dismissed L-1A Case: Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-1- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 2, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a gas station and convenience store operator which intends to invest in additional 
businesses, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary employment as its president under the L-1 A 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 1 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, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity 
under an extended petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by finding that it made material changes to 
the initial petition and contends that it established by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A 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. 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
January 18, 2017, until January 17, 2018. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United 
States through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)( I )(ii)(F). The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation one year within the date of approval of the 
petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
Matter of A-1- LLC 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-1 A petition that involved a new office must submit a statement 
of the beneficiary's duties during the previous year and under the extended petition; a statement 
describing the staffing of the new operation and evidence of the numbers and types of positions held; 
evidence of its financial status; evidence that it has been doing business for the previous year; and 
evidence that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii). This evidence must demonstrate that the beneficiary will be employed in 
a managerial or executive capacity, as defined at sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act, under 
the extended petition. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in an executive capacity. Although the Petitioner previously stated that the offered 
position is managerial or executive in nature, on appeal, it solely claims that the position is executive 
in nature. Therefore, we will restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary will be employed in an 
executive capacity. 
The term "executive capacity" is defined as 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 executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look to the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description of the 
job duties, we examine 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 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. 
A. Duties 
Based on the definition of executive capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the Beneficiary will 
perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 
1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary will be 
primarily engaged in executive duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the 
Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCJS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); 
Champion World, 940 F.2d at 1533. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner provided a lengthy statement intended to describe the duties the 
2 
Matter of A-I- LLC 
Beneficiary performed and the decisions he made during the previous year, and noted that he would 
continue to perform similar duties under the extended petition. These duties were organized under 
the following areas of responsibility: 
1. Mergers and Acquisitions and Expansion (25%) 
2. Executive, Business Management, Marketing and Market Research Functions 
(25%) 
3. Public and Client Relations and Liaison between U.S. and India offices (10%) 
4. Financial and Budget Functions (20%) 
5. Administration/Management/Human Resources Functions (20%) 
In a separate "Job Duties Chart" included with its initial submission, the Petitioner described the 
Beneficiary's job duties down as follows: 
1. Take Reports/Supervise Operations Managers: 20 to 25% 
2. Develop Financial Policies/Decisions: 15% 
3. Review Accounts, Tax, Performance: 20% 
4. Approve hiring and firing: 15% 
5. Future Business Plan, Mergers & Acquisitions: 10% 
6. Communicate Goals/Future Plans with Managers: 10% 
7. Correspond with parent Company for carrying out the operations of the U.S. 
Company: 8 to 10% 
As a preliminary matter, we note that the Petitioner provided two different descriptions of how the 
Beneficiary allocates his time without providing an explanation for the differences. Further, 
although the first breakdown was accompanied by a lengthy narrative and examples of actions the 
Beneficiary had taken during the initial year of operations, it did not provide sufficient insight into 
what specific duties he would perform on a day-to-day basis under an extended petition. 
For example, in describing the Beneficiary's responsibility for mergers and acquisitions, the 
Petitioner noted that he had "held discussions and negotiations with close to 20 businesses," had 
expanded from one stores to two stores within one year, and that he "has been gathering information 
and resources to start his own [ auto mechanic] workshop." While the Petitioner established the 
Beneficiary's authority to make decisions regarding investments in additional businesses, it did not 
describe in sufficient detail the specific tasks that would require 25% of his time on a daily basis. 
Without additional information, we cannot determine that this area of responsibility would involve 
primarily executive-level tasks, or whether the Beneficiary himself is required to perform his own 
market research, due diligence, and gathering of information and resources. 
As noted, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would devote an additional 25% of his time to 
"executive, business management, marketing, and market research functions." Once again, while 
the Petitioner provided a list of actions he had taken with respect to the operation of the company's 
gas station and convenience store, it did not describe his specific day-to-day duties. For example, 
the Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary had installed A TM machines, decided to accept all credit 
3 
Matter of A-I- LLC 
cards and food stamps, implemented a store policy to provide free soda to local police officers, and 
ensured that the Petitioner's liquor, grocery, and gas prices are lower than local competitors. 
However, these examples do not provide insight into the nature of the Beneficiary's typical day-to­
day duties, nor has it shown how these operational decisions would continuously require one quarter 
of his time. Further, the Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary decided to purchase all grocery items 
from a Sam's Club store 40 miles away and that "he buys these items tax free from Sam's Club." 
