dismissed L-1A Case: International Trade

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6785293 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC. 5, 2019 
The Petitioner, describing itself as an international trading company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary in the United States as its general manager 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 that the record did not 
establish, as required , that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad. 
Further, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
On appeal , the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not consider the totality of the evidence in 
denying the petition. The Petitioner states that the Director improperly required that it articulate 
whether the Beneficiary would act in either a managerial or executive capacity , contending that this 
requirement is not explicitly stated in the applicable regulations. The Petitioner also asserts that the 
Beneficiary supervised subordinate managers and supervisors abroad and would do the same in the 
United States. 
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. Because 
of the dipositive effect of our determination that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 
would act in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States, we will reserve the remaining 
ground for denial discussed in the Director's decision. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification , a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial , executive , or involves specialized 
knowledge ," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary must 
seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering their services to the same employer 
or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. The petitioner must also 
establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify them to perform the 
intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. DEFINITIONS 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or 
manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
"Executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization; 
establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; exercises wide latitude 
in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. Section 101 (a)( 44 )(B) of the 
Act. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The sole issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. As a preliminary matter, we note 
that the Petitioner did not, and still does not on appeal, clearly indicate whether the Beneficiary would 
qualify as an executive or a manager, or both. 
On appeal, the Petitioner makes light of the Director emphasizing in the denial that it did not clearly 
indicate whether the Beneficiary would act in a managerial or executive capacity, and asserts that such 
a requirement to state this explicitly is not set forth in the regulations. However, as stated, 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. A petitioner claiming that a beneficiary will perform as a "hybrid" 
manager/executive will not meet its burden of proof unless it has demonstrated that the beneficiary 
will primarily engage in either managerial or executive capacity duties. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)­
(B) of the Act. While in some instances there may be duties that could qualify as both managerial and 
executive in nature, it is the petitioner's burden to establish that the beneficiary's duties meet each 
criteria set forth in the statutory definition for either managerial or executive capacity. A petition may 
not be approved if the evidence of record does not establish that the beneficiary will be primarily 
employed in either a managerial or executive capacity. As such, the Petitioner's continued reluctance 
to clearly specify whether the Beneficiary would qualify as a manager or executive, or both, leaves 
initial question as to the petition. The Petitioner must resolve ambiguity in the record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-
92 (BIA 1988). 
2 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly 
describe the duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in a 
managerial or executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description of 
the job duties, we examine 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. Accordingly, we will discuss 
evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of the nature of the Petitioner's 
business, its staffing levels, and its organizational structure. 
A. Duties 
Based on the definition of managerial or executive capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the 
Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 
1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, the Petitioner must prove that the 
Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial or executive duties, as opposed to ordinary 
operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 
1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner stated that its foreign parent company, established in 2003, "specializes in research and 
development, production and marketing of various bicycles, bicycle parts, sporting goods, building 
material[s], metal and chemical products and mechanical parts." The Petitioner, a wholly owned 
subsidiary of the Beneficiary's foreign employer, indicated that it is an "international trading 
company" which had "entered the markets of kids [sic] bikes and rare metals." The Petitioner listed 
the following duties for the Beneficiary as its general manager: 
• Determine the general guidelines in overall business operations, such as marketing, 
international development, and administration, to ensure the company personnel 
have clear guidelines for different levels of management and development. ( 5 to 
15%) 
• Make final decisions in setting various goals and targets for the company 
development, including short term (six months to one year) and long term (three 
years to five years) ones to reach the optimal growth of the company business. (5 
to 15%) 
• Design and define the company's annual strategic plans for the entire company's 
development in various areas, including define and articulate the company's vision 
and mission, and analyze the company's strength and focus. Throughout the year, 
make periodical assessment of the company's current situation and the business 
environment to make adjustment to the strategic plan when necessary. (5 to 15%) 
• Make decisions for the company's organizational structure, set guidelines for 
adding, merging or deleting departments/sections, establish the current structure of 
the company, and make necessary changes to the organization to make the 
operation more efficient and more competitive. (5 to 15%) 
3 
• Make final executive decisions in major areas including financial planning and 
budgeting, marketing development, accounting procedures, administration, and 
investment. (10 to 15%) 
• Attending important business meetings and public functions (5 to 15%) 
• Approve/cancel, review and/or sign important correspondence representing the 
company, including major contracts. (5 to 15%) 
• Chair weekly, monthly and quarterly meetings of subordinate managers, assign 
specific tasks when necessary, review department reports, provide specific 
guidance when necessary. (5 to 15%) 
• Design and encourage employee activities to promote and boost employees' work 
ethics of loyalty and respect to encourage the subordinates to be part of the 
company unity, to improve the enterprise culture, to ensure that the work culture 
and working environment in the company is positive and conducive to promote 
productive and pleasant work environment. (5 to 15%) 
• Conduct monthly, quarterly and annually [sic] evaluation of managers and key 
personnel and determine the quality of their performance. (5%). 
