dismissed L-1A Case: Travel Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8991007 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 3, 2020 
The Petitioner, a travel services business, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary employment as 
its "Manager, FITS Tours Operations and Sales," 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-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 (1) the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial 
or executive capacity, (2) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity; 
and (3) the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's foreign employer have the required qualifying relationship. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it submitted sufficient evidence to establish the Beneficiary's 
eligibility and maintains that the record does not support the Director's adverse findings. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. However, 
we will withdraw the Director's finding that the Petitioner did not establish an affiliate relationship 
with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 1 
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)(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. 
1 The Petitioner has established that it has an affiliate relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer based on 
sufficient common ownership and control of both entities by the same individual ,! I See 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(1)( 1 )(ii)(L)(I) . 
II. DEFINITIONS 
"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 
discretionaiy decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. Section IO 1 (a)( 44)(B) of the Act. 
"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 fonction 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. 
To be eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager or executive, the Petitioner 
must show that the Beneficiary will perform the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory 
definitions at section 10l(a)(44)(A) or (B) of the Act. If the record does not establish that the offered 
position meets all four of these elements of one of these definitions, we cannot conclude that it is a 
qualifying position. If the Petitioner establishes that the offered position meets all elements set forth 
in the statutory definition, 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). 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The primary issue to be discussed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. We note that the 
Petitioner has used the terms "managerial" and "executive" interchangeably throughout the record. 
As noted, in order to establish the Beneficiary's eligibility, the Petitioner must demonstrate that her 
position meets all four elements of one of the statutmy definitions at section 10l(a)(44) of the Act. 
When assessing the managerial or executive nature of an offered position, we examine a petitioner's 
description of the job's duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii) (requiring an L-1 petitioner to submit "a 
detailed description of the services to be performed"). Beyond the required description of the job 
duties, we examine the company's organizational stmcture, the duties of the Beneficiary's subordinate 
employees, the presence of other employees to relieve the Beneficiary from performing operational 
duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding the 
Beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
A. Job Duties 
The Petitioner seeks to continue the Beneficiary's employment as the Manager of its "Department of 
FIT Tour Operations & Sales." The Petitioner's initial submission included two different descriptions 
2 
of the position. One of these descriptions was attached as an addendum to her Appointment Letter 
when she accepted the position in 2016. The description included many duties that could not be 
classified as managerial or executive in nature, including: preparing Virtual Brochures for email 
distribution to existing and prospective clients; developing editorial content for a monthly Tour 
Package Newsletter; developing and selling ad hoc tour packages for FIT travelers and small groups 
and invoicing these transactions; conducting sales calls; developing standard tour package offerings 
and options for all regions; and negotiating rate structures and te1ms with suppliers. 
The description indicated that the Beneficiary would manage at least two employees, create training 
materials and conduct training to familiarize staff with standard package offerings, and monitor 
supplier performance and sales, but did not demonstrate that the position would satisfy all elements of 
either managerial or executive capacity. For example, the description did not indicate that the 
Beneficiary can hire and fire employees or has the authority to recommend these actions, consistent 
with section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, or that the position is responsible for establishing goals and 
policies and directing the management of the organization or a component, consistent with section 
101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
The Petitioner also described the Beneficiary's duties in a supporting cover letter. With respect to 
oversight of staff, the Petitioner indicated that she would supervise employees in the "FIT Tour 
Operations & Sales department," including: training them to design tour packages, prepare quotes and 
deal with foreign tour operators; ensure they provide optimum service; motivate them to meet targets, 
analyze their performance and productivity, and coordinate with them for improvement. This 
description indicates that some duties the Petitioner was expected to perform when she was first hired 
may now be assigned to subordinate employees. However, the description included in the Petitioner's 
letter reflects that there are many operational tasks that the Beneficiaiy does not delegate to lower­
level staff. These include sourcing quotes for itineraries and tours, managing group bookings, 
handling inquiries on travel services sold to sub-agents and directly to consumers, maintaining 
relationships with land operators and hotels, negotiating ad-hoc rates with hotels, and designing 
itineraries. 
