dismissed L-1A Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF I-S-USA INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 27, 2016 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a company providing specialized services in freight forwarding, intermodal 
transportation, customs brokerage, and logistics, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as the 
managing director of its new office under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 
1101(a)(l5)(L). The L-1A 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 an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition on two alternate grounds, concluding that 
the Petitioner did not establish that ( 1) the Beneficiary will be employed _in a managerial capacity in 
the United States, and (2) the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity at the qualifying 
foreign entity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in 
finding that there are unresolved inconsistencies in the record, and asserts that the Beneficiary has 
been employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity. 
Upon de novo review, we will ~ismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed .the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge 
capacity, 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, executive, or specialized knowledge 
capacity. !d. 
The regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form I -129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, shall be accompanied by: 
Matter of I-S-USA Inc. 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will 
employ the alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph 
(l)(l)(ii)(G) ofthis section. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or 
specialized knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the 
services to be performed. 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time 
employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition. 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position 
that was managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that 
the alien's prior education, training, and employment qualifies him/her to 
perform the intended services in the United States; however, the work in the 
United States need not be the same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v) further provides that if the petition indicates that the 
beneficiary is coming to the United States as a manager or executive to open or to be employed in a 
new office in the United States, the petitioner shall submit evidence that: 
(A) Sufficient physical premises to house the new office have been secured; 
(B) The beneficiary has been employed for one continuous year in the three year 
period preceding the filing of the petition in an executive or managerial 
capacity and that the proposed employment involved executive or managerial 
authority over the new operation; and 
(C) The intended United States operation, within one year of the approval of the 
petition, will support an executive or managerial position as defined in 
paragraphs (l)(l)(ii)(B) or (C) of this section, supported by information 
regarding: 
(1) The proposed nature of the office describing the scope of the entity, its 
organizational structure, and its financial goals; 
(2) The size of the United States investment and the financial ability of 
the foreign entity to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence 
doing business in the United States; and 
(3) The organizational structure ofthe foreign entity. 
2 
Matter of 1-S- USA Inc. 
II. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that: (1) the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity at its new office in the United States, and (2) 
the Beneficiary has been employed in a managerial capacity at the qualifying foreign entity. The 
Petitioner has described the Beneficiary's position abroad and proposed position in the United States 
as managerial in nature and does not claim that he has been or would be employed in an executive 
capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) ofthe 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; 
(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. 
Further, "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." !d. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must take into account 
the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of 
the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(C) ofthe Act. 
A. Foreign Employment in a Managerial Capacity 
The Director denied the petition, in part, based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that 
the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of the Beneficiary, we will look first to the 
Petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The Petitioner's description 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of I-S-USA Inc. 
of the job duties must clearly describe the duties performed by the Beneficiary and indicate whether 
such duties are in a managerial or executive capacity. !d. 
The definitions of managerial and executive capacity each have two parts. First, the Petitioner must 
show that the Beneficiary performed 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 was primarily engaged in managerial or 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 1533. 
In its letter of support, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has been employed as the "special 
projects manager" for its foreign affiliate in since April1, 2007, with responsibility for 
directing, coordinating, and processing import shipments for high volume customers in the energy 
sector and leading the special projects team while coordinating with sales and customs brokerage 
departments. The Petitioner further described his duties as follows: 
He is responsible for the overall activities and operations of the Special Projects 
department, including but not limited to: (1) managing day-to-day operations of the 
Special Projects department to ensure that customer requirements are met; (2) 
directing department subordinates and assisting with problems, issues, and 
questions; (3) exercising discretion and independent judgement on a regular basis to 
direct support staff to achieve department's goals; (4) responsible for ensuring 
highest quality and accuracy of document processing and continuous improvement 
of service processes to drive gains in quality and productivity; (5) ensuring that 
support staff execute daily activities accurately and on a timely basis; (6) ensuring 
that information between sales team and special projects team flows efficiently and 
accurately; (7) responsible for customer satisfaction and retention by implementing 
effective service guidelines; (8) responsible for adherence to government agencies 
regulations e.g. (9) responsible for staffing hiring, training and 
supervision. 
The Petitioner also submitted the foreign entity's staff list as of October 2015 which briefly 
described the Beneficiary's duties as "[m]anage support staff, visit customers in the oil & gas 
industry to meet service contracts." 