• Make final human resources determinations by approving the hiring/firing of 
managers, professionals, and key personnel. (5 to 15%) 
In a later request for evidence (RFE), the Director stated that the Beneficiary's U.S. duty description 
"lacked sufficient detail" and that it was insufficient to demonstrate his duties on a daily basis. In 
response, the Petitioner provided no additional U.S. duties for the Beneficiary. 
The Petitioner has submitted a vague U.S. duty description and insufficient documentation to 
substantiate the Beneficiary's daily qualifying managerial and executive level tasks. The 
Beneficiary's duty description includes several generic duties that could apply to any manager or 
executive acting in any industry and they provide little insight into his actual day-to-day managerial 
or executive tasks. In fact, the Beneficiary's generic duty description includes no specific references 
to its type of business or credible examples of his activities. For instance, the Petitioner did not 
sufficiently detail or document the "general guidelines" the Beneficiary determined related to 
marketing, international development, and administration, "final decisions" he made with respect to 
"various goals and targets," "annual strategic plans" he designed and defined, or vision or missions he 
set. 
It is also notable that the Petitioner stated in the Beneficiary's duties that he would "make periodical 
assessment" of its strategic plan and "make adjustment to the strategic plan when necessary." 
However, the Petitioner provided no detail with respect to this claimed "strategic plan," submitted no 
documentation to corroborate its existence, and provided no examples of the Beneficiary's adjustments 
to this plan. Similarly, the Petitioner refers to the Beneficiary setting guidelines related to marketing, 
but there are no details with respect to this marketing; in addition, submitted financial documentation 
from September 2018 and a 2018 IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return both reflected 
no apparent company expenses related to marketing activities. 
Likewise, the Petitioner did not articulate or sufficiently document the decisions the Beneficiary made 
with respect to the company's organizational structure, departments or sections he added or merged, 
"final executive decisions" or investment decisions he made, major contracts he approved and signed, 
4 
guidance he provided to his subordinates, actions he took to improve "enterprise culture," or "final 
human resources determinations" he was involved in. This lack of detail and documentation is 
particularly notable since the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary acted in his asserted role under a 
new office petition from January 2017 through December 2017. 1 Still, the Petitioner does not submit 
a detailed description of the Beneficiary's duties which credibly conveys his day-to-day tasks within 
the business. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are 
primarily executive or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a 
matter ofreiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
We acknowledge the Petitioner submitted some supporting documentation related to the Beneficiary's 
claimed activities with the Petitioner, but this evidence did not credibly establish that he devoted, or 
would devote, his time primarily to qualifying managerial or executive-level duties. For instance, the 
Petitioner provided an undated and generic "Employee Handbook" setting forth workplace rules and 
requirements that could apply to any company in any industry. As noted by the Director, the Petitioner 
did not explain the Beneficiary's involvement in formulating this generic policy, beyond a brief 
"project approval form" dated in October 2017 claiming to reflect his approval of this policy. 
However, there is no explanation of the Beneficiary's involvement in this policy or indication as to 
how it demonstrates that he would devote his time primarily to managerial or executive-level tasks 
under an approved petition. 
The Petitioner also provided a handful of other "project approval forms" meant to reflect his daily 
qualifying tasks. However, we did not find these approval forms credible. For instance, the asserted 
project approval forms included a notable lack of detail, including one dated in October 2017 from his 
claimed subordinate business development manager stating that they had "completed marketing 
research," "analyzed consumer needs," and "determined what platforms the sell the bikes and how to 
sell them." This form lacked credible detail that would be reasonably included in such business 
correspondence, such as what marketing research was completed, what findings were made, and what 
bikes would be sold in what markets. 
Likewise, two claimed project approval forms from November 2017 also lacked credible specifics. 
