dismissed L-1A Case: Sports Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-S- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 30, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a sports management and marketing company, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's 
temporary employment as its chief executive officer (CEO) under the L-1 A nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L~1A 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, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity under the extended petition. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it has submitted 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary would act as a function manager and an 
executive. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge 
capacity, for one continuous year within three years preceding the Beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101 (a)(15)(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, executive, or specialized knowledge 
capacity. Id. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form I-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, shall be accompanied by: 
Matter of S-S- LLC 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will 
employ the alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph 
(l)(l)(ii)(G) ofthis section. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or 
specialized knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the 
services to be performed. 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time 
employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition. 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position 
that was managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the 
alien's prior education, training, and employment qualifies him/her to perform 
the intended services in the United States; however, the work in the United 
States need not be the same work which the alien performed abroad. 
II. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" 
as "an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily": 
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the organization; 
(ii) 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; 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the 
authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel 
actions (such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is 
directly supervised, functions at a senior level within the organizational 
hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function 
for which the employee has authority. 
2 
Matter of S-S- LLC 
Further, "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." !d. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" 
as "an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily": 
(i) directs the management of the organization or a major component or function 
of the organization; 
(ii) establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
(iii) exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level executives, 
the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
If staffing 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) must 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) ofthe Act. 
A. Evidence of Record 
The Petitioner filed the Form 1-129 on October 29, 2015. On the Form 1-129, the Petitioner 
indicated that it engages approximately four "contract employees" and that it earned $552,156 in 
gross annual income during 2014. 
On the Form 1-129, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's proposed duties in the position of 
CEO are: "Promote exchange of soccer activities between the United States and Brazil; introduce 
United States soccer players to Brazilian methods by meeting with Brazilian players in the United 
States and arranging soccer tours to Brazil." 
In a support letter, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary has been employed as the company's 
soccer promotions coordinator' and that the company wishes to promote him to the position of CEO. 
1 USCIS records indicate that the Petitioner previously filed three Form 1-129 Petitions on the Beneficiary's behalf 
which authorized him to work for the Petitioner in an L-1 B specialized knowledge capacity from December 27, 20 I 0, 
until October 31, 2015. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)( 15)(ii) states the following, in pertinent part: 
The total period of stay may not exceed five years for aliens employed in a specialized knowledge 
capacity. The total period of stay for an alien employed in a managerial or executive capacity may not 
exceed seven years. No further extensions may be granted. When an alien was initially admitted to 
the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity and is later promoted to a managerial or 
executive position, he or she must have been employed in the managerial or executive position for at 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S- LLC 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "is a well known figure in the soccer community" and that 
"two of his major projects [were] working with as well as [and] 
US companies that organized soccer tours to Brazil for teams made up of young adults." 
The Petitioner indicated that it was promoting the Beneficiary to CEO "so that he can continue the 
process of hiring additional staff, as well as outside contractors, to take over his current duties as 
Soccer Promotions Coordinator." The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has "used his extensive 
contacts" in the soccer community to promote collaboration between U.S. and Brazilian soccer 
teams and that he has been promoting the company's services, and "educating US soccer players 
about Brazilian techniques and strategies." The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary has 
"promoted soccer tours, 
and assisted with arrangements for the tours" using "his contacts in Brazil to 
arrange visits of Brazilian soccer teams to the United States." The Petitioner stated that it "is now 
expanding its services to including external marketing services for businesses in sports and other 
industries, including portable medical facilities and other diverse items" and that it "is about to hire 
additional personnel to assist with its growth." 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary's "responsibilities now include supervising the work of 
[the Petitioner's] contract workers and employees." The Petitioner further explained the 
Beneficiary's proposed duties as CEO as follows (verbatim): 
• Establishing priorities for [the Petitioner's] activities 
• Maintaining relationships within the international soccer community to ensure 
that [the Petitioner] is aware of all growth opportunities 
• Establishing the company's growth strategy, and insuring that growth 
opportunities comply with this strategy 
• Negotiating contracts and delegating work in connection with multi million dollar 
"big ticket" international soccer events in several venues around the United 
States, including licensing and vending agreements among multiple vendors and 
soccer teams 
• Overseeing personnel whose duties include assisting other businesses with 
marketing strategies, such as branding, web development, social media usage and 
other public relations activities 
least six months to be eligible for the total period of stay of seven years. The change to managerial or 
executive capacity must have been approved by [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] in an 
amended, new, or extended petition at the time that the change occurred. 
