dismissed L-1A Case: Printing And Design

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
1- data dew to 
 and Immigration 
p-t flesrly un- 
badam of wrsonal ~rtpae 
PlJBLIC c0l"V 
File: SRC 04 125 50440 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: MAY 1 1 2006 
IN RE: 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
dministrative Appeals Office 
SRC 04 125 50440 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to extend the employment of its presidentlexecutive as 
an L-1 A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a Florida corporation that claims to be 
engaged in "investments." It operates a digital printing and design studio. The petitioner claims that it is the 
affiliate of Tecflow Group, C.A., located in Caracas, Venezuela. The beneficiary was granted a one-year 
period of L-1A classification in order to open a new office in the United States and the petitioner now seeks to 
extend her stay.' 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary is 
employed in a qualifying capacity, regardless of the size of the company, and claims that the petitioner 
utilizes contractors to perform many functions of the business. The petitioner submits a short statement and 
additional evidence in support of the appeal. 
Upon review, and for the reasons discussed herein, counsel's assertions are not persuasive. To establish 
eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria outlined in section 
101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the beneficiary in a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one continuous year 
within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States. In addition, 
the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to 
I 
 The petitioner stated on the L classification supplement to Form 1-129 that the beneficiary is coming to the 
United States to open a new office. The beneficiary was previously granted L-1A status in order to open a 
new office for the instant petitioner (SRC 03 067 52474) with validity dates from March 31, 2003 to March 
30, 2004. Under the governing regulations at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(3)(~), a U.S. petitioner that has been doing 
business for less than one year may petition for a manager or executive if it can be expected that the new 
office will, within one year, support a managerial or executive position. After one year, the regulations require 
the petitioner to file for an extension with supporting documentation evidencing that it is staffed and has been 
"doing business" in a regular, systematic and continuous matter for the previous year. See generally, 8 C.F.R. 
9 214.2(1)(14)(ii). The director appropriately adjudicated the petition under the governing regulations for a 
petition requesting extension of a petition that involved a "new office." Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(CIS) will not grant a second petition under the "new office" provisions. Any request for an extension of a 
petition that was originally approved as a new office must be evaluated under the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. fj 
2 14.2(1)(14)(ii). 
SRC 04 125 50440 
Page 3 
the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge 
capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) 
 Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the 
alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) 
 Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 
(iii) 
 Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
(iv) 
 Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies hirnher to perform the intended 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
 214.2(1)(14)(ii) also provides that a visa petition, which involved the opening of a 
new office, may be extended by filing a new Form 1-129, accompanied by the following: 
(A) 
 Evidence that the United States and foreign entities are still qualifying organizations 
as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section; 
(B) 
 Evidence that the United States entity has been doing business as defined in 
paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(H) of this section for the previous year; 
(C) 
 A statement of the duties performed by the beneficiary for the previous year and the 
duties the beneficiary will perform under the extended petition; 
(D) 
 A statement describing the staffing of the new operation, including the number of 
employees and types of positions held accompanied by evidence of wages paid to 
employees when the beneficiary will be employed in a management or executive 
capacity; and 
(E) 
 Evidence of the financial status of the United States operation. 
The primary issue in the present matter is whether the beneficiary will be employed by the United States 
entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. 
SRC 04 125 50440 
Page 4 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) 
 manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of 
the organization; 
(ii) 
 supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees, or manages an essential function within the organization, or a department 
or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) 
 if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the authority to 
hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions (such as 
promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly supervised, 
functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the 
function managed; and 
(iv) 
 exercises discretion over the day to day operations of the activity or function for 
which the employee has authority. A first line supervisor is not considered to be 
acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory 
duties unless the employees supervised are professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) 
 directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the 
organization; 
(ii) 
 establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
(iii) 
 exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision making; and 
(iv) 
 receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
The nonimmigrant petition was filed on March 30, 2004. In a March 15, 2004 letter, the petitioner provided 
the following job description for the beneficiary's role as president/executive of the U.S. entity: 
[The beneficiary] . . . is responsible for acting as a liaison between the Board of Directors of 
the affiliated company in Venezuela and the company in the United States. She is directly 
responsible for delegating the responsibility of implementing marketing strategies as desired 
by [the foreign entity's] Board of Directors. She is responsible for the evaluation of financial 
statements, and based on her experience and expertise, she also contribute [sic] in the 
marketing of new products, as desired by the parent company's Board of Directors. 
