dismissed L-1A Case: Home Appliances

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF CCHP- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 14, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an importer and wholesaler of home appliances and hardware, seeks to continue 
temporarily employing the Beneficiary in the L-lA nonimmigrant visa category as its chief executive 
officer (CEO). Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(l5)(L). L-lA classification allows a business to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to 
a related U.S. entity to work in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that, 
contrary to regulation, the Petitioner did not establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence. It also asserts that the Director overlooked 
previously submitted evidence, misapplied the standard of proof: and disregarded Congressional intent 
and an executive order that the company claims support the petition's approval. 
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 10l(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. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Petitioner does not claim that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity. We 
therefore consider only whether his work would be executive in nature. 
Matter of CCHP- Inc. 
"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 101 (a)( 44 )(B) of the 
Act. 
Based on the statutory definition of 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). The Petitioner must also prove that the Beneficiary 
will be primarily engaged in 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. 
When assessing the 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"). We also examine: the entity's organizational structure; 
its other positions and their job duties; the nature of its business; and additional factors affecting a 
beneficiary's role and duties. 
The Petitioner here incorporated in late 2012. It states that it imports products manufactured by its 
parent company in China, such as air conditioners, and sells them in the United States. The Petitioner 
claims that it has 13 workers, including eight employees and five independent contractors. The 
company states that its general manager, chief financial officer (CFO), and five department managers 
report to the Beneficiary. The Petitioner's organizational chart describes its departments as: office; 
freight; sales; development; and technology. 
A. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
The term "executive capacity" describes an elevated position within a complex, organizational 
hierarchy. See section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. Under the statute, a beneficiary must be able to 
"direct the management" and "establish the goals and policies" of an organization. Id. An executive 
position therefore must focus on an organization's broad goals and policies, rather than on its day-to­
day operations. 
Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it has sufficient, subordinate staff to allow the 
Beneficiary to focus on the company's broad policies and goals. First, inconsistencies ofrecord cast 
doubt on the Petitioner's claim that five independent contractors work for it. This extension request 
included a copy of IRS Form 1096, Annual Summary and Transmittal of U.S. Information Returns. 
The form indicated that, in 2017, the company issued one IRS Form 1099, Miscellaneous Income, to 
an individual, independent contractor. In response to the Director's request for additional evidence 
(RFE), however, the Petitioner submitted another version of its 2017 Form 1096. The second version 
states the company's issuance of four Forms 1099. The unexplained discrepancies in the number of 
Forms 1099 issued cast doubt on the Petitioner's claim that five independent contractors work for it. 
2 
Matter of CCHP-Inc. 
See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies 
ofrecord with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies). The inconsistencies 
also cast doubt on the authenticity of the Petitioner's evidence. Id. (stating that doubt cast on one 
aspect of a petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of its 
remaining evidence). 
In addition, the Petitioner's organizational chart names three individual, independent contractors who 
purportedly serve as the company's sales representatives. The three additional Forms 1099 in the 
Petitioner's RFE response, however, do not indicate their issuance to the individuals listed on the 
organizational chart. Rather, the Petitioner addressed the forms to companies with which it has sales 
representation agreements. The agreements allow the companies to sell the Petitioner's products to 
designated customers and require the companies to employ any personnel needed to fulfill the 
agreements. Thus, the Forms 1099 and sales agreements indicate that the companies that signed the 
agreements employ the individual sales representatives listed on the Petitioner's organizational chart. 
The materials also indicate that, pursuant to the agreements, the Petitioner issued the additional Forms 
1099 to the companies for commissions on sales of its products. 1 This arrangement does not 
corroborate the claims made regarding the Petitioner's business model or the description of the 
Beneficiary's duties and oversight. The job duties of the Petitioner's sales manager indicate that he 
manages a sales staff. If the other companies employ the sales representatives, however, the record 
does not explain how the Petitioner's sales manager supervises them, or whether the Petitioner has 
other sales staff. This raises questions about both the claimed duties of the sales manager and the 
claimed duties of the Beneficiary as they relate to the business' sales function. 