The Petitioner did not explain how making purchases at Sam's Club is an executive-level duty or 
indicate that he delegates this function to subordinates who work in the Petitioner's gas 
station/convenience store. The Petitioner also noted that he performs non-executive tasks such as 
"takes custom orders from clients" and "orders special Dairy Queen cakes on behalf of the local 
customers." 
The remainder of the duties described under this area of responsibility were overly broad and 
included "drive all phases of business development process from identifying key market trends, 
actively targeting prospective clients in the United States, delivering targeted marketing propositions 
to clients and converting prospective clients," as well as performing "crucial marketing functions" 
and supervising "the implementation of marketing strategies and programs." The Petitioner did not, 
for example, describe the "targeted marketing propositions'" the Beneficiary has delivered to the 
Petitioner's retail customers. 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. Fe din Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 
1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
With respect to the Beneficiary's responsibility for "public and client relations and liaison between 
U.S. and India offices" the Petitioner noted that he "manages relationships with the community, 
society, clients and other businesses," and "contributes to the society on a regular basis" by 
maintaining relationships with the local school, fire department and community organizations. The 
Petitioner further stated that he "corresponds with [the parent company's] offshore departments for 
carrying out the operations of the Company,'' but has not otherwise claimed that the foreign entity 
supports the U.S. company or is involved with its operation of a gas station and convenience store. 
While the Beneficiary's involvement in the local community is noted, the Petitioner did not explain 
the specific executive tasks he performs in this regard. 
The Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's responsibility for "administration/management/ 
human resources functions" was also described in non-specific terms. The Petitioner noted that his 
responsibility for "operations management" requires him to "manage, coordinate, and oversee our 
business operations," but did not provide sufficient detail regarding what he primarily does on a day­
to-day basis. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary visits its gas station regularly and meets the 
managerial personnel at least once a week, but the Petitioner stated on the Form 1-129, Petition for a 
Nonimmigrant Worker, that the gas station is the Beneficiary's worksite. While we do not doubt his 
overall authority over the business and his ability to make decisions regarding human resources 
matters, the Petitioner did not describe his duties in sufficient detail to establish that he would be 
primarily performing executive functions. 
4 
.
Matter of A-1- LLC 
Overall, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient insight into the specific tasks the Beneficiary will 
perform as part of his day-to-day routine. The descriptions convey the Beneficiary's discretionary 
decision-making authority and oversight over the operations as a whole, but are too broad to give a 
sense of the types of duties he primarily performs on a daily basis. Reciting the 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 Petitioner has not provided any detail 
or explanation of the Beneficiary's activities in the course of his daily routine. The actual duties 
themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros., 724 F. Supp. at 1108, aff'd, 
905 F .2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). While the Petitioner provided examples of specific actions the 
Beneficiary has taken, both at the time of filing and in response to a request for evidence (RFE), 
most of those actions were one time decisions that would not continuously occupy his time. 
The fact that the Beneficiary will direct a business as its senior employee does not necessarily 
establish eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in an executive capacity within 
the meaning of section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Even though 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, a broad overview of his responsibilities is insufficient 
to establish that his actual duties would be primarily executive in nature as of the date of filing. 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or 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 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
At the time of filing in December 2017, the Petitioner stated that it had IO employees and expressly 
indicated in a supporting letter that it "owns two (2) business locations at this time." It identified 
those locations as and Later, in 
response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner stated that it completed the purchase of 
at the end of February 2018, after the initial new office petition 
expired. While the Petitioner claims on appeal that it was forthcoming about the status of the second 
store, the initial statement that it owned both businesses in December 2017 undermines that claim. 
The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency in the record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter <~[ Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). It did not 
explain the inclusion of the wine and liquor store and its staff on its initial organizational chart and 
we find that its initial claim s regarding the second store were misleading at best. The Petitioner did 
submit evidence that it had signed an agreement to purchase the store,2 but its initial claim that it had 
2 The purchase documents themselves contai.n an unresolved inconsistency. These documents identify the seller as 
doing business as but the attached tax returns for the 
purchased business identify the business owner as doing b usiness as 
a company o wned b y The Petitioner identifies as the former 
business owner and states that he agreed to stay on, but did not explain the involvement of 
a company represented by in the sales transaction. 
.
Matter of A-1- LLC 
already staffed the wine and liquor store with its own operations manager and employees was clearly 
premature. The Petitioner's took over the lease for the store on March 1, 2018. 
