dismissed L-1A Case: International Trade / Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-G-(U.S.A.) INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 20,2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which engages in the sale and fnstallation of flooring and window treatments and 
international trade, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary employment as its president/CEO 
under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany tran~ferees. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(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 revoked the approval of the petition, concluding that 
the Petitioner did not establish, as required, that: (1) the Beneficiary had at least one year of 
employment with a qualifying organization abroad in the three years preceding the filing of the 
initial L-1A petition; and (2) the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity under the extended petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director either misinterpreted the evidence or failed to 
review the entire record and, as a result, erroneously revoked the approval of the petition. 
Upon de novo 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)(15)(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. !d. 
Under U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations, the approval of an L-IA 
petition may be revoked on notice under six specific circumstances. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A). 
To properly revoke the approval of a petition, a director must issue a notice of intent to revoke that 
contains a detailed statement of the grounds for the revocation and the time period allowed for 
rebuttal. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(B). 
.
Matter ofG-G-(U.S:A.) Inc. 
II. EMPLOYMENT WITH A QUALIFYING ORGANIZATION ABROAD 
The first issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary had at least 
one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three 
years preceding the filing of the initial L-lA the Petition er filed on her behalf. See ·8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner filed the initial L-lA petition in December 2013 and must establish that the 
Beneficiary worked for a qualifying foreign entity for at least one year between Decemb er 2010 and 
December 2013. The Petitioner claims that she worked for its Chinese parent company, 
from May 2012 until Dece mber 2013. 
A. Facts and Procedural History 
The Petitioner's initial evidence included: a letter from verifying the Beneficia ry's 
job title, duties, and dates of employment; a payroll summary indicating that paid the 
Beneficiary ¥20,000 per month (¥10,000 base pay) between Octob er 2012 and November 2013; and 
a summary of online "social insurance payment records" that iden tifies the Beneficiar y as "payer" on 
a base monthly salary of ¥1370 for the period October 2012 to November 2013. 
i 
The Director issued a notice of intent to revoke :(NOIR) advising the Petitioner of a discrepancy in 
the Beneficiary 's employment history. Specifically , the Director informed the Petitioner that when 
the Beneficiary applied for a Bl /82 visa at the U.S. consulate in in March 2013, she stated 
that she was employed as a civil servant by 
, and· not by The Director informed the 
Petitioner of her intent to revoke the approval of the petition based on a finding that the state ment of 
facts contained in the petition was not true and correct, and allow ed the Petitioner an opportunity to 
submit additional evidence or arguments. 
In response to the NOIR, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary worked for the 
government from June 2003 untjl April 2012, when she reached a "Leave Without Pay Agreement" 
with that employer. The Petitioner explained that China adopted a leave without pay polic y in the 
1980s as part of the transition from planned economy to market economy, and that the policy 
"encouraged government and state-owned company employees to start their own business or to leave 
their posts within the government system. " The Petitioner further stated that "[ d]uring the Leave 
Without Pay period
, the employees do NOT get salary and other benefits. The emplo yer keeps the 
post for the employee during the Leave Without Pay period." 
In support of its statement, the Petitioner submitted: (1) the Beneficiary's resume prepar ed in April 
2017; 
1 
(2) additional social insurance payment records from 
1 
According to the Beneficiary 's resume, she was employed as a clerk in two city government offices for 12 years prior 
to being hired as the production director and deputy general manager of a company that produces crystalline silico n solar 
.
Matter ofG-G-(U.S.A.) Inc. 
identifying " pension insurance" payments made for the Beneficiary from 2012 until 
2016; (3) copy of a "Leave Without Pay Ag~eement" dated in April 2012, indicating that the 
Beneficiary voluntarily applied for leave to "go find another job," while her employer (Ji<1ding 
District) agreed to keep her position open through April 2014; ( 4) copies o f partially translated 
online articles regarding China 's "Leave Without Pay" policy ; and (5) a letter of resignati on signed 
by both the Beneficiary and a represe ntative of the 
on December 16, 2013. In the letter, the Beneficiary stated that "due to family 
reasons, I believe I can not keep the post." 
In the revocation decision , the Director found that the Petitioner had not submitted suff icient 
evidence to establish that the Beneficiary was employed by from 2012 to 2013. The 
Director empha sized that the Petitioner' s response to the NOIR did not include an exp lanat ion 
regarding the employment information the Benefici ary provid ed on her U.S. visa applic ation in 
March 2013. 
