dismissed L-1A Case: Sports Apparel

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 23352272 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC . 21, 2022 
The Petitioner, a marketer and distributer of sports apparel, seeks to transfer the Beneficiary from its 
parent company in Pakistan and temporarily employ him in the United States as its chief executive 
officer (CEO) . The company requests his classification under the L-lA nonimmigrant visa category 
as an intracompany manager or executive. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L) . 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that, contrary 
to the Act and Department of Homeland Security regulations, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the 
claimed managerial or executive nature of the Beneficiary's employment abroad or his proposed U.S. 
work. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Beneficiary would 
primarily manage an essential function of the U.S. company. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance 
of evidence . Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We exercise de novo 
review on appeal. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec . 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . Upon de novo 
review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
A petitioner seeking to employ an L-lA manager or executive must demonstrate that - for at least one 
continuous year in the three years before a beneficiary's admission to the United States - the petitioner 
or its parent, branch, subsidiary, or affiliate employed the beneficiary abroad in a capacity that was 
managerial, executive , or involved specialized knowledge. 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(1)(3)(i), (iii), (iv) . The 
petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education , training , and employment qualifies 
them for a proposed U.S. managerial or executive position. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii), (iv). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. The Nature of the Beneficiary's Employment Abroad 
The record shows that the Beneficiary co-founded the Petitioner's Pakistani parent in 2016 and, since 
that date, has served as its CEO. The parent makes sports apparel and wholly owns the Petitioner, a 
limited liability company that markets and sells the parent's goods in the United States. The parent's 
organizational chart indicates its employment of 75 people. The chart places the Beneficiary at the 
top of the parent's operations, directly supervising directors of operations and finance, and sales and 
marketing. 
In response to the Director's request for additional evidence (RFE), the Petitioner asserted the 
Beneficiary's employment abroad in both a managerial and executive capacity. Thus, the company 
must demonstrate that his foreign role meets the definition of either the term "managerial capacity" or 
"executive capacity." See sections 10l(a)(44)(A), (B) of the Act. 
The term "managerial capacity" means work "primarily" involving: 
• Managing an organization or its department, subdivision, function, or component; 
• Supervising and controlling the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees, or managing an essential function within the organization or its department or 
subdivision; 
• Having authority to hire and fire or recommend those and other personnel actions if directly 
supervising another employee or employees, or functioning at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or regarding the managed function; and 
• Exercising discretion over the daily operations of the authorized activity or function. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
As the statutory definition indicates, an L-lA manager may manage either people or an "essential 
function" within an organization. Section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The Petitioner did not assert 
the Beneficiary's management of a function abroad. We will therefore evaluate the managerial nature 
of his foreign role as a personnel manager. 
In contrast to the definition of "managerial capacity," the term "executive capacity" means work 
"primarily" involving: 
• Directing the management of an organization or a major component or function of it; 
• Establishing the goals and policies of the organization or its component or function; 
• Exercising wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
• Receiving only general supervision or direction from the organization's higher-level 
executives, board of directors, or stockholders. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
2 
When considering the nature of a foreign position, USCIS examines the position's job duties. See 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii) (requiring "a detailed description" of a beneficiary's employment). The 
Agency also considers: the foreign business's organizational structure; its nature; the duties of any 
workers subordinate to a beneficiary; whether any subordinate workers relieve a beneficiary from 
performing non-qualifying, operational duties; and other factors affecting the nature of a beneficiary's 
role. 
As the Director found, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary works for the Pakistani parent 
"primarily" in a managerial or executive capacity. With the petition and in response to the Director's 
RFE, the Petitioner provided separate descriptions of the Beneficiary's job duties abroad. The 
Petitioner has not established the managerial or executive nature of some listed duties, such as: helping 
the board of directors "articulate its own role and accountabilities;" serving as "an external 
spokesperson for the company;" and overseeing donations to nonprofit organizations and occupational 
health and safety. Also, the foreign job-duty descriptions do not indicate how much time the 
Beneficiary spends on each duty. The record therefore does not demonstrate that he "primarily" 
performs managerial or executive duties abroad. See Matter of Church Scientology Int 'l, 19 l&N Dec. 
593, 604 (Comm'r 1988) ("An employee who primarily performs the tasks necessary to produce a 
product or to provide services is not considered to be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity.") 
Moreover, the Director's RFE specifically requested a letter from the Petitioner's parent describing 
the Beneficiary's foreign duties "and the percentage of time spent on each." Contrary to the request, 
the parent's letter omits the requested time percentages. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14) ("Failure to 
submit requested evidence which precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the 
benefit request.") 
