dismissed L-1A Case: Hotel Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12485957 
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 : JAN. 14, 2021 
The Petitioner, a motel, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary in the United States as its president, 
director under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees . Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not 
establish that (1) the Petitioner was doing business as defined by the regulations; and (2) the 
Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. On appeal, 
the Petitioner contends it has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner is doing 
business and that the Beneficiary would act primarily in an executive capacity in the United States . 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal because 
the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's position in the U.S. is in a managerial or executive 
capacity. Since the identified basis for denial is dis positive of the Petitioner 's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner 's arguments regarding the whether the U.S . Petitioner is doing 
business. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to 
make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also 
Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on 
appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, 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). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The sole issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial or 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. 
"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. 
When examining the executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly describe the 
duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in an executive capacity. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
A. Duties 
To be eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as an executive, the Petitioner must show 
that the Beneficiary will perform the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition at 
section 101(a)(44)(B)(i)-(iv) of the Act. If the record does not establish that the offered position meets 
all four of these elements, we cannot conclude that it is a qualifying executive position. 
If the Petitioner establishes that the offered position meets all elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, the Petitioner must 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). In determining whether a given beneficiary's 
duties will be primarily executive, we consider the petitioner's description of the job duties, the 
company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence 
of other employees to relieve the 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. 
The Petitioner provided the following duties to be performed by the Beneficiary as follows: 
The duties of the Sole Director of the Board of Directors are as follows: 
1. [The Beneficiary] spends approximately 30% of his work time on the following 
tasks: 
a. Establish [the Petitioner's] goals, policies and procedures; 
b. Analyze business forecasts and sets company budgets accordingly; 
c. Anticipates the company's future needs; 
2 
d. Establishes and maintains security for the safety of the hotel's employee and 
customers; and 
e. Reviews and improves employment policies, including benefits. 
2. [The Beneficiary] spends approximately 30% of his work time on the following 
tasks: 
a. Developing strategies for expanding the hotel's market; 
b. Determining room rates for each season; 
c. Restructuring the management and other personnel positions; 
d. Studies hotel upgrade feasibility and costs for guest rooms and other facilities; 
e. Monitors the upgrade process as the hotel upgrades its guest rooms and adds 
other facilities; 
f. Evaluates the advantages and drawbacks of joining the hotel franchise group; 
and 
g. Determines the hotel's future business directions in general. 
The duties [ the Beneficiary] has as the President of [ the Petitioner] are as follows: 
1. He spends approximately 20% of his work time on the following tasks 
a. Supervising and overseeing the hotel's upgrade project and its progress; 
b. Engaging consultants, accountants, attorneys and other professional services he 
deems necessary for the company's business; 
c. Hires and terminates employees based on their performance; 
d. Reviews employee performance for adjustment of salary; 
e. Represents [the Petitioner] for necessary supplies, building maintenance and 
repa1rs. 
2. He spends approximately 20% of his time overseeing the day to day operation of 
the Hotel including the following tasks: 
a. Determining and defining employee job descriptions and duties; 
b. Supervising the general manager and other front desk employees; 
c. Enforcing the security rules and policies for the safety of hotel staff and 
customers; 
d. Administers rules and policies for employee benefits and vacations; and 
e. Implements company business policies at large. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner explained that the hotel is undergoing 
a major renovation and it closed in July 2019 in order to complete the renovations. In addition, the 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's duties have "changed a bit because the engineer hired to oversee 
the renovation has become ill and is unable to fully participate in the work, so [the Beneficiary] has 
taken a more active role in the supervision of the renovation, taking a greater percentage of his time." 
The Petitioner also explained that this change "resulted in a shift away from staffing duties, which will 
arise again at the conclusion of the renovation as the hotel business gets going again." Thus, the 
Beneficiary will only supervise the general manager until the hotel re-opens. 
3 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided a more detailed breakdown of the main duties to be 
performed by the Beneficiary. For the sake of brevity, we will not quote the most recent version; 
however, we note that we have closely reviewed and considered the duties. The Petitioner stated that 
the "vast majority of these duties are executive in nature, involving financial and market analysis, 
setting policies, procedures and/or goals, negotiating contracts and directing the management of the 
hotel through delegation to lower level employees." 
Although the duties appear to be similar from the initial job description to the response to the RFE, 
the Beneficiary's directive has drastically changed. For example, when the petition was filed, the 
Beneficiary oversaw running a hotel and supervising hotel employees but in response to the RFE, the 
hotel is no longer in operation and it is undergoing a large renovation. At that point, the Beneficiary 
is now in charge of supervising the renovation and is no longer operating a hotel. The purpose of the 
RFE is to elicit farther information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been 
established. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). When responding to an RFE, the Petitioner cannot offer a new 
position to the Beneficiary, or materially change a position's title, its level of authority within the 
organizational hierarchy, its associated job responsibilities, or the requirements of the position. The 
Petitioner must establish that the position offered to the Beneficiary when the petition was filed merits 
classification for the benefit sought. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248,249 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1978). 
