dismissed L-1A Case: Salon And Spa

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 14274215 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 5, 2021 
The Petitioner , a business operating as a salon and spa, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary in 
the position of Director, Administration & Business Development under the L-lA nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity in the United States, and (2) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal because 
the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's proposed employment in the United States would 
be in a managerial or executive capacity. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the 
appeal , we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding the remaining 
issue pertaining to the Beneficiary's employment abroad. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 
(1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is 
unnecessary to the results they reach") ; see also Matter of L-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). 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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 10l(a)(15)(L) of the Act. 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. 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. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would be employed 
in a managerial capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that it will employ the Beneficiary in an 
executive 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 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. 
When examining the managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the petitioner's 
description of the proposed position, which must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the 
beneficiary. 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 
To be eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, the Petitioner must show that 
the Beneficiary will perform the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition at 
section 10l(a)(44)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act. If the Petitioner establishes that the offered position meets 
all elements set forth in the statutory definition, the Petitioner must 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 a letter of support, the Petitioner states that it was formed in 2001 and began providing beauty salon 
and spa services in 2003. It claims that it employs 10 full- and part-time employees and approximately 
34 independent contractors, and seeks to employ the Beneficiary as its Director of Administration and 
Business Development to facilitate its attempts to expand its business operations. According to the 
Petitioner, the founder and president of both the foreign affiliate and the U.S. company has been 
responsible for the overall direction and management of both companies, but due to advancing years 
and increasing commitments with his various businesses, he seeks to appoint the Beneficiary to further 
develop the U.S. business. 
The Petitioner described the duties of the proffered position as follows: 
2 
As Director of Administration and Business Development, [the Beneficiary] will be in 
charge of managing the business development and expansion planning and strategies 
for the U.S. company as well as long term strategies for any investment represented by 
the Board of Directors. [The Beneficiary will also be responsible for directing 
administration through subordinate managers and designing cash flow strategies and 
implementing budget and cost optimization policies. Among others, her duties will 
include but not be limited to the following: 
Business Development 
• Be responsible for managing and directing the business development, 
operations, and marketilg actirties of the existing customized beauty solutions 
and services business in Texas. 4% 
• Expand the business presence in the United States by establishing new clients, 
expanding to new markets by adding locations or increasing geographic reach 
for new clients, expanding customized beauty services offered, and 
recommending new services including in-home services or modifications to 
existing services based on market feedback and market research and analysis to 
ensure a leading position in the industry; 4% 
• Review market research conducted by subordinates and outside agencies 
regarding the current business environment for the customized beauty solutions 
and services business ifLJ Texas and surrounding areas to study and analyze 
the market share and marketing efforts of competing businesses; 3% 
• Establish, negotiate, and overseas strategic partnership to further develop the 
company's business presence; 3% 
• Engage business consultants to obtain feasibility studies for the customized 
beauty services and Salon and Spa markets in different U.S. locations, including 
expansion into new markets, services and products related to the customized 
beauty services business, with focus on exercise, nutrition, and wellness; 3% 
• Participate in industry meetings and trade shows to learn about new beauty 
treatments, products, and services; 2% 
• Review information obtained from industry related trade associations and other 
resources to make decisions on business expansion and opportunities in the 
customized beauty services or related businesses; 3% 
• Develop relationships with private equity, investment banking, and key 
