dismissed L-1A Case: Women'S Clothing Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6502561 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 19, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to continue employing the Beneficiary as its president under the L-lA 
nonimmigrant visa classification for managers and executives. See Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the extension petition. The Director concluded 
that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that it would employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a 
managerial or executive capacity . 
The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit. See section 291 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. NONIMMIGRANT EXECUTIVES AND MANAGERS 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approved the Petitioner's prior L-1 A filing for 
the Beneficiary which involved a new office that had been doing business in the United States for 
less than one year. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(F) (defining the term "new office"). As a "new 
office," the Petitioner had one year from the prior tiling's approval in December 2017 to support an 
executive or managerial position. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). To extend the petition beyond 
the initial year, the Petitioner must demonstrate that it remains a subsidiary, parent, branch, or 
affiliate of the Beneficiary's foreign employer and provide evidence of its financial status and 
business operations for the prior year. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(A), (B), (E). The Petitioner 
must also describe the Beneficiary's past and proposed job duties with it, and its staffing. See 
8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(C), (D). Staffing information must include the company's number of 
employees, the types of positions they hold, and evidence of wages paid to them. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)( 14 )(ii)(D). 
When adjudicating extension petitions involving the same parties and underlying facts, USCIS need 
not defer to its prior eligibility determinations. USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0151, 
Rescission of Guidance Regarding Deference to Prior Determination of Eligibility in the 
Adjudication of Petitions for Extension of Nonimmigrant Status 2 (Oct. 23, 2017). USCIS may also 
request additional evidence, even if DHS regulations did not require the documentation's submission 
with the extension request. Id. at 3. 
II. EMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
The Petitioner asserts that it does and would continue to employ the Beneficiary in the United States 
in a managerial capacity. The term "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 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A). 
Proposed employment in a "managerial capacity" may involve management of personnel or an 
essential function. The Petitioner does not contend that the Beneficiary will manage an essential 
function. We will therefore consider her qualifications only as a personnel manager. Personnel 
managers must supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees. See id. A first-line supervisor does not act in a managerial capacity merely by 
supervising workers, unless they are professionals. Id. 
When determining the managerial nature of a job, USCIS examines the position's job duties. USCIS 
also considers: a petitioner's organizational structure; the nature of its business; whether other 
employees would relieve a beneficiary from performing operational or administrative duties; the job 
duties of subordinate employees; and other factors affecting the nature of the proposed employment. 
Here, the Petitioner states that it does and would continue to employ the Beneficiary as its president. 
The record indicates that the company sells women's clothing and began U.S. operations in April 
2018. The Petitioner documented its establishment of a retail store in July 2018. The company 
claims to employ 12 people, but its most recent organizational chart lists only nine employees. The 
Petitioner states that its future plans include opening a second store and a factory to manufacture 
clothing. 
A. Organizational Structure and Staffing 
The Petitioner's most recent organizational chart places the Beneficiary at its top as president and 
indicates her direct supervision of a vice president and an assistant. The chart shows that the vice 
president, in tum, directly supervises directors who each head a company department. The 
departments include: management; accounting; marketing; business; planning; and network. 
Contrary to the definition of the term "managerial capacity," however, the record does not establish 
that the Beneficiary supervises a supervisor, professional, or manager. The organizational chart 
indicates that the same employee holds the positions of vice president, assistant, director of 
management, and acting director of marketing. The record does not explain how the employee 
simultaneously performs the job duties of four positions. The record also does not support the 
employee's work as vice president, director of management, or acting director of marketing. Rather, 
a copy of the employee's written job offer describes her position as "HR Specialist with 
Management section." Also, in an April 2018 report to the Petitioner's parent, the Beneficiary 
2 
described the employee "as my assistant and HR." The Petitioner asserts that, after the employee's 
initial hiring, the company promoted her to the position of vice president. It also states that it later 
appointed her acting director of management and marketing until it permanently fills those positions. 
