dismissed L-1A Case: Spa And Pool Sales

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-S- LTD. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE : APR. 30, 20 18 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NON IMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner ,' whose U.S. subsidiary intends to sell, distribute, and service spas and swimming pools , 
seeks to temporarily emplo y the Beneficiary as chief exec utive office r (CEO) of a new office 2 under 
the L-1 A nonimmigrant class ification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) sectio n IOI(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 
l l0 l(a)( l5)(L). TheL-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 Direct or of the California Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish , as required, that: (I) the new oftice would be able to support a manageri al or execu tive 
position within one year of approval of the petition; and (2) the Benefic iary has been employed abroad 
in a manageria l or executive capacity. · 
On appeal , the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the record now estab lishes t hat 
the Beneficiary has been employed abroad, and would be employed in the United States, m a 
manageri al or exec utive capacity. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establi sh eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving a new 
office, a qualifying organization must have employed the benefici ary in a manage rial or execu tive 
capacity for one continuous yea r within three years preceding the beneficiar y's applica tion for 
admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). In addition, the beneficiar y must 
seek to enter the United States tem poraril y to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacit y. /d. 
1 
The Petitioner in this matter, the Beneficiary's current employer, is the foreign parent company of I he Beneficiary's 
proposed U.S. employer a company established in 2017. 
2 The tenn "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. 
Maller ofC-S- Ltd. 
The petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new oftice will be able to support a 
managerial or executive position within one year. This evidence must establish that the petitioner 
secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation and disclose 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). 
II. DEFINITIONS 
"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 
IOI(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
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 IOI(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
Based on the definitions of managerial and 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 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.2dat 1533. 
Ill. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The tirst issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
When examining the managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look to the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly describe the 
duties performed by the Benetlciary and indicate whether such duties are in a managerial or 
executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description of the job duties, 
users examines 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 
2 
Maller ofC-S- Ltd. 
the Benellciary's job duties along with evidence of the nature of the Petitioner's business, its staftlng 
levels, and its organizational structure. 
A. Duties 
The Beneficiary has been employed in the United Kingdom as the Petitioner's president a_nd CEO 
since 2008. The Petitioner described his current duties as follows: 
• Implement the appropriate business rules governing the advertising, sales, and 
production and retail management aspects of the Spa industry. 
• Manage a team of engineers responsible for pre-sales requirements gathering, 
determining and expressing the implementation details to the customers, delivery 
and tilting the spa or other equipment ... while working on tight deadlines. 
• Manage and direct the retail sales program including appointment and training of 
retail staff and the effective management of the retail sales environments. 
• Guide the interaction of all management programs including accounting programs 
and others. 
In response to a request for evidence (RFE), in which the Director asked for a detailed description of 
the Beneficiary's typical duties and the amount of time spent on specific tasks, the Petitioner stated 
that he shares day-to-day decision making with the company's other director, and allocates his time 
to the following tasks on a weekly basis: 
• Liaising witli engineers to organi[z]e daily jobs 20% 
• Answering emails and enquiries 15% 
• Quoting and Estimating 20% 
• Liaising with Managerial staff for day to day running 20% 
• Sales and sales training I 0% 
• Organi[z]ing Marketing and future promotions 15% 
The Director determined, and we agree, that the descriptions did not provide sufficient detail to 
establish what the Beneficiary has been doing on a day-to-day basis and therefore do not establish 
that his duties were primarily managerial or executive in nature. In fact, the latter job description 
suggests that the Beneficiary spends only 20 percent of his time overseeing managerial staff and 
performs a number of non-qualifying duties, such as responding to customer inquiries, providing 
quotes and estimates, sales duties, marketing, and training of sales staff, rather than allocating these 
duties to subordinate retail and technical staff charged with selling, installing, and maintaining spas 
for customers. 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 IOI(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" 
perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); Matter of"Church Scientology In!"/, 19 I&N 
Dec. 593, 604 (Comm'r 1988). 
3 
Matter of C-S- Ltd. 
