dismissed L-1A Case: Real Estate

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF F-V- CORP 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 30, 2018 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which intends to operate a real estate business, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as president of its new office 1 under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(L). The L-lA classification allows a corporation or other legal entity 
(including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualizying foreign employee to the United States to 
work temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that it has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office and 
that it would be able to support a managerial or executive position within one year of approval of the 
petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence pertaining to its leased office premises and 
asserts that the Director's finding that it did not meet its burden to show that the Beneficiary would 
be employed in a managerial or executive capacity is inconsistent with the evidence presented. 
Upon de novo review, we will withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not 
establish that it had secured sufficient physical premises to house its new office.2 However, as the 
Petitioner has not overcome the remaining ground for denial, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving a new 
office, a qualifying organization must have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
1 The tenn "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one 
year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(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. 
2 The Director found that the Petitioner did not meet the physical premises requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A) 
because its leased space appeared to be in a residential building. On appeal, the Petitioner provides additional evidence 
which shows that the building in question is a commercial condominium and has thus overcome the Director's 
detennination. 
Mauer ofF- V- Corp 
admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). In addition, the beneficiary must 
seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. !d. 
The petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new office will be able to support a 
managerial or executive position within one year. This evidence must establish that the petitioner 
secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation and disclose the proposed nature and 
scope of the entity, its organizational structure, its financial goals, and the size of the U.S. 
investment. See generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
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 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
I 
The term "executive capacity" is defined as an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of 
the organization; establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or 
direction from higher-level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
Section l01(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
Based on the 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). Second, the Petitioner must 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 at 1533. 
Ill. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the new office would support 
a managerial or executive position within one year of approval of the petition. 
In the case of a new otlice petition, we review a beneficiary's proposed job duties as well as the 
petitioner's business and hiring plans and evidence that the business will grow sufficiently to support 
a beneficiary in the intended managerial or executive capacity. A petitioner has the burden to 
establish that it would realistically develop to the point where it would require the beneficiary to 
2 
Matter ofF- V- Corp 
perform duties that are primarily managerial or executive in nature within one year. Accordingly, 
the totality of the evidence must be considered in analyzing whether the proposed managerial or 
executive position is plausible considering a petitioner's anticipated staffing levels and stage of 
development within a one-year period. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner indicates that it will operate a real estate and property management business. 
Specifically, the Petitioner states it will purchase/remodel single family residences and commercial 
properties, as well as provide property management and consulting services to investors. 
The Petitioner provided a description of the Beneficiary's proposed duties as president, stating that 
he would allocate 25% of his time to "planning" responsibilities, 30% to "management" 
responsibilities, 25% to "financial management" responsibilities, 15% to "human resources 
management," and 5% to "marketing and public relations." 
Many of the Beneficiary's associated duties were described in broad terms and did not provide 
sufficient detail regarding the day-to-day duties the Beneficiary would perform by the end of the first 
year of operations as one of only two planned employees. For example, the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary will be "developing a strategic plan to advance the company's mission objectives and 
policies," "planning, developing and establishing all policies for the company," "overseeing 
company operations," "overseeing the treasury function," and "managing activity reports and 
financial statements." These duties are so general they could describe virtually any executive or 
senior management position with any company. Specifics are clearly an important indication of 
whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature,otherwise meeting the 
definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 
724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
The Petitioner also included duties that are not supported by the Petitioner's first-year business 
plans, noting that the Beneficiary will be hiring and overseeing a management team, which will be 
responsible for daily communications with contractors. As discussed further below, the Petitioner's 
personnel plan indicates that the Beneficiary will be supported by only an administrative assistant at 
the end of the first year of operations, so it is reasonable to believe that he will be responsible for 
daily oversight of contractors and will not be delegating this first-line supervisory function. 
Similarly, although the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary will "oversee the marketing and 
promotion strategy of the property management division," there is insufficient information indicating 
who will carry out the marketing strategy and promote the company's services, as the Petitioner does 
not have firm plans to hire a marketing employee or contractors. 
Finally, some of the duties attributed to the Beneficiary, such as negotiating and reviewing purchase 
and lease contracts, defining requirements for project milestones, selecting contractors and service 
providers, and analyzing the real estate market, while necessary for the operation of the business, are 
non-managerial tasks necessary for the Petitioner to provide its services and will likely be assigned 
to lower level staff who will be hired in later years. 
3 
Malter ofF- V- Corp 
We acknowledge that the Beneficiary, as the Petitioner's senior employee, would have authority to 
establish plans, policies, and objectives for the company and make major decisions regarding its 
finances and overall direction. However, the Petitioner has not established that these types of 
responsibilities would primarily occupy the Beneficiary's time within one year. 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. Therefore, even though the 
Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations, a broad overview of 
his responsibilities is insufficient to establish that his actual duties would be primarily managerial or 
executive. 
