dismissed L-1A Case: Telecommunications

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-T- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 10, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which arranges for third-party telecommunications services, seeks to continue the 
Beneficiary's temporary employment as its commercial director under the L-lA nonimrnigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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 Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a 
managerial or executive capacity . 
The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
maintains that the Beneficiary has an executive level of responsibility. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA 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 affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
II. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that it would 
employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether 
the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity. 
Matter of B-T- Inc. 
"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. 
Based on the statutory definition of 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 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. 
When examining the claimed executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look to 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 and its staffing levels. 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner broke down the Beneficiary's duties into 10 areas of responsibility, abridged below, 
each occupying 10% of the Beneficiary's time: 
• Direct ... the overall management of the commercial department ... to include 
sales, goal setting and budget plans. 
• Direct and formulate ... hiring and firing policies .... 
• Direct . . . performance standards, monitoring subordinate managerial and 
personnel performance. 
• Direct the development of business strategies, product and service plans . . . 
expanding and developing the marketing strategy .... 
• Direct, review and consolidate monthly operating budgets .... 
• Direct the development, organization, strategies and objectives of the company ... 
[and] ensure compliance with procedures and practices. 
• Direct [ and] develop local and foreign contacts with companies .... 
• Coordinate weekly meetings with staff ... 
2 
Matter of B-T- Inc. 
• Direct and implement the international buying strategy and negotiation with 
suppliers .... 
• Direct and control international sales and advertising strategies for the!.__ _ ___. 
office .... 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's duties satisfy all four elements of the statutory definition 
of an executive capacity: 
• The Beneficiary would direct the management of the organization by "directing and managing 
the overall operations of the company" and "overseeing the activities of an upper-level 
managerial employee ... and two professionals." We will discuss the Petitioner's staffing 
further below. 
• The Beneficiary would establish the organization's goals and policies by "directing the overall 
operations of the company, developing business strategies, and spearheading the company's 
marketing initiatives. 
• The Beneficiary will exercise wide latitude in discretionary decision making because "he will 
be responsible for various important decisions" involving hiring, firing, contracts, and 
expans10n. 
• The Beneficiary "only receives general supervision or direction from the company's 
President," and "will operate much under his own command." 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from an associate dean at the University ofl I, who quoted 
large portions of the Beneficiary's job description and concluded, without further discussion or 
explanation, that the Beneficiary "will function in an Executive position for the company." 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements from universities, professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as 
expert testimony. Matter o_f Caron Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding a beneficiary's eligibility. The 
submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. 
Id. USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated or is in any way 
questionable. Id. In this instance, the author of the letter claims no personal familiarity with the 
petitioning company or with the Beneficiary's role therein. 
The Director found that the Beneficiary's job description "includes many generic duties" and "few, if 
any, specific references to [the petitioning] company's business operations." The Director 
acknowledged the letter from the associate dean, but found that he "has not adequately supported his 
conclusions." 
On appeal, the Petitioner repeats the job description submitted previously, without addressing the 
Director's concerns regarding the lack of specific details. The Petitioner also submits copies of 
contracts and communications as examples of the Beneficiary's decisions. 
3 
Matter of B-T- Inc. 
The Director did not dispute the Beneficiary's authority to negotiate contracts on the Petitioner's 
behalf. The submitted examples, however, do not show that the Beneficiary spends a majority of his 
time on executive-level tasks and duties. 
A significant issue is the extent to which the Beneficiary would direct the management of the company. 
To address this issue, we must examine the company's staffing. 
B. Staffing 
The Petitioner's organizational chart showed the following structure: 
President [based in Brazil] 
I 
Commercial Director [the Beneficiary] 
Treasurer Secretary/Sal es Sales Manager 
I 
Secretary/ Accounting 
The Petitioner referred to the treasurer as an "upper-level managerial employee" and the 
secretary/sales and sales manager as "professional employees." The record does not support these 
characterizations. 
Direct supervision of professionals is not a statutory element of an executive capacity. Even then, the 
Petitioner has not shown that the identified positions are professional; that is, whether they 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 United States baccalaureate degree or its 
foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation"). Section 10l(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." 
The secretary/sales has a bachelor's degree, but 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. We must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree held 
by the subordinate employee. The job description for the secretary/sales included administrative and 
clerical tasks such as ordering supplies, processing incoming orders, making copies, and answering 
the telephone. The Petitioner has not shown that these duties require a bachelor's degree. 
Furthermore, that employee's degree is in "Interior Design," a field with no demonstrable relevance 
to sales activities for a telecommunications company. The degree or major must be academically 
appropriate to the occupation. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 46 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971) 
( citing Matter of Shin, 11 I&N Dec. 686 (D.D. 1966)). Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown that 
the subordinate employees are professionals. 
4 
Matter of B-T- Inc. 
The Petitioner indicated that the sales manager earned a two-year degree from taking "Sales courses," 
rather than a four-year bachelor's degree. The Petitioner indicated that the sales manager manages 
"the company's sales functions" and "sales activities," but that employee has no subordinates to whom 
to delegate those functions and activities. The implication is that the sales manager personally 
performs those non-managerial tasks. 
Likewise, the Petitioner did not show that the treasurer is an "upper-level managerial employee." The 
treasurer's own responsibilities include compiling financial data, monitoring financial activity, and 
vague responsibilities such as "[e]xecut[ing] the company's policies and procedures" and "[e]nsur[ing] 
the efficient and effective management of the company." The treasurer's only subordinate employee 
is the secretary/accounting, whose responsibilities include "incoming calls," "incoming and outgoing 
mail," scheduling meetings, and maintaining files. 
In the denial notice, the Director found that the subordinate employees' job "descriptions are overly 
general and vague." On appeal, the Petitioner submits essentially the same job descriptions, except 
for some adjustments to the duties attributed to the two secretaries. The Petitioner acknowledges that 
"[t]he majority of duties performed by the secretary are clerical in nature comprised of answering 
calls, setting appointments, [and] filing." 
As evidence of the treasurer's work, the Petitioner submits "financial reports ... prepared to provide 
financial forecasts and business activity." The documents consist of a weekly "payment schedule," 
two "Statements of Account" showing monthly payments collected from clients; and a table of the 
Petitioner's bank transactions in September 2019. The Petitioner did not establish that compilation of 
basic financial data, such as tracking invoice payments, is an "upper-level managerial" task; the 
submitted materials appear to show activity more akin to bookkeeping or data entry. 
The Petitioner has not overcome the grounds for denial identified in the Director's decision. Based 
on the deficiencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that it will employ the 
Beneficiary in an executive capacity under the extended petition. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of B-T-Inc., ID# 5134528 (AAO Oct. 10, 2019) 
5