dismissed L-1A Case: Public Relations And Advertising

L1.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: EAC 07 217 52731 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: APR 0 3 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1101(a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 07 2 17 5273 1 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont 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 visa petition seeking to extend the employment of its president as an L- 
1 A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 1 O 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1 101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a limited liability company organized 
under the laws of the State of Texas and is allegedly a public relations and advertising business. The 
beneficiary was previously granted a two-year period of stay, and the petitioner now seeks to extend the 
beneficiary's 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, counsel to the petitioner asserts that the director 
erred and that the beneficiary's duties are primarily those of an executive. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifLing 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 the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(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. 
EAC 07 2 17 5273 1 
Page 3 
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. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1 101(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. tj 1 101(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 petitioner does not clarify in the initial petition whether the beneficiary will primarily perform managerial 
duties under section 10 1 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, or primarily executive duties under section 10 1 (a)(44)(B) of 
the Act. While counsel appears to limit the beneficiary to the executive capacity on appeal, the petitioner 
asserts in its response to the director's Request for Evidence that the beneficiary will be employed in a 
managerial capacity. Given the lack of clarity, the AAO will assume that the petitioner is asserting that the 
beneficiary will be employed as a manager or an executive and will consider both classifications. 
EAC 07 217 52731 
Page 4 
The petitioner describes the beneficiary's proposed duties in an attachment to the Form 1-129 as follows: 
Plans and directs all investigations and negotiations pertaining to mergers, joint 
ventures, or the sale of advertising space and/or time. (25% of the total time) 
Dispenses advice, guidance, direction, and authorization to carry out major plans and 
procedures. (1 5% of the total time) 
Directs and assists advertising salespersons to assure ongoing advertising sales are 
carried out effectively to meet [the petitioner's] ad level requirements and advertisers' 
requirements for timely, appropriate and correct ads according to established, sound 
and ethical sales and business practices. (20% of total time) 
Monitors the performance and effectiveness of advertising campaigns. (10% of the 
total time) 
Responsible for controlling and developing overall marketing strategy and 
positioning the company's services. (10% of total time) 
Identify protection goals and objectives consistent with the company's strategic plan. 
(15% of the total time) 
Perform other related duties incidental to the job described herein. (5% of the total 
time) 
Although the petitioner asserts in the Form 1-129 that it employs two workers, the petitioner submitted an 
organizational chart showing the beneficiary directly supervising a "treasurer/stockholder" and a "business 
operations manager," who in turn is shown supervising a "sales representative." The chart also indicates that 
the petitioner engaged the services of five "independent sales representatives" in 2006. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted a letter dated July 2, 2007 in which the foreign entity claims that the 
beneficiary's salary was paid by the petitioner's Mexican affiliate. 
On August 3, 2007, the director requested additional evidence. The director requested, inter alia, more 
detailed job descriptions for the beneficiary and all subordinate employees, the petitioner's 2006 Forms W-2, 
and job descriptions for all of the petitioner's independent contractors. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a more detailed job description for the beneficiary as follows: 
Plans and directs all investigations and negotiations pertaining to mergers, joint 
ventures, or the sale of advertising equipment and/or spaceltime. (Example: Currently 
worlung in a new partnership with US company, Ultravision LED, to distibute/sell 
their [Light Emitting Diode] technology and to also for [the petitioner] to create 
animation content for Ultravision's clients [citations omitted]. 
Directs and supervises advertising salespersons to assure ongoing advertising sales 
are carried out effectively to meet [the petitioner's] ad level requirements and 
advertisers' requirements for timely, appropriate and correct ads according to 
established, sound and ethical sales and business practices. Example: Tetco Stores 
advertising. There is a network of media centers that [the petitioner] set up at a chain 
EAC 07 2 17 5273 1 
Page 5 
of convenience stores, Tetco, and [the beneficiary] supervises [the petitioner's] 
personnel on how to approach new clients and how to retain clients who advetise 
[sic] on this network [citation omitted]. 
Dispenses advice, guidance, direction, and authorization to carry out major plans and, 
procedures. Example: Guide the company's [business operations manager] at the 
time of choosing software that will managelcontrol all the advertising shown on 
electronic advertising equipment (for outdoor and indoor media networks). The 
partnerlsoftware chosen for this task is a US company based in Denver, Colorado 
(Fourwinds Interactive)[.] 
