dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Distribution

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Oflce ofAdmrnlstratlve Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
' kkeiitifying data deleted lo 
prevent clear] y unwarrana 
 U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
invasion of personal privw 
 Services 
WfPtt.VC COPY I 
FILE: WAC 08 200 50586 OFFICE: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
WK19an 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)( 15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5 for the 
specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a 
Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 days of the 
decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Pe p Rhew 
chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
> 
, WAC 08 200 50586 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a California corporation, states that it is engaged in the import and 
distribution of wood flooring and furniture. It claims to be a subsidiary of Yihua Enterprise Group Co., Ltd., 
located in Guangdong, China. The instant beneficiary was previously the beneficiary of an L-1A 
classification petition filed by the petitioner, which was approved on April 30, 2008 for a three-year period 
commencing on June 1,2008 (WAC 08 146 50866). The beneficiary was subsequently admitted to the United 
States in B-2 status on June 25, 2008. The petitioner filed the instant amended petition on July 11, 2008 
seeking to change her status from B-2 to L-1 A, so that she could assume her duties as deputy general manager 
of the U.S. company for the period previously granted. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that the beneficiary will 
be employed by the U.S. entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; or (2) that the beneficiary has 
one year of continuous full-time employment with the foreign entity within the three years preceding the 
filing of the petition. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's proposed duties in 
the United States clearly qualify as executive or managerial in nature. The petitioner also submits additional 
documentary evidence to establish that the beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity for the requisite 
time period. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one 
continuous year within the three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States. In addition, the beneficiary must seek to enter the U.S. temporarily to continue rendering his or her 
services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate in a managerial, executive or specialized knowledge 
capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) 
 Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the 
alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) 
 Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 
8 
WAC 08 200 50586 
Page 3 
(iii) 
 Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time employment 
abroad with a qualifLing organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
(iv) 
 Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training and employment qualifies himher to perform the intended 
services in the United States; however the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The first issue to be addressed in this matter is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary will be 
employed by the U.S. entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily-- 
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the organization; 
(ii) 
 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; 
(iii) 
 if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the 
authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel 
actions (such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee 
is directly supervised, functions at a senior level within the organizational 
hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and 
(iv) 
 exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function 
for which the employee has authority. 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)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 l(a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily-- 
(i) 
 directs the management of the organization or a major component or function 
of the organization; 
L 
WAC 08 200 50586 
Page 4 
(ii) establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or 
function; 
(iii) 
 exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) 
 receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, 
the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, on July 11, 2008. The petitioner 
indicated that the beneficiary would serve as general deputy manager of the U.S. company, which claimed to 
have 17 employees as of the date of filing. The petitioner submitted a copy of the Form I-797B Approval 
Notice for the beneficiary's previous L-1A petition and requested that the amended petition be approved for 
the same dates. The petitioner did not submit supporting documentation, apart from evidence of the 
beneficiary's current B-2 nonimmigrant status. 
The director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE) on October 28, 2008, in which he requested that 
the petitioner submit, among other items, the following: (1) a detailed description of the beneficiary's 
proposed duties, including a description of the beneficiary's daily, weekly and monthly activities, and the 
percentage of time she will spend on each of the listed duties; (2) a detailed organizational chart for the U.S. 
company which includes the names, job titles, job duties, educational level, annual salaries and immigration 
status for all U.S. employees; (3) copies of California Forms DE-6, Quarterly Wage Reports, for the last eight 
quarters; and (4) copies of the U.S. company's payroll summary and Forms W-2 evidencing wages paid to 
employees. 
In a response dated November 24, 2008, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary's "specific duties" would 
include the following: 
1) General business management. (1 0%) 
Knowledge of business and office management principles which may include 
development and implementation of policies and procedures, asset 
management, resource allocation and metric collection and reporting. 
Coordinate and maintain open lines of communication regarding business 
issues between various groups within investment management and research. 
2) Business process and analysis and project management. (15%) 
Accountable for generating innovative ideas and solutions to create, improve, 
or enhance newlexisting furniture and flooring product services and processes, 
conducting and evaluating customer needs assessments, evaluating customer 
satisfaction and meeting quality standards for service. 
