dismissed L-1A Case: Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 5, 2024 In Re: 29321656 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a retail franchisor, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its country 
merchandise manager under the L-1 A 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 record did not 
establish that: (1) the Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity; and (2) 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)(l5)(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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary began working for the Petitioner's parent company in China in May 2019, first as a 
commodity operations specialist, then as country merchandise supervisor-India starting in April 2021, 
with a promotion to country merchandise manager-India effective June 2022. 1 The Beneficiary 
entered the United States in June 2022 as a B-1 nonimmigrant visitor for business. He was still in the 
United States in B-1 status when the Petitioner filed the petition in December 2022. The Director 
denied the petition in June 2023, and the Petitioner filed the present appeal in July 2023. 
The Petitioner did not claim that it seeks to employ the Beneficiary in an executive capacity. The 
Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that it will employ the Beneficiary in the 
United States in a managerial capacity. 
"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 supervis01y, 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) ofthe Act. 
To show that a beneficiary is eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, a 
petitioner must show that the beneficiary will perform all four of the high-level responsibilities set 
forth in the statutory definition at section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. If a petitioner establishes that the 
offered position meets all four elements set forth in the statutory definition, the petitioner must then 
prove that the beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial 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 determining whether the beneficiary's duties will be primarily 
managerial, 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. 
The Director's decision revolved around the requirement that a manager primarily supervise and 
control the work of supervisory, managerial, or professional employees. See section 101 (a)( 44)(A)(ii) 
of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(2). 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would "[ m ]anage the Category Supervisor in the United 
States, while also recruiting and hiring merchandising professionals to work under the Category 
Supervisor." 
An organizational chart submitted with the petition showed that the category supervisor would be the 
Beneficiary's only immediate subordinate. The chart showed two unidentified and unspecified 
1 The record indicates that the Beneficiary performed his duties in China rather than in India. 
2 
employees subordinate to the category supervisor. An accompanying job description indicated that 
the category supervisor would "[s]upervise market research analysts." 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), asking for more information about the Beneficiary's 
intended subordinate employees. The Director also requested wage and tax documentation from late 
2022, conesponding to the petition's December 2022 filing date. 
In response, the Petitioner stated: "the organizational chart that was provided with the original petition 
is now outdated" because the company "is very rapidly expanding in the United States, and we already 
have additional team members that [the Beneficiary] will be managing." The Petitioner added that the 
Beneficiary "will also continue to manage some team members who are physically located in China." 
The Petitioner submitted an updated organizational chati, showing seven positions subordinate to the 
Beneficimy's intended position. Payroll records and other documents show hiring or promotion dates 
for most, but not all, of the subordinates shown on the updated chart: 
• Count1y Merchandise Manager (the Beneficiary's intended position) 
o Category Supervisor, promoted to position Janumy 2022 
■ Merchandise Analyst, to be hired 
■ Assistant Buyer, hired October 2021 
o Merchandise Supervisor, not on 2022 U.S. payroll records 
■ Inventory Coordinator #1, not on 2022 U.S. payroll records 
■ Inventory Coordinator #2, hired March 2023 
■ Inventory Control Analyst Assistant, hired circa December 2022 
The Petitioner submitted job descriptions for the subordinate positions, including a substantially 
revised job description for the category supervisor. The category supervisor's new job description 
does not refer to management or supervision of subordinates. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that recent material changes to the subordinate structure 
cannot show that the petition was approvable at the time of filing in December 2022. The Director 
also noted that the Petitioner had not established that it employs some of the newly claimed 
subordinates. Although the initial submission indicated that the category supervisor would supervise 
market research analysts, the Petitioner's response to the RFE does not show that it employed any 
market research analysts at the time of filing. In the absence of such employees, it appears that the 
category supervisor would have performed the duties of the vacant positions, and would not have had 
supervisory responsibilities at the time of filing. 2 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director's "inconect understanding of this fast-paced and 
rapidly expanding business ... led to a wrongful categorization of 'inconsistencies' in the Petition that 
do not exist." The issue, however, is not that the company grows and changes over time. Rather, the 
key issue is that a petitioner must meet all eligibility requirements at the time of filing the petition. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Material changes after the filing date cannot retroactively establish 
eligibility or remedy deficiencies in the initial filing. See Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 
(Comm'r 1998). 
2 Elsewhere in the record, the Petitioner stated that employees frequently performed the duties of other vacant positions. 
3 
While the Petitioner has provided a description of the Beneficiary's intended duties, information about 
subordinate staff and their duties is necessary to establish that the Beneficiary's duties will be primarily 
managerial, rather than lower-level tasks. When the Director sought to address this issue by requesting 
more information and evidence about the company's structure and staffing, the Petitioner did not 
submit evidence that related to the subordinate structure as it existed at the time of filing in December 
2022. Instead, the Petitioner submitted materials showing changes that occUired several months after 
the filing date. These materials cannot show that the petition was already approvable when filed. 
With respect to the changes in structure and staffing that occurred in 2023, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services records show that the Petitioner filed a new petition in August 2023, with receipt 
number.________ _, again seeking to classify the Beneficiary as an L-1 A non immigrant. That 
petition's later filing date permitted the Director to consider changes to the Petitioner's structure that 
occmred after December 2022. The Director approved the later petition in December 2023, granting 
the Beneficiary L-lA status from January 2, 2024 to January 1, 2027. 
We will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner has not overcome the Director's conclusions 
regarding the proposed employment in the United States. This determination is sufficient to decide 
the outcome of the appeal. Therefore, we reserve argument on the other stated ground for denial, 
concerning the Beneficiary's previous employment abroad. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-
26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required to make findings and 
decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 
(BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4