The petitioner also provided job descriptions for the beneficiary's subordinate employees. Generally, the 
treasurer/stockholder is described as developing and implementing plans, monitoring operations, investigating 
problems, and performing cash management duties. The "sales representative" is generally described as 
performing sales and customer service tasks. The "business operations manager" is described as follows: 
Responsible for the day-to-day operation and to lead the company to formulate and 
administer objectives and policies (4 hours). Shape and articulate the company's future 
directions and strategies to maximize operational effectiveness and productivity (5 hours). 
Participate in strategic formation of partnerships, negotiations of deals and implementation of 
external alliances (5 hours). Be part of administration of operations to ensure compliance 
with established objectives (3 hours). Provide hands-on management of the company's day- 
to-day operations to handle the clients['] needs (8 hours). 
Other duties: 
To help determining profit performance goals (2 hours). 
To draft financial, statistical, narrative, andlor other reports as requested (3 hours). 
To arrange, participate in, and implement, as directed, conferences and committee 
meetings (2 hours). 
To recommend measures to improve performance and increase efficiency (4 hours)[.] 
To assure flawless execution of client projects, prioritize resources, and keep team 
informed of progress and changes (2 hours)[.] 
To devise processes that ensure flawless execution and contribute to business growth 
(2 hours)[.] 
The petitioner also submitted a copy of its Texas Employer's Quarterly Report for the second quarter of 2007. 
This report indicates that, while the petitioner apparently employed the "sales representative" and the 
"business operations manager" in May 2007, neither of these employees was employed in June 2007. In fact, 
the wage report indicates that the petitioner had no employees in June 2007. The instant petition was filed on 
July 23,2007. 
Finally, although the petitioner submitted Forms 1099 for six independent contractors allegedly engaged by 
the petitioner in 2006, the petitioner did not submit any evidence that these contractors are currently engaged 
EAC 07 217 52731 
Page 6 
by the petitioner. 
 Furthermore, even though the director specifically requested a description of the 
contractors' duties, the petitioner described the contractors in a document titled "Contractors Samples" simply 
as promoting and selling advertising on the petitioner's "signs and media advertising centers." 
On August 30, 2007, the director denied the petition. The director concluded that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary will be employed primarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary's duties are primarily those of an executive. 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are not persuasive. 
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. lj 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. A petitioner cannot claim that some of the duties of the 
position entail executive responsibilities, while other duties are managerial. A petitioner may not claim that a 
beneficiary will be employed as a hybrid "executive/manager" and rely on partial sections of the two statutory 
definitions. 
In this matter, the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's job duties fails to establish that the beneficiary 
will act in a "managerial" or "executive" capacity. In support of the petition, the petitioner has submitted a 
vague and non-specific job description which fails to sufficiently describe what the beneficiary will do on a 
day-to-day basis. For example, the petitioner states that the beneficiary will plan and direct all investigations 
and negotiations pertaining to mergers, joint ventures, or the sale of advertising products; will direct and 
supervise advertising salespersons; and will dispense advice, guidance, direction, and authorization pertaining 
to "major plans and procedures." However, the petitioner does not specifically describe what, exactly, the 
beneficiary will do in performing these duties, including those related to the specific projects described in the 
petitioner's response to the Request for Evidence. This is especially important given that the petitioner failed 
to establish that it presently employs a subordinate staff of employees or independent contractors who could 
relieve the beneficiary of the need to perform the non-qualifying tasks inherent to his ascribed duties. As 
noted above, the record indicates that the petitioner had no employees in June 2007, approximately three 
weeks prior to the filing of the instant petition. The petitioner also failed to establish that it has rehired the 
prior employees or presently engages independent sales representatives compensated in 2006. The fact that 
the petitioner has given the beneficiary a managerial or executive title and has prepared a vague job 
description which includes inflated job duties does not establish that the beneficiary will actually perform 
managerial or executive 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. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 
F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). 