Here, the Petitioner filed the petition two days prior to the expiration of the Beneficiary's L-IB status and requested a 
two-year extension of stay. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary had been acting in a managerial or 
executive capacity for six months prior to filing the current petition. Rather, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary 
would be promoted to a managerial or executive capacity upon the approval of the current L- I A petition. Thus, the 
Beneficiary does not meet the regulatory criteria for a total period of stay of seven years. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S- LLC 
• Overseeing ongoing activities of for outstanding youth 
players, whose activities includes not only training in the United States, but also 
travel as a team to Brazil for cultural and sports activities 
• Hiring and firing [Petitioner] personnel and contract workers 
• Interfacing with [the foreign entity] to ensure effective communication between 
the two entities in connection with shared clients 
In addition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "has more recently been using his business 
skills to enter into contracts for several major international soccer matches each year, including 
discussions 
with team executives, venue owners and operators and municipalities affected by the 
matches." 
The Petitioner submitted a 2014 IRS Form 1065 U.S. Return of Partnership Income indicating that 
the company did not pay any salaries or wages during that year. An attached statement of its 
expenses reflected that the company had spent $62,859 on "advertising," $7500 on "legal and 
professional fees," $11,394 in "coaching fees," $319,139 in "events fees," $40,500 in "facility 
rental," $27,502 in "referee costs," and $56,076 on "supplies." 
The Petitioner provided articles of incorporation for a company called 
reflecting that the Beneficiary was one of its directors. The Petitioner submitted a "non-binding 
letter of intent" dated January 31, 2014, between and another party regarding 
potential exhibition soccer matches between professional teams from the United States and Mexico 
at football stadiums in Texas. The Petitioner provided a "sample of finances" document indicating 
payments for coaches, the rental of indoor practice facilities, and the purchase of other soccer 
supplies. The Petitioner submitted a letter 
from the Beneficiary to ' setting forth 
a proposed schedule for a coming soccer tour in the United States. 
The Petitioner submitted an unsigned "Match Appearance Agreement" between it and 
dated April 15, 2014, pursuant to which the Petitioner agreed to provide "all 
necessary press and public relations material" and to ensure that a Brazilian soccer team arrived in 
the United States for a match by making all travel reservations for the team. Likewise, the Petitioner 
provided an "Event Hosting Agreement" dated April 14, 2014, between it and 
pursuant to which the Petitioner agreed to handle all event logistics on the date of a soccer 
match, including the provision of "press and public relations materials," airline tickets, 
accommodations, meals, and transportation for a visiting soccer team. 
The Director later issued a request for evidence (RFE) stating that the Beneficiary's duty description 
lacked specific detail and that the Petitioner did not submit an organizational chart or evidence 
documenting its employees. As such, the Director requested that the Petitioner provide a letter 
detailing the Beneficiary's typical managerial or executive duties. The Director further asked the 
Petitioner to provide an organizational chart listing all of its employees, their job titles, duties, 
education levels, and salaries. In addition, the Director requested that the Petitioner provide 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S- LLC 
supporting tax documentation relevant to its employees, including state quarterly wage reports and 
IRS Forms W-2 and/or 1099. 
