dismissed L-1A Case: Retail

MATTER OF A-R- LLC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 31,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a dollar store, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as the president of its new 
office under the L-1A 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-IA 
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: (1) the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer; and (2) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits a new letter regarding 
the claimed qualifying relationship between the U.S. and foreign employers. The Petitioner asserts 
that it has met its burden of proof, and that the Director erred in finding otherwise. 
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 in a specialized knowledge 
capacity, for one continuous year within three years preceding the Beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. 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. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. 
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(l)(l)(ii)(F). If the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker, indicates that the Beneficiary is coming to the United States in L-1A status to open or to be 
employed in a new office, 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 includes 
.
Matter of A-R- LLC. 
information regarding the new office's physical premises, 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(1)(3)(v). 
ell. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a new letter from the foreign 
employer and asserts that it has submitted enough evidence to meet its burden of proof. We 
disagree, because of gaps and discrepancies in the record. 
To establish a "qualifying relatio·nship" under the Act and the regulations, a 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 
generally section 101(a)(15)(L) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1). 
The regulation and case law confirm that ownership and control are the factors that must be 
examined in determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and foreign 
entities for purposes of this visa classification. See Matter of Church Scientology lnt'l, 19 I&N Dec. 
593 (BIA 1988); see also Matter a,[ Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter o.f 
Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm'r. 1982). In the context of this visa petition, ownership refers to 
the direct or indirect legal right of possession of the assets of an entity with full power and authority 
to control; control means the direct or indirect legal right and authority to direct the establishment, 
management, and operations of an entity. Matter o.fChurch Scientology lnt '1, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
The record identifies the Beneficiary's foreign employer as in India. 
The Beneficiary does not hold any ownership interest in the foreign entity, 
but company financial reports indicate that he is related to at least some of the foreign 
company's owners. 
The Petitioner's operating agreement stated that the foreign entity owns 51% of the Petitioner, in 
exchange for a capital contribution of $100,000, and that the Beneficiary contributed $45,501 for 
48% of the company. The agreement identifies a third party, who made no stated capital 
contribution, as holding the remaining 1%. 
In an asset purchase agreement dated September 30, 2016, agreed to sell its 
store to the Petitioner for $200,000. 1 The agreement acknowledged that the 
seller had already received $145,501, with "the remaining balance due in three months." The 
Petitioner filed the instant petition one and a half months later, on November 14,2016. 
1 The asset purchase agreement provides the same address for and the Petitioner, which corresponds to 
the same single-family residence in Illinois that the Petitioner listed as the Beneficiary's address on the 
petition form. 
2 
.
Matter of A-R- LLC. 
On January 16, 2017, the Petitioner stated that "[t]he rest [of the foreign entity's share in the 
Petitioner] will be wired soon," and "the remaining balance [for the Beneficiary's share in the 
Petitioner] will be paid in three months time as per the agreement." On February 28, 2017, the 
president of the foreign entity stated that the company had already invested $75,000, wjth an 
"[a]dditional $25,000 to be sent [b]y May I, 2017." The official claimed that "[t]he $25, 000 . .. 
deferred payment has [b]een agreed upon by all parties," but the record does not contain any 
documentation or statement from to corroborate this claim. 
The $145,501 down payment on the store matches the capital contributions specified in the 
Petitioner's operating agreement. Neither the operating agreement nor the asset purchase agreement 
identified the expected source for the remaining $54,499. 
On September 23, 2016, the Petitioner received two incoming wire transfers, for $74,970 each (one 
from the Beneficiary, and one from a 15% owner of the foreign entity). Three days later, the 
P~titioner issued a cashier's check for $145,501 to Both wire transfers came from 
the same bank, but the account numbers are partially obscured and therefore the transfer documents 
do not show whether or not both transfers came from the same source account. 
The Petitioner claimed that both transfers came from the same bank account, but a submitted bank 
statement from the foreign bank does not support that claim. The statement confirmed that both 
individuals share a joint account, but that statement shows only one outgoing wire transfer. The 
amount, about Rs5 million, corresponds to US$75, 000 at the then-current exchange rate. The 
transfer documented in the bank statement appears to represent the Beneficiary's contribution, 
because on the same day, the Beneficiary deposited Rs5.2 million into the joint account. (The prior 
balance was only Rsl3 ,512, or about US$200.) 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the Petitioner had "not provided any evidence to 
establish that the foreign company has contributed any capital in exchange for ownership in the U.S. 
company." The Director also noted that the foreign company has not yet made its required $100,
000 
capital contribution to the petitioning entity. 
