dismissed L-1A Case: Printing And Advertising

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-U-A- INC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 10.2018 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a printing and advertising company, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment as its president under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. 1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L). 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition. concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity under the 
extended petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that its foreign operations have been disrupted by the Chinese 
government and requests additional time to development its new business. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification for a new office, a qualifying 
organization must have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial. executive. or 
involves specialized knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the 
beneficiary's application for admission into the United States. Section IOI(a)(l5)(L) ofthc 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. ld. 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "'new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
November 17, 2015, to November 16. 2017. A "'new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the 
United States through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary for Jess than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 2 14.2(1)( I )(ii)(F). The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "'new oftice" operation one year within the date of approval of the 
petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
Matter of R-U-A- Inc 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-1 A petition that involved a new office must submit a statement 
of the beneficiary's duties during the previous year and under the extended petition: a statement 
describing the staffing of the new operation and evidence of the numbers and types of positions held: 
evidence of its financial status; evidence that it has been doing business for the previous year: and 
evidence that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii). 
The statute defines an "executive capacity" as 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 IOI(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) takes into account the 
reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the 
organization. See section IOJ(a)(44)(C) ofthe Act. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The first issue to address is whether the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary will act in an 
executive capacity under the extended petition. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary 
will be employed in a managerial capacity. Therefore. we restrict our analysis to whether the 
Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity. 
The Director concluded that the duties submitted for the Beneficiary were overly vague and did not 
reflect his actual day-to-day tasks. The Director stated that the Petitioner did not establish that it was 
sufficiently operational as of the date of the petition to support the Beneficiary in an executive 
capacity. The Director further indicated that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's subordinates are professionals as asserted. The Director also pointed to several 
discrepancies in the submitted evidence and noted that the Petitioner did not resolve these 
inconsistencies with probative documentary evidence. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary's foreign employer has been disrupted by the 
Chinese government due to its publishing of Christian texts. The Petitioner indicates that this 
disruption has caused issues with its projected development. The Petitioner requests "relief from the 
regulations" under the extended petition, or specifically, an extension to allow it more time to 
develop. 
When examining the executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the petitioner"s 
description of the job duties. The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly describe the 
duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in an executive 
2 
Matter of R-U-A-Inc 
capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCJS 
examines the company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate 
employees, the presence of other employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing operational 
duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a 
beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. Accordingly, we will discuss evidence regarding 
the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of the nature of the Petitioner's business and its 
staffing levels. 
A. Duties 
Based on the definitions of executive 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 executive duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the 
Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCJS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); 
Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner stated that it was established in the United States for the purpose of expanding the 
foreign employer's graphic design, printing, and business exhibition display and promotion services. 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner indicated that the foreign employer created '·an integral ali­
in-one system by which companies can more et1iciently achieve their advertising objectives and 
goals with one vendor rather than outsource the processes to multiple vendors.'' The Petitioner 
submitted the duties performed by the Beneficiary during the first year and those to be performed 
under the extended petition, which were identical. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary devoted 8% of his time to directing and coordinating 
"financial activities," another 8% to implementing plans to "correct or solve organizational problems 
and issues," and I 0% to directing financial affairs and budgets to assure that "short-term and long­
term objectives" are met. The Petitioner further indicated that the Beneficiary spends 6% of his time 
on "developing financial relationships," including ·'the development and ongoing maintenance of 
policies, processes, and procedures," and 8% on supervising and overseeing the preparation of 
financial reporting. The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary also devoted 8% of his time to 
'·negotiating long term contracts with major corporate clients.'' including overseeing and controlling 
''the quality and value of products and services rendered to clients.'' The Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary was also responsible for "overseeing research and development activities.'' ''establishing 
and advising managers on company culture standards," and ·'implementing personnel actions. such 
as promotions and dismissals." 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner submitted a vague duty description for the Beneficiary 
that does not convey his actual day-to-day tasks or establish that he would devote his time primarily 
to executive duties. The Beneficiary's duty description includes several general duties that could 
apply to any executive acting in any business or industry and they do not provide insight into the 
actual nature of his role. The Petitioner provides few examples and little supporting documentation 
3 
Matter of R-U-A- Inc 
to demonstrate the Beneficiary's performance of executive level duties, such as long-term planning 
he has completed, financial activities he has managed, organizational problems and issues he has 
corrected, objectives he has set, financial relationships he has developed, policies, processes, and 
procedures he has maintained, products and services he oversaw, strategies he has developed. 
research and development he supervised, culture standards he established, or promotions and 
dismissals of employees he ordered. Further, it is questionable that the Petitioner has submitted 
identical duties respective to his first year working with the Petitioner and those proposed during its 
second year of operation. 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. Fe din Bros. Co .. Ltd v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 
ll08(E.D.N.Y.l989),aff'd,905F.2d41 (2d.Cir.!990). 
