dismissed L-1A Case: Medical Supplies

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-B- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUN.12,2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an importer and exporter of medical supplies, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as its general manager under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section IOI(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ IIOI(a)(l5)(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 California Service Center revoked a pelitwn approved on behalf of the 
Beneficiary concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that he was employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary acted in a managerial capacity supervisii]g 
subordinate managers and professionals. The Petitioner also emphasizes that its operations were 
supported by foreign entity employees. Further, the Petitioner points to its previously approved 
petitions and asserts that the Director revoked the current petition 'in error. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section IOI(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. 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. !d. The 
petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment 
quality him or her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
Under U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USC IS) regulations, the approval of an L-1 A 
pelitwn may be revoked on notice under six specific circumstances. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A). To properly revoke the approval of a petition, a director must issue a notice of 
Mauer of R-B- Inc. 
intent to revoke that contains a detailed statement of the grounds for the revocation and the time 
period allowed for rebuttal. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(9)(iii)(B).
1 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner h_as established that the Beneficiary was 
employed in a managerial capacity as of the date of the Director's NOIR. The Petitioner does not 
claim that the Beneficiary was employed in an executive capacity. Therefore, we will restrict our 
analysis to whether the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity. 
"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 operation·s of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
10I(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
When examining the managerial 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 performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in a managerial capacity. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 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 Petitioner's business, its staffing levels, and its organizational structure. 
A. Duties 
Based on the definition of managerial capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the Beneficiary 
performed 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 was 
primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the 
1 An L-1 A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary was approved on March 3 I, 
2017, for the period June 30, 2017, to June 29, 2019. The Director later revoked this approved petition on November 8, 
2017, following the issuance of a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) in September 2017. The Director concluded that the 
Beneficiary was no longer eligible for the nonimmigrant classification. See 8 C.F.R§ 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(2). 
2 
Matter of R-B- Inc. 
Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCJS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); 
Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner stated that it was established in 2015 to "further expand, develop and market [the 
foreign parent company's] biotechnology products in North America." The Petitioner indicated that 
the Beneficiary, as general manager, spent 20% of his time determining "the qualifications of 
managerial personnel and recruit[ing] them," assigning them specific duties, and overseeing their 
performance. The Petitioner emphasized that the Beneficiary had final authority as to the hiring and 
firing of his managerial subordinates and pointed to his recruitment and appointment of a sales 
representative, an import/export manager, and an administrative manager. Further, it explained that 
the Beneficiary devoted 2% of his time to "strategiz[ing] the vision and long-term plan" and 
establishing the "business goals" and "policies and procedures" of the Petitioner, including 
determining the "best cooperation model for different projects and departments." It also indicated 
that his duties involved "setting guidelines to select the appropriate distributors," as well as 
approving their sales territories and making physical visits to their worksites to evaluate their 
performance. 
In addition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary was responsible I 0% of the time for conducting 
. in-person meetings with his department managers, including reviewing their activity reports, 
determining progress on projects, revising strategies and plans, and providing guidelines and 
instructions to his subordinate managers. It further indicated that the Beneficiary spent 6% of his 
time ensuring the achievement of business goals, detailing financial plans, allocating operating 
budgets, determining the funding for new and continuing operations, and monitoring the progress of 
ongoing projects. It also explained that the Beneficiary devoted 2% of his time to "exploring and 
seeking new business opportunities and establishing business relationship[ s ]" and another I 0% 
reporting to the board of directors on a quarterly basis.2 The Petitioner did not provide any further 
detail regarding the Beneficiary's asserted managerial duties in response to the Director's NOIR. 
The Petitioner has not submitted a sufficiently detailed duty description that describes the 
Beneficiary's day-to-day managerial-level duties or that credibly establishes he devoted his time 
primarily to qualifying tasks. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a 
beneficiary's duties are primarily managerial 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). The Beneficiary's duty description 
includes several generic duties that could apply to any manager acting in any business or industry 
and they do not provide insight into the actual nature of his role. The Petitioner provided insufficient 
examples and little supporting documentation to demonstrate the Beneficiary's performance of 
qualifying duties, such as specific duties he assigned to his subordinate managers, vision or long-
2 We note that the Petitioner's percentage breakdown of the Beneficiary's duties amounts to only 50%; however, it states 
elsewhere on the record that he devotes half of his time in the United States continuing to act as the general manager of 
the foreign entity. 
3 
.
Mauer of R-B-Inc. 
t~rm goals he set, or policies, procedures, or business goals he established. 3 Further, the Petitioner 
does not articulate or substantiate projects the Beneficiary oversaw, distributor guidelines he put in 
place, sales territories he approved, distributor worksites he visited, or financial plans he set. This 
lack of detail and documentation is particularly noteworthy since the Beneficiary asserts that he has 
worked as general manager of the Petitioner since June 2015, over two years prior to the date of the 
Director's NOIR. 