On appeal, the Petitioner has submitted two additional lengthy descriptions of the Beneficiary's role 
as CEO. The first bears no resemblance to the duty descriptions provided previously and describes 
the Beneficiary's "accountabilities" as: legal compliance; mission, policy, and planning; 
management and administration; governance; tinancing; and community relations. This description, 
to the extent that it is inconsistent with those submitted previously, has limited probative value. 
The Petitioner also submits a completely different lengthy position description that purports to 
further break down the duties submitted in response to the RFE, which, as noted, suggested that the 
Beneticiary performs primarily non-managerial functions. For example, the Petitioner n"ow states 
that the Beneficiary's responsibility for "quoting and estimating" does not actually involve providing 
quotes and estimates but involves reading reports from banks, signing off on payments to vendors 
and suppliers, developing supply contracts, reviewing budget and expense reports provided by a 
"manager," directing the best usc of supplies and personnel, setting standards for project estimates, 
and approving estimates prepared by the engineering and operations managers. In sum, the 
Petitioner indicates that subordinate managers and their staff actually perform the quoting and 
estimating duties that it previously attributed to the Beneficiary. However, as discussed further 
below, the Petitioner has not shown that it employed an engineering manager or other technical 
manager in the three years preceding the filing of the petition, so it is unclear who has been 
preparing quotes and estimates, if not the Beneficiary. In fact, many of the duties, as described on 
appeal, involve supervising, meeting with, and evaluating managerial staff that is not documented in 
the record. 
The Petitioner has now provided four differeni descriptions of the Beneficiary's duties, with the 
latest appearing to be incongruous with the nature, size and scope of the foreign entity's business, 
which has typically employed three to tive employees in addition to the company owners according 
to its payroll records dating back to 2015. We cannot discern which, if any, of the submitted 
descriptions accurately reflects the Beneficiary's actual duties. 
Even though. the record demonstrates that the Beneticiary manages the business along with his 
spouse, the fact 'that he manages or directs the business does not necessarily establish eligibility for 
classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity within the 
meaning of section I 0 I (a)(44) of the Act. The Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the 
Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to 
discretionary decision-making; however, the broad and shifting position descriptions are insufficient 
to establish that his actual duties abroad have been primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
If stafting levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) takes into account the 
reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the 
organization. See section IOI(a)(44)(C) ofthe Act. 
4 
.
Malter of C-S- Ltd 
The Petiti oner has provided copies of its quart erly "Emp loyer's. Tax Summary" for the period from 
.July 2015 un til June 2017 , along with employment con tracts for seve ral employees. The Petitioner 
has emplo yed the following individuals in the United Kingdom duri ng th is period :3 
Name 
[Benetic iary] 
Title 
CEO/D irector 
Director/Retail Manager 
Operations Manag er 
Service Technician (part-t ime) (hired May 20 15) 
Trainee Engineer / Apprentice Electrician (hired March 20 15) 
Apprentice spa technici an (hired June 20 17) 
Business Development Manager (hir ed Jul y 2017 in 
antici pation of owners' transfer to the United States ) 
The Petiti oner's organizational chart, submitted for the first time on appeal , shows that the 
Beneficiary supervises the reta il manager , busines s development manager , and operations manager. 
The chart depict s a subc ontracted maintenance services tech nician and a s ubco ntracted sales 
assoc iate reporting to the retail manager, and a subcontracted landscape r and groun ds man report ing 
to the operations manager. However, the Petiti oner has not provided evidenc e of payme nts to any 
subcontractors to substantiate its claim that it has staff to perfo rm retail, landsca ping and 
maintenance se rvices. 
The chart indi cates that a senior technici an, technician , apprentice technician , and appre ntice 
elec trician repo rt to the newly hired busines s deve lopment manager. However, this position was 
newly created in .July 2017 and the Benefici ary has not been super vis ing a business de velopmen t 
manager for at least one year in the three years preced ing the fi ling of the petition. It is unclear who 
was supervi sing these techni cians previously, if not the Benefici ary, who posses ses all the r equ i~ed 
industry certi ticat ions to perform this work. 