Further, the Petitioner states that eight employees of its parent company manage and staff its freight 
and development departments from China. The Petitioner provided a letter from its general manager 
asserting its need for the employees' services and a list of their positions and job duties with it. 
Contrary to the RFE's request, however, the Petitioner has not explained and documented how the 
employees support the U.S. entity in addition to its parent company or how these employees divide 
their time. Also, the employees' U.S. positions appear inconsistent with their listed titles on an 
organizational chart of the parent company. The chart lists the manager of the Petitioner's freight 
department ( or someone with the same name) as the manager of the parent company's domestic sales 
department. The chart also appears to list a subordinate worker in the Petitioner's development 
department as the parent company's manager of international trading. This worker also shares the 
name of a shareholder listed on a corporate document of the parent company. The record does not 
explain whether these employees are the same workers listed on the organizational chart of the parent 
company and, if so, why they are working in different roles for the Petitioner. See Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. at 591 ( stating that doubt cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation 
of the reliability and sufficiency of its remaining evidence). The Petitioner has also not explained how 
the employees are supporting it or dividing their time between the disparate positions such that the 
freight and development departments of the Petitioner are fully staffed. 
1 Public information identifies two of the individuals listed as sales representatives on the organizational chart as principals 
of two of the three companies that signed sales representation agreements with the Petitioner. The third individual appears 
to be an employee of the remaining company. 
3 
Matter of CCHP- Inc. 
As the Petitioner asserts on appeal, we may consider the Beneficiary's role in the larger qualifying 
organization. See Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). Unlike in 
Z-A-, however, the record here does not establish the existence of the foreign staff of the Petitioner's 
parent company or the staff's purported support to the Petitioner. Absent a credible explanation of 
how the employees serve both the U.S. entity and the parent company, we cannot conclude that the 
U.S. entity has sufficient staff to relieve the Beneficiary from performing the daily operational duties 
of the business. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that its U.S. workers and the eight employees of its parent company 
in China would relieve the Beneficiary of daily, operational duties. As previously discussed, however, 
the record does not establish the existence of all of the Petitioner's claimed subordinate workers. The 
Petitioner has not demonstrated how the eight employees in China would support the U.S. entity. Also, 
the record indicates that other companies employ three of the Petitioner's claimed five independent 
contractors. Thus, the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained who would perform daily activities in 
its sales, freight, and development departments. The record therefore does not establish the 
Petitioner's possession of sufficient staff to allow the Beneficiary to primarily focus on executive 
duties. 
As previously indicated, we must consider the Petitioner's reasonable needs in light of its overall 
purpose and developmental stage. See section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. We cannot impose a 
minimum size requirement on an L-lA petitioner. But we may consider size as a factor in assessing 
whether a business can support a manager or executive. See, e.g., Brazil Quality Stones, Inc. v. 
Cherto.ff, 531 F .3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that "size is nevertheless a relevant 'factor in 
assessing whether [ the petitioner's] operations are substantial enough to support a manager'") ( citation 
omitted). Here, our analysis of the executive nature of the offered position considered the Petitioner's 
size. But we also examined the Petitioner's organizational structure; its other positions and their job 
duties; the nature of its business; and the staff of its parent company. Our analysis therefore does not 
improperly focus on the Petitioner's size. 
B. Job Duties 
The Petitioner states that, as its CEO, the Beneficiary would: adjust and implement the company's 
goals, policies, and objectives; seek out investment opportunities; contemplate major expenditures; 
monitor financial performance and procedures; choose business strategies and overall direction; 
review and approve personnel actions; negotiate; and represent the company at conferences. The 
Director described the proposed job duties as "very general," finding that they did not detail the 
Beneficiary's daily duties. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), a.ff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990) (stating that "[s]pecifics 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 regulations"). 
