dismissed L-1A Case: Industrial Sales

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-USA, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 30,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a seller of waterproof industrial connectors, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as its national sales manager and president under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification 
for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-1A classification allows a corporation or other legal entity 
(including its affiliate or-subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to 
work temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that: (1) the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity in the 
United States; and (2) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial capacity by the 
Petitioner's foreign parent company. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision failed to take into account all of the 
submitted evidence and departed from precedent decisions concerning L-1 A managers. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a position involving 
specialized knowledge, for one continuous year within three years preceding the Beneficiary's 
application for admission into the United States. 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, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. Section 
101(a)(15)(L) ofthe Act. 
The term "managerial capacity" means "an assignment within an organization m which the 
employee primarily": 
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component 
of the organization; 
Matter ofC-USA, Inc. 
(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. 
,, 
Section 10l(a)(44)(A) ofthe Act. Further, "[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." !d. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
.or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must 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) ofthe Act. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT 
In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's 
proposed U.S. duties included a number of non-managerial tasks and was insufficient to establish 
that he would primarily perform managerial duties as the Petitioner's national sales manager and 
president. The Director also reviewed the Petitioner's staffing and organizational structure and 
determined that the record did not show th~t the Beneficiary would supervise a subordinate staff of 
professionals, managers, or supervisors, or that he would primarily manage an essential function of 
the U.S. company. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director mischaracterized the Beneficiary's proposed duties 
as non-managerial and failed to take into account the Beneficiary's management of the essential 
function of "sales growth," as well as the relationship between the Petitioner and foreign entity and 
the organizational structure of both companies. 
A. Duties 
When examining whether a Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity, we will look first 
to the Petitioner's description of the job duties. The Petitioner's description of the job duties must 
clearly describe the duties the Beneficiary performs and indicate whether such duties are in a 
managerial or executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The Petitioner must first show that 
the Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities described in the statutory definitions. 
' 2 
Matter ojC-USA, Inc. 
Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, 
the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary primarily performs managerial or executive duties, as 
opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the company's other employees. See Family 
Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner sells waterproof industrial connectors and cables for use in engineering machinery, 
car batteries, solar and wind energy, marine electronics, industrial automation, and LED technology. 
The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary has been managing the U.S. operations from Canada, 
but, due to a recent growth in U.S. sales, it seeks to employ him intermittently in the United States 
while he maintains his primary residence in Canada. 
In a letter in support of the petition, the Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary will serve as both 
the manager of the company and as the manager of its national sales program, an essential function 
within the company. The Petitioner provided the following description of duties in response to the 
Director's request for a detailed position description: ' 
• Managing direct sales operations- 55% 
• This work entails [the Beneficiary] overseeing sales operations and providing 
sales support and education to the Regional Sales manager, independent sales 
agencies, and their independent sales contractors to enable them to be 
knowledgeable about our products and clients' needs. This includes numerous 
phone calls, emails, video conferences and visits to ... clients sites, his Regional 
Sales Manager, and independent sales agencies to ensure performance; 
• providing technical and engineering knowledge to [the Petitioner's] customers 
and advising them with their design and implementation of our products into 
theirs; 
• meeting with clients at their worksites and businesses to ensure client satisfaction, 
finding additional opportunities for sales, researching new sales targets, 
conducting competitive market research and analysis, 
• overseeing account management, implementing growth strategies to meet the 
company's overall sales goals; 
• working with the company's Regional Sales Manager to ensure the successful 
implementation of the company's sales and marketing strategies; 
• providing training to company sales people; 
• overseeing supply chain management processes to ensure the quality of our 
product supplied to customers is maintained, gathered through frequent phone 
calls, emails, and visits to customers to ensure satisfaction; 
• negotiating pricing with our supply chain to ensure overall profitability for the 
company. 
• Overseeing P&L, Budgeting, and corporate governance and oversight for the 
company's independent sales agency growth during his tenure- 20% 
3 
Matter of C- USA, Inc. 
• overseeing the monthly, quarterly and yearly sales figures. Identifying areas for 
improvement and ensuring the company maintains its set budget. 