On appeal, the foreign entity's president claims that the company gave $75,000 to one of the 
partners, to finance the purchase, with more funds to follow. The bank documents in the record do 
not support this claim by establishing any chain of possession showing the transfer of funds from the 
foreign company to the individual who sent the wire transfer. Bank documents from the foreign 
entity do not show that the company provided the money for either wire transfer and they do not 
show any five-million-rupee transactions near the time of the transfers. On the date of the wire 
transfers, the foreign entity had a negative bank balance exceeding Rs37.5 million. 
Article VI of the Petitioner's operating agreement indicates that "[t]he Members have contribut ed" 
the capital specified above (emphasis added). If true, this would mean that the foreign company had 
already contributed the full $100,000, but the Petitioner acknowledges on appeal that this is not the 
case. Therefore, the operating agreement (which is a "form" document with the names of the 
3 
Matter of A-R- LLC. 
members handwritten into blank spaces) is not sufficient evidence that the members have, in fact, 
performed the actions described in that document. The Beneficiary, on the other hand, has already 
contributed $75,000 of his own funds, substantially more than the $45,501 capital contribution 
required by the operating agreement. 
At every stag~ in this proceeding, the Petitioner has indicated that the remaining balance on its 
capital infusion is forthcoming within three months. At the time of filing, the foreign company had 
not provided the $100,000 in capital which would entitle the company to a 51% share of the 
petitioning entity. It claims to have submitted some of that amount, but the record does not reliably 
support that assertion. The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other 
evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. !d. 
The Petitioner has not met its burden of proof to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 
the foreign entity has purchased a controlling interest in the petitioning company. Thus, it has not 
established a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
III. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has been employed 
abroad in a managerial or executive capacity.2 On appeal, the Petitioner contends that it has 
submitted "tangible proof of the important managerial position occupied by the beneficiary"; 
however, the record leaves some key claims unsubstantiated, while contradicting others outright. 
A managerial capacity is an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization, 
and exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the 
employee has authority. A personnel manager supervises and controls the work of other 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees; the duties of a first-line supervisor are not 
considered managerial unless the employees supervised are professional. A personnel manager must 
also have the authority to execute or recommend personnel actions such as hiring, firing, and 
promotions. A function manager need not directly supervise other employees, but must manage an 
essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization, and 
function at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function 
managed. Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
An executive capacity is 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 
2 
The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a position involving specialized 
knowledge. 
4 
Matter of A-R- LLC. 
\ 
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) ofthe Act. 
A. Duties 
When examining the managerial ,or executive capacity of the Beneficiary, we will look first to the 
Petitioner's description of the job duties. A petitioner must submit evidence that the beneficiary's 
prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was managerial, executive, or involved 
specialized knowledge. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iv). 
The definitions of managerial and executive capacity each have two parts. First, the Petitioner must 
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 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); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary was vice president of operations at the foreign entity, 
which sells iron and steel. The Petitioner stated: 
[The Beneficiary] has been the Vice President of Operations of [the foreign entity] 
since 2009 . . . . [He] has important senior level managerial duties, including but not 
limited to, researching and developing new strategies to achieve company goals and 
objectives, developing operational functions essential for increasing [the] company's 
productivity, such as products promotion and placement, evaluating and establishing 
standards and guidelines to- be followed by all production and administrative 
departments, managing and directing [the] company's operations on a daily basis, 
monitoring on company policies and developing new operational procedures to 
increase efficiency and streamline production and distribution. 
The Beneficiary's resume included this description: 
• Sets challenging cross-functional goals that support the organizational goals and 
strategies. 
• Integrated functional strategies, utilizing business expertise to reach financial and 
operational objectives. 
• Researched and developed new strategies to achieve company goals and 
objectives - Deployed resources to reach financial forecast and business 
objectives. 
• Developed operational functions essential for increasing firm's productivity such 
as product promotion and placement - Evaluated and established standards and 
guideline [sic] that were to be followed by all production departments. 
5 
Matter of A-R- LLC. 
• Monitored company policies and developed new operational procedures for firm 
in order to increase efficiency. 
• Managed and supervised firm operations on a daily basis including sales, 
purchases, supply chains, resourcing, and distribution. 
• Improved service levels to highest levels in company history, focusing on daily 
operational performance 
• Implemented strong quality awareness and pare to-approach to defect reduction. 
• Perform monthly asset liability modeling and forecasting. 