The Petitioner maintains that the evidence IS sufficient to show that the Beneficiary has been 
superv ising subordinate managerial and professi onal emplo yees. The statutory defin ition of 
"manag eria l capacity" allow s tor both "personnel managers" and "function manag ers." See se~t ion 
10l(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to prim arily supervi se and control 
the work of other supervisory , professional, or managerial employees. Contrary to the commo n 
understanding of the word "manage r," the stat ute plainly states that a "first line supervi sor is not 
considered to be acting in a manager ial capacity merely by virtue of the supe rvisor 's supe rvisory duties 
unless the empl oyees supervi sed are professional. "4 Section I 01 (a)( 44 )(A)(iv) of the Act. 
3 The Petitioner's payroll records indicate that it previously employed and ' but both employees 
left the company in 2016. 
4 In evaluating whether a beneficiary manages professional employees, we must evaluate whether the subordinate 
positiol)s require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. CJ 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 I 0 I (a)(32) of the Act, states that "lt]he term profession 
5 
Mal/er of C-S- Ltd. 
The Petitioner provides position descriptions on appeal in support of its claim that the Beneticiaty 
supervises managerial employees. However, the duty descriptions, while lengthy, are not consistent 
with the scope of the business. As noted, the Petitioner indicates that the retail manager supervises two 
subcontractors, but the record does not include evidence that these individuals have been working for 
the foreign entity or information regarding the nature of their duties. Without this information, the 
Petitioner has not established that anyone other than the retail manager is working in the Petitioner's 
store. If she is the store's only employee, then it is more likely than not that she is not required 10 
pertom1 primarily managerial or supervisory duties as claimed. Further, the Petitioner has previously 
stated that the Bencliciaty and the retail manager (his spouse) equally share the responsibility for the 
day-to-day supervision of the business, so it is unclear to what extent he actually supervises his spouse 
and co-director in this retail management role. 
In addition, the duties attributed to the operations manager are vague and it is difficult to detem1ine 
what this employee actually does within the context of the foreign entity's business. The organizational 
chart indicates that this position supervises a landscaper and "groundsman" whose employment and 
duties are not documented in the record, but the job description suggests a broader, more senior role that 
involves long-tem1 planning and strategy, "directing organization's financial and budget activities to 
fund operations," developing an operations budget and developing policies goals and objectives, duties 
which appear to overlap with the Beneficiary's own duties. The Petitioner has not documented this 
employee's subordinates or submitted a credible description of the operations mat1ager position in 
support of its claim that it is a managerial or supervisory position. 
Finally, the business development manager is a recent hire who has been recruited for a newly created 
position in preparation lor the Beneficiary's planned transfer to the United States. The Petitioner must 
show that the Beneficiary primarily performed managerial or executive duties tor at least one year in the 
three years preceding the tiling of the petition. Therefore, the Beneficiary's supervision of this new 
employee is not relevant to our analysis. 
The Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary has been supervising supervisory or managerial 
employees. Further the Petitioner has neither claimed nor provided evidence that any of the 
Beneficiary's subordinates have bachelor's degrees or that their positions require completion of such a 
degree to qualifY as professional employees. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary has been employed abroad as a personnel manager. 
The Petitioner also claims that the Beneficiary manages an essential function, but has not identified 
what that function is. The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not 
supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible lor managing 
an "essential function" within the organization. See section IOI(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a 
petitioner claims that a beneficiary will manage an essential function, it must clearly describe the 
duties to be performed in managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must 
shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or 
secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries.'' 
6 
Matter of C-S- Ltd 
demonstrate that "(1) the function is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is 'essential,' i.e., 
core to the organizati.on: (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." Maller of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). In 
support of its claim that the Beneficiary manages an essential function, the Petitioner simply states 
that he qualifies because he "is responsible for making sure the Managers of each department arc 
fultilling their duties," a claim that is indistinguishable from its claim that he supervises subordinate 
managers. As such, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the Beneficiary qualities as a function 
manager. 
