dismissed L-1A Case: Printing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-A-T- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC.2L2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a specialized pnntmg company. seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
managing director of its new office under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L). 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101 (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 California Service Center Director denied the petitiOn, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required. that the Beneficiary had been employed in a qualifying executive or 
managerial capacity for the foreign entity. The Director also appeared to conclude. v•ithout analysis. 
that the Petitioner had not established the Beneficiary's one year of continuous employment for the 
foreign entity within three years preceding the tiling of the petition. The Director's decision on this 
issue is withdrawn. 1 
On appeaL the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not consider all the evidence submitted and 
mischaracterized the Beneficiary's duties for the foreign entity. The Petitioner contends that the 
Beneficiary's job duties for the f()reign entity were managerial and some of them were that of an 
executive. 
Upon de novo review. we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification for a new oftice. a qualifying 
organization must have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity for one 
1 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary had been employed by the foreign entity beginning November I. 2014. The 
record includes evidence that the foreign entity paid the Beneficiary a monthly salary beginning in November 2014 and 
continuing to June 2016. U.S. government records show that the Beneficiary entered the United States on April 28. 
2016, and has not left. However. the Beneficiary's foreign employment from November 2014 to April 2016 is sufficient 
to show one year of continuous employment for the foreign entity. The record. however. docs not establish that the 
Beneficiary's employment was in a managerial or executive capacity. 
Maller ofG-A-T- Corp. 
continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the 
United States. 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). In addition, the beneficiary must seek to enter the 
United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a 
subsidiary or at1iliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Section 101 (a)( 15)(L) of the 
Act. The petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education. training. and 
employment qualifies him or her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. 
~ 214.2(1)(3). 
The petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new oftice will be able to support a 
managerial or executive position within one year. This evidence must establish that the petitioner 
secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation and disclose the proposed nature and 
scope of the entity, its organizational structure, its financial goals. and the size of the U.S. 
investment. See Renerally, 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
'·Managerial capacity" means as 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) ofthe Act. 
"Executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization: 
establishes the goals and policies of the organization. component or function: exercises wide 
latitude in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction from 
higher-level executives. the board of directors. or stockholders of the organization. Section 
101(a)(44)(B) ofthe Act. 
II. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had submitted a vague description of the Beneficiary's 
duties for the foreign entity and that her duties appeared to relate to customer service and assisting 
departments in the performance of the day-to-day non-supervisory duties. The Director concluded 
that the Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary had been employed primarily in a 
managerial or executive capacity for the foreign entity. 
We will address both the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's foreign duties as well as the 
foreign entity's staffing to determine whether the Petitioner has established this eligibility 
requirement. We note that when reviewing starting levels 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 10l(a)(44)(C) ofthe Act. 
2 
Matter olG-A-T- Corp. 
A. Duties 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, we revievv a petitioner's 
description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3 )(ii). The definitions of managerial and 
executive capacity have two parts. First the petitioner must show that the beneficiary performed 
certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World. Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table). 1991 WL 
144470 (9th Cir. July 30. 1991 ). Second, the petitioner must prove that the beneficiary was 
primarily engaged in managerial or executive duties. as opposed to ordinary operational activities 
alongside the petitioner's other employees. See. e.g .. f(ani(v Inc. r. USC/,','. 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 
(9th Cir. 2006); Champion World. 940 F.2d at 1533. 
In its letter of support, the Petitioner noted that the foreign entity provides printing on packaging 
materials and that the Beneficiary as the general/technical manager of the printing operation 
·'supervised a lot of employees, including professionals in the position of Marketing Manager, 
Factory Manager, Accountant and Designer:· The Petitioner added that the Beneficiary "exercised 
discretionary decision-making authority over the personnel responsible for manufacturing. sales and 
marketing personnel,·· and formulated and implemented business strategies for both production and 
sales departments and managed business development for its products.'' The Petitioner indicated 
that the Beneficiary was also responsible for ensuring quality compliance for its products. 
These duties do not convey an understanding of the Beneficiary's actual daily tasks for the foreign 
entity. Rather. the Petitioner paraphrases elements of the statutory definitions of ·'managerial 
capacity" and ''executive capacity." See sections 101(a)(44)(A} and (B). Conclusory assertions 
regarding the Beneficiary's employment capacity are not sutlicient. Merely repeating the language 
of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof. 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): A\)W Assoc.\· .. 
Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
In response to the Director's request for evidence on this issue. the Petitioner provided a position 
description for the Beneficiary's position as general manager. The position description described the 
Beneficiary's responsibilities as follows (bullet points added and paraphrased for clarity): 
• Manage and oversee press operations and head ot1ice ·s business and 
administrative activities; 
• Directly supervise the marketing manager. factory manager. accountant and 
designer: 
• Evaluate and decide upon key investment in equipment and infrastructure: 
• Manage all aspects of printing press. including looking after finance. accounting. 
operations, sales. marketing. human resources. and engineering; 
• Recruit and select statJ with full authority to judge and hire the best potential 
candidate: 
• Formulate and implement business strategies for production and sales: 
Matter of G-A-T- Corp. 