Moreover, the Petitioner has submitted substantial documentary evidence indicating that the 
Beneficiary performs numerous non-qualifying operational duties. For instance, the Petitioner 
provides a resume for the Beneficiary reflecting his involvement with the production of a 
documentary, publishing, printing, and distributing several religious books, and meeting with 
potential clients throughout 2015 and 2016. The Petitioner also submits agreements for the 
publishing and sale of books all listing the Beneficiary as "editor." Further, in response to the 
Director's notice of intent to deny (NO !D) in May 2017, the Petitioner provides a support letter from 
a former U.S. Congressman asserted as a consultant working for the company. This asserted 
consultant regularly references the Beneficiary's performance of services in his letter, including his 
production of "collateral materials" for religious book projects, publishing and distributing research 
papers, working on a museum exhibit, the production of a video documentary, and the production, 
distribution, and translation of twelve books from English to Chinese. 
Likewise, the Petitioner submits support letters from clients in response to the Director's NOID also 
indicating his involvement with the provision of services, including translation, graphic design, 
printing, and publishing. In addition, there are a number of other transactional documents on the 
record including the Beneficiary's name, indicating his involvement with day-to-day non-qualifying 
operational matters, such as invoices, payment confirmations, contracts, and bills of lading. Indeed, 
in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a document titled 
the Beneficiary's "Jobs for Monthly Development"' ret1ecting specific tasks he performed during the 
first year. This included several non-qualifying operational tasks such as editing, publishing, and 
printing books, attending book conferences, meeting with authors, producing documents. and 
coordinating shipping. 
In sum, the submitted documentation suggests that the Beneficiary is, and will be. responsible for all 
operational aspects of the business, and it has provided few examples and little evidence to 
substantiate that he will delegate these tasks to subordinates. 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 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. Under the statute. a beneficiary must 
have the ability to "direct the management" and "establish the goals and policies·· of that 
4 
Matter of R-U-A- Inc 
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 "direct" 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 evidence does not indicate that as of the date of the petition, or as of the date of this appeal, that 
the Beneficiary has been primarily relieved from performing non-qualifying operational tasks and 
that he spends a majority of his time focusing on the broad goals and policies of the organization. 
An employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide 
services is not considered to be "primarily" employed in an executive capacity. See. e.g. sections 
10l(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial 
or executive duties); Matter o{Church Scientology In!'!, 19 l&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm "r 1988). 
Moreover, the Petitioner does not document what proportion of the Beneficiary's duties would be 
executive functions and what proportion would be non-qualifying. The Petitioner lists the 
Beneficiary's duties as including both executive tasks and administrative or operational tasks, but 
does not quantify the time the Beneficiary spends on these different duties. This lack of 
documentation is important because. as we have discussed as length, the record includes substantial 
evidence reflecting the Beneficiary's performance of non-qualifying operational tasks that do not fall 
directly under executive duties as defined in the statute. For this reason, we cannot determine 
whether the Beneficiary is primarily performing the duties of an executive. S'ee !Kt/l US. Inc. v. 
US. Dept. o{.!ustice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the organization. the fact that he will 
manage or direct a business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an 
intracompany transferee in an executive capacity within the meaning of section I 0 I (a)( 44) of the 
Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a position be "primarily'' 
executive in nature. Sections 10l(A)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. The Beneficiary may exercise 
discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of authority 
with respect to discretionary decision-making; however, the position descriptions alone are 
insufficient to establish that his actual duties would be primarily executive in nature. 
B. Staffing 
The Petitioner provided an organizational chart reflecting that the Beneficiary supervises a vice 
president and a senior consultant. The chart further indicated that the vice president oversees four 
managers overseeing the "publishing department," "cultural exchange,'' the '·marketing department," 
and a "finance department." The chart also showed that the manager of the publishing department 
supervises employees devoted to "editorial" and "design." that the cultural exchange and marketing 
5 
Matter of R-U-A-Inc 
department managers oversee subordinate managers, while the finance department manager 
supervises outside payroll and accounting tirms. 2 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient documentation to substantiate that it employs those listed 
in its asserted organizational chart or to corroborate that it has developed sufficiently to support the 
Beneficiary in an executive capacity. The Petitioner provided a New Mexico Employer's Quarterly 
Wage and Contribution Report specific to the second quarter of 2016 indicating that the Petitioner 
paid wages to only three employees, including the asserted marketing department manager ($6.875 ). 
