dismissed L-1A Case: Restaurant Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-V-K-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 18, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a restaurant operator, seeks to continue employing the Beneficiary as general 
manager under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(L) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). This classification allows an international 
business to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to temporarily work in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that, 
contrary to the Act and Department of Homeland Security regulations, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary worked abroad in a managerial or executive capacity , or that the 
U.S . entity would support him in such a role. 
On appeal , the Petitioner submits additional evidence . It asserts that the record establishes the 
executive nature of the Beneficiary's position abroad and his proposed U.S. employment as a 
manager. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To obtain L-lA status, a petitioner must establish that, within the three years before a beneficiary's 
admission into the United States, the petitioner or its parent, subsidiary , or affiliate employed the 
foreign national abroad in a managerial , executive , or specialized knowledge capacity for at least one 
continuous year. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. A petitioner must also demonstrate that a 
beneficiary will temporarily serve it or a qualifying organization in a managerial or executive 
capacity. Id. 
This petition initially involved the opening of a "new office," an organization that had conducted 
business in the United States for less than a year. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(a)(ii)(F) (defining the 
term "new office"). Therefore, the Petitioner must also demonstrate that it has conducted business 
for the past year, and that it and the Beneficiary's foreign employer maintain a qualifying 
relationship . 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(A), (B). The Petitioner must also describe its staffing and 
the Beneficiary's past and proposed job duties. 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(C). In addition , the 
Matter of S-V-K-, Inc. 
company must submit evidence of its financial status and payment of its employees' wages. 
8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(C), (D). 
II. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary worked abroad in an executive capacity. The term 
"executive capacity" means an assignment where an employee primarily: 1) directed the 
management of an organization, or a major component or function of it; 2) established the goals and 
policies of the organization, its component, or function; 3) exercised wide latitude in discretionary 
decision-making; and 4) received only general supervision or direction from higher-level executives 
of the organization, its board of directors, or its stockholders. Section 101 (a)( 44 )(B) of the Act. 
A petitioner must show that a beneficiary performed the high-level duties described in the term's 
statutory definition. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table 
decision). A petitioner must also prove that a beneficiary primarily performed executive duties, as 
opposed to operational tasks. Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion 
World, 940 F.2d at 1533. 
When determining whether a beneficiary worked abroad in an executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines the description of the job duties of a foreign position. 
USCIS also considers: a foreign employer's organizational structure and the nature of its business; 
whether other employees relieved a beneficiary from performing operational duties; the job duties of 
a beneficiary's subordinates; and other factors affecting a beneficiary's duties and role in the 
business. 
A. Job Duties 
The Petitioner states that, from 2012 until the Beneficiary's L-lA admission into the United States in 
201 7, he worked in an executive capacity for its parent company in Venezuela as president. 1 The 
record indicates that the foreign company transports, stores, and delivers international goods for 
businesses and individuals. 
The Petitioner's president stated that the Beneficiary, as president of the foreign company, 
determined and formulated policies and provided overall direction to the firm. She stated that he 
managed the organization by directly supervising a vice president and general manager, daily 
planning and reviewing business strategies and management operations with them. She stated that 
he established goals and policies by analyzing managerial reports and financial results, and by 
considering recommendations from managers. The Petitioner's president stated that the Beneficiary 
1 The Petitioner stated on the L Classification Supplement to Form 1-129 that it and the Venezuelan company maintain 
the same qualifying relationship as when the Beneficiary last worked for the foreign firm. Copies of the Petitioner's 
stock certificates, however, indicate that the Venezuelan company did not become the Petitioner's majority shareholder 
until about two months before the filing of this extension petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(a)(ii)(K) (defining a 
"subsidiary" to include a corporation that a parent controls and owns more than half ot). The record indicates that the 
Venezuelan company acquired its shares in the Petitioner from the Beneficiary and the foreign firm's other, individual, 
50% owner. 
2 
Matter of S-V-K-, Inc. 
spent about 35% of his time establishing controls and procedures for the foreign company, about 
35% of his time developing the company's operations, and about 30% of his time supervising and 
overseeing the firm's finances. 
The description of the Beneficiary's foreign job duties lacks sufficient details to establish his 
employment in an executive capacity. The Petitioner did not provide specific examples of goals or 
policies that the Beneficiary implemented, or explain how he established them. The regulations 
require a detailed description of a beneficiary's job duties. "General descriptions are inadequate to 
satisfy the implementing regulations because ... '[t]he actual duties themselves reveal the true 
nature of the employment."' Saga Overseas, LLC v. Johnson, 200 F.Supp.3d 1341, 1348 (S.D. Fla. 
2016) (quoting Fedin Bros. Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 
F.2d41 (2d. Cir. 1990)). 
