dismissed L-1A Case: Sports Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF U-M-USA INC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 15, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The.Petitioner, a sports training and event management cmppany, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's 
temporary employment as president and chief executive officer ( CEO) under the L-1 A nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § I I0l(a)(15)(L). The L-lA classification allows a corporation or other 
legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United 
States to work temporarily in a managerial or·executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would _be employed in a managerial or executive capacity 
under the extended petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary is relieved from performing non-qualifying 
operational duties by professional subordinates and states that the Director overemphasized the small 
size of the company. The Petitioner also contends that the Beneficiary qualifies as a function 
manager. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specializep 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 10 I (a)(l S)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary 
must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
II. DEFlNITIONS 
"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 
Matter <?f U-M-USA Inc 
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 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
"Executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization; 
establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; exercises wide 
latitude in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction from 
higher-level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. Section 
101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary would 
act in a managerial or executive capacity. Prior to appeal, the Petitioner indicated that the 
Beneficiary would act in an executive capacity as president and CEO; however, on appeal it 
mentions both the "executive and managerial nature of the beneficiary's position" and also contends 
t~at he also qualifies as a function manager. As such, we will analyze whether the Beneficiary 
would qualify as a manager or as an executive. The Petitioner must demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's responsibilities will meet the requirements of one or the other capacity. 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly 
describe the duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 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 stafling levels, and its organizational structure. 
A. Duties 
Based on the definition of managerial or 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.2d 1533. 
2 
Matter of U-M-USA Inc 
The Petitioner stated in support of the petition that it was established to "maximize the potential for 
increased market share in the growing sports training niche market" and it submitted supporting 
documentation indicating that it was engaged in organizing tennis training and tournaments. In a 
submitted marketing plan, the Petitioner explained that it would "provide luxury and sport travel 
packages," including "year round sport camps, such as hockey and tennis." In a support letter and an 
accqmpanying resume, the Petitioner listed some of the following duties for the Beneficiary, 
amongst others: 
• provide final review and approval of all major contracts, 
• provide clients with top quality products, 
• develop and manufacture new lines, 
• develop and expand the company's operations locally, 
• hire new employees, 
• implement new policies, 
• direct further investments, 
• oversee financial activities, business policies, and accounting practices, 
• design and approve strategy, strategic plan, and operational plan, 
• develop corporate policies, · 
• set standards of performance, 
• create performance standards, and 
• oversee professional training and development. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director requested that the Petitioner submit additional detail 
regarding the Beneficiary's duties including his typical managerial or executive decisions and duties. 
In response, the Petitioner provided an additional duty description listing the following tasks, 
amongst others: 
• develop the strategic plan of activities and operations of the company, 
• implement business objectives, 
• design and approve strategy, strategic plan, and operational plan, 
·• establish relationship with strategic partners and vendors, 
• negotiate terms of price, delivery, and business plan, 
• oversee sales plan and make adjustments, 
• review and implementation of administrative policies and procedures, 
• ensure that financial [sic] and resources are used properly, 
• implement a proper collection system, 
• review task distribution and adjustments, 
• oversee professional training and development, 
• verify recommendations presented by the Operations Manager and ultimately 
decide to distribute responsibilities aligned with global strategies, 
• coordinate the work of the managerial staff, 
• determine new services development and existing improvement expenses, and 
• establish adequate pricing policies._ 
3 
Maller of U-M-USA Inc 
The proposed duties submitted for the Beneficiary are overly vague and they do not eftectively 
convey his actual day-to-day managerial or executive tasks. 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.O.N.Y. 1989), aff"d, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
The Beneficiary's duty description includes several generic duties that could apply to any manager 
or executive acting in any business or industry and they do not provide sufficient insight into the 
actual nature of his role. The Petitioner provided insufficient examples and little supporting 
documentation to demonstrate the Beneficiary's performance of qualifying duties, such as major 
contracts he approved, policies he implemented, accounting practices he established, strategic or 
operational plans he put in place, corporate policies he implemented, standards of performance he 
set, or professional training and development he oversaw. Likewise, the Petitioner did not articulate 
or document relationships he established with strategic partners and vendors, negotiations on price 
and delivery he handled, sales plans he oversaw and adjusted, administrative policies and procedures 
he implemented, collection systems he authorized, new services he developed, "improvement 
expenses" he managed, or pricing policies he put in place. 