Further, the Petitioner also provided duties for the Beneficiary that are not credible in light of its 
stated operations. For instance, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary devoted 10% of his time 
reporting to the company's board of directors; however, its minutes reflect that he was the only 
member of the board and its designated president, secretary, and treasurer. As such, it appears that 
the Petitioner asserts the Beneficiary spent 10% of his time reporting to himself. Likewise, the 
Beneficiary's duties mention "several major independent distributors" who market the Petitioner's 
goods and his visits to their worksites to "direct, oversee, review and evaluate" them. The Petitioner 
also includes these distributors in its organizational chart. However , these distributors are not 
specifically identified and there is little evidence indicating that the Beneficiary regularly visited 
their worksites to perform inspections , or that he "approves their sales territories." 
To the extent that the Petitioner submits evidence reflecting the Beneficiary's acttv1t1es, 1t 1s 
indicative of his performance of non-qualifying operational level tasks. For instance, the Petitioner 
provided 
invoices, packing lists, order forms, and shipping confirmations dated as recent as August 
20 I 7 including the Beneficiary as a contact. The Petitioner also submitted documentation reflecting 
the sale of goods through which include an email contact matching the Beneficiary's email 
address listed in invoice and shipping documentation. To illustrate , the Petitioner provided an 
shipment document dated in November 2017, approximately eight months after it filed the 
petition, listing the Beneficiary as the shipper. In contrast, the Petitioner submitted no 
documentation reflecting the Beneficiary's delegation of these operational tasks to subordinates or 
indicating that his asserted subordinates performed these non-qualif ying duties. Furthermore , the 
Petitioner stated that a key duty of the Beneficiary is conducting site visits with distributor s to 
review and evaluate their performance directly ,. rather than delegating this apparent operational task 
to subordinates. An employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessar y to produce a product or 
to provide services is not considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial capacity. See, e.g., 
3 The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Beneficiary qualified as a perso nnel manager based on his supervision of 
subordinate managers, supervisors , and professionals. See section I 0 I (a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. However, many 
of his duties indicate that he acted in an executive capacity , focusing on the broad goals and policies of the organization 
rather than the supervision of subordinate managers and professionals. See Section I 0 I (a)(44)(B) of the Act. This 
logical inconsistency leaves further question as to the Beneficiary 's asserted duties. While in some instances there may 
be duties that could qualify as both manageria l and executive in nature , it is the petitioner 's burden to establish that the 
beneficiary 's duties meet each criteria set forth in the statutory definition for either manager ial or execut ive capac ity. A 
petition may not be approved if the evidence of record does not establish that the benefic iary is prim arily employed in 
either a managerial or executive capacity. 
4 
. Matter of R-B- Inc. 
sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated 
managerial duties); Matter of Church Scientology lnt '/, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm'r 1988). 
The Petitioner also did not document what proportion of the Beneficiary's duties were managerial 
functions and what proportion was non-qualifying. As noted, the Petitioner submits evidence 
indicating the Beneficiary's involvement in administrative or operational tasks, but does not quantify 
the time he devoted to these duties. This' lack of documentation is important because several of the 
Beneficiary's documented tasks do not fall directly under managerial duties as defined in the statute. 
For this reason, we cannot determine whether the Beneficiary was primarily performing the duties of 
a manager. See IKEA US, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the organization, the fact that he manages 
or directs a business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an intracompany 
transferee in an managerial capacity within the meaning of section IOI(a)(44)(A) of the Act. By 
statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a position be "primarily" 
managerial in nature. Sections IOI(A)(44)(A) of the Act. The Beneficiary may exercise discretion 
over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to 
discretionary decision-making; however, the job description alone is insufficient to establish that his 
actual duties were primarily managerial in nature. 
B. Staffing 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
capacity, we take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall 
purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section IOI(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
In support of the petition in March 2017, the Petitioner submitted an organizational chart indicating 
that the Beneficiary supervised a marketing manager, an import/export team manager, and an 
administration manager. Further, the marketing manager was shown to supervise a sales 
representative overseeing "independent distributors" on the "east" and "west" coasts, as well as 
distributors in southern California, Canada, and South America. The chart also reflected that the 
import/export manager supervised three import/export specialists. The Petitioner indicated that the 
import/export specialists were employees of the foreign employer located and paid abroad. Lastly, 
the chart showed that the administration manager supervised an outsourced attorney and certified 
public accountant (CPA). 
In a response letter to the NOIR in September 2017, the Petitioner set forth similar subordinates to 
the Beneficiary; however a list of its employees indicated that it had new marketing and 
import/export managers and an additional sales representative on staff. In addition, the provided list, 
of employees showed that all of its import/export specialists located abroad had been "terminated." 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary qualified as a personnel manager based on his 
supervision of subordinate supervisors and managers. The statutory definition of "managerial 
5 
Mauer of R-B- Inc. 
capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function managers." See section 
!Ol(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) 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." Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(iv) of 
the Act. 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)(J). 
