dismissed L-1A Case: Life Sciences

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 14,2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which is engaged in the purchase, sale, and research and development of life science 
products and medical instruments, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary employment as its 
CEO under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 1 See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section IOI(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-IA 
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 e~ecutive 
capacity. 
The Director of the California 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 
under the extended petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director failed to consider relevant evidence, misapplied the 
law, and reached a denial decision that was inconsistent with the record. The Petitioner contends 
that the totality of the evidence is sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary will be employed in an 
executive capacity. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for theL-IA 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)(l5)(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. 
1 
The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
August 7, 2016, until August 6, 2017. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United 
States through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary for Jess 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 one year within the date of approval of the 
petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
Matter ofC- Inc. 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-1 A petition 'that involved a new office must submit a statement 
of the beneficiary's duties during the previous ·year and under the extended petition; a statement 
describing the staffing of the new operation and evidence of the numbers and types of positions held; 
evidence of its financial status; evidence that it has been doing business for the previous year; and 
evidence that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
.8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii). This evidence must demonstrate that the beneficiary will be employed in 
a managerial or executive capacity, as defined at sections IOI(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act, under 
the extended petition. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in an executive capacity under the extended petition. The Petitioner did not claim that.the 
Beneficiary would be employed in managerial capacity; therefore, our analysis will address only the 
Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary's proposed position would be in an executive capacity. 
The term "executive capacity" is defined 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 IOI(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
When examining the executive 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, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines 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. Accordingly, 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. 
A. Duties 
Based on the definitions of executive capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the Beneficiary 
will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (9th 
Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary will 
be primarily engaged in executive duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the 
Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); 
Champion World, 940 F.2d at 1533. 
The Petitioner submitted the following list of duties for the Beneficiary's position of CEO at the time 
of filing and added the percentage of time to each listed duty in response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE): 
2 
Matter ofC- Inc. 
• Establish overall business objectives, formulate financial goals, streamline 
business processes and set company guidelines and policy ... ; I 0% 
• Establish and implement proper sales guidelines and goals for the company; 
create and implement effective marketing strategies to help company reach 
potential clientele; I 0% 
• Develop and revise company business plan, and review reports from managers to 
evaluate the effectiveness in implementing the plan; 5% 
• Provide leadership and develop a strategic plan to advance the company's goals 
and to promote revenue, profitability, and grown ... through regular meetings 
with managers; I 0% 
• Establish key goals and direct financial manager the implementation of key 
financial objectives and performance metrics; 5% 
• Review and approve annual and quarterly budgets for the company, including 
purchases, shipping, labor, marketing, advertising, sales, public relations, and 
research & development; 4% 
• Establish the policy and system to share marketing and sales data with the parent 
company to increase revenue, efficiency, and overall customer satisfaction; 5% 
• Confer with the Chinese parent company's top management and board of 
directors ... ; I% 
• Establish employment policies, including but not limited to hiring, firing, and 
performance and compensation metrics; I 0% 
• Oversee all departments' work in the development of key clients, customer 
service and market analysis of industry segments and clients; 2% 
• Direct department managers for creating effective sales strategies and determine 
the proper marketing target for business incentive; direct department managers for 
planning of market asset purchases and streamline the supply chain and logistics; 
8% 
• Direct department managers to formulate an effective purchase-sales procedure to 
reduce transactional costs and reflect market trends; 3% 
• Inform parent company's top management of significant financial and market 
trends and recommend appropriate action; 2% 
• Exercise discretionary decision-making power on all major operational sales, 
financial and budgeting issues concerning the [P.etitioner' s J growth; 1 0% 
• Exercise discretionary decision-making power on hiring necessary employees and 
establishing training protocols ... ; 10% 
• Keep up-to-date with current market conditions and industry trends. 5% 
We agree with the Director's determination that this description does not provide sufficient insight 
into the nature of the Beneficiary's.day-to-day duties. The description conveys the Beneficiary's 
authority over the Petitioner's operations, but is too broad and repetitive to clarify how he would 
primarily spend his time within the context of the Petitioner's business as of the date of filing. 
