dismissed L-1A Case: Transportation And Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7605180 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 28, 2020 
The Petitioner, a transportation and logistics company, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's employment 
as its operations manager under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(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 Petitioner did 
establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity under the 
extended petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that it established that the Beneficiary 
will be employed in a managerial capacity. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de novo 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 101(a)(l5)(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. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in a 
managerial or executive capacity. However, the Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in an executive capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary will 
be employed in a managerial capacity. 
"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 
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 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
When examining the claimed managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. 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 staffing levels, and its organizational structure. 
A. Duties 
Based on the definition of managerial 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 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 at 1533. 
The Petitioner submitted a position description at the time of filing, but the Director determined that 
it was too general and did not explain the specific tasks the Beneficiary performs on a day-to-day 
basis. In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a slightly revised job 
description in which it described the Beneficiary's duties as operations manager as follows: 1 
8% Set goals and objectives and establish policies for different departments of the 
corporation. Achieve operational objectives by contributing information and 
recommendations to strategic plans and reviews; ... identify trends, determine system 
improvements; implement changes when needed. 
10% Supervise and help exceed Corporation sales and operational goals. Meet financial 
objectives by forecasting requirements, review annual budgets, approve schedule 
expenditures, analyze variances, initial corrective actions. Develop corporation's 
policies and discuss them with the Board of Directors for final approval. Develop 
guidelines of operations for certain processes directly under his authority. 
1 The bolded portions of this description were added to the original job duties the Petitioner had provided previously. 
2 
8% Oversee staff in developing annual budgets that support operating plans and 
submit budgets to the Board for approval. Devise and set up annual budget and 
fiscal plans and present it before the Board of Directors. Prepare elaborate reports of 
the functioning of all departments under his authority and submit reports to top 
management for performance review. 
8% Create operating plans that support strategic direction set by the board and 
correlate with annual operating budgets. Collaborate with the Board to define and 
articulate the corporation's vision and to develop strategies for achieving that vision, 
develop and monitor strategies for ensuring the long-term financial viability of the 
corporation. 
12% Plan, organize, direct and control the corporation's major functions. Responsible 
for the corporation's finances, marketing, and services, in order to achieve the 
operational goals. Review, analyze, create and/or modify corporate policies, rules, 
regulations and goals. 
8% Responsible for the development and direction of the Corporation. Develop 
operational strategies by identifying human resources issues; contribute information, 
analysis, strategic thinking and recommendations to the Corporation ... 
12% Responsible for acting as an advisor for the corporation. Responsible for being up 
to date with all custom laws and federal regulations in order for all shipments to be 
compliant . . . . [C]ommunicate any changes in the respective laws to all branch 
managers and the Board of Directors ... 
10% Overseeing hiring, firing and training of personnel for the corporation. Hire, 
manage, and fire the human resources of the corporation according to authorized 
personnel policies and procedures that folly conform to current laws and regulations ... 
8% Establish performance goals for the Corporation. Determine strategies to reduce 
operational costs and increase revenues by analyzing supply expenses; comparing and 
negotiating prices with suppliers. Develop improvements to the organization's market 
positioning and achieve financial growth. Define long-term organizational strategic 
goals, build key relationships, identify business opportunities, negotiate and close 
business deals and maintain extensive knowledge of current market conditions. 
10% Decide or guide courses of action in operations by staff. Develop a comprehensive 
understanding of competitive environment, understand products, technology and 
competitive environment to make recommendations for the segment's offering and 
capabilities to meet customers' needs. 
6% Implement systems to mirror those of the Mexican Affiliate. Use a management 
system in order to align all organizations .... 
3 
We agree with the Director's determination that this description was not responsive to the RFE, as it 
was lacking the requested level of detail and specificity regarding the Beneficiary's day-to-day duties. 
The purpose of the RFE is to elicit further information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit 
sought has been established. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(8). Here, the Petitioner began with a position 
description that was already overly vague and, in response to the RFE, added even broader language 
to describe the Beneficiary's responsibilities, rather than clarifying or adding the requested specificity 
to the original duties. Responsibilities such as "set goals and objectives and establish policies," 
"create operating plans that support strategic direction set by the board," "direct and control the 
corporation's major functions," "establish performance goals," and being responsible for the 
"development and direction of the Corporation" do not provide any additional insight into what 
specific tasks the Beneficiary performs on a daily basis as the operations manager for a transportation 
and logistics company. The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of 
inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the position description is sufficient to establish the 
Beneficiary's managerial authority and emphasizes that it must be considered along with the remainder 
of the evidence in the record. While the Petitioner correctly notes our responsibility to review the 
totality of the record in determining the Beneficiary's eligibility as a manager, the Petitioner bears the 
burden of providing a detailed job description of the Beneficiary's actual day-to-day tasks within the 
context of its particular business. 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), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Here, the Petitioner submitted an 
overly broad and generic description that could describe a senior position at almost any type of 
company. 