SRC 04 125 50440 
Page 5 
On the Form 1-129 petition, the petitioner stated its number of employees as "None," its gross annual income 
as "Star[t]-up." The petitioner identified its type of business as "investments" and submitted an occupational 
license indicating that it operates a "printing/lithograph" business. The petitioner also submitted its IRS Form 
940, Employer's Annual Federal Unemployment Tax Return for 2003, indicating total payments to 
employees in the amount of $30,600, and its last two IRS Forms 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax 
Return, showing two employees during the last two quarters of 2003. 
On April 16, 2004, the director issued a request for evidence instructing the petitioner to submit an 
organizational chart for the United States entity, showing each position in relation to the other positions, 
position titles, position descriptions, the names of each individual filling the positions, and their duration of 
employment. 
In a response received on May 12, 2004, the petitioner indicated that the United States company employs the 
beneficiary as president and a sales employee who joined the company when it started operations in 
December 2002. The petitioner noted that "mayor [sic] decisions are discussed and made" by the foreign 
entity's management staff. The petitioner described the beneficiary's position as: 
In charge of the entire company branch in Miami, FL. Link between Caracas and Miami 
branches, make minor decisions, direct, coordinate, supervise and monitor the daily work. 
Administrative Management, monitor profit and loss, supervise sales and customer services. 
Receive and control purchase orders and payments. Represent the voice and communicate the 
decisions of the Caracas office management staff. Report the company state and movement 
to Caracas office. 
The petitioner stated that the sales employee is "in charge of sales work" and is responsible for the following 
duties: "Find and maintain clients and/or potential clients. Coordinate out house jobs and suppliers. 
Coordinate and control the sales, purchase orders, production and delivery of the material required." The 
petitioner submitted a resume for the sales employee, which indicates that she performs the following duties 
as the company's "sales coordinator": 
Controlled the inside sales process. Create all purchase orders for vendors. Interfaced with 
outside sales representatives for inventory's present and fiture needs. Administered inside 
and outside sales. Monitored service technicians. Acted as dispatcher, setting up pickups and 
deliveries & updated inventory. Performed sales calls for current and potential customers. 
Handled sales quotes. 
The petitioner indicated the U.S. company has a vice president and a treasurer located in the foreign entity's 
Caracas, Venezuela office, and stated that these individuals are "investor[s]." 
The director denied the petition on October 7,2004, concluding that the petitioner had not established that the 
beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. 
The director determined that the evidence submitted shows that the beneficiary is functioning as a first-line 
SRC 04 125 50440 
Page 6 
supervisor over three individuals, and found that the petitioner was not able to support a managerial or 
executive position at the time of filing. 
In an appeal filed on November 8, 2004, the petitioner states: 
The beneficiary is the Marketing manager for the company in Caracas, Venezuela and 
President for the USA as it show [sic] in the company chart, regarding the quantity of 
personal [sic] in the company ion [sic] the USA the business itself doesn't required [sic] to 
have a lot of personal [sic] in house, because the company is doing all the design and are 
using other company to do the printing and delivery of the material. (enclosed invoices and 
canceled checks). 
In support of the appeal, the petitioner submits a complete copy of its initial filing and response to the 
director's request for evidence. The documentation includes the petitioner's monthly bank statements, journal 
transactions, and copies of canceled checks, but no invoices from outside service providers. 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner's description of the job 
duties must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are 
either in an executive or managerial capacity. Id. 