On appeal and in response to the Director's written request for additional evidence (RFE) the Petitioner 
expanded its job description and provided examples of the position's duties in the context of the 
company's business. The Petitioner claims that as CEO, the Beneficiary he would devote his time 
primarily to high-level responsibilities. However, given the questions about the Petitioner's staffing 
and organizational structure detailed above, we do not find the description of the duties to be credible 
4 
Matter of CCHP- Inc. 
and cannot find that the Petitioner has sufficient staff to relieve the Beneficiary from performing 
operational duties such that he would primarily perform executive duties ascribed to him. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also argues that users misapplied the standard of proof. The company 
contends that a preponderance of probative evidence demonstrates that it would more likely than not 
employ the Beneficiary in an executive capacity. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 r&N Dec. 369, 375 
(AAO 2010) (stating that a petitioner must prove its eligibility for a requested benefit by a 
preponderance of evidence). As previously discussed, however, the Petitioner has not explained 
evidentiary discrepancies casting significant doubts on the nature of the Beneficiary's proposed 
employment and the authenticity of the company's evidence. See Matter of Ho, 19 r&N Dec. at 591 
(requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies of record by independent, objective evidence pointing 
to where the truth lies). Thus, the record does not demonstrate that the company would employ the 
Beneficiary in an executive capacity. users therefore did not misapply the standard of proof. 
Finally, the Petitioner argues that users disregarded Congress's intent in establishing the L-1 visa 
program and a 2017 executive order promoting the hiring of U.S. workers. The Petitioner has not 
shown how it qualifies for the benefit sought, nor has it shown how the executive order would excuse 
it from having to demonstrate that it would employ the Beneficiary in an executive capacity. See 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
III. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD WITH A QUALIFYING ORGANrZA TION 
Although unaddressed by the Director, the record also does not establish the Beneficiary's foreign 
employment with a qualifying organization during the required period before his admission. As 
previously indicated, an L-lA petitioner must demonstrate that, within the three years before a 
beneficiary's U.S. admission, he or she had at least one continuous year of foll-time employment 
abroad with the petitioner or its parent, branch, subsidiary, or affiliate. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
Here, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary served foll-time as president of its parent company in 
China from 2007 to 2014, when he gained admission to the United States in L-lA status. A copy of a 
stock certificate identifies the Petitioner as a wholly owned subsidiary of its parent company. A letter 
from the general manager of the parent company supports the claimed employment. 
The Beneficiary's applications for nonimmigrant U.S. visas, however, indicate that other companies 
employed him from 2007 to 2014. In applications for visitor visas in 2011 and 2012, the Beneficiary 
stated that he left the employment of the Petitioner's parent company in 2007. These applications and 
a later one indicate that the Beneficiary then worked for two other companies in China through 2013. 
The 2011 application indicates that, as of its filing, he worked forl I 
I I The 2012 and 2013 applications indicate thatl I then 
employed him. The Petitioner must demonstrate that the Beneficiary "has at least one continuous year 
of foll-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding" his 
admission to the United States in 2014. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). Here, given the contrary 
statements made by the Beneficiary on his visa application, the record does not establish the 
Beneficiary's claimed employment with the Petitioner's parent company. 
5 
Matter of CCHP- Inc. 
A petitioner must resolve inconsistencies of record with independent, objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Thus, the record here does not establish the 
Beneficiary's employment abroad with a qualifying organization for at least one continuous year 
during the requisite period. In any future filings in this matter, the Petitioner must demonstrate that, 
within the three years before the Beneficiary's admission to the United States in L-lA status, its parent 
company employed him foll-time as president for at least one continuous year. The Petitioner must 
also explain the Beneficiary's contrary statements in the nonimmigrant visa applications and provide 
independent documentary evidence of the Beneficiary's claimed employment abroad. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The record on appeal does not establish that the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in an 
executive capacity. We will therefore affirm the Director's decision. A petitioner bears the burden of 
demonstrating its eligibility for a requested benefit. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, 
the Petitioner did not meet that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of CCHP- Inc., ID# 3752241 (AAO June 14, 2019) 
6