dismissed L-1A Case: Real Estate

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF WZI- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 12, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a real estate investment and development company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as its chief financial officer (CFO) under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that (1) it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer; (2) the Beneficiary has at least one year of continuous full-time employment with a 
qualifying foreign entity in the three years preceding the filing of the petition; and (3) it will employ 
the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director was "preoccupied with supposed inconsistencies 
in the filing, such as a trivial translation matter" in the documentation that was submitted to establish 
the qualifying relationship. The Petitioner provides additional evidence of the Beneficiary's 
employment abroad and asserts that the record establishes that she will manage an essential function 
in the United States. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal as the Petitioner has not established that it will 
employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. However, we will withdraw the two 
remaining grounds for denial. 1 
1 The Director's adverse determination with respect to the Petitioner's qualifying relationship was based primarily on an 
inconsistency in the English translation of the foreign entity's name in the submitted documentation. Specifically, in some 
documentation, one of the Chinese characters was translated as "Property" and, in others, it was translated as "Real Estate." 
After reviewing the submitted evidence in its totality, we conclude that the Petitioner established by a preponderance of 
the evidence that it has a qualitying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. Sec 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)( I )(3)(i). 
With respect to the Beneficiary's one year of employment abroad, the Director determined that the Beneficiary identified 
a different foreign employer on her nonimmigrant visa applications submitted in 2011 and 2012, despite the Petitioner's 
claims that she had worked for its parent company since 2003. On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that it must establish 
that the Beneficiary's qualifying year of employment with its parent company occurred between August 2015 and August 
Matter of WZI- LLC 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1A nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary must 
seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. The petitioner 
must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or her 
to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. DEFINITIONS 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or 
manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
"Executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization; 
establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; exercises wide latitude in 
discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
Based on the statutory definitions of managerial and 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). The Petitioner must also prove that the 
Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial or executive duties, as opposed to ordinary 
operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 
1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
Ill. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary will be employed 
in a managerial or executive capacity. The Petitioner initially stated that the proposed position of chief 
financial officer is in an executive capacity, but on appeal states that the position should have been 
described as a function manager. 
2018, when this petition was filed. Further, it submits additional evidence to support its claim that the Beneficiary was 
employed by its parent company during that period. Finally, the record contains evidence that the employer named on the 
Beneficiary's prior U.S. visa applications is an affiliate of the Petitioner's parent and therefore a qualifying entity. 
Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary met the foreign employment requirement. See 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
2 
Matter of WZI- LLC 
When assessing the managerial or executive nature of an offered position, we examine a petitioner's 
description of the job's duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii) (requiring an L-1 petitioner to submit "a 
detailed description of the services to be performed"). Beyond the required description of the job 
duties, we examine the company's organizational structure, the duties of the Beneficiary's subordinate 
employees, the presence of other employees to relieve the Beneficiary from performing operational 
duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding the 
Beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
Before turning to our discussion of the Beneficiary's proposed duties and the Petitioner's staffing, we 
note that the Petitioner, on appeal, states that this petition should "be viewed through the lens of a 
'new office."' A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United States 
through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(F). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation no more than one year 
within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. All other 
L-lA petitioners must establish the ability to support a managerial or executive position at the time 
the petition is filed. 
The Petitioner marked "No" on the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker," where asked if 
the Beneficiary is coming to open or be employed in a new office. Also, in a statement submitted in 
support of the petition, the Petitioner stated that it has been doing business since March 2017 and "is 
therefore not a new office." If the Petitioner now believes that it qualifies as a new office, it may file 
a new petition with the required filing fee and supporting evidence; we will not treat the instant petition 
as a new office petition. 
A. Job Duties 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as the CFO of its real estate investment and 
development business. The company intends to purchase real property with the potential for 
development for future lease or re-sale, but had not yet purchased any property as of the date of filing. 
The Petitioner initially stated that the Beneficiary's duties would fall under six areas ofresponsibility, 
including: cash flow, company liabilities, company performance, department supervision of the 
accounting and finance department, financial relationships, and "finance or raising capital." However, 
the Petitioner did not identify the specific duties the Beneficiary would perform in the context of the 
business, nor did it identify the amount of time she would spend on specific tasks. 
