dismissed L-1A Case: Lumber Export

MATTER OF E-C-E-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 16, 2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a raw lumber exporter, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as the general 
manager and president of its new office1 under the L-IA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-IA classification allows a corporation or other legal entity 
(including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to 
work temporarily in an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that the Beneficiary has been employed in a managerial capacity abroad 
and that he would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity within one 
year of approval of the new office petition. We dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal and 
upheld both grounds for denial. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. In support of its motion, the Petitioner states 
that the Beneficiary has been and would be employed as a function manager and argues that we did 
not apply the holdings of two relevant adopted decisions that focus on the role of an L-lA function 
manager. 
Upon review, we will deny the motion to reconsider. 
I. REQUIREMENTS FOR A MOTION TO RECONSIDER 
A motion to reconsider is based on legal grounds and must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration; 
(2) be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy; and (3) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion 
that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
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(1X3)(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 E-C-E-, LLC 
II. ANALYSIS 
The issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner has established that our decision to dismiss the 
Petitioner's appeal was based on an incorrect application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) policy to the facts of this case. 
For the reasons discussed below, we will deny the motion to reconsider. While the current motion 
includes newly submitted assertions that we incorrectly applied the law and USCIS policy to the 
facts presented, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsideration or established 
eligibility for the benefit sought. 
In support of the motion to reconsider, the Petitioner contends that our decision was erroneous with 
respect to the Beneficiary's position abroad as well as his proposed position in the United States. 
A. Foreign Employment 
In its discussion of the Beneficiary's employment with the foreign position, the Petitioner references 
two ninth circuit decisions - Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 1991) 
(unpublished table decision) and Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006) - that 
we previously cited in our dismissal of the appeal. The Petitioner contends that these decisions do 
not support our focus on a beneficiary's "day-to-day" job duties as an indicator of the managerial or 
executive nature of a given position. 
We find that the Petitioner's reliance on the referenced case law is flawed, as both decisions focus 
primarily on the relevance of a company's size as an indicator of whether that company can support 
a primarily managerial or executive position. Neither decision specifically addresses the 
significance of a detailed job description or precludes us from looking to a beneficiary's daily job 
duties to clarify ambiguities in an overly broad job description, particularly when those ambiguities 
cause us to question whether a given position is primarily managerial or executive in nature. In fact, 
the actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 
724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). If the Petitioner 
cannot articulate the Beneficiary's specific job duties, it effectively precludes us from making a 
determination as to the managerial nature of the Beneficiary's position. 
In the present matter, we discussed the Beneficiary's foreign job description and explained precisely 
why we found that job description to be insufficient. Moreover, we noted that on appeal the 
Petitioner rearranged the time allocations for the previously submitted list of duties without 
explaining why this change was made; we further noted that the overall time allocated did not total 
100 percent. The Petitioner has not addressed or resolved this ambiguity on motion. See Matter of 
Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
We also disagree with the contention that we did not consider the foreign entity's reasonable needs. 
In fact, we found that the Petitioner did not establish that the foreign entity relies on contract services 
2 
Matter of E-C-E-, LLC 
to support the Beneficiary in a managerial position, nor did it explain how the foreign entity's 
financial statements and its "formal legal and accounting structure" are instrumental in 
demonstrating that the Beneficiary's position abroad was comprised of primarily managerial duties. 
These findings indicate that we took into account the nature of the foreign entity's business, along 
with its date of establishment, size, and staffing composition, thereby indicating that we considered 
the foreign entity's reasonable needs. 
Furthermore, we find that the Petitioner does not show that its facts and circumstances are analogous 
to those in Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016), where we 
determined that the petitioner provided a detailed job description and documented its reliance on an 
overseas staff to support the beneficiary's role as a function manager in the United States. Here, we 
determined that the Petitioner provided a deficient job description and did not adequately establish 
that the foreign entity's organizational structure was sufficient to relieve the Beneficiary from having 
to allocate his time primarily to the company's operational tasks. Likewise, the Petitioner has not 
established that it satisfied the five-prong criteria that was outlined in Matter of G- Inc., Adopted 
Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017), in which we determined that to be deemed a "function 
manager" the petitioner must demonstrate that: (1) the function is a clearly defined activity; (2) the 
function is "essential," i.e., core to the organization; (3) the beneficiary will primarily manage, as 
opposed to perform, 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. In fact, the Petitioner points to "the 
essential marketing, financial, and administrative functions of the Company," but does not 
demonstrate that the functions are clearly defined activities or that the Beneficiary managed these 
functions, as opposed to performing the underlying operational tasks necessary to execute these 
functions. In light of these deficiencies we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the two adopted 
decisions is misplaced. 
Lastly, the Petitioner claims that we mischaracterized the Beneficiary's foreign subordinates as 
holding "non-professional positions," despite their respective duties and college levels of education. 
We note, however, that this issue was adequately addressed in our prior decision where we expressly 
stated that the Petitioner did not describe specific duties that would require a bachelor's degree.2 
The Petitioner has not cited to a pertinent precedent decision to establish that our finding was based 
on an incorrect application of law or policy. 
For the above stated reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary was employed abroad 
in a managerial capacity or that we failed to consider the Petitioner's claims in accordance with 
applicable law and policy. 
2Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining "profession" to mean "any occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its 
foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation"). 
3 
Matter of E-C-E-, LLC 
B. U.S. Employment 
We similarly find that the Petitioner has not established that we erred in our decision regarding the 
Beneficiary's proposed position with the U.S. entity. 
Our determination was based on a comprehensive analysis of the Beneficiary's proposed job 
description and the Petitioner's staffing and business plan. More specifically, we determined that the 
Petitioner provided a deficient job description, which lacked a direct nexus between the 
Beneficiary's broadly stated proposed job responsibilities and the Petitioner's lumber export 
operation. We noted that the Petitioner did not provide adequate information about the Beneficiary's 
daily involvement in procuring lumber, negotiating contracts, reviewing orders, identifying market 
opportunities, and allocating resources, all of which we deemed to be operational, rather than 
managerial job duties. In other words, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish 
that it would have the ability to relieve the Beneficiary from having to be directly involved in 
actually carrying out these non-managerial duties within one year from the date of this petition's 
approval. We also found that the Petitioner's projected hiring plan was insufficient and that it did 
not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that it would rely on contractors and foreign 
staff to carry certain critical operational tasks within the organization. Although the Petitioner 
disputes these findings and points to the Petitioner's projected sales of approximately $1 million 
dollars during its first year of operation, it does not cite to pertinent precedent decisions to establish 
that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, nor does it establish that the 
decision was incorrect based on the evidence that was available to us at the time we made our prior 
decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). In sum, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that would meet 
the requirements of a motion to reconsider. Accordingly, the motion to reconsider must be denied. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsideration. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of E-C-E-, LLC, ID# 1574607 (AAO Aug. 16, 2018) 
4