dismissed L-1A Case: Lumber And Furniture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF PTRI- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 9, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a lumber and furniture importer and exporter, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as the president and chairman of its new office 
1 
under the L-1 A nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-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 a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the new office would support a managerial or executive position within 
one year of approval of the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director ignored evidence submitted and contends that it 
has submitted sufficient evidence to establish eligibility. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss 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. In addition, the beneficiary must seek to enter,he 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. Section I 0 I ( a)(15)(L) of the 
Act. 
1 The tenn "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(1)(1)(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 within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
Matter of PTRI- Inc. 
An individual petition filed on Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, must include 
evidence that the petitioner will employ the beneficiary in an executive or managerial capacity, or in 
a position requiring specialized knowledge, including a detailed description of the services to be 
performed. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
Ifthe Form 1-129 indicates that the beneficiary is coming to the United States in L-1A status to open 
or to be employed in a new office, 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 
includes information regarding the new office's physical premises, 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). 
II. NEW OFFICE 
The Petitioner's parent company (the Beneficiary's foreign employer in this matter) manufactures 
furniture in Vietnam from locally and foreign sourced wood. The Petitioner states that the parent 
company employs a workforce of 200 employees who are craftsmen, shipping and administrative 
staff, design professionals, and their supervisors and managers. 
A. Business Plan 
The Petitioner plans to export lumber from the United States to Vietnam building on existing 
relationships with U.S. lumber suppliers an:d to import and distribute furniture manufactured in 
Vietnam to the United States by developing and maintaining relationships with American furniture 
retailers and wholesalers. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the foreign entity identified the proposed 
activities of the new office as establishing and maintaining business relationships with U.S. 
suppliers, conducting market research, coordinating export of goods, and ensuring customers' 
satisfaction. The foreign entity explained further that the petitioning subsidiary will be ·better able to 
focus on the American market and work more efficiently with suppliers, retailers, and wholesalers 
located in the United States than its staff in Vietnam. The foreign entity also noted that it will pay 
the Petitioner in advance when placing orders for American goods and that the payments will cover 
the cost of goods, the Petitioner's business expenses, and a reasonable profit. The Petitioner asserted 
that because of the advance payment it does not need a larger capital contribution or shareholder 
loan to fund its business operations. 
The Petitioner did not submit copies of its bank statements, or copies of contracts or invoices 
between its parent company and other U.S. lumber or furniture companies. Thus, we cannot 
ascertain whether the· foreign entity's plan to advance the Petitioner payment for goods purchased is 
realistic. The record also does not include evidence of market research or estimates supported by 
market research demonstrating how the Petitioner will plausibly develop to a point that it will be 
able to support a manager or executive position within one year. The lack of detail and the lack of 
2 
Matter of PTRI- Inc. 
supporting information in the record regarding the proposed new office precludes a determination 
that the Petitioner will grow sufficiently to support a manager or executive position within one year. 
B. Duties 
In the letter submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "will 
primarily manage all aspects of lumber acquisition and export, as well as furniture import and 
distribution" and that he will "[ d]irectly and indirectly manage all employees, including recruiting 
and training new hires in the US while continuing to have the support of the employees at the parent 
company." The Petitioner advised that "the position offered is an employment position with our 
company and the end-product ofthis position is directly related to [its] business." The Petitioner's 
business plan identified the Beneficiary as its representative in the United States. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the foreign entity asserted that "the same staff who already report 
to [the Beneficiary] in Vietnam will continue to report to him and support the functions that he 
manages in the U.S." The foreign entity added that "[w]ith the support ofthe employees in the U.S. 
and Vietnam performing professional and support staff services, [the Beneficiary] can concentrate 
his attention on managing [the Petitioner]." The foreign entity emphasized that the Beneficiary "is 
required as a leader who can work closely with our suppliers to manage relations and grow [the 
Petitioner's] presence in the U.S." 
The new office 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. However, a petitioner's evidence in support of 
a new office petition should demonstrate a realistic expectation that the enterprise is prepared to 
commence business operations 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. Accordingly, the entire record must be considered to determine 
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, other than asserting that the Beneficiary will work as the Petitioner's leader or manager, the 
Petitioner does not detail the Beneficiary's proposed duties. The record does not include sufficient 
information regarding the Beneficiary's proposed position to determine whether he will perform 
primarily managerial or executive duties. Reciting vague job responsibilities, such as managing 
relations with suppliers, or broadly-cast business objectives, such as growing the Petitioner's 
presence in the United States, is not sufficient; the regulations require a detailed description of the 
Beneficiary's daily job duties. The Petitioner has not provided any detail or explanation of the 
Beneficiary's 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. 1103, 1108 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The Petitioner has not sufficiently delineated 
3 
Matter of PTRI- Inc. 
the Beneficiary's specific daily tasks or explained how the proposed position would meet the 
four-prong definition of executive or managerial capacity. 
The totality of the record does not include sufficient, probative evidence establishing the 
Beneficiary's actual role at the Petitioner. Thus, we cannot determine that the proposed position, as 
generally described, is plausible considering the 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). 
C. Staffing 
The Petitioner's business plan indicated that the Petitioner will employ one manager, three 
salespersons, one purchaser, and two "forwarding" staff after one year of operation. Its proposed 
organizational chart shows each of these employees report directly to the Beneficiary. However, the 
record does not include position descriptions or describe how these individuals will relieve the 
Beneficiary from performing primarily non-qualifying duties. For example, the foreign entity 
claimed that one of the Petitioner's activities would be to conduct market research. However, 
neither the business plan nor the Petitioner's organizational chart id~ntifies an employee who will 
actually perform marketing duties. 
We have also considered the petitioning organization's claim that the foreign staff will support the 
Beneficiary in his management of the Petitioner. However, the Petitioner does not offer evidence or 
plans that demonstrate the relationship between the foreign employees and the Beneficiary's duties 
for the Petitioner. Additionally, the Petitioner does not explain how the foreign employees will be 
inserted into its proposed operations. Nor does the Petitioner clarify how the foreign employees will 
relieve the Beneficiary from performing non-operational duties within one year of approval of the 
petition. Although the foreign entity's organizational chart shows a number of teams responsible for 
building furniture, as well as an "office group" and a security team, the chart does not identify 
individuals in administrative, financial, or marketing positions. We have also reviewed the 
submitted foreign entity's corporate profile which includes a different organizational chart for the 
foreign entity. The profile chart identifies a number of departments, including administrative, 
financial, sales/marketing, planning, quality control/design, material procurement, and maintenance 
departments, but does not identify the Beneficiary's foreign position and does not identify a security 
department. The Petitioner does not explain the differences in the charts. Additionally, the record 
does not include payroll or other evidence substantiating the employment of individuals in any of the 
foreign entity's positions. 
The record does not include sufficient probative evidence establishing that the Petitioner's or the 
foreign entity's employees will relieve the Beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties within 
one year of approval of the petition. The Petitioner has not fully developed the record so that we 
may analyze the viability of its plans to open and operate a new office in the United States. The 
record is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner will be sufficiently complex to support the 
Beneficiary in a managerial or executive position within one year. 
4 
Matter of PTRI- Inc. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the record does not include sufficient evidence to establish that 
the Petitioner will support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity within a one-year 
period. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of PTRI-Inc., ID# 486381 (AAO Aug. 9, 2017) 
5