For example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's responsibility for "cash flow" would require 
her to "control the cash flow position," and "maintain the integrity of funds, securities, and other 
valuable documents," as well as authority to establish accounting policies and procedures for credit 
and collections, purchasing, payment of bills and other financial obligations. While this description 
indicates that the Beneficiary may have the appropriate level of authority over accounting and finance 
policies, it does not specify in any meaningful detail what she is expected to do on a day-to-day basis 
as the CFO of a real estate investment company that is still in the process of researching potential 
properties. 
3 
Matter of WZI- LLC 
Some of the other responsibilities attributed to the Beneficiary are simply general statements about 
what a typical company CFO does and do not appear to have been written to reflect the nature of her 
actual duties within the Petitioner's business. For instance, under the heading "company liabilities," 
the Petitioner stated "[a] company has many legal contracts, statutory and tax obligations, hidden 
obligations, hidden liabilities ... leases or insurance summaries, and expectations from loan covenants 
and/or the board of directors." This is not a description of the Beneficiary's proposed duties. 
Similarly, under the "company performance" heading, the Petitioner stated that "[t]he CFO is the 
company scorekeeper using tools like the balanced scorecard, dashboards, and financial statement 
ratio analysis to communicate both the company's expected and actual financial performance. The 
Petitioner noted that the CEO must "understand and watch" company liabilities and "understand the 
company business model for generating customer value." These statements are not sufficiently 
detailed and appear to describe the function of any CFO in any organization. 
Finally, the Beneficiary's responsibilities for "financial relationships" were stated in similarly broad 
terms. The Petitioner stated that "the CFO may work in conjunction with the CEO to establish and 
maintain lines of communication with investment bankers, financial analysis and shareholders," 
"maintain adequate sources of capital for the company's current borrowings (if any)," and "invest the 
company's funds and administer employee incentive stock option plans (if the company establishes 
one)." These general statements appear to be hypothetical and do not meet the Petitioner's burden to 
submit a detailed descriptions of the actual duties the Beneficiary will perform in the United States. 
The job description as a whole resembles a general template and does not provide substantive, 
verifiable details that can be reliably correlated to activities documented in the record. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director advised the Petitioner that the description was lacking 
sufficient detail to establish that the Beneficiary would primarily perform managerial or executive 
duties. The Director instructed the Petitioner to provide a more detailed statement delineating the 
Beneficiary's proposed duties and the amount of time to be spent on each specific task. In response, 
the Petitioner re-submitted the same position description. The Petitioner emphasized that the types of 
activities described could only be performed by a top-level executive. 
In the denial decision, the Director noted that the Petitioner did not provide the requested information 
regarding the amount of time the Beneficiary would spend on specific tasks. The Director further 
determined that the duties as described did not clearly show that the Beneficiary's duties would be 
consistent with the definitions of managerial or executive capacity. 
We agree that the Petitioner's response to the RFE did not include the additional information requested 
and simply repeated a description that, as discussed above, does not provide probative information 
regarding the Beneficiary's proposed job duties. Reciting a 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 actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the 
employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 
41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Here, the Petitioner has not provided the necessary detail or an adequate 
explanation of the Beneficiary's proposed activities in the course of her daily routine. 
On appeal, the Petitioner attempts to clarify the Beneficiary's proposed duties, noting that the part­
time contracted accountant "is responsible for the day-to-day actual work" of the financial and 
4 
Matter of WZI- LLC 
accounting department, while the Beneficiary "will be responsible for the broader devising of policies 
and implementation standards" of the department. The Petitioner reiterates the same duties provided 
at the time of filing and attempts to explain how the Beneficiary will perform qualifying duties 
associated with each area of responsibility. 
However, the expanded job description does not sufficiently identify the Beneficiary's proposed day­
to-day duties and simply adds broad statements to those already submitted. For example, the Petitioner 
explains that the Beneficiary's duties with respect to "company liabilities" will include reviewing and 
conducting "high level discretionary analysis of budgets and expenditures amounting to potentially 
millions of dollars in development-related transactions." With respect to the Beneficiary's "cash flow" 
responsibilities, the Petitioner states "she is a high level executive ... and will be tasked with devising 
company policy as to our financial matters and communicating this information." The Petitioner states 
that the Beneficiary's responsibility for "financial relationships" would include devising strategies and 
overseeing operational strategy for collaboration with financial industry partners." The newly 
submitted information highlights the Beneficiary's authority over financial matters without including 
any additional details regarding what the Petitioner expects her to do on a day-to-day basis within the 
context of the company's current operations. 
