dismissed L-1A Case: Jewelry Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-N- INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 9, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a jewelry retailer, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as president of its new 
office 1 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 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity 
within one year. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director ignored a submitted business plan and hiring 
timeline and it asserts, contrary to the Director's conclusion, that it submitted a detailed and 
consistent duty description for the Beneficiary. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving a new 
office, a qualifying organization must have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity 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)(3)(v)(B). 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 submit evidence to demonstrate that the new office will be able to support a 
managerial or executive position within one year. This evidence must establish that the petitioner 
1 The tenn "new office'' refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one 
year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(F). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a ''new office" operation no 
more than one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
Matter of A-N- Inc. 
secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation and disclose the proposed nature and 
scope of the entity, its organizational structure, its financial goals, and the size of the U.S. 
investment. See generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
We will first analyze whether the Petitioner established that it would employ the Beneficiary in a 
managerial or executive capacity within one year of the petition's approval. 
"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 statute defines an "executive capacity" as 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. 
In order to determine whether the Petitioner established that its new office will support a managerial 
or executive position within one year, we will review the Beneficiary's proposed job duties, along 
with the Petitioner's business and hiring plans and evidence that the business will grow sufficiently 
to support the Beneficiary in the intended managerial or executive capacity. The totality of the 
evidence must be considered in analyzing whether the proposed managerial or executive position is 
plausible, considering a petitioner's anticipated staffing levels and stage of development within a 
one-year period. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner stated that it was created by its foreign parent "to establish a presence in the ever 
growing jewelry manufacturing and retail sector" in the United States. In support of the petition, the 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would provide "strategic leadership" and "long range 
planning," introduce "new programs/strategies," enforce "policies and procedures," and provide 
strategic financial input. The Petitioner also indicated that the Beneficiary would be tasked with 
leading on "decision making issues," evaluating "potential vendor partnerships," developing plans 
for improvement, and implementing "marketing programs" and "new product rollouts." 
2 
Matter of A-N- Inc. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided another duty 
description explaining that the Beneficiary would be tasked with "setting the manufacturing sales 
strategy," "analyzing sales reports, potential sales, and performance data," and "determining areas of 
cost reduction and program improvement." The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary would be 
responsible for "allocating capital," "setting up a stock management system," and directing and 
approving "product strategies, price policies, and discounts." In addition, it indicated that the 
Beneficiary would manage "integrated project plans," develop "scope of work documents," track 
achievement of the company's "mission and vision," and make "important investment decisions." It 
also explained that the Beneficiary would be tasked with establishing "goals and objectives," 
devising solutions or improvements to financial reports, planning weekly meetings, ·'analyzing 
problematic situations and occurrence[s]," "promoting the Company through social media," and 
"developing new innovative marketing campaigns." 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Beneficiary's duties were broad and vague. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's duties are sufficiently detailed and consistent 
with the duties of president as specified in the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook) and by the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). 
Upon review, we concur with the Director that the Beneficiary's duties are overly vague as they do 
not effectively convey the Beneficiary's day-to-day managerial or executive duties. The 
Beneficiary's job description includes several general duties that could apply to any manager or 
executive acting in any business or industry; such duties do not provide insight into the actual nature 
of his role. The Petitioner provided few specifics related to how the Beneficiary's day-to-day duties 
fit specifically within the company's first year business plans. For instance, the Petitioner did not 
specify the actions the Beneficiary will take during its first year of operation to assure that the 
business develops as necessary to support him in a managerial or executive capacity within one year. 
In fact, the Beneficiary's duty description includes few references to the company's intended 
business, the sale of jewelry, beyond a brief reference to him establishing a "stock management 
plan." 
The Petitioner submits few examples of manufacturing and sales strategies the Beneficiary would 
set, cost reductions or program improvements he would put in place, business strategies he would 
align, project plans he would manage, or scopes of work he would develop. Further, the Petitioner 
did not articulate missions and vision the Beneficiary would implement, investment decisions he 
would make, goals and objectives he would establish, solutions or improvements to financial issues 
he would devise, or marketing campaigns he would develop. The similarity of the Beneficiary's 
duties to Handbook and O*NET descriptions of "executives" does not provide additional insight into 
his actual day-to-day managerial or executive tasks during, or after, one year. The Handbook and 
O*NET descriptions are not business or position specific, but generic breakdowns of a profession's 
duties. The record requires more detail as to the Beneficiary's specific tasks to assess whether he 
would act primarily in a managerial or executive capacity within one year. 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 of reiterating the regulations. 
3 
Matter of A-N- Inc. 