On appeal, the Petitioner states additional information about the Beneficiary's foreign job duties, 
including percentages of time he spent on each duty. But the information largely repeats vague job 
duties that the Petitioner appears to have modeled on the statutory definition of "executive capacity." 
See Fedin Bros. Co., 724 F.Supp at 1108 (stating that repeating the language of the statute does not 
establish the nature of a beneficiary's employment). For example, the Petitioner states that the 
Beneficiary: 
"Established goals and policies and approved ... operational procedures," 
"Planned, developed and established management, operations, sales and marketing policies 
and objectives," 
"Supervised productivity," 
"Directed marketing strategies," and 
"Established strategies and policies" regarding financial goals. 
The Petitioner, however, does not provide examples of the goals, policies, procedures, and strategies 
that the Beneficiary purportedly established, approved, planned, developed, or directed. Without 
specific examples, the job-duty descriptions are just conclusory assertions. 
Also, the Petitioner describes other job duties that appear to be non-executive. For example, the 
record does not establish the qualifying nature of the Beneficiary's purported development and 
maintenance of relationships with financial institutions and his establishment of commercial 
relationships. Thus, the Petitioner has not provided enough details of the Beneficiary's job duties 
abroad to establish his employment in primarily an executive capacity. 
B. Organizational Structure and Staffing 
As noted above, beyond the required description of the job duties, we also 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, and the nature of the 
business along with any other factors that will contribute to understanding the Beneficiary's actual 
duties and role within the petitioning organization. If staffing levels are used as a factor in 
determining whether an individual is acting in an executive capacity, we take into account the 
3 
Matter of S-V-K-, Inc. 
reasonable needs of the organization, in light of its overall purpose and stage of development. See 
section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. 
The Petitioner provided an organizational chart indicating that, as of the Beneficiary's last year of 
employment abroad, the Venezuelan company had 11 other workers. As previously indicated, the 
Petitioner's president stated that the Beneficiary managed the foreign company by directly 
supervising a vice president and general manager. 
The record, however, does not support the Beneficiary's employment as an executive. First, 
contrary to the statement of the Petitioner's president, the organizational chart of the foreign 
company does not indicate the Beneficiary's direct supervision of both a vice president and general 
manager. Rather, the chart's top level above the general manager lists both the Beneficiary and the 
vice president. Also, contrary to the Director's written request for additional evidence (RFE), the 
Petitioner did not provide a summary of the job duties of the Beneficiary's subordinates in 
Venezuela. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l4) (authorizing USCIS to deny a petition where a petitioner 
does not submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry). The statutory 
definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on an elevated position within a complex, 
organizational hierarchy and authority to direct an organization. See section 101(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. Under the Act, an executive must have the ability to "direct the management" and "establish 
the goals and policies" of an organization. An organization must therefore demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary directs or influences the work of employees who primarily focus on the organization's 
broad goals and policies, not its day-to-day operations. Here, by omitting the job duties of the 
Beneficiary's subordinates, the Petitioner has not established his direction of the foreign company's 
management. The record does not explain the role of the foreign company's vice president, whom 
the organizational chart indicates shared top, executive authority with the Beneficiary. The record 
also does not explain whether the vice president, the Beneficiary, or both directly supervised the 
general manager. In addition, without the job duties of the general manager, the record does not 
demonstrate her managerial role, or the scope of the Beneficiary's purported authority over the 
management of the organization. 
Thus, based on the job duties of the Beneficiary's former position and the organizational structure 
and staffing of the Petitioner's parent company, the record does not establish the claimed executive 
nature of the Beneficiary's employment abroad. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Petitioner states that it would employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial 
capacity. The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment where an employee primarily: 1) 
manages an organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of it; 2) supervises 
and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or manages an 
essential function within the organization, its department, or subdivision; 3) has authority over 
personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to 
the function managed; and 4) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or 
function managed. Section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
4 
Matter of S-V-K-, Inc. 
As with executive capacity, when determining the managerial nature of an offered position, we 
examine a petitioner's description of the job's duties. A petitioner must submit "a detailed 
description of the services to be performed." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). We also consider a 
petitioner's organizational structure and the nature of its business, whether other employees would 
relieve a beneficiary from performing operational duties, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate 
employees, and any other factors affecting a beneficiary's duties. 
