dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Export

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12063091 
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. 01, 2020 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in "beauty solutions import/export," seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as the managing director of its new office1 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 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 that the supporting documentation demonstrates that the Beneficiary 
is employed in a managerial capacity abroad. Further, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's 
proposed U.S. duty description is sufficiently detailed, and it will subsequently employ professional 
employees that will handle the day to day operations and will relieve the Beneficiary from daily 
operations. 
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. Since the 
identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve its arguments regarding whether the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
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(1)(1)(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. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1A 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. 
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 only 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 
101(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 that the Beneficiary will have "multifaceted responsibilities of directing and 
managing the business development, product sales and marketing and oversees the overall operation 
in the United States." The Petitioner outlined the duties in the United States as follows: 
2 
[The Beneficiary] will allocate (35%) of her time in performing strategic planning for 
[the Petitioner], which includes formulating annual business plan and development 
strategy: 
1. Based on Board of Directors' strategies, organize to draw up US Company's mid-and 
long-term development tactics and business schemes and oversee their implementation; 
9% 
2. Preside over the company's overall business administration, organize company's 
management team, 2% 
3. Develop financial budgets for marketing, sales, and public relations strategies in order 
to achieve company's strategic targets; 5% 
4. Work with managers to define sales development strategy and identify suppliers; 5% 
5. Responsible for setting up staffing plan for the next year, hiring appropriate new 
employees for [the Petitioner] within the planned budgets and with reasonable salary 
and benefits; 5% 
6. Exercise decision making power on major financial issues concerning our development 
in the U.S. market; 5% 
7. Create interior administrative placement structure and sign top level personnel 
appointments; 2% 
8. Review and sign the company's papers to be issued; 2% 
[The Beneficiary] will allocate 30% of her time in developing and maintaining business 
relations; 
9. Maintain good business relationship with executives of our existing and future 
American Business partners; 8% 
10. Address critical incidents and significant external relationship issues; 3% 
11. Seek further cooperation with existing partners; 9% 
12. Act as of the primary point of contact in [the Petitioner's] relationships with high value 
prospects and established accounts as well as strategic partners; 6% 
13. Identify and acquire new clients or overseas agents through personal networking and 
maintain executive level contacts and relationships with key partners, industry 
influencers, and decision makers; 4% 
[The Beneficiary] will allocated 25% of her time in coordinating with [the Parent 
company] and representing our [Parent company's] interest in the US: 
14. Make decision on key issues and sign documents related to the United States market 
on behalf of both [the Petitioner] and [the U.S. office]; 15% 
15. Responsible for the organizational structure, allocation of resources and the 
development of policies to ensure the implementation of company's quality system and 
its conformance to customer requirements; 10% 
[The Beneficiary] will allocate 10% of her time to maintain public relations and 
employee relations: 
16. Manage media relations and establish good corporate social image and brand for our 
Cosmetic Product; 1 % 
3 
17. Maintain good relations with other partners and cosmetic end users and suppliers in the 
United States; 2% 
18. Facilitate business or corporate culture, build favorable corporate image; 1 % 
19. Convene and chair GM office conferences and theme meetings, summarize work, listen 
to briefings, inspect work, urge progressing and coordinate problems; 1 % 
20. Oversee the feedback from the company's customers and cosmetic end users and 
supplies and direct other managers and supervisors to make changes to the market 
strategy; 1 % 
21. Organize staff training, assessment and strengthen team building; 1 % 
22. Review the company's wage and bonus distribution plans and financial responsibility 
pegging measures and organize their implementation, 1% 
23. Establish a sound performance appraisal system and improve team efficiency; 1 % 
24. Report directly to the company in Brazil and Egypt; 1%. 
As a preliminary matter, we note that the record of proceedings has listed different job titles for the 
Beneficiary's proffered position in the United States. Although the Form 1-129 and the business plan 
listed the Beneficiary's job title in the U.S. as managing director, several additional documents listed 
the Beneficiary as chief executive officer. For example, the organizational chart, the list of employees 
for the U.S. office, and the Petitioner's formal job description indicated that the Beneficiary will hold 
the position of chief executive officer. The Petitioner did not explain the inconsistencies in the job 
title throughout the record. The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). 
The Petitioner submitted a duty description for the Beneficiary that does not credibly demonstrate that 
she would primarily perform managerial tasks within the first year. The Beneficiary's duties include 
several non-qualifying operational duties, such as develop financial budgets for marketing, sales, and 
public relations strategies, address critical incidents and significant external relationship issues, seek 
further cooperation with existing partners, identify and acquire new clients, manage media relations, 
oversee the feedback from the company's customers and cosmetic end users, and organize staff 
training, assessment, and strengthen team building. Although the Petitioner contends these non­
qualifying tasks will be eventually delegated to supervisory subordinates, their prevalence throughout 
the Beneficiary's duty description, indicates that it is more likely she would be directly engaged in 
these tasks alongside her subordinates after one year rather than primarily delegating these functions. 