the manager subordinate to the manager of the cultural exchange department ($1,930). and the 
Beneficiary ($15,000). The Petitioner provided a 2016 IRS Form 1120 U.S. Corporation Income 
Tax Return reflecting that it had paid $45,815 to compensate officers and another $19,175 in salaries 
and wages to the employees. This documentation leaves significant question as to the Petitioner's 
assertion that it employs 10 employees in addition to the Beneficiary. For instance, if we project the 
wages paid to the Beneficiary's subordinates in the Petitioner's most recent state quarterly wage 
report into the third and fourth quarters of 2016, this would amount to $26,415 in wages paid to 
these employees during 2016. This amount would only account for two subordinates, at most. and 
not the 8 others employees the Petitioner asserts in its organizational chart. 
In response to the NOID, the Petitioner stated that the editorial employee was hired in the third 
quarter of2016, referencing this as the reason she was not reflected in the state quarterly wage report 
from the second quarter of 2016. However, wages paid to this employee are not reflected in the 
company's 2016 IRS Form 1120 nor does the Petitioner provide more recent state quarterly wage 
reports to substantiate additional employees despite responding to an RFE in April 2017. a NOID in 
June 2017, and in submitting additional evidence with this appeal in July 2017. The Petitioner 
further asserts that its senior consultant is paid as an independent contractor and points to an 
agreement and checks paid to this consultant. However, the Petitioner only submits one $5,000 
check paid to its asserted senior consultant in April 2015, otherwise there is no evidence to suggest 
that this claimed independent contractor is regularly employed by the Petitioner and that he can be 
considered a subordinate of the Beneficiary. Indeed, a letter from the senior consultant docs not 
indicate that he acts as an employee of the Petitioner, but that the Beneficiary provides services for 
him. 
Otherwise, the Petitioner stated that its vice president '"is currently not paid on [sic] salary,'· that its 
claimed cultural exchange manager is "paid via a bonus structure and has been willing to forego 
compensation," and that the finance department manager '·serves on as an advisory status." First. the 
Petitioner provides no documentation to substantiate that it has paid the asset1ed cultural exchange 
2 The Petitioner also referred to these employees by varying titles elsewhere on the record, referencing the senior 
consultant as the independent contractor management analyst, the manager of the sales and marketing department as the 
marketing and sales director, the manager of the finance department as the chief financial officer (CFO). the manager 
reporting to the cultural exchange manager as the operations manager, the editorial employee as the otlicer manager. the 
design employee as the art and design manager, and the manager subordinate to the manager of the sales and marketing 
department as the sales manager. 
6 
.
Matter of R-U-A- Inc 
manager with bonuses. In fact, a support letter and other documentation on the record related to the 
cultural exchange manager indicates that he is the chief executive of the 
leaving question as to whether he can be considered an employee of the Petitioner and a subordinate 
to the Beneficiary. The Petitioner also submits little supporting documentation to substantiate that 
the vice president and finance department manager perform duties for the Petitioner or that they 
relieve the Beneficiary from performing non-qualifying operational tasks. It is also noteworthy that 
the Petitioner submits no evidence to substantiate the employment of several employees listed in its 
organizational chart, including the claimed operations manager , ''officer manager /editorial 
employee ," art and design manager, and sales manager. The Petitioner also provides conflicting 
titles for these employees from its organizational chart to its NOlO response. The Petitioner must 
resolve inconsistencies in the record with independent , objective evidence pointing to wher
e the 
truth lies. Maller ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has submitted vague duties for the Beneficiary ' s subordinates which do 
not credibly establish that they relieve the Beneficiary from performing non-qualifying operational 
tasks. For instance , the Petitioner provided duties for the vice president that are nearly identical to 
those of the Beneficiary indicating that he is responsible for coordinating "financial activities:· 
implementing "plans to correct or solve organizational problems or issues,"' and ensuring that 
"business and financial objectives are met." Likewise, the Petitioner stated that the senior consultant 
improves "productiveness, efficiency, [and] profitability ,'' and that the marketing and sales director 
develops "corporate marketing and sales opportunities, " signs "business contract agreements ,"' and 
manages "business operations. " The Petitioner also explains that the finance manager (or chief 
financial officer (CFO)) is tasked with ''organizing and developing financial statement s .. and 
"dealing with financial institutions ," while the operations manager reviews "online print reque sts,·· 
organizes and implements "a production work schedule, " and develops and maintains .. a job log for 
assigned projects.'' The Petitioner provides similarly vague dutie s tor the editor /editorial employee , 
the art and design manager , and the sales manager. 
