dismissed L-1A Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-USA, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 20, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, intending to operate an international development and management consulting 
company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as the international development manager of its 
new office 1 under the L-lA 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-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 a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the new office would support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
position within one year after approval of the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides a list of actions the Beneficiary will be expected to take in order 
to make the company operational. The Petitioner claims that it plans to hire professional employees 
"towards the end of the first year and beginning of the second year of operations" as the company 
continues to develop. 
Upon de novo review, we find that the Petitioner has not overcome the basis for denial. Therefore, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
!. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-IA 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 
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(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 within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
Matter of M-USA, LLC 
·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. !d. 
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). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF APPROVAL 
The Petitioner claims that it will be fully operational and that it will employ the Beneficiary in a 
managerial capacity at the end of its first year of operation. The primary issue to be addressed in this 
discussion is whether the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to establish that its operation will 
support the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity within one year of the petition's approval. 
"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 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 1 
A. New Office Requirements 
In the case of a new office pellllon, we review the petitioner's business and hiring plans and 
evidence that the business will grow sufficiently to support a beneficiary in the intended managerial 
or executive capacity. 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 or 
executive in nature within one year of the petition's approval. Accordingly, we consider the totality 
of the evidence in analyzing whether the proposed managerial or executive position is plausible 
based on 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). 
In the present matter, the petition shows that the Petitioner claimed no employees and no income at 
the time of filing. Although the Petitioner did not provide an initial cover letter, it submitted a 
business plan summarizing its proposed actions explaining how it will become operational at the end 
of the initial phase of its operation. The Petitioner described itself as a service-based company that 
will provide "expertise and guidance" to companies "in the areas of tinance, accounting, tax, anti­
money laundering, and internal controls." It anticipated that it would generate $60,000 in income 
and create one job during its start-up year. The Petitioner did not clarify who, other than the 
2 
Matter of M-USA, LLC 
Beneficiary, it would hire during this initial phase or list the job duties that would be assigned to the 
unknown position. Further, although the Petitioner projected a staff of at least six more employees 
by the time it reaches its fifth year of operation, it did not provide a clearly defined hiring timeline 
between its start-up phase and year five of its operation; it did, however, indicate that it planned to 
hire one part-time employee to assist the Beneficiary during the first year of its operation. Although 
the Petitioner stated that it plans to recruit "existing business associates" and foreign-based "local 
firms" with "local expertise," it did not specify the types of services these "business associates" and 
"local firms" would provide, nor did it indicate that it has identified any specific individuals or firms 
it seeks to recruit to help provide the type of consulting services it intends to offer its clients. 
The Petitioner also offered income predictions, indicating that it projected an increase in its net 
income from $3000 in its first year of operation to "$51 ,508" in its second year of operation; it 
attributed the additional income to an increase in the number of customers. The Petitioner did not, 
however, explain how a two-person staff consisting of one full-time and one part-time employee 
would accommodate the anticipated increase in business or establish that an operation of this size 
would have the need and capacity to employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity, which would 
require the Petitioner to show that it will relieve the Beneficiary from having to allocate his time 
primarily to non-managerial job duties. In discussing management and training, the Petitioner 
claimed that it would "be much less dependent upon its own skills and expertise" in its second year 
of operation and that it would rely more on "the skills and management of others." However, it did 
not clarify how it would make this transition, as it did not identify the "others," specify the duties 
and services those "others" would carry out, or indicate the placement of the "others" in the 
Petitioner's organizational hierarchy with respect to the Beneficiary. 
The Petitioner also addressed its marketing strategy claiming that it would promote its services 
through "a constantly updated website and direct mailing to customers." It also indicated that it 
favors interaction with customers as a means of encouraging customer loyalty, claiming that 
interaction will be done through "institutional advertising," social media, and digital marketing by an 
existing "team" in Brazil at no cost to the Petitioner. However, the Petitioner did not include any 
details about this claimed arrangement with the foreign entity or provide a timeline for hiring its own 
in-house employees or contractors to provide its marketing services. Lastly, the business plan 
identified a "secondary plan" for the Petitioner to become an equity investor for companies that are 
looking to increase their capital and international growth; it did not, however, specify when it plans 
to incorporate this "secondary plan" into its business model or when and how it plans to meet the 
staffing needs associated with offering the services of an equity investment finn. 