While this description 
reflects the Beneficiary's authority over the foreign entity's "special projects," 
it provides little insight into what specific tasks the Beneficiary actually performed on a day-to-day 
basis. The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary was tasked with "managing day-to-day 
operations," hiring and supervising employees, implementing service guidelines, and exercising 
discretion and independent judgment on a regular basis; however, the Petitioner did not explain or 
clarify how the Beneficiary carried out these duties or explain how his actual day-to-day tasks were 
managerial in nature. Conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's employment capacity are 
not sufficient. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the 
4 
Matter of I-S-USA Inc. 
petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp.at 1108, aff'd, 905 F. 2d 
41 (2d. Cir.1990);AvyrAssociates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
In addition, several of these duties suggest that the Beneficiary has been significantly involved in the 
foreign entity's day-to-day administrative and operational functions. The Petitioner did not explain 
how the Beneficiary's responsibilities for visiting customers to meet service contracts, ensuring the 
accuracy of document processing, monitoring the flow of information between teams, coordinating 
activities between departments, ensuring customer satisfaction, and regulatory compliance qualify as 
managerial in nature. Whether the Beneficiary is a managerial employee turns on whether the 
Petitioner has sustained its burden of proving that her/his duties are "primarily" managerial. See 
sections 101 (a)( 44 )(A) and (B) of the Act. Here, the Petitioner did not document what proportion of 
the Beneficiary's duties as special projects manager were managerial functions and what proportion 
were non-managerial. The Petitioner listed the Beneficiary's duties as including both managerial 
and administrative or operational tasks, but did not quantify the time the Beneficiary spends on 
them. This omission is important because several of the beneficiary's daily tasks, as noted above, do 
not fall directly under traditional managerial duties as defined in the statute. For this reason, we 
cannot determine whether the Beneficiary has been primarily performing managerial duties. See 
IKEA US, Inc. v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director advised the Petitioner that the initial evidence included 
a vague description of the Beneficiary's duties which suggested that he performs both managerial 
and non-managerial tasks. The Director requested a more detailed description of the Beneficiary's 
duties and the percentage of time he spends on each specific task. 
In a letter submitted in response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the foreign entity had promoted 
the Beneficiary was to the position of "director of operations" in December 2011, and, as the director 
of operations, he managed the sales portfolio, special projects portfolio, health, safety, and the 
environment and information technology portfolio, and the demurrage portfolio. The Petitioner 
submitted a new position description and a revised foreign entity organizational chart depicting the 
Beneficiary as director of operations. 
The purpose of the RFE is to elicit further information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit 
sought has been established. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). When responding to an RFE, a Petitioner 
cannot offer a new position to the Beneficiary, or materially change a position's title, its level of 
authority within the organizational hierarchy, or its associated job responsibilities. If significant 
changes are made to the initial request for approval, the Petitioner must file a new petition rather 
than seek approval of a petition that is not supported by the facts in the record. The information 
provided by the Petitioner in its response to the Director's RFE did not clarify or provide more 
specificity to the original duties of the Beneficiary's foreign position, but rather added a new 
position title, a new organizational hierarchy, and an entirely new job description. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a letter to explain the inconsistencies between the 
foreign entity's organizational chart submitted with its initial evidence and that submitted in 
5 
Matter of 1-S-USA Inc. 
response to the RFE. The Petitioner explained that the previously submitted organizational chart for 
the foreign entity "was not up-to-date and [it] has now made the necessary revisions." The 
Petitioner added that all of the names and positions were clearly defined on the newly-submitted 
organizational chart, and most importantly, the Beneficiary's position has been rectified. 