Whether the Beneficiary is a managerial or executive employee turns on whether the Petitioner has 
sustained its burden of proving that their duties are "primarily" managerial or executive. See sections 
10l(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. Here, the Petitioner did not document what propmtion of the 
Beneficiary's duties would be managerial or executive functions and what proportion would be non­
qualifying. The Petitioner lists the Beneficiary's duties as including both supervisory or other higher­
level tasks, as well as a number of operational tasks required to provide the company's services, but 
did not quantify the time the Beneficiary spends on individual duties. This is important because 
several of the Beneficiaiy' s daily tasks, as noted, do not fall directly under managerial or executive 
duties as defined in the statute. For this reason, the initial descriptions did not establish whether the 
Beneficiary would be primarily performing the duties of a manager or an executive. See IKEA US, 
Inc. v. US. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner referred to the Beneficiary's 
position as "Manager Operations & Sales" and indicated that she supervises not only the FIT Tours 
department, but also all "employees working in the departments of Corporate sales, Retail Sales and 
.__ _____ ___," which appears to be a separate operating division doing business as j I 
3 
Cruise Ship Center." The Petitioner did not indicate that the Beneficiary had received a promotion 
or otherwise explain this new job title. As discussed further below, the Beneficiary's claimed 
supervision of employees in multiple departments is not reflected on the Petitioner's organizational 
charts submitted at the time of filing or in response to the RFE. 
With respect to the Beneficiaiy' s duties, the position description submitted in response to the RFE 
reflects changes indicating a higher level of authority than stated at the time of filing. For example, 
the initial descriptions of the position indicated that the Beneficiary herself is responsible for 
developing tour package offerings and options, negotiating ad-hoc rates with suppliers, handling 
inquiries on services sold to sub-agents and consumers, handling group bookings and sourcing quotes 
for itineraries and tours. However, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that she "supervises 
the managers" who assemble the components of tour packages, "supervises the negotiation of ad-hoc 
rates," "reviews" the sourcing of quotes, "supervises the management" of group bookings," and 
"monitors the handling" of inquiries about services. The Petitioner also added personnel 
responsibilities not mentioned previously, including responsibilities for hiring, firing and other 
actions. Although the Petitioner divided the Beneficiary's duties into three groupings and assigned a 
percentage to each of them, the description did not credibly expand upon the initial duties and did not 
provide the amount of time allocated to specific tasks as requested. 
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). When responding to an RFE, a petitioner cannot 
offer a new position to a beneficiary, or materially change a position's title, its level of authority within 
the organizational hierarchy, or its associated job responsibilities. A petitioner must establish that the 
position offered to a beneficiary, when the petition was filed, merits classification as a managerial or 
executive position. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The information provided by the Petitioner in its 
response to the Director's RFE did not clarify or provide more specificity to the original duties of the 
position, but rather added new language that appeared to change the position's level of authority. 
Therefore, the focus of our analysis will be based on the job descriptions submitted with the initial 
petition, which, for the reasons discussed, are insufficient to establish that the position is in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity. 
The fact that the Beneficiary will manage or direct a department, component or function 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 10l(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 101 (A)( 44 )(A) and (B) of the Act. While it appears the Beneficiary 
would exercise discretion over the "FIT Tour Operations & Sales" department, the record contains 
inconsistent information about her role, her duties and her level of authority, and the Petitioner has not 
met its burden to establish that her actual duties will be primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
As noted, the position descriptions submitted at the time of filing indicated that the Beneficiary would 
"manage employees in the FIT Tour Operations & Sales department." 
4 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. The Petitioner has not articulated a claim that the 
Beneficiary will manage an essential function of its business and therefore, in order to demonstrate 
her employment in a managerial capacity, must establish that she qualifies as a personnel manager. 
Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, 
professional, or managerial employees. Contra1y 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." 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(1)(1)(ii)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner's initial letter included an organizational diagram showing that the position of "FIT 
Tours Operation Sales Manager" reports to the company's vice president. The Beneficiary's position 
is depicted as lateral to four other positions: an accountant, a Retail Sales Manager, a 
Corporate/Business Sales Manager, and a Project Manager. Lower level positions on the chart include 
"account executives" reporting to the accountant; "travel consultants" reporting to the Retail Sales 
Manager and to the Beneficiary's position; and "Corporate Executives" reporting to the 
Corporate/Business Sales Manager. This chart does not identify employees by name. Based on the 
infmmation provided in the chart the employees in the "FIT Tour Operations & Sales Department" 
are the Beneficiary and "travel consultants." 
The Petitioner provided another document labeled "organizational chart" which lists employees by 
name, job title and educational level, but does not depict the management structure or hierarchy within 
the organization or within the Beneficiaiy's department. 
In the RFE, the Director requested a more detailed organizational chart depicting the company's 
structure and staffing levels, additional details regarding the positions that report to the Beneficiary, 
and evidence of salaries and wages paid to employees in the first two quarters of 2019. The Director 
also requested copies of performance appraisals or reviews conducted by the Beneficiary for her 
subordinates and "any evidence that demonstrates the beneficiary has sufficient authority over 
subordinate employees and is engaged in the hiring and firing of subordinates or recommends the 
hiring and firing of subordinates as well as other personnel actions." 
