dismissed L-1A Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 21, 2024 In Re: 34870548 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, describing itself as a marketing services and solutions company, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as the managing member of its new office I under the L-lA nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition concluding the Petitioner did not establish 
that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of an 
approval of the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. Upon de nova 
review, we will dismiss the appeal. In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the requested benefit. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
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. 
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). 
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 within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
IT. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
WITHIN ONE YEAR 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States within 
one year of an approval of 
the petition. 
"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. 
"Executive capacity" means 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 10l(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner did not clearly articulate whether the Beneficiary would qualify 
as an executive or manager within one year, or both. A petitioner claiming that a beneficiary will 
perform as a "hybrid" manager/executive will not meet its burden of proof unless it has demonstrated 
that the beneficiary will primarily engage in either managerial or executive capacity duties. See 
section 101(a)(44)(A)-(B) of the Act. While in some instances there may be duties that could qualify 
as both managerial and executive in nature, it is the petitioner's burden to establish that the 
beneficiary's duties meet each criterion set forth in the statutory definition for either managerial or 
executive capacity. A petition may not be approved if the evidence of record does not establish that 
the beneficiary will be primarily employed in either a managerial or executive capacity. Therefore, 
the Petitioner's lack of clarity as to his managerial or executive capacity leaves substantial initial 
uncertainty as to his asserted eligibility. 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the 
petitioner's description of the 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). 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner stated that it would be "a bespoke agency that specializes in effective niche marketing, 
and execution of briefs uniquely [sic] created solutions tailored to meet clients' targeted markets and 
audiences." The Petitioner described the Beneficiary's proposed duties as managing member as 
follows: 
2 
Hiring Strategy: [The Beneficiary] will spearhead a collaboration hiring process, 
leveraging the expertise of both the parent company and local stakeholders. Together, 
they will craft recrnitment strategies to assemble a dynamic team aligned with the 
company's vision and the unique demands of the US market. This approach will ensure 
a workforce primed for success and growth. 
Strategic Planning and Market Entry: As Managing Member, [the Beneficiary] will 
develop a comprehensive strategic plan tailored to the intricacies of the US market. 
Through meticulous market research and analysis, he will identify key opportunities 
for growth and differentiation. By devising strategies that capitalize on [Petitioner] 
strengths while addressing market challenges, he will drive successful market 
penetration and brand recognition. 
Operational Excellence and Efficiency: [The Beneficiary's] leadership will be 
characterized by a commitment to operational excellence and efficiency. He will 
implement robust frameworks and performance metrics to streamline operations and 
enhance productivity. By embracing innovation and leveraging technological 
advancements, he will ensure [the Petitioner] remains agile and responsive to market 
dynamics, fostering a culture of continuous improvement and success. 
Talent Development and Empowerment: Recognizing the importance of talent 
development, [the Beneficiary] will prioritize initiatives to empower and nurture the 
workforce. Through comprehensive training programs and mentorship opportunities, 
he will cultivate a culture of learning and growth, enabling team members to thrive in 
their roles and contribute to the company's success. By fostering a collaborative and 
inclusive work environment, he will empower employees to innovate and drive [the 
Petitioner] towards its goals. 
Stakeholder Engagement and Relationship Building: As the face of [the Petitioner] 
in the US market, [the Beneficiary] will focus on building and nurturing strategic 
partnerships with key stakeholders. By actively engaging with industry players, 
government agencies, and community organizations, he will enhance the company's 
visibility and credibility. Through transparent communication and a commitment to 
delivering value, we will build trust and forge lasting relationships, positioning [the 
Petitioner] as a trusted leader in the US market. 
Thought Leadership and Innovation: [The Beneficiary] will champion thought 
leadership and innovation within [the Petitioner], driving the company's evolution in 
the US market. By fostering a culture of creativity and experimentation, he will 
encourage team members to explore new ideas and approaches. Through thought­
provoking content, industry insights, and participation in key events, he will elevate 
[the Petitioner's] profile and establish it as a leading voice in the US media and 
marketing landscape. 
3 
The Petitioner submitted a duty description for the Beneficiary that does not credibly demonstrate that 
he would primarily perform managerial or executive-level tasks within the first year. The Petitioner 
did not sufficiently detail the managerial or executive-level duties the Beneficiary would perform 
during the first year, including the tasks he would complete during this time to successfully launch the 
new business operation. For instance, the Petitioner did not specify the hiring recruitment strategies 
he would utilize, the strategic plan he would develop, the frameworks and performance metrics he 
would implement, or the technological advancements he would leverage. Likewise, the Petitioner did 
not detail the day-to-day tasks inherent in him establishing comprehensive training and mentorship 
opportunities, the strategic partnerships he will nurture with key stakeholders, or the thought 
leadership and innovation he would champion. 
The duty description the Petitioner provided for the Beneficiary is generic, vaguely referring to 
leadership philosophies and approaches that could apply to any manager or executive working in any 
business or industry and it makes little reference to its specific business or how it would be launched 
during the first year. The duty description does not sufficiently articulate the Beneficiary's daily tasks 
both during and at the end of the first year. The Petitioner also did not sufficiently indicate how the 
Beneficiary would be primarily relieved from performing non-qualifying operational tasks within one 
year. Although we do not expect to the Petitioner to detail every managerial or executive-level task 
of the Beneficiary, the lack of this detail leaves substantial uncertainty as to whether he would 
primarily perform managerial or executive-level duties within the first year. Specifics are clearly an 
important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties would be primarily managerial or executive 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), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990). 