• Lead and direct all employees by establishing company policies: 
• Analyze situations and determine best course of action, including ensuring that 
business keeps competent employees and eliminates those who do not meet the 
company standard; 
• Coordinate efforts by establishing procurement, production, marketing, field and 
technical services policies, and coordinate actions with staff: 
• Create company's best image by collaborating with customers. vendors. 
employees. ditlerent government departments and enforce ethical business 
practices: 
• Monitor and control production quality and other elements to preserve company's 
good reputation: 
• Monitor wastage and focus on recycling of resources: 
• Arrange proprietor meetings with customers every quarter of the year: 
• Meet with customers on monthly basis and enquire about any problems with 
quality and delivery schedules and develop new business opportunities: 
• Verify job pricing, order consolidation, and random invoice check: 
• Enter into negotiations with vendors and suppliers for material supplies: 
• Frequent inspection of work orders. bank account balances. auditing of spending 
to ensure spending is within budget and 
• Accomplish subsidiary objectives by establishing plans. strategy, budget. 
structure, financial outcomes and result measurements. allocation resources. 
reviewing progress, and making midcourse corrections. 
The Petitioner also submits a copy of a sales and marketing report prepared by the Beneficiary in 
December 2015. and copies of cmails from the Beneficiary to clients resolving issues, confirming 
delivery schedules, and advising customers of the foreign entity's capabilities. 
On appeal, the Petitioner repeats portions of the duties described above and asserts that the duties 
described are not vague and are not primarily related to customer service. 
We disagree. The position descriptions provided do not include sutlicient detail describing what the 
Beneficiary actually did and the approximate amount of time she spent on the duties described. 
First, the Petitioner does not clarify whether the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial 
duties under section 101 (a)( 44 )(A) of the Act. or primarily executive duties under section 
101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. The Petitioner must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the 
Beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are either in an executive or managerial capacity. 
This delineation is important because whether the Beneficiary is a managerial or executive employee 
turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained its burden of proving that their duties are '·primarily'' 
managerial or executive. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. On appeal, the Petitioner 
appears to claim that the Beneficiary's tasks for the foreign entity were primarily managerial in 
nature with only ''some" executive duties. However, as the Petitioner does not specify the time the 
Beneficiary spent on specific tasks, the Beneficiary's primary duties have not been established. For 
4 
Matter of G-A-T- Corp. 
example. although the description references the Beneficiary" s involvement in superv1smg 
employees, recruiting statl and establishing company policies regarding employees, it also lists 
numerous other duties that do not appear related to supervising personnel. Without an indication of 
the approximate time the Beneficiary spent supervising personnel or spent performing other tasks. 
we cannot find that the Beneficiary primarily supervises or manages others. 
The description provided also includes tasks that do not fall directly under managerial or executive 
duties as defined in the statute. For example, the Beneficiary is charged with monitoring and 
controlling production quality and monitoring wastage and recycling. Similarly, the Beneficiary 
performs duties related to verifying job pricing. order consolidation, invoice checks. and auditing 
expenditures for the budget. as well as frequently inspecting work orders and bank account balances. 
The Beneficiary also arranges meetings with customers. meets with customers monthly to discuss 
issues and develop new business opportunities, and collaborates with customers. vendors. 
employees, and government departments to create the company" s best image. Neither the foreign 
entity nor the Petitioner provide sufficient detail regarding these duties to establish that carrying out 
these duties are managerial or executive duties rather than non-qualifying operational duties. 
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. at 1108. 
The description also identities broad categories of responsibilities. such as the Beneficiary managing 
and overseeing press operations and the head office's business and administrative activities. as well 
as looking after finance. accounting. operations, sales, marketing. human resources. and engineering. 
The description also has the Beneficiary coordinating efforts involving procurement. production. 
field and technical services· policies, and staff. These duties include minimal information or 
explanation of the Beneficiary" s actual activities in the course of her daily routine. The actual duties 
themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. ld Without detail of specific duties and 
actual tasks related to these broad categories. we cannot evaluate and analyze whether the 
Beneficiary performed duties that are managerial or executive in nature rather than the 
non-qualifying duties required to operate the business. 
The fact that the Beneficiary managed or directed a department or the operations of the business 
does not establish eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or 
executive capacity within the meaning of section 101 (a)( 44) of the Act. By statute. eligibility for 
this classification requires that the duties of a position be '·primarily .. executive or managerial in 
nature. Sections 101(A)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. While the Beneficiary may have exercised some 
discretion over the foreign entity's day-to-day operations and may have possessed the requisite level 
of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making. the position descriptions alone arc 
insufficient to establish that her actual duties were primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
Matter of' G-A-T- Cow 
B. Staffing 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, we review the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, including 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. 
The record includes two different versions of the foreign entity's organizational structure. The 
initial organizational chart shows the Beneficiary in the position of technical/general manager 
reporting to the proprietor. The Beneficiary is depicted as directly supervising a designer. a 
marketing manager, and an accountant. The marketing manager has two direct subordinates, an 
oftice employee and the factory manager. The factory manager supervises six individuals who 
perform the printing and other factory work. 