Finally, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in an executive 
capacity. 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 10l(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. Inherent to the definition, the organization must have a 
subordinate level of managerial employees for a beneficiary to direct 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. 
Based on the Petitioner's documented structure and staffing levels and the Petitioner's inconsistent 
description of the Beneficiary's duties, the evidence is insufficient to show that the Beneficiary has 
been primarily focused on the broad goals and policies of the organization, and that the company has 
sufficient staff to relieve the company owners from significant involvement in the day-to-day 
operations of the organization. 
We must take into account the reasonable needs of the organization and that a company's size alone 
may not be the only f~lctor in denying a visa petition for classification as an intracompany transferee 
in a managerial or executive capacity. See section IOI'(a)(44)(C) of the Act. However, it is 
appropriate tor USCIS 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. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 2006); 
.S~vstronics Corp. v. INS. 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
1-lcre, the Petitioner's operations abroad involve retail sale, installation and maintenance of spas, hot 
tubs and pools. The Petitioner's documented employees for the last two years include the two 
company owners, a part-time technician, a trainee/apprentice engineer, and an operations manager 
whose duties have not been well-defined. The Petitioner claims that a number of functions are 
performed by contractors, but has not documented these workers or the nature or scope of the duties 
they perform. Based on the evidence submitted, the Petitioner did not establish how the Beneficiary 
would be relieved hom participating in the sale of products and provisions of services, or how the 
'7 
Maller of C-S- Lid. 
company supports him in a position in which it requires him to perform primarily managerial or 
executive duties. Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal. 
IV. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The remaining issue is whether the Petitioner established that the new office would be able to 
suppott a managerial or executive position within one year of approval of the petition. 
In the case of a new ortice petition, we review a beneficiary's proposed job duties as well as the 
petitioner's business and hiring plans and evidence that the business will grow sutliciently to support 
a beneficiary in the intended managerial or executive capacity. A petitioner has the burden to 
establish that it would realistically develop to the point where it would require the beneficiary to 
perform duties that are primarily managerial or executive in nature within one year. Accordingly, 
the totality of the evidence must be considered in analyzing whether the proposed managerial or 
executive position is plausible considering a petitioner's anticipated starting levels and stage of 
development within a one-year period. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
A. Business Plan and Projected Staffing 
The Petitioner indicates that its U.S. subsidiary will sell, install, and maintain spas, hot tubs, and 
swimming pools and will generate most of its revenue by operating a retail storefront. At the time of 
tiling in September 2017, the U.S. company was renting an otrice that could accommodate one 
person, had approximately $12,000 in its bank account, and had not yet registered to do business in 
the State of Washington, where it plans to operate. The initial evidence did not support a linding 
that the Petitioner's subsidiary was ready to commence business and expand to the point where it 
would reasonably need a managerial or executive employee within one year. 
According to the U.S. company's business plan, the company will employ "3 to T' stall members 
during the first year, and would open its retail store within "6 to 12 months." The Petitioner did not 
provide a timeline for hiring stafl~ provide proposed salaries for its employees, or explain how it 
could support a managerial or executive position within one year if it may require 12 months to open 
its store. Given the labor-intensive nature of the proposed business, the difference between a staff of 
three employees and seven employees is significant and the projected range of staff does not assist 
us in determining whether the Beneficiary would have sufficient staff to relieve him from 
performing non-qualifying duties within one year. 
The business plan also includes "Business Projections" for year one, but this financial information 
did not provide further insight on when .the company anticipates opening its store or the number of 
stall it will hire in the first year. For example, the business projection shows that the U.S. company 
anticipates making its first retail sales in "month 4" and shows an increase in monthly rent from 
$400 to $1400 during that month. However, this projection appears to be inconsistent with the 
Petitioner's statement that it will not open a store for 6 to 12 months. Further, the record does not 
demonstrate that an additional rent expense of $1000 would be sufficient to lease a commercial retail 
property. The Petitioner later provided· evidence indicating that the Beneficiary had identified 
8 
1Vfaller ofC-S- Ltd 
potential properties (each with monthly rental rates significantly higher than $1000) and stated that· 
U.S. company anticipated a May 2018 store opening, but it did not provide revised linancial 
projections. 
