dismissed L-1A Case: Real Estate Investment

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25018348 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 13, 2023 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a real estate investment company that seeks to operate a hotel through a subsidiary, 
seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as chief executive officer (CEO) of its new office under 
the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 1 See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(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 record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. The 
matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA 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). 
1 The term "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 . 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has been employed 
abroad in a managerial or executive capacity, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). We need 
not discuss managerial capacity, because the Petitioner specifically claims that the Beneficiary has 
been employed abroad in an executive capacity, and has made no claim to managerial capacity with 
the initial filing or on appeal. 
"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. 
If a petitioner establishes that the position abroad meets all four elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, the petitioner must then prove that the beneficiary was primarily engaged in 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). In detennining whether the beneficiary's 
duties were primarily executive, we consider the description of the job duties, 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 
the business. 
Having discretionary authority and a managerial or executive title does not, in and of itself, mean a 
person is employed in a managerial or executive capacity. Matter of Church Scientology Int 'l, 19 I&N 
Dec. 593,604 (Comm'r 1988). 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in an executive 
capacity, we must take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall 
purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. 
Accordingly, we will discuss evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of 
the nature of the Petitioner's business and its staffing levels. 
The Petitioner's foreign affiliate is a jewelry manufacturer. The foreign entity employed the 
Beneficiary as an executive supervisor and professional designer from April 2016 to April 2020, and 
as CEO/executive director since that time. The foreign entity stated that the Beneficiary is an 
executive with the company, but rather than describe the Beneficiary's specific duties, the foreign 
entity listed broad areas of responsibility and authority. For example, the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary "has overall responsibility and broad-based discretionary authority for leading and 
managing all corporate aspects with respect to optimizing sales and operations and guiding the 
company to success"; "directs, controls, and manages the entire operation of [the foreign entity]"; and 
"provides executive level leadership and direction for maximizing the company's return on 
investment." 
2 
The Petitioner submitted copies ofresolutions and other documents to establish the Beneficiary's high 
level of authority in the foreign entity, but these materials do not provide enough details about the 
Beneficiary's day-to-day duties and tasks to show that the Beneficiary's position abroad is primarily 
executive. The initial submission did not describe the staffing of the foreign entity. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), requesting further evidence and information to show 
"the beneficiary's typical executive duties, and the percentage of time spent on each," with 
explanations of how those duties meet the various requirements of an executive capacity. In response, 
the foreign entity submitted a business plan that includes a longer job description. But this description, 
like the earlier version, mostly describes responsibilities rather than specific tasks. For instance, under 
the heading "Establishes the goals and policies of the organization," the new job description reads: 
• [The Beneficiary] crafts successful short and long-term strategic organizational 
goals and objectives. He establishes and maintains company policies and 
procedures. He provides support for the entire company at the direction of the other 
members of [the foreign entity], an essential function within the [foreign] 
organization. 
• [The Beneficiary] executes on the company's strategy, determines risk appetite, and 
develops long-term objectives for the company so it can maintain growth through 
business development initiatives. 
The above assertions provide little information beyond re-stating the statutory requirement that an 
executive must establish goals and policies. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether 
a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature, othe1wise meeting the 
definitions would simply be a matter ofreiterating 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 actual duties themselves 
reveal the true nature of the employment. Id. 
An organizational chart, discussed below, indicates that the foreign entity has an accountant and an 
assistant accountant, but the Petitioner's job description for the Beneficiary indicates that the 
Beneficiary "prepares financial statements, statistics, annual audits, cash flow statements, financial 
forecasts, budget proposals, and related materials, as well as internal and external financial 
documents." Preparation of these financial documents is an administrative, not executive, task, and if 
the Beneficiary performs these tasks, it would not support his working primarily in an executive 
capacity. Conversely, if the Beneficiary does not actually prepare these statements and documents, 
then the job description is not correct or accurate. The revised job description also indicates that the 
Beneficiary "plans the execution of marketing initiatives," but the organizational chart does not show 
any marketing staff, raising the question of how much time the Beneficiary must devote to marketing 
activities in the apparent absence of any subordinate staff dedicated to that function, and again whether 
the Beneficiary works primarily in an executive capacity. 
The organizational chart shows the following positions subordinate to the Beneficiary: 
• Chartered Accountant 
o Assistant Accountant 
3 
• Production Manager 
o 5 Skilled Workers 
• Sales Manager 
o Sales Executive 
• Research and Development 
o Jewelry Designer 
o 2 Computer-Assisted Design Designers 
• Precious Metals Stock Manager 
o Assistant Stock Manager 
The Petitioner did not submit the "detailed documentation regarding the subordinate positions" that 
the Director had requested. This omission in the Petitioner's response to the RFE supports the 
Director's decision to deny the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l4). 