Both versions of the description provide only vague information that focuses on the Beneficiary's 
discretionary authority, but says little about the actual tasks she will perform. Specifics are clearly an 
important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive in nature, otherwise 
meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. 724 F. 
Supp. at 1108, aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The fact that the Beneficiary will manage or direct 
a department, component or function of the business does not necessarily establish eligibility for 
classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity within the meaning 
of section 101(a)(44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties 
of a position be "primarily" executive or managerial in nature. Sections 10l(A)(44)(A) and (B) of the 
Act. While it appears the Beneficiary would exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day 
financial operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision­
making, a vague and non-specific position description is insufficient to establish that her actual duties 
would be primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner stated that it had four employees. The Petitioner submitted an 
organizational chart showing that the company is headed by a chief executive officer (CEO). The 
chart shows that the CEO directly oversees the Beneficiary's position as well as four "groups" or 
departments. These include: an "Advisory Group" with a part-time contracted worker serving as both 
executive advisor and legal advisor; a "Fund Management" group consisting of an "investment 
committee" comprised of "CEO, CFO, etc." and a part-time contracted accountant; a "Property 
Management Group" with on-site project managers to be hired at a later date; and an "Operations 
Group." The chart reflects that the Operations Group includes a COO position (temporarily filled by 
the CEO), a vice president of business development (temporarily filled by the contracted executive 
advisor), an individual who serves as both office manager and human resources manager, a logistics 
manager, and a vacant marketing and public relations position. 
5 
Matter of WZI- LLC 
Therefore, the chart reflects that the Beneficiary would have shared authority for supervising the part­
time accountant as a member of the "investment committee." Notably the record does not contain 
clear evidence that the Petitioner makes $2000 monthly payments made to the contracted accountant, 
(identified as I h as claimed. The Petitioner has made $2000 monthly payments to a contractor 
called j l" but it did not state or provide evidence that I I is associated 
with this company. The record does contain a copy of a Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax 
Return, prepared in October 2018, which identifies! I as the preparer. 
The Petitioner also claims for the first time on appeal that the Beneficiary would continue to manage 
the financial function for its foreign parent company, including "3 overseas finance and accounting 
professional personnel." The Petitioner provides information regarding the overseas personnel, who 
include a credit manager in the foreign entity's administration department 2, as well as an accountant 
and cashier in the finance department. While the Beneficiary may continue to oversee the foreign 
entity's financial component, the Petitioner has not explained why the foreign entity's staff members 
should be considered as part of the U.S. company's organizational structure. The Petitioner has neither 
stated nor provided evidence that the foreign personnel carry out any of its day-to-day financial and 
accounting functions, and the job duties provided for these employees do not reflect that they are 
involved in the U.S. company's operations. For example, the credit manager is "responsible for 
making sure that project return is brought in as scheduled in project plan," making plans for "onsite 
signing of the project return agreement," and coordination between various project departments. The 
Petitioner, as of the date of filing, had no projects under development and did not establish its need for 
an employee in China to perform these functions. We will not consider the foreign entity's financial 
function or personnel in determining whether the Petitioner can support the Beneficiary as a function 
manager or executive. 
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. If a petitioner claims that a 
beneficiary will manage an essential function, it must clearly describe the duties to be performed in 
managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that "(l) the function is 
a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is 'essential,' i.e., core to the organization; (3) the 
beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the function; (4) the beneficiary will act at 
a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and (5) the 
beneficiary will exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day operations." Matter of G- Inc., 
Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
Here, the Petitioner did not meet its burden to clearly describe the duties the Beneficiary would 
perform in managing its financial function, and without this information, we cannot determine that the 
Beneficiary would primarily perform managerial duties associated with the function. In analyzing the 
Beneficiary's duties, we also take into account the totality of the evidence, including the nature of the 
business and its current stage of development. The evidence submitted at the time of filing indicated 
that the Petitioner had identified some potential properties for acquisition, but had not yet completed 
a purchase ofland or property. According to the Petitioner's business plan, it expected to purchase its 
2 This same individual was identified as a member of the marketing department on the foreign entity's organizational chart 
submitted at the time of filing. 