Further, despite asserting that the Beneficiary regularly reviews recommendations provided by his 
subordinate operations manager, it submits no examples of these recommendations. In addition, 
although the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary manages task distribution to his subordinates, it 
does not describe what specific ·tasks he assigned to his subordinates or document this delegation of 
duties. This lack of detail and documentation is particularly noteworthy since the Beneficiary is 
asserted to have worked in his proposed managerial and executive capacity since January 2015. 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the organization, the fact that he will 
manage or direct a business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an 
intracompany transferee in an managerial or executive capacity within the meaning of section 
10l(a)(44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a 
· position be "primarily" managerial or executive in nature. Sections 101(A.)(44)(A) and (B) 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 
position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that her actual duties would be primarily 
managerial or executive in nature. 
B. Staffing 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, we take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the 
overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section 101 ( a)( 44 )(C) of the Act. 
4 
Maller of U-M-USA Inc 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart indicating that the Beneficiary would supervise one 
employee - an operations manager who will oversee an account specialist, an administrative 
assistant, and a sales and marketing coordinator. Further, the organizational chart provided in 
response to the RFE projected the Petitioner would hire a head coach, a therapist, and an assistant 
coach. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and 
'"function managers." See section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 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. If a 
beneficiary directly supervises other employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire 
and fire those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(B)(J). 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary oversees 
subordinate managers and supervisors. As noted, the organizational chart submitted with the 
petition reflected that the Beneficiary would supervise an operations manager; however, the 
Petitioner has not provided a sufficiently detailed duty description for this claimed subordinate 
manager. In fact, the asserted operations manager's duties overlap significantly with the 
Beneficiary's indicating that she is tasked with "formulating and implementing administrative and 
operational procedures," "setting strategic policies and objectives," recruiting and training "in-house 
and outsourced employees," and "implement[ing] all financial and administrative aspects of the 
company." However, these vague d_uties do little to corroborate the role of the claimed operational 
manager, such as detailing the procedures, strategic policies, and objectives she set, training she 
conducted, or financial or administrative aspects of the company she handled. Indeed, even though 
the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary directs all the aspects of the company through, his 
operations manager there is no evidence to indicate his delegation of tasks to this subordinate. 
Similarly, the Petitioner provides little detail regarding the claimed account specialist and sales and 
marketing coordinator to demonstrate that they act in roles subordinate to the operations manager. 
For instance, the Petitioner stated that the account specialist would be tasked with reporting 
payments, maintaining accurate client records, and depositing funds, while the sales and marketing 
co~rdinator would be devoted to reaching out to and "enrolling participants," generating and 
qualifying leads, preparing sales and action plans and strategies, maintaining a customer database, 
and developing sales proposals and contracts. However, there is little indication what payments, 
clients, funds, participants, leads, action plans, customers, or sales proposals and contracts the duties 
of these subordinates refer to. In fact, the Director noted that the Petitioner had submitted 
photographs of its oflice reflecting no apparent space for the members of its organizational structure 
to perform their duties. In response, the Petitioner indicated that the account specialist and sales and 
marketing coordinator "spend a significant portion of their time in outside meetings with clients, 
service providers and other vendors." Again, there is little indication as to what clients, service 
5 
Matter of U-M-USA Inc 
providers, and other vendors the Petitioner is referring to and expenses set forth in a provided 2017 
lRS Fonn 1120 U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return list no costs to support two employees working 
remotely in a sales function, such as sales, training, or travel expenses. 
The record includes only one document reflecting the subordinates to the operations manager acting 
in their asserted capacities, a tennis court lease agreement executed by the Beneficiary after the date 
the petition was filed in February 2018 for the use of tennis courts for "tournaments or events." The 
tennis court lease states that the asserted sales and marketing coordinator and accounts specialist 
"must attend and run the tournaments as Tournament Directors and Managers." This document does 
not indicate that the asserted sales and marketing coordinator and accounts specialist are acting in 
their claimed roles handling financial matters and acting in a sales function; respectively, but that 
they are assisting in running tennis training tournaments. In sum, the Petitioner has not submitted 
sufficient duty descriptions or other supporting evidence to substantiate the members of its 
organizational chart or to establish that the Beneficiary would oversee subordinate managers or 
supervisors. 
Furthennore, the submitted evidence includes several discrepancies and insufficiencies leaving 
question as to whether the Petitioner has developed sufficiently to support the Beneficiary in a 
managerial capacity overseeing subordinate supervisors. For example, the Petitioner submitted 
evidence indicating that it had purchased a tennis club in March 20.16, but that it had sold the club in 
October 2017 for a $107;548 loss. The Beneficiary stated in response to the RFE that "the Club 
became less profitable than was originally anticipated and was more of a liability for the company." 
