dismissed L-1A Case: Supply Chain Management

U.S. Dcpsrtrner~t of llomeland Sccurit!: 
20 h1asl;achusctts A\e.. N.W . lh. .4.3042 
Washington. I)(' ,70529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: MY 1 9 2005 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the lrnrnigrat~on 
and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. 3 1 101 (a)(] 5)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
'1-his is the decislon of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. Ail documents have been rcturlied to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further ~nquiry must be made to that office. 
Adn~inistrative Appeals office 
0 
- Page 3 
DISCUSSION: The Director. California Service Center, denied tlie petition for.a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner tiled thii nonimmigrant petition seeking to extend th6 employment of its ~aterial C~untrol 
Manager as an L- 1 A noninimigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section IOl (a)( l j)(L,) of the 
Inimigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 I IUl(a)(lj)(L).   he petitioner is a corporatioli 
organized in the State of Delaware that operates as a net~vork solutions provider. Tht: petitioner claims that it 
is tlie subsidiary of located in I-lsin-chu. Taiwan. The beneficiary was 
initially approved for I.,-1A status in the United States. and the petitioner now seeks to extend the beneficiary's 
stay for a two-year period. 
Tlie director denied the petition coniluding that the petitioner did not establish that the benehciary will he 
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive.capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded thc appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary 
qualifies as an L-IA intracompany transferee, as she will be employed in a primarily managerial capacity. 
both as a function manager and as a supervisor of subordinate employees., In the alternative. counsel asserts 
that the beneficiary should be approved for L-I R status as an intracompany transferee employed in a capacity 
that involves specialized knowledge. In support of these assertions, counsel submits a brief.. 
7'0 establish eligibility for the L-l nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner niust 'meet the criteria 
outlined in section IOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Act. Specifically,-a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qiralifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity. for one 
continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admissioll into the Onitcd 
States. 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 affiliatc thereof in a managerial. executive. or 
specialized kliowledge capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-179 shall he 
accompanied by: 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization ~hich emplojed or ~III eemploy the 
alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (I)(] )(ii)(G) of this sectlot). 
(ii) lividence 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 fitll timc empluy~nent 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding thc tiling at' 
the petition. 
Page 4 
In a letter submitted with the initial petition on May 28, 2003. the petitioner described the beneficiary's job 
duties as follo~s: 
[The beneficiary] will manage the material inventory supply system, and supervise and 
control the work of other supervisory professionals and managerial employees, just as slie Iias 
done 'for [the foreign entity] and the [petitioner] pursuarit to her previously approved 1,-1 A 
status. In short, she will continue to manage personnel (~td an essential function within tlie 
company. [The beneficiary] will also have authority to hire and fire, and authority to make 
other personnel decisions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy. With respect 
to the function managed. she will exercise discretion over the day-to-day operationof the 
function and the personnel that carry out the operations. Specifically, her managerial duties 
will include: 
1. Managing the company's inventory control system, implementing policies. and 
maintaining the procedures of the inventory supply system, thereby ensuring 
sufficient inventory is available for sales. She will perform these functions with l~ttle 
supervision from other executives. and through management of other profession-level 
employees; 
7 . Interface with suppliers to place orders as necessary and ensure on-time deliver) of 
supplies ordered: 
3 Maintain control of stock on-hand in the warehouse: 
4. Create and deliver reports on estimated future needs, delivery schedules, and 
inventory control improvements to upper-level executives. 
The petitio~ier submitted an organizational chart ~hich provided that the ber~eficiary will have superviso~ 
authority over rhree subordinates titled "Supply Chain Specialist," "Order Fultillruent Coordinator." and 
"Channel Inventory Management." 
The petitioner also submitted a document describing the beneticiary's duties as follows: 
' 
[The benefic~ary's] function also includes managing the personnel of the Supply Chain Team 
which consist [sic] of Order fulfillment. Channel Inventory Management and Purchasing. 
l j Managing Inventory: 30% 
a) Interface with suppliers to place orders as necessary and ensure on-time 
delivery of supplies ordered. 
i) Product disposition based on sales Forecast and esisting Orders from 
Customers 
( I ) Issue Purchase Orders 
(2) Track and monitor open Purchase Orders 
(3) Create Purchase Forecast to Vendors on a monthlj base [sic] 
b) Provide ETA (Estimated Tinie of Arri~al) and ETD (Estimated Time of 
Departure) Manage Local Production and Built Out's 
c) Maintain a 30Day Inventory in the Channel and at the 1,ocal Warehouse 
2) Managing Transportation: 15% 
a) Assign Forwarder and set up the contract with [the petitioner's] specific 
needs. 
b) Rev~ew Freight Invoices based on the negotiated Freight Cost Terms 
3) Monthly reporting to level executives: 20°/0 
a) Analysis [sic] Monthly report to upper level executi\es for inventory 
situation. 
b) Analysis [sic] Monthly transportation cost status report to upper lebel 
executibes 
C) Create and deliver reports on estimated future needs. 
d) Delivery schedules and inventory control improvements to upper level 
executives 
4) Monitor and manage the supply chain Dep. 30°h 
a) She sets up proposal [sic] >and policies to improve the link the [sic] 
' 
company's internal communication chain with other department [sic]. 
b) She monitors and manage [sic] the supply chain department to improve the 
chain and way to fulfill Sales' demand.. 