A. Job Duties 
The Petitioner operates a restaurant specializing in Venezuelan cuisine and offering breakfast, lunch, 
and dinner. The Petitioner's president stated that, as general manager, the Beneficiary would 
continue to manage the organization, and supervise and hire other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees. She stated that he would assume responsibility for the company's overall 
direction and management, and that he would develop, direct, and control the company's operations 
by directly supervising a business developer. The Petitioner's president stated that the Beneficiary 
would spend 40% of his time establishing internal control procedures, and hiring and supervising 
professional and supervisory managers; 30% of his time establishing relationships with individuals 
and companies to develop the company's business; 15% of his time reviewing financial statements 
and conferring with the business developer to ensure achievement of the company's financial 
objectives; and 15% of his time supervising the business developer and directing marketing 
objectives and programs. 
As with the Beneficiary's job duties abroad, however, the description of his proposed U.S. duties 
lacks sufficient details. The record does not provide examples of controls and procedures that the 
Beneficiary would implement, or financial and marketing objectives that he would monitor. See 
Saga Overseas, 200 F.Supp.3d at 1348 (holding that "general descriptions ... fall short of the 
detailed descriptions necessary to determine whether an employer's actual duties will be primarily 
managerial"). Without additional details, we cannot determine how these broad objectives affect the 
Beneficiary's day-to-day activities. The record does not explain these general duties within the 
context of the Petitioner's business. 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. At 1108. Here, the Petitioner has not 
provided the necessary detail or an adequate explanation of the Beneficiary's activities in the course 
of his daily routine. 
Moreover, the duties assigned to the Beneficiary are not supported by the record. For example, the 
Petitioner has not explained how the Beneficiary would spend 40% of his time or 16 hours per week 
continuously developing internal controls and hiring and supervising managers. Given the type of 
business and the existence of only one direct subordinate, this time allotment does not appear 
credible. Further, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 30% of the Beneficiary's time spent 
developing relationships with individuals and companies is managerial rather than operational. The 
descriptions of the job duties of the offered position therefore do not establish that the Petitioner 
would support the Beneficiary's employment in a managerial capacity. 
5 
Matter of S-V-K-, Inc. 
B. Organizational Structure and Staffing 
As noted above, beyond the required description of the job duties, we also 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, and the nature of the 
business along with any other factors that will contribute to understanding the Beneficiary's actual 
duties and role within the petitioning organization. If staffing levels are used as a factor in 
determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial capacity, we take into account the 
reasonable needs of the organization, in light of its overall purpose and stage of development. See 
section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. 
The Petitioner's organizational chart indicates that, including the Beneficiary, the company employs 
12 employees. The Petitioner's president is at the top of the chart above the Beneficiary. The chart 
indicates that the Beneficiary would directly supervise a business developer. The business 
developer, in tum, would oversee a kitchen manager. 
The record, however, does not establish that, pursuant to the Act's definition of "managerial 
capacity," the Beneficiary would supervise and control the work of another supervisory, 
professional, or management employee. The organizational chart indicates that the business 
developer, the Beneficiary's sole direct subordinate, would supervise the kitchen manager. But the 
Petitioner's president stated that the job duties of the business developer would include choosing and 
coordinating sales strategies, coordinating distribution of flyers promoting the Petitioner's products, 
and photographing new food dishes and services for use in advertising the restaurant. The 
Petitioner's president did not state that the business developer would supervise the kitchen manager 
or any other employee. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (requiring a petitioner 
to resolve inconsistencies of record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth 
lies). The job duties of the Beneficiary's subordinate do not indicate that her position is supervisory 
in nature. The organizational chart therefore does not establish that the Beneficiary would supervise 
another supervisory or managerial employee. 
The record also does not establish the position of business developer as professional in nature. The 
Petitioner submitted evidence that its current business developer has an economist degree from a 
Venezuelan university. But her possession of a degree does not demonstrate that the position 
requires one. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) ( defining the term "professional" to include "any 
occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum 
requirement for entry into the occupation"). The Petitioner's president indicated that the position 
involves non-professional duties, such as coordinating distribution of flyers and photographing new 
food dishes. The Petitioner therefore has not established the position of business developer as 
professional in nature. 
Based on the job duties of the offered position and the Petitioner's organizational structure and 
staffing, the record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would supervise or control the work of 
another supervisory, professional, or managerial employee. The record therefore does not establish 
that the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity. 
6 
Matter of S-V-K-, Inc. 
The submitted evidence is not persuasive in demonstrating that the Beneficiary has been or will be 
employed in a managerial capacity in the United States. If the business does not have the necessary 
structure after one year to sufficiently relieve the Beneficiary from performing operational and 
administrative tasks, the Petitioner is ineligible for an extension. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The record on appeal does not establish the Beneficiary's employment abroad in an executive 
capacity or the claimed managerial nature of his proposed U.S. employment. We will therefore 
affirm the petition's denial. A petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for a requested 
benefit. Section 291 of the Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the Petitioner did not meet that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-V-K-, Inc., ID# 5777619 (AAO Oct. 18, 2019) 
7