In response, the Petitioner stated that it is subcontracting "a great deal of work [ ... ] to a number of 
US vendors." The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary also acts as an unpaid member on the 
board of directors of the company The Petitioner explained that it and 
have "been partners in soccer matches in various venues in the United States," noting that the 
Petitioner promotes the events while "provides the teams." The Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary made the decision for the company to pursue growth in the sport of futsal, a type of 
indoor soccer of increasing popularity. The Petitioner further indicated that the Beneficiary is 
"currently analyzing whether [the Petitioner] should invest in building a futsal arena." The 
Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary decided to purchase three 'futsal franchises. 
The Petitioner explained that "for [the Petitioner's] first few years, [the Beneficiary] was [the 
Petitioner's] only employee, and his activities focused on one soccer player or one event at a time." 
The Petitioner explained that it now has "numerous ongoing activities, making it impossible for [the 
Beneficiary] to continue doing the day-to-day work involved in marketing and promotion that he had 
previously done." The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary now delegates work to "employees , 
contract workers and outside entities such as tour managers and facilities managers." 
Further, the Petitioner submitted an additional duty description for the Beneficiary: 
• Establishing [the Petitioner's] strategic goals, as well as priorities for [the 
Petitioner's] activities, given financial and other constraints - I 0% 
• Developing and maintaining relationships within various international sports 
communities to ensure that [the Petitioner] is aware of all growth opportunities­
IO% 
• Analyzing opportunities for company growth, including reading trade 
publications, communicating with members of soccer and other sports 
communities, interacting with financial, legal and other professionals in 
connection with viability of accepting opportunities - 25% 
• Negotiating contracts in connection with multi million dollar "big ticket" amateur 
and professional international sports events, including licensing and vending 
agreement among multiple vendors, leagues and individual teams - I 0% 
• Serving on board and directing activities of for 
outstanding youth players, whose activity includes not only training in the United 
States, but also international travel as a team for cultural and sports activities, 
evaluating opportunities for other strategic board memberships - 5% 
• Hiring, firing and overseeing activities of [Petitioner] personnel, contract worker 
and vendors- I5% 
• Overseeing personnel whose duties include assisting other businesses with 
marketing strategies, such as branding, web development , social media usage and 
other public relations activities - 5% 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S- LLC 
• Evaluating opportumtles and arranging introductions for US soccer and other 
sports players and coaches who wish to move to Brazilian teams, and for 
Brazilian soccer and other players and coaches who wish to move to US teams -
5% 
• Assisting in contract 
negotiations for players and/or teams involved in various 
sports- 5% 
• Interfacing with [the foreign entity] to insure effective communication between 
the two entities in connection with shares clients - 10% 
The Petitioner also provided a table of employees and contractors to whom the Beneficiary would 
delegate responsibilities. The table indicated that the company employed a digital manager 
responsible for "digital Consultancy services to outside clients, including web, eCommerce and 
mobile app development, digital and project management processes." The table also reflected that 
the Beneficiary delegates "bookkeeping and financial management" to an accountant and "contract 
preparation and direct negotiation" to an attorney. The table showed that the Beneficiary delegates 
the "design of sports facilities" to an architect, travel arrangements for events to a travel agent and 
tour manager, and event ticket sales and reservation of venues to facilities managers and 
personnel. Finally, the table reflected that the Beneficiary also delegates "providing information 
about activities of [the foreign employer]" to foreign entity employees. The Petitioner submitted 
evidence indicating that the employee in the digital manager position was granted an H -1 B visa on 
December 15,2015. 
In denying the petition, the Director found that the Beneficiary's duties did not appear to be 
consistent with those typically performed by someone in a managerial or executive position. The 
Director concluded that the Beneficiary's duties were indicative of someone primarily performing 
non-qualifying operational duties related to the provision of goods and services. The Director 
emphasized that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to substantiate its engagement of 
employees or contractors to whom the Beneficiary would delegate work. 