As proof: the Petitioner points to an October 1, 2018, letter from the Beneficiary. The letter states an 
increase in the employee's annual salary, but the letter does not indicate the employee's promotion 
to the position of vice president or her appointment as acting director of management or marketing. 
Also, contrary to the letter's statements, there is insufficient evidence that, as of October 1, 2018, the 
Petitioner increased the employee's annual salary to $42,000. 
Further, the Petitioner submitted a table stating the employee's job duties as vice president, director 
of management, and acting director of marketing. The duties include: "Plan new product launches;" 
"Provide marketing direction and support;" "Manage retail sales associates;" "Direct and implement 
Shopping center marketing activities;" "Keep track of different sources of sales;" and "recruit an HR 
specialist and an Administration Assistant, and manage human sources and other administrative 
tasks as needed." The record, however, does not support the employee's performance of these 
duties. The employee's December 2018 performance evaluation identifies her position as vice 
president. But 10 of the 12 achievements listed on her evaluation relate to HR. The non-HR-related 
achievements include: "Supervised the daily operations of all departments;" and "cooperate with 
[the Beneficiary] and other Directors to complete market planning and expectation, draw up 
quarterly goals." But the remaining achievements include: "Established and improved the 
company's human resources management system;" "formulated a human resources plan;" "Designed 
and implemented the company's labor and personnel management system;" "Review company 
staffing and staff management for company personnel;" and "Designed the training plan of the 
company's employees." Similarly, samples of the employee's work product provided by the 
Petitioner indicate her focus on human resources and personnel matters. Her work product includes 
copies of the company's "Employee Handbook" and "Policy and Procedures Manual" and letters to 
employees regarding reprimands and terminations. The evidence therefore indicates that the 
employee more likely works as the Beneficiary's assistant and HR specialist than as vice president, 
director of management, or acting director of marketing as listed on the organizational chart. 
The organizational chart does not indicate that the position of assistant to the president supervises 
anyone. The record therefore does not establish the employee as a supervisory or managerial 
worker. The Petitioner has documented the employee's possession of a bachelor's degree. But the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the position of assistant actually requires a college degree. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) ( defining the term "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"). For these reasons, we cannot find that this employee is a supervisor, manager, or 
professional. 
The Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary also supervises and controls the work of department 
directors, for example, by meeting with them weekly. As previously discussed, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that the employee initially hired as the Beneficiary's assistant and HR specialist 
also serves as management director and acting director of marketing. The record does not establish 
that anyone performs the duties of those positions. The Petitioner's most recent organizational chart 
also lists the positions of accounting director and business director as vacant. Thus, the record 
indicates that the Petitioner employs only two directors: a planning director; and a network director. 
3 
The most recent organizational chart shows that neither of these directors supervises anyone. The 
positions therefore are not supervisory or managerial in nature. The Petitioner demonstrated that the 
employees in the positions have bachelor's degrees. But the record does not establish that the 
positions require those degrees. The Petitioner did not provide job duties for the position of network 
director, and most of the duties of planning director relate to development of the company's website. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated why the positions require bachelor's degrees. The record 
therefore also does not establish the professional nature of the positions. In addition, the Petitioner's 
written job offers to those employees indicate that the company hired them in different positions. 
The purported planning director began as a "Network Designer," and the purported network director 
started as a "Network Marketing Sales." The record lacks evidence of the employees' promotions or 
transfers to their current claimed positions. 
The record also does not establish that the Petitioner's organizational structure and staffing relieves 
the Beneficiary from performing a significant amount of non-managerial, operational duties. The 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that its two current directors work full-time. The planning director's 
job indicates that he works only 20 hours a week, and his 2018 Form W-2 indicates that the 
Petitioner paid him only $1,513.44. The network director's job offer indicates her hiring in May 
2018 at a base salary of $3,000 a month. But her Form W-2 indicates that the Petitioner paid her 
only $9,203.60 in 2018. The organizational chart lists the company's remaining employees as two 
accountants and three retail sales associates. The Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated its 
employment of one of the accountants. The record lacks evidence that he is on the company's 
payroll. Rather, the accountant's business card indicates his operation of his own firm. Copies of 
checks indicate that, in October 2018 and February 2019, the Petitioner's paid his firm for services. 