Several of the duties paraphrase or closely resemble the statutory definition of "executive capacity." 
For example, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary will "establish overall business objectives" 
3 
Matter of C- Inc. 
and policies," "provide leadership and develop a strategic plan," establish sales goals for the 
company," "establish key goals," "exercise discretionary decision-making power" on all issues, 
"establish employment policies," and "establish the policy and system" to share data with the parent 
company. These broad duties, which the Petitioner states will require more than 50 percent of the 
Beneficiary's time, do not establish the nature of the specific tasks the Beneficiary would perform as 
part of his regular routine. 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. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. II 03, 
1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner provided two examples of written policies authored by the 
Beneficiary (relating to employee attendance and employee travel and expenses), but this evidence is 
insufficient to support the Petitioner's claim that he would spend his time primarily focused on 
higher-level planning and decision-making responsibilities associated with the overall direction of 
the company. On appeal, rather than provide additional details regarding the Beneficiary's specific 
tasks, the Petitioner re-states the same job duties provided previously and emphasizes that the job 
description does not include operational or administrative tasks. However, a position description 
that is so broad that it does not meaningfully identify what the Beneficiary would be doing has 
limited probative value. As noted, reciting a 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. 
Therefore, although the Beneficiary makes decisions about the company's policies and activities, the 
record on appeal does not adequately show how his role requires him to spend his time primarily on 
the broadly defined responsibilities identified in his duty description. The fact that the Beneficiary 
will direct a business as its senior employee does not necessarily establish eligibility for 
classification as an intracompany transferee in an executive capacity within the meaning of section 
IOI(a)(44)(B) of the Act. As discussed further below, the Petitioner has not shown how the new 
office developed during the first year of operations to the point where it requires the Beneficiary to 
perform primarily executive duties. 
B. Business, Staffing, and Organizational Structure 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, USC IS takes into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of 
the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section I 01 (a)(44)(C) of the 
Act. The regulations allow for a one-year period for the U.S. entity to commence doing business and 
develop to the point that it will support a beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive 
position. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit 
have been satisfied from the time of filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(l). 
The Petitioner, established in 2016, states that it purchases life science products, medical 
instruments, and biological reagents, and exports them to hospitals, universities, and research centers 
4 
.
Matter of C-Ine. 
in China. lt further noted that it has installed a biological lab in its office and "will also provide 
equipment maintenance, flow cytometry analysis, reagent and assay development services" in 2017. 
The Petitioner had $0 in sales in 2016 and $30,895 in sales in the first half of 2017. The Petitioner 
explained that its Chinese parent company is "the only compan y in China" authorized to import 
and noted that it has been negotiatin g with U.S. supplier s to purchase 
3000 units of to export to China. The Petitioner stated that it expected to 
convert this prospective purchase into millions of dollars in revenue . 
The Petitioner established that it emplo yed five workers subordinate to the Beneficiary at the time of 
tiling. The Petitioner's organizational chart depicts the Beneficiar y's direct U.S. subordinate s as an 
operations manager and a financial and administration manager. The charts shows an intern ational 
trade/sourcing specialist and a sales representative subordinate to the operations manager (as well as 
a logistics specialist based in China) , and an administrative assistant and outsourced CPA 
subordinate to the financial/administration manager. The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary 
relies on the "exclusive support" of additional employees based in China, including a marketing 
manager , who supervises a marketing specialist and a customer service representative. 
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 101 (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. Inh~rent 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 enterpri se as the owner or sole manager ial 
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." !d. 
Here, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary directs the management of the compan y through the 
subordinate operations manager, finance and administration manager, and overseas marketing 
manager. It provided position descriptions for all employees and asserts that the evidence 
establishes that the Beneficiary oversees subordinate manager s and that it has sufficient staff to 
relieve the Beneficiary from significant involvement in the day-to-day operations of the company. 
However , given the Petitioner ' s level of operations at the time of filing, some of the dutie s assigned 
to the subordinate staff, without further explanation, do not appear to be realistic. 