Plan, develops and facilitates changes in procedures, forms and practices, work 
flows and personnel assignments. 
L 
WAC 08 200 50586 
Page 5 
3) Be responsible for establishing and maintaining all company standards including 
guest service and sales. (20%) 
Oversee Sales Departments, supervise two nd 
and be responsible for the various tasks involved in the overall 
operation including measuring business trends, maximizing and driving sales, 
freight flow, and controlling expenses and shortages. 
Ensure that each guest receives outstanding guest service by providing a guest 
friendly environment which includes greeting and acknowledging every guest, 
maintaining outstanding company standards, solid product knowledge and all 
other com~onents. 
going purchasing contract progress and development on a regular basis. 
Responsible for performance appraisal life cycle, developing, coaching, 
mentoring, hiringlterminating of subordinates. 
4) Review and analyze quarterly and yearly operation and managerial reports on the 
business development progress in the U.S. and submit the reports to the parent company 
for reference and discussion in board meeting. (1 5%) 
Review sales analysis reports, balance sheet statement and income statement 
with VP, General Manager, and Sales Managers and see if each product's 
inventory will be sufficient according to the sales analysis report "by product." 
Develop and maintain policies to ensure accurate accounting and reliable 
internal controls. 
5) Review current company's business information and financial data, as well as potential 
partners and investors' documentation on their financials in bilingual format (English 
and Chinese) prepared by BusinesslFinancial Underwriter. Make suggestion on foreign 
investment according to the documents (1 0%) 
Examine company's business and financial documentation. The documents to 
be covered include but are not limited to: balance sheet, income statement, 
company introduction, stock analysis and etc. 
6) Supervise Sales Managers and participate into all business negotiations with major 
customers and ensure of favorable terms and condition in all business contracts. 
(20%) 
Effectively [sic] in representing and negotiating the company's position on 
business/legal issues both internally and externally. 
Develop contracts/amendments/notifications and collaborate with sales team in 
negotiations with buyers. 
Ensure that all contracts are reflected accurately in the company business 
system and are set up properly for correct revenue recognition; ensure that all 
terms and conditions agreed to can be supported by the business system prior 
to signoff by working with Sales Support; and will present contract liabilities 
to management and present contracts to proper signing authorities. 
WAC 08 200 50586 
Page 6 
7) Prepare operational and regulatory reports required by law, regulations and board of 
directors. (5%) 
8) Oversee three departmental managers/professionals and seven subordinates and 
evaluating their performance. (5%) 
In addition, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary's "daily and monthly duties" would include the 
following: 
1. 
 Conduct weekly meeting with the sales managers, local CSR supervisor and other sales 
persons to solve product related issues and try to find solutions to the problems. (1 5%) 
2. Hold product development discussions with sales managers regarding possible 
improvements and development of new products or expanding existing product lines. 
(1 0%) 
3. 
 Review and discussion of weekly and monthly reports with Sales and Shipping 
departments to seek improvements or reward improved performance. (30%) 
a) Tuesdays: Sales Analysis Reports by customer, by product, and by salesperson. 
Review individual salesperson customer potentials, product selling volume, 
and overall performance. 
b) Wednesdays: Inventory Reports by products and by class. 
Review and determine if each product's inventory will be sufficient 
according to the sales analysis report "by product". 
Monitor inventory management and products in stock. 
Review returned products that have not yet been fixed or repaired. Make sure 
these products do not end up unwanted. 
c) Thursdays: Purchase Order Receipts by products. 
Review whether all ordered items have been received according to scheduled 
per sales/customer requests. If not, discuss possibilities for reimbursement to 
lower freight costs or possible loss of orders costs. 
4. 
 Meet with Business/Financial Underwriter on semi-monthly basis to explore investment 
environment, investment opportunity, conduct advantage and risk analysis, make 
investment suggestions to the management and ensure the investing operation meets the 
law and regulation (20%). 
5. 
 Evaluate employees' weeklylmonthly performance (I 0%) 
6. 
 Attend meetings with those vendors that may provide better pricings, distribution, and 
customers. (1 0%). 