Moreover, the record does not explain who performs the functions of the Petitioner's management 
and business departments. The organizational chart lists all of the positions in those departments as 
vacant. The record therefore indicates that the Beneficiary may have to perform non-managerial, 
operational duties in those departments. 
The Petitioner has not provided evidence of an organizational structure sufficient to elevate the 
Beneficiary to a managerial position. The evidence does not establish the Beneficiary's claimed 
subordinates as supervisors, managers, or professionals. 
B. Job Duties 
The Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary performed certain high-level responsibilities 
consistent with the statutory definition of managerial capacity. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 
F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). In addition, 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 1533. 
The Petitioner states that, as president, the Beneficiary devotes her time to the following six areas: 
* Organization (20%). Establish the company's initial organization and departments. Adjust 
company structure based on business needs. Ensure structure aligns with business objectives. 
Determine scopes of departments. 
4 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
Operations and Procedures (20%). Define and establish the company's basic procedures for 
daily operations, such as methods for reporting and monitoring. Guide vice president and 
directors in defining their responsibilities. Review monthly reports regarding operational 
methods and procedures. 
Management and Development (20%). Determine goals and size of company's management. 
Monitor company's management and development on monthly and quarterly bases. Review 
performance reports and advise on resolving potential issues. 
Human Resources (HR) (15%). Make final HR decisions for the company, including 
hiring/firing of vice president and subordinate directors. Establish company's hiring policies, 
including qualification requirements. Determine salary and benefit policies. 
Strategic Plans (15%). Make strategic plans to develop the company. Approve proposals 
regarding traditional and online marketing campaigns. Monitor progress on implementation 
of marketing campaigns. Liaise with parent company on expansion plans. Keep abreast of 
market and industry trends. 
Finance and Accounting (10%). Control company finances. Determine budget and approve 
budget plans. Review financial reports and operational data to identify potential issues. 
Make final decisions regarding major investments or expenses. 1 
The Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's job duties is insufficient to establish her 
employment in a managerial capacity. The record does not demonstrate the managerial nature of 
many of the listed duties. For example, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary spends 20% of her 
time on organizational duties. These duties, however, appear to involve little more than preparing 
organizational charts. The record does not demonstrate the high-level, managerial nature of these 
tasks or the Beneficiary's need to devote one-fifth of her time on them. Also, the Petitioner's 
description states that the organizational duties include guiding the vice president and directors. As 
previously discussed, however, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that any of its employees 
perform the duties of vice president, and most of its director positions are vacant. 
Moreover, most of the described duties are vague. The Petitioner's description states the 
Beneficiary's performance of broad duties, such as "Determin[ing] goals and size of company's 
management" and "Mak[ing] strategic plans to develop the company." But the description does not 
indicate goals or plans specific to the Petitioner. 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 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). 
1 On appeal, the Petitioner provides a more detailed description of the Beneficiary's job duties. The company, however, 
had a reasonable opportunity to detail the Beneficiary's job duties in response to the Director's written request for 
evidence. We will therefore disregard the description the company submits on appeal. See Matter of Soriano. 19 T&N 
Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (holding that evidence submitted on appeal will not be considered if a petitioner received 
sufficient notice and opportunity to provide the documentation before a petition's denial). 
5 
In sum, the record does not establish the Beneficiary's supervision or control over the work of 
another supervisor, manager, or professional. The Petitioner also has not demonstrated its 
possession of sufficient organizational structure and staffing to relieve the Beneficiary from 
primarily performing non-managerial, operational duties. In addition, the Petitioner's description of 
her job duties is insufficient to demonstrate the claimed managerial nature of her position. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6