The Petitioner's explanation that it initially provided an organizational chart that was not "up-to­
date" at the time of filing is insufficient to overcome the evidence in the record indicating that the 
Beneficiary's position at the foreign entity was in fact "special projects manager" and not "director 
of operations" at the time of filing. The Petitioner clearly identified the Beneficiary's foreign 
position as special projects manager throughout the record of initial evidence; it was not a job title 
used in a single instance on the initial organizational chart, as implied by the Petitioner's response to 
the RFE. In fact, the Petitioner submitted a letter from the foreign entity, dated November 3, 2015, 
confirming that the Beneficiary "is permanently employed with [the foreign entity] as our Special 
Projects Manager." Further, the foreign entity's payroll records from November 1, 2014, to 
October 31, 2015 all list the Beneficiary's position as "special projects manager" and the foreign 
entity's staff list as of October 2015 lists him as the "special projects manager." Finally, the 
Petitioner's own support letter dated November 30, 2015, identifies the Beneficiary's foreign 
position as "special projects manager." Collectively, this evidence undermines the Petitioner's claim 
that it simply submitted an outdated organizational chart at the time of filing. The Petitioner has not 
resolved these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
On appeal, the Petitioner once again contends that it did not make changes to the Beneficiary's 
employment abroad in response to the RFE, but rather made co~ections and provided clarification 
on his foreign employment. However, it has not offered any further explanation for the extensive 
evidence in the record identifying the Beneficiary as "special projects manager" as of November 
2015, nor has it offered any objective evidence to document his promotion to the director of 
operations position. Given all of the evidence to the contrary, the record does not establish that the 
Beneficiary assumed the foreign entity's director of operations position in 2011 as claimed in 
response to the RFE. Therefore, our analysis will focus solely on job description and organizational 
chart submitted with the initial petition, which reflect the Beneficiary's "special projects manager" 
position. 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, including 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. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and 
"function managers." See sections 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers are 
required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of I-S-USA Inc. 
managerial employees. 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." 1 Section 101(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(B)( 4). If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary directly supervises other employees, 
those subordinate employees must be supervisory, professional, or managerial, and the beneficiary 
must have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other 
personnel actions. Sections 101(a)(44)(A)(ii)-(iii) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(2)-(3). 
The foreign- entity's organizational chart submitted at the time of filing shows as 
managing director, directly supervising a human resource manager with no subordinates, a financial 
controller with two subordinates, the general manager of the warehouse division with at least eight 
subordinates, the general manager of the brokerage division with no subordinates, a customer service 
supervisor with at least two subordinates, a sales manager with at least two subordinates, and a 
director of sales and projects with six subordinates, including the Beneficiary. The organizational 
chart illustrates the Beneficiary's place in the hierarchy as follows: 
Managing Director 
I 
Director Sales & Projects 
I 
Special Projects Manager 
[Beneficiary] 
-
Special Project 
Administrator 
1- Accounting Assistant -
Projects/ Brokerage 
Customer Service 
~ Representative " 
Demurrage/ Projects 
1 In evaluating whether the Beneficiary would manage 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 United States baccalaureate degree or its 
foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation"). Section I 0 I (a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 
110l(a)(32), 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." 
) 
Matter of 1-S-USA Inc. 
The Petitioner submitted a list of the foreign entity's staff as of October 2015 which includes the 
employees subordinate to the Beneficiary. The staff list indicates that each of these employees has a 
high school level education, and provides brief descriptions of their duties, which include providing 
status updates to clients, preparing customer invoices, and data entry duties. The Petitioner has not 
established that these employees possess baccalaureate degrees and that their positions require such 
degrees, such that we can consider the employees to be professionals. Nor hasthe Petitioner shown 
that any of these employees supervise subordinate staff members or manage a clearly defined 
department or function of the foreign entity, such that they could be classified as managers or 
supervisors. Thus, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary's subordinate employees are 
supervisory, professional, or managerial, as required by section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The 
Petitioner has not provided evidence that the foreign entity's "special projects" department has an 
organizational structure sufficient to support the beneficiary in supervisory position that is higher 
than a first-line supervisor of non-professional employees. While the Petitioner subsequently 
submitted a new organizational chart depicting the Beneficiary in the position of director of 
operations, for the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to 
establish that he ever held that position and our analysis is limited to the initial organizational chart. 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was employed primarily as a "function 
manager." The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not superv:ise or 
control the work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing an 
"essential function" within the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The term 
"essential function" is not defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary 
will manage an essential function, a petitioner must clearly describe the duties to be performed in 
managing the essential function, i.e., identify the function with specificity, articulate the essential 
nature of the function, and establish the proportion of a beneficiary's daily duties dedicated to 
managing the essential function. See 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). In addition, a petitioner's 
description of the beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary will manage the, 
function rather than perform the duties related to the function. 
Here, the Petitioner did not articulate how the Beneficiary's duties at the foreign entity qualify him as 
a function manager and did not provide a breakdown indicating the amount of time the Beneficiary 
devoted to duties that would clearly demonstrate that he managed an essential function of the 
company. As discussed above, the position description provided at the time of filing indicated that 
the Beneficiary performs both qualifying and non-qualifying duties and did not adequately describe 
the actual tasks he performs or the amount of time he allocates to specific managerial duties. 