In each case, the Petitioner has provided few specifics regarding the duties the Beneficiary ' s 
subordinates perform or supporting documentation reflecting their performance of these duties. For 
instance , the Petitioner does not explain financial activitie s the vice president coordin ates or 
organizational problems or issues he has dealt with, marketing or sales opportunitie s the sales and 
marketing director has generated or contracts he has signed ,3 financial decisions the CFO has made 
or financial institutions he works with, or documented work schedules or job logs maintained by the 
operations manager. The Petitioner also does not document the art and design manager or the sales 
manager performing duties for the company. Therefore , not only has the Petitioner not documented 
the payment of regular salaries to all the members of its organizational chart, but it has also not 
substantiated their performance of duties and provided vague, non-credible duty descriptions for 
these asserted employees. As such, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary supervises 
3 We note that the record includes a number of contracts the Petitioner has s igned for publishing and production of 
books; however, each such agreement has been signed by the Beneficiary, not the asserted sales and marketing director. 
Matter of R-U-A- Inc 
subordinate managers and professionals or that it has developed sufticiently to support the 
Beneficiary in an executive capacity. 
The Petitioner provides assertions on appeal that leave additional question as to the sufficiency of its 
operations. In support of the petition, the Petitioner stated that it was building a business devoted to 
an "all-in-one" printing and advertising business. However, on appeal, the Petitioner reveals that it 
is exclusively devoted to the publication of Christian books and other materials, and that its business 
has been significantly disrupted by alleged Chinese government policies. The Petitioner's 2016 IRS 
Form 1120 reflects that it only earned $76,969, while claiming that it would pay the Beneficiary a 
salary of $100,000 under the extended petition. In short, the Petitioner acknowledges on appeal that 
the business did not develop sutliciently during its first year of operation, and it requests an 
"exception" to continue to develop under an extended petition. However. the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) only allows the intended U.S. operation one year within the date of approval of 
the petition to support an executive position. There is no provision in USCIS regulations allowing 
for an extension of this one-year period. If the business does not have the necessary staffing after 
one year to sufficiently relieve the Beneficiary from performing operational and administrative tasks. 
the Petitioner is ineligible for an extension. 
Here, the Petitioner has not established that, as of the date of tiling, the Beneficiary was primarily 
concerned with the broad policies and goals of the organization, that the day-to-day management 
rested with a subordinate tier of management, or that he would be relieved from substantial 
involvement in the day-to-day operations of the business. We acknowledge that a company's size 
alone may not be the determining factor in denying an L-1 A visa petition without taking into account 
the reasonable needs of the organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act. However. it is 
appropriate for USCIS to consider the size of the petitioning company in conjunction with other 
relevant factors, such as the absence of employees who would perform the non-executive operations 
ofthe company. Family Inc., 469 F.3d 1313; Systronics Corp. v. INS'. 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 
2001 ). 
As discussed, the Petitioner did not consistently or sufficiently describe the Beneficiary's duties and 
we cannot determine that his role would primarily involve executive-level tasks. Further. the 
evidence indicates that the Beneficiary will be involved in nearly all of the operational matters of the 
business and it has submitted little evidence to indicate that he will delegate operational tasks to 
subordinates. In addition. the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary has managerial or 
professional subordinates as of the date of the petition, or that his claimed subordinates would 
relieve him from performing non-qualifying operational duties. As such. the evidence does not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary would act in a qualifying executive capacity. For these reasons. the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
III. FOREIGN EMPLOYER DOING BUSINESS 
Beyond the decision of the Director, we find that there are significant questions regarding the foreign 
employer's continued business activity. A qualifying organization must be doing business '"as an 
Matter of R-U-A- Inc 
employer in the United States and in at least one other country." See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(G). 
"Doing business," is defined as the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods or 
services. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(H). 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the foreign employer's business has been significantly disrupted 
by the Chinese government based on religious persecution. The Petitioner indicates that some of its 
published religious materials have been confiscated and destroyed by the Chinese government and 
submits an order stating that I ,040 copies of its published books ·'will be destroyed" based on 
"illegal business operation." The Petitioner also provides a photograph which appears to reflect that 
its printing presses have been shut down by the Chinese government. We acknowledge their claim 
regarding the disruption of their business; however, there is no exception to the doing business 
requirement. If the foreign employer is no longer doing business, it is no longer a qualifying foreign 
employer with respect to the L-1 A classification. The Petitioner must address whether the foreign 
employer is doing business in any future filings. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed as the Petitioner did not establish that it will employ the Beneficiary 
in a managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofR-U-A-Inc, ID# 862084 (AAO Jan. 10, 2018) 
9