dismissed L-1A Case: Recreation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 16151902 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 26, 2021 
The Petitioner seeks to operate as an indoor playground and recreation center. It intends to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as "President" of its new office1 under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification 
for intracompany transferees. 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 Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) the Beneficiary's employment abroad was in a managerial or executive 
capacity; (2) the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the intended services in the United States; and 
(3) the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity within one year 
of the petition's approval. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal because 
the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's employment abroad was in a managerial or 
executive capacity. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding the remaining issues pertaining to the 
Beneficiary's qualifications and the proposed U.S. employment. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 
24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which 
is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA 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 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(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. 
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. Id. 
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(I)(3)(v). 
II. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The issue to be addressed in this decision is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary 
was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 2 
"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. 
Based on the statutory definition of managerial capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the 
Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the 
Act. The Petitioner must also prove that the Beneficiary was primarily engaged in managerial duties, 
as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the foreign employer's other employees. See 
Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). 
The Petitioner's claims will be addressed in the discussion below, which will include consideration of 
the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of the nature of the foreign employer's business, its 
staffing levels, and its organizational structure. 
A. Job Duties 
First, we will discuss the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary in the proposed position with the 
U.S. entity. We note that the actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Fed in 
Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
In a supporting cover letter, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary created thel I brand, 
which the foreign entity uses in the course of its operation as an "indoor playground." The Petitioner 
2 At all times during this proceeding the Petitioner has referred to the Beneficiary's foreign position as managerial and has 
indicated that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity. As such, we will limit our discussion to the basis 
of the Petitioner's claim and we will not discuss whether the Beneficiary's foreign employment fits the definition of 
executive capacity. 
2 
stated that the Beneficiary "reports directly to all shareholders" and manages a "senior management 
team" comprised of a vice president and "Chief Operating Officer." The Petitioner also highlighted 
the Beneficiary's "wide discretions in all matters" and her authority over the company's business 
policies, objectives, and its budget, expenses, and overall finances. 
The Petitioner's supporting statement and response to a request for evidence (RFE) included an 
identical job description, which stated that the Beneficiary allocated her time as follows: 10% to 
establishing "strategic direction"; 10% to creating and maintaining a "corporate culture" and 
reinforcing "company values"; 30% to "overall management and final decision making"; 15% to 
personnel administration; 15% to financial management; 10% to "leading business and marketing"; 
and 10% to "legal compliance assurance." Although the Petitioner emphasized the Beneficiary's 
discretionary authority over the foreign entity's personnel, finances, and general business practices in 
further discussing each of these broadly stated elements, the directives and activities it listed were 
deficient in that they were vague and lacked sufficient detail about the Beneficiary's actual tasks. 
For instance, in describing the Beneficiary's "overall management" and decision-making role, the 
Petitioner broadly referenced the Beneficiary's discretionary authority over "business operations" and 
"final decisions" and again highlighted the Beneficiary's direct supervision of the two employees 
comprising "the senior management team." The Petitioner also listed the following as part of the 
Beneficiary's "overall management" and decision-making role: 
I Setting short-term goals regarding company revenue; 
I Setting long-term goals to: increase the client base, expand into new markets, develop human 
resources, and promote innovation in place space activities; 
I Receiving progress reports during weekly management meetings over which she presided; 
I Presiding over monthly meetings with the "senior management team" to monitor 
implementation of goals and policies; and 
I Presiding over annual meetings with "shareholders and the senior management team" to review 
company finances, operations, and the following year's budget. 
However, the Petitioner did not describe the tasks involved in the goal-setting process within the 
context of a children's indoor play center, nor did it explain how the Beneficiary developed human 
resources or identify the steps she took to promote innovation. Further, the Petitioner's reference to 
an annual meeting where the Beneficiary reports to and seeks input from "shareholders," despite 
claiming that the Beneficiary owns 99.5% of the foreign entity leaving only .5% of the ownership to 
remaining "shareholders." If USCIS finds reason to believe that an assertion stated in the petition is 
not true, USCIS may reject that assertion. See, e.g., Section 204(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b); 
Anetekhai v. INS, 876 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1989); Lu-Ann Bakery Shop, Inc. v. Nelson, 705 F. 
Supp. 7, 10 (D.D.C. 1988); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). In the 
context of the foreign entity's described ownership scheme, the Petitioner's reference to 
"shareholders," and the suggestion that there is an annual meeting where the Beneficiary has to answer 
to the foreign entity's "shareholders," is misleading and not supported by the evidence on record. It 
is unclear how a .5% minority ownership of the foreign entity could have impacted the Beneficiary's 
position and duties performed for the foreign entity. 
3 
The following were listed as components of the Beneficiary's role in personnel administration: 
establishing staffing requirements; directing the implementation of HR policies with respect to 
performance evaluations, occupational health and safety, and employee conduct, benefits, and 
compensation; directing the execution of HR plans and activities; and reviewing employee 
performance reports. Again, despite highlighting the Beneficiary's role as the ultimate authority with 
respect to these components, the Petitioner did not convey an understanding the actual steps taken by 
the Beneficiary to explain precisely how she directed or ensured the implementation of her directives. 
The Petitioner was equally vague in describing the Beneficiary's activities with respect to establishing 
"strategic direction," creating a "corporate culture," and reinforcing "company values." The Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary established a "strategic direction" by creating and overseeing the 
implementation of a company "vision." However, this statement is devoid of meaningful content as it 
includes no information about the underlying actions the Beneficiary took to set and pursue a vision. 
