dismissed L-1A Case: Investment

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 30, 2023 In Re: 24706749 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, an investment holding company, seeks to continue temporarily employing the 
Beneficiary as its president. The company requests extension of its L-1 A nonimmigrant visa petition 
for him in an executive capacity. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that, 
contrary to the Act and regulations, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that it had been "doing business" 
the year before the petition's filing or that it would employ the Beneficiary in the claimed executive 
capacity. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that, although it generated no revenues, it had been "doing 
business" and that the Director overlooked evidence of the executive nature of the Beneficiary's 
proposed work. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence . See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec . 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that the company has not established the Beneficiary's proposed employment in 
an executive capacity. We will therefore dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
A petitioner seeking to employ an L-lA manager or executive must demonstrate that - for at least one 
continuous year in the three years before a beneficiary's initial U.S. admission in nonimmigrant status 
- the petitioner or its parent, branch, subsidiary, or affiliate employed the noncitizen abroad in a 
capacity that was managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge. 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(1)(3)(i), 
(iii), (iv). An L-lA petitioner must also establish that a beneficiary's education, training, and 
employment experience qualify them for the U.S. managerial or executive position. 8 C.F.R . 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(ii), (iv). 
The Petitioner's prior L-lA petition for the Beneficiary authorized him to work in a "new office," an 
organization that had been doing business in the United States for less than one year. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(l)(ii)(F) ( defining the term "new office"). A "new office" petition may not remain valid for 
more than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(7)(i)(A)(3). 
When adjudicating an extension petition involving the same parties and underlying facts, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) should defer to a prior approval "where appropriate." 
2 USCIS Policy Manual A(4)(B)(l). But deferral to a "new office" approval is inappropriate because 
the eligibility requirements for the initial and extension petitions materially differ. Id. Unlike in the 
initial petition proceedings, a "new office" extension petitioner must show that it can immediately 
support an executive or managerial position. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). A "new office" extension 
petitioner must also demonstrate that it has been "doing business" the prior year, and that it and a 
beneficiary's foreign employer remain "qualifying organizations." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(A), (B). 
Further, a "new office" extension petitioner must: describe its staffing, including its number of 
employees, types of positions, and proposed wages; disclose its financial status; and identify a 
beneficiary's prior and future duties. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(C), (D), (E). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record shows that the Petitioner's parent company, also an investment holding firm, formed in 
Singapore in 2017. The parent began employing the Beneficiary, a native of China and citizen of 
Cyprus, as its general manager in December 2017. The following year, he became the parent's 
president. 
The parent owns a majority of the Petitioner, a U.S. limited liability company that formed in._l___. 
2020. Its prior L-lA petition authorized the Beneficiary to work for it from January 2021 to January 
2022. The Petitioner states that it "focuses on acquiring small companies or their equities." The 
company submitted evidence that, in 2021, it bought minority ownership interests in a residential 
construction company and a data management firm. 
The Petitioner seeks to continue employing the Beneficiary as its president in an executive capacity. 
The company does not claim that he would serve in a managerial capacity. The term "executive 
capacity" means work "primarily" involving: 
• Directing the management of an organization or a major component or function of it; 
• Establishing the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
• Exercising wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
• Receiving only general supervision or direction from higher-level executives, a board of 
directors, or stockholders of an organization. 
Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
Thus, an L-lA executive must hold an elevated position within an organization. A beneficiary must 
have the ability to "direct the management" and "establish the goals and policies" of an organization 
or a major component or function of it. Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. A petitioner must show 
how the organization, component, or function is managed and demonstrate that the beneficiary would 
"primarily" focus on its management, goals, and policies, rather than on its daily operations. Id. 
2 
When determining a proposed position's nature, USCIS first considers the job's duties. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(ii) (requiring "a detailed description of the services to be performed"); see also F edin 
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 actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment.") The Agency then considers 
the record's totality and weighs all relevant factors, including: the nature and scope of a petitioner's 
business; its organizational structure, staffing levels, and a beneficiary's position within the 
organization; the scope of a beneficiary's authority; a petitioner's employment of others who could 
relieve a beneficiary from performing operational and administrative duties; the duties of a 
beneficiary's proposed subordinates; and other factors affecting a beneficiary's business role. Matter 
ofZ-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02, **4-5 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). 
