dismissed L-1A Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Inunigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 2-L-M-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 29, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of logistics services to the trucking industry, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as the president of its new office1 under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(L). The L-lA classification allows a corporation or other legal entity 
(including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to 
work temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required: (1) that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity; and (2) that the new office will support a managerial or executive position within 
one year after the approval of the petition. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision was 
erroneous, that the record shows the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity and 
will be managing the petitioning U.S. entity within the requisite year, and that the Beneficiary 
qualifies for the status of intracompany transferee under the Act. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving a new 
office, a qualifying organization must have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). In addition, the beneficiary must 
seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
1 The term "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one 
year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation no 
more than one year from the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
Matter o/2-L-M-, LLC 
The petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new office will be able to support a 
managerial or executive position within one year. This evidence must establish that the petitioner 
secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation and disclose the proposed nature and 
scope of the entity, its organizational structure, its financial goals, and the size of the U.S. 
investment. See generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
11. DEFINITIONS 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or 
manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Based on the statutory definitions of managerial and 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 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. 
III. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has been employed 
abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. The Petitioner asserts, on appeal, that the 
Beneficiary's position abroad qualifies as managerial. 
When examining the claimed managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. Beyond the required description of the job duties, we 
examine 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 foreign employer's business and its staffing levels. 
A. Duties 
The Beneficiary's employer abroad provides third-party outsourcing services to support specific 
operations and business functions, such as payroll and administrative assistance, on a contract basis. 
2 
Matter o/2-L-M-, LLC 
The Beneficiary's job title abroad is director.2 As evidence of the Beneficiary's managerial 
activities, the Petitioner supplemented a previously submitted organizational chart of the foreign 
entity, showing the director and six subordinate positions identified as accounting, income tax, 
payroll, two analysts, and an analyst technician, with job descriptions listing the duties performed by 
the "general director" and three supervisory employees. According to the Petitioner, those three 
positions of accounting supervisor, tax supervisor, and payroll supervisor are professional and 
managerial in nature, while the three analyst positions are subordinate to and managed by the tax 
supervisor. The Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary, as general director, supervised and 
controlled the work of the three managerial employees in the accounting, tax, and payroll positions. 
In denying the petition the Director concluded that the Beneficiary appeared to spend most of his 
time on non-qualifying duties involving non-supervisory activities, and therefore could not be 
considered a manager or executive. On appeal, the Petitioner submits another set of job descriptions 
with more comprehensive listings of the duties performed by the general director and the three 
supervisors, as well as the duties performed by the "administrative analyst," a position not 
previously identified but presumably referring to one or all of the three analyst positions subordinate 
to the tax supervisor. 
On appeal the Petitioner lists and describes his duties as "general director" of the foreign entity as 
follows: 
Executive Duties - 7.5% (at least three hours a week) 
• Audit demonstration of administrative processes. This task is reported by the accounting 
supervisor. The demonstration is random, and it will be me who determines what the 
demonstration areas will be. 
Control Duties - 10% (at least four hours a week) 
• Review of timely fiscal compliance. Normally, I will review the office's progress with our 
tax compliance on a biweekly basis. 
• Random selection for internal review of the supervisors. Contemplates a review of the 
quarterly results, this through the results given in the audit process described above, together 
with the supervisors in order to improve the processes. 
• Control of the financial and banking operation of the firm. Run the right protection of the 
financial and banking information. 
Supervision Duties - 15% (at least six hours a week) 
• Supervision of accounting, fiscal, and administrative procedures for the monthly closings of 
the company. Discussion of results with all the areas involved. 
• Supervision of the financial activities of the firm. Implies the interpretation of the monthly 
financial statements and the evaluation that can guarantee the continuous improvement for 
the firm's interests. 
2 The Beneficiary has an 80% ownership interest in the foreign entity, and is the sole owner of its U.S. affiliate, the 
Petitioner in this proceeding. 
3 
Matter o/2-L-M-, LLC 
• Supervision of the accounting, labor, and tax areas. This through the constant evaluation of 
supervisors' performance. 