In addition, as noted by the Director, the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's duties was not 
only vague, but also repetitive, making it more difficult to ascertain what types of tasks he would 
primarily perform as a part of his regular and ongoing routine. The Petitioner included a number of 
general responsibilities related to the company's strategies, plans, and goals throughout the 
description. Specifically, the Petitioner lists the Beneficiary's responsibilities for contributing 
recommendations to strategic plans, developing policies for Board approval, defining the company's 
"vision" and developing related strategies, modifying corporate policies and goals, contributing 
"strategic thinking and recommendations to the Corporation," and defining "long-term organizational 
strategic goals" as discrete duties performed under separate areas of responsibility in the job 
description. However, the Petitioner does not attempt to differentiate these seemingly repetitive duties 
in any way or provide examples or evidence of strategies, policies or goals the Beneficiary has actually 
implemented while serving in the operations manager position. 
Further, despite the Petitioner's consistent claim that it employs a president and vice president to 
perform executive functions, and its claim that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial 
capacity, much of the language used in the description merely paraphrases the statutory definition of 
executive capacity at section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. Conclusory assertions regarding the 
Beneficiary's employment capacity are not sufficient. Merely repeating the language of the statute or 
regulations does not satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof Fedin Bros., 724 F. Supp. at 1108, aff'd, 
905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Assocs., Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Given 
4 
the repetition of these broad responsibilities throughout the Beneficiary's job description, it is difficult 
to evaluate how much time he actually devotes to any given area of responsibility. 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not explain how responsibilities such as "being up to date with customs 
laws and regulations," "understanding products, technology and competitive environment," 
negotiating and closing business deals, maintaining knowledge of current market conditions, and 
negotiating prices with suppliers, translate to managerial duties. Nor has the Petitioner explained the 
specific duties the Beneficiary would perform in overseeing shipments for regulatory compliance and 
timeliness, or overseeing the procedures followed by drivers. Absent farther details regarding the 
nature of these areas of responsibility, we cannot determine whether they would involve managerial 
duties. 
The fact that the Beneficiary will manage a business does not necessarily establish eligibility for 
classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial capacity within the meaning of section 
10l(a)(44)(A) 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 description 
is not sufficiently detailed and contains only limited references to the Petitioner's actual business 
model, which provides us with little context for evaluating the duties and limits the description's 
probative value. Therefore, for the reasons discussed, the Beneficiary's job description alone is 
insufficient to establish that he would primarily perform managerial duties. 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
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. 
The Petitioner is self-described as "a leading service provider of freight and logistics services, offering 
a foll range of services for the movement of industrial commercial and retail goods." It farther 
indicates that it "focuses on the needs" of its Mexican affiliate company "by assisting its clients with 
the transportation of goods in and out of Mexico." 
The Petitioner stated on the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, that it had 15 employees 
at the time of filing in April 2019. The most recent payroll evidence provided, a Texas quarterly wage 
report, showed that the company had 14 employees as of December 2018. An organizational chart 
submitted at the time of filing depicted a total of 19 positions in the company, with 11 employees 
identified by name. 
The organizational chart shows that the Beneficiary reports to the company's "VP/General Director" 
and directly supervises six employees, four of whom are depicted as supervisors. The Petitioner 
documented its employment of five of the Beneficiary's six direct subordinates, including: a traffic 
and logistics supervisor, a distribution supervisor, an administrative supervisor, a "classification and 
sorting" employee with no claimed subordinates, and a "quality control and security" employee with 
5 
no claimed subordinates. 2 The organizational chart also depicts four unidentified "traffic executives" 
reporting to the traffic and logistics supervisor, and four unidentified forklift operators reporting to the 
distribution supervisor and warehouse supervisor. The chart shows an administrative assistant and 
office administrator who report to the administrative manager. 
Finally, we note that the Petitioner's state quarterly wage report for the fourth quarter of2018 included 
four individuals who were not identified on the initial organizational chart. The record does not 
identify which positions they filled or establish whether they were still employed at the time of filing. 3 
Overall, the Petitioner documented its employment of seven of the 16 employees who were claimed 
to report directly or indirectly to the Beneficiary. 
The statutory definition of"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 1 0l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. The Petitioner has not claimed that the Beneficiary 
manages an essential function and instead focuses on his supervision of subordinate staff 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." 4 
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(l)(l)(ii)(B)(3). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's subordinates are 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. We agree with that determination for the reasons 
discussed below. 
Although the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary supervises six first-line supervisors, only four 
of his direct reports are claimed to have subordinates of their own. As noted, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently documented the ongoing employment of the warehouse supervisor at the time of filing, 
nor did it identify or document the two employees who were claimed to report to this position. The 
Petitioner documented its employment of the traffic and logistics supervisor and distribution 
supervisor, but did not identify or document which individuals, if any, reported to them at the time of 
2 The sixth employee who is claimed to repolt to the Beneficiary, a warehouse supervisor, received an IRS Form W-2 for 
2018, but was not listed on the state quarterly wage report the Petitioner filed for the fourth quaiter of 2018. Based on this 
evidence, the Petitioner did not establish that it continued to employ this individual I I at the time of filing. 
