dismissed L-1A Case: Leather And Textile Goods

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 05, 2024 In Re: 33491048 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer and seller of leather and textile goods, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as its chief executive officer (CEO) under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding record did not establish 
that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity and that she would 
be employed in the same capacity in the United States. The matter is now before us on appeal under 
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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal as the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad 
in a managerial or executive capacity. Since this identified basis for denial is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve its appellate arguments regarding the 
Director's other basis for denying the petition. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary 
to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining 
to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
I. LAW 
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 101(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. 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). 
II. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
In a letter submitted in response to the Director's request evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary was employed in a "senior executive position" as the foreign employer's chief marketing 
officer and referred to her "typical executive duties" as well her direction of management and 
establishment of goals and policies. As such, the Director analyzed whether the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad as an executive. Now on appeal, the Petitioner states that "it is only claiming to 
have employed the Beneficiary in a managerial position abroad." As such, the sole issue we will 
analyze is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial 
capacity abroad. 
"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. 
When examining the asserted foreign managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the 
petitioner's description of the job duties abroad. The petitioner's description of the foreign job duties 
must clearly describe the duties performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties were 
in a managerial capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
A. Duties 
To be eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, the Petitioner must show that 
the Beneficiary performed the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition at section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. If the record does not establish that the foreign position meets all four of 
these elements, we cannot conclude that it was a qualifying managerial position. 
If the Petitioner establishes that the foreign position meets all elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary was primarily engaged in managerial duties, 
as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside other foreign employees. See Family Inc. v. 
USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). In determining whether a given beneficiary's foreign 
duties were primarily managerial, we consider the Petitioner's description of the job duties abroad, the 
foreign company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees 
abroad, the presence of other employees to relieve the beneficiary from performing operational duties, 
the nature of the foreign business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a 
beneficiary's actual duties and role in the business abroad. 
2 
The Petitioner indicated that it is a "fair-trade registered, social enterprise committed to providing 
holistic, living wage employment in ... India through the sale of hand-to-market leather and textile 
goods in the United States." The Petitioner stated that it operated a manufacturing department in India 
and that the Beneficiary worked for an affiliate in the United Kingdom with limited operations. 
Although the Beneficiary was located abroad, the submitted evidence reflected that she primarily 
performed tasks for the Petitioner and its manufacturing department in India. The Petitioner explained 
the Beneficiary's day-to-day tasks abroad as follows: 
Direct and oversee marketing campaign planning and strategy- 30% of her time 
• The Beneficiary oversees marketing campaign strategy which includes refining, 
messaging, setting up creative direction, setting campaign objectives, defining 
target audiences and providing feedback and suggestions for improvement. 
• The Beneficiary is responsible for approving creative assets and copywriting to 
ensure content aligns with the Petitioner's brand identity and campaign 
messagmg. 
Team management-20% of her time 
• The Beneficiary manages team, outside agencies and contractors to ensure 
marketing and sales strategies are being implemented. She will address any 
issues or concerns and ensure all are aligned and working toward set goals and 
tasks. 
Direct and establish CRM strategy- 20% of her time 
• The Beneficiary set CRM strategy with the goal of fostering strong relationships 
with the Petitioner's network of wholesale customers. This strategy is broken 
down into tasks that are delegated to the sales and CRM manager. 
• The Beneficiary hired an outside contractor to build the Petitioner's CRM 
system in 2023. This was created using Air Table to store all customer data and 
to segment customers into groups. 
• The Beneficiary set communication strategy for each of these groups and the 
CRM manager is responsible for implementing. This typically includes 
emailing and messaging store with various sales messages. 
Direct and oversee sales strategy to bring in new leads- 10% of her time 
• The Beneficiary oversees sales strategy and supported by the CRM manager 
who is responsible for researching leads, emailing leads using set templates 
approved by the Beneficiary and managing active leads until these convert to 
sales. 
Review key metrics and analytics- 5% of her time 
• The Beneficiary reviews key data such as website traffic, social media 
engagement, email campaign performance and sales data used to create and 
refine marketing strategy through identifying trends, anomalies and areas for 
improvement. 
Direct and oversee influencer marketing strategy- 5% of her time 
3 
The Beneficiary sets the Petitioner's influence marketing strategy and is supported by 
the warehouse manager on the day-to-day duties of messaging prospective influencers, 
managing existing relationships and sending PR packages. 
Manage marketing budget- 5% of her time 
The Petitioner submitted supporting documentation indicating that the Beneficiary was substantially 
involved in performing non-qualifying operational duties while employed abroad. 1 For instance, the 
Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's foreign employment contract from June 2022 as chief marketing 
officer reflecting that she was engaged to "provide services" to her "client," including developing 
relationships with content creators, working on trend forecasting, collection briefs, and mood boards, 
and identifying "pop-ups" at tradeshows. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner further indicated that 
the Beneficiary was tasked with attending tradeshows, networking with clients, establishing vendors, 
and connecting with media vendors while employed abroad. 