B. Business Plan and Projected Staffing 
In the case of a new office petition, 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). 
The Petitioner submitted hiring projections reflecting that it planned on hiring four employees within 
the first five years, including an office assistant, a digital media expert, a sales and marketing specialist, 
and a part-time content creator. A provided table showing the company's hiring timeline indicated 
that it would only hire the office assistant in addition to the Beneficiary during its first year of 
operation. 
Based on the Petitioner's hiring projections during the first year, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that he would act in a managerial capacity in the United States within one year. The statutory 
definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function managers." 
See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and 
4 
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(l)(l)(ii)(B)(3). Since 
the Petitioner did not specifically assert that the Beneficiary would be employed as a function manager 
and submitted evidence indicated that he would oversee subordinate staff, we decline to analyze 
whether he would qualify as a function manager within one year. 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently establish that the Beneficiary would be employed as a personnel 
manager within one year of an approval of the petition. First, the Petitioner's asserted hiring plans 
reflect that it would only hire one employee, the office assistant, within the first year. As such, the 
submitted evidence indicates that the Beneficiary would not oversee subordinate supervisors or 
managers within one year. 
In the alternative, a petitioner may establish a beneficiary as a personnel manager by establishing that 
they would have personnel authority over subordinate professionals, in this case, within the first year 
of operations. To determine whether a 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 
U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the 
occupation"). Section 101 ( 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." Therefore, we must focus on the level of education 
required by the position, rather than the degree held by subordinate employee. 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would have personnel authority over 
professional subordinates within one year. The Petitioner stated that the requirements for the office 
assistant position required "a high school diploma or equivalent" and "prior experience in office 
administration or customer service preferred." The Petitioner did not articulate that a bachelor's 
degree was required to perform the duties of the office assistant position. The Petitioner did not 
substantiate that the Beneficiary would likely have personnel authority over subordinate professionals 
within its first year of operation. Therefore, the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish, as required, 
that the Beneficiary would be employed as a personnel manager within one year of an approval of the 
petition. 
Further, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive 
capacity within one year. The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a 
person's elevated position. Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the 
management" and "establish the goals and policies" ofan organization or major component or function 
thereof. Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. To show that a beneficiary will "direct the management" 
of an organization or a major component or function of that organization, a petitioner must show how 
the organization, major component, or function is managed and demonstrate that the beneficiary 
primarily focuses on its broad goals and policies, rather than the day-to-day operations of such. An 
individual will not be deemed an executive under the statute simply because they have an executive 
5 
title or because they "direct" the organization, major component, or function as the owner or sole 
managerial employee. A 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." Id. 
Again, the Petitioner's hiring projections showed that it planned to hire only an office assistant 
subordinate to the Beneficiary during the first year. Therefore, it is not clear how the Beneficiary 
would operate in an elevated position focusing primarily on the broad goals and policies of the 
organization and how he would be primarily relieved from the non-qualifying operational tasks of the 
business, such as its proposed digital media, sales and marketing, and content creator services. For 
these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would be employed in an 
executive capacity within one year. 
When a new business is 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 
activities not normally performed by employees at the managerial-level and that often the full range 
of managerial responsibility cannot be performed. To qualify for the L-1 nonimmigrant classification 
during the first year of operations, the regulations require a petitioner to disclose the proposed nature 
of the business and the size of the U.S. investment and establish that the proposed enterprise will 
support a managerial or executive position within one year of the approval of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 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 
managerial or executive-level duties. 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently established that it would develop sufficiently within one year to 
support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. As discussed, the Petitioner projected 
that it would only hire one other office assistant within the first year. Therefore, it is not clear based 
on the submitted evidence whether the Petitioner would be sufficiently staffed to relieve the 
Beneficiary from primarily performing non-qualifying operational duties within the first year. In 
addition, the Petitioner provided vague business plans for the first year, leaving substantial question 
as to whether it would sufficiently develop during this time to support the Beneficiary in a qualifying 
managerial or executive-level position. For instance, in its submitted business plan, the Petitioner 
submitted general statistics related to the U.S. economy as a whole and provided little detail as to how 
the business would be successfully launched during the first year. The Petitioner generically discussed 
monthly goals, sales and marketing plans, campaigns, initiatives, seminars, clients and partners, 
improvement ideas and strategies, and social media, but provided little detail as to each or specific 
plans as to how it would accomplish any of its asserted timelines and goals. In fact, the foreign 
employer stated that it had been "inundated with requests from ... clients across disciplines and majorly 
[sic] in the marketing, advertising and branding sector requesting for trainings and study visits in the 
USA and as such establishing [the Petitioner] ... will cater to this need as well." This statement from 
the foreign employer leaves even further question as to the Petitioner's actual business plans within 
the first year. The Petitioner must resolve discrepancies and ambiguities in the record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-
92 (BIA 1988). 
6 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would be employed 
in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of an approval of the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7