In the denial notice, the Director stated that the Petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence to 
establish "that the beneficiary performed these claimed duties," "the existence of the subordinates 
listed on the organizational chart," and "that the beneficiary's subordinates are managers." 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that it "provided [the] exact infonnation" that the Director had 
requested in the RFE, and "there was no request for supporting documentation in addition to what was 
already provided." The record does not support this assertion. In the RFE, the Director stated: "you 
have not submitted sufficient documentation about all the personnel whom the beneficiary manages." 
The Director also noted the need for "detailed documentation regarding the subordinate positions," 
and "evidence [to] substantiate that the duties of the beneficiary and [his] subordinates correspond to 
their placement in an organization's structural hierarchy." The Director further stated that the 
Petitioner had not submitted "documentary evidence that demonstrated the executive decisions and/or 
actions made by the Beneficiary," and concluded that the Petitioner could not meet its burden of proof 
through "[a]ssertions without supporting documentation to illustrate the beneficiary's 
responsibilities." 
The Petitioner, on appeal, does not establish that its response to the RFE adequately addressed the 
issues that the Director raised. For example, the Petitioner does not identify any materials in the RFE 
response that could be deemed "documentary evidence that demonstrated [the Beneficiary's] 
executive decisions and/or actions." 
The Petitioner asserts that the Director "incorrectly concluded that the law requires [ the Beneficiary's] 
subordinates be managers." While the statute and regulations require that an executive must "direct 
the management," the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary could have accomplished this by 
"direct[ing] how the organization is managed in terms of the operations, structure, and decision­
making." The burden is on the Petitioner, however, to show how the Beneficiary "directed the 
management" of the foreign entity if"the management" did not consist of managerial staff 
The Petitioner notes that "the definition of 'managerial capacity' includes management of either 
personnel or a function." While the statute and regulations recognize a distinction between a 
"personnel manager" and a "function manager," as elaborated in Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 
2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017), there is no such distinction for executives. The statutory clause at 
4 
section 10l(a)(44)(B)(i) requires that an executive primarily "directs the management of the 
organization or a major component or function of the organization." The Petitioner interprets this 
clause to mean that "the executive may direct the management of the organization or direct a major 
component or function of the organization." But the statute requires that an executive either "directs 
the management of the organization, or "directs the management of ... a major component or function 
of the organization." The Petitioner does not explain the difference between "managing a function" 
and "directing a function." 
An executive directs the management of the organization, major component, or essential function of 
a given organization by controlling the work of managerial or lower-level executive employees. This 
control could either take the form of direct supervision of those managers or executives or could be 
more indirect under some circumstances. See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual L.6(D), https://www. 
uscis.gov/policy-manual. See also BlueStar Cabinets, Inc. v. Jaddou, No. 21-10116, 2022 WL 
4364734, at *7 (5th Cir. Sept. 21, 2022) (holding that "'[d]irect[ing] the management of the 
organization' necessarily includes directing managers of the organization.") 
The Petitioner asserts that "the organizational chart ... shows that [the Beneficiary] is above multiple 
managers," and is "direct proof' that the Beneficiary's subordinates abroad "are managers." The 
organizational chart lists job titles, but the Director had requested "detailed documentation regarding 
the subordinate positions" and "the duties of the beneficiary['s] ... subordinates." Titles alone do not 
necessarily confer managerial responsibilities. We note that the same organizational chart shows a 
"sales executive" under the authority of the "sales manager," but this title does not indicate that the 
"sales executive" has executive-level authority and responsibilities. 
The Petitioner asserts that it had submitted documentary evidence of the Beneficiary's executive 
authority and actions. The Petitioner specifically cites "the Articles of Association granting power­
making decision to [the Beneficiary], documentation of his duty as creditor, and the Board Resolution 
[granting] him Power of Attorney." The evidence indicates the Beneficiary's wide latitude in 
discretionary decision-making and his minimal supervision and direction from the foreign entity's 
board of directors, but does not establish that his duties are primarily those of an executive, such that 
he spends most of his time directing the management of the organization and establishing its goals and 
policies. As the Director stated in the denial notice: 
First, you must show that the beneficiary performed the level of responsibilities that 
are specified in the definitions. Second, you must establish that the beneficiary 
primarily performed these specified responsibilities and does not spend a majority of 
his or her time on day-to-day functions. An employee who primarily performed the 
tasks necessary to produce a product or provide services is not considered to be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity. Hence, indicating the beneficiary 
managed a business does not necessarily establish eligibility .... 
The record contains minimal evidence regarding the day-to-day activities of the Beneficiary and his 
claimed subordinates at the foreign entity. Also, the record does not establish a level of organizational 
complexity consistent with one or more subordinate layers of management for the Beneficiary to direct 
as his primary responsibility at the company. 
5 
III. CONCLUSION 
Based on the deficiencies and inconsistencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad. We will therefore dismiss 
the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6