The organizational chart submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) depicts 
the Beneficiary in the position of"'(Formerly) Technical/General Manager/Human Resources." The 
Beneficiary's position has one subordinate, an accountant. The designer. marketing manager. and 
factory manager all report directly to the proprietor. The factory manager oversees eight employees. 
The Petitioner does not offer an explanation for the change in the Beneficiary's position on the 
organizational chart or when the change occurred. 
Even if we considered the Petitioner's initial claim that the Beneficiary "supervised a lot of 
employees, including professionals in the position of Marketing Manager. Factory Manager. 2 
Accountant and Designer," the record is insuflicient to establish that the Beneficiary is primarily a 
personnel manager. The statutory definition of ""managerial capacity"' allows for both ··personnel 
managers'· and "function managers.'' See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) ofthe 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 101(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(1)(1 )(ii)(B)(3). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary primarily supervised 
employees. Moreover. although the record includes evidence ofthe salary paid to the Beneficiary. it 
does not include evidence of salary paid to the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates. The Petitioner 
asserted in response to the Director's RFE on this issue, that ""it is the general practice in Pakistan to 
2 Neither version of the foreign entity's organizational charts submitted depicts the Benetlciary directly supervising the 
factory manager. Accordingly. this position is not discussed when we address the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates. 
Matter of G-A-T- Corp. 
pay salary of the employees in cash. Hence, Petitioner is unable to provide pay records of its 
employees at this time." We question the Petitioner's assertion as the foreign entity's description of 
duties for the ··accountant" position indicates that she prepares the staff salary and administers the 
payroll. It also is not credible that the foreign entity would not have some record of its payments to 
employees, even if such payment was in cash. The lack of corroborating evidence regarding the 
foreign entity's employees casts doubt on the validity of the foreign entity's actual number of 
employees. 
Further, the brief positions descriptions for the pos1t1ons of designer. marketing manager. and 
accountant do not establish that these positions are professional positions as the Petitioner claimed. 
When evaluating whether a beneficiary manages professional employees. we evaluate whether the 
subordinate positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of 
endeavor. Cl 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"). Therefore, we focus on the level of education required by the position, not the degree 
held by the subordinate employee. Thus, 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. 
In this matter, the designer position description indicates that although this position may require 
technical skills, it does not include sufficient information to establish that the duties require the 
equivalent of a U.S. baccalaureate degree to perform them. Similarly, the duties for the accountant 
describe a bookkeeping position, not a position that requires the equivalent of a U.S. baccalaureate 
degree. Likewise. the general description of duties for the marketing manager position does not 
describe a professional position. Regarding the marketing manager position we also note that the 
description does not include any supervisory duties. This raises further questions regarding the 
accuracy of the initial organizational chart which depicted the marketing manager position as 
supervising the factory manager. The record does not include probative. consistent evidence 
establishing that the Beneficiary is primarily a personnel manager. 
The Petitioner also has not articulated a specific function that the Beneficiary managed for the 
foreign entity. The term '·function manager" applies generally when a heneiiciary does not 
supervise or control the work of a subordinate statl but instead is primarily responsible for managing 
an '·essential function·· within the organization. See section 10l(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 manuRe. as opposed to perf(mn. 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." A1atter olG- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8. 2017). In this 
matter. the Petitioner has not described or provided evidence that the Beneficiary manages an 
essential function. 
Matter ofG-A-T- Corp. 
The Petitioner also has not established that the Beneficiary \Vas primarily an executive. The 
statutory definition of the term "'executive capacity .. focuses on a person ·s elevated position within a 
complex organizational hierarchy. including major components or functions of the organization. and 
that person's authority to direct the organization. Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. Under the 
statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to ""direct the managemenC and ""establish the goals and 
policies" of that organization. Inherent to the definition. the organization must have a subordinate 
level of managerial employees for a beneficiary to direct and they must primarily focus on the broad 
goals and policies of the organization rather than the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. An 
individual will not be deemed an executive under the statute simply because they have an executive 
title or because they "direcC the enterprise as the owner or sole managerial employee. A beneficiary 
must also exercise '"wide latitude in discretionary decision making·· and receive only ""general 
supervision or direction from higher level executives. the board of directors. or stockholders of the 
organization." !d. The foreign entity's position descriptions for the Beneficiary's claimed 
subordinates do not include sufficient probative evidence establishing that the Beneficiary had 
subordinate managers to direct. 
The record does not include suHicient consistent evidence so that we may consider the reasonable 
needs of the foreign entity in light of its overall purpose and stage of development of the 
organization. Although the foreign entity was established more than 17 years ago. it has not 
provided evidence corroborating its staffing or the Beneficiary and her claimed subordinates· actual 
duties. The record does not establish that the Beneficiary performed primarily executive or 
managerial duties for the foreign entity. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that a qualifying foreign entity 
employed the Beneficiary for one continuous year within three years preceding the filing of the 
petition in an executive or managerial capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of G-A-T- Corp .. 10# 813362 (AAO Dec. 2 L 2017)