The job descriptions submitted by the petitioner are brief and vague, providing little insight into the true 
nature of the tasks the beneficiary will perform in the United States. For example, the petitioner initially 
indicated that the beneficiary liaises with the foreign entity's board of directors, delegates responsibility for 
implementing the foreign entity's marketing plan, reviews financial statements, and contributes to the 
marketing of new products. The petitioner did not, however, explain how the beneficiary contributes to 
marketing, clarify who prepares financial statements or otherwise performs the petitioner's day-to-day finance 
and bookkeeping-related tasks, identify to whom the beneficiary delegates responsibilities, or explain the 
nature or purpose of the beneficiary's interaction with the foreign entity's board of directors. The job 
description was insufficient to establish that the beneficiary would primarily perform managerial or executive 
duties. Reciting the beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not 
sufficient; the regulations require a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. The petitioner's 
initial description failed to answer a critical question in this case: What does the beneficiary primarily do on a 
daily basis? The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. 
v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
The petitioner's response to the director's request for additional information regarding the petitioner's staffing 
levels and each employee's job duties supports a conclusion that the beneficiary would act, at most, as a first- 
line supervisor of one non-professional employee.2 The petitioner indicated that the beneficiary coordinates, 
2 
 The AAO notes that the director concluded that the beneficiary would supervise three employees, and 
assumes that she included the vice president and treasurer, who are identified on the organizational chart, 
among the beneficiary's subordinates. However, the petitioner has indicated that these employees are merely 
SRC 04 125 50440 
Page 7 
supervises and monitors the daily work of the business, supervises sales and customer services, receives and 
controls purchase orders, and makes "minor decisions" regarding the business. All of these duties suggest that 
the beneficiary is directly involved in the day-to-day operations of the business, and that her level of authority 
is more akin to a supervisory employee, regardless of her executive job title. A managerial or executive 
employee must have authority over day-to-day operations beyond the level normally vested in a first-line 
supervisor, unless the supervised employees are professionals. See Matter of Church Scientology 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). 
In evaluating whether the beneficiary manages professional employees, the AAO must evaluate whether the 
subordinate positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. 
Section 101(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 101(a)(32), states that "[tlhe 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 term "profession" contemplates knowledge or learning, not 
merely skill, of an advanced type in a given field gained by a prolonged course of specialized instruction and 
study of at least baccalaureate level, which is a realistic prerequisite to entry into the particular field of 
endeavor. Matter of Sea, 19 I&N Dec. 817 (Comm. 1988); Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (R.C. 1968); 
Matter of Shin, 11 I&N Dec. 686 (D.D. 1966). 
Therefore, the AAO must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree held 
by a 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 as that term is 
defined above. In the instant case, the petitioner has not, in fact, established that a baccalaureate degree is 
actually necessary to perform routine sales duties and coordinate order fulfillment and delivery, which are the 
responsibilities of the sales coordinator, the beneficiary's sole subordinate. Thus, the petitioner has not 
established that this employee could be classified as a professional. Nor has the petitioner shown that the 
beneficiary's subordinate supervises subordinate staff members or manages a clearly defined department or 
function of the petitioner, such that she could be classified a manager or supervisor. Thus, the petitioner has 
not shown that the beneficiary's subordinate employee is employed in a supervisory, professional, or 
managerial position, as required by section 10 1 (a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
The petitioner suggests on appeal that the director placed undue emphasis on the petitioner's personnel size in 
determining that the beneficiary would not be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Pursuant to section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1 101(a)(44)(C), if staffing levels are used as a factor 
in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial or executive capacity, CIS must take into 
account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of 
the organization. In the present matter, however, the regulations provide strict evidentiary requirements for 
the extension of a "new office" petition and require CIS to examine the organizational structure and staffing 
levels of the petitioner. See 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(D). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) 
allows the "new office" operation one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive 
or managerial position. There is no provision in CIS regulations that allows for an extension of this one-year 
investors, and are located in the foreign entity's office. There is no evidence in the record to establish that 
they provide services to the petitioning company or are supervised by the beneficiary. 
SRC 04 125 50440 
Page 8 
period. 