Management Duties - 67.5% (at least 27 hours a week) 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Decision making in financial matters of the company, projections, risk analysis, among 
others. Evaluation of the viability of financing for the acquisition of property and equipment, 
cost analysis and price adjustments according to the market price. 
Implementation of changes in new procedures in order to increase efficiency. Through the 
implementation of innovative work techniques, tools, and others to do the job with greater 
accuracy using the lowest workload possible. 
Provision of necessary tools to improve processes and execution times of tasks. Ensure that 
the company has the administrative tools updated at the software level according to the laws 
in order to ensure the effective execution of tasks. 
Responsible [for] the execution of activities demanded by the government before the firm 
and the clients. Evaluation through surveys of the activities' performance, as well as attend 
and represent the company at the tax and legal levels. 
• Interviews with customers and suppliers to look for the maximum benefits in commercial 
relationships. Customer interviews will be those clients that due to their magnitude require a 
special visit, generally companies with 30 workers or more. At the supplier level, it will be 
the main suppliers in search [ of] discounts or special financing. 
• Decision-making regarding the employees of the firm, hiring and terminating. Analysis of 
the suggestions made by the supervisors in relation to the analysts' performance. Evaluation 
of the financial impact of these decisions. 
• Review of advertising content, social networks, and other advertising media. Evaluation of 
the impact of advertising content, determine the one with the most impact, fix any 
deficiencies and ensure they have updated information. 
• Manage the financial resources of the company adequately through technical and 
professional knowledge such as investment, risk analysis, and financing. This with the 
purpose of keeping the company within the expected financial stability and setting goals in 
the short, medium, and long terms. 
The managerial duties described above are virtually the same as those previously described in 
response to the RFE. According to the Petitioner, over two-thirds (67.5%) of the duties performed 
by the Beneficiary in his overseas position as general director are managerial in nature. As 
described by the Petitioner, however, these duties do not appear to involve primarily management 
activities vis-a-vis the subordinate supervisors of accounting, tax, and payroll. Rather, most of the 
job duties appear to involve basic operational activities of the business that are directly performed by 
the Beneficiary, rather than by subordinate managers under the Beneficiary's control and direction. 
For example, the duties of interviewing customers and clients and reviewing advertising content, as 
described by the Petitioner, are basic operational activities with no apparent managerial component. 
The same applies to implementing procedural changes to promote efficiency and providing tools to 
improve execution times, though these duties are so vaguely described that it is difficult to discern 
what the Petitioner means. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's 
duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would 
4 
Matter o/2-L-M-, LLC 
simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 
1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Furthermore, the duty summarized as executing governmentally-required activities before the firm 
and clients is likewise unclear, and the further description of this duty as including the evaluation of 
company performance surveys and representing the company at the tax and legal levels do not 
include any evident management activity. While the duties described as decision-making in 
financial matters and managing the company's financial resources could conceivably involve some 
management activities if they incorporate oversight of and input from the tax and accounting 
managers, no such claim is made by the Petitioner in describing those duties. The one duty that does 
appear to be managerial in nature is that described as decision-making regarding the employees of 
the firm, including hiring and termination. That duty is only one of eight listed in the appeal, 
however, and the Petitioner does not indicate how much of the Beneficiary's time this duty takes as 
compared to the other non-qualifying duties grouped together. As such, we cannot determine what 
proportion of the duties is managerial in nature, and what proportion is non-managerial. See 
Republic of Transkei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Thus, the Petitioner's latest job 
description of the general director position does not establish that the Beneficiary primarily 
performed qualifying managerial duties in his position abroad. 
B. Staffing 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and 
"function managers." 3 See sections 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to 
primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees. Contrary to the common understanding of the word "manager," the statute plainly states 
that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue 
of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional." Id If a 
beneficiary directly supervises other employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire 
and fire those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(B)(3). 
To determine whether the Beneficiary manages professional employees, we must evaluate whether 
the subordinate positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of 
endeavor. Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining "profession" to mean "any occupation for which a 
United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry 
into the occupation"). Section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, states that "[t]he term profession shall include 
but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary 
or secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner claims that the foreign entity employing the Beneficiary as 
general director has six other employees. According to the organizational charts and job 
descriptions in the record, they include: 
3 The Petitioner does not assert that the Beneficiary worked as a "function manager" in his employment abroad. 
5 
Matter o/2-L-M-, LLC 
• An accounting supervisor; 
• A tax supervisor; 
• A payroll supervisor; 
• 3 analysts. 