The petitioner stated that the beneficiary's direct subordinates would include two sales managers (responsible 
for local and out-of-state furniture sales, respectively), and the warehouse and shipping manager. The 
petitioner submitted an organizational chart which indicates that the local sales manager supervises a local 
customer service representative supervisor and a customer service representative, while the out-of-state sales 
manager supervises one customer service representative. The chart also identifies sales "Rep Staff." The 
organizational chart indicates the warehouse and shipping manager oversees a shipping supervisor, inventory 
WAC 08 200 50586 
Page 7 
controller and shipping assistant. The chart shows a vacant production manager position, and a business1 
financial underwriter, who also holds the position of accounting assistant. A total of ten employees are 
depicted as being under the beneficiary's direct or indirect supervision. The petitioner also submitted brief job 
descriptions for all employees identified on the organizational chart. 
The petitioner submitted its California Forms DE-6, Quarterly Wage and Withholding Report, for 2007 and 
2008. As of July 2008, the month in which the petition was filed, the petitioner reported 17 employees, 
although that number decreased to 15 by September 2008. The quarterly wage report indicates that no wages 
were paid to the local customer service representative supervisor or to the local furniture sales customer 
service representative during the third quarter of 2008. The quarterly wage report also indicates that wages 
were paid to five employees who are not depicted on the organizational chart.' 
The director denied the petition on December 5, 2008, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that 
the beneficiary would be employed by the petitioner in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. In 
denying the petition, the director emphasized that the beneficiary's claimed duties are too broad and 
nonspecific to convey any understanding of her actual day-to-day activities, and included duties that are not 
clearly managerial in nature. The director acknowledged that the petitioner's organizational chart shows that 
several of the beneficiary's subordinates have managerial job titles; however, the director determined that the 
petitioner did not submit a sufficient explanation regarding the duties performed by the beneficiary's proposed 
subordinates. The director found insufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary would be primarily 
engaged in the direction and supervision of a subordinate staff of managers, supervisors or professionals. 
On appeal, the petitioner reiterates the position description previously provided and asserts that such duties 
are primarily managerial or executive in nature. Specifically, the petitioner states that the beneficiary's 
"proposed job duties involve direct management of the organization, establishment of the company goals and 
investment policies and exercising wide latitude in decision-making with respect to the company's operation 
and expansion." The petitioner further asserts that the beneficiary's proposed subordinates are "specialized 
workers such as the Investment Counsel or managerial level, such as the warehouse manager and sales 
manager." The petitioner re-submits the organizational chart and employee list submitted in response to the 
WE, and emphasizes that USCIS approved the L-1A petition filed on the beneficiary's behalf in April 2008. 
The petitioner also submits the minutes of a special meeting of the board of directors of the U.S. company, 
dated March 15, 2008, which indicates that the directors resolved at that time "to further establish more 
branch offices and warehouses throughout the United States in order to expand sales channels." The company 
directors stated that the expansion would involve "issues related to investment, finance, government policy, 
law and regulations," and that the beneficiary would be hired because she has a background in such areas. The 
directors further resolved "to set up a legal department and recruit 2-3 persons to fulfill responsibilities in 
expansion matters." 
Upon review, and for the reasons stated herein, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary would be 
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
I Among the employees who were absent from the organizational chart was, who was the 
beneficiary of an L-1A classification petition approved in April 2008 (WAC 08 142 53292). 
WAC 08 200 50586 
Page 8 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 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 
either in an executive or managerial capacity. Id. 
The position description the petitioner provided, while lengthy, was vague and failed to identify the specific 
duties the beneficiary would perform on a day-to-day basis that would qualify as managerial or executive in 
nature. For example the petitioner stated that the beneficiary will devote 10 percent of her time to "general 
business management" but did not adequately define the duties associated with this responsibility, instead 
indicating that the beneficiary will have "knowledge of business and office management principles," and be 
responsible to "maintain open lines of communication." The petitioner further stated that the beneficiary is 
responsible to "ensure that each guest receives outstanding guest service by providing a guest friendly 
environment which includes greeting and acknowledging every guest, maintaining outstanding company 
standards, solid product knowledge." This duty suggests that the beneficiary would be directly responsible for 
customer service or sales functions that occur on site at the petitioner's business premises. The petitioner 
claims to engage in wholesales only, and as such, would likely not have occasion to greet guests in its 
business environment. Therefore, it is not clear what these duties would entail within the context of the 
petitioner's business. Regardless, these "guest service" responsibilities do not appear to fall within the 
definitions of managerial or executive capacity. 