The information provided regarding employee salaries is similarly vague, with the business 
projections showing $2000 paid to employees in month three, and $9000 per month by the end of the 
first year. Without information regarding projected salaries for individual employees, we cannot 
determine which or how many staff could feasibly be hired during the initial year of operations. 
Finally, the business plan and the record as a whole lack information regarding the company's 
projected start-up costs and whether the U.S. company will have sufficient funds to commence 
operations. The first year projections do not include, for example, any projected expenses related to 
the remodeling or opening of a store, and account for minimal inventory purchases and expenses. 
As noted, the U.S .. company had approximately $I 2,000 in its bank account at the time of filing. 
The Petitioner states that it will provide linancial support to its subsidiary, but this general statement 
does not meet the Petitioner's burden to establish that the U.S. company has sufficient funding to 
commence operations. Overall, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the store would likely be 
open and fully staffed within one year. 
Nevertheless, we will discuss the Petitioner's claims regarding the company's proposed staff as the 
Director addressed this evidence in some detail. Despite indicating that it may employ only three 
employees during the tirst year, the business plan also states that the U.S. company intends to 
employ four full-time and two part-time staff within I 2 months. The Petitioner listed the statT as 
follows: 
I CEO [the Beneficiary] 
I Retail Manager- Management of the retail premises, slatting, staff training, retail 
supplies & stock 
I Engineering Manager - Management of the spa fitting in both residential and 
commercial premises, obtaining zoning and building permits, on-site project 
management and customer relationships 
2 part-time retail staff- serving customers and enabling sale in the retail store and at 
exhibitions 
I technician- measuring the site, titting the spas and leaving the work site clean and 
restored to customers' satisfaction. 
The Petitioner indicated that its subsidiary would sub-contract service and maintenance technicians, 
along with electricians, plumbers, and landscapers. The Petitioner has projected $1,750 in monthly 
contract labor expenses by the end of the first year. 
In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that the U.S. company expects to 
hire "2 managers with l technician and l laborer" during the first year. The Petitioner indicated that 
it would interview for a manager and laborer in March 20 I 8 and a sales manager and technician by 
August 2018. The Petitioner did not mention the retail stan· positions that appeared in the business 
9 
Matter of C-S- Ltd. 
plan and earlier proposed organizational chart, or clarify whether the "manager" and "sales 
manager" referred to the "engineering manager" and "retail manager" ·positions mentioned 
previously. 
The Petitioner maintains that the evidence is suflicient to show that the Beneficiary will supervise 
professional and managerial staff within one year. However, as discussed above, it is unclear how 
many staff the U.S. company will actually hire during its first year as the Petitioner has indicated at 
times that it may employ as few as three employees. Even assuming that the U.S. company may hire 
both a retail manager and an engineering manager, the record does not support a finding that either 
employee will be acting in a managerial or supervisory capacity within 12 months. The "first year 
plan" submitted in response to the RFE did not identify any subordinate retail sales staff to be hired 
during the first year. Further, while it appears that the engineering manager would oversee the work 
of a technician, the job description provided at the time of filing was too brief to demonstrate that 
this employee would be a supervisor and would not be directly involved in installing spas. The 
Petitioner has indicated that the U.S. company does not require that either position be filled by an 
employee with a bachelor's degree. Rather, the Petitioner indicates that both positions require five 
years of sales and marketing experience, and that the U.S. company prefers a "degree level 
education." For these reasons, we agree that with the Director that the Petitioner did not establish 
that the Beneficiary would act as a personnel manager within one year. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner has prepared lengthy descriptions for the engineering and retail 
managers in support of the appeal. Both descriptions appear to incorporate duties not contemplated 
by the brief summary of duties provided earlier. and appear to be inconsistent with the proposed size 
and nature of the U.S. company's business. For example, the Petitioner states that the engineering 
manager will focus on new business development, client retention, business development planning, 
management, and team management, with duties that include "set up meetings between client 
decision makers and company's practice leaders" and "present business development training and 
mentoring to internal staff." The Petitioner indicates that the U.S. company's client's will primarily 
be residential homeowners and the company itself will not have "practice leaders." The description 
also suggests that the engineering manager would supervise a sizeable team with their own business 
development duties, rather than the single technician and/or laborer mentioned in the company's 
hiring plans. The retail manager position description indicates that this employee would direct 
departments of the business that do not exist, such as "advertising and purchasing." For these 
reasons, the newly submitted job descriptions do not appear to present a credible picture of the duties 
to be performed by these employees within one year. 
