dismissed L-1A Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF U-W-C-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 16.2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a distribution center for watches and other merchandise, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as logistics manager 1 of its new office under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification 
for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section IOI(a)(I5)(L). 
8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(L). The L-lA classification allows a corporation or other legal entity 
(including its aHiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to 
work temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director ofthe California Service Center denied the petition. concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity; and (2) the new oftice will support a managerial executive position within a year of 
approval of the petition. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner asse1is that the Director erred by focusing 
on the Beneficiary's subordinate personnel instead of considering the Beneficiary's role as a function 
manager. 
Upon de novo review. we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification for 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 atTiliate thereof in a 
managerial or executive capacity. !d. 
1 
Some materials in the record show the job title as ''import manager." 
Matter of U- W-C-. Inc. 
II. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTlVE CAPACITY 
The Director found that the Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary has been employed 
abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
A managerial capacity is an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision. function. or component of the organization. 
and exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function tor which the 
employee has authority. A personnel manager supervises and controls the work of other 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees: the duties of a first-line supervisor are not 
considered managerial unless the employees supervised are professional. A personnel manager must 
also have the authority to execute or recommend personnel actions such as hiring. firing. and 
promotions. A function manager need not directly supervise other employees, but must manage an 
essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization, and 
function at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function 
managed. Section 101(a)(44)(A) ofthe Act. 
An executive capacity is 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) ofthe Act. 
If stafling 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 (USC IS) 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. Duties 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of the Beneficiary. we will review the 
Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's job duties. The Petitioner's description of the job duties 
must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary and indicate whether such duties 
are in a managerial or executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not dispute the conclusion that the Beneficiary was not a personnel 
manager. Instead, the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary was a function manager and that the 
Director erred by not considering the Beneficiary as such. The Petitioner also contends that the 
Beneficiary was an executive. We will consider both of these alternatives below. 
The definitions of managerial and executive capacity each have two parts. First. the Petitioner must 
show that the Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. ( 'hampion World. Inc. v. 
2 
.
Matter of U-W-C-, Inc. 
INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). Second. the Petitioner must prove 
that the Beneficiary will be primariZY engaged in managerial or executive duties, as opposed to 
ordinary operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See FamiZv Inc. v. USCIS. 
469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World. 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary had served as retail manager of m 
India from 2010 until she entered the United States in 2014. The Petitioner asserted that the 
Beneficiary remained an employee of the foreign entity after she entered the United States, but her 
time in the United States, by definition, does not constitute employment abroad. 
The Petitioner provided the following job description for the retail manager position at the foreign 
company: 
Has the primary responsibility for the overall success and profitability of the store. 
This requires effective management and leadership of the store to effectively drive 
sales and profit through excellent customer service, modeling superior selling skills, 
developing and retaining successful staff members, controlling expenses. maintaining 
effective visual presentation standards. ensuring quality framing and production 
standards, maintaining established product margins. ensuring compliance with 
policies, procedures and directives and, most impmiantly, exceeding expectations of 
customers' shopping experience[.] 
50% of time is spent training and supervising sales staff: 
• Perform effective retail management with sales leadership, sales coaching and 
individual selling skills. Must train and supervise retail staff to provide 
superior customer service standards to establish and maintain [a] customer 
shopping experience which exceed [ s] expectations. 
• Must be knowledgeable of successful store operating procedures and 
demonstrate compliance with policies and procedures. 
• Must train and supervise retail staff in communication. time management, and 
sound decision making skills and demonstrate visual merchandising skills. 
• Responsible for overseeing Internet and Wholesale sales consultants and 
coordinating with retail store supervisors. 
30% of time is spent generating financial reports for executive ot1icers: 
• Responsible for effective payroll planning and scheduling. 
• Responsible for strong financial understanding and accountability standards. 
• Required to have P & L knowledge and understanding of how to manage a 
profitable business. 
3 
Matter of U- W-C -, Inc. 
10% of time is spent reviewing marketing and sales events for the store: 
• Required to read and understand maps/plan-o-grams, interpret and execute 
markdown's [sic] or price changes. 
• Responsible for adapting to frequent changes. 