Further, the Petitioner has provided few details and little supporting evidence to support that the 
Beneficiary would likely be primarily engaged in executive-level tasks. Whether the Beneficiary is 
an executive employee turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained its burden of proving that their 
duties are "primarily" executive. See sections 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. Here, the Petitioner does not 
sufficiently document what proportion of the Beneficiary's duties would be executive functions and 
what proportion would be non-qualifying. The Petitioner lists the Beneficiary's duties as including 
several administrative or operational tasks. For this reason, we cannot determine whether the 
Beneficiary would primarily perform the duties of an executive under an approved petition. See IKEA 
US, Inc. v. US. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
The Petitioner submitted duty descriptions for the Beneficiary that do not credibly demonstrate that 
he would primarily perform executive tasks. The Beneficiary's duties include several general duties 
that can be performed for any company such as establish the Petitioner's business goals, policies, and 
procedures; developing strategies for expanding the hotel's market; hires and terminates employees 
based on their performance; and, determine and define employee job descriptions and duties and 
supervise the General Manager. 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). 
In addition, several of the duties are non-qualifying operational duties such as determining room rates 
for each season; studies hotel upgrade feasibility and costs for guest rooms and other facilities; 
monitors the upgrade process as the hotel upgrades its guest rooms and adds other facilities. These 
duties involve the day to day operations of front desk activities including bookings, processing 
upgrades and the release of guest rooms. Further, the Beneficiary's non-qualifying operational duties 
are that he will visit and research hotels in the surrounding area to determine market conditions; he 
4 
utilizes his experience managing a factory in China to look at market conditions and analyze forecasts 
and budgets supplied by the General Manager; analyzes the surrounding available resources, in 
particular looking at future events in the area such as conferences, sports events to determine the needs 
to the hotel renovation and future plans; conducting field research to understand the advantages and 
disadvantages of surrounding competitors; and, analyze market conditions to determine the 
appropriate rates based on the time of year, events occurring in the area. All these duties appear to be 
marketing and sales duties, and the Beneficiary will not supervise any marketing or sales departments. 
The lack of subordinate employees involved in marketing and sales brings into question how much 
time the Beneficiary can actually devote to executive duties. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will spend approximately 20 percent of his time 
overseeing the day to day operation of the Hotel including supervision of other front desk employees; 
enforcing the security rules and policies for the safety of hotel staff and customers; and, administers 
rules and policies for employee benefits and vacations. It appears that these operations duties deal 
with security operations and human resources operations which are operational duties and not 
primarily executive in nature. 
The duties are also focused on the renovation of the hotel and it appears that the Beneficiary will act 
like a project manager for the renovation. He will spend more than 30 percent of his time "supervising 
and overseeing the hotel's upgrade and renovation and its progress." Further, several of the job duties 
involve hiring employees, developing employment policies, maintain security for employees, hire and 
terminate employees, review employee performance. However, since the hotel is closed for 
renovations, it currently employs only the general manager and it does not appear that the Beneficiary 
will actually perform these stated duties without the hotel employees. In addition, these tasks involve 
the human resources operations of the Petitioner and are not primarily executive in nature. 
The prevalence of the non-qualifying duties throughout the Beneficiary's duty description indicates 
that it is more likely he would be directly engaged in these tasks alongside with the general manager 
rather than primarily delegating these functions. 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted a signed franchise agreement between the Petitioner and I I I The Petitioner did not submit sufficient information regar'-d-in-g-th_e_. 
Beneficiary's role with the hotel when it operations as a franchise when the hotel re-opens. The 
Petitioner must resolve this ambiguity in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the organization, the fact that he will 
manage or direct a business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an 
intracompany transferee in an executive capacity within the meaning of section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a position be "primarily" 
executive in nature. Id. The Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day 
operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making; 
however, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that his actual duties would be 
primarily executive in nature. 
5 
B. Staffing 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is 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 noted, the Petitioner claims the Beneficiary would act in an executive capacity in the United States. 
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, and 
that person's authority to direct the organization. Section 101(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. Inherent to the definition, 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. 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart reflecting that the Beneficiary would supervise a 
general manager, who in tum supervises a housekeeper, a maintenance employee, a secretary, and a 
warehouse manager. The Petitioner did not explain why a hotel would need a warehouse manager. 
Further, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner explained that the hotel was closed since it was 
undergoing a major renovation, and the only current employees are the Beneficiary and the general 
manager. As noted above, since the Beneficiary and the general manager are the only two employees, 
it appears that the Beneficiary would be performing several non-qualifying tasks such as managing 
the renovation, creating budgets for the renovation, negotiating contracts, sales and marketing duties, 
and human resources duties. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not provide a detailed description of the duties to be performed by the 
general manager. It is not clear how the general manager would relieve the Beneficiary from 
performing the day-to-day operational duties. In addition, since the only other employee is the general 
manager, it is reasonable to conclude that the general manager was not acting in a supervisory capacity. 
In light of the other documentary evidence also reflecting that the Beneficiary was performing various 
other non-qualifying operational tasks for the Petitioner, it is likely that he would have been engaged 
as a first line supervisor of the general manager, rather than as an executive primarily performing 
higher-level tasks related to goals and policies. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would act in an 
executive capacity in the United States. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
6 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7