dismissed L-1A Case: Trucking And Transportation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 25, 2024 In Re: 33836237 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a trucking and transportation company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as the general manager of its new office I under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, 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 Petitioner did 
not establish that the new office would support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive position 
within one year of the petition's approval. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 their services to the same employer 
or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. The petitioner must also 
establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify them to perform the 
intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
In the case of a new office petition, the petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new 
office will be able to support a managerial or executive position within one year. This evidence must 
1 The term "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one year. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F) . The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation no more than 
one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
establish that the petitioner secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation and disclose the 
proposed nature and scope of the entity, its organizational structure, its financial goals, and the size of 
the U.S. investment. See generally 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that its operation would support 
the Beneficiary 
in a managerial capacity within one year of the petition's approval.2 
"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. 
A. New Office Requirements 
In the case of a new office petition, we review the petitioner's business and hiring plans and evidence 
that the business will grow sufficiently to support a beneficiary in the intended managerial or executive 
capacity. The burden is on the Petitioner to establish that it would realistically develop to the point 
where it would require the Beneficiary to perform primarily managerial or executive duties within one 
year of the petition's approval. Accordingly, we consider the totality of the evidence in analyzing 
whether the proposed managerial or executive position is plausible based on a petitioner's anticipated 
staffing levels and stage of development within a one-year period. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual will be acting in a 
managerial or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) considers the 
reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the 
organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
In a letter of support, the Petitioner's counsel stated that the Petitioner specializes in trucking logistics 
services and intended to employ the Beneficiary as its general manager. The Petitioner provided a 
business plan indicating that the company intended to hire 14 employees by 2027. The business plan 
contained a projected organizational chart that depicts the Beneficiary at the top of the organization 
directly overseeing an office manager, a sales manager, and an operations manager. In tum, the office 
manager is depicted as overseeing a bookkeeper, the sales manager is depicted as overseeing a 
customer service manager, and the operations manager is depicted as overseeing seven truck drivers, 
a truck mechanic, and a truck dispatcher. 
The organizational chart provided an intended hiring time line for the Petitioner's proposed employees. 
According to the chart, the office manager was employed by the Petitioner at the time of filing in 
2 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary's position in the United States would be in an executive capacity. 
2 
November 2023, and one truck driver would be hired by the end of that year. The chart further 
indicated that another truck driver, along with the sales manager, the bookkeeper, and the customer 
service representative, would be hired in 2024. An additional two truck drivers would be hired in 
2025, with the operations manager and two more truck drivers hired in 2026. The final three positions, 
that of truck mechanic, truck dispatcher, and the last truck driver, would be hired in 2027. 
In addition to the projected organizational chart, the business plan also included tables demonstrating 
that the Petitioner anticipated its gross sales would grow from $29,300 in its first year of operations to 
$1,950,000 by 2027. The Petitioner further indicated that it expected to grow its trucking fleet to 
seven trucks by 2027. 
The Petitioner also claimed in a support letter that "the Beneficiary has underscored the Company's 
solid financial position by initiating wire transfers amounting to $15,000.00 USD from their foreign 
company to Company's I IUS Bank account in September." Regarding its operating expenses, 
the Petitioner's business plan included several tables outlining its projected annual payroll and rent 
expenses, anticipated commission payments for dispatching services, and a profit and loss statement 
for the first five years of operation. The plan further indicated that "the investment for the first truck 
will be made from the capital money allocated for the start-up of [the company]," 
In a notice of intent to deny (NOID), the Director asked the Petitioner to provide additional evidence 
demonstrating that it would support the Beneficiary in a primarily managerial or executive within one 
year of the petition's approval. The Director noted that the Petitioner did not establish a specific 
timeline for the projected 2023-2024 hires, and further noted discrepancies regarding the nature of the 
Beneficiary's proposed duties in light of the organization's proposed staffing. The Director observed 
that the Petitioner's initial start-up costs had not been clearly outlined and also questioned the size of 
the investment in the U.S. company, noting that the initial capital investment of$15,000 by the foreign 
entity did not appear sufficient to cover the Petitioner's operating expenses. 
In response, the Petitioner noted that additional capital infusion of $61,768.53 to the U.S. entity after 
the petition's filing raised its initial investment total, which the Petitioner claimed was "strategically 
calculated" to cover the company's initial startup costs. The Petitioner further stated that this capital 
would cover the cost of the purchase of its initial truck, whose cost was estimated between $44,000 
and $55,000, and would leave money left over to cover additional expenses and employee salaries. 
The Petitioner asserted that once the truck was operational, the income generated from its 
transportation services would sustain its operational costs. The Petitioner also provided evidence of 
the foreign entity's "healthy" financial status and claimed that such evidence was sufficient to 
demonstrate that the foreign entity could support its own operations as well as the U.S. entity. 