personnel to obtain funding or services for business development projects, if 
needed; 3% 
• Review professional publication to keep abreast with the latest news, research, 
interviews, market reports an analysis for the customized care and beauty 
services industry; 2% 
• Present collected data and strategies for expansion with recommendation to the 
President of the company and the Board of Directors; 3% 
Sales and Marketing Management 
• Oversee and monitor the company's sales and marketing activities through 
subordinate staff members to increase brand presence; 7% 
3 
• Manage the company's advertising and sales promotion campaigns through 
coupon mass mailings, social media, including the maintenance and 
improvement of the company's website; working with outside consultants for 
the development of new marketing strategies via internet media; 7% 
• Manage campaigns to measure customer satisfaction and customer support; 6% 
• Review results and develop steps to ensure customer satisfaction; 5% 
• Contact and work with outside computer an information technology personnel, 
website designers, local media outlets (TV, newspapers, radio) and 
advertisement consultants to develop new advertising plans; 5% 
Administration 
• Establish, design, and implement policies, goals, objectives and procedures, 
confirming with management and staff members as necessary; 4% 
• Review financial and accounting statements, sales an activity reports, and other 
performance data to measure productivity and goal achievement and to 
determine areas needing cost reduction and/or budget adjustments; 3% 
• Review financial and sales reports to evaluate sustainable strategies and 
activities for a healthy rate of business development; 3% 
• Plan and administer budgets with third party vendors, contractors, and 
consultants for the upkeep and maintenance of the Salon and Spa facility; 3% 
• Direct and manage changes and or additions in the design, including 
furnishings, equipment and remodeling of the Salon and Spa premises as 
necessary; 3% 
• Determine staffing requirements, including cosmetologists (contractors), 
oversee and have final authority over the hiring/termination of employees and 
cosmetologists; 3% 
• Exercise binding authority to retain services of outside counsel, Certified Public 
Accountants, building maintenance, lighting, and repair contractors, and 
landscape architects, computer and Information Technology personnel, public 
relation companies, and Salon Product Vendors on behalf of the company; 3 % 
• Periodically assess the efficacy of services being provided by all contractors, 
vendors, and salon software being utilized by the company, and make decisions 
on modernization or changes required. 2% 
• Direct Site Operations Manager to prepare and deliver necessary financial 
information to CPA for purposes of tax filings; 3% 
• Report directly to the President of [the Petitioner], General Partner of [the 
Petitioner], and meet with him on a regular basis to discuss ongoing operational 
activities, status reports for new projects, financial standing and reports; 3% 
Legal 
• Review and approve proposals, negotiate contracts with suppliers and vendors, 
computer and information technology personnel, web designers for 
advertisements and website management, and other professional staff; 3% 
• Maintain services of and coordinate with outside counsel to ensure the firm's 
legal representation in matters involving court representation or arbitration 
processes; 2% 
4 
• Ensure that the firm complies with all state, city and municipal regulations and 
laws related to the nature of the business; 3% 
• Negotiate and execute agreements whenever necessary for business operations 
with consultants, contractors, clients, and vendors. 2% 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director advised the Petitioner that the Beneficiary's position 
description lacked sufficient detail to establish that she would be performing primarily managerial 
duties. In response, the Petitioner simply resubmitted the same list of duties, but added the percentage 
of time she would devote to each stated duty, as presented above. 
Based on the percentages of time provided, it appears that the Beneficiary would devote 30% of her 
time to business development, 30% to sales and marketing management, 30% to administration, and 
10% to legal. In the RFE response, the Petitioner farther asserted that based on these breakdowns, the 
Beneficiary will devote more than 50% of her time to business development and sales and marketing 
management, thereby establishing that the majority of her time will be devoted to qualifying 
managerial duties. However, the Petitioner did not provide farther clarification or detail to adequately 
convey the nature of the specific tasks the Beneficiary would perform on a day-to-day basis. 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). 
The Director also noted a discrepancy in the proposed organizational chart submitted in support of the 
petition, which demonstrated that the Beneficiary reported directly to the Petitioner's president and 
would oversee three managerial employees: a site/operations manager and two business development 
managers. According to the chart, one business development manager would oversee the salon staff, 
and the other business manager would oversee the spa staff However, the Director noted that only 
the site/operations manager position was staffed at the time of filing, and clarification from the 
Petitioner was requested. 