Overall, based on the vague business projections, and the lack of a consistent timeline and plan for 
hiring, the Petitioner has not established that its subsidiary would employ sufficient staff to relieve 
the Beneficiary from significant involvement in non-qualifying duties within one year. The 
Petitioner has consistently stated that the Beneficiary will occupy the senior position in the new 
ortice, but has not submitted supporting evidence sufficient to demonstrate that he would primarily 
engage in managerial or executive duties, or that the new office would support a managerial or 
executive position, after the initial year of operations. 
10 
Maller of C-S- Ltd. 
B. Duties 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would perform the following duties as 
CEO of the U.S. company: 
1. Direct the company in keeping with the vision outlined for the company by the 
Directors 
2. Lead the team to develop the new USA branch 
3. Find and secure suitable premises for both retail and office use. 
4. Find, train and partner with high-level officers to grow the company, strengthen it 
and ensure its sustainability 
5. Represent the company as required, including attendance of important functions, 
industry events and public meetings. 
6. Work closely with the [CFO] to prepare annual budgets, complete risk analysis, 
and advise the Directors with regard to investment risk and return 
7. Work closely with Directors regarding hiring practices, payroll and benefit 
disbursement 
8. Oversee quality control throughout the company, establishing goals for each 
department in partnership with division managers. 
9. Oversee the development and opening of further new retail outlets throughout the 
USA. 
As noted by the Director, this description indicates that the Beneficiary will have managerial or 
executive authority over the new ot1ice, but did not provide insight into the nature of his expected 
day-to-day duties during the tirst year of operations and beyond. The Petitioner has not indicated 
that the U.S. subsidiary will employ a CFO, and the company directors referenced in the description 
appear to be the Beneficiary himself and his spouse. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a chart detailing the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. duties for the first 
6 months of operations, and a separate breakdown for months 7 through 12. The Petitioner indicates 
that he will spend the first six months identifying a suitable storefront, recruiting and hiring 
managers and stall Ending and hiring ancillary support services, negotiating contracts with vendors 
and suppliers, and finding subcontractors. The Petitioner indicates that the Beneflciary will allocate 
his time during the second half of the initial year of operations to 24 responsibilities broken down 
into 67 different tasks. As with the job descriptions provided for the retail and engineering managers 
on appeal, this new position description does not appear credible in light of the company's expected 
nature, scope, and stat1ing within one year. The Petitioner indicates that the U.S. company will 
employ as few as three employees during the first year, but this newly submitted description assumes 
that the Beneficiary will oversee managers with their own fully-staffed departments who would 
relieve him from involvement in any retail or spa installation operations. While we do not doubt that 
the Beneficiary will hire and oversee staff, control the company's finances, and establish policies 
and operational guidelines for the company, we cannot determine that these higher level duties will 
be his primary duties at the end of the initial year of operations. 
II 
Malter ofC-S- Lid. 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has not credibly established the number or type of employees its 
subsidiary would hire during the first year of operations or provided a reliable prediction of when it 
will open its retail store and commence operations. As such, the Petitioner's claim on appeal that the 
Beneficiary would be removed from any signiticant involvement in the U.S. business' day-to-day 
operations within one year is not adequately supported in the record. The Petitioner has not 
established that it would support a managerial or executive position within one year. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity or that its U.S. subsidiary would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or 
executive capacity within one year. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Maller o[C-S- Ltd. ID# 1214510 (AAO Apr. 30, 2018) 
12·