• Developed a marginal balance sheet and pricing model for margin enhancement. 
• Identified cost savings and revenue enhancement totaling 25% of pretax operating 
income. 
• Coordinating and/or preparing tax schedules, returns and information. 
• Managing relationships with insurance providers and ensuring compliance. 
• Managing all tax planning and compliance with all required federal, state, local, 
payroll, property and other applicable taxes. 
The responsibilities listed on the Beneficiary's resume appear to have been pieced together from 
different sources. The first items on the list are very broad and general, while the last items include 
some very specific claims such as the reference to "25% of pretax operating income." The record 
does not support these specific claims. 
Also supporting the conclusion that the Beneficiary relied at least in part on third-party templates, 
under "Qualifications," the resume states: "Experience working in a growing start up environment 
strongly preferred." A statement that a particular type of experience is "strongly preferred" is a 
qualification that an employer would list on a job announcement, rather than a statement that a job 
candidate would include on a resume. 
The Petitioner later submitted a letter from the president of the foreign entity, listing the 
Beneficiary's "senior level managerial duties ... and responsibilities." Several of the listed items 
are identical or similar to parts of the job description on the Beneficiary's resume. The Petitioner 
assigned percentages to the approximate time that the Beneficiary spent on each of the following: 
a) Working closely with the President of the Company to set overall organizational 
policies and priorities, and development of long term plans, goals and investment 
opportunities, revenue generation and strategic partnershipsnto ensure the success 
ofthe business (20%); 
b) Developing operational functions essential for increasing [the] company's 
productivity, evaluating performance goals, conducting and leading bi-weekly 
meetings with Department Heads to strategize operational goals and 
implementation (20% ); 
c) Increase productivity by aggressive products promotion and placement, 
establishing and evaluating standards, and setting guidelines to be followed by all 
production and administrative departments (15% ); 
6 
Matter of A-R- LLC. 
d) Monitoring company policies and developing new operational procedures and 
processes to increase efficiency and streamline production and distribution 
(10%); 
e) Improving the quality and quantity of company products and services (10% ); 
f) Developing, communicating, and implementing processes to ensure efficient and 
effective execution of policies and procedures (10% ); 
g) Coordinating with Sales & Marketing teams to expand client base and explore 
new opportunities for business (10% ); 
h) Researching and developing new strategies to achieve company goals and 
objectives (5% ). 
In the denial notice, the Director stated that the Petitioner had not provided documentary evidence to 
support its claims regarding the Beneficiary's duties abroad. The Director also found that the 
Petitioner did not "establish that the foreign company has the organizational structure to elevate the 
beneficiary to a position that would be considered managerial or executive in nature." 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the letter from the president of the foreign company "is not an 
assertion, but tangible proof of the important managerial position occupied by the beneficiary." The 
Petitioner maintains that the breakdown of the Beneficiary's duties shows the "hall-marks of a high 
level managerial" position with the company. 
The job description, whoever signed it, is not "tangible proof' that the Beneficiary's position abroad 
qualifies as a managerial or executive capacity. The description with time percentages is similar in 
many ways to the description on the Beneficiary's own resume, but there are differences as well. 
The Beneficiary's resume goes into the greatest detail with respect to financial responsibilities, but 
the percentage breakdown does not discuss finances at all. By submitting both of these descriptions, 
the Petitioner attested to their accuracy under penalty of perjury, and the Petitioner has not attempted 
to resolve the conflict between them, or even acknowledged that conflict. 
Also, the job descriptions lack crucial detail. For instance, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
developed operational functions that increased the company's productivity, but the Petitioner did not 
elaborate or provide any evidence to identify those functions. The Petitioner also did not explain the 
Beneficiary's contributions or show that they increased productivity. The record contains no 
examples of the Beneficiary's "aggressive products pro~otion and placement" or "new strategies to 
achieve company goals and objectives." 
Furthermore, the job description contains redundant elements. The Petitioner claimed that the 
Beneficiary spends 20% ofhis time "[d]eveloping operational functions essential for increasing [the] 
company's productivity," 15% of his time "[i]ncreas[ing] productivity by ... establishing and 
evaluating standards, and setting guidelines," and another 10% of his time "developing new 
operational procedures and processes to increase efficiency and streamline production and 
distribution." These phrases appear to be three different ways of describing the same broad function, 
rather than distinct activities. 
Matter of A-R- LLC. 
The descriptions of the Beneficiary's duties abroad ate inconsistent with one another, and lack key 
details and corroboration. The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary performed the 
duties of a manager or executive for t~e foreign company. 