Moreover, given the foreign entity's claimed gross earnings and level of operation as an indoor 
playground and activity center, it appears that the "vision" of becoming "a premier children's indoor 
playground and recreation activities provider" was, to some degree, realized, thereby leading us to 
question what the Beneficiary did beyond defining the "vision" and what actual tasks she performed 
in establishing a "strategic direction." Likewise, the job description does not specify the steps the 
Beneficiary took to develop a "corporate culture" and reinforce "company values." Instead, it broadly 
states that the Beneficiary established "guiding principles on integrity and ethics in business conduct" 
and reviewed operational policies and procedures to ensure they align with the "corporate culture and 
values." However, the Petitioner imparted no information as to how developing a "corporate culture" 
and reinforcing "company values" represents activities performed by the Beneficiary in the regular 
course of managing a children's indoor playground and recreation center. 
In sum, the Petitioner indicated that most of the Beneficiary's time, or 65%, was allocated to four 
elements that were described with vague and ambiguous terms that conveyed no meaningful content 
about the actual tasks the Beneficiary performed within the context of an organization that operates as 
a children's indoor playground and recreation center. In fact, most of the items listed as part of the 
Beneficiary's job description are generic and can apply to anyone who manages a business, regardless 
of the nature and size of the business or the industry in which that business operates. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's position is managerial because it involves 
"significant managerial authority" over a vice president and "Chief Operating Officer" and personnel 
matters in general, pointing to the Beneficiary's performance evaluations of her subordinates. 
However, the fact that the Beneficiary will manage a business does not necessarily establish eligibility 
for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial capacity within the meaning of section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a 
position be "primarily" executive or managerial in nature. Sections 101(A)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. 
While the Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the foreign entity's day-to-day operations and 
possess the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making, her actual duties 
may not be primarily managerial in nature. To make this determination, we rely on specific 
information about a beneficiary's actual daily tasks as an important indication of whether their duties 
are primarily managerial or executive 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). 
4 
Although the Petitioner contends that the previously provided job description "clearly illustrates" the 
managerial nature of the Beneficiary's foreign position, we disagree. For the reasons discussed in the 
analysis above, we find that the Petitioner offered a deficient job description that did not adequately 
specify the Beneficiary's tasks within the specific context of the foreign entity's operation. As such, 
we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary's time was primarily allocated to tasks of a managerial nature. 
B. Staffing 
Next, we will address the foreign entity's staffing at the time of filing. When staffing levels are used 
as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in an executive capacity, the reasonable 
needs of the organization must be considered in light of the overall purpose and stage of development 
of the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
In support of the claim that the Beneficiary's position abroad was managerial, the Petitioner provided 
the foreign entity's organizational chart showing the Beneficiary at the top of the organization, 
overseeing a vice president and "Chief Operating Officer." The vice president is shown as overseeing 
the "General Office Department," comprised of a manager and two clerks, and the finance department, 
comprised of a director and an accountant. The "Chief Operating Officer" is also depicted as 
overseeing two departments, representing operations and "education & training," respectively, where 
the operations department is comprised of a manager, two sales people, and one supervisor overseeing 
a janitor and three "attendant" positions, while the education and training department is comprised of 
a manager, a head instructor, and three subordinate instructors. Although the organizational chart 
depicts a five-tier staffing hierarchy with the Beneficiary assuming a position at "the top of the chain 
of command," the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence demonstrating a practical need for a 
position that would primarily carry out managerial job duties within the context of a children's indoor 
playground and recreation center. 
We further note that the job descriptions of the Beneficiary's subordinates lack sufficient substantive 
information and do not adequately delineate the subordinates' respective job duties that explain what 
practical functions they fulfilled or how they relieved the Beneficiary from having to perform non­
managerial duties within the context of the foreign entity's business. For instance, the vice president's 
job description indicates that this position was responsible for improving operations through measures 
that included "supply changes or the disposal or records" as well as administering and controlling 
"budgets for contracts, equipment and supplies." The Petitioner did not explain what supplies or 
contracts were common to the foreign entity's business, nor did it explain what records required 
disposal and how this would improve operations. 
The job description of the subordinate "Chief Operating Officer" also contains vague statements that 
lack meaningful content about the actual job duties assigned to this position. For instance, the job 
description states that this position was responsible for establishing "successful support, channel and 
partner programs" to promote the business and for leading "the development and on-going evaluation 
of operational standards, policies, and procedures." However, it is unclear how these broadly stated 
duties translate to activities that are relevant in the daily course of a business that operates as a 
children's indoor playground. The job description also indicates that the "Chief Operating Officer" 
was responsible for leading "innovation of education/recreation programs and activities" to achieve 
5 
an improved customer experience. However, this job duty closely resembles leading "innovation and 
change in service offerings that improve customer experience," which was assigned to the Beneficiary 
to further her role in leading business and marketing. It is unclear why the Beneficiary and her 
subordinate were assigned overlapping job duties. 
When examining the managerial capacity of a beneficiary, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
reviews the totality of the evidence, including job descriptions of a beneficiary and their subordinates, 
the nature of the business, the employment and remuneration of employees, and any other evidence 
contributing to a complete understanding of a beneficiary's actual role in a business. The evidence 
must substantiate that the duties of a beneficiary and their subordinates correspond to their respective 
placements in an organization's structural hierarchy; artificial tiers of subordinate employees and 
inflated job titles are not probative and will not establish that an organization is sufficiently complex 
to support a managerial position. 
In light of the deficiencies described above, we cannot conclude that either the foreign organization's 
staffing or the Beneficiary's job duties within that organization adequately demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6