10% of time is spent on human resource responsibilities and personal interaction with 
staff requiring attention: 
• Responsible for managing human resources issues such as employee relations 
matters, local and federal Jaws, documenting performance management, 
writing performance appraisals, conducting meetings. giving positive and 
constructive feedback. interviewing and recruiting skills, planning and 
organizing skills. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the Beneficiary's job description did not show that her 
duties abroad were primarily managerial or executive. The Director also found that the Petitioner 
had not shown that the Beneficiary managed or directed the management of a department, 
subdivision, function, or component of the foreign entity, without primarily performing the function 
herself. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director relied on outdated regulations which did not allow 
for function managers, with oversight over an essential function rather than over personnel. The 
Director, however, specifically held that "the beneficiary cannot be deemed a ·functional' manager," 
because "it appears that the beneficiary is primarily involved in the performance of routine 
operational activities of the entity rather than in the management of a function of that business:· 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was employed 
primarily as a "function manager." The Petitioner has not articulated a specific function that the 
Beneficiary managed. The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary docs not 
supervise 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. 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 detined activity: (2) the function is 'essential: i.e .. 
core to the organization; (3) the beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to perf(mn. 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." Matter ofG- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8. 2017). In this 
matter, the Petitioner has not described or provided evidence that the Beneficiary managed an 
essential function. 
The submitted job description does not show that the Beneficiary served as a function manager 
abroad. Many of the listed items referred to vague responsibilities or knowledge rather than specific 
4 
Matter of U- W-C-, Inc. 
duties. Examples include "adapting to frequent changes·· and "compliance with policies and 
procedures."' 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. 1103. 1108 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), a.ff"d. 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The actual duties themselves reveal the true 
nature of the employment. /d. Therefore. 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. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary spent "50% of [her] time ... training and 
supervising sales staff," which contradicts the later assertion that the Beneficiary was a function 
manager whose managerial capacity did not arise primarily from oversight over subordinates. 
The job description indicated that the Beneficiary spent 40% of her time on financial and human 
resources issues, but this appears to be inconsistent with other information in the record. The foreign 
company's organizational chart showed an accountant and a human resources director. both outside 
the Beneficiary's chain of command. Those individuals reported to the finance and administration 
director, whereas the Beneficiary reported to the sales director. 
B. Stafling 
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 Petitioner has asserted at various times. including on appeal, that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad in an executive capacity. The record does not support this claim. 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 '1 01 (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 a beneficiary must primarily focus on the broad 
goals and policies of the organization rather than the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. The 
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. 
In this instance, the Petitioner has not shown that any of the Beneficiary's subordinates were in fact 
managers. The foreign company's organizational chat1 showed four subordinates who directly 
reported to the Beneficiary: an Internet sales manager. a wholesale sales manager, and two retail 
5 
.
Matter of U-W-C-, Inc. 
sales supervisors. The Petitioner also indicated that three cashiers report to the retail sales 
supervisors. 
The Petitioner stated that both of the subordinate manager pos1t10ns required ''3 years 
experience/Bachelor degree.'' It is not clear whether the positions require both of these elements, or 
only one of them. There is doubt as to the reliability of these requirements. The same document 
indicated that the Beneficiary's retail manager position "[r]equires 7 years experience/Bachelor 
Degree.'' The Petitioner did not submit evidence to show that the Beneficiary met those 
requirements on her stated hiring date, and it is unlikely that she did meet them. because the 
Beneficiary was 18 years old in 2010 when the foreign entity purportedly hired her. 
Also, while the Petitioner may have claimed that the subordinate manager positions require 
bachelor's degrees, the Petitioner did not submit evidence to show that the individuals named m 
those positions actually have those degrees. 
The Petitioner stated that the foreign company's Internet sales manager would ''field retail internet 
sales leads, follow leads through a proven sales process. facilitate vehicle sales and ensure a superior 
sales and service experience" (emphasis added). The wholesale sales manager was "[r]esponsible 
for planning the movement and distribution of products. Analyzing sales statistics and establishing 
quotas and goals and setting up training programs for sales associates.'' 
These job descriptions raise further questions. does not sell vehicles, and 
therefore the reference to "vehicle sales" suggests that the Petitioner copied a job description for a 
sales position at a car dealership or other vehicle seller. Also, the duties described appear to relate 
directly to sales functions rather than the management of those functions. 
The claim that the wholesale sales manager set up "training programs for sales associates·· is not 
consistent with the foreign company's organizational chart, did not show any sales associates 
subordinate to the wholesale sales manager. Again, this discrepancy is consistent with the 
Petitioner's reliance on, or adaptation of, a generic job description. 
In the denial notice, the Director acknowledged that two of the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates 
held managerial titles, but noted that "the organizational chart does not indicate there is a 
subordinate staff that relieves these two positions from performing non-qualifying duties.'' The 
Director also found that the minimal job descriptions did not show that their duties were truly 
managerial. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not address, rebut, or contest this finding. focusing instead on the 
claim that the Beneficiary was a function manager. The Petitioner refers to the Beneficiary as ''an 
Executive Ot1icer of both the foreign and the U.S. Company,'' but says no more about the issue. We 
agree with the Director's finding. The Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary had a high level 
of discretionary authority over the foreign company. Instead, the submitted job description indicates 
lower-level responsibilities implementing, rather than setting, company goals and policies. 