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 fact that the Beneficiary would manage the business does not necessarily establish eligibility for 
classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity within the 
meaning of section 101(a)(44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that 
the duties of a position be "primarily" managerial or executive in nature. Section lOl(A)( 44)(A) and 
(B) of the Act. Even though the Beneficiary would exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to­
day operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision­
making, these elements are not sufficient to establish that the actual duties the Beneficiary would 
perform within one year of the petition's approval would be primarily managerial or executive in 
nature. The actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd., 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108. Here, the Petitioner provided a vague job description that does not 
adequately convey the Beneficiary's actual proposed day-to-day tasks or establish that he would 
devote his time primarily to managerial or executive duties within one year. 
B. Business Plan and Projected Staffing 
In the case of a new office petition, we review the petitioner's business and hiring plans and 
evidence that the business will grow sufficiently to support a beneficiary in the intended managerial 
or executive capacity. A petitioner has the burden to establish that it would realistically develop to 
the point where it would require the beneficiary to perform duties that are primarily managerial or 
executive in nature within one year of the petition's approval. Accordingly, we consider the totality 
of the evidence in analyzing whether the proposed managerial or executive position is plausible 
based on a petitioner's anticipated staffing levels and stage of development within a one-year period. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
In a submitted business plan, the Petitioner stated that it planned on hiring seven employees in 
addition to the Beneficiary during the first year, including a subordinate production manager, a 
quality control supervisor, and an office manager. The chart further indicated that the production 
manager would supervise two jewelers to be hired within the first year. The chart also reflected that 
the Petitioner would hire a sales manager subordinate to the Beneficiary in its second year of 
operation who would oversee two sales representatives/associates to be hired during the first year. 
In addition, a first year timeline in the business plan indicated that the Petitioner would hire the 
production manager during the first month of operation, the two sales representatives/associates in 
month five, and the office manager during its ninth month of operation. The timeline did not detail 
when it planned on hiring its two project jewelers or the quality control supervisor. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and 
"function managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. We note that the Petitioner 
does not contend that the Beneficiary would act as a function manager within one year; as such we 
will only analyze whether he would act as a personnel manager. Personnel managers are required to 
primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
4 
Matter ofA-N- Inc. 
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." Section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 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)(J). 
The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would oversee subordinate managers and 
professionals within one year. The Petitioner's business plan is to operate a retail jewelry location. 
As such, it is not credible that within one year, it would require four managerial level employees (the 
Beneficiary, a production supervisor, a quality control supervisor, and an office manager), and only 
four operational level employees. The projected organizational chart also reflects that the 
Beneficiary would only supervise one proposed supervisor within one year, the production manager, 
as this is the only employee shown to have subordinates within the first year. 
Despite their titles, it does not appear that the quality control supervisor or office manager would act 
as subordinate managers within the first year. The duties of these employees appear more 
operational in nature rather than supervisory. For instance, the Petitioner stated that the quality 
control supervisor would "develop inspection plans," examine pieces against customer requirements. 
"maintain quality assurance compliance objectives," and recommend potential changes in the 
production process. Likewise, it indicated that the office manager would "analyze office processes 
and recommend procedural or policy improvements," ensure that employees are complying with 
company rules, prepare invoices, memos, reports and other documents, order supplies and maintain 
records, and perform basic bookkeeping work. Again, it does not appear credible that one retail 
jewelry location would require four employees devoted to policy and procedure changes; as such, it 
is more likely that the quality control supervisor and the office manager would be focused on the 
operational aspects of their functions, including inspecting goods for consistency and bookkeeping 
and other office work. The first year hiring plans and organizational chart also do not reflect that 
these claimed managers would have subordinates within one year. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the quality assurance supervisor or office manager would act as managerial 
subordinates to the Beneficiary within the first year. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed quality assurance supervisor or 
office manager would act as professionals. The Petitioner has not articulated minimum bachelor's 
degree requirements for these positions and the duties of these positions to not indicate that 
bachelor's degrees would be required.2 
2 In determining 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." 
5 
Matter of A-N- Inc. 
In addition, the duty description of the production manager does not credibly demonstrate that this 
employee would act in a managerial capacity subordinate to the Beneficiary within one year. The 
production manager's duties stated that he or she would be tasked with implementing, controlling, 
and adjusting "production procedures" and "processes for supplies, shipping, receiving, inputting, 
manufacturing, jewelry design creation, and assembly." It also indicated that the production 
manager would be tasked with planning and prioritizing work, analyzing deficiencies, optimizing the 
production staff, and establishing vendor agreements. However, the Petitioner submitted little detail 
regarding the production procedures this employee would control and adjust, shipping and receiving 
processes he or she would implement, or vendor agreements he or she would establish. Further, 
these duties appear to overlap significantly with those of the Beneficiary; for instance, the 
Beneficiary's focus on setting manufacturing strategy, determining areas of "program 
improvement," setting up a stock management system, "managing integrated project plans," and 
"developing scope of work documents." The Petitioner also submitted a hiring timeline during the 
first year that did not indicate when it planned on hiring the production manager's only two asserted 
subordinates, two jewelers. In short, the Petitioner has not credibly established that the Beneficiary 
and the proposed production manager would both be required to act in managerial capacities during 
the first year and not primarily focused on the day-to-day operational level duties of the business. 
