dismissed L-1A Case: Plumbing Supplies

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OFT- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 9, 2018 
APPEAL.OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which sells plumbing supplies, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment as its president under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § I 101(a)(l5)(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 record did not 
establish, as required, that it will employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. · 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred by finding that the Beneficiary did not qualify as a personnel manager 
or function manager. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA 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 10l(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. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that it will 
employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that it 
will employ the Beneficiary in an executive capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether 
the Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity. 
Matter of T- Inc. 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or 
manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look to 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). 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. 
Based on the statutory definitions of managerial capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the 
Beneficiary will perform 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 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 I 313, 
1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
Accordingly, we will discuss evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of 
the nature of the Petitioner's business and its staffing levels. 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner listed the Beneficiary's responsibilities in the United States as follows, with the 
approximate time dedicated to each duty: 
• Establish business policies, goals and plans according to resolutions adopted by 
the board of directors of the parent company and implement (20%); 
• Fully manage U.S. company's operations, establish and implement regulations 
and systems, reform solutions and measures (15%); 
• Propose the organizational chart of the U.S. company; appoint and dismiss 
company employees; establish a healthy and unified working team (10%); 
• Put forward the business concept of the U.S. company, determine the basis 
direction of corporate culture, create an excellent working atmosphere, cultivate 
2 
.
Malter of T- Inc. 
the sense of belonging[] among company employees to improve company unity 
(20%); 
• Coordinate among departments to resolve problems, contradictions, issues among 
departments (10%); 
• Responsible for selecting and identifying the U.S. company's investment projects 
and reviewing its operating expenses (10% ); 
• Responsible for maintaining the U.S. company's overall financial outcomes with 
the right to distribute and allocate resources (15%). 
A separate version of the job description added that the Beneficiary spends 5% of his time managing 
the company's other affairs, but the above percentages already add up to 100%. 
The submitted job description lacks important details. For example, the Petitioner did not explain 
how implementing regulations and systems differs from implementing policies, goals, and plans. 
This is important because the Petitioner listed them as separate responsibilities. Also, the Petitioner 
did not explain what tasks the Beneficiary would perform to put forward the company's business 
concept and steer its corporate culture. The record does not show that the Petitioner has enough 
investment projects to demand a significant share of the Beneficiary's time . Instead, the record 
indicates that the Petitioner continues to rely on large cash infusions from the foreign parent 
company to fund the Petitioner's own operations, which indicates that the Petitioner is not yet in a 
position to make significant investments of its own. And at the time of filing, the Petitioner 
indicated that the Beneficiary had only six subordinate employees; it is not evident that he would 
need to spend several hours per week, on average, resolving conflicts between departments. 
The Director found that the Petitioner had not provided enough information to show the 
Beneficiary's day-to:day duties. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary has authority 
over personnel matters and the company's day-to-day operations. The Director did not dispute that 
the Beneficiary has the required degree of control over the company, but the Petitioner did not show 
that the Beneficiary's duties are primarily managerial. 
The Peti_tioner states: "the Beneficiary managed the research and product development of its Original 
Equipment Manufacturer . . . plumbing products." The record contains references to 
and indicates that the Petitioner registered the name as a trademark, but none of the 
Petitioner's employees' listed job duties include research, development, or manufacturing. The 
Petitioner asserts, on appeal, that "[e]ight employees in China" handle product research 
and development." An organizational chart submitted on appeal includes a manufacturing company 
in China that did not appear on the chart submitted originally. The Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary supervises the manufacture (as opposed to the purchase and resale) of plumbing 
supplies. 
It is significant that the Beneficiary himself, in his capacity as the company's president, did not 
mention in a five-page letter submitted with the initial filing. The initial submission 
included an __ product catalog, linking the Petitioner with the brand, but the record does not 
3 
.
Matter 4 T- Inc. 
document the company's involvement with the manufacture (as opposed to marketing) of 
products . 
The Petitioner's business plan, submitted initially, mentions briefly, but it does not 
indicate that the parent organization or any affiliated company manufactures the products sold under 
that name . Instead, the business plan refers to an "in-depth survey of various . . . factories" to 
identify "the proper product suppliers ." The multi-year business plan indicated that product 
development would begin in 2018, after the petition's October 2017 filing date, and even then 
provided minimal information about where and how this development would occur. 
At issue is not whether the Beneficiary runs the petitioning company; the record establishes as much. 
Instead, the question is whether the Beneficiary's managerial functions are primary or secondary. 