Likewise, most of the duties ascribed to the beneficiary appear to be non-qualifying administrative or 
operational tasks which will not rise to the level of being managerial or executive in nature. For example, the 
EAC 07 2 17 5273 1 
Page 7 
petitioner asserts in the breakdown of duties that the beneficiary will spend a majority of his time negotiating 
contracts, such as the Ultravision LED agreement, supervising the petitioner's non-supervisory , non- 
professional staff (see infra), and monitoring advertising campaigns. However, it has not been established 
that these duties are managerial or executive in nature. To the contrary, these duties appear to be non- 
qualifying administrative or operational tasks, and, as noted, the petitioner has not explained how the 
beneficiary will be relieved of the need to perform these tasks. As the petitioner has indicated that the 
beneficiary will devote most of his time to these non-qualifying tasks, it has not been established that he will 
be "primarily" employed as a manager or an executive. 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 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 593,604 (Comm. 1988). 
The petitioner has also failed to establish that the beneficiary will supervise and control the work of other 
supervisory, managerial, or professional employees, or will manage an essential function of the organization. 
As asserted in the record, the beneficiary will directly supervise a "treasurer/stockholder" and a "business 
operations manager," who in turn will supervise a "sales representative." The beneficiary will also allegedly 
supervise independent sales representatives. However, not only has the petitioner failed to establish that it 
presently employs any subordinate employees (see supra), these claimed employees and contractors are not 
described as having supervisory or managerial responsibilities. To the contrary, these employees are 
described as performing sales, marketing, operational, and clerical tasks. An employee will not be considered 
to be a supervisor simply because of a job title, because he or she is arbitrarily placed in a superior position on 
an organizational chart, or because he or she happens to supervise some daily work activities and 
assignments. Rather, the employee must be shown to possess some significant degree of control or authority 
over the employment of subordinates and that the reasonable needs of the organization compel the 
employment of subordinate tiers of supervisors and managers. See generally Browne v. Signal Mountain 
Nursery, L.P., 286 F.Supp.2d 904, 907 (E.D. Tenn. 2003) (cited in Hayes v. Laroy Thomas, Inc., 2007 WL 
128287 at *16 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2007)). Artificial tiers of subordinate employees and inflated job titles are 
not probative and will not establish that an organization is sufficiently complex to support an executive or 
managerial position. The petitioner has not established that the reasonable needs of the United States 
operation compel the employment of a managerial or executive employee to oversee one or more subordinate 
supervisors. To the contrary, it is more likely than not that both the beneficiary and his staff will all primarily 
perform non-qualifying tasks associated with the promotion, marketing, and sale of the petitioner's product or 
service. See generally Family, Inc. v. US. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 469 F.3d 1313 (9" Cir. 
2006).' 
1 
It must be noted that the supervision or management of independent contractors will not permit a beneficiary 
to be classified as a managerial employee as a matter of law. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act; 8 
C.F.R. tj 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(B)(2). The Act is quite clear that only the management of employees may be 
considered a qualifying managerial duty for purposes of this visa classification. Therefore, even if the 
petitioner could establish that the independent contractors are both presently engaged and performing 
supervisory, managerial, or professional duties, the beneficiary's supervision of such contractors would not 
constitute a qualifying managerial duty. 
EAC 07 2 17 5273 1 
Page 8 
In view of the above, the beneficiary would appear to be primarily a first-line supervisor of non-professional 
workers, the provider of actual services, or a combination of both. A managerial 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. 10 1 (a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act; see also Matter of Church Scientology 
International, 19 I&N Dec. at 604. Moreover, as the petitioner failed to establish the skills and education 
required to perform the duties of the subordinate positions, the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary will manage professional employees.2 Therefore, the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary will be employed primarily in a managerial capacity.3 
Similarly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will act in an "executive" capacity. 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 management" and "establish the goals and policies" of that organization. 
2 
In evaluating whether the beneficiary will manage 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. 5 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 slull, 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. 81 7 (Comm. 1988); Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (R.C. 1968); 
Matter of Shin, 11 I&N Dec. 686 (D.D. 1966). 