Similarly, the beneficiary's responsibilities for generating product and service development ideas, conducting 
and evaluating customers' needs, evaluating customer satisfaction, participating in business negotiations, 
collaborating with the sales team, developing contracts, meeting with vendors, reviewing returned products, 
monitoring products in stock, and preparing operational and regulatory reports are also duties that have not 
been shown to be clearly managerial or executive in nature, as it appears that the beneficiary would directly 
perform these duties rather than delegating such tasks to subordinate employees. In addition, while the 
petitioner indicates that the beneficiary will devote a total of 25 percent of her time to financial management 
duties such as reviewing balance sheets, income statements, and accounting policies, the AAO notes that the 
submitted organizational chart indicates that the petitioner has a separate finance department headed by a 
controller that is not under the beneficiary's authority. USCIS records show that the petitioner also filed a 
petition for a chief financial officer concurrently with the beneficiary's initial L-1 petition. In light of these 
circumstances, the AAO questions how much time the beneficiary would realistically be required to devote to 
financial management responsibilities. 
The nature of the beneficiary's position is further obscured by the petitioner's submission of two separate lists 
of duties accompanied by two separate breakdowns of her proposed duties, one purporting to describe her 
"daily and monthly duties" and one purporting to describe her "specific duties." Since the petitioner indicates 
that both different sets of duties will require 100 percent of the beneficiary's time, it is difficult to determine 
what duties she will primarily perform on a day-to-day basis. As noted above, both position descriptions 
include several duties that would be considered operational or administrative, rather than managerial, tasks. 
The actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. 
Supp. 1 103, 1 108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
WAC 08 200 50586 
Page 9 
Finally, the AAO notes that, on appeal, the petitioner has submitted a corporate resolution issued in March 
2008, indicating that the role the beneficiary is intended to fill in the United States would be related to the 
petitioner's expansion activities. Specifically, the petitioner's officers determined that the purpose of the 
beneficiary's transfer is in connection with the petitioner's planned expansion activities and "issues related to 
investment, finance, government policy, law and regulations." The information contained in the resolution 
suggests that the beneficiary would be placed in a newly established legal department that would be staffed in 
the future. There is no indication in the meeting minutes that the petitioner intended to transfer the 
beneficiary to the United States to serve in a deputy general management position responsible for oversight of 
the sales and warehouse departments. 
Overall, the petitioner has provided three varying accounts of the beneficiary's proposed position. The AAO is 
not in a position to determine which, if any, most accurately reflects the nature of the role. It is incumbent 
upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any 
attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
As stated in the statute, the beneficiary must be primarily performing duties that are managerial or executive. 
See sections 10 1 (a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. Furthermore, the petitioner bears the burden of documenting 
what portion of the beneficiary's duties will be managerial or executive and what proportion will be non- 
managerial or non-executive. Republic of Transkei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Given the 
lack of a detailed, consistent description of the beneficiary's duties and the amount of time she will devote to 
qualifying duties on a day-to-day basis, the record does not demonstrate that the beneficiary will be employed 
in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner's primary argument in support of the beneficiary's claimed managerial or executive capacity is 
its claim that she will supervise "specialized workers" and management-level personnel. The statutory 
definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function managers." See 
section 10 1 (a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 101 (a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii). 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)(iv) 
of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(1)(1)(ii)(B)(2). 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. 5 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(B)(3). 