In a request for evidence (RFE) the Director pointed to the lack of a specific hiring timeline and 
noted that the record does not explain how the Petitioner plans to support Ihe Beneficiary in a 
managerial position within one year of approval of the petition. The Director also acknowledged the 
Petitioner's submission of financial projections, but found that the Petitioner did not provide a 
credible basis explaining how it arrived at those projections. The Director instructed the Petitioner 
to provide proof of the foreign entity's capital contributions, the size of such contributions, and 
3 
Matter of M-USA, LLC 
evidence of the foreign enllty s financial ability to pay the Beneficiary and commence doing 
business in the United States. 
In response, the Petitioner provided minutes summarizing two of foreign entity's meetings where the 
start-up of the U.S. entity was contemplated. The Petitioner also provided a letter from the foreign 
entity's CEO discussing the Beneficiary's managerial role with respect to the Petitioner's business 
activities and finances. The Petitioner provided another letter, also authored by the foreign entity's 
CEO, and a corresponding unaudited balance sheet and profit and loss statement, indicating that the 
foreign entity had approximately R$224,000 (Brazilian reais) in "liquid assets" and approximately 
R$401,000 from earnings in "invoicing" in 2016. The Petitioner did not, however, provide the 
foreign exchange rate for these amounts or indicate how much of the foreign entity's "liquid assets" 
and "invoicing" was planned as the U.S. entity's start-up capital, nor did it specify the amount of 
capital it would need for its start-up or provide evidence that the foreign entity actually made capital 
contributions towards the U.S. start-up operation. Also, despite being notified in the RFE that the 
record lacked a credible basis for the financial projections contained in the business plan, the 
Petitioner did not adequately address this concern. Instead, it provided a letter of intent from two 
entities, each expressing an interest in using the Petitioner's services in the future. One entity 
expressed an interest in having the Petitioner establish accounting controls and expand its business; 
the other entity expressed an interest in having the Petitioner establish fraud prevention and anti­
money laundering controls. However, neither letter listed the prices the Petitioner planned to charge 
for those services or the buyer's agreement to pay a set price for those services. 
The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's response to the RFE, but found that an approval of the 
petition was not warranted because the Petitioner did not adequately explain how it would support 
the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive position within one year of approval of the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner admits that the Beneficiary will have to perform operational tasks during 
the initial phase of development, but emphasizes the importance of these tasks and points to the 
Beneficiary's role as "business partner ·whose main interest is to see the business succeed." The 
Petitioner also provides a detailed overview of the actions the Beneficiary plans to take during this 
initial phase of operations, including hiring an IT employee to assist with network setup and 
protection. It does not, however, indicate that it plans to hire anyone who will solicit customers, 
carry out its. administrative tasks, and provide the services that it plans to offer. Moreover, the 
Petitioner does not explain precisely how it plans to relieve the Beneficiary from having to primarily 
carry out these operational and administrative tasks once it has been operating for longer than one 
year and no longer qualifies as a new office. 2 
While staffing and business growth arc not prerequisites to establishing eligibility, 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. As 
noted earlier in this discussion, the Petitioner has the burden of establishing that it would realistically 
2 See FN I. 
4 
Matter of M-USA, LLC 
develop to the point where it would require the Beneficiary to perform duties that are primarily 
manageriaf in nature within one year of the petition's approval. It is unclear how the Petitioner can 
meet this burden with a two-person staff in its second year of operation, at which time the 
Beneficiary and one part-time employee are expected to comprise the entire staff. 
We note that 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 IOI(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the 
enumerated managerial or executive duties); Maller of Church Scientology In!'/, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 
604 (Comm'r 1988). Although the "Competitive Analysis" section of the business plan indicates 
that· the Petitioner plans to be "much less dependent upon its own skills and expertise [] and more 
dependent upon the skills and management of others," as previously noted, it does not identify who 
the "others" are, specify their job duties, or provide a specific timeline for expanding its staff in the 
second year of operation. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Here, the 
Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that it will experience business growth that 
will enable it to support the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity within one year of the petition's 
approval. 
B. Duties 
We also reviewed the job descriptions of the Beneficiary and his projected subordinates and we find 
the duty descriptions to be insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary would perform primarily 
managerial duties within one year of the petition's approval. 