The record also supports the Director's finding of inconsistencies in the Beneficiary's foreign job 
duties. The parent's letter provides specific examples of general duties that the Petitioner initially 
stated in the filing. But the letter also introduces many other duties, such as: serving as a company 
spokesman by providing motivational speeches and talking at seminars, churches, businesses, and 
government agencies; assuring adequate employee health and safety measures; and overseeing 
donations to non-profit organizations. The differing versions of the job duties cast doubt on the 
Beneficiary's true responsibilities with the parent and the nature of his foreign work. See Matter of 
Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (requiring petitioners to resolve inconsistencies with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies). 
The Director also noted that the Petitioner omitted proof of the parent's employment of the 
Beneficiary's purported subordinates. The omission casts doubt on the subordinates' existence and 
thus on the Beneficiary's claimed roles abroad as a personnel manager and executive. On appeal, the 
Petitioner submits pay records of the purported subordinates. The Director's RFE, however, notified 
the company of its omission of "evidence verifying the employment of the direct subordinates" and 
provided it with a reasonable opportunity to respond. We therefore decline to consider the pay records 
on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 l&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (barring consideration of 
appellate evidence if a petitioner previously received notice and an opportunity to provide the proof). 
3 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's employment abroad 
in a managerial or executive capacity. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
B. The Nature of the Proposed U.S. Employment 
The record also supports the Director's denial based on the proposed U.S. employment. The Petitioner 
has not sufficiently demonstrated that the Beneficiary would work "primarily" in a managerial or 
executive capacity. See sections 101(a)(44)(A), (B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
As with its evidence of the Beneficiary's foreign employment, the Petitioner omitted requested 
percentages of time he would spend on proposed U.S. job duties. The company also has not 
established the following proposed duties as managerial or executive in nature: monitoring the 
company's compliance with U.S. laws and regulations; ensuring accuracy and completeness of 
company financial disclosures to the U.S. government; and negotiating and signing agreements with 
future business partners. The record therefore does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would 
"primarily" work in a managerial or executive capacity. See Matter of Church Scientology, 19 I&N 
Dec. at 604; Brazil Quality Stones, Inc. v. Chertoff, 531 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating that 
a beneficiary "cannot qualify for an L-lA visa simply because he performs managerial [or executive] 
tasks; such tasks must encompass his primary responsibilities") ( emphasis in original). 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that its RFE response included a "breakdown of time [the Beneficiary] 
would spend on a typical working day." The written breakdown indicates that he would typically 
spend four hours a day meeting with potential new clients, one-and-a-half hours meeting with existing 
clients, and one-and-a-half hours reviewing e-mails and company reports and notifying production 
workers abroad of any new U.S. orders. 
The breakdown of the Beneficiary's proposed time, however, omits several job duties. For example, 
the company initially stated that he would: monitor its compliance with relevant laws and regulations; 
determine its short- and long-term goals; manage its daily operations; and oversee its financial 
activities. Its RFE response added that he would execute its business plan and negotiate agreements 
with future business partners. The breakdown of the Beneficiary's typical proposed day does not 
indicate his performance of these duties. The Petitioner has not demonstrated how much time he 
would spend on each duty and thus whether he would "primarily" work in a managerial or executive 
capacity. See Matter of Church Scientology, 19 I&N Dec. at 604; Brazil Quality Stones, 531 F .3d at 
1070. Also, the Petitioner's inclusion of new proposed tasks in its RFE response casts doubt on the 
actual job duties and the nature of his proposed U.S. work. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591 
(requiring petitioners to resolve inconsistencies). 
For the first time, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Beneficiary would work primarily as a 
function manager. The company states that he would spend 60% of his time managing its business 
development function. 1 The breakdown of the Beneficiary's time supports his proposed role as a 
function manager. The document indicates that, by typically meeting potential new clients for four 
1 The Petitioner also states that the Beneficiary would spend 25% of his time as a manager (presumably a personnel 
manager) and 15% as an executive. Because the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary would not "primarily" perform 
these other duties, we need not consider whether he would work in a personnel managerial or executive capacity. See 
sections 10l(a)(44)(A), (B) of the Act. 