The Director also questioned certain details with respect to the resignation letter, noting that it is 
uncle ar why the Beneficiary would cite " family reasons" for not returning to her post if she had 
accepted anoth er job with almost immediately after lea ving her government position. 
The Director noted that the leave without pay agreement does not stipulate that the Benefic iary 
needed to submit a resignation letter, and observed that it was unclear why the Benefici ary would 
ask that her resignation request be "approved," as the terms of the leave without pay agreement did 
not require such approval. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not revi ew the entire record and specif ically 
emphasizes that it provided social security insurance records from the local government in China 
demonstrating that made payments for the Beneficia ry from May 2012 through 2016 
"eve n after the beneficiary came to US and worked with the Petiti oner." 
The Petitioner also addresses the Beneficiary's l~tter of resignation. The Petitioner states that " it is 
reasona ble for the beneficiary to resign anytim~ during the two-year period of leave w ithout pay" 
and explains that " family reasons may include· finding a bett er posit ion with good salary for her 
fa~ily." 
B. Analysis 
We agree with the Director 's determination that the evidence submitted does not sufficientl y resolve 
the discrepancies in the record . 
First , the Petitioner has not explained why the "Beneficiary did not identify as her 
employer on her U.S. visa application in March 2013, more than 10 months after she purportedly 
modules, silicon rods, solar lights, and batteries. The Petitioner indicates that as production director, she was responsible 
for supervising the entire production and quality control operations of the company. 
3 
Matter ofG-G-(U.S.A.) Inc. 
joined that company. The claimed " Leave without Pay" arra ngemen t does not explain the 
· Beneficiary's statement on the visa application, since she left her government position specifically to 
find another job. If the agency was no longer paying her salary or benefits, it 
remains uncl ear why she would indic ate this employer on her visa application. As noted by the 
Director, the Beneficiary attested to the accuracy of the inform atio n on her visa application unde r 
penalty of perjury and has not provid ed a credible explanation for providing information that she . 
now claims was not correct. 
Regarding China's " lea ve without pay policy ," the Petiti oner provided insuffic ient evidence 
supporting its claim that this policy existed in· 2012. The limit ed and very general information 
provided sugg ests that the policy was in place. in the 1980s and 1990 s. Th e Petitioner has not 
submitted any independent evidence from the prior employer confirming the Benef iciary' s dates of 
employment with the government agency in or her release from her position through 
a leave without pay agreement. Further , we note that the Beneficiary ' s resignation letter was 
ostensibly signed by both her and an official of her former employe r on a date when she was 
physically present in the United Stat es, and therefore lacks prob ative value? The Petiti oner must 
resolve the inconsistenci es and ambiguities in the reco rd with independ ent, o bjecti ve eviden ce 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 'I 988). · 
The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of its claim that employed the 
Benef iciary as its production director, including a company lett er and the foreign entity's internall y­
generated payroll documents , which indicate that the Beneficiar y rece ived. a ¥10,000 "bas ic salary." 
The Petitioner also initially submitted evidence showing that the Beneficiar y made pension 
insurance payments on bas e pay of ¥1370, but this evidence did not identify her emplo yer and the 
salary did not match what was indicat ed on the Benefici ary's payroll records. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted docum ents in response to the NOIR that appea r to 
show that paid "enterpri se pensi~n" insurance on the Benefici ary's behalf from May 
20:12 until December 2016. The Petition er did n~t provide evidence that' continued to 
pay the Benefi ciary's salar y in China or exp lain why it continu ed to make these payments for her 
afte r she came to the United States in 2013. The Beneficiar y indica tes in he r resume tha t her 
employment with ended in Decemb er 2013. 
In addition, although the same individu al translated both sets of soc ial insurance docum ents from 
Chinese to English, there are unexplained differenc es in the two translations. For exampl e, the first 
set of docum ents indicat ed that the "137 0" figure referred to "base pay" while the second set 
indicated that this figure referred to " base units ." The numerical figures in the two se ts of 
documents are a lso slightly different. In light of the other unr esolved discrepancies in the record, 
these insuranc e payment reco rds provid e insuffici ent independ ent and objective evidenc e that the 
foreign entity emplo yed the Beneficiary for at least one yea r between May 2012 and Jul y 2013. 