As such, without this club to operate, there is question as to whether the Petitioner would have 
sufficient operations to sustairi the Beneficiary and a subordinate manager. The Petitioner stated that 
it was focused on "streamlining its operations and focusing on tennis training" and organizing 
"commercial tennis tournaments," yet it is not clear from the submitted evidence who would perform 
the operational duties necessary to organize and conduct tennis training and tournaments. It is also 
not clear how these operations would sustain the Beneficiary and the members of its asserted 
organizational chart in their proposed roles. lndeed, the Petitioner indicated in an organizational 
chart that it planned on hiring a head coach, a therapist, and an assistant coach. 
In addition, the Petitioner has submitted bank statements reflecting low balances and deposits from 
unknown sources, leaving further question as to the sufficiency of its operations. For instance, 
following a series of low bank statements in late 2017, the Petitioner provided a statement from 
January 2018 reflecting four $4,980 deposits lo replenish the account, including two from an 
individual who was an asserted employee of the company prior to early 2017. Further, the Petitioner 
stated in response to the RFE that "we believe [the Petitioner] will someday be self-sustaining" and 
that it "needs additional time to develop further," suggesting that it has yet to develop sufficiently to 
support the Beneficiary and its asserted organizational structure. 
The Petitioner also submitted tax and payroll documentation indicating that it had five to seven 
employees throughout 2016 and it provided bank statements showing payroll checks paid to the 
employees listed in its Florida state quarterly wage reports during this period. The state quarterly 
6 
Maller of U-M-USA Inc 
wage reports also reflected that the Petitioner's employees decreased to only two by the second 
quarter of 20 I 7, before rebounding to five employees thereafter, including those listed in its current 
organizational chart. However, in contrast, the Petitioner's bank records after the second quarter of 
2017 do not reflect payroll checks or payments to the new asserted members.of its organizational 
chart, beyond payments made to its asserted administrative assistant. In fact, the Petitioner submits 
questionable documentation it asserts are bank records reflecting payroll checks paid to these 
employees. For instance, these purported payroll checks include no account numbers and these 
payments are not apparent in separate bank statements. Further, these asserted payroll checks have 
their dates and account numbers cut-off or blacked out and include other discrepancies. For 
example, one check to the claimed sales and marketing coordinator dated September 30, 2017, did 
not clear until January I 7, 2018, while another dated December 30 was not posted until February 1, 
2018. In sum, these asserted payments to the new members of the Petitioner's organizational chart 
do not appear credible and there is little other evidence to substantiate that these claimed members of 
the Petitioner's organizational chart act in their asserted capacities. 
Therefore, the record does not include sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary acts in a 
managerial capacity supervising subordinate managers and supervisors. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also vaguely asserts that the Beneficiary oversees professional 
subordinates. In evaluating 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 10 l (a)(32) of the Act, states that "[t]he tem1 
profession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, 
and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." However, the 
Petitioner does not articulate the bachelor's degree held by his lone claimed subordinate nor did it 
indicate why her position requires a bachelor's degree. As such, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that the Beneficiary would act as a personnel manager based on his supervision of professional 
subordinates. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner also contends that the Beneficiary qualifies as a function manager. The 
tenn "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the work 
of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" 
within the organization. See section IO l (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 demonstrate that "(1) the function 
is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is 'essential,' i.e., core to the organization; (3) the 
beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the function; (4) the beneficiary will act 
at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and (5) 
the beneficiary will exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day operations." Maller <~f G­
Jnc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). In this matter, the Petitioner does not 
articulate the nature of the function or how it is essential to the organization, other than generally 
7 
Matter of U-M-USA Inc 
indicating that he exercises full authority over the company. Therefore, we find that the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary qualifies as a function manager. 
Lastly, the Petitioner also indicated at times on the record that the Beneficiary would act 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. A beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary 
d~cision making" and receive only "general supervision or direction from higher level executives, 
the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization." Id. 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary would act as an 
executive under the extended petition. First, it is noteworthy that the Petitioner does not clearly 
articulate on appeal why the Beneficiary would qualify .as an executive. Again, the Petitioner has 
provided a generic duty description for the Beneficiary that does not establish that he would spend a 
majority of his time on executive-level tasks. As discussed, the Petitioner has also submitted a 
vague duty description for the Beneficiary's lone managerial subordinate that does not adequately 
substantiate this asserted manager's role. The record also includes several inconsistencies and 
insufficiencies indicating that the Petitioner has not developed sufficiently to support the Beneficiary 
in an executive capacity or that it employs a subordinate level of managerial employees to allow him 
to primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than its day-t"o-day 
operations. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would act in a 
managerial or executive capacity under an extended petition. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would 
be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Maller of U-M-USA Inc, ID# 1775975 {AAO Nov. 15, 2018) 
8