In addition, as discussed further below, the Petitioner has demonstrated that it intends to employ 
only one subordinate employee by the end of the first year of operations. As such, the Petitioner's 
claim on appeal that the Beneficiary would be removed from any significant involvement in the 
business' day-to-day operations within one year is not supported in the record. 
B. Projected Staffing and Business Plan 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual will be acting in a 
managerial or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) takes into 
account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of 
development of the organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
The Petitioner's business plan. indicates that its operating goals for the first year of operations 
include: (I) purchasing, remodeling, and selling one residential property ($100,000 budgeted for 
purchase); (2) purchasing one commercial property to be divided into smaller spaces to generate 
rental income ($0 budgeted for purchase); (3) providing real estate consulting services to investors 
for a flat fee of $20,000 per consulting project; and (4) providing "absentee care property 
management" services (two contracts projected). 
The Petitioner provided an organizational chart showing its staffing projections for the first five 
years of operations. The chart indicates that the Beneficiary and an administrative assistant would 
be the only employees throughout year one, with the Beneficiary also indirectly overseeing 
contractors such as an attorney, real estate broker, CPA, banks, and financial institutions. The 
Petitioner provided evidence that it had already retained an accounting firm and a real estate broker. 
The Petitioner's first year expenses include $5700 for independent contractors, $3600 for 
professional fees, and $6855 for commissions, suggesting that the company expects to make limited 
use of these outside staff during the tirst year. 
The Petitioner's second year hires, according to the proposed organizational chart and personnel 
plan, include a development assistant who would be responsible for overseeing remodeling 
contractors, and an operations manager who would report to the Beneficiary and oversee the 
administrative assistant, development assistant, and property management and maintenance 
assistants (to be hired in years three and four, respectively). 
'4 
/ 
Matter ofF- V- Corp 
In a letter submitted in response to a request for eviden~e (RFE), the Petitioner stated that it may hire 
the operations manager before the end of year one and that this employee "will be responsible for the 
day-to[-]day operations of the office which will allow [the Beneficiary] to focus more on executive 
type responsibilities such as, lining up investors, researching properties, and overseeing the other 
employees and outside contractors." However, the Petitioner did not provide a revised business 
plan, personnel plan, or financial projections supporting its new claim that it is likely to hire an 
operations manager within one year. Moreover, the Petitioner did not explain how allowing the 
Beneficiary more time to locate investors, research properties and oversee outside contractors 
establishes that he would be performing primarily executive duties. 
Therefore, we find that it is more likely than not that the Petitioner expects to employ the 
Beneficiary and one administrative assistant at the end of the first year of operations, and will use 
outside contractors on an as needed basis. Based on this limited staffing plan, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the Beneficiary will primarily supervise a subordinate statT of professional, 
managerial, or supervisory personnel within one year. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not established that it would employ sufficient staff who would 
relieve the Beneticiary from performing non-qualifYing duties associated with the day-to-day 
operations of the business. As noted, the Petitioner intends to purchase, remodel and re-sell a 
residential property, purchase and remodel a commercial rental property, provide consulting 
services, and provide property management services. While the actual remodeling and property 
maintenance services can be contracted out, there are a number of non-managerial and non-executive 
duties associated with the operation of these different aspects of the business that have not been 
accounted for, such as provision of consulting services. As one of two proposed employees, it is 
reasonable to believe that the Beneficiary will be significantly involved in first-line supervision of 
contractors, and other operational, and administrative duties through the end of the first year of 
operations. 
Further, the business plan did not show how the company would grow during the first year of 
operations to the point where it would require the Beneficiary to perform primarily managerial or 
executive job duties. The Petitioner provided evidence that it has received $200,000 in funding and 
indicates that it would spend $100,000 on property acquisition and expects to sell the property for 
$180,000. The Petitioner did not provide evidence that it had begun the process of researching 
investment properties and there is little information to indicate what type of property the Petitioner is 
likely to acquire for $100,000. The Petitioner also indicates that it will acquire, remodel and rent a 
commercial property, but did not appear to include expenses related to the acquisition of a second 
property in its business plan. 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position 
within a complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the 
organization, and that person's authority to direct the organization. Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" and "establish 
the goals and policies" of that organization. Inherent to the definition, the organization must have a 
subordinate level of managerial employees for a beneficiary to direct and they must primarily focus 
5 
Maller ofF- V- Corp 
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. 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown that it will have the staff or scope of operations needed to support 
the Beneficiary in a role in which he would reasonably be required to focus on the broad goals and 
policies of the company within 12 months. The Petitioner has consistently stated that the 
Beneficiary will occupy the senior position in the new office, but has not submitted a job description 
or supporting evidence sufficient to demonstrate that he would primarily engage in managerial or 
executive duties, or that the new office would support a managerial or executive position, after the 
initial year of operations. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity within one year. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofF- V- Corp, ID# 1181736 (AAO Apr. 30, 20 18) 
6