In response, the Petitioner explained that the purpose of the Beneficiary's transfer to the United States 
was to expand the Petitioner's salon and spa business, and that once such expansion was underway 
and progressing, the two business development managers would be hired to oversee their respective 
departments. The Petitioner noted that the organizational chart to which the Director referred was 
designated as "proposed," and thereby reflected the ultimate organizational structure that the Petitioner 
hoped to achieve once the Beneficiary was transferred to the U.S. entity. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the lack of sufficient subordinate managerial staff: 
coupled with the non-specific description of the Beneficiary's proposed duties, precluded a finding 
that the Beneficiary would be employed in the U.S. in a primarily managerial capacity. The Director 
noted that, absent evidence that the Petitioner had a sufficient number of subordinate managerial, 
supervisory, or professional employees to relieve the Beneficiary from performing non-qualifying 
duties, the record did not support a finding that the Beneficiary would be performing high-level 
responsibilities such that her employment with the Petitioner would be in a primarily managerial 
capacity. 
5 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erroneously treated the petition as an "extension," 
and thus erroneously based the denial on the Petitioner's lack of subordinate managerial employees at 
the time of filing. The Petitioner states that the instant petition was a petition for "new employment," 
and therefore there was no requirement to have a subordinate staff of managerial employees in place 
when the petition was filed. We disagree. 
Preliminarily, it appears that the Petitioner is confusing the requirements for a petition that involves 
the opening of a new office with a petition for new employment. 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(1)(1)(ii)(F). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation no 
more than one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial 
position. 
The Petitioner, however, was formed in 2001, and has been engaged in the provision of beauty salon 
and spa services since 2003. Moreover, on the L Classification Supplement to the Form 1-129 Petition, 
the Petitioner answered "No" to Question 12 on page 24, which asked: "Is the Beneficiary coming to 
the United States to open a new office?" Consequently, the Petitioner is not eligible for the more 
lenient provisions afforded under an initial new office petition. 
After reviewing the record and the assertions of the Petitioner on appeal, we concur with the Director's 
conclusions. At the time of filing, the Petitioner employed a site/operations manager, who oversaw 
one full-time receptionist, three part-time receptionists, one full-time housekeeper, and four part-time 
housekeepers. It also indicated that approximately 34 contractors were retained as hairstylists, 
massage therapists, nail technicians, and aestheticians, with no intermediate supervisor between them 
and the Beneficiary. The Petitioner, however, indicates that the Beneficiary will be primarily 
performing business development and sales and marketing tasks, yet the current organizational 
structure of the Petitioner, coupled with the generalized list of the Beneficiary's proposed duties, does 
not support a finding that the Beneficiary will manage the organization, or primarily manage the 
business development and sales and marketing functions of the organization. For example, the 
Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will "review market research conducted by subordinates" to help 
study the market share of competing businesses, and will "oversee and monitor the company's sales 
and marketing activities through subordinate staff members." However, there are no sales or 
marketing personnel employed by the Petitioner to which the Beneficiary can delegate such 
non-qualifying duties. Moreover, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary herself will be tasked 
with expanding the business, and will be responsible for hiring a number of additional positions in the 
first phase of the Petitioner's expansion plan. While its assertions are noted, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the Beneficiary will primarily manage the business development and sales and 
marketing functions of the company, as opposed to performing them herself. 
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 )(1 ). A 
visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after the petitioner or 
beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N 
Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm'r 1978); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). Here, while 
the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary will ultimately hire numerous employees to relieve her from 
performing non-qualifying tasks, the record at the time of filing does not establish that the Beneficiary 
6 
will be primarily managing the organization, or primarily managing its business development and sales 
and marketing functions. Rather, the record indicates that the Beneficiary will primarily be engaged 
in the performance of non-qualifying sales and marketing and related tasks until such time that a 
subordinate staff of managers or professionals is hired to relieve her. 
It is the Petitioner's burden to clearly describe the proposed duties and to establish that the 
Beneficiary's actual duties would be primarily managerial in nature. 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., 724 F. Supp. at 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 
(2d. Cir. 1990). Here, the Petitioner has not provided the necessary detail or an adequate explanation 
of the Beneficiary's proposed activities in the course of her daily routine, in light of the Petitioner's 
current organizational structure. 