3 
While the petitioner has not clearly argued that the beneficiary will manage an essential function of the 
organization, the record nevertheless would not support this position even if taken. 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 
101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The term "essential hnction" is not defined by statute or regulation. If a 
petitioner claims that the beneficiary is managing an essential function, the petitioner must furnish a written 
job offer that clearly describes the duties to be performed in managing the essential function, i.e., identify the 
function with specificity, articulate the essential nature of the function, and establish the proportion of the 
beneficiary's daily duties attributed to managing the essential function. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(ii). In 
addition, the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary 
manages the function rather than performs the duties related to the function. In this matter, the petitioner has 
not provided evidence that the beneficiary will manage an essential function. The petitioner's vague job 
description and lack of subordinate staff fails to document how the beneficiary's duties will be primarily 
managerial. Also, as explained above, the record establishes that the beneficiary will primarily be a first-line 
supervisor of non-professional employees and/or will perform nonqualifying operational or administrative 
tasks. Absent a clear and credible breakdown of the time spent by the beneficiary performing his duties, the 
AAO cannot determine what proportion of his duties will be managerial, nor can it deduce whether the 
beneficiary will primarily perform the duties of a function manager. See IKEA US, Inn. v. US. Dept. of 
Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22,24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
EAC 07 2 17 5273 1 
Page 9 
Inherent to the definition, the organization must have a subordinate level of employees for the beneficiary to 
direct, and the beneficiary 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. The 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." Id. For the same reasons indicated above, the petitioner has failed to 
establish that the beneficiary will act primarily in an executive capacity. The job description provided for the 
beneficiary is so vague that the AAO cannot deduce what the beneficiary will do on a day-to-day basis. 
Moreover, as explained above, it appears that the beneficiary will be primarily employed as a first-line 
supervisor andlor will perform the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide a service. Therefore, 
the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be employed primarily in an executive capacity. 
In reviewing the relevance of the number of employees a petitioner has, federal courts have generally agreed 
that Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) "may properly consider an organization's small size as one 
factor in assessing whether its operations are substantial enough to support a manager." Family, Inc. v. US. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, 469 F.3d at 13 16 (citing with approval Republic of Transkei v. INS, 
923 F.2d 175, 178 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Fedin Bros. Co. v. Suva, 905 F.2d 41,42 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam); Q 
Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25,29 (D.D.C. 2003). Furthermore, it is appropriate for CIS to 
consider the size of the petitioning company in conjunction with other relevant factors, such as a company's 
small personnel size, the absence of employees who would perform the non-managerial or non-executive 
operations of the company, or a "shell company" that does not conduct business in a regular and continuous 
manner. See, e.g. Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 200 1). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will primarily perform managerial or 
executive duties, and the petition may not be approved for that reason. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will be 
"employed" by the petitioner, or that he will be an "employee" of the petitioner, as required by the Act and 
regulations. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(ii) requires that the petitioner establish that the beneficiary will be 
primarily "employed" in the United States in an executive, managerial, or specialized knowledge capacity. It 
is noted that "employer," "employee," and "employed" are not specifically defined for purposes of the Act even 
though these terms are used repeatedly in the context of addressing the L- 1 classification. Section 10 1 (a)( 15)(L), 
8 U.S.C. 4 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L), requires beneficiaries to have been "employed" abroad and to render services to the 
same "employert' in the United States. Furthermore, section 101(a)(44) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1 101(a)(44), 
defines both managerial and executive capacity as an assignment within an organization in which an "employee" 
perfoms certain enumerated qualifying duties. Finally, the specific definition of "managerial capacity" in section 
10 l(a)(44)(A), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(44)(A), refers repeatedly to the supervision and control of other "employees." 
Neither the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service nor CIS has defined the terms "employee," 
"employer," or "employed" by regulation for purposes of the L-1 classification. See, e.g., 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5 and 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1). Therefore, for purposes of the L-1 classification, these terms are undefined. 
EAC 07 217 52731 
Page 10 
The Supreme Court of the United States has determined that where a federal statute fails to clearly define the 
term "employee," courts should conclude "that Congress intended to describe the conventional master-servant 
relationship as understood by common-law agency doctrine." Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 
U.S. 3 18, 322-323 (1992) (hereinafter "Darden") (quoting Community for Creative Non- Violence v. Reid, 490 
U.S. 730 (1989)). That definition is as follows: 
In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common law of 
agency, we consider the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the 
product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to this inquiry are the skill 
required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the work; the duration 
of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to assign 
additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired party's discretion over when and 
how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party's role in hiring and paying 
assistants; whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the 
hiring party is in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the 
hired party. 