The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary's direct subordinates are two sales managers responsible for local 
and out-of-state furniture sales, and a warehouse and shipping manager. In comparing the petitioner's Form 
DE-6 for the quarter in which the petition was filed, and its organizational chart, it is evident that the two 
employees claimed to be reporting to the local sales manager were not employed at the time of filing. The 
petitioner claims that the petitioner utilizes the services of outside sales representatives, but no evidence has 
been submitted in support of this claim. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
WAC 08 200 50586 
Page 10 
1972)). Overall, the petitioner has documented the employment of a total of three sales staff (two managers 
and one customer service representative), responsible for furniture sales. The petitioner has not documented 
the employment of any staff responsible for sales of wood flooring, the company's other main product line. 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) reviews the totality of the record, including descriptions of a beneficiary's duties and his or 
her subordinate employees, the nature of the petitioner's business, the employment and remuneration of 
employees, and any other facts contributing to a complete understanding of a beneficiary's actual role in a 
business. The evidence must substantiate that the duties of the beneficiary and his or her subordinates 
correspond to their placement in an organization's structural hierarchy; artificial tiers of subordinate 
employees and inflated job titles are not probative and will not establish that an organization is sufficiently 
complex to support an executive or manager position. An individual whose primary duties are those of a 
first-line supervisor will not be considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of his or her 
supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional. Section 101 (a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. 
The AAO acknowledges that two of the beneficiary's subordinates have the job title "sales manager." An 
employee will not, however, be considered to be a supervisor simply because of a job title, or because he or 
she is arbitrarily placed on an organizational chart in a position superior to another employee. Given the 
structure of the sales departments, and the petitioner's failure to establish who is performing the day-to-day 
furniture and flooring sales, it cannot be concluded that the sales managers are primarily performing 
supervisory or managerial duties. In addition, the AAO notes that the job descriptions for both sales managers 
indicate that they are required to "maintain excellent business knowledge with respect to the paint industry." 
As discussed above, the petitioner sells furniture and wood flooring products. The reference to the "paint 
industry" raises questions as to whether the submitted job descriptions accurately reflect the employees' 
duties. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the 
reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582,591 (BIA 1988). 
Furthermore, some of the beneficiary's described duties in relation to the sales function are more akin to those 
of a first-line supervisor that those of an employee who manages multiple tiers of subordinate sales staff. For 
example, the beneficiary is responsible to "collaborate with sales team in negotiations with buyers," and 
"review individual salesperson customer potentials, product selling volume and overall performance. The 
petitioner also indicates that beneficiary is responsible to "present contract liabilities to management" and 
"present contracts to proper signing authorities," which suggests that she does not have the authority to sign 
off on contracts herself. In light of the above, the AAO is not persuaded that the beneficiary will be primarily 
supervising management-level sales staff or exercising a high level of discretionary authority over sales 
matters. 
The beneficiary's other claimed subordinate, the warehouse and shipping manager, does appear to supervise 
lower-level personnel in the shipping department. However, the job descriptions submitted for the beneficiary 
suggest that she would spend no more than 10 percent of her time overseeing warehousing, shipping and 
inventory functions. The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary will instruct the warehouse manager to 
submit reports summarizing purchase contracts. On the other hand, the petitioner states that the beneficiary 
will personally review and determine sufficiency of product inventory, monitor inventory and products in 
WAC 08 200 50586 
Page 11 
stock, review returned products, and review whether all ordered items have been received by customers on 
schedule, rather than delegating these non-managerial duties to the warehouse manager or other staff in the 
warehouse and shipping department. 
Overall, the record does not establish that the beneficiary's primary duties will be directing and controlling a 
subordinate staff of managerial or supervisory employees. In evaluating whether the beneficiary manages 
professional employees, the AAO must evaluate whether the subordinate positions require a baccalaureate 
degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. Section 101(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 
1101(a)(32), states that "[tlhe 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." The term "profession" contemplates knowledge or learning, not merely skill, of an advanced 
type in a given field gained by a prolonged course of specialized instruction and study of at least 
baccalaureate level, which is a realistic prerequisite to entry into the particular field of endeavor. Matter of 
Sea, 19 I&N Dec. 8 17 (Comm. 1988); Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 3 5 (R.C. 1 968); Matter of Shin, 1 1 I&N 
Dec. 686 (D.D. 1966). 
