dismissed L-1A Case: Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19355280 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 16, 2021 
The Petitioner seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary employment as its chief executive 
officer /manager in the United States under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(l5)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity under an 
extended petition. On appeal , the Petitioner asserts that although it does not have a complex 
organizational structure, the Beneficiary is an executive /manager, serving an essential function as the 
guardian of the integrity of the organization. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 1 
We review the questions in this matter de novo.2 Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity or a position that involved 
specialized knowledge for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's 
application for admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iv) . In addition, the 
beneficiary must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering their services to the 
same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, we review the totality of the evidence when 
examining a beneficiary's claimed managerial or executive capacity, including the company's 
organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other 
employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, and 
any other factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a 
1 See Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
business. Accordingly, we will discuss evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with 
evidence of the nature of the Petitioner's business, its staffing levels, and its organizational structure. 
IT. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Petitioner initially claimed that the Beneficiary would perform duties in an executive capacity for 
the U.S. entity. On appeal, the Petitioner adds that the Beneficiary performs duties in a managerial 
capacity and refers to the Beneficiary as managing a function. 
"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. 
"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. 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we first review the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly 
describe the duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in a 
managerial or executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
A. Duties 
To be eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager or executive, the Petitioner 
must show that the Beneficiary will perform the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory 
definition at section 101(a)(44)(A)(i)-(iv) or section 101(a)(44)(B)(i)-(iv) of the Act. If the record 
does not establish that the offered position meets all four of the elements in the pertinent section, we 
cannot conclude that it is a qualifying managerial or executive position. If a petitioner establishes that 
the offered position meets all elements set forth in one or the other statutory definition, 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). 
The Petitioner, a limited liability company l 00 percent owned by the Beneficiary, explained that it 
purchased a gas station in November 2017 and that the Beneficiary subsequently created two 
2 
additional limited liability companies for the purchase of two additional gas stations. 3 The Petitioner 
noted that the Beneficiary divides his time between the three gas stations and provided the same 
generic description of duties for each of the properties. 4 The overview of the position included: 
preparing and implementing long- and short-term goals; interviewing and hiring employees; 
appointing department heads and assigning responsibilities to them; meeting with subordinate 
managers on a regular basis; and overseeing all activities related to human resources. This description 
paraphrases portions of the regulations and could apply to any managerial or executive position. 
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), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 
41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Similarly, tasks such as analyzing, developing, and implementing methods of assuring financial 
profitability, overseeing financial and banking activities, meeting with accountants to review monthly 
and quarterly financial reports, and negotiating and signing contracts with vendors and suppliers do 
not include the detail necessary to establish that the vaguely described duties are managerial or 
executive rather than operational or administrative. We note, for example, that the description does 
not detail the Beneficiary's everyday duties related to these tasks, nor does the Petitioner provide 
evidence corroborating its use of outsourced accounting services. Without detail regarding the 
Beneficiary's duties within the context of the Petitioner's operation of a gas station(s), we cannot 
conclude that the duties are executive or managerial duties as defined in the Act. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary 
will spend: 15% of his time signing payroll checks, ascertaining that all payroll documentation is 
properly handled and timely, and in compliance with pertinent laws; 15% of his time directing and 
coordinating financial and budget activities, monitoring and reviewing accounting statements, and 
overseeing income tax filings; 25% of his time making executive decisions regarding the growth of 
the company such as future acquisitions, including considering new opportunities, expansion 
opportunities and studying their feasibility; and 15% of his time seeking out new vendors, overseeing 
expenditures and maintaining relations with all vendors and suppliers, and seeking information about 
the industry and new services/products to lower overhead. 5 The Petitioner adds, but does not identify 
a specific percentage of time, for the Beneficiary to direct a team of subcontractors to assist with the 
accounting function, such as an independent CPA, and to understand industry trends and local 
competition so he can change pricing and strategize the costing structure to optimize revenue. The 
Petitioner contends that these are all executive functions, that the Beneficiary does not perform the 
functions of the company, and that he establishes the goals and policies with no supervision. 