The submitted evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner supervised managerial or 
professional subordinates as of the date of the NOIR. First, the Petitioner submitted vague duties for 
the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates which do not credibly demonstrate that they acted as 
subordinate managers. For instance, the Petitioner stated that the marketing manager is tasked with 
determining the demand of products and services, developing pricing strategies, overseeing product 
development, establishing distribution and sales networks, and determining annual unit and gross­
profit plans by implementing marketing strategies. However, these generic duties do not detail the 
pricing strategies he put in place, the product development he oversaw, or the distribution and sales 
networks or marketing strategies he was responsible for. 
In fact, the duties of the marketing manager appear to discuss his oversight of a much larger sales 
organization than reflected in the Petitioner's submitted organizational charts, noting his 
implementation of "national sales programs" and "field sales action plans," the completion of 
"national sales operational requirements," and the maintenance of national sale staff. However, the 
organizational chart indicated that the marketing manager only supervised two sales representatives, 
including one who was not added to the company until just prior to the Petitioner's response to the 
NOIR. Further, there is little documentation supporting that the Petitioner had national and local 
sales initiatives in place for the asserted marketing manager to oversee, or that they managed 
distributors all across the United States, Canada, and South America. In fact, the Petitioner's 2017 
finances reflect that it spent only a little less than $4,000 on marketing expenses during that year. 
Therefore, in sum, the claimed duties of the marketing manager are not credible in light of the 
Petitioner's operations reflected in the supporting documentation. 
In addition, the Petitioner's organizational chart reflected that the Beneficiary oversaw an 
import/export manager, who as of the filing of the petition, was shown to supervise three foreign 
employer import/export specialists. However, the Petitioner indicated in response to the NOIR in 
September 2017 that all of its foreign based import/export specialists had been terminated, two in 
March 2017 and the other in August 2017. As such, it is. not clear how the import/export manager 
acted as a manager as of the date of the NOIR without any subordinates. The termination of these 
employees also raises question as to who performs their tasks, such as planning and coordinating the 
shipment of goods. In fact, as we have discussed, the Petitioner provided evidence reflecting the 
Beneficiary's involvement in these matters, and there is little indication that as of. the date of the 
NOIR that he was being relieved of these duties by managerial or operational subordinates. 
6 
Malter of R-B- Inc. 
tikewise, the duties of the import/export manager are also vague, noting that he was responsible for 
negotiating contracts for sales, and purchases, managing and maintaining effective and lawful 
insurance provisions, maintaining an effective and expert driven import and export team, and closely 
monitoring import and export performance. However, this duty description includes no credible 
examples to substantiate these activities, such as contracts he negotiated or daily tasks he performed; 
indeed it references his management of an "import and export" team that did not exist as of the date 
of the NOIR. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary also supervised an administration manager 
who oversaw an outsourced attorney and a CPA. However, the Petitioner submitted little supporting 
documentation to substantiate that it regularly engaged an attorney and CPA such that they could be 
considered part of the company's organizational structure and subordinates to the administration 
manager. In addition, the duties provided for the asserted administration manager are also generic, 
noting that he or she was responsible for coordinating and directing "the support services," "overall 
work performance," providing_ "document and communication management," and "training and 
development for administrative staff." First, the administration manager's duties do not mention his 
or her supervision of a subordinate attorney and CPA.' The duties also provided no specifics or 
actual day-to-day duties that make up the referenced "support services," "work performance," or 
"document and communication management." In fact, the duties of the administration manager 
stated that he or she was tasked with training and developing ,administrative staff; however, the 
Petitioner was not shown to have any administrative staff. The Petitioner must resolve 
inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
In sum, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient documentary evidence, including adequately 
detailed duty descriptions for the Beneficiary's claimed managerial subordinates, to establish that he 
oversaw subordinate managers or supervisors. The Petitioner's organizational chart did not appear 
to include sufficient operational employees to perform the duties of its import and export business; 
for instance, employees devoted to processing and shipping orders and navigating customs. In fact, 
the Petitioner submits substantial evidence indicating that the Beneficiary was performing these 
tasks and it submits evidence indicating that the three foreign employees previously devoted to these 
tasks are no longer employed. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary oversaw subordinate 
professionals. The Petitioner does not explain why the Beneficiary's subordinates should be 
considered professionals or submit evidence to demonstrate that his subordinates hold bachelor's 
degrees. Further, the submitted duties of the Beneficiary's subordinates are not indicative of 
professional level positions requiring a specific bachelor's degree.4 Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
4 In evaluating 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 
7 
Matter of R-B- Inc. 
demonstrated that the Beneficiary acted as a personnel manager based on his superv1s1on of 
subordinate professionals. 
Lastly, on appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary was previously approved as an 
intracompany transferee on three different occasions, including the current revoked petition at issue. 
However, if the previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same evidence 
contained in the current record, these approvals would constitute errors on the part of the Director. 
We are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, 
merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. 'Church Scientology Int '!, 19 l&N 
at 597. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Director properly revoked the 
previously approved petition, as the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary acted in a 
managerial capacity. For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was 
employed in a managerial capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of ReB- Inc., ID# 1241168 (AAO Jun. 12, 2018) 
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." 
) 
8