The Petitioner has also not demonstrated that the projected production manager position would be a 
professional position. Again, the Petitioner did not submit minimum education requirements for the 
proposed production manager position and the duties of the position do not indicate that it would 
require a bachelor's degree to act in this role. 
Furthermore, we acknowledge that the Petitioner has submitted documentation indicating that the 
foreign employer likely has transferred an investment in the new venture. In support of the petition, 
the Petitioner stated that this amount was $75,000; however, in response to the RFE it indicated that 
this amount was $90,000 and also suggested that the overall investment could total $250,000. 
However, regardless of the amount, the Petitioner has not detailed how these amounts would be 
utilized to successfully launch the business during the first year. The Petitioner also only submitted 
a vague first year business timeline that does not credibly establish how it would develop sufficiently 
during the first year. For instance, the Petitioner states that it would perform a number of activities 
during the first year that could apply to any business in any industry, such as implementing strategy 
and goals during the first month, creating a website in the second month, discussing jewelry trends in 
months four and ten, starting "intensive social media communication" in month nine, and analyzing 
"the sales and marketing results" in month eleven. These action plans do not provide sufficient 
detail as to what the Petitioner would do to sufficiently launch its retail jewelry business during the 
first year such that it can support the Beneficiary and three other asserted managers in their positions 
within one year. 
For the above-stated reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would more 
likely than not oversee subordinate managers and professionals within the first year. 
Matter of A-N- Inc. 
The Petitioner also contends on appeal that the Beneficiary would act in an executive capacity within 
the first year. 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 organization must have a subordinate level of managerial employees for a beneficiary to direct 
and they 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 demonstrated that the Beneficiary would likely act in an executive capacity 
within the first year. As we have discussed, it has submitted a vague duty description for the 
Beneficiary that does not sufficiently detail the executive level duties he would perform within one 
year. The Petitioner also has not credibly articulated and documented how one retail jewelry 
location would support the Beneficiary in an executive capacity and three other proposed managerial 
subordinates. The Petitioner's business plans and timeline do not adequately detail its investment 
plans and the first year actions it will undertake to successfully launch the business such that it 
would support the Beneficiary in an executive capacity within one year. The evidence does not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary would likely oversee a subordinate level of managerial employees 
within the first year to allow him to primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the 
organization rather than the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. 
In conclusion, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would act in managerial or 
executive capacity within one year of an approval of the petition. 
III. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
Although not addressed by the Director, we find that the Petitioner did not establish that it has a 
qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. See section 101(a)(15)(L); see also 
8 C.F.R. 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(G) (providing definitions of the terms "parent," "branch," "subsidiary," and 
"affiliate") and 8 C.F.R. 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(A) (requiring evidence that petitioners and foreign entities 
are "still qualifying organizations"). 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's foreign employer is its "parent" company and that it "is 
100% owned by the management of the parent company"; however, the evidence does not 
demonstrate that the foreign entity and the Petitioner have a parent-subsidiary relationship. In order 
to be the Petitioner's parent, the foreign employer would have to be the sole owner of the company, 
which is not reflected in the submitted evidence. The Petitioner submitted stock certificates and a 
.
Matter of A-N- lnc. 
stock ledger indicating that it issued 110 shares to two individuals, (90 shares) and 
the Beneficiary (20 shares). There is no evidence that the foreign employer owns the Petitioner. 
The evidence also shows that the Petitioner does not qualify as a subsidiary as it is owned by two 
individuals, not by a legal entity. See 8 CFR 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(K). 
In the alternative, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it and the foreign employer qualify as 
affiliates. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 214 .2(l)(l)(ii)(L) defines affiliates as: (1) one of two 
subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same parent or individual, or (2) one of 
two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of individuals, each individual owning 
and controlling approximately the same share or proportion of each entity. The Petitioner provided a 
2015 foreign employer audited financial statement reflecting that the foreign entity's shares were 
distributed as follows: 30,000 to the Beneficiary and 25,000 to The evidence does 
not demonstrate that the Petitioner and foreign employer are both owned and controlled by the same 
company or individual or owned by a group of individuals owning and controlling approximately the 
same share or proportion of each entity. In fact, the evidence reflects that holds a 
controlling interest in the Petitioner, while the Beneficiary holds more shares in the foreign employer 
than 
As such, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign 
employer. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the record does not include sufficient evidence to establish that 
the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of this 
petition's approval or that the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-N- Inc., ID# 1041429 (AAO July 9, 2018)