Therefore, the AAO must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree held 
by a 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 as that term is 
defined above. Here, the petitioner indicates that the beneficiary's direct subordinates have at least a 
bachelor's degree. However, the petitioner has not established that a bachelor's degree is actually necessary, 
for example, to perform the described duties relating to the sales and warehouse functions. 
The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the work of a 
subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" within the 
organization. See section 10 l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 l(a)(44)(A)(ii). The term "essential 
function" is not defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims that the beneficiary is managing an 
essential function, the petitioner must furnish a detailed position description that describes the duties to be 
performed in managing the essential function, i.e. identifies the function with specificity, articulates the 
essential nature of the function, and establishes the proportion of the beneficiary's daily duties attributed to 
managing the essential function. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(ii). In addition, the petitioner's description of the 
beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary manages the function rather than perfoms the 
duties related to the function. The petitioner has not articulated a claim that the beneficiary will manage an 
essential function in her proposed role as deputy general manager. The fact that she is claimed to oversee two 
departments of the company does not establish that she should be deemed a "function manager" responsible 
for managing the sales or warehouse functions. Furthermore, as discussed above, the petitioner has not 
submitted a description of the beneficiary's duties sufficient to establish that her duties would be primarily 
managerial in nature. 
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 10 l(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 l(a)(44)(B). 
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 organization must have a subordinate level of 
WAC 08 200 50586 
Page 12 
managerial employees for the beneficiary to direct and 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. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the 
beneficiary's proposed position will be in an executive capacity, but offers no support for this claim. Upon 
review, the AAO finds no evidence that the beneficiary's proposed role would be primarily focused on the 
broad goals and policies of the organization. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary would be employed 
in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The second issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary has at 
least one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three 
years preceding the filing of the petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
The petitioner stated on Form 1-129 that the beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity from February 
2007 until February 2008. As noted above, the petitioner did not submit supporting documentation with the 
initial filing. 
In the request for evidence issued on October 28, 2008, the director requested that the petitioner explain why 
the beneficiary "did not appear for her interview for her L-1 visa in China and entered the U.S. in B-2 status 
instead." The director also requested details and documentation regarding any visa refusals by a U.S. 
consular official in China. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary has never been refused a visa. With respect to 
the beneficiary's entry to the United States in B-2 status, the petitioner stated: 
The alien beneficiary has been busy with several China domestic business trips and business 
conference recently and often traveled around, which left her no time to appear for the L-1 
visa interview in China. In addition, her supervisor in China forgot to notify her that the L-1A 
application filed by us was approved on April 24,2008. 
In denying the petition, the director stated: 
The record does not establish that the beneficiary has met the "one continuous year" 
requirement for L-1 classification. Although the petitioner claims that the beneficiary was 
employed in an executive or managerial capacity for one continuous year, the record does not 
support the petitioner's assertion. It appears the beneficiary attempted to avoid a consular 
interview after the L-1A petition WAC-08-146-50866 was approved. The petitioner's 
explanation that the beneficiary's supervisor in China "forgot to notify her that the L-1A 
application was approved" is not believable. The more likely reason for not interviewing for 
an L-1A visa is that it would have revealed the beneficiary to have neither the experience nor 
training to perform the duties of an executive or manager. Instead of obtaining an L-1A visa 
WAC 08 200 50586 
Page 13 
at the Guangzhou consulate, the beneficiary entered the U.S. as a B-2 visitor. Another 
inconsistency is that at the consular interview for her B-2 visa, the beneficiary indicated she 
was a university student. This contradicts the claim that she was an employee of the parent 
company. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary has held the position of Deputy Manager with its Chinese 
parent company since February 2007, and that she started working for the foreign entity in September 2006. 
Specifically, the petitioner states: 
Chinese universities require all students to partake in practical training during their last year 
in order to graduate. [The beneficiary] did her practical training internship with our parent 
company, and our parent company promoted her to Deputy Manager or Assistant Manager of 
the Management Department in February 2007 due to her performance and promise. 
The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's B-1/B-2 visa application was prepared and submitted by a travel 
agency on behalf of the beneficiary, and that the error, i.e., indicating that the beneficiary was merely a 
university student, was made by the third party. The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary has pursued her 
studies as a university student, and later as a law student at Sun-Yat-Sen University "concurrently working for 
our parent company and pursuing her study after work." 