 If the business does not have sufficient staffing after one year to relieve the beneficiary from 
primarily performing operational and administrative tasks, the petitioner is ineligible by regulation for an 
extension. 
The petitioner has provided little descriptive information regarding the nature of its business. The petitioner's 
advertisements indicate that the company operates a design studio and digital print shop specializing in 
producing advertising materials for businesses. Thus, it is evident that the reasonable needs of the petitioner 
require its employees to perform numerous non-managerial and non-executive tasks such as performing the 
graphic design and printing services, marketing, sales and customer service duties, purchasing supplies, 
delivering finished products to customers, and performing routine banlung and bookkeeping tasks. The 
petitioner initially implied that some of these tasks were performed "out house," but did not clarify who 
performed the actual design and printing services of the company. On appeal, the petitioner explains that the 
petitioner "is doing all the design" and utilizes other companies "to do the printing and delivery of material." 
The petitioner did not submit sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate this claim. While the record 
does include copies of canceled checks paid to courier companies and print shops, the petitioner did not 
provide invoices or other evidence identifying the actual services provided by these outside companies. Going 
on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of 
. Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Based on the petitioner's representations, it does not appear that the reasonable needs of the petitioning 
company might plausibly be met by the services of a president who performs primarily managerial or 
executive duties and a sales coordinator. The petitioner does not claim to have any employees who would 
perform its claimed primary function of providing graphic design services, nor does it claim to outsource this 
function. It is therefore reasonable to assume, and has not been shown otherwise, that either the beneficiary or 
her subordinate actually performs these services. The petitioner has submitted resumes for the beneficiary and 
her subordinate. The AAO notes that, of the petitioner's two employees, the beneficiary has a bachelor's 
degree in graphic design and professional experience in this field, while the sales coordinator has no 
professional or academic background in the field. Thus, the reasonable needs of the petitioner suggest that the 
beneficiary herself must spend a significant amount of time performing the tasks necessary to provide the 
petitioner's services. An employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to 
provide services is not considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See 
sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial 
or executive duties); see also Matter of Church Scientology Int'l., 19 I&N Dec. 593,604 (Cornm. 1988) 
The definitions of executive and managerial capacity have two parts. First, the petitioner must show that the 
beneficiary performs the high-level responsibilities that are specified in the definitions. Second, the petitioner 
must show that the beneficiary primarily performs these specified responsibilities and does not spend a 
majority of his or her time on day-to-day functions. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 
1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). The test is basic to ensure that a person not only has the requisite 
authority, but that a majority of his or her duties related to operational or policy management, not to the 
supervision of lower level employees, performance of the duties of another type of position, or other 
involvement in the operational activities of the company. 
SRC 04 125 50440 
Page 9 
In this matter, although the petitioner places the beneficiary at a senior level on the organizational chart, the 
record does not substantiate that the beneficiary primarily performs duties associated with the high-level 
responsibilities identified in the statutory definitions. Rather, it is evident based on the totality of the record 
that the beneficiary would be required to spend the majority of her time performing first-line supervisory 
duties and performing the daily operational tasks required to provide the petitioner's services. Accordingly, 
the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily executive or managerial 
capacity under the extended petition. For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has not established that it maintains a qualifying 
relationship with the foreign entity, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(A). The petitioner states that it 
is an affiliate of the beneficiary's foreign employer based on common majority ownership by the beneficiary. 
The petitioner did not provide any documentary evidence to establish its actual ownership and control and 
therefore has failed to substantiate the claimed affiliate relationship. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Furthermore, the evidence submitted with respect to the foreign 
entity's ownership, including the minutes of a February 2001 meeting of the general assembly and the 
company's audited financial statement for 2002, indicates that the foreign entity has four individual 
shareholders, none of whom hold a majority interest in the company. Although the petitioner indicated that 
the beneficiary is the majority shareholder of the foreign entity, the submitted evidence does not list her 
among the company's shareholders. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the 
record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not 
suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Doubt cast 
on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency 
of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 
1988). For this additional reason, the petition will be denied. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the 
AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v, United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aff. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.