B. Staffing 
Additional issues arise when we consider the foreign company's staffing. The Petitioner stated that 
the Beneficiary "managed a staff of 38 employees," but the foreign company's organizational chart 
showed only 26 employees. The chart indicated that the Beneficiary had authority over every 
employee except the president and the general manager. Only one person reported directly to the 
Beneficiary: a manager, with eight subordinate sales staff. Further down on the chart, the 
Beneficiary's other listed subordinates included: 
• Receiving/Dispatch, with two subordinate staff 
• Account/Finance Manager, with four subordinate staff 
• Bookkeeper 
• Supervisor ofthree clerical staff 
The Petitioner did not submit payroll records or other documentation to corroborate the size of the 
foreign company's staff. 
In the denial notice, the Director stated that the Petitioner "did not provide evidence to illustrate the 
current employment or current duties of any of the beneficiary's subordinates with the foreign 
company." 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director "chose to ignore" the foreign company's 
organizational chart. The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of the chart, but found 
that the Petitioner had not provided supporting documentation to show that the chart accurately 
depicted the company's staffing structure. The lack of corroboration is not a minor Issue, 
particularly when the Petitioner provided conflicting figures for the size of the company. 
The Petitioner's own evidence points toward a significantly smaller foreign staff. The foreign 
company's most recent "Statement of Accounts" in the record, for the year ending March 31, 201 5, 
shows Rs45 1,800 in "Salary Payment," not counting "Salary paid to Partners." The document 
accounted for the Rs45 1 ,800, dividing that sum between six employees identified by name or title. 
The statement, therefore, does not corroborate claims of 26 or 38 employees at the foreign company. 
Of at least equal concern, the Beneficiary is not one of the six employees named, although the 
Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has worked for the foreign company since 2009. The 
Petitioner has submitted the Beneficiary's purported pay receipts for a year of employment from 
April 2015 to April 2016, after the period covered by the statement of accounts, but his absence from 
an itemized list of salaried employees during his period of claimed employment raises further 
questions of credibility. 
8 
Matter of A-R- LLC. 
The Petitioner had submitted interior photographs of the foreign company, which show only an 
office rather than sales, production, or warehouse areas where the majority of the claimed employees 
would work. Only six different people are visible in the photographs. The photographs therefore do 
not corroborate the Petitioner's claims regarding the size of the foreign company's stafi. 
As noted above, personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of 
other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. The statute 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 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(4). If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary 
directly supervises other employees, those subordinate employees must be supervisory, professional, 
or managerial, and the beneficiary must have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or 
recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. Sections 101(a)(44)(A)(ii)-(iii) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(2)-(3). 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary supervised managers and supervisors, but the record is not 
consistent with the claims on the organizational chart and does not support a finding that the 
Beneficiary was a personnel manager. 
The.term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the 
work of a subordinat~ staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" 
within the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) ofthe Act. The term "essential function" is 
not defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary will manage an essential 
function, a petitioner must clearly describe the duties performed ~n managing the essential function, 
i.e., identify the function with specificity, articulate the essential nature of the function, and establish 
the proportion of a beneficiary's daily duties dedicated to managing the essential function. See 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). In addition, a petitioner's description of a beneficiary's daily duties must 
demonstrate that the beneficiary managed the function rather than performed the duties related to the 
function. 
The Petitioner has not met the requirements to show the Beneficiary was a function manager. As 
noted above, the Petitioner has not provided consistent or corroborated information about the duties 
the Beneficiary performed at the foreign company, and therefore has not shown that the Beneficiary 
was a function manager. 
We also find that the Petitioner has not put forth a consistent claim that the Beneficiary worked in an 
executive capacity, but has sometimes paraphrased elements of the definition, stating for instance 
that the Beneficiary "managed and directed the management of an essential function of the 
organization" and "directed the management of an essential and major component of the 
organization." For the reasons already cited concerning managerial capacity, the Petitioner has not 
established that the foreign company employed the Beneficiary in an executive capacity. Assertions 
regarding his authority over the company rely on unsupported claims regarding subordinate staffing. 
9 
Matter of A-R- LLC. 
The Petitioner has not established that the foreign entity employed the Beneficiary as a manager or 
an executive. Where the contemporaneous documentation touches on relevant issues, it tends to 
undermine rather than support the Petitioner's claims. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity, or that the foreign 
entity employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-R- LLC., ID# 533046 (AAO July 31, 2017) 
10