• ensuring good governance of the company and good corporate citizenship; 
• reviewing applicable trade laws and customs laws with legal counsel to ensure 
importing of goods for domestic sales runs smoothly; 
• working with accounts payable I bookkeeper to ensure all financial records are 
maintained in an orderly and professional way; 
• conducting and supervising quarterly cash flow reviews (with the accounts 
payable I bookkeeper) to ensure success of operations of the business. 
• Attending trade shows, overseeing marketing- 15% 
• as National Sales Manager, attending trade shows and engaging in competitive 
analysis is vital to the company's success; 
• directing marketing funds for event sponsorship, ad placement, trade show booth 
rentals as needed; 
• Continuing education on product development and advances in water proof connector 
technology - 1 0% 
• keeping up on new products being introduced to the connector market, 
investigating new solutions for our clients in a variety of industries 
• researching with our Regional Sales Manager new materials and advances in the 
marketplace and generally being a go-to source of knowledge for clients, 
company staff, and independent sales agencies for [the Petitioner's] brand. 
In response to an inquiry regarding the Beneficiary's work location, the Petitioner further explained 
his expected duties: 
[The Beneficiary's] offered position ... will entail him traveling extensively 
throughout the U.S. in support of the company's sales and growth initiatives, 
including to many off-site client locations for meetings. While both the Delaware and 
Illinois addresses will remain formal company addresses, [the Beneficiary's] time 
spent in the U.S. is more likely to involve 
1) his meeting with major national clients at their locations through the U.S. to 
ensure their satisfaction, 
2) scouting new, additional opportunities for sales with clients in the U.S., and 
3) attending trade shows and conventions related to our firm's products. 
Upon review, we agree with the Director's determination that the provided position description does 
not establish that the duties the Beneficiary would perform during his intermittent stays in the United 
States would be primarily managerial in nature. While we do not doubt that the Beneficiary will 
exercise discretion over the day-to-day operations of the company as a whole as president and over 
its sales function as national sales manager, the actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of 
4 
Matter of C.-USA, Inc. 
the employment. 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). 
The Petitioner expressly states that the Beneficiary will spend most of his time in the United States 
traveling to the sites of existing and potential customers tb perform sales duties and to ensure 
customer satisfaction, and will also market and promote the Petitioner's products at trade shows. 
While these duties may be critical to the company's sales growth in the United States, we do not 
agree with the Petitioner that such non-managerial sales duties should be classified as "managing 
sales operations." Further the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary would spend most of his time 
in the United States performing these types of duties appears to be inconsistent with the breakdown 
of duties the Petitioner provided, in which these direct sales and trade show-related duties accounted 
for a smaller portion of his time. While the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will continue to 
oversee its operations from Canada and travel to the United States intermittently, we must evaluate 
what he will actually do on a day-to-day basis while in the United States. Based on the Petitioner's 
statements, he would be coming to the United States in his capadty as the company's sales 
representative. 
The Petitioner has consistently stated that the Beneficiary, in addition to managing the organization 
as a whole, will manage the essential function of"sales growth." The Petitioner emphasized that the 
company is focused on sales and that the sales function is therefore its most essential function. The 
term "function manager" applies generally whena 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 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The term "essential function" is 
not defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary will manage an essential 
function, a petitioner must clearly describes the duties to be performed in managing the essential 
function, or more specifically, identify the function with specificity, articulate the essential nature of 
the function, and establish the proportion of a beneficiary's daily duties attributed to managing the 
essential function. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). In addition, a petitioner's description of a 
beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary will manage the function rather than 
perform duties related to the function. See Matter ofZ-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO 
Apr. 14, 2016). 
The Petitioner's breakdown of the Beneficiary's duties and the amount of time he would spend on 
four different areas of responsibility did not support its claim that he would primarily manage an 
essential function. For example, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will allocate 55% of his 
time to "managing direct sales operations," a responsibility which includes "providing sales support 
and education" to U.S-based sales staff; providing "technical and engineering knowledge" to 
customers and advising on product design and implementation; meeting with clients at their 
worksites to ensure client satisfaction; conducting competitive market research and analysis; finding 
additional opportunities for sales; and providing training to company sales people. The Petitioner 
did not explain how the Beneficiary's direct roles in sales, training, and customer satisfaction qualify 
as managerial responsibilities. 