The supervisors are directly subordinate to the general director, while the three technicians are 
directly subordinate to the tax supervisor. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary directly 
manages the three supervisors and indirectly manages the three technicians. 
In his decision, however, the Director found that the Petitioner did not submit job descriptions for 
the three technician positions identified in the organizational chart, submitted resumes for the three 
employees in the supervisory positions which showed different job titles for their positions, and 
submitted an additional job description for a "nominal supervisor" position that did not appear on the 
organizational chart. As a result, the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
organizational structure of the foreign entity was sufficient to relieve the Beneficiary from 
performing day-to-day non-supervisory duties of the business and to elevate the Beneficiary's job to 
a supervisory or managerial position. 
On appeal the Petitioner asserts that the Director's findings with regard to the three supervisory 
positions in the foreign entity were incorrect insofar as the job titles provided by the Petitioner and 
by the employees in their personal resumes are the same for the employees in the accounting and 
payroll supervisor positions, and while the employee in the tax supervisor position had a different 
title for the job on her resume, the job duties were the same. The Petitioner also points out, contrary 
to the Director's finding, that job descriptions for three "administrative analyst" positions were 
submitted as part of the initial evidence. In addition, the record shows that the "nominal supervisor" 
position is simply another job title for the accounting supervisor position. 
The resolution of the foregoing evidentiary issues, however, does not establish that the personnel and 
organizational structure of the foreign entity are at such a level as to require the exercise of primarily 
managerial duties by the Beneficiary. To decide whether the Beneficiary is employed in a 
"managerial capacity" by the foreign entity, we must examine the positions of the Beneficiary's 
subordinates. The new job description for the accounting supervisor categorizes her job duties as 
15% execution, 20% control, 50% supervision, and 15% analysis. As for the payroll supervisor, the 
new job description categorizes her job duties as 55% supervision, 15% executive, 15% control, and 
15% analysis. None of the specific execution, control, and analysis duties listed for either position 
involve supervisory or managerial tasks. Nor do the duties listed as "supervisory" indicate that the 
accounting supervisor or the payroll supervisor exercise any supervisory or managerial tasks. The 
non-supervisory and non-managerial nature of the job duties is consistent with the placement of 
these two positions on the organizational chart with no subordinate employees. With regard to the 
tax supervisor, the new job description categorizes her job duties as 55% supervision, 15% 
executive, 15% control, and 15% analysis. Once again, none of the specific execution, control, and 
analysis duties listed for either position involve any supervisory or managerial tasks. Nor do the 
duties listed as "supervisory" appear to involve any supervisory or managerial duties, even though 
t, 
Matter o/2-L-M-, LLC 
the three analyst positions are directly subordinate to the tax supervisor on the organizational chart. 
As listed in the new job description, the supervisory tasks of the position include (1) supervising the 
fulfillment of payments for the company's tax obligations within the terms established by law, (2) 
supervision of formal duties (purchase/sale [ of] books, ISLR, IV A, internal advice on the issuance 
and receipt of invoices, retention percentages, review of gazettes/orders, (3) supervise that payments 
are made on the date established in the calendar, and ( 4) supervise the reconciliation and filing of 
declarations and payments made. None of these duties indicates that the tax supervisor exercises any 
supervisory or managerial tasks vis-a-vis the three administrative analysts. As far as their job 
descriptions show, all six of the foreign entity's employees subordinate to the general director 
perform discrete subject-specific tasks focused on the daily operation of the business, without any 
significant supervisory or managerial component. 
