dismissed L-1A Case: Tax Preparation And Cleaning Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-T- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 7, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a tax preparation and cleaning service business, seeks to continue the Beneficiary"s 
temporary employment as its general manager 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)(l5)(L). The L-IA classification allows a corporation or other legal entity 
(including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to 
work temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a managerial 
capacity under the extended petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred and that the Beneficiary's duties are 
primarily managerial. 
Upon de novo 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 specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 10l(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 atliliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. !d. 
1 
The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary"s behalf which was approved for the period 
February 16, 2016, until February 15, 2017. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the 
United States through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)( I )(ii)(F). The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office'' operation one year within the date of approval of the 
petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
.
Matter of A-T- LLC 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-1 A new office petition must also submit a statement of the 
beneficiary's duties during the previous year and under the extended petition; a statement describing 
the staffing of the new operation and evidence of the numbers and types of positions held; evidence 
of its financial status, evidence that it has been doing business for the previous year; and evidence 
that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(14)(ii). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT lN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence of the 
Beneficiary's claimed managerial or executive duties. The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the 
Beneficiary manages two business lines2 and her duties are not merely operational but also 
. I 3 managena .-
The Act defines the term "managerial capacity" as an assignment within an organization in which 
the employee primarily manages the organization or a department, subdivision , function , or 
component; supervises and controls the work of other supervisory , professional. or managerial 
employees, or manages an essential function; if the employee directly supervises other employees, 
has the authority to take personnel actions, or if no other employee is directly supervised, functions 
at a senior-level within the organization 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. 
We will address both the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's intended duties as well as the 
Petitioner's staffing to determine whether the Petitioner has established this eligibility requirement. 
We note that when reviewing staffing levels as a factor in determining whether an individual is 
acting in a managerial or executive capacity, we 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. Duties 
When examining the managerial capacity of a beneficiary, we review a petitioner's description of 
the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The definition of managerial capacity has 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 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). 
2 The Petitioner stated that the Petitioner's main business activity continues to be tax preparation but that it has 
diversified its business to also include commercial cleaning services. The Petitioner noted that the cleaning service is a 
year-round business which "balance[s] some of the slow months from Taxes Preparation Services.'' The Petitioner also 
indicated that it is involved in ''an ongoing arbitration for better business practices against ,. 
3 As the Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary will perfonn duties primarily in an executive capacity, we will 
restrict our analysis to the Beneficiary's claimed managerial capacity. 
2 
Matter of A-T- LLC 
Second, the petitioner must prove that the beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial 
duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the petitioner's other employees. See. 
e.g., Family Inc. v. USCJS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d at 1533. 
In the letter of support, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will continue to manage the U.S. 
company and that her "tasks involve directing and managing the company and its employees:· The 
Petitioner added that she "established the goals and policies for the company and has authority to 
hire and fire employees." These described duties do not convey an understanding of what the 
Beneficiary will actually do for the Petitioner under the extended petition on a daily basis. Rather, 
the Petitioner re-states the first two elements of the statutory definitions of "managerial capacity" 
and "executive capacity." 4 See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B). 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.D.N.Y. 1989), afrd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner added that the Beneficiary will 
continue to manage the company and "oversee all business operations, such as hire and fire, promote 
the company, manage the finances, establish goals and policies, and being the leader, director and 
supervisor of the business employee." The Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary will dedicate 
approximately 70 percent of her time to the cleaning business line and approximately 30 percent of 
her time to the tax preparation business. The Petitioner further allocated the Beneficiary's time as 
follows (paraphrased): 
• Administrative duties- 20% 
• Operational decisions and managing and motivating staff- 20% 
• Setting organizational direction and strategy for the business as well as reviewing 
organization's performance against goals- 10% 
• Marketing and promoting the business - 20% 
• Dealing with customers and managing short-tenn unexpected issues- 15%. and 
• Prospecting new clients- 20%5 
The Petitioner does not detail the actual tasks involved in these broad categories. Thus. we cannot 
evaluate and analyze whether the Beneficiary will perform duties that are managerial in nature rather 
than the non-qualifying duties required to operate the business. We find, for example. that 
marketing and promoting the business, seeking new clients, and dealing with customers are more 
likely operational tasks and therefore non-qualifying duties. Reciting the Beneficiary's vague job 
4 
The Act defines "executive capacity" as an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily directs 
the management of the organization or a major component or function thereof; establishes the goals and policies of the 
organization, component, or function; exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and receives only 
general supervision or direction from higher-level executives, the board of directors. or stockholders of the organization. 