In the denial, the Director determined that the Petitioner's business plan did not show how it will 
support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive position within one year of the petition's 
approval. The Director noted that the Petitioner neither provided a specific hiring timeline nor an 
accurate overview of its start-up and operating expenses, and provided no evidence that the foreign 
entity would provide any financial support to the U.S. entity. The Director also discounted the 
additional capital funding acquired by the Petitioner after filing, noting that eligibility was required to 
be established at the time the petition was filed, and determined that its initial capital investment of 
$15,000 was not sufficient to cover its projected expenses during its first year of operations. 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the evidence of record was sufficient to establish that it would 
support the Beneficiary in a managerial position by the end of its first year of operations. It further 
asserts that the initial investment and financial backing from the foreign entity were sufficient to 
substantiate the Petitioner's financial status and demonstrate that its projected costs are aligned with 
its projected expenses. The Petitioner further asserts that in addition to demonstrating its initial capital 
investment was sufficient to cover its startup expenses, the evidence of the foreign entity's financial 
strength further demonstrated its ability and willingness to support the U.S. entity. 
With regard to the size of the U.S. investment, we agree with the Director's determination that the 
Petitioner's initial capital appears insufficient to cover its startup and operating costs for its first year 
of operations. The record demonstrates that the Petitioner initially received funding of $15,000, with 
an additional $61,768.53 received subsequent to the petition's filing. The Director declined to 
consider this additional capital infusion, emphasizing that eligibility for the benefit sought must be 
established at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
As noted by the Director, the Petitioner's estimated expenses for its first year of operations, as stated 
in its business plan, were $485,300. The Director noted that even if the additional capital infusion of 
$61,738.53 had been considered, it was unclear how this amount would be sufficient to meet the 
Petitioner's needs, and we agree. Although the Petitioner claims that the purchase of its truck would 
ultimately generate income once it was placed into service, there is insufficient evidence in the record 
to support this assertion. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Moreover, while the Petitioner argues on appeal that the Director erred in not considering the foreign 
entity's ability to support the U.S. entity, we note that the record contains no evidence of agreements 
or other documentation demonstrating that the foreign entity was obligated to support the Petitioner's 
company or otherwise provide monetary assistance. While we note the Petitioner's submission of 
evidence demonstrating the financial status of the foreign entity, there is insufficient evidence 
demonstrating the nature and extent of the foreign entity's involvement in the financing and support 
of the U.S. entity. 
Finally, the record does not demonstrate that within one year of the petition's approval the Petitioner 
would have a support staff in place to relieve the Beneficiary from having to primarily perform 
non-managerial duties. Other than identifying projected years in which staff would be hired, the 
Petitioner offered no definitive hiring timelines specifying when it plans to fill some of the positions 
that it deems most critical to its operation. For example, although the Petitioner claimed it would 
consistently hire truck drivers from the time of filing through 2027, the operations manager, who is 
tasked with overseeing those drivers, would not be hired until 2026. While we acknowledge the 
Petitioner's assertion that the office manager will assume the duties of the operations manager until 
that position was filled in year three, it is unclear how the office manager will devote sufficient time 
to both of these roles in a manner that will relieve the Beneficiary from engaging in day-to-day 
operational tasks. 
Further, organizational chart indicates that the truck dispatcher and truck mechanic, positions critical 
to the Petitioner's trucking logistics operations, would not be hired until 2027. Moreover, although 
4 
the Petitioner claimed that the sales manager, the bookkeeper, and the customer service representative 
would be hired in 2024, it did not provide a definitive timeline for those hires during the first year of 
operations. 3 It therefore remains unclear whether the Beneficiary would be relieved from performing 
the non-managerial tasks performed by those individuals by the end of the first year of operations. 
These ambiguities preclude us from determining how and when the Beneficiary's role would shift 
from one that involves primarily carrying out operational tasks to one that involves primarily 
managerial job duties. 
As stated earlier, the Petitioner must demonstrate that the proposed position is plausible based on its 
anticipated staffing levels and stage of development within a one-year period. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). Here, the Petitioner's business plan lacks adequate information about how its 
projected staff and funding during its first year of operation will enable the Petitioner to meet its 
financial burdens and revenue projections so that it could support the Beneficiary in a managerial 
capacity within one year of the petition's approval. Despite the assertions made on appeal, the 
discrepancies noted above lead us to question whether the Petitioner established at the time of filing 
that it had the means to subsidize its operation and commence doing business as claimed. 
B. Duties 
We also reviewed the job descriptions of the Beneficiary and his projected subordinates and find the 
evidence to be insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary would perform primarily managerial job 
duties within one year of the petition's approval. 
When a new business is established and commences operations, the regulations recognize that a 
designated manager or executive responsible for setting up operations will be engaged in a variety of 
activities not normally performed by employees at the executive or managerial level and that often the 
full range of managerial responsibility cannot be performed. In order to qualify for L-1 nonimmigrant 
classification during the first year of operations, the regulations require a petitioner to disclose the 
proposed nature of the business and the size of the U.S. investment and establish that the proposed 
enterprise will support an executive or managerial position within one year of the approval of the 
petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). This evidence should demonstrate a realistic expectation 
that the enterprise will succeed and rapidly expand as it moves away from the developmental stage to 
full operations, where there would be an actual need for a manager or executive who will primarily 
perform qualifying duties. 