In response, as noted, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary is the "Manager of Operations and 
Sales" and "manages and supervises the departments for Corporate sales, Retail Sales and thel I I t despite previously claiming that she managed only the FIT Tours Operations and Sales 
department. The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart which, like the chart submitted at the 
time of filing, depicts the Beneficiaiy' s position as lateral to that of the Accountant, Retail Sales 
Manager, Corporate/Business Sales Manager and Project Manager, and indicates that each of these 
positions reports to the Vice President. This chart also includes the separate j I' 
division but does not depict the Beneficiary's claimed role within that division. 
The Petitioner also submitted a personnel list labeled "Organizational Chart," similar to that provided 
at the time of filing, which lists the names of employees in the retail sales and corporate/business sales 
departments. The Petitioner lists the names and qualifications of the Retail Sales Manager and one 
5 
travel consultant working in the Retail Sales department, as well as the names and qualifications of 
eight employees within the Corporate Business/Sales department, including four managers and four 
corporate executives. Although the Petitioner initially indicated that the Beneficiary is the department 
manager of the FIT Tours Operations Sales department, and it appears as a department on the separate 
organizational diagram, the personnel list does not identify any additional employees in this 
department. 
Due to the unexplained inconsistencies between the structure depicted in the organizational charts and 
the reporting structure described in the Petitioner's own statements, the Petitioner has not met its 
burden to establish which employees work under the Beneficiary's control and supervision. While 
the Petitioner indicated that it was providing copies of resumes, IRS Form W-2s, and educational 
credentials for "some" of the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates,2 it did not include the requested 
position descriptions for all staff who report to the Beneficiary as requested. Moreover, the Petitioner 
did not include the requested evidence of personnel reviews conducted by the Beneficiaiy or any 
supporting evidence of her newly claimed hiring and firing authority. 
In sum, the position description included in the Petitioner's letter indicated that the Beneficiary 
supervises "employees in the FIT Tour Operations & Sales department," and these employees have 
not been identified in the record. The Petitioner's subsequent assertion that she actual oversees 
multiple departments and subordinate depaiiment managers is not adequately supp01ied by the 
submitted evidence. Further, we note that the Petitioner did not initially indicate that that Beneficiary 
has hiring and firing authority and claimed this responsibility in response to the RFE without 
submitting evidence to support this revision to her position description. Based on the above, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated which employees the Beneficiary supervises, that she has the authority 
to hire and fire staff or to recommend these and other personnel actions, or that her subordinates, if 
any, are managers, supervisors or professionals, Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel manager based on her supervisory duties. 
As noted, the Petitioner has also claimed at times that the Beneficiary's position is executive in nature. 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position. 
Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" and "establish the 
goals and policies" of an organization or major component or function thereof. Section 101 (a)( 44 )(B) 
of the Act. To show that a beneficiaiy will "direct the management" of an organization or a major 
component or function of that organization, a petitioner must show how the organization, major 
component, or function is managed and demonstrate that the beneficiary primarily focuses on its broad 
goals and policies, rather than the day-to-day operations of such. An individual will not be deemed 
an executive under the statute simply because they have an executive title or because they "direct" the 
organization, major component, or function as the owner or sole managerial employee. 
The Beneficiary's initial position description and placement on the company's organizational diagram 
depict her as a depaiiment manager with an unknown number of "travel consultants" reporting to her. 
While the Petitioner's subsequent statement indicates that she occupies a higher-level position that 
manages multiple departments, the Petitioner did not submit any explanation for this change or 
2 The Petitioner submitted these documents for individuals identified as the retail sales manager, a travel consultant in the 
retail sales department, and two corporate sales managers. 
6 
adequately support its revised depiction of the position with evidence. Regardless, none of the 
submitted descriptions of the Beneficiary's position indicate that she is primarily focused on the broad 
goals and policies or the organization consistent with the definition of executive capacity. Further, as 
the Petitioner has not consistently identified which staff work under the Beneficiary, we cannot 
determine to what extent she is relieved from direct involvement in the day-to-day operations within 
her area of responsibility. As discussed, the initial descriptions of her job duties indicated her 
significant involvement in activities required to provide products and services and did not indicate that 
she would be engaged in primarily executive duties. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that 
she would be employed in an executive capacity as defined at section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
IV. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
As the identified basis for denial is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the Beneficiary's employment abroad 
in a managerial or executive capacity. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and 
agencies are not required to make :findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results 
they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
V. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7