The Petitioner has repeatedly subrµitted variations of the same job description, which is deficient for 
reasons already discussed . 
B. Staffing 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, we must take into account the reasonable -needs of the organization, in light of 
the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section 101 (a)( 44 )(C) of the 
Act. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and 
"function managers ." See sections 101(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. 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) of the Act; 8 C.F.R . 
§ 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(B)( 4). If a petitioner claims · that a beneficiary directly supervises other employees, 
those subordinate employees must be supervisory, professional, or managerial, and the beneficiary 
must have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other 
personnel actions . Sections 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii)-(iii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 214 .2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(2)-(3) . 
The Petitioner initially claimed seven employees, all full-time, in the United States. The Petitioner's 
organizational chart showed that the Beneficiary has authority over four departments: 
Sales Department 
Manager 
Two Salespersons 
Administrative Department 
Secretary 
Logistics & Purchase Department 
Manager 
Driver 
Financial Department 
[ staffed by contractors rather than employees] 
The Petitioner listed the responsibilities for the two managers, paraphrased below : 
4 
Matter of T- Inc. 
Sales Manager: 
1. Implement the annual sales plan 
2. Improve work flow 
3. Collect customer demand information and developing the target market 
4. Promote company products and giving feedback to the president 
5. Participate in drafting market development strategy 
6. Coordinate with the president for communication with key clients and 
implementing daily sales work 
Logistics & Purchase Manager: 
I. Arrange purchase orders, procurement, and deliveries 
2. Research and negotiating with suppliers 
3. Develop logistics management plan and expense budget 
4. Design logistics system, coordinate management of storage and transportation 
5. Assist in developing inventory plan 
6. Organize orders, returns, and exchanges 
7. Check receipts, organize account information and statistical information 
8. Record transactions 
9. Oversee security, report hazards, deal with emergencies 
Both of the above-named managers appear to have operational responsibilities, such as promotion 
and taking product orders, that are not delegated to lower-level employees. The logistics and 
purchase manager has only one subordinate, a driver, whose duties mostly relate to product 
deliveries and vehicle maintenance. The Petitioner planned to hire additional staff in 2018 and 2019, 
but the Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time it filed the petition in October 2017. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). This information, as well as the very low number of subordinates, calls into 
q~estion the extent to which these individuals act as supervisors rather than as front-line employees. 
In a request for evidence and again in the denial notice, the Director cited perceived discrepancies in 
the Petitioner's personnel documentation. The cited inconsistencies, however, do not appear to cast 
significant doubt on the company's staffing. (For instance, the Petitioner demonstrated that certain 
employees are named on some records, but not on others, because they had left the ·company.) The 
Petitioner submitted credible documentation relating to the employment of the individuals named on 
its organizational chart. 
In response to the request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted slightly expanded versions of the job 
descriptions, and changed the driver's title to ''warehouse keeper & driver." That individual's 
revised job description included new items relating to handling inventory, with other time 
percentages adjusted downward to account for the newly claimed responsibilities. The Petitioner did 
not establish who per.formed those newly described responsibilities at the time of filing. 
5 
Malter ofT- Inc. 
The Petitioner's response also named employees in the "China Purchase Department" and "China 
Logistic Department." The Petitioner had not previously included these employees under the 
Beneficiary's authority. Also, the Petitioner did not explain how employees of the parent company 
in China, which makes condiments, relate to the work of the U.S. company, which sells plumbing 
supplies. 1 With no demonstrated connection between the activity of the two companies, the 
Beneficiary's continued authority over parts of the Chinese co~pany cannot qualify him for U.S. 
immigration benefits. 
The Director found that the Petitioner had not shown that the Beneficiary's immediate subordinates 
are primarily managers, professionals, or supervisors, and therefore the Beneficiary appeared to be a 
first-line supervisor of employees performing operational tasks. 
To determine whether the 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 
United States 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." 
The Petitioner asserted that the managers and sales staff all hold college degrees. A profession, 
however, is defined not by the credentials of the employee, but by the minimum requirements of the 
position itself. The Petitioner must establish not only that the employees hold bachelor's degrees, 
but also that the positions require those degrees. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits excerpts from the Occupational Outlook Handbook, published by 
the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Petitioner asserts that the listings for 
sales managers, purchasing managers, logisticians, and financial managers demonstrate that the 
positions are managerial, professional, or both. These listings, however, are inherently generic, and 
do not necessarily conform to the positions at the petitioning company. For example, the listings 
indicate that sales managers have hiring authority, whereas the record indicates that the Beneficiary 
has personally handled personnel matters. The listings also indicate that many, but not all, sales 
manager positions require bachelor's degrees. Furthermore, the median salaries listed in the 
Handbook excerpts are substantially higher than the salaries that the Petitioner pays to its employees, 
which raises questions about those employees' level of responsibility compared to the positions 
described in the Handbook. 