In a supporting cover letter, the Petitioner's counsel stated that the Beneficiary "will manage and 
oversee the overall development and execution of the Company's business operations, operating in 
3 We note the Petitioner's assertion on appeal that the record contains a chart indicating the number of months these 
individuals would be paid wages in 2024. While we acknowledge this assertion, we note that the record remains devoid 
of actual projected hiring dates, and further note that the first year of operations, based on the 2023 filing date of the 
petition, does not extend to all of 2024. Further, although it was provided an opportunity to supplement the record with 
evidence of its hiring of these additional staff members as claimed in the chart in response to the NOID and on appeal, the 
Petitioner did not submit such evidence, and instead admits that it has "recalibrated" its hiring timelines for 2024. 
Eligibility must be established at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition and must continue through adjudication 
in order for a petitioner to be eligible for the benefit. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). A visa petition may not be approved at a 
future date after the Petitioner or Beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter ofMichelin Tire Co1p., 
17 l&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). 
5 
the logistics industry." Although the support letters and the business plan claim that the Beneficiary 
will be employed in a managerial capacity within one year of this petition's approval, the Petitioner 
has not adequately described the Beneficiary's job duties or explained what specific actions the 
Beneficiary will perform during the company's first year of operation to ensure its progression beyond 
the new office phase of development. For instance, the job duty breakdown included in the business 
plan states that the Beneficiary would allocate 30% of his time to strategic planning and 
implementation, requiring him to "develop[] actionable strategies and oversee[] their execution." 
However, the Petitioner did not identify any specific strategies or explain why developing these 
strategies would be a routine part of the Beneficiary's daily or weekly activity. 
The Petitioner further claimed that 20% of the Beneficiary's time would be devoted to client 
relationship management, requiring him to "resolve issues" and "ensure timely deliveries." 
Additionally, the remaining portion of his time would be delegated as follows: 15% to both operational 
efficiency and financial management, 7.5% percent to both regulatory compliance and staff 
development, and 5% to risk management. While the Petitioner provided a brief explanation for the 
duties associated with each of these areas, such as "identifying potential risks to the company" and 
"overseeing the company's financial health," it is unclear what actual tasks he will perform within the 
scope of the Petitioner's business during its developmental phase. Reciting a beneficiary's vague job 
responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the regulations require a detailed 
description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. See 8 C.F .R. § 2 l 4.2(1)(3)(ii). Although the job duties 
discussed above indicate that the Beneficiary will have discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day 
operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making, 
it is the Petitioner's burden to establish that it will support a managerial position within one year of 
the petition's approval. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary, as its general manager, will "manage the 
organization in its entirety" and "will oversee all functions, personnel, strategic planning, budgeting, 
regulatory compliance, client relations, risk management, and day-to-day operations." The Petitioner 
further asserts that the Director erred by restricting its analysis of the Beneficiary's position to that of 
a function manager, and asserts that the "function manager concept" is inapplicable to the facts of this 
case because the Beneficiary's managerial role in the company is comprehensive and quintessential 
and involves management of all aspects of the organization. 4 
While we note the Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary will serve in an overarching managerial 
role encompassing both personnel and function management, the duty description provided is generic 
and vaguely refers to tasks that could apply to any manager working in any business or industry and 
it makes no reference to its specific business or how it would be launched during the first year. The 
Petitioner has not provided a detailed account of the Beneficiary's first-year tasks and directives 
explaining what specific steps he would take to ensure the Petitioner's progression beyond the 
developmental phase, and the duty description does not sufficiently articulate the Beneficiary's daily 
tasks both during and at the end of the first year. Moreover, the Petitioner did not sufficiently indicate 
how the Beneficiary would be primarily relieved from performing non-qualifying operational tasks 
4 The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function managers." See 
section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
6 
within one year. Although we do not expect to the Petitioner to detail every managerial-level task of 
the Beneficiary during the first year, the lack of this detail leaves substantial uncertainty as to whether 
he would primarily perform managerial-level duties within the first year. Specifics are clearly an 
important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties would be primarily managerial in nature, 
otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter ofreiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. 
Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
We acknowledge that the Beneficiary would assume a position as the Petitioner's general manager 
and that as a result, he would have authority to make major decisions regarding its finances and the 
overall direction of the business. However, the fact that the Beneficiary will manage or direct a 
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. While it is 
likely that the Beneficiary will continue to exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day 
operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making 
beyond the Petitioner's initial phase as a new office, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
information about the duties the Beneficiary would be expected to perform once that initial phase of 
its operation is over. As such, we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary would transition to primarily 
managerial job duties within one year of the petition's approval. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a 
managerial capacity within one year of the petition's approval. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7