dismissed L-1A Case: Optical Services

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
PUBLIC COPY 
U. S. Citizenship 
identifying, dzta de2cted to 
 and Immigration 
proict~i cic6:l y unwmanted 
invasion of personal privacy 
File: EAC 08 092 5 1239 
 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(] 5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 1 0l(a)(l5)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
J~F. Grissom, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC0809251239 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to extend the employment of its director as an L-1A 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)( 1 5)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a Florida corporation, is an optical services 
provider. It claims to be a subsidiary of Centro Optico La Salle IV, S.R.L., located in Venezuela. The 
beneficiary was initially granted one year in L-1A classification in order to open a new office in the United 
States and the petitioner now seeks to extend her status. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary would be 
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary 
would be employed as a functional manager responsible for the petitioner's merchandising function. Counsel 
contends that, in denying the petition, the director erroneously relied on the fact that the beneficiary will not 
supervise or control a subordinate staff of managerial, supervisory or professional personnel. Counsel submits 
a brief in support of the appeal. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying 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 the 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) 
 Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the 
alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) 
 Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 
(iii) 
 Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
(iv) 
 Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies himher to perform the intended 
EAC0809251239 
Page 3 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(14)(ii) also provides that a visa petition, which involved the opening of a 
new office, may be extended by filing a new Form I- 129, accompanied by the following: 
(A) 
 Evidence that the United States and foreign entities are still qualifying organizations 
as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section; 
(B) 
 Evidence that the United States entity has been doing business as defined in 
paragraph (I)(l)(ii)(H) of this section for the previous year; 
(C) 
 A statement of the duties performed by the beneficiary for the previous year and the 
duties the beneficiary will perform under the extended petition; 
(D) 
 A statement describing the staffing of the new operation, including the number of 
employees and types of positions held accompanied by evidence of wages paid to 
employees when the beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity; and 
(E) 
 Evidence of the financial status of the United States operation. 
The sole issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary will be 
employed by the United States entity in a primarily managerial capacity, specifically as a function manager. 
The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity. 
Section 101 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) 
 manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of 
the organization; 
(ii) 
 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; 
(iii) 
 if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the authority to 
hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions (such as 
promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly supervised, 
functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the 
function managed; and 
(iv) 
 exercises discretion over the day to day operations of the activity or function for 
which the employee has authority. A first line supervisor is not considered to be 
EAC 08 092 5 1239 
Page 4 
acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory 
duties unless the employees supervised are professional. 
The petitioner filed the nonimmigrant petition on February 11, 2008. The foreign entity submitted a letter 
dated January 3 1,2008 in support of the petition, in which it noted that the U.S. company, similar to its parent 
company, offers eye examinations, an optical laboratory, and a wide selection of eyewear for men, women 
and children. The foreign entity described the beneficiary's duties as follows: 
setting business standards and general specifications (2 hourslweek); 
directing the development of internal and external operations to support business with 
local markets (2 hourslweek); 
overseeing the distribution and control of goods in the U.S. market (2 hourslweek); 
liaising among suppliers and distributors (1 hourlweek); 
overseeing customer accounts and maintaining regular communications with 
customers and associates (1 hourlweek); 
negotiating pricing and contracts (1 hourlweek); 
maintaining operations within budgetary constraints, analyzing costs and 
implementing cost reduction measures as necessary (3 hourslweek); 
coordinating and supervising the work performed by employees (3 hourslweek); 
distributing and assigning daily work activities (1 hourlweek). 