Section IOI(a)(44)(B) ofthe Act. 
5 
The Petitioner's allocation ofthe Beneficiary's time totals 105 percent. 
3 
Matter of A-T- LLC 
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 the necessary detail 
or explanation of the Beneficiary's activities in the course of her daily routine. The actual duties 
themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. !d. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary signs the company"s legal documents, represents 
and defends the legal rights of the companies she manages, and adds other lines of businesses. She 
also supervises and manages, signs checks, and pays the employees. The Petitioner contends that the 
Beneficiary has a 49 percent interest in the U.S. holding company and also maintains a significant 
ownership in the foreign entity. The Petitioner further asserts that the Beneficiary's duties are not 
operational, but rather are managerial duties. However, the Beneficiary's position as an ot1icer or 
partial owner of the Petitioner does not establish that she is a manager as that term is defined in the 
Act. The fact that the Beneficiary will manage or direct a department or the operations of the 
business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in a 
managerial or executive capacity within the meaning of section 101 (a)(44) of the Act. By statute, 
eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a position be ''primarily'' executive or 
managerial in nature. Sections 10l(A)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. While 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, the position descriptions alone are 
insufficient to establish that her actual duties will be primarily managerial in nature. 
B. Staffing 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, we review the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed managerial 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. 
The Petitioner's organizational chart depicts the Beneficiary as the general manager and identities a 
receptionist and two cleaning service staff subordinate to her position. The organizational chart also 
shows that legal and accounting services are outsourced. The record includes the Petitioner's 2016 
fourth quarter state employer's quarterly report. This report identifies employees working for the 
Petitioner in the quarter before the petition was tiled in February 2017. The Petitioner, however, 
must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from 
the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The lack of 
evidence regarding the Petitioner's employees when the petition was tiled precludes a determination 
that the Petitioner had sufficient staff to perform the duties of the business and relieve the 
Beneficiary from performing operational and administrative duties when the petition was tiled and 
continuing through adjudication. 
4 
Matter of A-T- LLC 
Even if considering that the Petitioner continued to employ these same individuals in the positions 
identified on the organizational charts in the record, the record still does not contain sut1icient 
evidence to establish that the Beneficiary's duties include primarily supervising these individuals. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and 
"function managers.'' See section 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. 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." 6 Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. 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(l)(l)(ii)(B)(3). 
The organizational chart does not depict any individuals employed in a tax preparer position and the 
Petitioner's fourth quarter employer's report confirms that the Petitioner only employed a 
receptionist and two cleaning staff, in the quarter prior to the filing of the position. The 
organizational chart also indicates that the Petitioner outsourced legal and accounting services, but 
the record does not include evidence of contracts or payments made to these services. Moreover, it 
is unlikely that the Beneficiary's duties would involve supervising or managing the employees of 
these services. 
The record does not establish that the Beneficiary will primarily supervise other supervisory, 
managerial, or professional employees, or will be relieved from performing tasks related to 
marketing, financial planning, and administrative duties. Rather, the record shows that the 
Beneficiary at most will perform first-line supervisory duties of non-professional employees as well 
as performing other operational tasks. 