2 
USCIS arrival and depa rture recor ds s how that the Beneficia ry was admitted to the United States as a visito r on July 2, 
20 13, was granted a change of nonimmigrant status in December 2013, and did not depa rt aga in until 2016. 
4 
Matter ofG-G-(U.S.A.) Inc. 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence on appeal to overcome the Director's determination 
on this issue. Accordingly, we find that the approval of the petition was properly revoked. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The remaining issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. 
A. 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 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
The term "executive capacity" is defined as ar 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. 
When examining the managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look to the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. 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. According! y, 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. 
B. Duties 
The Petitioner provided a statement of the Beneficiary's duties at the time of filing: 
• Report to the Board of Directors; . 
• Establish U.S. company's policies, goals and objectives; 
• Implement the strategic goals and objectives of the organization; 
• Give direction and leadership toward the organization's achievement m 
philosophy, mission, strategy, and objectives; 
5 
Matter ofG-G-(U.S.A.) Inc. 
• Exercises discretionary decisions on ·business strategies and overall direction of 
U.S. company; 
• Cary out the strategic plans and policies as approved by the board of directors; 
• Review . reports, representation and financial statements from department 
managers to determine progress and status in attaining objectives; 
• Formulate planning recommendations to the board of directors; 
• Oversee budgets investments, and operations of organization; 
• Recommend yearly budget for board approval. 
This broad description of the Beneficiary's duties did not convey what she would be doing on a day-to­
day basis as the Petitioner's president. The Petitioner did not provide any concrete examples of 
policies, strategies, or goals the Beneficiary would develop and implement in support of its claim that 
she would spend his time primarily focused on higher-level planning and decision-making 
responsibilities. In fact, many of the duties simply paraphrase the statutory definition of executive 
capacity and the Petitioner did not identify the specific tasks that would occupy the Beneficiary's time. 
Reciting the Beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not · 
sufficient; the regulations require a detailed description of the Beneficiary's daily job duties. The 
Petitioner has not provided any detail or explanation of the Beneficiary's activities in the course of her 
daily routine. The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of 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 also provided a six-page job description which, despite its length, is similarly vague and 
repetitive. For example, the description mentions the Beneficiary's responsibility for reviewing daily 
reports by the CFO and department managers at least 50 times. Therefore, while the description 
appears on its face to be quite extensive, it provides little additional insight into the nature of the 
Beneficiary's day-to-day tasks within the Petitioner's flooring and window treatment business. 
Nevertheless, the Director initially approved the petition based on this brmid description of the 
Beneficiary's duties and an organizational chart depicting 12 subordinate payroll and contract 
employees. Subsequent to the approval of the petition, USCIS conducted an administrative site visit at 
the Petitioner's location, at which time the Bene-ficiary stated that her duties arc- "going out to seck 
clients; visit customers in order to bring in business; and visit suppliers." In the revocation decision, the 
Director noted that these are not the types of duties the Petitioner indicated the Beneficiary would 
perform.3 
The Petitioner has not addressed this finding in its appeal. Therefore, there is an unresolved 
inconsistency between the overly broad position description provided in support of the petition, and 
'The Director also noted that the Beneficiary required an interpreter and docs not speak English, leading the Director to 
question whether the Beneficiary is able to perform the duties she described at the time of the site visit. On appeal, the 
Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary's English language skills are not relevant to her employment in a managerial ur 
executive capacity and further notes that she has bi-lingual employees available to assist her with translation. We agree 
with the Petitioner's assertions in this regard and have not considered the Benefici3ry's English language cabilities in 
making a determination regarding her employment capacity. 
6 
.
Matter o[G-G-(U.S.A.) Inc. 
the Benefici ary 's own statem ent that she performs non-manageri al duties such as seeking clients, 
visiting customers to bring in busine ss, and visiting suppliers. The Petitioner's descript ions of the 
Beneficiary ' s duties do not attribute any of these non-qualifying tasks to her. 
The fact that the Beneficiary will manage or. direct a business does not necessa rily establish 
eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in a manage rial or execu tive capacity 
within the meaning of section 101(a)(44) of the Act. By sta tute, eligibility for this classification 
requires that the duties of a position be "primarily " ex~cutive or managerial in nature. Sections 
lOl(A)( 44)(A) and (B) of the Act. Here , we are unable to determine whether the claimed 
manageri al or executive duti es constitute the majority of the Benefic iary's duties , or whether the 
Beneficiary primarily performs non-qualifying operational du ties related to sales and purchasing. 