In its appeal, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will act as a function manager "reviewing and 
monitoring marketing activities performed by the Petitioner's employees ," and emphasizes that he 
interacts "with customers and outside service providers," and meets with "prospective high-level 
officials." The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary delegates tasks to the digital manager and 
various independent contractors, including an accountant and an attorney. The Petitioner asserts that 
the Beneficiary delegates "direct marketing , ticket sales, and suitability of sports arenas" for events 
to and that many of these duties are performed by the president of this 
company and its personnel. The Petitioner indicates that it delegates tour manager duties to the 
and Lastly, the 
Petitioner states that the Beneficiary also oversees facilities managers at various venues where it has 
held events, including the and 
Furthermore , the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary will act in an executive capacity by 
developing and maintaining relationships , analyzing opportunities for growth, negotiating contracts, 
7 
Matter of S-S- LLC 
and establishing strategic goals. The Petitioner asserts that these are not duties indicative of 
someone primarily focused on providing goods and services. The Petitioner states that the Director 
overlooked the Beneficiary's oversight and approval of work by its employees and various 
contractors." In addition, the Petitioner compares the current matter to other non-precedent decisions 
issued by this office and cites an August 2011 memo from former Department of Homeland 
Secretary Janet Napolitano and former USC IS Director Alejandro Mayorkas. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, including materials submitted in support of 
the appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would employed 
in a managerial or executive capacity. 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of the Beneficiary, we will look first to the 
Petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 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. Id. 
The definitions of managerial and executive capacity each have two parts. First, the Petitioner must 
show that the Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. 
INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, the Petitioner must prove 
that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial or executive duties, as opposed to 
ordinary operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 
469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner stated in response to the RFE that the Beneficiary has been the company's only 
employee and "focused on one soccer player or event at a time." The Petitioner suggested that the 
Beneficiary was engaged directly in the marketing and promotion of events in his L-1 B specialized 
knowledge capacity as a soccer promotions coordinator. The Petitioner has submitted little evidence 
to indicate that the Beneficiary's role will change significantly with his promotion to the CEO 
position. For instance, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary will now spend 15% of his time 
hiring and firing its employees and independent contractors. However, the record does not show that 
the Petitioner has employees for the Beneficiary to regularly oversee and contains minimal evidence 
to reflect its regular engagement of independent contractors who work under the Beneficiary's 
control or supervision. In fact, the Beneficiary's duty description indicates that he will continue to 
arrange soccer events 10% of the time and a supporting email provided on the record indicates his 
ongoing performance of this task. 
By contrast, the Petitioner has not clearly articulated or documented the qualifying managerial or 
executive tasks that would account for a majority of the Beneficiary's time under the extended 
petition. The Petitioner emphasized in response to the RFE that the Beneficiary made the decision 
for the company to focus on futsal, a type of indoor soccer. Similarly, the Petitioner states that the 
Beneficiary will devote 25% of his time to "analyzing opportunities for company growth," but 
8 
Matter of S-S- LLC 
provides few examples of what this task will consist of. Further, the Petitioner indicates that the 
Beneficiary will devote 10% of his time to "establishing strategic goals" and another 5% "assisting 
other businesses with marketing strategies, such as branding, web development, [and] social media 
usage." However, in each case it has not articulated how setting strategic goals will take up a 
significant portion of his time or provided any evidence that his company provides the referenced 
marketing services for others. Indeed, assisting other companies with marketing appears to be the 
direct provision of a service or a non-qualifying duty. Likewise, the Petitioner provides evidence 
indicating that the Beneficiary is still arranging events and creating schedules for soccer tours. In 
short, the Petitioner has not sufficiently articulated or documented the nature of the Beneficiary's 
qualifying duties and how these tasks will take up a majority of his time. Reciting the 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 Petitioner has not provided any 
detail or explanation of the Beneficiary's activities in' the course of their daily routine. The actual 
duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), qff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, including 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. 