6 
Matter of WZI- LLC 
first property at "month 6," to complete its first project at "month 20" and to divest itself of the first 
completed property at "month 28." The nature and scope of the company's financial activities as of 
the date of filing, however, are unclear, and, as noted, the Petitioner did not adequately describe the 
Beneficiary's actual proposed duties in support of its claim that she will primarily manage these 
activities. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's claims that all of the "day-to-day actual work of accountancy within 
the U.S. company" is performed by its contracted part-time accountant. The Petitioner indicates that 
this contractor is responsible for taxes and payroll, but also in charge of developing and managing 
financial systems and policies, financial forecasting and risk analysis, and preparing the company's 
budgets and financial reports. However, as noted, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence 
of its payments to the accountant, nor did it provide a copy of a contract delineating her expected 
responsibilities in support of its claims that it has entrusted forecasting, budgeting, financial systems 
and policy-making tasks to a contractor. Notably, the Petitioner's business plan identifies no future 
positions for accounting or finance staff: and indicates that the company will continue to rely solely 
on a part-time contracted accountant in the coming years. The Petitioner did not sufficiently support 
its claim that the Beneficiary would be relieved from performing non-managerial duties associated 
with the company's financial function. 
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. Inherent to the definition, 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 or a component of the enterprise. 
While the Petitioner emphasizes the Beneficiary's elevated stature within the parent organization and 
her long tenure as its CFO, it must still submit sufficient evidence to establish what she will do on a 
day-to-day basis for the U.S. subsidiary during its developmental stage of development, and to 
establish how the company would support her in a managerial position as of the date of filing. The 
Petitioner has not established how its current level of activities and staffing would support a position 
in which the Beneficiary would be primarily focused on the goals and policies of the U.S. company. 
As discussed above, the Petitioner's claim that she will continue in her role as CFO and vice president 
of the parent company does not establish that her proposed role in the United States will require her 
to perform primarily executive duties. 
The Petitioner correctly observes that we must take into account the reasonable needs of the 
organization and that a company's size alone may not be the only factor in denying a visa petition for 
classification as an L-1 A intracompany transferee. See section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. As noted, 
the Petitioner states on appeal, that "within the context of the reasonable needs, this case should ... 
be viewed through the lens of a new office." However, as already discussed, the Petitioner did not file 
a new office petition and therefore must demonstrate that its business can currently support a 
managerial or executive position in its financial department. 
7 
Matter of WZI- LLC 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary will be the highest ranking figure at the petitioning company 
with respect to its financial operations and notes that the parent company's investment in the U.S. 
company is significant; however, the issue is not the extent of the Beneficiary's authority, but whether all 
relevant factors, taken together show that the Beneficiary will be employed in a primarily executive or 
managerial capacity. For the reasons cited above, we find that the Petitioner has not met this threshold. 
IV. DOING BUSINESS 
Although not addressed in the Director's decision, we find that the Petitioner has not established that 
it is doing business as defined in the regulations. Doing business means the regular, systematic, and 
continuous provision of goods and/or services. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(H). 
The Petitioner indicates that it intends to develop commercial and residential properties for sale or 
lease but had not purchased property as of the date of filing. The record reflects that it signed a 
"company acquisition agreement" with a property owner on December 14, 2018, three months after 
filing the petition. While the Petitioner stated at the time of filing that it has been in business since 
March 2017, and that the Beneficiary is coming to develop an office that has been in business for over 
one year, the record does not contain evidence of such business activities. 
We acknowledge that the real estate industry may have a longer development period than some other 
industries. However, the regulatory definition of "doing business" does not vary from industry to 
industry, nor does it make an exception for industries in which it takes longer to reach the stage of 
actually engaging in the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services. 
The Petitioner, as a real estate developer that had not yet purchased any property, and which did not 
provide evidence of any other business activities, did not meet its burden to establish that it was doing 
business at the time of filing. For this additional reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner 
has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of WZI-LLC, ID# 4289731 (AAO July 12, 2019) 
8