Whether the Beneficiary will be a managerial employee turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained 
its burden of proving that the proposed duties are "primarily" managerial. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) 
of the Act. Here, the Petitioner does not document what proportion of the Beneficiary's duties would 
be managerial functions and what proportion would be non-qualifying within one year. As noted, 
there are apparent non-qualifying operational duties included throughout the duty description and in 
provided supporting evidence. The Petitioner lists the Beneficiary's duties as including both 
managerial tasks and administrative or operational tasks but does not quantify the time she will spend 
on these different after one year. For this reason, we cannot determine whether the Beneficiary would 
primarily perform the duties of a manager within one year. See IKEA US, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 
48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
4 
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 she would devote her 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(I)(3)(v)(C). 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" al lows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 101(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 she 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(I)(1)(ii)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner submitted a business plan prepared in February 2018 for the U.S. office that included a 
list of current employees and a hiring plan for future employees. In 2018, the Petitioner employed 
two sales agents, a paralegal/logistics, and a secretary. The business plan did not provide a job 
description for the sales agents or the secretary but it did note that the paralegal/logistics employee is 
"responsible for reviewing agreements with suppliers and carriers along with applying for all business 
registrations and renewal, applying for custom clearance and licenses for importing and exporting 
beauty supplies and securing merchandise for shipped products." The Petitioner also submitted an 
organizational chart that indicated the Petitioner employs the Beneficiary as chief executive officer 
who in turn supervises a warehouse worker, a graphic designer and art production, and al I I lwith no job title. The information on the organizational chart is inconsistent with the 
employees listed in the business plan as current employees but the Petitioner does not explain these 
inconsistencies. The Petitioner also submitted payroll reports for employees for the pay period from 
5 
December 17, 2017 until December 21, 2018. According to the reports, it appears that the Petitioner 
employed 12 individuals, but none appear to be full-time, and the Petitioner did not specify the job 
titles and duties for these employees, or the roles they play in the Petitioner's organizational structure. 2 
The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material 
inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted 
in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. 
The business plan also stated that the Petitioner will hire a sales manager in year 1 "who will manage 
our sales staff including our sales agents," and hire a finance manager and accountant in year two. 
The Petitioner did not submit job descriptions for these positions. Furthermore, the business plan laid 
out a personnel plan for FY 2020 with total wages of $314,200, and the following list of job positions: 
CEO, Sales Manager, Marketing and Exhibitions Manager, Director of Marketing, Director of Export 
and Freight, Director of Sales, Sales Representative, Customer Care Service. It is not clear why the 
paralegal/logistics employee, the warehouse helper, or the finance manager and accountant are not 
I isted as part of the personnel plan. The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the 
Beneficiary would likely be a personnel manager based on her supervision of subordinate managers 
or supervisors within one year. As noted, there are several inconsistencies in the hiring plan. 
In addition, there are discrepancies in the Petitioner's business plans that leave substantial uncertainty 
as to whether it will develop sufficiently within one year to support the Beneficiary as a personnel 
manager capacity overseeing subordinate supervisors. For instance, the business plan indicated that 
the "parent company also plans on financially supporting the subsidiary company, including paying 
salaries, until the subsidiary company can support itself financially" but did not provide documentation 
to indicate the parent company has the financial ability to support the Petitioner. The business plan 
listed a revenue forecast from the Egyptian branch of the parent company of $200,000 in 2019 and 
$400,000 in 2020. It also shows a revenue forecast from Distributors in USA, Brazil, UAE, Saudi 
Arabia, Qatar and Oman of $400,000 in 2019 and $400,000 in 2020. Further, the forecast stated a 
"Revenue Stream 1" without any explanation from where this revenue derives from but it would 
consist of $70,000 in 2019 and $140,000 in 2020. Although the business plan lays out revenue from 
several sources, the Petitioner does not provide sufficient documentation to establish that these sources 
have the income to provide this revenue. The Petitioner submitted one audited financial statement for 
the parent company from 2017 that indicated a total profit of $22,750. Without a realistic expectation 
of substantial revenue during the first year, it is not clear how the Beneficiary and her proposed 
subordinate supervisors, as well as the required frontline operational employees, will be supported in 
their roles within the first year. 
The business plan also indicated that the Petitioner "already made deals in a factory warehouse in 
I I Florida for producing their products," and "this company will export their cosmetics and 
beauty products from the United States to the Middle East, which is their target market." In addition, 
"the company plans to sell to at least four distributors annually, wherein these distributors market their 
2 We note that the record contains a lease agreement for the Petitioner's office space from April 1, 2017 until 
April 1, 2018 for an office of 231 square feet. It is not clear how the Beneficiary employed several individuals 
in an office space of this size. 
6 
products to Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Brazil, US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and major Arab and 
Latin American countries." However, the Petitioner did not submit any documentation or information 
regarding the agreements with factories and the Beneficiary's role when working with these factories. 
Overall, the vague job description provided for the Beneficiary, in light of the Petitioner's business 
and hiring plans for the first year of operations, prohibits a determination that the Petitioner could 
realistically support a managerial position within one year. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would act in a 
managerial capacity within one year of an approval of the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7