5) Review employees performance: 5% 
a) There are 3 employees under her supervision: 
b) She reviews and monitor [sic] the work performance and efficiency and help 
[sic] on trouble shooting. 
C) She has the decision to make authority over the employees 
On July 9. 2003. the director requested add~tional evidence. Specifically, th: director instructed the petitioner 
as follows: 
Submit the U.S. entity's organization chart to show the employee5 under the beneficiary's 
supervision, and a list of employees under the beneficiary's supcr\ision \~.ith details as 
follo\vs: 
Job Title 
Detailed job duties of each employee. 
Education lebel. 
Annual salaries/wages 
Form DE-6. Quarterly Wage Report: Submit copies of the U.S. company's Employment 
Develc.pnient Department (EDD) Form DE-6. Quarterly Wage Reports for all employees for 
the last 3 quarters that were accepted by the State The forms should include the names. 
soc~al security numbers. and nunlber of meeks worked for all employees. 
In a response dated Septemher 39. 2003, the petitioner submitted: (I) (1 letter from counsel further addressing 
the director's concerns; (3) an organizational chart for the petitioner; (3) copies of the petitioner's Forrns DE-6 
Page 6 
for the third and fourth quarters of 2002 and the first and second quarters of 2003: (4) materials for university 
programs in supply chain management; and (5) previously submitted evidence. In counsel's letter, he 
reiterated tlie descriptions of the beneficiary's duties and provided information regarding the activities of 
suppl) chain management in general. Counsel asserted that the beneficiary manages an essential function for 
the petitioner in addition to supervising subordinate employees. In the alternative, counsel asserted that the 
benetic~ary qualifies for L-I B status. as she possesses, and her duties require. specialized knowledge. 
On October 8, 2003. the director denied the petit~on. 7 he d~rector determined that the petitioner d~d not 
establ~sh that the beneficiary will be employed In the Un~ted States in a primarily managerla1 or execut~ve 
capacity. The director stated that "[tlhere are currently no bona fide manager(s) for the beneficiary to 
supervise andlor delegate the actual day-to-day duties. Accordingly, the evidence submitted ~ndlcates that the 
beneficiary has been and will actually be performing the day-to-day dut~es. and any executive and/or 
managerial function ~nvolved will only be incidental." The d~rector further provided that "[ulnder tlie 
regulations, to be employed as a manager or executibe, the ~ndiv~dual must primarily supervise and control 
the work of 'other supervlsory, professional, or managerial en~ployees . . . within the ornan17atton."' 
(Ernphas~s in original). 
On appeal. counsel for the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary qualifies as an L-I A intracompany transferee. 
as she will be employed in a primarily managerial capacity. both as a function manager and as a supervisor of 
subordinate employees. Counsel states that the director failed to consider whether the beneficiary qual~fies as 
a function manager. Counsel prov~des that the beneficiary is responsible for supply chain management. 
\\hicIi is a "critical function" of the petitioner. Counsel notes that Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 
previously approved the beneficiary for L-1A status on two separate occasions for the identical position and 
job duties. Counsel states that "[i)n the interest of fairness and consistency, [CIS] should not apply changes in 
internal policy to extension petitions ~hcre none of the circumstances have changed." As an alternative to 
L-IA status, counsel asserts that the beneficiary should be approved for L-IB status as an Intracompanj 
transferee employed in a capacity that involves speciali~ed knowledge 
upin review, counsel's assertions are not persuasive., Whert examining the esecutive or managerial capacity 
of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the 'petitioner's description of the job duties. Scp 8 C.F.R. 
42()(3)(ii) The petitioner's description of tlie job duties must clearly. describe the duties to be 
performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties arc either in an esecutive Qr managerial 
capacity. Id. The petitioner must specifically state whether the beneficiary is primarily employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity. In the instant mattcr, counsel states that the beneficiary \vill be employed 
in a primarily managerial capacity. 1-Iowever, the submitted job descriptions fail to establish that the n~ajorit? 
of the beneficiary's time will be devoted to managerial or esecutive tasks. 