.
Matter of U- W-C-, Inc. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity abroad. 
III. NEW OFFICE 
When a petitioner seeks to employ a beneficiary as a manager or executive to open or be employed 
in a new office in the United States, the Petitioner must 
establish that. within one year of approval of 
the petition, the intended United States operation will support an executive or managerial position. 
Required supporting information must establish the proposed nature of the otTice. its scope, 
organizational structure, and financial goals; 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 the organizational structure of the foreign entity. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
When a new business is first established and commences operations, the regulations recognize that a 
designated manager or executive responsible for setting up operations will be engaged in a variety of 
low-level activities not normally performed by employees at the executive or managerial level and 
that often the full range of managerial responsibility cannot be performed in that first year. The 
"new office" regulations allow a newly established petitioner one year to develop to a point that it 
can support the employment of a beneficiary in a primarily managerial or executive position. 
Accordingly, if a petitioner indicates that a beneficiary is coming to the United States to open a "ne\v 
office," it must show that it is prepared to commence doing business immediately upon approval so 
that it will support a manager or executive within the one-year timeframe. This evidence should 
demonstrate a realistic expectation that the enterprise will succeed and rapidly expand as it moves 
away from the developmental stage to full operations, where there would be an actual need for a 
manager or executive who will primarily perform qualifying duties. See xenerally 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v). The petitioner must describe the nature of its business, its proposed organizational 
structure and financial goals, and submit evidence to show that it has the financial ability to 
remunerate the beneficiary and commence doing business in the United States. !d. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would report to the president of the company, and that her 
subordinates would include a warehouse manager, two warehouse workers, and a driver. The 
Beneficiary's only immediate subordinate would be the warehouse manager. The warehouse 
manager's job description appears to be a generic template rather than one specifically tailored to the 
particular needs of the position. Its wording suggests a larger staff than the Petitioner's hiring plans 
indicate. 
The Director found that the Petitioner had not found that the Beneficiary's position would qualify as 
managerial. On appeal, the Petitioner states: 
The beneficiary reports directly to the President of the company, she has the 
discretionary authority to hire, promote, or tire her employees. she has the signatory 
.
Matter of U- W-C-, Inc. 
authority with the corporate bank accounts, as well as any contractual agreements for 
the company. The beneficiary's position is far beyond the scope and authority of any 
first line supervisor or manager. 
Our de novo review of the record reveals issues of significant concern beyond the Beneficiary's 
claimed role as a manager or executive. 
The Petitioner's business plan repeatedly referred to the company as a "store'' and included a 
passage that reads: "long-term salesperson-customer relationships will take precedence over sales 
closure." The company's projected organizational chart, however. includes no sales staff: all 
identified staff are consistent with the Petitioner's self-description, in other record materials, as a 
distributor's warehouse. 
There are major anomalies in the Petitioner's purported bank statements from The 
Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would work at 
Arkansas. The bank statements are missing the street number and show the Petitioner's 
address as ' AR.'' It is not clear how the U.S. Postal Service 
could have delivered the bank statements to the incomplete address. 
Furthermore, the timing of the bank statements is not credible. The bank statements are dated 
August 31, 20 16; September 30, 20 16; and October 31, 2016. But other documents in the record 
indicate that the Petitioner did not exist yet. The Petitioner filed its certificate of formation with the 
State of Texas on November 18, 2016. The commercial lease for the property began on 
November 15, 2016. The Petitioner has not shown that it occupied the space in several 
months before it leased that property, and before it came into existence through incorporation. 
The above issues cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the submitted bank statements, and 
compound the concerns raised by other, previously discussed discrepancies in the record. The 
Petitioner has not submitted credible, reliable documentary evidence to establish that it would 
support a managerial or executive position in the United States within one year of approval of the 
petition. 
IV. ADDITIONAL ISSUES 
We will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner has not overcome the Director's findings. as 
explained above. Beyond those grounds, there are additional issues which the Petitioner must 
address and overcome if it intends to pursue this matter tl.niher. Doubt cast on any aspect of the 
petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining 
evidence offered in support ofthe visa petition. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
.
Matter of U-W-C-, Inc. 
A. The Beneficiary's Location 
The Petitioner claimed that in India, has employed the 
Beneficiary since 2010, and submitted copies of purported payroll records from her first year 
of employment. The Beneficiary's resume showed this claimed employment but also indicated that 
the Beneficiary graduated from in 2013. The travel distance 
between and is more than 400 kilometers (250 miles). It does not appear to 
be realistic for the Beneficiary to be employed in and studying in at the same 
time. If the Beneficiary was not studying in then by submitting the resume, the 
Petitioner submitted information that it knew. or had reason to know, not to be true. This 
information necessarily reflects on the credibility and reliability of the Petitioner's claims regarding 
the Beneficiary's employment abroad. 