The fact that a beneficiary will manage or direct a business does not necessarily establish eligibility 
for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial capacity within the meaning of section 
101 (a)( 44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a position 
be "primarily" executive or managerial. Here, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary will 
exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of 
authority with respect to discretionary decision-making and personnel matters. However, due to the 
deficiencies discussed, the submitted position descriptions do not establish that her actual duties would 
be primarily managerial in nature. 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
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 the overall purpose 
and stage of development of the organization. See section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. 
The definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." Here, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity 
based on her proposed supervision and control of subordinate personnel. 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." Id. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner indicated on its organizational chart that it had 10 full-time and 
part-time employees - a site/operations manager, four receptionists, and five housekeepers - and 
approximately 34 hairstylists, massage therapists, nail technicians, and aestheticians identified as 
independent contractors. The Petitioner also submitted a proposed organizational chart, indicating 
that it plans to hire additional employees including two business development managers, an 
administrative assistant, an event coordinator, and a marketing specialist, in addition to numerous 
independent contractors to provide spa and salon services. Given that most of the existing positions 
within the organization are low-level services positions, it is unclear how the Beneficiary will be acting 
in a capacity that is primarily managerial in nature. According to the Petitioner, the site/operations 
7 
manager is responsible for overseeing the receptionists and housekeepers. However, there are no 
employees assigned to direct or coordinate the work of the Petitioner's 34 independent contractors, 
nor are there any employees that would perform administrative or operational tasks. Absent additional 
employees to relieve the Beneficiary from performing such tasks, we cannot determine whether her 
employment will be in a capacity that is primarily managerial in nature. In addition, the Petitioner 
provided no credible evidence reflecting the Beneficiary delegating duties to the site/operations 
manager or to substantiate her personnel authority over that individual. See section 101(a)(44)(A) of 
the Act. An employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide 
services is not considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See, e.g., 
sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated 
managerial or executive duties); Matter o_f Church Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593,604 (Comm'r 
1988). 
The Petitioner maintains that the primary purpose of the Beneficiary's transfer to the U.S. entity is to 
expand its business operations. The Petitioner stated that initially, she will be tasked at hiring various 
personnel in what it deems "phase one" of its business plan, and will ultimately manage the business 
development function of the Petitioner once this subordinate staff is hired and in place. The Petitioner 
contends that the proposed organizational chart, when realized, will elevate the Beneficiary to a 
position that is primarily managerial and thus it has satisfied the regulatory requirements. Finally, the 
Petitioner asserts that it should not be penalized for not having a subordinate staff of managerial 
employees in place at the time of filing, since that is what the Beneficiary's transfer is intended to 
accomplish. 
It must again be noted that the Petitioner is not a new office, and 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 )(1 ). The record as constituted does not establish 
how the Beneficiary, with one subordinate manager in charge of overseeing housekeepers and 
receptionists, will be performing high-level managerial duties and relieved from performing 
non-qualifying operational duties. Further, as briefly noted above, the current organizational chart 
demonstrates that there is no intermediate supervisor between the Beneficiary and the salon and spa 
contractors, composed of hairstylists, nail technicians, etc., further suggesting that the Beneficiary will 
assume the role of a first-line supervisor until the appropriate business development managers for both 
the salon and spa personnel are hired. 1 
Alternatively, the Petitioner refers to the Beneficiary's position as a "functional manager" position. In 
the case of a function manager with no direct subordinates, other factors considered may include a 
1 It should be noted that the subordinate spa and salon personnel under the Beneficiary's supervision do not appear to 
qualify as professional employees. To determine whether a beneficiary manages professional employees, we must evaluate 
whether the subordinate positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. Cf 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) ( defining "profession" to mean "any occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation"). Section 101 (a)(32) of the Act, states that "[t]he 
term profession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondaty schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." The Petitioner has not demonstrated that these hair 
stylists, nail technicians, massage therapists, or aestheticians require a baccalaureate degree for entry into their field of 
endeavor. 