While performing non-qualifying tasks necessary to produce a product or service will not 
automatically disqualify the Beneficiary as long as those tasks were not the majority of the 
Beneficiary's duties, the Petitioner still has the burden of establishing that the beneficiary will 
"primarily" performing managerial duties. See section 101 (a)( 44) of the Act. Whether the 
Beneficiary is a "function" manager turns in part on whether the Petitioner lias sustained its burden 
of proving that her/his duties are "primarily" managerial. 
8 
Matter of 1-S-USA Inc. 
Again, in the present matter, the Petitioner did not document what proportion of the beneficiary's 
duties are managerial functions and what proportion are non-managerial. Absent a clear and 
credible breakdown of the time spent by the beneficiary performing his duties, we cannot determine 
what proportion of those duties was managerial, nor can we deduce whether the Beneficiary has 
been primarily performing the duties of a function manager. See IKEA US, Inc. v. US. Dept. of 
Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). Further, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient 
information regarding the duties performed by the Beneficiary's subordinates in the special projects 
department, who were described collectively as "support staff," to establish that they relieved him 
from significant involvement in the non-managerial functions of this department. 
Finally, we acknowledge that the Petitioner provided evidence that the Beneficiary is a director of 
the foreign entity and holds status as an authorized signatory on the foreign company's accounts. 
The fact that the Beneficiary is an officer or director of the Petitioner's foreign affiliate is 
insufficient to establish that he has been employed abroad in a managerial capacity, nor is it 
sufficient to support the Petitioner's claim that his position with the foreign entity was "director of 
operations" and not "special projects manager" as stated repeatedly in the record. The actual duties 
themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 
at 1108, aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Based on the deficiencies and inconsistencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity abroad. 
B. U.S. Employment in a Managerial Capacity 
The Director also denied the petition, in part, based on a finding that the evidence of record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity within one 
year of the approval of the new office petition. 
Again, when examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, we will look first to 
the petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). In its initial letter of 
support, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity as its 
managing director and will be responsible for the following job duties: 
• Planning, directing and overseeing the overall day-to-day management of 
company's operations, setting operational and performance goals which are tied 
to business strategy, providing guidance in the planning and implementation of 
operations, systems and procedures, overseeing daily workflow and volumes to 
achieve company's processing standards, creating the proper infrastructure and 
management controls, identifying opportunities for enhancement and assisting 
with implementation of process improvements (20% of time); 
• Managing and executing all aspects of business development, participating in the 
development of long-term business strategies and short-term business planning, 
translating overall business strategy into operational goals and objectives, 
9 
Matter of I-S-USA Inc. 
establishing key measurements and developing/implementing plans to achieve 
targets, liaising with potential clients and key accounts, providing strategic 
support on related issues, identifyirig, assessing and developing opportunities to 
generate business growth and achieve revenue targets (20% of time); 
• Responsible for strategic planning and implementation in particular regarding to 
resource allocation, budgets, timeline and milestones, identify best approach for 
handling operational transactions ·to lower administrative costs, add 
accountability, controls and drive efficiency, achieving financial objectives by 
attending to various administrative aspects of the business, approval of 
expenditures, management of budgeted numbers, and accounting activities, 
monitoring costs associated with business operations and ensuring compliance 
with budget and corporate standards (20% oftime); 
• Developing and employing logistics best practices, procedures and standards that 
effectively balance administrative burden, cost savings and risk/liability; 
determining variations that are necessary across the organization; coordinating the 
documentation of logistics processes and procedures to ensure that logistics 
activities comply with company policies and objectives; marketing and 
communicating logistics policies, procedures and activities across the 
organization leveraging appropriate and effective communication channels (20% 
of time); 
• Management and supervision of personnel including hiring, dismissal and work 
allocation; providing consistent and thorough job knowledge mentoring for the 
staff, identifying and delegating the work to be provided to ensure that business 
transactions are handled in a timely and professional manner (20% of time)[.] 
This description, while lengthy, is overly broad and does not provide any insight as to what the 
Beneficiary would actually do on a day-to-day basis during the initial year of operations and beyond. 