Although the Petitioner asserts that the duties described are executive functions, the record does not 
include documentary evidence that the Beneficiary delegates the non-qualifying operational aspects 
of its administrative, human resources, operational, and payroll functions to subordinates and also does 
not demonstrate that subordinates perform those tasks. Moreover, many of the duties the Petitioner 
describes suggest that it is the Beneficiary performing the operational and administrative tasks 
3 It appears that the gas stations also have convenience stores attached. 
4 It appears that the job descriptions provided also apply to the Beneficiaiy' s job duties for the foreign entity. 
5 These percentages of time add up to 70 percent. 
3 
necessary to continue the daily activities of the Petitioner. For example, making sure payroll complies 
with the applicable laws and signing payroll checks, seeking out new vendors, and researching trends 
and competition are operational and administrative tasks. 
The record also does not include examples and supporting documentation to substantiate the 
Beneficiary's daily qualifying executive-level duties. That is, the record does not include documentary 
evidence of the short- and long-term goals the Beneficiary prepared and implemented, the strategic 
decisions made, and the management or function directed. Although the Petitioner claims on appeal 
that the Beneficiary is the individual responsible for charting the future course the Petitioner will take, 
it does not describe and document the future options and acquisitions considered and vetted, and 
feasibility studies regarding new opportunities conducted, if any. In total, the Petitioner does not 
credibly establish that the Beneficiary would be primarily engaged in performing executive-level 
duties. 
It is not clear that the Petitioner is asserting on appeal that the Beneficiary will perform in a managerial 
capacity as either a personnel manager or a function manager. However, we will briefly note the 
deficiencies in the record establishing the Beneficiary's managerial capacity. Personnel managers are 
required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees. Contrary to the common understanding of the word "manager," the statute plainly states 
that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of 
the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional." Section 
10l(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. Here, the Petitioner does not describe, and the record does not 
demonstrate, how the Beneficiary primarily supervises and controls managerial, supervisory, or 
professional personnel. Although the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary manages and directs an 
outsourced accountant, the record does not include sufficient evidence substantiating the regular use 
of an accountant. Moreover, the record does not include evidence that managing and directing an 
outsourced accountant would be the Beneficiary's primary task, rather the description of duties 
appears to limit the Beneficiary's interaction with the accountant to monthly and quarterly meetings. 
Similarly, the record does not include sufficient evidence that the Beneficiary primarily supervises 
managers or other supervisors. 
Next, 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). 
In this matter, the Petitioner has not described or provided evidence that the Beneficiary manages an 
essential function. For example, on appeal the Petitioner asserts that payroll and overseeing income 
tax filings are essential functions and that the Beneficiary bears the full responsibility for these 
functions. The Petitioner does not claim that subordinate employees perform the acts of gathering the 
documentation for the payroll and tax filings, organizing the information, checking the data, etc., rather 
the Petitioner indicates that it is the Beneficiary performing these necessary tasks associated with the 
claimed essential function. 
4 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary is an executive entrusted with the company's 
integrity and solvency and he is not a low-ranking employee, line manager, or an employee performing 
functions. However, the Petitioner's reliance on the Beneficiary as the owner with such 
responsibilities is insufficient, the Petitioner must establish that the Beneficiary qualifies under the 
statutory criteria and performs more than the day-to-day operations of the company. Even though the 
Beneficiary holds the most senior position within the organization, the record does not establish 
eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity within 
the meaning of section 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification 
requires that the duties of a position be "primarily" managerial or executive in nature. Id. The 
Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess the 
requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making; however, the position 
descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that his actual duties would be primarily managerial or 
executive in nature. Here, the Petitioner has not established how the Beneficiary is relieved from 
primarily performing the operational and administrative duties necessary to maintain and operate the 
business. 
B. Staffing 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in an executive 
capacity, we 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. 
On the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, filed in 
October 2020, the Petitioner indicated that it employed 8 personnel. The Petitioner submitted an 
organizational chart in support of the petition reflecting that the Beneficiary supervised a manager, 
and six shift employees. The accompanying list of employees identified the Beneficiary and six 
part-time shift employees noting that three of the employees were cashiers and three were 
cashiers/cleaners. 6 The list identified the employees' salary and their education as "no college." The 
list of named employees does not include a manager. The information does not indicate that any of 
the shift employees interacted with vendors and suppliers, performed human resource functions, 
gathered and maintained records, provided research on local competitors, or managed or supervised 
others. 