As the foregoing analysis indicates, the record does not show that the foreign entity has any 
supervisory or managerial employees for the Beneficiary to supervise and control. While there is 
evidence in the record that the accounting, tax, and payroll supervisors all have a Licenciado en 
Contadura Publica from a Venezuelan university, which is comparable to a U.S. bachelor's degree 
in public accounting, the Petitioner has provided no evidence that such a degree is required to be 
hired for, and perform the tasks of, the foreign entity's specific jobs of accounting supervisor, tax 
supervisor, and payroll supervisor. Thus, the record does not establish that any of these three jobs is 
a professional position. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
supervises or controls any supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, as required to meet 
the requirements of a personnel manager under section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. Furthermore, as 
discussed above, we find that the Beneficiary's own job duties are primarily non-managerial with 
respect to his subordinate employees. As such, even if the Petitioner were to demonstrate the 
professional nature of the accounting, tax, and payroll supervisor positions, it would not be sufficient 
to establish that the Beneficiary's position is primarily managerial in nature. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad primarily in a managerial capacity. 
IV. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Director found that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary would be primarily 
performing managerial duties for the Petitioner within one year of the petition's approval. On appeal 
the Petitioner asserts that it meets this requirement. 
A petitioner seeking to employ a beneficiary as a manager or executive of a new office must 
establish that the new office will support a managerial or executive position within one year of the 
approval of the petition. The Petitioner must establish the nature of the proposed office, describing 
its scope, organizational structure, and financial goals; the size of the United States investment and 
the foreign entity's financial ability to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business 
in the United States; and the foreign entity's organizational structure. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
Matter o/2-L-M-, LLC 
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 managerial or executive 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. 
When examining the managerial or 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). However, the position 
description alone is insufficient to establish that a beneficiary's duties would be primarily in a 
managerial or executive capacity, particularly in the case of a new office petition where much is 
dependent on factors such as a petitioner's business and hiring plans and evidence that the business 
will grow sufficiently to support a beneficiary in the proposed position. In this case, while the 
proposed position is described in the petition as the "executive position" of president, the Petitioner 
indicated in its response to the Director's RFE that the Beneficiary's duties will be primarily 
managerial. On appeal the Petitioner reiterates its contention that the Petitioner will be primarily 
employed in a managerial capacity. 4 As such we will restrict our analysis to the proposed 
managerial capacity. 
A Staffing and Business Plan 
A new office petition must include evidence of the proposed nature of the office, describing the 
scope of the entity, its organizational structure, and its financial goals. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(J). 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 by the end of the one-year period. See generally 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner provides operating advice and assistance to businesses in the trucking industry on 
such matters as establishing a logistics business, operating permits, training personnel, and 
administrative processes. The Petitioner has submitted a business plan, stating that the U.S. entity 
was formed in April 2018 with initial funding of $10,000 that covered the first two months of office 
rent, office furniture and equipment, website expenses, professional services, and left some cash on 
hand. The record shows that this $10,000 was received from the foreign entity, deposited in a U.S. 
bank, and utilized in part to secure the Petitioner's business premises. There is no evidence of any 
further investments from the foreign entity. 
With respect to personnel, the business plan states that during the first year the U.S. entity would fill 
four positions, including the president at a monthly salary of $5,313, and three subordinate positions 
including a dispatcher/administrative assistant in month 2 at a monthly salary of $2,000, a logistics 
manager in month 9 at a monthly salary of $2,500, and an accountant in month 11 at a monthly 
4 The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary will be employed as a personnel manager, not a "function manager," in the 
United States. 
Matter o/2-L-M-, LLC 
salary of $5,313. By the end of the first year, therefore, monthly salaries would total $10,813. 
Additional contract workers would be hired as administrative professionals, bookkeepers, HR 
specialists, tax specialists, financial professionals, legal professionals, safety specialists, compliance 
specialists, and an marketing specialist, though the business plan does not specify how many 
workers would be hired and in what time frame to fill those various job categories. The business 
plan projects Year I revenues of $192,000 based on four contracts with average earnings of $4,000 
per month on each contract, and operating expenses of $174,667, of which the lion's share would be 
$101,752 for salaries and wages. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) the Petitioner submitted letters from two 
trucking companies in Florida, with identical dates and wording, stating their intent to contract for 
the Petitioner's services contingent on the Petitioner obtaining authorization to operate in the United 
States. According to the Petitioner, these companies, one of which also leased business premises to 
the Petitioner, represent two of the four contracts it expected to sign during its first year of operation. 