A. Job Duties 
The Director found that the Petitioner's descriptions of the Beneficiary's job duties do not demonstrate 
his proposed employment in an executive capacity. The Director found the job descriptions "too 
generalized." 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would spend the following percentages of his time 
performing the following duties: 
• Strategy-making (25%): Using strategically important measures, determine the organization's 
ongoing success or lack thereof. Using non-measurable aspects of the work environment, such 
as ambiance, gauge other aspects of business success. Note opportunities for expanding the 
company's number of customers, markets, industries, and standards. Evaluate the company's 
success by comparing information in managerial and financial reports to goals. Make 
discretionary decisions on company-wide business matters. Research relevant markets to 
explore merger and acquisition opportunities. Develop company growth and investment 
strategies. 
• Leadership (25%): Create, communicate, and implement the organization's vision, mission, 
and overall direction. Lead company strategy development and implementation. Work with 
board members to plan and implement short-, mid-, and long-term company strategies by 
studying trends in relevant industries, researching competitors, and listening to managerial 
staff. Set quarterly and annual goals. Oversee the company's fiscal activity, including 
budgeting, reporting, and auditing. Ensure allocation of sufficient resources to key projects. 
Lead formulation, revision, and updating of company policies and standard operating 
procedures to ensure work quality, coordinated processes, or responses to changed conditions. 
• Representation (5%): Sign business deals and important documents for the company. 
Represent the company in state and local government matters and in dealing with the 
community. Participate in major business negotiations. Review, approve, or reject agreements 
with other parties. Work with banks, lenders, investors, and public officials. 
• Evaluation (10%): Evaluate general manager's performance and the external, competitive 
landscape. Strategize with general manager to maintain the company's market appeal. 
Determine evaluation criteria and communicate requirements to managerial staff. Review 
3 
performance of department managers. Decide pay increases, merit-based rewards, and 
promotions. Oversee development of company training plan. 
• Human Resources (10%): Make final decisions on hiring or firing general manager based on 
performance. Hire, fire, and mentor general manager and department managers. Make final 
disciplinary decisions. Oversee annual updates and re-issues of company employee manual. 
• Direction (25%): Regularly meet with general manager to assess company direction and its 
consistency with company mission. Oversee company operation and its consistency with 
strategic plans. Call and preside over managerial meetings to solve business problems. 
Develop annual operational plan articulating the company's key assumptions and reflecting its 
strategy and goals. Direct departments and function directors to develop annual operational 
plans, aligning key results with company goals. Direct the development of company 
budgeting. 
As the Director found, the Petitioner's descriptions of the Beneficiary's proposed job duties are vague 
and generic. The Petitioner states that he would: make discretionary business decisions; develop 
growth and investment strategies; formulate, revise, and update policies and operating procedures; and 
develop annual operating plans. But the company does not provide details or examples of the 
decisions, strategies, policies, procedures, or plans under his purported control. "Specifics are clearly 
an important indication of whether [a beneficiary's] duties are primarily executive or managerial in 
nature, otherwise meeting the definitions [of those terms] would simply be a matter of reiterating the 
regulations." Fedin Bros., 724 F. Supp. at ll08. The Beneficiary has purportedly been performing 
many of the proposed job duties for the past year. But the Petitioner's descriptions of his duties lack 
sufficient details to demonstrate his proposed, daily activities. 
Supporting evidence of the Beneficiary's job duties also does not establish the claimed executive 
nature of his work. The Petitioner submitted a schedule of his purported activities during a work week 
in November 2021. But, like the company's job-duty descriptions, the schedule lacks specifics about 
his activities. For example, the schedule indicates that the Beneficiary participated in a conference 
call with officials of the Petitioner's parent regarding future projects and fonding. But the schedule 
does not indicate the projects or fonding levels discussed. Also, the schedule indicates that the 
Beneficiary met with the Petitioner's operations manager for one and one-half hours "to get updates 
of the product with sales." But the record does not indicate that the Petitioner sells any products. The 
company describes itself as an investment holding business, and its U.S. income tax returns state that 
it did not generate any revenues in 2020 or 2021. Further, the operation manager's job duties do not 
indicate the position's involvement with product sales. These unexplained discrepancies cast doubt 
on the accuracy of the schedule and the Beneficiary's job duties. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 
591 (BIA 1988) (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies). 