Therefore, we find that the Petitioner's initial organizational chart, which depicted the Beneficiary as 
president, supervising an operations manager ( and four sales clerks) for and 
an operations manager (as well as an assistant manager and two sales clerks) for 
was not accurate. Further, we note that the record does not contain evidence of the 
Petitioner's employment of three of the ten employees listed on the organizational chart provided at 
the time of filing. Specifically, the Petitioner did not establish that it employed 
or at the time of filing. 
For purposes of determining whether the Petitioner had grown to the point where it could support the 
Beneficiary in an executive capacity, we will review the Petitioner's staffing at the time of filing. 
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). 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that its structure and staffing needs changed when it 
completed its acquisition of the wine and liquor store, subsequent to the date of filing. While such 
changes may not be "material changes" as determined by the Director, the Petitioner must still 
establish that it met all eligibility requirements from the date of filing, at which time it operated from 
a single retail location. 
Although the Petitioner claims that it employed 10 workers at the time of filing on December 26, 
2017, the record shows that it issued paychecks to only eight employees on December 25, 2017. 
These employees included: the Beneficiary, two employees identified as operations managers 
and four employees identified as sales clerks 
and one employee who did not appear on either organizational chart Two of the 
employees - and - were no longer with the Petitioner as of January 1, 2018, and 
we note that one or both of them may have left the company prior to the filing of the petition.3 
Therefore, although the Petitioner claims on appeal that the company supported eight full-time 
positions and four part-time positions in the fourth quarter of 2018, the record shows that there were 
at most three full-time and five part-time employees at the end of the year. 
While the Petitioner claimed that one operations manager worked at its gas station and convenience 
store and the other worked for its wine and liquor store, as noted, the Petitioner later conceded that it 
had not yet acquired the wine and liquor store at the time of filing. It is unclear what role the second 
operations manager was performing at that time. Although the Petitioner provided a description for 
the operations manager position , most of the listed duties were not credible for a position that is 
essentially a retail store manager. For example, the Petitioner indicated that both operations 
managers "handle logistics" by preparing reports on the current conditions of logistics and ensuring 
3 The Petitioner submitted a payroll record for the period January I, 2018, through February 28, 2018. This document 
showed the addition of four employees during this period, but their hire dates were not provided and three of the four 
staff earned less than $ I 00 in wages. 
,; 
Matter of A-1- LLC 
"that the machinery and equipment used have the ability to produce goods and services for the client 
at an acceptable standard." The Petitioner also noted that the operations managers make 
recommendations on mergers and acquisitions, conduct feasibility studies, provide detailed account 
information to the president, prepare program budgets, and "facilitate programs around the 
company." The absence of retail store-related duties casts doubt on the credibility of the operations 
manager job description. 
The evidence must substantiate that the duties of a beneficiary and his or her subordinates 
correspond to their placement in an organization's structural hierarchy; job titles alone are not 
probative and will not establish that an organization is sufficiently complex to support an executive 
position. Here, the job duties for the operations manager positions were incongruous with the nature 
of the business, while the Petitioner did not claim to have any employee in its store who would be 
responsible for duties such as opening and closing the store, reconciling the cash register receipts, 
supervising cashiers, receiving deliveries, ordering inventory, stocking inventory, etc. In fact, the 
Petitioner stated that such duties would eventually be assigned to an assistant manager position that 
was not filled at the time of filing. The Petitioner did not describe the actual duties of the operations 
manager position. 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity'' focuses on a person's elevated position 
within a complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the 
organization, and that person's authority to direct the organization. Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" and "establish 
the goals and policies" of that organization, and they must primarily focus on the broad goals and 
policies of the organization rather than the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. An individual 
will not be deemed an executive under the statute simply because they have an executive title or 
because they "direct" the enterprise as the owner or sole managerial employee. A beneficiary must 
also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision making'' and receive only "general supervision 
or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the 
organization." Id. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established to what extent the Beneficiary delegates 
non-executive duties to subordinate staff. Although the Petitioner indicates that it had sufficient 
lower-level staff at the time of filing to allow the Beneficiary to primarily focus on the broad policies 
and goals of the organization, and to remove him from significant involvement in the day-to-day 
operations of the company, the record does not sufficiently support that claim, as the Petitioner 
indicated, for example, that the Beneficiary himself shops for inventory and takes special orders 
from clients. 