Given the small amount of the investment from the foreign entity, which would not cover the 
Beneficiary's salary and expenses for even one month, it is not clear how the Petitioner plans to pay 
for its other staff and expenses while it grows its business. The Petitioner states that it plans to hire a 
dispatcher/administrative assistant in month 2. However, it is not clear how the dispatcher's salary, 
along with expenses, would be paid in the absence of any revenue. Although the Petitioner claims 
that it will secure four contracts in the first year, the Petitioner would reasonably need staff in order 
to fulfill those contracts and earn revenue. If the Petitioner does not have the funds to first pay both 
its staff, it is unclear who would be available to provide the named services to the prospective 
customers. 
Also, given that the Petitioner plans to only hire one dispatcher/administrative assistant during the 
first year, the Petitioner has not explained how it would be able to support four shipping company 
contracts with only one person providing the service of the business. Although the Petitioner asserts 
that each contract would be valued at $4,000 a month, it does not provide any information on the 
volume of work involved in each contract. Without reliable information concerning the activities 
needed to support the prospective contracts, we cannot conclude that one dispatcher alone would be 
sufficient, such that other staff including the Beneficiary, would be relieved from perform the 
dispatching and administrative services. 
In addition to the dispatcher, the Petitioner plans to hire a logistics manager and accountant within 
one year of approval. The duties of those two positions, in addition to the duties assigned to the lone 
dispatcher, leave a number of operational and day-to-day activities unaccounted for. The Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that there will be staff to do marketing, advertising, gaining clients, or bidding 
for contracts. Activities such as these are necessary to continue to grow the business, but the 
Petitioner has not included plans for staff to assume these duties within the one year of approval. In 
the absence of any other staff to perform these non-qualifying duties, it appears that the Beneficiary 
will likely be involved with performing these necessary operational and administrative duties well 
beyond the first year of operation. 
9 
Matter o/2-L-M-, LLC 
The new office regulations are premised on the understanding that a new company will progress to a 
stage of development where it will be able to support a beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity. Here, the Petitioner provided a deficient business plan that contains inconsistencies 
regarding its expenses and hiring timeline and also lacks sufficient information that would allow us 
to gain a meaningful understanding of the specific benchmarks that the Petitioner intends to meet 
during its first year of operation to ensure that it will adequately develop and have the ability to 
relieve the Beneficiary from having to primarily perform its operational and administrative tasks 
within one year of this petition's approval. 
B. Duties 
When examining the managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, in addition to the staffing and 
structure of the organization as discussed above, we will look to the petitioner's description of the 
job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The Petitioner's business plan includes a list of 29 specific 
duties to be performed by the Beneficiary under the broad categories of establishing goals or policies 
(15%), directing the management of the organization (50%), and exercising wide latitude in 
discretionary decision-making (35%). The duties includes: 
Establish goals or policies (15%) 
• Conducting SWOT analyses to identify situational strengths and weaknesses, as well as 
opportunities and threats, with goal of defining goals and objectives (3%) 
• Establishing and carrying out short- and long-term goals and policies to ensure the 
company's strategy, implementation, and execution are contributing to top and bottom line 
improvement in key areas such as cash flow, sales growth, market share, and return on 
investment (3%) 
• Setting strategic objectives that focus on internal processes to ensure the greatest impact on 
customer satisfaction (2%) 
• Defining the competencies needed to maintain market leadership and maximizing the 
effectiveness of those internal systems (2%) 
• Setting long-term strategic objectives focused primarily on creating value and differentiating 
[the Petitioner] when acquiring, retaining or servicing the customer (2%) 
• Ensuring that organization objectives are clearly communicated to all levels of the company 
so that employees have a clear line of sight of what they are working toward (1 % ) 
• Coordinating strategic planning with the Logistics Manager and international strategic 
planning with the Venezuelan affiliate (1 %) 
• Reviewing and updating goals and objectives to ensure compliance with the competitive 
landscape, the company's positioning strategy, industry standard, and regulations, among 
other criteria (1 %) 
Direct the management of the organization (50%) 
• Defining a recruitment strategy that outlines the company's needs and goals, and how [the 
Petitioner] plans to achieve them (2%) 
• Defining a recruitment budget (1 %) 
• Measuring results to determine if the recruitment strategy is working (1 %) 