5 
Matter ofC-USA, Inc. 
Further, other duties within this area of responsibility, such as "overseeing supply chain management 
processes" and "overseeing account management and implementing growth strategies," are poorly 
defined and we cannot determine the nature of the Beneficiary's day-to-day tasks related to account 
management or supply chain management. The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary would 
spend an addition 15% of his time on "overseeing marketing," attending trade shows, and engaging 
in "competitive analysis," but again, did not explain how such duties are managerial. 
Overall, while the Beneficiary may "manage sales operations" by setting goal and strategies for sales 
and marketing, his actual proposed duties within this area include a number of non-qualifying tasks 
that preclude us from finding that he will primarily manage the sales function for the Petitioner, 
rather than directly performing this function to a significant extent. 
The Beneficiary would spend another 1 0 percent of his time on "continuing education in product 
development," including researching new products in the Petitioner's industry and "being a go-to 
source of knowledge for clients, company staff, and independent sales agencies." The Beneficiary's 
expertise with the industry and products may be a necessary quality for the offered position, but the 
portion of time to be spent on product research cannot be considered a managerial duty. 
Finally, the Beneficiary's general management functions are indicated by his responsibility for 
overseeing profit and loss, budgeting, corporate governance and other financial matters. However, 
the Petitioner indicates that such duties would account for only 20% of his time. While performing 
non-qualifying tasks necessary to produce a product or service will not automatically disqualify a 
beneficiary as long as those tasks are not the majority of a beneficiary's duties, a petitioner still has 
the burden of establishing that a beneficiary will "primarily" perform managerial or executive duties. 
See section 101(a)(44) of the Act. 
Whether a beneficiary is an "activity" or "function" manager turns in part on whether the petitioner 
has sustained its burden of proving that their duties are "primarily" managerial. See Matter of Z-A -, 
Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 20 16). While the Petitioner asserts that the Director 
did not consider the Beneficiary's management of the organization as a whole or the involvement of 
additional sales and administrative staff in Canada, our conclusion that the Beneficiary does not 
qualify as a function manager is based in large part on the Petitioner's description of the duties he 
will perform in the United States, rather than on other factors such as the Petitioner's staffing levels 
or his level of authority within the organization. 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
I 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, including the company's 
organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other 
employees to relieve a 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. 
6 
Matter ofC-USA, Inc. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary qualifies as both a personnel manager and as a function 
manager. Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of 
subordinate supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the 
Act. 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. 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. Section 101 (a)( 44 )(iii) of the Act. 
The record shows that the Petitioner employs a part-time administrative support employee, a 
regional sales manager responsible for the territory of Illinois and Wisconsin, and six independent 
sales agencies (each with assigned territories) that it pays on commission. The Director determined 
that the Petitioner had not shown that the subordinate employees are managers, supervisors, or 
professionals and therefore concluded that the Beneficiary's supervisory duties qualify as managerial 
duties. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director failed to recognize that, due to the nature of the 
Petitioner's products, its regional sales manager and independent sales contractors are sales 
professionals, more comparable to sales engineers than to non-professional employees, such as retail 
salespersons. The Petitioner suggests that these employees must be able to assist customers with 
customization of orders and provides a summary description for the occupation of "Sales Engineers" 
from the U.S. Department of Labor's O*Net Online website. 
In evaluating 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 101(a)(~2) 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 Petitioner did not provide enough information about the sales 
duties to support its claim that its regional sales managers and sales agents are essentially working as 
sales engineers, and even if they are, the Petitioner stopped short of stating that it requires these 
workers to have a bachelor's degree in a related field. Therefore, the record does not support a 
conclusion that the Beneficiary's subordinates are professionals. It appears that the regional sales 
manager may assist the Beneficiary with selecting new sales people, but his role is not supervisory 
or managerial based on the brief description provided. The Petitioner has not shown that the 
Beneficiary's subordinate employees are supervisory, professional, or managerial, as required by 
section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) ofthe Act. 
7 
Matter of C- USA, Inc. 
Further, as discussed above, the record does not show that the Petitioner's staff will relieve the 
Beneficiary from significant involvement in performing certain sales, marketing, market research, 
customer service, technical support, and training functions that do not qualify as managerial duties. 