The foreign entity stated that in addition to these duties, the beneficiary would be "primarily responsible for 
managing all merchandising aspects within our organization." The foreign entity noted that the petitioner had 
been required to change its merchandising strategy during the first year of operations based upon the 
preferences of U.S. consumers, and noted that "merchandising is the essential elemendfunction of the U.S. 
eyewear industry, more so than pricing." The foreign entity stated that the beneficiary will manage the 
essential function of merchandising, with the following responsibilities: 
(1) 
 assure consistent operational implementation of merchandising plans and business 
building initiatives including: discontinuedmarkdown product, product initiatives (2 
hourslweek); 
(2) 
 initiate product assortment changes based on market visits/analysis to align store 
assortment to market needs (2 hourslweek); 
(3) 
 assure implementation of merchandising initiatives relative to product knowledge 
communication, sales focuses, visual standards, program implementation, and in- 
store merchandising (2 hourslweek); 
(4) 
 communicate and execute project initiatives (2 hourslweek); 
(5) 
 lead meetings, address and resolve merchandising product related opportunities (2 
hourslweek); 
(6) 
 develop, define, and execute relocation inventory management related processes to 
support store's achievement of proforma [sic] (2 hourslweek); 
(7) 
 initiate assortment recommendations and approve store assortment changes (2 
hourslweek); 
EAC 08 092 5 1239 
Page 5 
(8) 
 initiate store capacity changes and provide information and updates to store personnel 
(2 hourslweek); 
(9) 
 communicate to merchandising associate on product segment assortments and 
segment voids and potential consumer trends (2 hourslweek); 
(10) monitor store target inventories, discontinued/markdown product, and 
departmentJprice point stock to sales ratios, and provide resolution to inventory 
associate on action steps to alignlalleviate (2 hourslweek); 
(1 1) 
 complete store capacity process and update information throughout the year (1 
hourlweek); 
(12) determine store retail floor layout and develop product planograms [sic] (1 
hourlweek); 
(13) manage the in season planning process, develop timely action plans that maximize 
sales opportunities, enhance margin, mitigate liabilities and improve inventory 
productivity (1 hourlweek); 
(14) 
 participate in eyewear lifecycle management by driving appropriate assortment 
changes with timely entrance, markdown and exit strategies (1 hourlweek). 
The foreign entity indicated that the petitioner employs two part-time sales associates and two part-time 
merchandiselinventory associates, and provided evidence in the form of payroll records and quarterly wage 
reports to demonstrate that each claimed employee was working 20 hours per week as of the end of 2007. 
The sales associate's duties are described as follows: 
Sell eyewear to individuals in store, utilizing knowledge of products sold; greets customers 
on sales floor and ascertain make, type, and quality of eyewear desired; display merchandise, 
suggest selections that meet customer's needs, and emphasize selling points of article, such as 
quality and utility; prepare sales slip or sales contract; receives payment or obtains credit 
authorization; places new merchandise on display. 
The rnerchandiselinventory associate's duties include: 
Implementing new techniques given by merchandise director in product procurement process; 
assisting in the customer order flow management process to ensure accurate order fulfillment; 
managing inventory levels and integrity of the inventory database; creating and disseminating 
all information and statistics on product'brand related procurement, inventory and general 
sales trends; working closely with the contract fulfillment entity, to ensure the timely 
processing of shipments and weekly processing of returns, monthly closing, and 
reconciliation procedures; processing of daily and weekly inventory-related paperwork, 
including receivers, manifests and purchase orders; process merchandise invoices; verifjl 
processed items are accurately recapped on daily merchandise reports; ensure stores 
holding/suspense items are valid and follow up on the prior month invoices that have not 
cleared; reconcile store audit inventory to book inventory for store. 
EAC 08 092 5 1239 
Page 6 
The director found the initial evidence insufficient to establish that the beneficiary will be employed in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. Accordingly, on February 14, 2008, 
the director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE). The director observed that the petitioner had not 
established that the beneficiary would function at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy other than 
in position title, or that she would be involved in the supervision and control of managerial, supervisory or 
professional employees. The director requested that the petitioner provided a list of clearly delineated duties 
for each position within the company, with an explanation as to how the beneficiary's subordinates perform 
duties that are either professional or managerial in nature. 
