dismissed L-1A Case: Home Repair Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8721241 
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 : WL Y 14, 2020 
The Petitioner, describing itself as a general home repair services company, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as the general manager 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 Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
Further, the Director determined the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would act in a 
managerial or executive capacity within one year of an approval of the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Beneficiary devotes 60% of his time abroad to supervising five 
professional subordinates . The Petitioner contends that the duties and degrees submitted for the 
Beneficiary's subordinates abroad establish that they are professionals and states that it provided 
sufficient evidence to reflect his personnel authority over them. Further, the Petitioner asserts its 
proposed first year personnel plan supports that the Beneficiary would act in a managerial capacity 
within one year. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
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 
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. 
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. 
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. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
We will first analyze whether the Petitioner established that it would employ the Beneficiary in a 
managerial capacity within one year of the petition's approval. The Petitioner does not claim that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity in the United States. Therefore, we restrict 
our analysis to whether the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity. 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or 
manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
In order to determine whether the Petitioner established that its new office will support a managerial 
position within one year, we will review the Beneficiary's proposed job duties, along with the 
Petitioner's business and hiring plans and evidence that the business will grow sufficiently to support 
the Beneficiary in the intended managerial capacity. The totality of the evidence must be considered 
in analyzing whether the proposed managerial position is plausible, considering 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). 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner stated it is "a startup general home repair company" that would "provide repair, 
installation and remodeling solutions for residential and commercial properties" as well as "handyman 
services, installation and repair of air conditioners, and mold remediation services." The Petitioner 
indicated the Beneficiary would be in charge of acquiring "the initial equipment, develop marketing 
and sales strategies, and hire the initial staff." It further submitted the following duties for the 
Beneficiary as its general manager: 
• Plan, coordinate, direct, and oversee the company's operations (50% - 20 
hours/week) 
o Oversee the daily operations; 
o Monitor the activities of all employees and projects; 
o Supervise direct reporting staff (Sales and Operations Managers) according to 
overall company policy; 
2 
o Establish policies and strategies in order to achieve the company's objective 
and goals; and 
o Act on behalf of the company in all social, official, and administrative tasks. 
• Build company's image by collaborating with customers, brokers, government 
agencies, community, and employees, while enforcing ethical business practices 
(20% - 8 hours/week) 
o Enforce ethical business practices; 
o Evaluate potential business partners; 
o Negotiate and enter service agreements, terms, and conditions as company's 
legal representative; 
o Encourage personal recommendations from former clients. 
• Review and approve preparation of accounting analysis for budgetary planning and 
implementation, production efficiency, financial reporting, and budgetary planning 
(10% - 4 hours/week) 
o Review revenue streams and implement action plans as needed; 
o Review and approve annual budget of the company; 
o Monitor efficiency and liquidity ratios on a weekly basis to track company 
performance. 
o Review and approve weekly cash flow disbursement; and 
o Implement corrective actions as needed to be aligned with company objectives 
and goals. 
• Hire, fire, and evaluate employees' performance according to the company policies 
and procedures (10% - 4 hours/week) 
o Ultimate approval in the decision-making process on staff recruitment, 
interview, and selection; 
o Evaluate employee's performance on a quarterly basis; and 
o Approve staff job descriptions, duties, and responsibilities. 
• Confer with employees to discuss company goals and performance (10% - 4 
hours/week) 
o Meet with employees to review and analyze their performances; 
o Set customer satisfaction metrics to develop market; and 
o Set any necessary actions to address any variance from plan. 
The proposed U.S. duties submitted for the Beneficiary are overly vague and they do not effectively 
convey the Beneficiary's actual day-to-day managerial tasks within one year. The Beneficiary's job 
description includes several generic duties that could apply to any manager acting in any business or 
industry; such duties do not provide insight into the actual nature of his role. For instance, the 
Petitioner vaguely indicated that the Beneficiary would "oversee daily operations," "monitor the 
activities of all employees and projects," "establish policies and strategies," "evaluate business 
partners," "review revenue streams and implement action plans as needed," and "implement corrective 
actions as needed to be aligned with company objectives and goals." The Petitioner provided few 
specifics related to how the Beneficiary's day-to-day duties fit within the company's first year business 
3 
plans. For instance, the Petitioner did not sufficiently detail the actions the Beneficiary would take 
during its first year of operation to demonstrate that the business would develop as necessary to support 
him in a managerial capacity within one year. In fact, the Beneficiary's duty description includes few 
references to the company's intended business; specifically, window installation, air conditioning, 
mold remediation, and handyman services. 
