dismissed L-1A Case: Passport Services

MATTER OF T-A-S-S-T-USA, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 18, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner describes itself as a service company that issues Guatemalan passports. It seeks to 
continue the Beneficiary's temporary employment as its project manager under the L-lA nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the }\.ct) section 
10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 101(a)(15)(L). The L-lA 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 denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the 
United States in a managerial capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the grounds for denial, stating that the Beneficiary has been and 
would be employed in the capacity of a function manager. The Petitioner contends that the 
Beneficiary deals with personnel and client technical support issues that rise above the level "of a 
mere employee." 
Upon de nova review, we find that the Petitioner has not overcome the grounds for denial. 
Therefore, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-IA 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 101(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. Id. 
Matter ofT-A-S-S-T-USA, Inc. 
II. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has been and would be employed in a managerial capacity. 
Therefore, we will address this claim in our decision and will not contemplate whether the 
Beneficiary would be employed in an executive 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 operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
A. U.S. Employment 
As previously·stated, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence 
to establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity. 
1. Duties 
Based on the statutory definition of managerial capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the 
Beneficiary will perform certain high-lev~l responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 
1533 (9th Cir. I 991) (unpublished table decision). The Petitioner must also· prove that the 
Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational 
activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 
1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
Accordingly, in order to establish eligibility, the Petitioner must provide a job description that 
clearly describes the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are 
in a managerial capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
In the petition form supplement, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary is responsible for setting 
up mobile passport facilities country-wide, arranging technical training for new employees, making 
arrangements to purchase and deploy mechanical equipment, overseeing technical staff and 
implementation activities, and generating progress reports. The Petitioner also provided a copy of 
the Beneficiary's daily work itinerary broken down into hourly increments in the course of a typical 
five-day work week. The itinerary indicates that the Beneficiary will carry out the following: 
• Verify billing reports and production reports pertaining to shipping, printing, and customer 
. service - 6 hours per week; 
• Engage in production planning - 1 hour per week; 
2 
.
Maller of T-A-S-S-T-USA, Inc. 
• Review and authorize staff reimbursements and payroll, travel expenses, payment services -
7.5 hours per week; 
• Attend "external" and "internal" monitoring meetings - 6.5 hours per week; 
• Review weekly production - 6.5 hours per week; 
• "Verify" staff performance, including technical and administrative support - 2 hours per 
week; 
• Assign "mobile activities" - 2.5 hours per week; 
• Sign checks- 2.5 hours per week; 1 
• Generate and review production reports - 2 hours per week; and 
• Conduct systems verification - 1 hour per week. 
The Petitioner did not elaborate on the subject matter that would be addressed during "external" and 
"internal" monitoring meetings or state who, other than the Beneficiary, attends these meetings. The 
Petitioner also did not identify specific actions involved in production planning or systems 
verification, nor did it define "mobile activities" within the scope of the Petitioner's business or state 
how the Beneficiary will "verify" staff performance. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner was instructed to provide a statement describing the 
Beneficiary's typical managerial duties and the percentage of time he would devote to those duties. 
The RFE instructed the Petitioner to address the four elements that comprise the definition of 
managerial capacity, explaining how the Beneficiary's job duties satisfy each element. Further, the 
RFE noted that if the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary assumes the role of a function manager, it 
would have to describe the function being managed and provide a list of the Beneficiary's proposed 
job duties that demonstrate that he would manage the function rather than perform the underlying 
operational tasks associated with that function. 
In response, the Petitioner provided a letter from its president, who described the 
Beneficiary's role as one that would involve superv1smg a staff to ensure "compliance with 
administrative and operational processes, [and] availability, functionality[,] and operation of the 
hardware, software and consumables." stressed the Beneficiary's authority to make 
operational and administrative decisions, provide needed materials and spare parts, and recruit and 
hire personnel to provide technical and administrative services. She also listed the following 
"specific assignments" that the Beneficiary would carry out in his proposed position: 
• Create an annual operational plan and establish ways to meet the plan's objectives; 
• Manage the company's personnel; 
• Authorize travel and other company expenses; 
• Create status reports for "Executive Direction"; 
• Coordinate and authorize supply requirements; 
• Create data reports and oversee monthly invoices; 
• Identify business priorities and agree on operational planning activities; 
• Oversee "implementation activities" and client technical support; and 
, 
3 
Matter ofT-A-S-S-T-USA. Inc. 
• Generate reports that show weekly and monthly progress and account for performance 
ditliculties. 
In ~ddition, the Petitioner provided a daily list of activities based on a five-day 40-hour work week. 
Although the new daily schedule did not assign specific time allocations to individual job duties, its 
content was substantially similar to the previously provided daily schedule; both schedules indicated 
that the Beneficiary's regular activities would include production report verification, internal and 
external monitoring meetings, and authorization of company expenses. 