As required by section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act, if staffing levels are used as a factor in determining 
whether an individual is acting in a managerial or 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. However, it is appropriate to consider the size of the petitioning company in 
conjunction with other relevant factors, such as the absence of employees who would perform the 
non-managerial or non-executive operations of the company. Family Inc. v. USCJS, 469 F.3d 1313 
"I 
Matter of A-I- LLC 
(9th Cir. 2006); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). The size of a 
company may be especially relevant when we note discrepancies in the record. See Systronics, 153 
F. Supp. 2d at 15. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner operated a gas station and convenience store. Its initial 
organizational chart showed that this retail business employed an operations manager (whose duties 
are unrelated to retail sales) and four sales clerks. Two of those clerks left the company right around 
the time of filing and a third one has not been documented as an employee of the Petitioner. The 
Petitioner also employed one other worker who appears on neither submitted chart, and two 
employees who were claimed to already work for a second store that the Petitioner had not yet 
acquired. When we review this ambiguous staffing information in light of the Beneficiary's 
extremely broad position description, we cannot determine how the day-to-day, non-executive 
activities needed to carry out the operations of the store were allocated among the employees. The 
Beneficiary is purportedly responsible for overseeing financial, administrative, and marketing 
matters, but does not have subordinate staff to assist him with these functions. Further, the 
Petitioner's statements suggest that the Beneficiary himself is responsible for purchasing grocery 
items for the store by visiting Sam's Club. 
Based on the nature of the company and its documented staffing levels, the Petitioner has not shown 
that it requires the Beneficiary to primarily perform the higher level planning, policy-making and 
business development duties attributed to him. Rather, it appears that he would more likely than not 
be required to perform a variety of non-executive duties necessary for the day-to-day operations of 
the company. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites to Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 
2016), and appears to suggest that the Beneficiary would be responsible for directing an essential 
function for the larger international organization. In this regard, the Petitioner notes its claimed 
parent company's desire "to expand its operations internationally and provide the world class service 
it is known for in India." If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary will manage or direct an essential 
function, it must clearly describe the duties to be performed in directing the essential function. In 
addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that "(1) 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 sufficiently articulated or 
documented a claim that the Beneficiary would direct an essential function in an executive capacity. 
Finally, we acknowledge that the Petitioner questioned why the Director digressed from the previous 
approval of an L-IA petition for "the same position for the same person with the same company," 
noting that the denial of this extension "is beyond comprehension." The prior petition was a new 
office petition subject to the requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v), while this extension of the 
new office petition is adjudicated pursuant to the requirements at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(14 )(ii). If the 
business does not have the necessary staffing after one year to sufficiently relieve the Beneficiary 
.
Matter of A-1- LLC 
from performing non-executive tasks, the Petitioner is ineligible for an extension. While the 
Petitioner emphasizes that it has achieved high gross receipts in its initial year, it did not meet its 
burden to demonstrate that it has grown to the point where it is able to relieve the Beneficiary from 
involvement in the day-to-day operations of the company. Accordingly , the Petitioner has not 
established that he will be employed in an executi ve capacity. 
III. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
Although not addressed in the Director's decision, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient 
evidence to establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
To establish a "qualifying relationship," the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (i.e. one entity with "branch " 
offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary " or as "affiliates." See section 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the 
Act; see also 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)( 1 )(ii) (providing definitions of the terms "parent," "branch ," 
"subsidiary ," and "affiliate "). 
The Petitioner claims that it is wholly owned by a partnership firm located in India. 
In support of its claim , the Petitioner submitted a membership certificate number "001" (issued in 
November 2016) indicating that holds 100% of its membership interest, as well as 
evidence of two wire transfers it received from 
However, the record also contains the Petitioner ' s IRS Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership 
Income , indicating that it was filing three Schedules K-1. The Petitioner was required to file a 
Schedule K-1 for each person who was a partner (or member) in the company at any time during the 
year. If the Petitioner continued to be solely owned by as claimed, then the expected 
number of Schedules K-1 attached would be one, not three. The Petitioner did not submit a 
complete copy of its 2017 tax return and we cannot determine the company ' s current ownership and 
control. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that it maintains a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(A). For this 
additional reason , the petition cannot be approved. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that it will employ the 
Beneficiary in an executive capacity under the extended petition, or that it maintains a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary foreign employer. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-1- LLC, ID# 1767245 (AAO Jan. 2, 2019) 
9