The Petitioner submits little detail regarding the projects the Beneficiary would monitor, the policies 
and strategies he would implement, "ethical business practices" he would enforce, service agreements 
he would negotiate, or action plans he would implement. Likewise, the Petitioner did not sufficiently 
describe the corrective actions the Beneficiary would put in place to meet objectives and goals, 
company policies and procedures he would establish, new positions he would create duties for, or 
customer satisfaction metrics he would put in place. The record requires more detail as to the 
Beneficiary's specific tasks to assess whether he would primarily act in a managerial capacity within 
one year. In fact, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would "act on behalf of the company in 
all [ emphasis added] social, official, and administrative tasks," suggesting he would be involved in all 
the ordinary operational activities of the business alongside its other proposed employees. Specifics 
are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily managerial in nature, 
otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter ofreiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. 
Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
The fact that the Beneficiary would manage the business does not necessarily establish eligibility for 
classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial capacity within the meaning of section 
101 (a)( 44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a position 
be "primarily" managerial in nature. Section 101(A)(44)(A) of the Act. Even though the Beneficiary 
would exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level 
of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making, these elements are not sufficient to 
establish that the actual duties the Beneficiary would perform within one year of the petition's approval 
would be primarily managerial in nature. The actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the 
employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108. Here, the Petitioner provided a vague 
job description that does not adequately convey the Beneficiary's actual proposed day-to-day tasks or 
establish that he would devote his time primarily to managerial duties within one year. 
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 managerial 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 managerial in nature within one year of the 
petition's approval. Accordingly, we consider the totality of the evidence in analyzing whether the 
proposed managerial 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). 
The Petitioner submitted hiring plans indicating that it planned to hire an "initial crew" of one full­
time sales and operations manager and one full-time handyman following the approval of the petition. 
In addition, the Petitioner indicated it would hire an additional sales and operations manager and 
handyman "after 10 or 11 months from the commencement of operations." The Petitioner also 
4 
explained that it would "employ subcontractors for the services of window installation and repair, air 
conditioner installation and repair, and mold remediation" and emphasized a "strategic commercial 
alliance" it had formed with another company for this purpose. 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary would act as a 
personnel manager within the first year. The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for 
both "personnel managers" and "function managers." See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 
We note that the Petitioner does not contend that the Beneficiary would act as a function manager 
within one year; as such, we will only analyze whether he would qualify as a personnel manager. 
Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, 
professional, or managerial employees. Contrary to the common understanding of the word 
"manager," 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." Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 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(1)(l)(ii)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the Beneficiary would likely be a personnel 
manager based on his supervision of subordinate managers or supervisors within one year. The duty 
description provided for the asserted sales and operations manager positions subordinate to the 
Beneficiary do not sufficiently establish that they would be employed as managers. For instance, the 
Petitioner indicated these claimed managers would be the "first and only point[ s] of contact of clients 
during the client's project," suggesting that these asserted supervisors would likely be engaged in 
directly providing services rather than supervising subordinates performing this work. Further, the 
duties of these asserted managers largely overlap with the duties of the Beneficiary and are similarly 
generic, indicating responsibility for "successful management of labor, productivity, quality control 
and safety measures," ensuring "safe and efficient operations," recommending "strategic plans and 
reviews," preparing and completing "action plans," and "enforcing standards and procedures." 
However, there is little detail to credibly demonstrate the quality control, safety measures, operations, 
strategic or action plans, or standards and procedures these claimed sales and operations manager 
would establish and enforce during the first year. 
The Petitioner did not credibly demonstrate, given its limited first year hiring plans, that it would 
require a level of managers below the Beneficiary within the first year. For instance, the Petitioner's 
hiring plans include three managers, including the Beneficiary, but only two operational level 
employees devoted to "handyman" services. However, these hiring plans do not account for the 
company's other proposed services; namely, window and air conditioner installation and repair and 
mold remediation. The Petitioner only vaguely indicates that these services will be provided by 
subcontractors, but it provides little detail or supporting evidence to substantiate these proposed 
subcontractors. In sum, it appears more likely that the Petitioner's proposed sales and operations 
managers would be directly engaged in providing services to clients rather than overseeing or 
managing others as claimed. Therefore, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that it would 
more likely than not employ managers subordinate to the Beneficiary within one year. 
In the alternative, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary will qualify as a personnel 
manager based on the supervision of professional subordinates within one year. To determine whether 
5 
a 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 U.S. baccalaureate degree or 
its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation"). Section 101(a)(32) 
of the Act, 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." Therefore, we must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather 
than the degree held by subordinate employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate 
employee does not automatically lead to the conclusion that an employee is employed in a professional 
capacity. 
