dismissed L-1A Case: Import And Wholesale

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13355824 
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: DEC. 17, 2020 
The Petitioner, describing itself as an "importing and wholesaling business" seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary in the United States as its chief executive officer (CEO) under the L-lA nonirnrnigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 10l(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 the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United 
States. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director overemphasized one portion of the 
Beneficiary's duties as non-qualifying, specifically negotiating contracts, and indicates that a majority 
of her duties qualify as managerial. The Petitioner further contends that the Director was mistaken as 
to its asserted organizational structure and states that the submitted evidence demonstrates that the 
Beneficiary would oversee subordinate supervisors . 
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-1 A nonirnrnigrant 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)(l5)(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 A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial capacity. The Petitioner does not claim on appeal that the Beneficiary 
would be employed in an executive capacity. 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. 
When examining the managerial 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 a managerial 
capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
A. Duties 
To be eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, the Petitioner must show that 
the Beneficiary will perform the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition at 
section 101(a)(44)(A)(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 managerial 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 managerial 
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 managerial, 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 stated that it "engages in international business, primarily import and wholesale" and 
that it "conducts market research and surveys different business sectors." The Petitioner farther 
indicated that it "contracts with business partners like retailer[ s] and distributors to promote sales" and 
"engage[ s] in trade shows" as well as utilizing "other marketing methods to advertise its products and 
services." The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary had acted as its CEO since November 2016 
and listed the following duties: 
Establishing Goals and Policies on the Operation of[the Petitioner! (40% of the time) 
• Establish overall business objectives, formulate financial goals, streamline business 
processes, and set company guidelines and policy through routine meetings with 
subordinate managers; 
• Supervise the market research and geographical industry study; 
2 
• Develop and revise [the] company business plan, and review reports from 
subordinate managers to evaluate the effectiveness in implementing the plan; 
• Establishing the company's performance goals; 
• Direct and review annual and quarterly budgets for the company, including 
purchases, shipping, labor, marketing, advertising, sales and public relations; 
• Establish the policy and system to share marketing and sales data with the parent 
company to increase revenue, efficiency, and overall customer satisfaction; 
• Confer with the [ foreign employer's] top management and board of directors to 
develop and implement optimal operational strategy in the U.S.; 
• Establish employment policies including but not limited to hiring, firing, and 
performance and compensation metrics; 
Directing the Management of(the Petitioner! (50% o{the time) 
• Oversee all subordinate employee's work in the development of key clients, 
customer service, logistics, and market analysis of industry segments and clients; 
• Supervise and direct overall sales strategies, review periodic reports from 
department managers, and provide guidance and directives; 
• Direct the formulation of an effective business transaction procedure and price 
strategy; 
• Inform the [ foreign parent company's] top management of significant financial and 
market trends and recommend appropriate action; 
• Establish and implement proper sales guidelines and goals for the company; create 
and implement effective marketing strategies to help company reach potential 
clientele; 
• Direct subordinate managers to recruit, hire train, dismiss or promote staff and 
establish training protocols for employees in accordance with company guidelines. 
Exercising Wide Latitude in Other Discretionary Decision-Making (10% of the time) 
• Exercise discretionary decision-making power on all major financial, budgeting 
and operational issues concerning [the Petitioner's] growth; 
• Exercise discretionary decision-making power on adjust the company structure; 
• Keep aware of business opportunities and suggest investments to the [ foreign parent 
company]. 
The Petitioner submitted generic duties for the Beneficiary that could apply to any manager acting in 
any business and industry and they add little insight into the actual nature of her asserted role. For 
instance, the Petitioner vaguely stated that the Beneficiary would be responsible for establishing 
"overall business objectives," developing "business plans," creating policies and systems, and 
directing "overall sales strategies." However, the Petitioner submitted few details and little credible 
supporting documentation to substantiate the Beneficiary's performance of qualifying managerial 
duties, such as the financial goals she formulated, business processes she streamlined, company 
guidelines and policies she set, or market research she supervised. Likewise, the Petitioner did not 
specify or sufficiently document the "performance goals" the Beneficiary established, "marketing, 
advertising, sales and public relations" she directed, "optimal operational strateg[ies ]" she 
implemented, or "key clients" she developed. 
