dismissed L-1A Case: Jewelry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 27, 2024 In Re: 30131659 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a jewelry store, seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as its "Senior Sales 
Manager" under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracornpany transferees who are corning 
to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 1 The matter is now 
before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonirnmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a position requiring 
specialized knowledge for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's 
application for admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1). 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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
Section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" 
as an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily : 
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component 
of the organization; 
1 At the time of filing and in response to the Director 's request for evidence (RFE) the Petitioner claimed that the 
Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity and did not make a claim to executive capacity until it filed this appeal. 
(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. 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. 
II. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence establishing that the 
Beneficiary's position abroad was in a managerial capacity. 
To be eligible for nonimmigrant visa classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial 
capacity, the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary performed the high-level responsibilities set 
forth in the statutory definition at section 10l(a)(44)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act. If the record does not 
establish that the position in question - in this case the foreign position - meets all four of these 
elements, we cannot conclude that it is a qualifying managerial position. 
If the Petitioner establishes that the position in question meets all elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary primarily performed managerial duties, as 
opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside other employees within the foreign entity. See 
Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). 2 
The record in this matter shows that the Beneficiary had been employed as a senior sales manager at 
a jewelry store where his responsibilities included overseeing sales personnel, hiring and training 
employees, assisting the inventory manager with inventory and sales policies and maintaining vendor 
relationships, setting and authorizing prices, ensuring employees' adherence to company policies, and 
meeting with the director monthly to inform about employee performance and company productivity. 
The Petitioner did not specifically discuss the foreign entity's reporting structure, but rather it provided 
an organizational chart showing the foreign company's three shareholders at the top of the hierarchy, 
followed by one shareholder in the position of"Director/General Manager" overseeing the Beneficiary 
in his position as senior sales manager. The Beneficiary is depicted as having five subordinates - a 
sales assistant manager, an assistant floor manager, an administrative assistant, and two sales 
associates - while two other employees - a floor manager and an inventory manager - are depicted 
alongside the Beneficiary with no subordinates of their own, despite their managerial position titles. 
2 In determining whether a given beneficiary's duties are primarily managerial, we consider that beneficiary's job duties. 
the employer's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other 
employees to relieve the 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. 
2 
In a request for evidence, the Director informed the Petitioner that it did not provide sufficient 
supporting evidence to establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 
As such, the Petitioner was asked to further discuss the foreign organization's reporting structure and 
provide evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary managed professional or managerial-level 
employees and had the authority to control their work and to hire and fire or recommend other 
personnel actions with respect to those individuals. 
In response, the Petitioner provided the Beneficiary's job duty breakdown as well as the minutes of 
team meetings that the Beneficiary headed and layaway contracts, employee schedules, and job offer 
letters that the Beneficiary signed in his capacity as store manager. However, while the job offer 
letters contained the respective salaries, assigned job duties, and requirements for the foreign entity's 
"inventory manager/assistant manager" and sales assistant, they did not list the positions' respective 
assigned job duties or indicate that either position was supervisory in nature as neither included 
employee oversight as a component of the job. The offer letters also did not list an educational 
component as being among those requirements. 
The Petitioner also provided one employee's resume showing that the employee - the foreign entity's 
administrative assistant - possessed a bachelor's degree. However, the record contains no evidence 
showing that the degree was actually required of the administrative assistant or of any of the 
Beneficiary's subordinates. 3 It therefore does not appear that the Beneficiary managed subordinates 
who were supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. See 2 USCIS Policy Manual, 
L.6(C)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (stating that supervisory duties are not sufficient to 
establish employment in a managerial capacity unless the employees supervised are professional). 
Although the Beneficiary may have exercised discretion over the day-to-day operations of the foreign 
entity's jewelry store and its employees, the Petitioner must still establish that the position meets all 
elements of the statutory definition of managerial capacity in the course of performing primarily 
managerial duties. 
In the matter at hand, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary supervised or controlled 
the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, as required by section 
10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. Although the RFE notified the Petitioner of the evidentiary deficiency 
concerning this requirement, the Petitioner did not adequately address this deficiency in the RFE 
response. Rather, the Petitioner resubmitted the original organizational chart and provided several 
employee resumes along with evidence showing that the foreign entity's administrative assistant 
possessed a bachelor's degree. However, as previously noted, the record contains no evidence to show 
that a bachelor's degree was required for any of the positions that were subject to the Beneficiary's 
supervisory control to establish that the position supervised was professional or supervisory. 