4 
hours a day, he would spend most of his time on business development. As discussed above, however, 
the breakdown does not indicate the Beneficiary's performance of other proposed job duties, such as 
determining the company's short- and long-term goals and overseeing its financial operations. The 
Petitioner has not demonstrated how much time the Beneficiary would spend on these other duties and 
thus whether he would "primarily" serve as a function manager. See Matter of Church Scientology, 
19 I&N Dec. at 604; Brazil Quality Stones, 531 F.3d at 1069 (stating that "regardless of an 
intracompany transferee's position in the organizational hierarchy," an employer must "demonstrate 
that the transferee's responsibilities are 'primarily' managerial"). The Petitioner's business plan also 
indicates the company's proposed hiring of a "Business Development Officer" in the Beneficiary's 
third year in the United States. The Petitioner has not explained whether the business development 
officer would assume any of the Beneficiary's duties regarding the company's business development 
function. 
Although unaddressed by the Director, the record also does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
enough support staff to relieve the Beneficiary from primarily performing non-qualifying, operational 
duties. The Petitioner stated its employment of only one person, a part-time operations manager, who 
it said typically works a four-hour day. Its business plan indicates that, during the Beneficiary's first 
year of U.S. work, the manager would serve as his only co-worker. To qualify as a functional manager, 
however, the Beneficiary must "primarily" perform the proposed managerial duties. See section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. A petitioner must also demonstrate eligibility "at the time of filing the 
benefit request." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Thus, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that its immediate 
support staff would relieve the Beneficiary from having to primarily perform non-qualifying, operating 
duties. 
The Petitioner stated that the operations manager would handle operational duties, including: sorting 
mail; sending legal notices to a vendor who handles the company's payroll and taxes; paying bills; 
ensuring office maintenance; communicating with customers about orders; coordinating shipping with 
the overseas production team and - through other service providers - payroll, tax, and insurance 
activities; tracking customer shipments; monitoring e-mails; and arranging and scheduling the 
Beneficiary's meetings. But the part-time, four-hour-a-day nature of the manager's proposed work 
indicates that the Beneficiary would spend half his time in the office alone, potentially forcing him -
in the manager's absence - to spend significant time on operational duties. 
The Petitioner also stated that sales and marketing workers at its Pakistani parent would assist the 
Beneficiary by identifying and referring potential new U.S. clients to him. A petitioner may rely on 
support from overseas staff to demonstrate the company's proposed employment of a function 
manager. Matter ofZ-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02, *6 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). But unlike in Z­
A-, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the foreign workers are available and exclusively dedicated 
to supporting the Petitioner's U.S. business development. The record therefore does not establish that 
the Beneficiary would receive staff support sufficient to primarily manage the Petitioner's business 
development function. 2 
2 USCTS cannot deny an L-1 A petition based solely on a petitioner's size or the number of employees a beneficiary would 
supervise. Section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act; Brazil Quality Stones, 531 F.3d at 1070-71. Here, we recognize the 
Petitioner's reasonable needs as a small start-up company and have considered additional factors, including the proposed 
job duties and the availability of foreign employees to support the Beneficiary. 
5 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's proposed work in the 
United States in a managerial or executive capacity. For this additional reason, we will affirm the 
petition's denial. 
C. The Qualifying Relationship 
Although unaddressed by the Director, the Petitioner also has not established it and the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer as "qualifying organizations." See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(i). Qualifying 
organizations include parents and their subsidiaries. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(G)(l). 
The Petitioner identified itself as the subsidiary of the Beneficiary's foreign employer in Pakistan. 
The term "subsidiary" means a legal entity in which the parent directly or indirectly has an ownership 
interest and controls the entity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(K). 
The record, however, does not demonstrate the claimed, qualifying relationship between the entities. 
Copies of the Petitioner's U.S. federal income tax returns for 2019 and 2020 identify the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer as the Petitioner's sole owner. But more recent evidence casts doubt on that 
purported relationship. In November 2022, the Petitioner applied to do business in Florida, identifying 
the Beneficiary - rather than his foreign employer - as the sole "member," or owner, of the petitioning 
limited liability company. See Fla. Div. of Corps., "Search for Corporations, Limited Liability 
Companies, Limited Partnerships, and Trademarks by Name," https://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/ 
CorporationSearch/ByName. A petitioner must resolve inconsistencies with independent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Thus, the record does 
not demonstrate the Petitioner's claimed relationship to its purported parent, the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer. 
The Director did not notify the Petitioner of this evidentiary deficiency. Thus, in any future filings in 
this matter, the company must explain the inconsistencies of record and submit additional proof of its 
claimed qualifying relationship to the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the Beneficiary's employment abroad or his proposed 
U.S. work in a managerial or executive capacity. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6