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner's job-duty descriptions do not 
sufficiently support the claimed executive nature of the proposed employment. 
4 
B. Organizational Structure 
The Director also found that the Petitioner's organizational structure does not demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's proposed employment in an executive capacity. The Director found that, contrary to 
section 101(a)(44)(B)(i) of the Act, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's five direct 
subordinates would work in managerial capacities, thereby allowing him to "direct[] the management 
of the organization" as an executive. Rather, the Director found that the subordinates' job descriptions 
indicate that they would "primarily perform the day-to-day tasks of the U.S. entity's business." 
At the time of this petition's filing, the Petitioner demonstrated its employment of nine people -
including the Beneficiary. The company's organizational chart lists him at its top as the president, 
directly supervising a general manager. The Petitioner, however, stated that it would not begin 
employing the general manager until about eight months after this petition's filing. The company 
must establish its ability to support the claimed executive position at the time of this petition's filing. 
See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C), (14)(ii)(D). Thus, like the Director, we will disregard 
the general manager's position and, with no evidence to the contrary, assume that the Beneficiary 
directly supervised the vacant position's subordinates at the time of this petition's filing. These 
subordinates consist of five people, each purportedly managing one of the following departments: risk 
control; finance; technical/operations; legal/human resources; and brand management. The 
organizational chart also shows the Petitioner's employment of three first-line workers, comprising 
assistants to the heads of the risk control, technical/operations, and brand management departments. 
At the time of the petition's filing, the heads of the finance and legal/human resources departments 
lacked assistants. Thus, without subordinates, these two department heads did not manage personnel 
and presumably performed their departments' operational duties themselves. The record therefore 
does not establish the managerial nature of these two positions or the Beneficiary's ability to direct 
the company's management by supervising them. See VHV Jewelers, LLC v. Wo(f, 17 F.4th 109, 114 
(11th Cir. 2021) (interpreting the phrase "direct the management" in the definition of "executive 
capacity" at section 10l(a)(44)(B)(i) of the Act to require "a subordinate level of managerial 
employees"). 
The record shows that, at the time of the petition's filing, the Beneficiary's other three subordinates 
had assistants. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director overlooked the subordinates' job 
duties. But their duties do not demonstrate the employees work as managers. Their job duties state 
that they each spend only 10% of their time supervising their assistants. Thus, the record does not 
establish that the Beneficiary's subordinates primarily supervise and control the work of other 
employees. Thus, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary's five subordinates work 
in managerial capacities. His supervision of the subordinates at the time of the petition's filing 
therefore does not demonstrate his direction of the Petitioner's management in an executive capacity. 
See VHV Jewelers, 17 F.4th at 114 (interpreting the definition of "executive capacity" to require 
direction of "a subordinate level of managerial employees"). 
5 
Based on the Petitioner's descriptions of the proposed job duties and its organizational structure, the 
company has not demonstrated that it would employ the Beneficiary in the claimed executive 
capacity. 1 We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
Our affirmance resolves this appeal. Thus, we need not review the Director's finding of insufficient 
evidence that the Petitioner was "doing business" the year before this petition's filing. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 US 24, 25 (1976) ("As a general rule, courts and agencies are not required to make 
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.") Rather, we will 
reserve the issue's consideration in case its resolution becomes needed. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's proposed employment in the claimed executive 
capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 In assessing an offered position's executive nature, USCTS cannot focus exclusively on a petitioner's staffing level. 
Section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act. Here, we considered the Petitioner's number of employees. But we also considered 
other factors, including: the company's organizational structure; the Beneficiary's position within the organization; and 
the company's employment of other workers and their duties. 
6