanwhile, the claimed duties of the international business development and logistic department 
manager were similarly generic. For instance, there were no credible details as to the "international 
development process" they established, the "promotion of the company products to the international 
platform" they were involved in, or the potential or existing customers they negotiated with. In fact, 
the duties of the claimed business development and logistic department manager questionably refers 
to them reviewing "mass production possibilities" and "design development plans." However, the 
Petitioner's business appears to only involve the purchase of produce and other food products and 
their shipment to China, not the manufacture or design of goods. The record also includes little 
8 
credible supporting evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary regularly oversaw her subordinate 
managers and delegated broad goals and policies to them. Therefore, in total, the asserted duties of 
the Beneficiary's subordinate managers were not sufficiently detailed and credible to establish that 
she acted, and would act, within a complex organizational hierarchy. 
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Director properly revoked the previously approved petition, 
as the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary acted, or would act, in an executive capacity in the 
United States. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9