In a response dated February 27, 2008, counsel for the petitioner reiterated the position description recited 
above, noting that the beneficiary is "in charge of the entire organization, including the ability to hire and fire 
any and all employees as well as complete discretion over the day-to-day operations of all activities." 
Counsel conceded that the petitioner's four part-time employees are not managers, supervisors or 
professionals, but argued that the beneficiary qualifies as the manager of the petitioner's merchandising 
function. Counsel provided a detailed explanation as to why merchandising is critical to the petitioner's 
business, and explained that successful merchandising is based upon: inventory (determining the quantity of 
product to be displayed at the point of purchase); position (finding the right position for displaying the 
product); and presentation (the manner in which the product is displayed). 
Counsel further explained that the beneficiary will function at a senior level within the petitioner's 
organizational hierarchy, and be in charge of all aspects of the organization, while the beneficiary's four 
subordinate employees are responsible for performing the tasks necessary to provide the products of the 
organization. 
The director denied the petition on March 21, 2008, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial capacity. The director once again noted that the 
petitioner had failed to establish that the beneficiary's subordinates are professionals, managers, or 
supervisors. The director acknowledged that a beneficiary who does not supervise such staff may qualify as a 
function manager, but only if the petitioner clearly demonstrates that the manager does not directly perform 
the function. The director determined that the petitioner did not appear to require a full-time manager, and that 
the beneficiary would be engaged in the non-managerial, day-to-day operations of the petitioner's business. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director erroneously relied on the fact that the beneficiary 
does not supervise or control supervisory, professional or managerial employees in concluding that the 
beneficiary does not qualify for L-IA classification. Counsel emphasizes that the petitioner is relying on the 
fact that the beneficiary manages the petitioner's merchandising function, and therefore it is not necessary for 
the beneficiary to supervise supervisory, professional or managerial employees. Counsel submits a brief in 
support of the appeal; however, the content is essentially identical to that of counsel's letter dated February 
27, 2008. 
Upon review of the petition and supporting evidence, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 
will be employed in a primarily managerial capacity. As a preliminary matter, the AAO acknowledges that 
the director did not specifically acknowledge the petitioner's argument that the beneficiary will be employed 
as a "function manager" as opposed to a manager who supervises and controls a staff of managerial, 
EAC 08 092 5 1239 
Page 7 
professional or supervisory personnel. The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo 
basis. 5 U.S.C. 557(b) ("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which 
it would have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also, 
Janka v. US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1 147, 1 149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g. Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
Accordingly, the AAO will address the beneficiary's eligibility as a function manager. 
The petitioner claims that the beneficiary, in her position as director, will be responsible for managing the 
petitioner's merchandising function. 
The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the work of a 
subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" within the 
organization. See section 101 (a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(44)(A)(ii). The term "essential 
function" is not defined by statute or regulation. The term "essential" is commonly defined as "inherent" or 
"indispensable." Webster 's New College Dictionary 392 (2008). Accordingly, based on the plain meaning of 
the word "essential," the petitioner must establish that the function managed by the beneficiary is inherent and 
indispensable to the petitioner's operations rather than a non-essential or superfluous task. 
Based on the statutory definition of managerial capacity, a petitioner must prove the following elements to 
establish that a beneficiary is primarily serving as a function manager within an organization: 
First, the beneficiary must manage an "essential function" within the organization, or a 
department or subdivision of the organization; 
Second, the beneficiary must function at a "senior level" within the organizational hierarchy 
or with respect to the function managed; and 
Third, the beneficiary must control and "exercise discretion" over the day-to-day operations 
of the function. 
See sections 10 1 (a)(44)(A)(ii), (iii), and (iv) of the Act. 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) will look first to the petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
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 either in an executive or managerial capacity. Id. 