3 
In addition, the Petitioner did not describe or properly document the "business transaction procedure[ s] 
and price strateg[ ies ]" the Beneficiary formulated, "proper sales guidelines and goals" she 
implemented, "effective marketing strategies" she put in place, or "major financial, budgeting and 
operational issues" she decided on. In fact, the actual nature of its business the Petitioner conducts 
and the products and services it provides is not clear from the Petitioner's vague descriptions of its 
business and the Beneficiary's duties. For example, the Petitioner indicated that it "contracts with 
business partners like retailer[ s] and distributors to promote sales" and "engage[ s] in trade shows," but 
it is not clear or documented what business, partners, retailers, distributors, or trade shows it discussed. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted some documentation in response to the Director's 
request for evidence (RFE) meant to corroborate the Beneficiary's managerial role; however, this 
evidence was not sufficiently credible and specific to substantiate her asserted capacity. For instance, 
the Petitioner provided two translated reports from April and May 2019 reflecting its claimed sales 
manager communicating to the Beneficiary the "total value of goods purchased" and receipt of these 
goods from an unexplained vendor. However, these reports are addressed to the Beneficiary as 
"general manager" despite her asserted position as CEO of the company; farther, these documents are 
missing credible details such as what goods were purchased. 
The Petitioner also provided a "Sales Commission System" document it claims was issued by the 
Beneficiary to her subordinate sales manager and marketing manager. But again, this document did 
not credibly demonstrate the Beneficiary's performance of managerial duties. First, this commission 
system document was undated and included no specifics related to the Petitioner's actual business 
activities, only vaguely directing that commissions "of the basic business shall be 5%." Likewise, the 
Petitioner submitted "Rules and Regulations" it asserted were promulgated by the Beneficiary; but 
these were again undated and made only generic declarations. For example, this generic policy 
document stated that its objective was "to provide the employees with [a] working environment 
beneficial to the physical and mental health" and noted that employees should "abide by laws and 
discipline, maintain the social public order consciously." These rules and regulations the Petitioner 
claimed were promulgated by the Beneficiary included no specifics or indication as to the actual 
business it conducts, any business specific policies, and could have applied to any company operating 
in any industry. In sum, the supporting documentation provided by the Petitioner did not credibly 
demonstrate the Beneficiary's primary performance of managerial-level duties and her asserted 
delegation of tasks to subordinate supervisors and managers. The Petitioner must resolve 
inconsistencies and ambiguities 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). 
Although we do not expect the Petitioner to detail and document every managerial task performed by 
the Beneficiary, the near complete lack of detail and credible documentation related to her asserted 
managerial duties is noteworthy since it claims she has been acting in this role in the United States for 
approximately three years prior to the date the petition was filed. 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.2d41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the organization, the fact that she will 
manage or direct a business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an 
4 
intracompany transferee in a managerial capacity within the meaning of section 101(a)(44)(A) of the 
Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a position be "primarily" 
managerial 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 her actual duties would be 
primarily managerial in nature. 
B. Staffing 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary acts in a managerial capacity based on her 
oversight of subordinate supervisors. The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for 
both "personnel managers" and "function managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 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." Id. 
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)(1)(ii)(B)(3). 
Since the Petitioner only contends that the Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel manager on appeal, we 
will not analyze whether she qualifies as a function manager. Furthermore, the Petitioner does not 
contend on appeal that the Beneficiary would qualify based on her supervision of professional 
subordinates 1; as such we will only consider whether she would qualify as a personnel manager based 
on her supervision of subordinate supervisors as of the date the petition was filed. 
In support of the petition the Petitioner provided an organizational chart reflecting five total 
employees, including the Beneficiary, while in response to the Director's RFE, it emphasized an 
expanded chart showing eight total employees as of December 2019. 2 However, we note that the 
Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been 
satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
Therefore, we will only analyze the Petitioner's asserted organizational structure as of the date the 
1 To determine whether 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 IO I (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. However, here, the Petitioner 
does not assert on appeal that the Beneficiary's subordinates qualify as professionals, nor does it indicate that they hold 
bachelor's degrees or that they require them to perform their asserted positions. 