For example, one of the approval forms was from the asserted operation manager and signed by the 
Beneficiary, this form stated that this employee had "conducted market research to [sic] retro handheld 
gaming systems" and "selected I I product from I I as target for sale," while a 
second indicated that this employee had also "completed marketing research studies for I land 
I Ir metals]" and "calculated sales budget[s] for both rare metals." However, there is no indication 
from these asserted business communications what the results of either market research studies were, 
why this subordinate decided on those particular gaming products, or what sales budget was calculated 
for the referenced "rare metals." In addition, it is notable that four of the claimed project approval 
forms were dated October 9, 2017, while two other were dated on November 27, 2017; as such, they 
do not appear to represent a reasonable snapshot of the Beneficiary's typical day-to-day activities 
while employed in his claimed capacity in the United States. In fact, the Petitioner stated in the 
1 The petition was filed on January 22. 2019. The Petitioner indicates in the Form I-129, and United States Citizenship 
and Immigration Service (USCIS) records confirm, that it was also denied two extension petitions on behalf of the 
Beneficiary subsequent to the previously approved new office petition. 
5 
aforementioned employee handbook that "email is essential to our work," but provided no such 
probative evidence of the Beneficiary's day-to-day activities. Therefore, the Petitioner did not submit 
sufficient credible documentation to substantiate the Beneficiary's asserted managerial or executive­
level duties. 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the organization, the fact that they will 
manage or direct a business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an 
intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity within the meaning of section 
10l(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties 
of a position be "primarily" managerial or executive in nature. Id. The Beneficiary may exercise 
discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of authority with 
respect to discretionary decision-making; however, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to 
establish that his actual duties would be primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
B. Staffing 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial or 
executive capacity, we take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall 
purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. 
The Petitioner submitted a U.S. organizational chart reflecting that the Beneficiary oversaw an 
accounting manager and a vice general manager. The chart farther reflected that the accounting 
manager supervised and accountant and that the vice general manager oversaw an operation manager, 
who in turn, supervised an operation assistant. Meanwhile, the vice general manager was farther 
shown to manage a business development manager overseeing a business development specialist. 
As discussed, the Petitioner does not definitively state on appeal whether the Beneficiary qualifies as 
a manager or an executive; but in fact, contends that it has no obligation to clearly articulate his basis 
for eligibility. However, the Petitioner does state on appeal that the Beneficiary "was supervising all 
the other supervisors," suggesting that it claims he qualifies as a personnel manager. The statutory 
definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function managers." 
See section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and 
control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. Contrary to the 
common understanding of the word "manager," the statute plainly states that a "first line supervisor is 
not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory 
duties unless the employees supervised are professional." Id. If a beneficiary directly supervises other 
employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or 
recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(B)(3). As the 
Petitioner does not explicitly assert that the Beneficiary qualifies as a function manager and 
emphasizes his management of subordinate supervisors, we will only analyze whether he would 
qualify as a personnel manager. 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary oversees 
subordinate managers as necessary to qualify him as a personnel manager. The Petitioner submitted 
an organizational chart dated in December 2018, just prior to the petition, indicating that the 
Beneficiary supervised two subordinate managers; and below them, two other subordinate supervisors 
6 
and two operational level employees, or a total of seven subordinates as of the date the petition was 
filed. However, submitted state quarterly wage tax forms from the first quarter of 2019 reflect that 
the Petitioner only paid wages to four of its claimed employees listed in the organizational chart, 
namely the vice general manager, the accountant, the operation manager, and business development 
specialist. Further, the Petitioner also states on appeal that the claimed "accounting manager" had 
requested vacation as of the date of the petition, but "was unable to return to work." 
As such, the evidence reflects that as of the date the petition was filed the Petitioner employed three 
asserted managers, but only two employees claimed to focus on the operational matters of the business, 
or the business development specialist and accountant. This leaves substantial uncertainty as of the 
Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary supervised subordinate managers and supervisors as of the 
date the petition was filed. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies and discrepancies in the record 
with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 
582, 591-92. Further, we note that the Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the 
immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through 
adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
The Petitioner also submitted generic duty descriptions for the Beneficiary's claimed subordinate 
managers that did not demonstrate that they acted in their claimed capacities. For example, the 
Petitioner stated that the vice general manager would be tasked with strengthening the company's 
business operation, establishing its organization, developing the Petitioner, managing its business 
activities, reviewing work plans, and making sure that development strategies are carried out. First, 
the duties of the claimed vice general manager appear very similar to the generic duties provided for 
the Beneficiary. In addition, it is questionable that with the Petitioner's limited staffing it would 
require two managerial level employees performing largely the same higher level managerial tasks 
such as the Beneficiary and the vice general manager. The Petitioner also does not provide sufficient 
detail to substantiate the vice general manager's duties, such as how they strengthened its operations, 
established its organization, what business activities they managed, or development strategies they 
oversaw. 