If a petitioner claims that the beneficiary is primarily managing an essential function, the petitioner must 
furnish a detailed position description that clearly explains the duties to be performed in that capacity, i.e. 
identifies the function with specificity, articulates the essential nature of the function, and establishes the 
proportion of the beneficiary's daily duties attributed to managing the essential function. If a petitioner fails 
to document what proportion of the beneficiary's duties would be managerial functions and what proportion 
would be non-managerial, the AAO cannot determine whether the beneficiary is primarily performing the 
duties of a function manager. See IKEA US, Inc. v. US. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 
EAC 08 092 5 1239 
Page 8 
1999). In addition, the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's daily duties must clearly demonstrate that 
the beneficiary primarily manages the function rather than performs the duties related to the function. 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 sections 101(a)(44)(A) and 
(B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); see 
also Matter of Church Scientology Int'l., 19 1&N Dec. 593,604 (Comm. 1988). 
Here, while the petitioner provided a list of 24 duties performed by the beneficiary and the amount of time she 
devotes to such duties, the majority of the listed tasks are too vague to establish that she will primarily 
perform managerial tasks. The petitioner provided a list of fourteen duties to be performed by the beneficiary 
within the scope of managing the merchandising function, and indicated that such duties would require 60 
percent of her time. The list of duties was nonspecific and repetitive, and conveyed little understanding as to 
what the beneficiary would actually do to manage merchandising within the petitioner's small retail store. For 
example, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary will "assure consistent operational implementation of 
merchandising plans," "assure implementation of merchandising initiatives," "communicate and express 
project initiatives," "develop timely action plans that maximize sales opportunities," and "determine store 
retails floor layout and develop product planograms [sic]." The petitioner has neither described its projects or 
its merchandising initiatives or plans, nor described the specific managerial tasks to be performed by the 
beneficiary in implementing such plans and initiatives. These duties, which account for 20 percent of the 
beneficiary's time, remain ill-defined and have not been shown to be managerial in nature. Specifics are 
clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or 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. 1 103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary will also "initiate product assortment changes based on market 
visits/analysis; "initiate assortment recommendations and approve store assortment changes," "communicate 
product segment assortments and segment voids" to the merchandising associate; and "participate in eyewear 
lifecycle changes." The petitioner has not explained how these duties are managerial in nature. Rather it 
appears that the beneficiary simply performs market research to determine which products the petitioner 
should carry. 
The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary devotes an additional eight hours per week to "develop, define 
and execute relocation inventory management related processes," "monitor store target inventories, "initiate 
store capacity changes," and "complete store capacity processes." While the beneficiary's responsibility for 
defining processes may be considered managerial, it is unclear why she would be required to continuously 
develop processes on a weekly basis. The beneficiary's responsibilities related to "store capacity" and 
monitoring inventories have not been adequately explained. 
Overall, the beneficiary's duties associated with the management of the merchandising function appear to 
amount to deciding which products to cany, how much inventory to have on hand, and how to best display 
the products. The photographs submitted of the petitioner's business depict a small retail store with a few 
display cases of eyeglass frames and sunglasses. At the end of 2007, the petitioner had inventory valued at 
only $1,343. Given the nature of the petitioner's business, it is reasonable to question whether it plausibly 
EAC 08 092 51239 
Page 9 
requires a full-time manager to devote the majority of her time to performing management-level duties 
associated with merchandising. 
The petitioner indicates that the remaining 40 percent of the beneficiary's time is devoted to a combination of 
general managerial functions and operational tasks. For example, the petitioner states that the beneficiary's 
duties include: "setting business standards and general specifications"; "directing the development of internal 
and external operations"; and "overseeing the distribution and control of goods and services in the United 
States." Again, these duties provide little insight into what the beneficiary actually does on a day-to-day basis. 
The actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. 
Supp. 1 103, 1 108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afyd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
The remainder of the beneficiary's duties include "liaising among suppliers and distributors," "maintaining 
regular communication with customers," "negotiating pricing and contracts," and supervising and assigning 
work to non-professional employees. The petitioner has not established how any of these duties fall under the 
statutory definition of managerial capacity. The record does not clearly establish that the beneficiary's 
subordinates wholly relieve her from such routine tasks as purchasing inventory, and it can therefore not be 
concluded that her responsibilities for liaising with suppliers and negotiating contracts are managerial-level 
tasks. 