The Petitioner in the presept matter did not describe the Beneficiary's duties beyond its first year of 
operation. It stated that the Beneficiary would be responsible for making it "fully operational" by 
the end of its first year by performing a market analysis and feasibility study, adjusting the business 
plan, creating strategies for market penetration, buying equipment, hiring a part-time employee, and 
starting to solicit clients and promote the Petitioner's services. The Petitioner also stated that the 
Beneficiary will be responsible for hiring and training employees, acting as the Petitioner's "senior 
consultant," negotiating contracts, and contemplating joint ventures with potential business partners. 
However, the Petitioner did not expound on its strategies for "market penetration," specify the 
positions the Beneficiary plans to fill within the organization to assist with daily tasks, or clarify the 
types of "joint business ventures" the Beneficiary would contemplate and the "potential partners" he 
would work with in his effort to sell the Petitioner's consulting services. 
In its RFE response, the Petitioner included a letter, which stated that the Beneticiary's duties would 
include "handling strategic planning," managing the company and its finances, developing "strong 
working relationships with clients," creating new contracts, establishing relationships with vendors, 
planning a budget, monitoring revenue and expenses, and managing accounting statements and 
ensuring that they comply with "fiscal regulations." The Petitioner did not state how it plans to 
develop client relationships or plan the company's budget, nor did it explain the significance of 
5 
.
Matt er ofM-USA , LLC 
establishing rel ationships with vendor"s within the scope of an en tity t hat plans to generate revenue 
by se lling consulting servi ces rather than goods. 
On appeal, the Petitioner did not clar ify the Ben ef-iciary's job duties during its initi al phase of 
operation or adequately explain how he would ensure that the company progresses to the nex t phase 
o f developm ent. As such , the Petitioner has not estab lished that within one year of the petition's 
approval it would employ the Benefici ary in a managerial capacit y wh ere he will be relieved from 
having to spend his time primarily performing opera tion al and administrative tasks of the 
organization. 
Ill. MANA GERIAL OR EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
In add ition , a lthough n ot addressed in the Director's decision, the job descriptio n provided for the 
Beneficiary's employment with the fo reign entit y does not establish that the Beneficiar y per formed 
primarily man ager ial or execu tive duti es. In the job description contained in the L Classification 
Supplement, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's forei gn pos ition included managing client 
portfolios, "promo ting and negotiating (the foreign entit y]'s products and services," addressi ng 
customers' da ily needs, maintaining customer records , and planning strategi es to help client s '' in the 
area of risk contro l and management." These duti es were reiterated in the Beneficiar y's resume. 
Although the petition and the resume pointed to the Beneficiary's role as "manag ing partner" of the 
foreign entity , neither established that the duties he was assigned were primarily manager ial or 
exec utive, as oppose d to ope rational and adminis trativ e, in natu re. 
In light of the abo ve, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficia ry's employmen t ab road 
involved prim arily man age ria! or execu tive job duties. Ther efo re, we cannot conclude that the 
Beneficiary was emplo yed in a manageria l or execut ive capacity. 
IV. CORPORATESTATUS 
As a final matte r, we are unable, through refer ence to a website maintained by the State of 
Okl ahoma, to determine that the Petit ione r is in good sta ndin g and auth orized to do bus iness in 
Okl ahoma. 3 The Petitioner's corporate status was shown as "Inacti ve" on the state website. The 
Petitioner ' s inactive legal status raises questions about wheth er it continues to ex ist as an imp orting 
employe r, whether it mai ntains a qual ifying relati onship with the Beneficiar y's foreign emp loyer , 
and whethe r it is authorized to conduct business in a regul ar and syste matic manner. See section 
214(c)(1) of the Act; see also 8 C.F .R. §§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(G) and (1)(3). While not a basis for the 
dismissal of this a ppeal, the Petitioner will need to address this deficiency in any future filing where 
it purports to be the emplo ying entity. 
3 See https:// (last visited on June 14, 2018). 
6 
Matter of M-USA, LLC 
V. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we find that the Petitioner has not established that: (1) the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity within one year of the petition's approval: 
and (2) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-VSA, LLC, 10# 1352891 (AAO June 20, 2018) 
7