The Petitioner contends that the subordinate sales and operations manager pos1t10ns qualify as 
professional positions, noting that they will be required "to hold a college degree in business 
administration or related filed." However, the Petitioner has not established that a bachelor's degree 
is actually necessary to perform the duties of its proposed sales and operations manager positions. As 
discussed, the Petitioner submitted a vague duty description for this position that does not credibly 
demonstrate that a bachelor's degree education is required to perform its duties. In fact, the Petitioner 
does not indicate in detail why such a bachelor's degree would be required for this position. Further, 
as noted, the Petitioner's hiring plans do not sufficiently establish that a level of managers with 
bachelor's degrees would be required during the first year. In fact, it appears likely that these proposed 
professionals would actually be providing its planned window, air conditioning, and mold remediation 
services after one year. As such, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it would likely employ 
professionals subordinate to the Beneficiary within the first year of its operations. 
In addition, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient credible business plans to demonstrate it would 
likely support the Beneficiary as a personnel manager within the first year. For instance, the Director 
requested that the Petitioner provide timetables and specific actions it would take during the first year 
to develop the business to support the Beneficiary's role. The Petitioner only submitted vague planned 
accomplishments, including indicating it would acquire "a vehicle and equipment," "build a strong 
online presence through a modem website and social media," "build [the] Company's image and 
reputation," and "focus on providing excellent customer service, [and] exceeding customer's 
expectations." However, there is little indication what vehicle or equipment it would purchase or how 
it would build a "modem website," utilize "social media," build the company's image, or provide 
"excellent customer service." The Petitioner's generic business plans could apply to any company 
acting in any industry and they provide little insight into the likelihood that it would sufficiently 
develop during the first year to support the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity. 
The Petitioner has also not sufficiently established the size of the investment in the new office. See 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(2). The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary's foreign employer 
"estimated a total capital investment of $50,000 to commence of the U.S. Entity." The Petitioner 
noted that the foreign employer had "already invested $26,000," that it "plans to make a second capital 
contribution of $15,000 upon approval of [the Beneficiary's visa]," and that a third contribution of 
$9,000 would be made "three (3) months after hiring the initial crew." In support of this assertion, the 
Petitioner provided two bank "customer receipts" reflecting the deposit of $4000 in January 2019 and 
another $16,200 in May 2019; however, there is little indication on these documents who sent this 
money and to where it was received. Further, these deposits amount to a little more than $20,000, not 
6 
the $26,000 the Petitioner claims it has already been invested. In addition, the Petitioner submitted 
bank account statements, one from April 2019 reflecting only $5484 and another from May 2019 
showing a balance of $5,916.73. Neither of these bank statements showed $26,000 ( or the asserted 
$50,000 for that matter) available to invest in the business. Regardless, even if the Petitioner had 
properly demonstrated that these investment amounts were provided, it is not clear from the submitted 
evidence how these amounts would be sufficient to successfully launch the business and support the 
Beneficiary in a managerial capacity within the first year. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would act in a 
managerial capacity within one year of an approval of the petition. 
III. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The next issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary is employed 
in a managerial or executive capacity abroad. Because of the dispositive effect of the above finding 
of ineligibility; namely, our affirmation of the Director's conclusion with respect to the Beneficiary's 
asserted U.S. managerial employment within one year, we will only briefly address the issue pertaining 
to his employment abroad. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary acted as the executive director of the foreign employer, a 
law firm based in Columbia, since 2008. The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary oversees a team 
of five professionals, including a senior attorney, a junior attorney, an agronomist, a technician in 
geographic information systems, and an accountant. The Petitioner described the foreign employer as 
"a boutique law firm, which has represented prestigious clients, such as agribusiness, agricultural 
companies, state entities, and private investors." 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary has "the ultimate responsibility for tracing the legal 
strategy of all legal cases and distributing the tasks for executing such strategy among his 
subordinates." It farther stated that the Beneficiary meets with his technical and legal team weekly 
and assigns and delegates responsibilities and explained that he "provides precise and detailed 
instructions ... on complex cases," monitors the work of his subordinates, performs performance 
reviews, and that he has the ultimate authority as to hiring, firing, promotions, transfers, and 
determination of employee bonuses. However, the Petitioner submitted little supporting 
documentation to substantiate the Beneficiary's oversight and management of a law firm and 
professional subordinates, or his claimed delegation of duties to them. This lack of supporting 
evidence is noteworthy considering the Petitioner contends the Beneficiary has been acting in his 
asserted managerial and executive capacity since 2008 and since it claimed he has been meeting with 
his subordinates on a weekly basis to delegate tasks. 
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary acts in a managerial or executive capacity abroad. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
7 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that: ( 1) the Beneficiary would 
be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States within one year; and (2) the 
Beneficiary is employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8