10 
Matter o/2-L-M-, LLC 
• Hiring and overseeing the company's Logistics Manager by specifying outcomes, 
establishing objectives controls, and identifying key performance indicators (7%) 
• Meeting with Logistics Manager on a weekly basis to review results, obtain feedback, and 
revise goals and objectives (7%) 
• Directing a Logistics Manager who in tum oversees front-line employees and contract 
workers that are responsible for delivering the company's services (10%) 
• Meeting with Accountant to review clients' financial statements and accounts receivable 
reports (5%) 
• Monitoring staff performance through annual evaluations and ensuring the highest level of 
customer/client service (5%) 
• Setting and communicating company-wide, departmental, and individual goals and aligning 
them with the corporate strategy (2%) 
• Monitoring progress on goals and providing coaching on performance (2%) 
• Defining and communicating disciplinary and termination policies (2%) 
• Liaising with attorney to oversee the preparation and revision of [the Petitioner's] employee 
handbook (2%) 
• Responsible for promoting, disciplining, and firing managerial staff (2%) 
• Meeting with CPA to review and analyze the financial health of the company (2%) 
Exercise wide latitude in discretionary decision-making (35%) 
• Exploring, identifying, and making decisions on the need for further investment (5%) 
• Legally representing the company, having authority to bind it in contract and acting as the 
corporate bank account signatory ( 4%) 
• Determining a marketing and promotion strategy and entering into agreement with a 
marketing company(l l %) 
• Analyzing the U.S. economy and marketplace to identify new opportunities and deciding the 
introduction of new products and services to be provided by the company (5%) 
• Assessing changes in the marketplace and analyzing competitors' reactions in order to revise 
and update the company's service and pricing strategies (5%) 
• Making service, pricing, staffing, marketing, and financial decisions that have implications 
across multiple functional areas (5%) 
Although the list of duties provided is lengthy, we find it insufficient to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary would primarily perform managerial duties within one year of approval. Specifically, 
regarding the first subset of duties titled "Establish goals or policies;" many of the duties are a 
general recitation of the Beneficiary's authority and do not provide an understanding of how the 
duties would be performed in the specific context of the Petitioner's business. Conclusory assertions 
regarding the Beneficiary's employment capacity are not sufficient. Merely repeating the language 
of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Assocs., 
Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Here, the Petitioner has not provided the 
necessary detail or an adequate explanation of the Beneficiary's proposed activities in the course of 
his daily routine. Additionally, given the disparate business models of the Petitioner and the 
Venezuelan affiliate, it is unclear why or how the Beneficiary would be coordinating strategic 
planning between the two. 
11 
Matter o/2-L-M-, LLC 
Concerning the second subset of duties, "Direct the management of the organization;" we find that 
many of these duties appear to be one time or rare duties that would not be part of the Beneficiary's 
everyday activities. Duties such "[d]efining a recruitment strategy that outlines the company's needs 
and goals, and how [the Petitioner] plans to achieve them;" [d]efining a recruitment budget;" 
"[ d]efining and communicating disciplinary and termination policies;" and "[ d]efining and 
communicating disciplinary and termination policies" are not duties that would be performed on a 
day-to day basis and therefore provide little insight into how the Beneficiary would actually spend 
his time. Still others duties do not appear reasonable given the small size of the Petitioner's 
business. The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will spend 24% of his time overseeing a single 
employee - the logistics manager, but the duties regarding the time spent overseeing the logistics 
manager are repetitive and duplicative which raises questions about the veracity of the description 
provided. The Petitioner has not explained why "overseeing" "meeting with" and "directing" the 
logistics manager are separate and distinct duties. The actual duties themselves reveal the true 
nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. At 1108. Finally, though 
labeled managerial, most of these duties also lack an obvious managerial component. The Petitioner 
evidently considers the Beneficiary's one-on-one meetings and other business interactions with the 
logistics manager and the accountant as managerial duties. As described by the Petitioner, however, 
and considering the Petitioner's small-scale operation, these meetings and other interactions do not 
appear to be managerial in nature, but rather ordinary operational activities by the Beneficiary 
alongside other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 2006). While a few 
of the duties like monitoring staff performance with annual evaluations, performance-related 
coaching, setting disciplinary and termination policies, and making promotion decisions, may 
involve some managerial activities, they represent a small percentage of the time ascribed to duties 
involving management of the organization. 
