dismissed L-1A Case: International Trade

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF N-A-R-O-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 26, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SER VICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which promotes trade and investment between the United States and Shenzhen, China, 
seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its assistant chief representative under the L-lA 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(L). The L-lA 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 record did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity; and (2) the Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by 
disregarding evidence of eligibility, and by not sufficiently explaining the finding that the 
Beneficiary's proposed duties are non-qualifying. The Petitioner indicated that it would file a 
supplemental brief within 30 days of filing the appeal. That period has elapsed, and the record does 
not contain any further submission from the Petitioner. Therefore, we consider the record to be 
complete as it now stands. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA 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 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary must 
seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. The petitioner 
must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or her 
to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
.
Matter ofN-A-R-O-
11. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or 
manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Based on the statutory definitions of managerial and 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 Director denied the petition based, in part, on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that 
the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's employment abroad was as a function manager, whose 
managerial capacity derives from managing an essential function rather than from supervising and 
controlling the work of supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. Therefore, we need not 
consider the requirements for an executive, a personnel manager, or a capacity involving specialized 
knowledge. 
When examining the claimed managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look to the 
description of the job duties. The description of the job duties must clearly describe the duties 
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 foreign entity's business and its staffing levels. 
The Petitioner indicated that its affiliate, the 
employed the Beneficiary as chief of its Quality and Brands Control Section 
beginning in January 2017, continuing through the time the Petitioner filed the petition in June 2018. 
2 
.
Matter ofN-A-R-O-
listed the Beneficiary's duties abroad, and the approximate time devoted to each: 
Manage the work of 3 staff members of Quality and Brands Control Section; 45% 
Make recommendation on hiring, promoting and discharging subordinate 5% 
staff Members· 
Manage the collection, organization and analysis of data concerning the 10% 
quality of industries and brands; 
Manage the preparation of industries and businesses quality 10% 
and brands reports; 
Make recommendations on formulating 10% 
policies and measures for improving industries and businesses quality and 
brands; 
... [F]ormulate strategies and plans for improving industry 10% 
and business quality and brands; 
Manage the selection of enterprises applying for product quality and brand 5% 
reputation recognition by the Ministry of Industry and Information 
Technologv; 
Manage special funds for brand development. 5% 
later provided additional details relating to the above categories. 
One of the three staff members mentioned above would "[p]romote industrial technological 
transformation and consulting related issues"; another would assist the Beneficiary "in promoting 
quality and brand"; and the third would assist the Beneficiary "in handling internal administrative 
affairs, and daily work." The Petitioner did not claim that these three subordinates held professional 
positions. 
The Director found that five of the Beneficiary's eight responsibilities (the first three and the last two, 
as ordered above) "contain non-qualifying duties, in part, or whole." The Director found that some of 
these responsibilities concerned duties that the Beneficiary had to perform herself (such as researching 
existing municipal and provincial plans and policies), while others amounted to first-line supervision 
of non-professional employees. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states: "The position description and other documents in the record have 
established that the beneficiary is a functional manager, responsible [for] coordinating and managing 
the quality and brands control of the industries and businesses of 
The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary's managerial capacity derives not 
from supervising or controlling a subordinate staff, but instead from primarily managing an "essential 
function" within the organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a petitioner claims that 
a beneficiary will manage an essential function, it must clearly describe the duties to be performed in 
managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that: 
(I) the function is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is "essential," i.e., core to 
the organization ; (3) the beneficiary will primarily manage , as opposed to perform , the 
3 
.
Matter ofN-A-R-O-
function; ( 4) the beneficiary will act at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy 
or with respect to the function managed; and (5) the beneficiary will exercise discretion 
over the function's day-to-day operations. 
Matter of G-Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). In this matter, the Petitioner has 
not established that the Beneficiary manages an essential function. The Beneficiary appears to have 
had discretion over her unit's day-to-day operations, but the Petitioner has not satisfied the other four 
elements listed immediately above: 
(1) The Petitioner has not defined "Quality and Brands Control" beyond the description of the 
Beneficiary's duties. "[T]he selection of enterprises applying for product quality and brand 
reputation recognition by the Ministry oflndustry and Information Technology" occupied only 
a small fraction of the Beneficiary's time, and the above wording appears to indicate that the 
Ministry oflndustry and Information Technology, not the Quality and Brands Control Section, 
was responsible for actually granting the recognition sought. 
(2) The Petitioner has not shown that "coordinating and managing the quality and brands control 
of the industries and businesses of amounts to an essential function within 
(3) The Beneficiary's described duties predominantly involve supervising data collectors, 
participating in conferences, and preparing reports. Because the Petitioner has not fully 
defined "Quality and Brands Control," the Petitioner has not established the extent to which 
the Beneficiary manages, rather than performs, the activity. 
(4) The Petitioner has not provided enough information about organizational structure 
to show either (a) the significance of the Beneficiary's role there, or (b) who else has authority 
over the function managed. The Beneficiary's job description indicates that she "formulate[d] 
strategies and plans," but also submitted these plans "to the senior 
management of for review" and then "to the leadership of Municipal 
Government," indicating multi-layered review that does not appear to be consistent with a 
senior level of authority or discretion. 
Based on the deficiencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity abroad. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
employed 
The Director also found that the Petitioner had not established that it would employ the Beneficiary in 
a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. However, because the above finding regarding 
the Beneficiary ' s employment abroad is dispositive in this case, we need not reach the issue of her 
prospective U.S. employment, and therefore reserve it. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reason. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
4 
Matter ofN-A-R-O-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofN-A-R-O-, ID# 2480479 (AAO Mar. 26, 2019) 
5