The Petitioner has allocated the percentages of time the Beneficiary will devote to each area of 
responsibility, but did not identify the specific tasks that he will perform. While the broadly stated 
responsibilities suggest that the Beneficiary would have managerial authority over the petitioning 
company, there is insufficient detail to establish that his actu~l duties would be primarily managerial 
in nature. 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. at 1108, aff'd, 905 
F .2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a letter stating that the Beneficiary will replicate the 
functions that he currently performs for its foreign affiliate with additional managerial functions, 
which it described as follows: 
• [The Beneficiary] shall manage our organization in its entirety at an executive 
level; 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-S- USA Inc. 
• [The Beneficiary] will supervise and control the work of other supervisory and 
managerial employees and he shall manage the essential freight forwarding 
functions of the organization. 
• [The Beneficiary] shall have the authority to hire, fire or recommend the 
promotion of all personnel within the organization, and he shall have the 
exclusive ·discretion to approve leave of absence for all personnel from the 
organization. 
• [The Beneficiary] will function at the most senior level of the organizational 
hierarchy. 
• [The Beneficiary] shall exercise absolute discretion over the day-to-day 
operations of the activities of the organization. 
Here, rather than clarifying the Beneficiary's proposed duties with additional details about the actual 
tasks he will perform, the Petitioner simply paraphrased th~ statutory definition of managerial 
capacity and did not provide any new information pertaining to the Beneficiary's proposed position 
in the United States. The Petitioner, again, did not provide any insight as to what the Beneficiary 
will actually be doing on a day-to-day basis at its new office. Reciting the beneficiary's vague job 
responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the regulations require a detailed 
description of the beneficiary's proposed daily job duties. The Petitioner has not provided any detail 
or explanation of the beneficiary's proposed activities in the course of his daily routine. The actual 
duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. at 1108, ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Finally, the record includrs the Petitioner's business plan, which states that the Beneficiary will 
perform the following duties: 
• hiring and firing of staff 
• conducting regular performance appraisals of staff 
• chairing weekly meetings with administrative and warehouse staff 
• negotiate the best possible freight rates with the shipping lines, airlines and 
trucking companies 
• ensuring that regulatory guidelines are followed at all times 
• ensuring that all containers loaded in . our warehouse by [two warehouse 
supervisors] comply with weight restrictions, customer requests, and Hazardous 
Material rules and regulations 
• all staff understanding and complying with best practice 
• procuring of all warehouse tools, materials, equipment and office supplies 
• manage 
accounts payable functions done by [a customer service representative] 
These duties, which are not included in the Beneficiary's other proposed position descriptions, are 
more indicative of an employee who would be directly involved in the routine day-to-day provision 
of services for a transportation and freight forwarding company, rather than a primarily managerial 
position. The Petitioner did not indicate how these duties qualify as managerial nor indicate the 
11 
Matter of 1-S-USA Inc. 
amount of time the Beneficiary will devote to each of the listed duties, which is significant as most 
of them appear to involve the routine sales, logistics, and administrative tasks associated with the 
Petitioner's day-to-day operations. As such, we are unable to determine whether the previously 
claimed managerial duties constitute the Beneficiary's primary duties within one year, or whether 
the Beneficiary will primarily perform the non-managerial operational and administrative duties 
listed in its business plan. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will be the highest ranking employee within the 
U.S. company and will primarily perform high-level responsibilities, and not spend a majority of his 
time on day-to-day functions. The Petitioner states that it submitted a specific list of the 
Beneficiary's duties that divides his responsibilities into different categories and assigned 
percentages of time spent on each general category. However, as noted, the initial list of job duties, 
despite the fact that it included percentages, did not specifically outline the tasks to be performed by 
the Beneficiary in carrying out his duties. This lack of detail, coupled with the list of operational and 
administrativy duties listed in the Petitioner's business plan, make it impossible for us to determine 
what the Beneficiary would primarily do on a day-to-day basis. Reviewed together, the three 
descriptions of the Beneficiary's job duties in the record do not clearly establish what proportion of 
the duties would be managerial in nature, and what proportion would be non-managerial. See 
Republic ofTranskei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1991) .. 