Further, supporting documentation reflected the Beneficiary's direct involvement of all operational 
aspects of these sales related duties while she was employed abroad. For example, submitted 
supporting documentation reflects her paying import duties and handling the shipment of goods in 
April, September, and October 2023, creating "buysheet" projections for the company during 2023 
and 2024, attending several tradeshows throughout 2023, and making accounting payments to her own 
independent company throughout her engagement abroad. Likewise, the Petitioner provided evidence 
showing the Beneficiary booking her flights and hotels to attend tradeshows, processing several 
handbag orders and taking specifications from clients in February 2024, and purchasing materials for 
a display booth at a tradeshow in December 2023. In addition, quarterly tasks lists indicate the 
Beneficiary's responsibility for issuing purchase orders for the supply of goods in India during 2023, 
while invoices and emails show her arranging for and paying for a photographer in April and June 
2023. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides additional evidence reflecting her likely performance of non­
qualifying operational duties abroad, including her sending specifications and arranging for the return 
of sample handbags from a photographer in March and May 2023, providing information on product 
designs in January 2023, coordinating with an information technology professional on a purchasing 
system in June 2023, and arranging for samples, their shipment, and wooden blocks for a display in 
December 2023. In sum, the submitted evidence reflects that the Beneficiary was primarily involved 
in the day-to-day operational tasks of the business while employed abroad, despite the Petitioner's 
contradictory assertion on appeal that she had "almost zero role in the day-to-day functions that are 
administrative." The affected party has the burden of proof to establish eligibility for the requested 
benefit at the time of filing the benefit request and continuing until the final adjudication. 8 C.F .R. § 
103.2(b)(l); see also Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971) (providing that 
"Congress did not intend that a petition that was properly denied because the beneficiary was not at 
that time qualified be subsequently approved at a future date when the beneficiary may become 
qualified under a new set of facts."). The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies and ambiguities in 
1 The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary began employment with her foreign employer as chief marketing officer in 
October 2022 and the petition was filed on January 9, 2024. 
4 
the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Whether the Beneficiary is a managerial employee turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained its 
burden of proving that their duties are "primarily" managerial. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Here, the Petitioner does not document what proportion of the Beneficiary's foreign duties were 
managerial functions and what proportion were non-qualifying operational tasks. The Petitioner 
submitted evidence indicating that the Beneficiary's duties abroad likely included many administrative 
or operational tasks, but it did not sufficiently quantify the time she spent on these duties as compared 
to qualifying managerial duties. For this reason, we cannot determine whether the Beneficiary 
primarily performed the duties of a manager abroad. See IKEA US, Inc. v. US. Dept. ofJustice, 48 F. 
Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). In contrast, although the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary was 
primarily relieved from performing non-qualifying operational tasks by claimed subordinates and 
contractors within the company's greater organization, it submits little supporting evidence to 
substantiate this contention. 
Even though the Beneficiary held a senior position within the organization, the fact that she managed 
or directed the business abroad does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an 
intracompany transferee in a managerial capacity within the meaning of section 101 (a)( 44 )(A) of the 
Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a foreign position be 
"primarily" managerial in nature. Id. The Beneficiary may have exercised discretion over the foreign 
employer's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to 
discretionary decision-making; however, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish 
that his foreign duties were primarily managerial. 
B. Operations and Staffing 
The 
Petitioner submitted a foreign organizational chart indicating that she acted as the chief marketing 
officer supervising a sales and CRM manager and a warehouse manager. Despite this organizational 
chart reflecting that she had two subordinates, the Petitioner now states that it did not "claim that the 
Beneficiary is supervising or has supervised or is directing or has directed a requisite number of 
employees." As discussed, the Petitioner also previously asserted that the Beneficiary was employed 
in an executive capacity abroad, but now contends on appeal that she was employed as a function 
manager. Therefore, we observe that the Petitioner's shifting assertions leave question as to the 
Beneficiary's claimed role, regardless we will analyze whether the Beneficiary qualified as a function 
manager abroad. 
The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary is primarily responsible for 
managing an "essential function" within the organization. See section 101(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 "(1) 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 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." See Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
5 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary had "complete control of all things marketing, 
including hiring and firing employees, creating the marketing budget, and entering into professional 
services agreements with contractors to execute the marketing strategies." However, the Petitioner 
did not sufficiently establish that the Beneficiary was acted as a function manager abroad. Despite 
having discretionary authority over marketing operations within the company, the Petitioner provided 
little supporting documentation to corroborate the Beneficiary's being relieved her performing the 
operational tasks of her claimed function or primarily managing her function. In fact, as we have 
discussed, the Petitioner submitted substantial documentation reflecting her direct performance of 
numerous non-qualifying operational tasks abroad related to all phases of the company's marketing, 
including coordinating with potential clients and vendors, attending tradeshows, paying import duties 
and handling the shipment of goods, creating "buysheet" projections for the foreign employer's CEO, 
booking travel, processing handbag orders, among other operational tasks. 
In sum, the Petitioner provided little supporting documentation to substantiate that the Beneficiary 
was primarily directing and managing her asserted function abroad rather than performing it, and at 
the very least, the provided evidence reflects her performance of ordinary operational activities 
alongside her foreign colleagues. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d atl313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). 
Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence reflects that the Beneficiary was more likely engaged in 
non-qualifying operational duties abroad. Therefore, the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish that 
she was primarily engaged as a function manager abroad. See Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 
2017-05. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the Beneficiary was 
employed in a managerial capacity abroad. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6