Regarding the third subset of duties, "Exercise wide latitude in discretionary decision-making;" the 
bulk of the duties indicate that the Beneficiary will perform the marketing and advertising duties 
required to generate business and to gain customers. The lack of subordinate employees to perform 
these operational tasks brings into question how much time the Beneficiary can actually devote to 
managerial or executive duties. An employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to 
produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be "primarily" employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity. See, e.g., sections 10l(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that 
one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); Matter of Church 
Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm'r 1988). 
We must take into account the reasonable needs of the organization and that a company's size alone 
may not be the only factor in determining whether the Beneficiary is or would be employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity. See section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act. However, it is appropriate 
for USCIS to consider the size of the petitioning company in conjunction with other relevant factors, 
such as the absence of employees who would perform the non-managerial or non-executive 
operations of the company or a company that does not conduct business in a regular and continuous 
manner. Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d at 1313; Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 
12 
Matter o/2-L-M-, LLC 
(D.D.C. 2001). The size of a company may be especially relevant when USCIS notes discrepancies 
in the record. See Systronics, 153 F. Supp. 2d at 15. 
While we do not doubt that the Beneficiary makes decisions regarding the company's overall 
direction, the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated how his role requires him to spend his 
time primarily on the broadly defined responsibilities attributed to him, nor has it provided a 
sufficient explanation of his day-to-day tasks. The fact that the Beneficiary will direct a business as 
its owner and senior employee does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an 
intracompany transferee in a managerial capacity within the meaning of section 10l(a)(44) of the 
Act. The Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's responsibilities is insufficient to establish that 
his actual duties would be primarily managerial in nature. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterated the claim that the Beneficiary will be primarily a personnel 
manager within one year of approval. As noted, personnel managers are required to primarily 
supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. The 
Petitioner asserts that the Director did not properly address all of the duties of the logistics manager 
and the accountant, the two positions immediately subordinate to the president. According to the 
Petitioner, the logistics manager will be responsible for managing the Petitioner's shipment routes, 
and his work will be overseen and directed by the Beneficiary, as president, while the accountant 
will be performing a range of duties in a professional capacity. 
Although the Beneficiary may eventually supervise a professional or supervisory positon, the 
Petitioner must demonstrate that the Beneficiary will primarily supervise and control the work of 
other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, spending his time on managerial 
activities, rather than on the day-to-day provision of goods and services. As discussed above, the 
duties assigned to the proffered position are not indicative of a position that is primarily managerial. 
The mere existence of a professional or supervisory subordinate is not sufficient to overcome the 
above enumerated deficiencies. 
A petitioner has the burden to establish that it would realistically develop to the point where it would 
require the beneficiary to perform duties that are primarily managerial in nature within one year. 
Accordingly, the totality of the evidence must be considered in analyzing whether the proposed 
duties are plausible considering a petitioner's anticipated staffing levels and stage of development 
within a one-year period. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). Here, the Beneficiary's job duty 
breakdown indicates that a considerable portion of his time would be allocated to non-managerial 
functions. Furthermore, the Petitioner's staffing and organizational structure is not sufficient to 
support a finding that the Beneficiary will be relieved from having to allocate his time primarily to 
performing non-managerial job duties beyond the first year of operation. Thus, the Petitioner has 
not established that the new office will support a managerial position within one year after approval 
of the petition. 
13 
Matter o/2-L-M-, LLC 
V. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity and that the new office in the United States 
will support a managerial or executive position within one year after the approval of the petition. The 
appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa proceedings it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The 
Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of 2-L-M-, LLC, ID# 2501109 (AAO Mar. 29, 2019) 
14