Darden, 503 U.S. at 323-324; see also Restatement (Second) of Agency tj 220(2) (1958); Clackamas 
Gastroenterology Associates, P. C. v. Wells, 53 8 U.S. 440 (2003) (hereinafter " Clackamas"). As the common- 
law test contains "no shorthand formula or magic phrase that can be applied to find the answer, . . . all of the 
incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one factor being decisive." Darden, 503 
U.S. at 324 (quoting NLRB v. United Ins. Co. ofAmerica, 390 U.S. 254,258 (1968)). 
In considering whether or not one is an "employee," CIS must focus on the common-law touchstone of 
control. Clackamas, 538 U.S. at 450. Factors indicating that a worker is an "employee" of an "employer" are 
clearly delineated in both the Darden and Clackamas decisions. 503 U.S. at 323-324; see also Restatement 
(Second) of Agency 5 220(2) (1958). Such indicia of control include when, where, and how a worker 
performs the job; the continuity of the worker's relationship with the employer; the tax treatment of the 
worker; the provision of employee benefits; and whether the work performed by the worker is part of the 
employer's regular business. See Clackamas, 538 U.S. at 448-449; cJ: New Compliance Manual, Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission, tj 2-III(A)(l), (EEOC 2006) (adopting a materially identical test and 
indicating that said test was based on the Darden decision). 
It is important to note that the factors listed in Darden and Clackamas are not exhaustive and must be 
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Other aspects of the relationship between the parties may affect the 
determination of whether an employer-employee relationship exists. Furthermore, not all or even a majority 
of the listed criteria need be met; however, the fact .finder must weigh and compare a combination of the 
factors in analyzing the facts of each individual case. The determination must be based on all of the 
circumstances in the relationship between the parties, regardless of whether the parties refer to it as an 
employee or as an independent contractor relationship. See Clackamas, 538 U.S. at 448-449; New 
Compliance Manual at tj 2-III(A)(l). 
Within the context of L-1 nonimmigrant petitions, when a worker is also a partner, officer, member of a board 
of directors, or a major shareholder, as is the case here, the worker may only be defined as an "employee" if 
EAC 07 2 17 5273 1 
Page 11 
he or she is subject to the organization's "control." See Clackamas, 538 U.S. at 449-450; see also New 
Compliance Manual at 8 2-III(A)(l)(d). Factors to be addressed in determining whether a worker, such as the 
beneficiary is this matter, who is also an owner of the organization, is an employee include: 
a 
 Whether the organization can hire or fire the individual or set the rules and regulations of the 
individual's work. 
Whether and, if so, to what extent the organization supervises the individual's work. 
Whether the individual reports to someone higher in the organization. 
Whether and, if so, to what extent the individual is able to influence the organization. 
a 
 Whether the parties intended that the individual be an employee, as expressed in written 
agreements or contracts. 
Whether the individual shares in the profits, losses, and liabilities of the organization. 
Clackamas, 538 U.S. at 449-450 (citing New Compliance Manual). 
Again, it is important to note that this list need not be exhaustive and such questions cannot be decided in 
every case by a "shorthand hula or magic phrase." Id. at 450 (citing Darden, 503 U.S. at 324). Moreover, 
in applying the above test, the mere fact that a "person has a particular title - such as partner, director, or vice 
president - should not necessarily be used to determine whether he or she is an employee or a proprietor." 
Clackamas, 538 U.S. at 450; cf: Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 604 (stating that 
a job title alone is not determinative of whether one is employed in an executive or managerial capacity). 
Likewise, the "mere existence of a document styled 'employment agreement"' shall not lead inexorably to the 
conclusion that the worker is an employee. Clackamas, 538 U.S. at 450. "Rather, as was true in applying 
common-law rules to the independent-contractor-versus-employee issue confronted in Darden, the answer to 
whether a shareholder-director is an employee depends on 'all of the incidents of the relationship . . . with no 
one factor being decisive."' Id. at 45 1 (quoting Darden, 503 U.S. at 324). 