. . I he petitioner stated that. the beneficiary will devote 30 percent of her time to "Maniging Inventory." 
including tasks such as placing orders with suppliers, creating and tracking purchase orders, and maintaining 
the inventory. Yet, these duties appear to be non-qualifying administrative tasks. .]'he petitioner 
provides that the beneficiary will devote 15 'percent of her time to "Managing Transportation." including 
"Assign[ing] Forwarder[s] and set[ting]'up . . . contract[s] with [the petitioner's] specific needs" and 
"Revie\c[ingl Freight Invoices based on the negotiated Freight Cost Terms." Yet. without further esplanation. 
it is not possible to determine whether these are managerial tasks. The evidence of record does not contain 
any of these contracts such that the AAO could detennine whether substantial negotiation \\as involved, or 
whether the freight forwarders were simply hired based on standard contract terms in the industrj. 
The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary will spend 30 percent of her time "Monitor[ingl and manag[ing] 
. , the supply,chain [Department]." However, the petitioner uses general aiid ambiguous language to describe 
the tasks associated with this responsibility. For exaniple. the petitioner states that the benetici'ary "sets up 
proposal [sic] and policies to improve the link the [sic] company's internal ~onimun'ication chain with other 
department [sic]." and she ,"monitors and manage [sic] the supply chain department to improve the chain and 
way to fulfill Sales' demand." Yet, these broad statements provide little insight into the true nature of the 
tasks the beneficiary will perform on a daily basis. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a 
beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would 
simply be a.matter ofxiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Suva. 724 F. Supp. 1 I03 '(E.D.N.Y. 
1989). clff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The actual duties themselves .reveal the true nature of the 
employment. W. , , 
The petitioner states that the beneficiary will devote five percent of her time to "Review[ingl employees['] 
performance." Yet. as will be discussed fully below. the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary's 
subordinate employees are supervisory, professional. or managerial. See 9 101 (a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
Thus, this portion of the beneficiary's time is spent acting as a first-line supervisor. A managerial or executive 
employee must have authority over day-to-day operations beyond the level nonnally vested in a first-line 
supervisor, unless the supervised employees are professionals. See il.l(rrter of C'hurclr Scic~~toiop 
Internotioncrl, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). 
Thus, as much as 80 percent of the beneficiary's tinie has not been shown to involve managerial or executive 
tasks. Accordingly, the beneficiary's job description does riot establish that she will bc employed in a 
prlmar~ly managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner states that the beneficiary will supervtse three subordrnates titled "Supply Chain Spec~alist," 
"Order Fulfillment Coordinator." and "Channel Inventory Management." Counsel correctly notes that the 
beneficiary is not required to supervise subordinates. However, ~f it is claimed that her duties involve 
supervising employee$. the petitioner niust establish that the suhord~nate employies are supervisory. 
professional, or nianaserial See rj 101 (a)(44)(A)( ii) of the Act. 
In evaluating whether the beneficiary manage5 professio~~al etrlplcqces, the AAO must evaluate &hether the 
subord~nate posittons require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into thc field of endeabor 
Section 101(a)(3?) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1 10 I (a)(33). states that "[tlhe term profes\roil shall include but not 
be limited to architects, engineers. la~vyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers ~n elementar) or secondarj 
schools, colleges. acadetnies, or seminaries." The term "profession" contemplates knowledge or learn~ng. not 
merely sk~ll, of an advanced type in a given field gained bj a prolonged course of'spec~al~zed instruction and 
study of at least baccalaureate level, wh~ch IS a realisttc prerequisite to entry into the particular field ot 
endeavor. lbIalter of Sen, 19 l&N Dec 81 7 (Cornm 1988); Mutter of Litig. 13 IBN Dec 35 (R.C. 1968): 
~M~irter of Sl1117, I I I&N Dec. 686 (D.D 1966) 
Page 9 
.Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be employed in a prirnarilb 
managerial or executive capacity. For this reason. the appeal will be dismissed. 
As an alternat~~e to L-IA status. counsel asserts that the beneficiary should be approved for L-I B Flatus as an 
Intracompany transferee employed in a capacity that involves speciali7ed knowledge. However. on -Form 
1-139 the pet~t~oner indicated that ~t IS requesting an extension of the beneficiary's 1,-1 A status. Counsel's 
request to amend the pet~tiori arid change the beneficiary's status to L-IB on appeal is not properly before the 
AAO. The regulations at 8 C.F R. 5 214.2(\)(7)(i)(C) state: 
The petitioner shall file an amended petition. with fee, at the service center where the origirlal 
petition was filed to reflect changes in approved relationships, additional qualifying 
organizations under a blanket petition, change in capacity of employment (1.e. from a 
specialized knowledge position to a managerial position), or any information which would 
affect the beneficiary's eligibility under section 101 (a)(l5)(L) of the Act. 
The request to reconsider the original petition on appeal as a petition for L-IB classification is, therefore, 
rejected If the petitioner wishes for the beneficiary to be considered for I,-] B status, the regulations permit it 
I to submit a separate~orm I- 129 with such a request. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibilitj for ttie benefit sought remains entirely with thc 
petitioner. Section 291 of thc Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.