The Director in a January 2021 RFE specifically requested that the Petitioner submit copies of its state 
quarterly wage reports for the 2020 year, as well as copies of the 2020 Forms W-2 and 1099s, among 
other items. In its March 2021 response, the Petitioner re-submitted its quarterly wage reports for 
2019 and provided the 2020 W-2s issued to six individuals, including the Beneficiary, employed for 
the Beneficiary's third gas station. The record does not include documentary evidence of individuals 
employed by the Petitioner (gas station/convenience store #1) in the year in which the petition was 
filed. The record also does not include evidence of individuals employed by the Beneficiary's second 
gas station/convenience store during the year in which the petition was filed. The Petitioner did not 
provide a reason for its failure to produce evidence of its employees at gas station/convenience store 
6 The record also includes an organizational chart and list of employees for the Beneficiary's second gas station which 
identifies the Beneficiary and three part-time cashiers and an organizational chart and list of employees for the 
Beneficiary's third gas station which identifies the Beneficiary and four part-time cashiers. 
5 
# l and #2 during the 2020 year as requested by the Director. The Petitioner must establish that all 
eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and 
continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary works with three employees who handle the 
day-to-day operations allowing the Beneficiary to focus on his executive and managerial functions. 
Although the Petitioner submits additional evidence on appeal, the record does not include 
documentary evidence that the three individuals named as handling the day-to-day operations were 
employed when the petition was filed and continuing through adjudication. The Petitioner re-submits 
the 2020 Forms W-2 for the Beneficiary's gas station #3 which shows that these individuals worked 
intermittently or part-time. 7 The Petitioner also submits paystubs, issued by the Beneficiary's third 
gas station to the Beneficiary and two other individuals, for employment during the first quarter of 
2021. The Petitioner further provides the quarterly wage reports for the 2020 year issued by gas station 
#2 showing it employed only one individual. 
Although there is no required number of employees within a business to establish that a beneficiary 
acts in an executive or managerial capacity, a petitioner must employ sufficient personnel to establish 
that it is sufficiently developed to relieve a beneficiary from primarily performing the day-to-day 
operations and administrative tasks of the organization. In this matter, the Petitioner claims to own a 
gas station/convenience store and to operate two additional gas stations/convenience stores. It has not 
provided any corroborating evidence of employees who work for and were paid by the originally 
owned facility when the petition was filed and continuing through adjudication. It has provided 
evidence that only one person was employed and paid by the second facility, and that five individuals 
were employed on a part-time or intermittent basis for the third facility during the pertinent timeframe. 
The Petitioner does not explain how it operates the first and second facility without employees 8 or 
how the five part-time employees at the third facility are able to relieve the Beneficiary from 
performing the operational and administrative tasks, including first-line supervisory duties, of the 
facilities it claims to own and operate. The Petitioner does not support its assertion on appeal that it 
has sufficient staff to relieve the Beneficiary from performing primarily non-qualifying operational 
duties. 
As discussed above, the Petitioner did not sufficiently articulate and document the Beneficiary's 
qualifying executive- or managerial-level duties and further did not provide probative evidence that it 
had personnel who relieved the Beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties so that he would 
primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than day-to-day operations. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would more likely 
than not be employed in a managerial or executive capacity under an extended petition. 9 
7 The W-2s show wages of$1580, $2670, $8101, $10650, and $10790 for the 5 claimed subordinate employees for the 
2020 year. 
x The 2020 state quarterly wage reports for the second facility list only one employee but does not identify the employee 
by name. Thus, the record is insufficient to establish whether the one employee is the Beneficiary or another employee. 
9 The Petitioner previously filed an L-IA petition on behalf of the Beneficiary which was approved for a one-year time 
period. However, if the previous nonimmigrant petition was approved based on the same or similar evidence as contained 
in the current record, the approval would constitute a material error on the part of the Director. We are not required to 
6 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. As this issue is dispositive in 
this case, we need not reach other issues in this matter including whether the Petitioner has established 
that the Beneficiary had been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity or specialized 
knowledge capacity for continuous year within three years preceding the Beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Accordingly, this issue is reserved. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may 
have been enoneous. Matter of Church Scientology Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be unreasonable 
for USCIS or any agency to treat acknowledged enors as binding precedent. Sussex Eng'g, Ltd. v. Montgome,y, 825 F.2d 
1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). As discussed, the record in this matter is deficient and 
does not establish eligibility for the benefit requested. 
7