Overall, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary's duties 
would be primarily in a managerial capacity, particularly in the case of a new office petition where 
much is dependent on factors such as 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 Petitioner has the burden to establish that the new office 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. Accordingly, the totality of the record must be considered in 
analyzing whether the proposed duties are plausible considering the petitioner's anticipated staffing 
levels and stage of development within a one-year period. See generally, 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
In its Form I-129, the Petitioner stated that it had seven employees at the time of filing. In its letter 
of support, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be managing a subordinate staff of 
professional, managerial, or supervisory personnel who will relieve him from performing non­
qualifying duties. The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary will devote 20% of his time to the 
"management and supervision of personnel." The Petitioner's business plan stated that it anticipates 
hiring a staff of nine employees: one director/executive, one manager/secretary, three clerical office 
employees, and four warehouse employees. The business plan also provided a brief list of job duties 
for the Beneficiary's position as managing director, a general manager, two warehouse supervisors, 
two warehouse representatives, and three customer service representatives, noting that the general 
manager and two warehouse supervisors will report directly to the Beneficiary. 
12 
(b)(6)
Matter of I-S-USA Inc. 
The Petitioner submitted a proposed organizational chart which shows that the Beneficiary will 
directly supervise the general manager, who, in tum, will supervise three customer service 
representatives and two warehouse supervisors. The chart also depicts one warehouse representative 
reporting to each warehouse supervisor. The chart identifies all eight employees subordinate to the 
Beneficiary by name. 
The Petitioner claimed that it had seven employees at the time of filing, but did not provide any 
corroborating evidence of their employment. As this is a petition for a new office, the Petitioner 
need not demonstrate that it has current employees, rather it m~st demonstrate it will have sufficient 
staff within one year to relieve the Beneficiary from significant involvement in the non-managerial 
functions of the organization. However, as the Petitioner claims that it is already nearly fully staffed 
and lists employee names on its organizational chart, it is reasonable to expect that it provide 
evidence of their actual employment, such as quarterly income tax returns or payroll records. Here, 
the Petitioner has not submitted any corroborating evidence to demonstrate that it actually employs 
any of the listed individuals. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (quoting Matter ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 
190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
According to its business plan, the general manager position will manage the attendance of staff, 
make bookings with shipping lines and airlines, file freight rates with the ensure that deadlines 
are met, manage inland pick-ups arranged by a customer service representative, ensure bills oflading 
and other documentation are prepared and submitted on time by a second customer service 
representative, analyze sales reports prepared by a third customer service representative and provide 
recommendations to the managing director and president. The business plan indicates that two 
warehouse supervisors will manage overall warehouse operations jointly; two warehouse 
representatives will be responsible for offloading and caring for cargo; and each of the three 
customer service representatives, will be responsible for a different area: sales, documentation, and 
logistics. While the organizational chart indicates that there are supervisory levels among the 
Beneficiary's subordinates, the listed job duties for the subordinate positions do not demonstrate that 
these positions would be supervisory or managerial. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the 
Beneficiary manages any supervisory or managerial employees. 
Furthermore, the Beneficiary's subordinates' listed duties also do not demonstrate that any of the 
positions are professional, as their listed duties do not require the employee to have a baccalaureate 
degree. As the listed duties for each of the subordinates' positions are not indicative of positions that 
are managerial, supervisory, or professional in nature, and the Beneficiary's listed duties state the he 
will only devote 20% of his time to managing employees, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
the Beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial capacity. Although it appears that the 
Beneficiary will have the authority to hire, fire, and supervise the proposed subordinate employees, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary's duties will primarily focus on the 
management of the organization and the supervision of qualifying managerial, professional, or 
supervisory employees, rather than on providing a service of the U.S. company. The Petitioner has 
13 
. Matter of 1-S-USA Inc. 
not submitted evidence that the Beneficiary's proposed subordinate employees will relieve him from 
performing non-qualifying operational and administrative duties at the U.S. company. 
Alternatively, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be employed primarily as a 
"function manager." Here, the Petitioner made brief assertions that the Beneficiary will "perform an 
essential function," "manage the essential freight forwarding functions of the organization," and 
"manage accounts payable functions" completed by a customer service representative. However, the 
Petitioner did not articulate how the Beneficiary's proposed duties at the U.S. ~ompany qualify him 
as a function manager and did not provide a breakdown indicating the amount of time the 
Beneficiary will devote to duties that would clearly demonstrate that he will manage an essential 
function of the U.S. company. Simply stating that he will manage an essential function is not 
sufficient to establish that he will be a function manager. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
, proceedings. Matter of Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 · (quoting Matter of Treasure Craft of Cal., 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Based on the deficiencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
would be employed in a managerial capacity within one year of the approval of the new office 
petition. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of I-S-USA Inc., ID# 55838 (AAO Oct. 27, 2016) 
14