3 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 IO I (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." 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. 
3 
And despite assigning managerial position titles to the floor manager, inventory manager, sales 
assistant manager, and assistant manager, the foreign entity's organizational chart does not depict any 
of these positions as supervisory or managerial with respect to other company employees. Nor did the 
Petitioner establish that of any of the Beneficiary's subordinates were assigned employee supervision 
as part of their job duties. In fact, the record contains job descriptions for only two of the Beneficiary's 
subordinates - the inventory manager and sales assistant - and neither listed employee supervision as 
a component of the position. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
Accordingly, the Director denied the petition finding that the record lacks evidence showing that the 
Beneficiary supervised and controlled the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees, which we agree with and have discussed above. The Director additionally found that the 
record lacked evidence of the Beneficiary's supervisory control over his subordinates. 
In contrast to this last point, however, the record shows that the Petitioner adequately documented the 
Beneficiary's supervisory role through its submission of the Beneficiary's job duty breakdown along 
with minutes of meetings that the Beneficiary headed, and job offer letters, layaway receipts, and 
employee work schedules that the Beneficiary signed in his capacity as the store manager. Therefore, 
we disagree with the determination that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary had 
supervisory control over the jewelry store employees. 
However, for the reasons discussed above, the Director correctly determined that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the Beneficiary managed other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. 
Despite demonstrating the Beneficiary's supervisory role over the jewelry store staff, a first line 
supervisor is not acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties 
unless the employees supervised are professional. 2 USCIS Policy Manual, L.6(C)(l), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Thus, merely demonstrating that the Beneficiary had 
supervisory authority is not enough to satisfy the second prong of the statutory definition of managerial 
capacity. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity because 
he supervised the work of "other professionals," but it offers no evidence, aside from what was 
previously submitted, to show that the Beneficiary's subordinates occupied positions whose job 
requirements were consistent with those of professional employees. 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"). In fact, the Petitioner does not 
discuss the job requirements of the Beneficiary's subordinates, but rather focuses on the Beneficiary's 
supervisory duties and control over the employees he supervised. As previously noted, the fact that 
the Beneficiary signed certain documents and instructed employees to take certain actions does not 
establish that the employee supervision he exercised was over other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees, pursuant to the statutory definition. Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
Lastly, despite having previously claimed that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial 
capacity at the time of filing and in response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner now asserts that the 
Beneficiary's position abroad also fits the definition of executive capacity. Because the Petitioner had 
4 
the opportunity at the time of filing, and in response to the Director's RFE, but did not previously raise 
this claim, and now raises it for the first time on appeal, we need not consider this new claim. See 
Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 
(BIA 1988). 4 
Regardless, we will dismiss this appeal because the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's 
position abroad was in a managerial capacity as defined in the statute governing this classification. 
III. BEYOND THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION 
In addition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's role and duties in the proposed U.S. position 
would be similar to those in his position with the foreign entity. Therefore, although not addressed in 
the Director's decision, the record does not support the conclusion that the Beneficiary's proposed 
position will be in a managerial capacity as the record does not show that he would manage other 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. 
While this additional deficiency is not a ground for our dismissal of this appeal, the Petitioner will be 
required to address it, whether in farther pursuit of the instant petition or in any future filings where 
the Beneficiary's position abroad is relevant to eligibility. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary's employment 
abroad was in a managerial capacity and on the basis of this conclusion the petition cannot be 
approved. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 We note that the Petitioner addresses only the first component of the statutory definition of executive capacity, claiming 
that the Beneficiary's "expertise is based on his extensive knowledge of the selling of diamonds and jewels which are 
essential and a major component of the organization." The Petitioner does not address the three remaining elements of the 
statutory definition, which requires a showing that the Beneficiary not only directed the management of the organization 
or its component, but that he also established goals and policies of the organization or its component, that he exercised 
discretionary decision-making, and that he was only subject to general supervision from those occupying higher-level 
positions within the organization. Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
5