The petitioner stated that it is attaching the beneficiary's salary record to establish that she has been employed 
by the foreign entity for the requisite time period. The attached documents, "Management Department 
Employee Salary Record," appear to be for the period from February 2008 until November 2008. The 
petitioner also submits an attendance record pertaining to the beneficiary for the month of August 2007. 
The petitioner has also provided a signed statement from the beneficiary, who confirms that she received her 
bachelor's degree in law in July 2007 and enrolled in graduate school in August 2007. She states that she 
served as an intern for the foreign entity beginning in September 2006, and was promoted to the position of 
Vice Manager in February 2007. She further states that, prior to her graduation in July 2007, she devoted 
most of her time to the job with the foreign entity, which decided to send her to the United States in January 
2008. The beneficiary does not comment on her B-2 visa application. 
Finally, the petitioner submits: (1) an "Employee (Recruitment) Information Card" pertaining to the 
beneficiary, which indicates that the foreign entity agreed "to arrange practical training in management 
department" beginning on September 9, 2006; and (2) an appointment letter from the foreign entity naming 
the beneficiary to the position of Vice Manager of Management Department for the period February 1, 2007 
until December 3 1,2009. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has completed one year of continuous, 
full-time employment with the foreign entity. 
The AAO notes that the fact that the beneficiary was a university student during the dates in which she is 
claimed to have been employed in a managerial capacity with the foreign entity, at a minimum, raises 
questions as to whether the beneficiary's employment with the foreign entity was on a full-time basis. 
WAC 08 200 50586 
Page 14 
Furthermore, there is insufficient objective evidence of the beneficiary's full-time employment with the 
foreign entity during the requisite time period. The petitioner submitted a single "attendance record" for the 
month of August 2007. The record does not have any information identifying the foreign entity or the 
beneficiary's job title. If the foreign entity does require its employees to submit such detailed information 
regarding their work hours on a daily basis, then it could establish the beneficiary's full-time employment by 
submitting such records for the full year of claimed full-time employment. The petitioner has submitted 
neither attendance records, payroll records, nor other evidence of the beneficiary's full-time employment with 
the foreign entity between February 2007 and February 2008. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
The petitioner has also not adequately explained why the beneficiary did not apply for an L-1 visa at the U.S. 
consulate in Guangzhou upon approval of her L-IA visa petition and instead sought admission as a B-2 
visitor and a change of status in the United States. The petitioner has also not fully explained why the 
beneficiary would have indicated her occupation as "student" in 2007 if she was employed on a full-time basis 
by the foreign entity at that time. The petitioner's claim that this statement can be attributed to the travel 
agency who completed the visa application is not entirely credible, as all nonimmigrant visa applicants are 
required to sign their visa application. 
Overall, the AAO finds insufficient evidence was submitted to establish that the beneficiary had one year of 
continuous full-time employment with the foreign entity within three years preceding the filing of the petition. 
The AAO acknowledges that USCIS approved a previous L-1A nonimmigrant petition that had been 
previously filed on behalf of the beneficiary. It must be emphasized that each petition filing is a separate 
proceeding with a separate record. 
 See 8 C.F.R. 3 103.8(d). 
 In making a determination of statutory 
eligibility, USCIS is limited to the information contained in that individual record of proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(16)(ii). The prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of the original visa 
based on reassessment of the petitioner's qualifications. Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 
2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004). 
If a previous nonimmigrant petition was approved based on the same unsupported and contradictory 
assertions that are contained in the current record, the approval would constitute material and gross error on 
the part of the director. The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not 
been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that 
USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. 
Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). Based on the lack of 
required evidence of eligibility in the current record, the AAO finds that the director was justified in departing 
from the previous petition approval by denying the instant petition. 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court 
of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant petitions on 
behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service 
WAC 08 200 50586 
Page 15 
center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 
2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternative basis for the decision. When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative 
grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only if it is shown that the AAO abused its discretion with 
respect to all of the AAO's enumerated grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 
2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afSd. 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003). 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.