Certain discrepancies on the record undermine the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary delegates 
non-qualifying tasks to employees and contractors. The Petitioner stated in the Form I-129 that it 
employed "approx[imately] 4 contract employees," however, it did not identify these contractors or 
document their existence. In contrast, the Petitioner submitted a table in response to the RFE 
reflecting that it had one employee and that it engages six or more independent contractors. The 
Petitioner has not resolved these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
In addition, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary has sufficient subordinate 
employees and contractors to relieve him from performing non-qualifying operational tasks it 
acknowledges he has been primarily responsible for in the past. The Petitioner has provided 
evidence indicating that it has only one employee beyond the Beneficiary, the digital manager. 
Beyond this, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it employs 
sufficient employees or contractors to support the Beneficiary in his managerial or executive 
capacity and primarily relieve him from performing non-qualifying operational tasks. Although the 
Petitioner has provided some contracts suggesting that it arranged vendors or other independent 
contractors to assist with the management of soccer events, it does not submit evidence to document 
that it regularly engages independent contractors such that a significant portion of the Beneficiary's 
time would be devoted to overseeing and directing them. For instance, the Petitioner asserts that the 
Beneficiary delegates operational tasks to an accountant and an attorney, "direct marketing, ticket 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-S- LLC 
sales, and suitability of sports arenas" to tour manager duties to the 
and and certain other 
duties to foreign entity employees. However, the Petitioner provides little evidence, such as 
contracts, invoices, or,other relevant documentation, to support that these parties are being engaged 
by the Petitioner on a regular basis, that the Beneficiary would be delegating 
operational tasks to 
them, or that they would be under the Beneficiary's supervision and control. 
In fact, the Petitioner ' s 2014 IRS 1065 reflects that the company did not spend a significant amount 
on contractors or other professionals, showing that it spent only $7,500 on "legal and professional 
fees," leaving question regarding its assertion that it regularly engages an attorney, accountant, and 
architect. Otherwise, the Petitioner has provided no evidence that the Beneficiary has supervision 
and control over the travel agents, tour managers, or facilities managers. Similarly, the Petitioner 
submits no evidence that the company relies on the services of foreign entity employees. Indeed, the 
Petitioner does not even clearly articulate the duties he is delegating to its claimed employees and 
contractors. Again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 158, 
165. The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition and 
must continue to be eligible for the benefit through adjudication. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). A visa 
petition may not be approved at a future date after the Petitioner or Beneficiary becomes eligible 
under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'! Comm'r 
1978). 
Therefore, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary was once the company's sole employee 
focused on mostly individual soccer players , events, and other similar operational matters, but that it 
now engages sufficient employees and contractors to relieve the Beneficiary of these tasks. 
However, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this is the case, 
suggesting that he will remain in his role focused primarily on non-qualifying operational matters. 
Rather, the Petitioner submits substantial evidence that there are a number of operational matters for 
the company to perform, such as arranging for coaches, referees, equipment, and facilities for its 
s.occer camps and teams, but it does not indicate who performs these duties, suggesting that these 
tasks would continue to be handled by the Beneficiary . In fact, where asked to briefly describe the 
Beneficiary's proposed duties on the L Classification Supplement to the Form 1-129, the Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary ' s duties will be to "promote exchange of soccer activities between the 
United States and Brazil; introduce United States soccer players to Brazilian methods by meeting 
with Brazilian players in the United States and arranging soccer tours to Brazil." 
1 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary qualifies as a function manager. The statutory 
definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function managers." 
See sections 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to primarily 
supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. 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." Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(4). If a petitioner 
10 
Matter of S-S- LLC 
claims that a beneficiary directly supervises other employees, those subordinate employees must be 
supervisory, professional, or managerial, and the beneficiary must have the authority to hir~ and fire 
those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. Sections 
101(a)(44)(A)(ii)-(iii) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(2)-(3). 