Likewise, the Petitioner indicated that the operation manager was tasked with determining what 
services were necessary, hiring professional services, applying company rules and policies, reviewing 
proposals of requested products from U.S. buyers, and supervising production, quality control, and 
sales and after sales service. However, again, the Petitioner did not sufficiently articulate the services 
the operation manager implemented, the professional services they hired, rules and policies they 
applied, U.S. buyers they worked with, or production and sales services they supervised. In fact, there 
is no evidence on the record to indicate that the Petitioner provides services or produces products, but 
only a few invoices from 2017 reflecting the company's purchase and shipment of bicycles. As such, 
the duties of the claimed operation manager were not sufficiently detailed or credible to demonstrate 
that this employee acted as a subordinate manager to the Beneficiary. Indeed, the operation manager's 
sole claimed subordinate, the "operation assistant," is also shown as the accountant, and the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently explained this apparent dual role. Beyond this, the Petitioner did not document 
that it employed any managers or supervisors subordinate to the Beneficiary. It is also notable that 
there is little supporting evidence on the record reflecting the Beneficiary's delegation of duties to his 
asserted subordinate supervisors or documentation demonstrating his personnel authority over them. 
7 
On appeal, the Petitioner also appears to suggest that the Beneficiary's subordinates qualify as 
professionals. To determine whether a beneficiary manages professional employees, we must evaluate 
whether the subordinate positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field 
of endeavor. Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) ( defining "profession" to mean "any occupation for which a 
U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the 
occupation"). Section 101 ( a)(32) of the Act, states that"[ t ]he term profession shall include but not be 
limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary 
schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." Therefore, we must focus on the level of education 
required by the position, rather than the degree held by subordinate employee. The possession of a 
bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee does not automatically lead to the conclusion that an 
employee is employed in a professional capacity. However, the Petitioner does not clearly articulate 
why Beneficiary's subordinates require bachelor's degrees to perform the duties of their respective 
positions. Further, as we have discussed, the Petitioner has submitted vague duty descriptions for the 
Beneficiary's subordinates that do not sufficiently establish that these positions require bachelor's 
degrees. As such, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel 
manager based on the supervision of subordinate supervisors or professionals. 
Lastly, in the alternative, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would act in an 
executive capacity under an approved petition. 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 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability 
to "direct the management" and "establish the goals and policies" of that organization. Inherent to the 
definition, the beneficiary must primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization 
rather than the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. An individual will not be deemed an executive 
under the statute simply because they have an executive title or because they "direct" the enterprise as 
the owner or sole managerial employee. A beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in 
discretionary decision making" and receive only "general supervision or direction from higher level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization." Id. 
The Petitioner has not provided adequate evidence to establish that the Beneficiary would act in an 
executive capacity under an approved petition. Again, as we explained at length, the Petitioner 
submitted little detail and documentation to substantiate that the Beneficiary primarily devoted, or 
would devote, his time to executive-level duties. Further, the supporting evidence reflects that the 
Petitioner did not employ the seven asserted subordinates listed in its organizational chart as of the 
date the petition was filed; instead, it provided evidence indicating that it employed only four 
individuals beyond the Beneficiary. The Petitioner also provided vague duty descriptions for the 
Beneficiary's claimed subordinate supervisors that did not properly substantiate their claimed 
positions. Further, as we have indicated, it is also notable that the Petitioner does not explicitly explain 
how the Beneficiary qualifies as an executive. Therefore, the submitted evidence does not sufficiently 
demonstrate that as of the date the petition was filed the Beneficiary acted in an elevated position 
within a complex organizational hierarchy and that he was primarily establishing the goals and policies 
of the organization rather than focusing on the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would act in a 
managerial or executive capacity in the United States under an approved petition. 
8 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9