In the denial decision, the Director determined that the Beneficiary's job descriptions indicate that 
the Beneficiary would primarily perform non-managerial job duties. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary is "solely responsible" for hiring employees, 
"drafting the technical manuscript for creating the data transfer requirements," and serving as "the 
conduit ... for the seamless transfer of technology"; it goes on to state that the Beneficiary "exceeds 
the parameters of a mere employee" because he has addressed personnel issues and "technical 
support of clients." The Petitioner cites Matter ofG- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 
2017), to support the claim that the Beneficiary assumes the role of a function manager; however, it 
does not establish that the facts in this matter are analogous to those in the cited case. 
The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary is primarily responsible for 
managing an "essential function" within the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the 
Act. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary will manage an essential function, it must clearly 
describe the duties to be performed in managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner 
must demonstrate that "(1) the function is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is ·essential,' 
i.e., core to the organization; (3) the beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the 
function; (4) the beneficiary will act at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with 
respect to the function managed; and (5) the beneficiary will exercise discretion over the function's 
day-to-day operations." Id. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner describes the Beneficiary's essential function as "the 
implementation and coordination of satellite [i]dentification offices" that serve Guatemalan citizens 
who live in the United States. We find, however, that the Petitioner has not provided an adequately 
detailed job description to illustrate the Beneficiary's role as a function. manager in the passport 
issuing process. Not only is there a lack of clarity as to the Petitioner's specific role in the issuance 
of passports, which is typically a government-run function, but there is also a lack of clarity as to the 
actual duties the Beneficiary would perform in managing this ambiguous process. For instance, 
despite claiming that the Beneficiary will allocate his time primarily to managing an essential 
function, the Petitioner makes multiple references to the Beneficiary's role in various human 
resource functions, including recruiting, hiring, and firing in-house employees and contractors and 
overseeing them in their performance of assigned tasks. While some personnel management may be 
incidental to managing an essential function, without further details regarding the Beneficiary's role 
4 
Matter of T-A-S-S-T-USA, Inc. 
in recruiting, hiring, and firing of employees, it is unclear that these duties are sufficiently high-level 
responsibilities. 
Further, in the original work itinerary, the Petitioner _stated that the Beneficiary would engage in 
various production-based.job duties, including planning and reviewing production, and generating 
and reviewing production reports. However, it did not explain how the Beneficiary would carry out 
these duties or discuss the production factors that are relevant within the scope of a passport issuing 
service. The Petitioner also did not sufficiently explain how these production-based responsibilities 
are higher-level duties. And despite making multiple references to external and internal "monitoring 
meetings," the Petitioner did not explain the significance of these meetings within the scope of its 
operation, state who (aside from the Beneficiary) attends the meetings, or clarify how the meetings 
relate to the essential function that the Beneficiary is claimed to manage. 
In the list of the Beneficiary's "specific assignments," the Petitioner included several vague activities 
that •conveyed no meaningful content about the actual underlying tasks. Namely, the Petitioner 
broadly stated that the Beneficiary would "[d]esign and [e]xecute an annual operational plan," 
"[i]dentify priorities" that relate to "the operation," and "[ o ]versee implementation of activities ... 
and technical support to the clients." However, the Petitioner did not discuss the duties that are 
associated with creating and executive an operational plan, nor did it specify how priorities are 
defined within the context of its operation, identify the Beneficiary's role in providing clients with 
technical support, or describe the ·•activities" the Beneficiary would implement. 
The fact that the Beneficiary will manage or direct a business does not necessarily establish 
eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial capacity within the 
meaning of section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires 
that the duties of a position be "primarily" managerial in nature. Id. While 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, these. elements alone are not sufficient to 
establish that his actual duties would be primarily managerial in nature. The actual duties 
themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. 
Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). As such, a detailed job 
description is critical to a determination of whether the Beneficiary would be employed in a 
managerial capacity. Here, the record lacks a job desi;;ription that delineates the Beneficiary's 
, specific tasks within the context of the Petitioner's operation. Therefore, while we agree with the 
Director's finding of ineligibility, we cannot affirmatively conclude - as the Director did - that the 
Beneficiary would primarily perform non-managerial job duties. Such a conclusion necessarily 
requires a detailed job description that conveys enough information to provide an understanding of 
the Beneficiary's actual daily activities. In light of the above described deficiencies, the instant 
record lacks such a job description and thus we cannot conclude that the Petitioner has established 
that the Beneficiary would primarily perform duties o(,a managerial nature. 
5 
Matter ofT-A-S-S-T-USA, Inc. 
2. Staffing I 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, we also examine the company's organizational 
structure, the duties of the Beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to 
relieve the Beneficiary from performing operational duties, and the nature of the business along with 
any other factors that will contribute to an understanding of the Beneficiary's actual duties and role 
within the petitioning organization. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in an executive 
capacity, USClS takes into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall 
purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner claimed that it had seven employees at the time of filing and 
generated a net income of over $3 million, although no evidence was provided to show how this 
revenue was generated. In support of the petition, the Petitioner provided an organizational chart 
listing eight positions, including "Executive Direction" at the top of the hierarchy, followed by a 
project manager - the Beneficiary's proposed position - as the direct subordinate. The project 
manager is shown as overseeing four positions - customer service, operations, accounting, and 
cleaning - with the "operations" position overseeing printing and shipping positions, respectively. 