3 One of these four individuals,! I is identified as a "traffic executive" on an updated organizational chart submitted 
in support of the appeal, filed in August 2019. 
4 To determine 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 101 (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 must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree held by a subordinate 
employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee does not automatically lead to the conclusion 
that an employee is working in a professional capacity. 
6 
filing. Further, the Petitioner's job descriptions for these two positions do not support its claim that 
they are supervisory employees. The list of job duties provided for the traffic and logistics supervisor 
contains no reference to the position's oversight of subordinate staff: while the distribution supervisor 
job description is almost entirely non-supervisory in nature, with one reference to assigning loading 
and unloading duties to forklift operators, whose employment has not been documented in the record. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits copies of what it claims are performance evaluations completed by 
the traffic and logistics supervisor in March 2019 for three employees who report to him. However, 
the evaluations are printed on a form with a version date of"05/13/2019" and therefore were evidently 
not completed in March 2019 as claimed. The Petitioner must resolve this discrepancy in the record 
with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 
591-92 (BIA 1988). As the Petitioner did not provide an explanation for the apparently backdated 
forms, we cannot determine that these performance evaluations provide reliable evidence of the traffic 
and logistic supervisor's oversight of subordinate staff. Further, as noted, the record does not contain 
corroborating evidence establishing which lower-level employees were working for the Petitioner at 
the time the petition was filed. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner has documented its employment of all three employees in its 
administrative department, including the administrative supervisor, administrative assistant and office 
administrator. The position description provided for the administrative supervisor, however, does not 
include any supervisory duties or mention her delegation of duties to other employees in her 
department. As with the traffic and logistics supervisor, the Petitioner has supplemented the appeal 
with personnel evaluations ostensibly completed by the administrative supervisor for her direct 
reports. However, these documents were also dated "03/2019" despite being printed on a form with a 
version date of "05/13/2019" and therefore lack probative value. We cannot determine that the 
administrative supervisor, or any of the claimed subordinate supervisors, serve in supervisory 
positions based solely on their placement on the organizational chart. 
Therefore, based on the foregoing discussion, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's 
direct subordinates are supervisory employees. 
We have also considered whether the Petitioner provided evidence that the Beneficiary will supervise 
subordinate professional employees. The Petitioner established that the individuals serving in the 
positions of administrative supervisor and "quality control and security" have bachelor's degrees in 
business administration and foreign trade, respectively. However, as noted, we must 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 working in a professional capacity. The Petitioner has not indicated 
that it specifically requires degrees for these two positions. In fact, on appeal, it seeks to rely on 
several non-precedent decisions in which we determined that an L-lA beneficiary qualified as a 
manager even if he or she did not supervise professional staff. 5 
5 These decisions were not published as a precedent and therefore does not bind USCTS officers in future adjudications. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the individual case, 
and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law 
and policy. 
7 
Overall, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary will be supervising the work of 
managerial, supervisory, or professional employees. Further, the amount of time the Beneficiary will 
spend on supervisory duties is not clearly delineated in the Petitioner's overly broad description of his 
position. While we acknowledge that the record establishes his hiring and firing authority and 
discretion over personnel matters, this authority alone is not sufficient to establish that he qualifies as 
a personnel manager. 
As required by section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act, 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. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that it currently has 19 employees and emphasizes that 
most of these employees work under the Beneficiary's supervision. It also maintains that there are 
nine employees working under his indirect supervision at its Mexican affiliate. The Petitioner 
contends that the record therefore demonstrates that there are sufficient staff to relieve the Beneficiary 
from significant involvement in the Petitioner's day-to-day non-managerial functions. 
However, as discussed, the Petitioner did not provide a detailed description of the Beneficiary's actual 
day-to-day duties as required by the regulations, nor did it adequately support its claim that the 
Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel manager based on his supervision of subordinate supervisors, 
professionals, or managers. These evidentiary deficiencies are not overcome by a general claim that 
the company is sufficiently staffed and can therefore support the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity. 
Moreover, while the Petitioner submitted an organizational chart with 19 positions, it sufficiently 
documented its employment of only seven of the 16 positions that are subordinate to the Beneficiary's 
position on its organizational chart. With respect to the claimed Mexico-based employees, we note 
that the Petitioner does not identify which foreign employees support the U.S. company, or identify 
their position titles or job duties. We cannot determine that the Beneficiary will be employed in a 
qualifying managerial capacity based on an overly broad position description and an organizational 
chart that has not been adequately corroborated. 
For all of the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that it will employ the Beneficiary 
in a managerial capacity under the extended petition. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8