The Beneficiary appears to be solely responsible for national accounts,~and as discussed above, is 
expected to spend most of his time in the United States in client sales meetings and at trade shows 
and events. Again, we do not question that the Beneficiary would be responsible for managing the 
company as a whole, including both the U.S. and Canadian offices and staff, and overseeing sales in 
general; however, the record shows that his managerial responsibilities would not be his primary 
duties in the United States. This finding is not based on the size of the company but rather on the 
Petitioner's description ofthe Beneficiary's proposed duties. 
The Petitioner cites to an unpublished decision in which we determined that a beneficiary qualified 
as a function manager despite finding that his subordinate employees were neither supervisors nor 
professionals. The Petitioner has not established that the facts of this petition are analogous to those 
in the unpublished decision. While 8 C.F .R. § 103 .3( c) provides that our precedent decisions are 
binding on USCIS, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
Nevertheless, we agree with the Petitioner that supervision of non-professional employees does not 
preclude a finding that a beneficiary can qualify as a function manager, so long as such duties are not 
his primary duties. However, we have addressed the Beneficiary's eligibility as a function manager 
above and determined that the record does not demonstrate that he would allocate his time primarily 
to managerial duties associated with the sales function. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be employed in the 
United States in a managerial capacity. 
III. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT 
The Director also found that the Petitioner did not establish that the foreign entity has employed the 
Beneficiary in a managerial capacity. The Director determined that the duties described, which are 
very similar to those attributed to his proposed U.S. position, included a number of non-managerial 
tasks. The Director also determined that the record did not show that the Beneficiary has been 
managing an essential function or supervising a subordinate staff of professional, supervisory, or 
managerial employees. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's duties are primarily managerial "both in terms 
of management of the organization and of an essential function." The Petitioner further restates its 
argument that the Beneficiary can qualify as a function manager even if USCIS determines that his 
subordinates are not managers, supervisors, or professionals. 
Upon review, the Petitioner has not overcome the Director's findings. The foreign entity provided a 
letter describing] the Beneficiary's duties and, as noted, those duties are nearly identical to those 
provided for the U.S. position, with 55% of his time spent on "managing direct sales operations," 
20% on overseeing financial and budget matters, 15% on attending trade shows, and 10% on 
8 
Matter ofC-USA, Inc. 
continuing education. Therefore, we incorporate, and will not repeat, our analysis of the U.S. 
position description. The position description included too many sales, research, customer support, 
training and marketing tasks for us to conclude that it involves primarily managerial duties. 
We have also reviewed the Beneficiary's job description in the context of the foreign entity's 
organizational structure. The foreign entity employs a vice president operations, an inside/outside 
sales employee, an inside sales/controller whose duties are primarily bookkeeping related, a 
warehouse manager, and an independent sales agent. The vice president is depicted as a subordinate 
supervisor on the foreign entity's organizational chart, but the attached job descriptions indicate that 
the sales employees also report directly to the Beneficiary. 
The vice president's duties are similar to those assigned to the U.S. regional sales manager. His 
duties also include overseeing import and export of products in Canada, and do not clearly include 
supervisory duties beyond a general statement that he "oversees the daily operations" of the foreign 
entity. Nor do the job duties attributed to the other Canadian staff establish that these employees are 
professional or managerial staff. The warehouse manager, despite his job title, has no claimed 
subordinates. Therefore, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary is employed abroad as a 
personnel manager. 
Further, because the Beneficiary's job description includes a significant number of non-qualifying 
duties, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary's role with the foreign entity is primarily 
that of a function manager. Again, while we recognize the Beneficiary's authority over the 
organization as a whole and overall responsibility for sales, we cannot overlook his performance of a 
l)Umber of non-managerial duties that appear to account for at least half of his time. Whether the 
Beneficiary is a managerial employee turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained its burden of 
proving that his duties are "primarily" managerial. See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Here, 
while the foreign entity has staff to assist with various administrative and operational functions, it 
still requires the Beneficiary to perform direct sales, support, training, and research-oriented tasks 
that are not managerial in nature. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that it will employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity or that 
the foreign entity has employed the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-USA, Inc., ID# 346743 (AAO May 30, 2017) 
9