The customer service, accounting, and cleaning positions were not depicted as supervisory with 
respect to other subordinate positions. 
In the RFE response, the Petitioner provided another organizational chart, which depicted the 
company's president at the top of the hierarchy, followed by the Beneficiary, who was depicted as 
overseeing five people - two customer service employees, one printing/shipping employee, one 
accounting employee, and one "cleaning" employee. The organizational chart was accompanied by 
an employee list containing each employee's name, salary, and job description. The Petitioner also 
provided all four quarterly wage reports for 2017. Although the first two quarterly wage reports 
consistently listed 14-15 employees, those numbers dropped drastically in the two remaining 
quarters, going from five employees in July 2017 to only three employees in August and September 
2017 and going from eight employees in October 2017 to seven employees in November and 
December 2017. Although this information is not inconsistent with the petition form, which was 
filed in January 2018 and indicates that the Petitioner had seven employees at the time of filing, the 
Petitioner did not state why it experienced such a drastic staffing decrease, nor did it explain how the 
decrease affected its overall operation and the Beneficiary's job assignment, which likely changed 
when the Petitioner went from employing 15 people during the first half of 2017 to a staff of only 
seven people by the end of that year and the beginning of2018 when this petition was filed. 
Although the Petitioner provided job descriptions for the Beneficiary's support staff, it is not clear 
that a five-person support staff, which includes an office cleaning person, is sufficient to relieve the 
Beneficiary from having to allocate his time primarily to the Petitioner's operational and 
administrative tasks. Given the previously noted deficiencies in the Beneficiary's job description 
and the lack of a detailed statement clarifying the Petitioner's precise role in the passport issuance 
6 
Matter of T-A-S-S-T-USA. Inc. 
process, we are unable to determine whether the diminished seven-person staff, only four of whom 
would carry out tasks that are directly related to a key function, 1 would be sufficient to carry out the 
non-managerial tasks that comprise the essential function the Beneficiary is claimed to manage. 
Furthermore, despite claiming on appeal that the Beneficiary will primarily manage an essential 
function, neither the Petitioner's organizational chart nor the Beneficiary's job descriptions support 
this claim. Namely, the Petitioner's latest organizational chart shows the Beneficiary in a 
managerial position with five subordinates. Tq.e chart does not indicate that anyone other than the 
Beneficiary would have the authority to oversee these five individuals, thereby indicating that this 
supervisory role would fall solely to the Beneficiary. 
The organizational chart's depiction of the Beneficiary in the role of a personnel manager, rather 
than that of a function manager, is consistent with the Beneficiary's job descriptions, which contain 
multiple references to job duties that pertain directly to managing the Petitioner's staff. In other 
words, despite identifying an essential function within the organization and claiming that the 
Beneficiary manages that function, the Petitioner did not offer sufficient evidence to support this 
claim. Instead, it assigned personnel management job duties to the Beneficiary's proposed position 
and provided an organizational chart depicting a hierarchy where the Beneficiary is the only 
supervisory employee with respect to the company's entire support staff; however, the Petitioner has 
not established that the Beneficiary's support staff is comprised of managers, supervisors, or 
professional employees who are required to possess baccalaureate degrees. 2 
In light of the evidentiary deficiencies described above, the Petitioner has not established that it had 
the staff to support the Beneficiary as either a personnel or a function manager. 
8. Employment Abroad 
Because of the dispositive effect of the above findings of ineligibility based on factors that pertain to 
the proposed U.S. employment in a managerial capacity, we will only briefly address the remaining 
i~sue pertaining to the Beneficiary's employment abroad. 
1 Although the Petitioner included a cleaning person as part of its organizational hierarchy, the job duties performed by 
this position are not relevant to the organization's key function. 
2 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 
minimum requirement for entry into the occupation"). Section 10 I (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 possession of a bachelor's degree by a 
subordinate employee does not automatically lead to the conclusion that an employee is employed in a professional 
capacity. 
7 
Matter ofT-A-S-S-T-USA, Inc. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a managerial capacity. Based on our review of the Petitioner's supporting evidence, 
including the Beneficiary's job descriptions and the foreign entity's organizational and management 
structures within the scope of its business, we find that the Petitioner has not adequately 
demonstrated that the Beneficiary assumed a position where the primary portion of his time was 
devoted to performing duties that ·primarily involved managing an essential function or a staff of 
supervisory or professional employees. Therefore, we agree with the Director's finding and will not 
further address this issue in the instant decision. · 
lll. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we find that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
was employed abroad and will be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity. The 
appeal will be dismisseq for this reason. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter qfT-A-S-S-T-USA, Inc., ID# 1668719 (AAO Oct. 18, 2018) 
8