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 for managing an "essential function" 
within the organization. See section 101 (a)( 44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The term "essential function" is 
not defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary will magage an essential 
function, a petitioner must clearly describe the duties to be performed in managing the essential 
function, i.e., identify the function with specificity, articulate the essential nature of the function, and 
establish the proportion of a beneficiary's daily duties dedicated to managing the essential function. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). In addition, a petitioner's description of a beneficiary's daily duties 
must demonstrate that the beneficiary will manage the function rather than perform the duties related 
to the function. 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary will 
primarily act as a function manager. The Petitioner compares the Beneficiary's situation to those 
reflected in two non-precedent matters we sustained based on a finding that those beneficiaries acted 
as function managers. First, while 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that our precedent decisions are 
binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not 
similarly binding. Regardless, other than vaguely comparing the Beneficiary in the current matter to 
those in two referenced non-precedent decisions, the Petitioner has furnished little evidence to 
establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in these unpublished decisions. 
Further, the Petitioner has not clearly articulated the function the Beneficiary is managing, other than 
generally indicating that he is overseeing the entire organization. In addition, as we have noted at 
length, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary has been acting for years as the company's sole 
employee focusing on operational matters and provides little supporting evidence to indicate that this 
would change under the extended petition. In the two non-precedent decisions referenced by the 
Petitioner, the petitioning employers had submitted sufficient supporting evidence to establish that 
the beneficiaries would be relieved from performing non-qualifying operational tasks. Here, the 
Petitioner has not provided this evidence, instead, it submits substantial evidence that the 
Beneficiary is still primarily performing non-qualifying operational tasks. 
In addition, the Petitioner contends on appeal that the Beneficiary qualifies as an executive. 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 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 
1101(a)(44)(B). 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 a 
beneficiary 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 
II 
Matter of S-S- LLC 
statute simply because they have an executive title or because they "direct" the enterprise as an 
owner or sole managerial employee. A beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary 
decision making" and receive only "general supervision or direction from higher level executives, 
the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization." ld. 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the Beneficiary would primarily act in an 
executive capacity under the extended petition. As noted in our discussion of the Ben~ticiary' s 
duties, the PetitioJiler has not sufficiently articulated how he will devote a majority of his time to 
directing management or setting the goals and policies of the organization. The Petitioner has only 
provided one example of an executive-level decision made by the Beneficiary, that being the 
decision to focus on indoor soccer, but otherwise it provides little evidence reflecting his regular 
performance of executive level tasks. Indeed, as discussed, there are numerous examples of 
operational tasks that the petitioning company reasonably needs someone to perform, and the 
Petitioner has submitted little evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary would be delegating 
these tasks to employees and independent contractors. In fact, the record is devoiq of supporting 
evidence reflecting the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates would relieve him from performing non­
executive tasks. As stated, 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 an owner or sole 
managerial employee. 
Lastly, in its appeal, the Petitioner offers a press release from the Secretary of the Department of 
Homeland Security and the Director of USCIS dated August 2, 2011, asserting that this demonstrates 
a preferertce for the Beneficiary as someone we should want to "attract to grow the economy and 
create jobs in America." We are not in agreement with the Petitioner regarding the intent of the 
offered press release. The press release discusses the promulgation of more information regarding 
certain business-based nonimmigrant classifications through published "Frequently Asked 
Questions" via the USCIS website and other related educational and streamlining efforts. The press 
release does not discuss any modification to regulations, policy or precedent used to adjudicate L-1 A 
petitions, or any other, nonimmigrant petitions. Indeed, the L-1A nonimmigrant classification is not 
even mentioned in the press release. As such, we are not bound to treat a wholly unrelated agency 
press release as binding precedent in this case. Regardless, even if the press release was found 
analogous here, information on agency websites does not constitute final agency action reviewable 
under the Administrative Procedures Act and does not create legally enforceable entitlements. See 
Air Brake Systems, Inc. v. Mineta, 357 F.3d 632, 646 (6th Cir.2004). 
Based on the deficiencies and inconsistencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity under the extended 
petition. 
12 
Matter of S-S- LLC 
III. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above reason. In visa petition 
proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the petitioner. 
Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter o.fOtiende, 26 I&N 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.fS-S- LLC, ID# 12246 (AAO Sept. 30, 2016) 
13