1 It bears mentioning that, in its initial "new office'' petition on the Beneficiary's behalf, the Petitioner stated that the 
company's intended purpose was to import and sell condiments manufactured by the foreign parent company. Thus, the 
Petitioner's documented activity selling plumbing supplies is demonstrably at variance with the business plan described 
in the initial, approved petition, and in meeting minutes, dated March 2014, included in the present petition: 
6 
Matter of T- Inc. 
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 IOl(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 funciion. 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. 
Matier of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). The Director found that the 
Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary is a -function manager. On appeal, the Petitioner 
argues that a function manager can supervise subordinate employees. The issue is not whether the 
Beneficiary has subordinates, but rather the extent to which the Beneficiary's duties amount to 
management rather than the performance of operational tasks. As discussed above, the record 
establishes the Beneficiary's authority but simply does not tell us ·enough about the Beneficiary's 
daily tasks to meet the Petitioner's burden of proof. 
The Petitioner has not established that it will employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity under 
the extended petition. 
III. CONTINUITY OF EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
Beyond the Director's decision, the Beneficiary's employment and travel history raise an issue 
fundamental to the Beneficiary's eligibility for the classifi.cation sought. 
The beneficiary of an L-1 A petition must have been employed abroad by a qualifying employer 
continuously for one year within three years preceding the time of the filing of the petition. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(A). Here, the Petitioner filed the petition in October 2017. It filed earlier petitions 
on the Beneficiary's behalf in October 2014 and October 2015. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "worked for the Parent Company from December 2008 
until he was dispatched by the Parent Company to further his study in the U.S. in June 2012." At 
that time, the Beneficiary entered the United States as an F-1 nonimmigrant student. There is no 
claim, and no evidence, that he worked for any qualifying organization in the United States or 
abroad between June 2012 and October 2014, when the Petitioner filed its first Form 1-129 petition 
on his behalf.2 Study in the United States is not employment abroad. 
2 Given these dates, the Petitioner's two prior petitions on the Beneficiary's behalf should not have been approved. The 
Director revoked the approval of a prior petition, based, in part, on this interruption in the Beneficiary's employment. 
7 
Matter of T- Inc. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(ii)(A) requires the Beneficiary to have been employed abroad 
continuously for one year by a qualifying organization during the preceding three years. Time spent 
in the United States interrupts the continuity of foreign employment, except for brief trips for 
business or pleasure and periods spent in lawful status for a qualifying U.S. employer. Id. The 
Beneficiary's studies in the United States do not meet either of these requirements. As an F-1 
student, the Beneficiary was in the United States to study, not to work for the Petitioner or any 
related entity. Also, the time he spent in the United States was neither brief nor for business or 
pleasure ( which would be covered by a B-1 or B-2 visa, rather than an F-1 student visa). 
The Beneficiary's studies interrupted his qualifying employment abroad. The petitioning U.S. 
employer did not exist until July 2014, more than two years after the Beneficiary stopped working 
abroad, and therefore he was already disqualified for L-1 A status by the time the Petitioner filed its 
articles of incorporation. An interruption in employment lasting more than two years, whether that 
interruption occurred in the United States or abroad, is inherently disqualifying. Cf Matter of S-P-, 
Inc., Adopted Decision 2018-01 4 (AAO Mar. 19, 2018).3 The Beneficiary, who has not worked 
abroad since June 2012, cannot qualify for L-lA status until he accrues at least one more continuous 
year of employment abroad in a capacity that is managerial, executive; or involves specialized 
knowledge. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish that it will employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity. Also, 
the Beneficiary cannot qualify under the present petition, because his studies in the United States 
interrupted his employment abroad for more than two years. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.fT-lnc., ID# 1471713 (AAO Aug. 9, 2018) 
3 Mauer of S-P- concerns an immigrant petition for a multinational manager or executive, but the reasoning is the same 
because the immigrant classification, like the nonimmigrant classification, requires one year of qualifying experience in 
the three years preceding either the filing of the petition or the beneficiary's relevant entry into the United States. 
8