As noted, the Petitioner achieved $30,895· in sales during its initial year of operations. The 
supporting evidence shows that the Petition er purchased 15 units of from a 
company in and sold these products to its parent company in May 2017 for $30,895. 
The Petitioner did not document any other completed business transactions in its first twelve months 
of operation. The Petitioner provided e-mail correspondence showing that the operations manager 
and Beneficiary have been making inquiries with U.S. vendors regarding the purchase of 
5 
.
Maller ofC- Inc. 
products, as well as evidence that employees in China have communicated with the Petitioner about 
product s and the requirements of potential overseas customers. 
What the Petitioner has not shown, however , is how it relies upon the full-time services of four 
overseas employees ar its current stage of development. The Petitioner indicates that these same 
employees reported to the Beneficiary before the. U.S. company was established so it is reasonable to 
believe that they have other ongoing responsibilities unrelated to supporting the Petitioner's 
business. The Petitioner has arranged for a single order to be shipped to China as a result of its 
efforts during its initial year of operations and has not explained how this level of activities requires 
tour full-time staff overseas. 
Similarly , the lack of evidence of the Petitioner 's business operation s raises que stions regarding the 
duties attributed to the U.S. staff, particularly those with managerial job titles. While the compan y 
may eventually fully support the functions assigned to the subordinate 
employees, it appears that 
many aspects of the submitted job descriptions include prospective duties. For example, the 
Petitioner stated that the operations manager will "build the R&D team to lead new product 
development ," "lead or manage others responsible for audits, registrations, corrective actions," 
supervise "purchasing and logistics departments ," and manage relation ships with "key external 
partners." These duties are incongruous with the current scope of the Petitioner , which is not 
engaged in research and development, does not have purchasing or logistics departmen ts, and has 
not identified any audit activities or key external partners. The company's limited operations also 
raise questions about the nature of the duties performed by the sourcing special ist and sales 
represen tative , as the Petitioner has not shown that it was regularly engaged in sourcing or selling 
any products at the time of filing. 
Here, the Petitioner emphasi zes that it has sufficient staffto relieve the Beneficiary from performing 
non-executive duties. However , the size of the staff is not at issue. The Petitioner has not provided 
._. detailed descriptions of the actual duties the Beneficiary and the subordinate staff would be 
performing in light of the company ' s stage of development at the time of tiling, nor has it supported 
its claim that company was able to support an executive and a tier of managerial staff after its initial 
year in operations. The Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary is not taking ord~rs for goods, 
· answering questi ons about merchandise, confirming shipment and logistics, tracking inventory, 
paying bills, answering calls, conducting sales transactions, or conducting research and development 
activities. However, it is not clear whether any ~mployees were required to perform these duties on 
a regular basis at the time of filing. Beyond the single completed sales transacti on, the record 
contains limited information about the compan y's activities, and does not sufficiently describe the 
employees' actual duties. 
Based on the nature of the company and its stage of development when the petition was filed, the 
Petitioner has not shown that it requires the Beneficiary to primarily perform the higher-level 
executiv e functions attributed to him and has not established that it would employ the Beneficiary in 
an executive capacity under the extended petition. 
6 
Malter ofC- Inc .. 
III. DOING BUSINESS 
Although not addressed by the Director, we find that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient 
evidence to demonstrate that it has been doing business for the previous year. See 8 C.F.R. 
214.2(l)(14)(ii)(B). "Doing business" means the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of 
goods and/or services. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(H). 
USC IS granted the Beneficiary L-1 A status in August 2016. As noted, at the time the Petitioner 
filed this extension request on July 28, 2017, it had completed one sales transaction in May 2017. 
The Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to show that its business operations have been 
regular, systematic and continuous during the previous year. For this additional reason, the petition 
may not be approved. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that it will employ the 
Beneficiary in an executive capacity under the extended petition or that it has been doing business 
for the previous year. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter oJC- Inc., ID# 1184282 (AAO May 14, 2018) 
7