The Petitioner has not articulated a specific function that the Beneficiary will manage. 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. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary wi 11 
manage an essential function, it must clearly describe the duties to be performed in managing the 
6 When evaluating whether a beneficiary manages professional employees. we evaluate whether the subordinate 
positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. CJ 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) 
(defining "profession'' to mean "any occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the 
minimum requirement for entry into the occupation''). Section I 0 I (a)(32) of the Act. states that ''[t)he term profession 
shall include but not be limited to architects. engineers. lawyers, physicians, surgeons. and teachers in elementary or 
secondary schools. colleges, academies, or seminaries.'' Therefore. we focus on the level of education required by the 
position, rather than the degree held by subordinate employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate 
employee does not automatically lead to the conclusion that an employee is employed in a professional capacity. The 
record shows that the Petitioner employed a receptionist and two cleaning staff. the quarter prior to filing the petition. 
Neither of these positions requires a bachelor's degree to perform them. 
Matter of A-T- LLC 
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."' Malter of G- Inc., Adopted 
Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
We have reviewed the Petitioner's claim on appeal that signing legal documents, serving as the 
registered agent, and representing and defending the legal rights of the company are "essential" 
management functions. The Beneficiary, however, is the individual who carries out these duties, she 
does not assign or delegate these tasks to others. Thus, she performs these duties in her capacity as a 
representative of the company. Moreover, the Petitioner does not allocate the majority of the 
Beneficiary's time to carrying out these duties. In this matter, the Petitioner has not described or 
provided evidence that the Beneficiary primarily manages an essential function. 
We have considered the reasonable needs of the organization in light of the overall purpose and 
stage of development of the organization. To establish that the reasonable needs of the organization 
justify a beneficiary's job duties, a petitioner must specifically articulate why those needs are 
reasonable in light of its overall purpose and stage of development. However, the regulations 
provide strict evidentiary requirements for the extension of a "new office'' petition and require U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services to examine the organizational structure and staffing levels of 
the Petitioner. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l4)(ii)(D). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) 
only allows the "new office" operation one year within the date of approval of the petition to support 
an executive or managerial position. If a business does not have the necessary staffing after one year 
to sufficiently relieve the beneficiary from performing operational and administrative tasks, the 
petitioner is ineligible for an extension. The record does not establish that the Petitioner has the 
necessary staffing to relieve the Beneficiary from performing primarily non-qualifying duties under 
the extended petition. 
III. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director did not address the issue of the Beneficiary's employment in a managerial or executive 
capacity for the foreign entity. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary had been the president and 
general manager of the foreign entity, a pizza restaurant, since it was founded in 1995. The 
Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary's responsibilities included managing and overseeing all 
business activities and supervising employees. Her responsibilities also included ''business finances, 
operations, hiring and firing, as well as to plan, deaL and negotiate with business suppliers and 
providers." These duties are not sufficiently detailed to determine that the Beneficiary performed 
primarily managerial or executive duties, rather than non-qualifying duties. 
The foreign entity's organizational chart identified nine employees subordinate to the Beneficiary's 
position of general manager. The subordinate employees included a chef, two chef assistants, two 
pizza makers, a barman, two waiters, and a cashier. The Petitioner submitted payroll evidence that 
Matter of A-T- LLC 
the foreign entity employed nine employees subordinate to her position in October and December 
2016.7 The foreign entity's organizational chart also indicated that the company outsourced its 
accounting services, but did not include evidence of payment for these services. The record does not 
include probative evidence establishing that any of the positions subordinate to the Beneficiary 
performed primarily supervisory, managerial, or professional duties. Accordingly, it appears at most 
that the Beneficiary acted as a first-line supervisor over non-professional, non-supervisory, and 
non-managerial employees for the foreign entity. 
As the record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing that the Beneficiary's employment 
for the foreign entity satisfied the statutory definitions of executive or managerial capacity. the 
petition cannot be approved for this additional reason. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in a managerial or executive position for the Petitioner under the extended petition. and 
the Petitioner has not established that she was employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofA-T- LLC, ID# 784848 (AAO Dec. 7, 2017) 
7 The record does not include evidence of the number of employees the Beneficiary supervised when she worked for the 
foreign entity prior to entering the United States.