B. Continuous Employment Abroad 
If a beneficiary is employed overseas and then enters the United States, that past period of 
employment does not inevitably remain as a fixed qualifier for as long as the beneficiary remains in 
the United States. Rather, the regulations specify that "[p ]eriods spent in the United States in lawful 
status for a branch of the same employer or a parent. affiliate. or subsidiary thereof" and brief"trips to 
the United States for business or pleasure" shall not interrupt the required one year of continuous 
employment abroad (emphasis added). 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(\)(ii)(A). The specificity of this 
provision demonstrates that periods spent in the United States for other reasons can interrupt the 
continuity of a beneficiary's employment abroad. 
In this instance, the Beneficiary entered the United States on July 31st 2014, as an F -1 
nonimmigrant student, to study at the The Petitioner claimed 
that the Beneficiary's studies were specifically "'to continue education for future opportunity to serve 
as manager in new U.S. company," and that the Beneficiary remained '"employed'' by the foreign 
company during her studies. The Petitioner submitted what purport to be payroll records. showing 
that paid the Beneficiary a monthly salary in July, August and September 
2016. Because the Beneficiary was in the United States at the time, these payroll documents could 
not serve as evidence of qualifying employment abroad even if there were no credibility issues 
regarding the Petitioner's documentation. 
When the Petitioner tiled the petition in December 2016, the Beneficiary had been in the United 
States (and therefore not employed abroad) for more than two years and four months. Also, a multi­
year course of study in F -1 status is not a brief trip for business or pleasure. 
The Beneficiary's F-1 status permitted her to study in New York, whereas the Petitioner's physical 
place of business is in Arkansas. The Petitioner does not claim that it, or any related U.S. entity, 
employed the Beneficiary while she was a student in the United States. Had it occurred. such 
employment likely would have violated the Beneficiary's F -1 nonimmigrant status, except under 
certain conditions which the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary met. See 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 214.2(f)(9) and 274a.12(b)(6). 
9 
.
Matter of U-W-C-, Inc. 
The Beneficiary was not employed abroad, or by any qualifying organization in the United States, 
from July 2014 to December 2016. This amounts to an interruption in the Beneficiary's employment 
abroad lasting more than two years and four months. Therefore, we find that the Beneficiary did not, 
and could not, accrue at least one year of continuous employment abroad during the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition. As such, the interruption disqualifies the Beneficiary for the 
benefit sought as it relates to the present petition. 
C. Other Credibility Issues 
Apart from the distance between and and the bank 
statements that purport to predate the Petitioner's existence, there are other issues in the record that 
further undermine the Petitioner's overall credibility. 
A photograph, purporting to show storefront, appears to have been altered. 
The name of the store appears to have been added digitally. The photograph is slightly out of focus. 
but the words' (errant comma included on the purported sign) are in sharp focus 
above the window. The name of the store is in white letters, outlined in black, against a gray 
background. On the right-hand edge of the photograph. the gray background behind the store name 
bleeds downward below the edge of the sign. consistent with digital "airbrushing'' of the image. as if 
to obscure a different store name on the original image. Therefore, it appears that the submitted 
photographs actually depict a different watch retailer, not 
Also, the record contains several documents that appear to have been created specifically for 
submission with the petition. Most significantly, the Petitioner submitted two stock certificates to 
establish the ownership of the petitioning U.S. company, both with original (not reproduced) 
signatures in black ballpoint ink. The corporation name on the certificates does not match the 
Petitioner's legal name as shown on its certificate of formation. 
Because some of the Petitioner's key documents are in doubt, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary accrued qualifying employment abroad or that the Petitioner actually intends to 
conduct business in the United States. 2 Any further attempt to pursue immigration benefits for the 
Beneficiary through employment with the Petitioner. whether through a new petition or further 
action on this petition, must address these issues with competent objective 
evidence that resolves the 
discrepancies we have identified. See Ho. I&N Dec. at 591-92. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary accrued a year of continuous employment 
abroad in a managerial or executive capacity during the three years preceding the tiling of the 
2 The State of Texas's searchable database at https://mycpa.cpa.state.tx.us/coa/search.do<JuserType=public lists the 
Petitioner's corporate status as "Forfeited.'' (last visited Nov. 8, 2017 .) 
10 
Matter of U-W-C-. Inc. 
petition, or that the petitioning entity will support a managerial or executive position within one year 
of approval of the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter olU-W-C-. Inc., 10# 758173 (AAO Nov. 16, 2017) 
1 1