2 The petition was filed on September 3, 2019. 
5 
petition was filed. At the time the petition was filed, the Petitioner provided an organizational chart 
reflecting that the Beneficiary oversaw a sales manager and a marketing manager. The sales manager 
was further shown to oversee two sales technicians. 
Upon review, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary 
would qualify as a personnel manager based on her supervision of subordinate supervisors as of the 
date the petition was filed. First, we note that the Petitioner's organizational chart as of the date the 
petition reflected only one manager with subordinates, the claimed sales manager. Further, the 
Petitioner did not clearly articulate or submit supporting documentation to demonstrate the actual 
nature of its business, only vaguely indicating that it was involved in "international business, primarily 
import and wholesale." For example, the claimed 2019 reports from the asserted sales manager to the 
Beneficiary did not clearly indicate the nature of the goods purchased by the Petitioner, nor did any 
other supporting evidence on the record. As such, it is not clear from the record what the asserted 
sales manager and the claimed subordinate sales technicians sold or would sell. This lack of clarity 
and evidence leaves question as to whether the Beneficiary oversees subordinate supervisors as 
asserted. 
In addition, the Petitioner also provided a generic duty description for the claimed sales manager that 
does not properly corroborate a supervisory position subordinate to the Beneficiary. For example, 
there is little indication as to the "sales and customer support budgets" the claimed sales manager 
prepared, "sales goals and set incentives" they worked on, or "pricing and discount policies" they set. 
Indeed, as we have noted, the goods bought and sold by the Petitioner is not even specifically 
articulated or documented. In addition, the Petitioner provided no credible evidence reflecting the 
Beneficiary delegating duties to her asserted supervisory subordinates or to substantiate her personnel 
authority over them. See Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. The Petitioner also did not submit duty 
descriptions for the claimed sales technicians shown as reporting to the subordinate sales manager. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would qualify as a personnel manager 
based on her supervision of subordinate supervisors and managers. 
On appeal, the Petitioner further cites Mars Jewelers, Inc. v. INS, 702 F. Supp. 1570, 1574 (N.D. Ga. 
1988) to stand for the proposition that the small size of a petitioner should not, by itself, undermine a 
finding that a beneficiary will act primarily in a managerial capacity. First, we note that the Petitioner 
has not furnished evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in 
Mars Jewelers, Inc. With respect to Mars Jewelers, we are not bound to follow the published decision 
of a U.S. district court in matters arising within the same district. Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 
(BIA 1993). Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due 
consideration when it is properly before us, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of 
law. Id. at 719. 
Regardless, in Mars Jewelers, Inc., the courts emphasized that the former INS should not place undue 
emphasis on the size of a petitioner's business operations when reviewing whether a Beneficiary 
would act in managerial or executive capacity. We have long interpreted the regulations and statute 
to prohibit discrimination against small or medium-size businesses. However, consistent with both 
the statute and regulations, the Petitioner is required to establish that the Beneficiary's position consists 
primarily of managerial duties and that it would have sufficient personnel to relieve the Beneficiary 
from performing operational and/or administrative tasks. 
6 
Here, our conclusion is based on several evidentiary deficiencies in the record and does not rest solely 
on the size of the Petitioner. For instance, as we have discussed, the Petitioner submitted a generic 
duty description for the Beneficiary that did not credibly articulate her actual daily managerial duties. 
Further, it provided little credible documentation to substantiate the Beneficiary's delegation of duties 
or her oversight of subordinate supervisors. Likewise, it provided an unclear picture of its actual 
business operations, namely what it imported and sold in the United States. Lastly, the Petitioner did 
not submit a sufficient duty description for the Beneficiary's lone claimed supervisory subordinate as 
of the date the petition was filed, nor did it provide duty descriptions for this sole asserted manager's 
subordinates. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would act in a 
managerial capacity under an approved petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7