8 
beneficiary's position within the organizational hierarchy, the depth of a petitioner's organizational 
structure, the scope of a beneficiary's authority and its impact on a petitioner's operations, the indirect 
supervision of employees within the scope of the function managed, and the value of the budgets, 
products, or services that a beneficiary manages. See Matter ofZ-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 
(AAO Apr. 14, 2016). 
While it appears that managing the business development and the sales and marketing of the Petitioner 
is an essential function, its description of the Beneficiary's duties, coupled with the deficiencies in the 
Petitioner's organizational structure, do not establish that she will primarily manage those functions, 
as opposed to performing research into sales and marketing and engaging directly in other 
non-managerial services related to that function. Again, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary will 
rely on subordinate sales and marketing personnel to provide her with the relevant information needed 
to make decisions regarding the business development strategies of the Petitioner. As noted above, 
the Petitioner employs no such individuals, and the absence of such employees to perform these 
underlying tasks suggests that she will be directly involved in the research and marketing required for 
the Petitioner's planned expansion. The actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the 
employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108. 
While performing non-qualifying tasks necessary to produce a product or service will not 
automatically disqualify a beneficiary as long as those tasks are not the majority of a beneficiary's 
duties, a petitioner still has the burden of establishing that a beneficiary will "primarily" perform 
managerial duties. See section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Whether a beneficiary is a "function" 
manager turns in part on whether the petitioner has sustained its burden of proving that their duties are 
"primarily" managerial. See Matter ofZ-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016).2 
A company's size alone, without taking into account the reasonable needs of the organization, may 
not be the determining factor in denying a visa to a multinational manager or executive. See 
§ 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(44)(C). However, it is appropriate for USCIS to 
consider the size of the petitioning company in conjunction with other relevant factors, such as a 
company's small personnel size, the absence of employees who would perform the non-managerial or 
non-executive operations of the company, or a "shell company" that does not conduct business in a 
regular and continuous manner. See, e.g., Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 2006); 
Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). The size ofa company maybe especially 
relevant when USCIS notes discrepancies in the record and fails to believe that the facts asserted are 
true. See Systronics, 153 F. Supp. 2d at 15. 
Here, the vacancies in the Petitioner's organizational structure, which demonstrate the absence of 
subordinate managerial, professional, or supervisory employees to relieve the Beneficiary from 
performing non-qualifying duties, renders it impossible to conclude that the Beneficiary's position 
will be primarily managerial in nature. The record as constituted does not demonstrate that the 
2 On appeal, the Petitioner relies on both Matter of Z-A- and Matter of G- Inc. for the proposition that the Beneficiary's 
role as a function manager in charge of the business development function of the Petitioner establishes that the position is 
primarily managerial. We disagree. The Petitioner must establish that the Beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed 
to perform, the function. See Matter ofG-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). For the reasons discussed 
above, the Petitioner's organizational structure precludes a finding that the Beneficiary will primarily manage, and not 
perf01m, the Petitioner's business development and sales and marketing functions. 
9 
Beneficiary will primarily perform the claimed duties stated by the Petitioner, and the current 
organizational structure of the Petitioner does not establish that the Beneficiary will be relieved from 
performing non-qualifying tasks. Specifically, it is questionable whether the Beneficiary can possibly 
perform tasks that are primarily managerial in nature with only the site/operations manager to carry 
out the operational tasks that may be required for the business, such as sales, marketing, inventory 
management, accounting, payroll, personnel management, and day-to-day operational and 
administrative functions that would be associated with any business, while permitting the Beneficiary 
to perform only high-level managerial responsibilities. 
Overall, the record does not contain sufficient evidence regarding the Beneficiary's proposed role or 
the roles of her subordinates to establish that she would primarily perform qualifying managerial 
duties. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that she would be employed in a managerial 
capacity as defined at section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10