Applying the Darden and Clackamas tests to this matter, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 
will be an "employee" of the petitioner in the United States. The beneficiary appears to be a 90% owner of 
both the petitioner and the affiliated foreign entity, a Mexican business organization. While the beneficiary 
claims to be "employed" by the petitioner, the beneficiary allegedly draws his salary from the Mexican 
business and not from the United States operation. The beneficiary also appears to be the "president" of the 
limited liability company. The beneficiary's spouse, the other owner of the petitioner, is described as a 
subordinate employee, although there is no evidence that she is compensated by the petitioner or the foreign 
entity for her efforts. The petitioner did not submit an agreement, employment contract, or any other 
document describing the beneficiary's claimed employment relationship with the petitioner. In view of the 
above, it appears that the beneficiary will be a proprietor of this business and will not be an "employee" as 
defined above. It has not been established that the beneficiary will be "controlled" by the petitioner or that the 
beneficiary's employment could be terminated. To the contrary, the beneficiary is the petitioner for all 
EAC 07 217 52731 
Page 12 
practical purposes. He will control the organization; he cannot be fired; he will report to no one; he will set 
the rules governing his work; and he will share in all profits and losses. Therefore, based on the tests outlined 
above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be "employed" as an "employee," and the 
petition may not be approved for that reason. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will be "employed" by the petitioner or 
that he will be an "employee" of the petitioner as required by the Act and regulations. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was "employed" 
abroad for at least one continuous year in a position that was managerial or executive in nature. 8 C.F.R. $8 
2 14.2(1)(3)()-(iv). The petitioner failed to specifically describe the beneficiary's job duties abroad. 
Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties were primarily executive or 
managerial in nature; otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the 
regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1 103, aff'd, 905 F.2d 4 1. Furthermore, the petitioner 
failed to describe the duties of the beneficiary's purported subordinates abroad, if any. Absent detailed 
descriptions of the duties of both the beneficiary and his purported subordinates, it is impossible for CIS to 
discern whether the beneficiary was "primarily" engaged in performing managerial or executive duties 
abroad. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act; see also Matter of Church Scientology International, 
19 I&N Dec. at 604. 
Finally, and for the same reasons given above, the record is not persuasive in establishing that the beneficiary 
was an "employee" of the foreign entity even if it was established that he performed qualifying duties. As 
noted above, the beneficiary is a 90% owner of the foreign entity. The record is devoid of evidence 
establishing that he was "controlled" by anyone but himself in the performance of his duties. Consequently, it 
does not appear that the beneficiary was "employed" abroad as an "employee." 
Accordingly, as the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was "employed" abroad for at least one 
continuous year in a position that was managerial or executive in nature, the petition may not be approved for 
this additional reason. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's services will be 
used for a temporary period and that the beneficiary will be transferred to an assignment abroad upon 
completion of the temporary assignment in the United States. 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3)(vii). 
In this matter, and as noted above, the petitioner claims to be 90% owned and controlled by the beneficiary. 
As a purported owner of the petitioner, the petitioner is obligated to establish that the beneficiary's services 
will be used for a temporary period and that he will be transferred to an assignment abroad upon completion 
of the assignment. Id. However, the record is devoid of any evidence establishing that the beneficiary's 
services will be used temporarily. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190). 
EAC 07 2 17 5273 1 
Page 13 
Accordingly, as the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's services will be used for a temporary 
period and that the beneficiary will be transferred to an assignment abroad upon completion of the temporary 
assignment in the United States, the petition may not be approved for this additional reason. 
The previous approval of an L-1A petition does not preclude CIS from denying an extension based on a 
reassessment of petitioner's qualifications. Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 
1240482 (5th Cir. 2004). Despite any number of previously approved petitions, CIS does not have any 
authority to confer an immigration benefit when the petitioner fails to meet its burden of proof in a subsequent 
petition. See section 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 136 1. 
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), afd, 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. When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can 
succeed on a challenge only if it is shown that the AAO abused its discretion with respect to all of the AAO's 
enumerated grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc., 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.