The record does not establish what proportion of the duties is manager ial in natur e, and w hat 
proportion is non-managerial. See Republic ofTrcmskei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1991). · 
Therefor e·, even though the Bene ticiary may exercise discretion over the Petition er' s day-to-da y 
operations and possess the requi site leve l of authori ty with respect to discretionar y decision-making, 
the record contains inconsist ent information regarding the natur e of her actual duties. 
C. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executiv e capacity , we take into account the reaso nable need s of the o rganization , in light of the 
overall purpo se and stage of development of the organization . See sect ion 101(a )(44)(C) of the Act. 
The Petitioner , which does business as states th at it sells shutters, blind s, 
shades , flooring, windows , doors, and cabin ets. The Petition er also indic ates that it exports baby 
products to China. The Petitioner's organizational chart identi fie d a total of 13 employees, 
including : the Beneficiary (president /CEO); a CFO; a sales depar tment staffed by a manager and 
three salespeople; a service department staff ed by a s ervice manag er, warehous e e mplo yee, and two 
installers; and an operation department staffed by a manager and two office clerk s. The chart 
identifi ed .11 payroll employees and two co~tractors: The Petitioner also indic ates that the 
Beneficiary oversees a sal es department and an international trade department in Chin a, staffed by a 
total of four employees. 
The Petition er filed the Form l-129 in Decemb er 2016. The Petitioner's quarterl y federal tax returns 
and state quarterly wage reports for the first three quarters of 2016 indicated that the company 
regularly empl.oyed between five and seven w~ rkers in any given m onth, and reported only five 
employee s at the end of September 2016. However , the Petition er did provide internally generated 
payroll documents indicating that it paid all 1 i employees named on the organizational chart m 
November 2016. 
At the time of the USCIS site v1s1t m April 2017 , howe ver, the only person working in the 
Petitioner 's store was an individual who claim ed that she was riot an employee of the petitioning 
compan y, but merely there to help the Benefici ary. The Petitioner later pro vided bank ·statements to 
'7 
Matter of G-G-(U.S.A.) Inc. 
the officer that conducted the site visit. However, in the NOIR, the Director observed that the 
documents did not show that the Petitioner was paying the Beneficiary and at least 12 other 
employees as claimed on the petition. 
In response to the NOIR, the Petitioner submitted a statement from the Beneficiary, who indicated that 
the company "has paid all the ordinary employees on time." The attached supporting evidence 
included copies of checks paid to 11 employ~es; however, none of the evidence was contemporaneous 
with the date of the site visit. In fact, the most recent paycheck provided was from March 2017. 
Further, only three subordinate workers received checks during that month, and those checks appeared 
to be for work performed in February 2017. Therefore, the record does not support a claim that the 
Petitioner remained more than minimally staffed at the time of the site visit, or who, other than the 
Beneficiary, wa<; receiving wages at that time. The Petitioner has not submitted any additional 
evidence or an explanation regarding the absence of on-site employees during the site visit, nor has it 
shown that it continues to have the staffing and structure that it claimed at the time of filing. 
Therefore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how it would continue to support the Beneficiary in her 
claimed managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. Rather, given the lack of 
evidence that the Petitioner maintained the staffing levels claimed at the time of filing, it appears 
more likely than not the Petitioner was unable to relieve her from direct involvement in the non­
managerial day-to-day operations of the company's flooring, window treatment, 1[nd export business. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary would primarily supervise a subordinate 
staff of professional, managerial, or supervisory personnel, or an essential function of the company. 
See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not established that it 
continued to employ staff who would the Beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties. 
Regardless of the Beneficiary's position title, the record is not persuasive that she will function at a 
senior level within an organizational hierarchy or primarily focus on the broad policies and goals of 
the company, rather than on its day-to-day operations. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that it would employ the Beneficiary in 
a managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. As such, we find that the Director 
properly revoked the approval of the petition on this basis. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that it will employ the 
Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition, or establish that the 
Beneficiary had one year of employment with a qualifying foreign entity in the three years preceding 
the filing of her initial L-1A petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofG-G-(U.S.A.) Inc., ID# 1255503(AAO June 20, 2018) 
's