Moreover, with respect to the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary will be primarily a "function manager" as 
opposed to a "personnel manager," it is noted that the beneficiary is the only full-time employee of the 
petitioner's store and the only employee who possesses any supervisory authority. Furthermore, her job duties 
include working in the store, supervising personnel, assigning their work, and providing them with 
instructions in carrying out their duties. While the petitioner claims that the beneficiary will spend 
substantially more time "managing the merchandising function" than she will supervising the petitioner's 
part-time, non-professional staff, a review of the totality of the evidence in the record does not support this 
assertion. 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 101(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act; 8 
C.F.R. tj 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(B)(2). The AAO does not doubt that the beneficiary makes the ultimate decision as to 
what inventory the store will carry, how much inventory to purchase, and how it will be displayed. The 
petitioner has not, however, demonstrated that the beneficiary will perform primarily managerial tasks 
associated with merchandising. 
Furthermore, the petitioner claims to offer on-site eye examinations in its store, has provided evidence that it 
purchased $12,000 in optical equipment, and provided a photograph of an examination room located on its 
premises. The petitioner does not claim to employ an optometrist to provide eye examinations, nor provided 
evidence that it has a relationship with an independent optometrist that provides such services on its premises. 
It is unclear whether the petitioner simply neglected to document who is providing eye examinations to its 
customers, whether one of the petitioner's five employees is actually providing such services, or whether the 
petitioner is not in fact providing these services. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any 
inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BLA 1988). 
EAC0809251239 
Page 10 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, CIS reviews the totality of the record when examining the 
claimed managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, including the petitioner's organizational structure, 
the duties of the beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to relieve the 
beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the petitioner's business, and any other factors 
that will contribute to a complete understanding of a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. In the 
case of a function manager, where no subordinates are directly supervised, these other factors may include the 
beneficiary's position within the organizational hierarchy, the depth of the petitioner's organizational structure, 
the scope of the beneficiary's authority and its impact on the petitioner's operations, the indirect supervision 
of employees within the scope of the function managed, and the value of the budgets, products, or services 
that the beneficiary manages. As noted above, the record shows that the petitioner does not offer a wide 
variety of merchandise or carry a large inventory. The claim that it requires a full-time manager to perform 
high-level duties associated with its merchandising function is not credible. 
The definitions of executive and managerial capacity have two parts. First, the petitioner must show that the 
beneficiary performs the high-level responsibilities that are specified in the definitions. Second, the petitioner 
must prove that the beneficiary primarily performs these specified responsibilities and does not spend a 
majority of his or her time on day-to-day functions. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 
1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). As discussed above, the petitioner has provided a vague job 
description that fails to explain the actual duties the beneficiary will perform on a daily basis or the amount of 
time she will devote to activities related to managing the assigned function. The beneficiary may function at a 
"senior level" compared to the four part-time employees working for the petitioner's store, but it does not 
automatically follow that she qualifies as a function manager. 
The AAO does not dispute that small companies require leaders or individuals who plan, formulate, direct, 
manage, oversee and coordinate activities; the petitioner in this matter, however, has not demonstrated that 
the beneficiary would spend a substantial amount of time performing duties at the managerial level. The 
petitioner must establish with specificity that the beneficiary's duties comprise primarily managerial or 
executive responsibilities and not routine operational or administrative tasks. The fact that the beneficiary 
manages a business, regardless of its size, does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an 
intracompany transferee in an executive capacity within the meaning of section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. 
Here, the record fails to establish that the majority of the beneficiary's duties will be primarily directing the 
management of the organization or a component or function of the organization. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be employed in 
a primarily managerial capacity under the extended petition. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 136 1. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.