dismissed L-1A (intracompany transferee, manager/executive) Case: Oil And Gas Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 10, 2025 In Re: 37077399 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a company asserting that it provides oil and gas engineering services, seeks to extend 
the Beneficiary as its president under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See 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 on multiple grounds, concluding the 
Petitioner did not establish that: 1) the Beneficiary's former foreign employer was doing business 
abroad as defined by the regulations, 2) it was doing business in the United States as defined by the 
regulations, 3) the Beneficiary was employed abroad fulltime for one continuous year in the three 
preceding his application for admission, 4) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity, and 5) the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity 
in the United States. The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter ofChristo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal as the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed 
in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. Since this identified basis for denial is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve its appellate arguments 
regarding the Director's other bases for denying the petition. 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). 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity for one continuous year within 
three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). 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 OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The sole issue we will analyze is whether the Petitioner established that it would employ the 
Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner discusses the concept of res judicia on appeal, asserting that 
the Director's denial was improper since the Petitioner had nonimmigrant L-lA visas approved on 
behalf of the Beneficiary based on the same facts. 1 However, each nonimmigrant petition filing is an 
individual proceeding with a separate record and burden of proof. In determining statutory eligibility, 
USCIS is limited to the information contained in that individual record of proceeding. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(l6)(ii). Further, a petitioner has the burden of proof to establish eligibility for the requested 
benefit at the time of filing the benefit request and continuing until the final adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(l); see also Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). Therefore, 
nonimmigrant visa petitions approved years prior have no bearing on the Beneficiary's eligibility when 
the petition was filed. We are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has 
not been demonstrated merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See Matter 
ofChurch Scientology Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 593,597 (Comm'r 1988). As such, we will review this issue 
de novo without regard to prior visa approvals, based on the evidence submitted on the record in this 
proceeding. 
The Petitioner does not clarify whether the Beneficiary would be primarily engaged in managerial 
duties under section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, or executive duties under section 101(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. The Petitioner must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary and indicate 
whether such duties are either in a managerial or executive capacity. The Petitioner must demonstrate 
that the Beneficiary's responsibilities will meet the requirements of one or the other capacity. While 
in some instances there may be duties that could qualify as both managerial and executive in nature, 
it is the petitioner's burden to establish that the beneficiary's duties meet each criterion set forth in the 
statutory definitions for either managerial or executive capacity. A petition may not be approved if 
the evidence of record does not establish that the beneficiary will be primarily employed in either a 
managerial or executive capacity. Therefore, the Petitioner's failure to clearly articulate this in support 
of the petition, and on appeal, leaves substantial question as to the Beneficiary's eligibility. 
Regardless, we will analyze both bases for eligibility in this decision. 
"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 
1 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records reflect that the Beneficiary had two prior non-immigrant L­
1A intracompany transferee visas approved from July 17, 2019, to July 16, 2020, and from July 16, 2020, to July 14, 2022. 
2 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
"Executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization; 
establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; exercises wide latitude 
in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly 
describe the duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in a 
managerial or executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
A. Duties 
To be eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager or executive, a petitioner must 
show that the beneficiary will perform the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory 
definition at 101(a)(44)(A) (i)-(iv) or (B)(i)-(iv) of the Act. If the record does not establish that the 
offered position meets all four of these elements, we cannot conclude that it is a qualifying managerial 
or executive position. 
If a petitioner establishes that the offered position meets all elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, it must prove that the beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial or executive 
duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside its other employees. See Family Inc. v. 
USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). In determining whether a given beneficiary's duties will 
be primarily managerial or executive, we consider the petitioner's description of the job duties, the 
company's organizational structure, the duties of a 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 a beneficiary's actual duties and 
role in a business. 
The Petitioner, established in 2016, indicated that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of oil and gas 
services company based in Nigeria. The Petitioner stated it was created in the United States for the 
purpose of "handling services, such as engineering, procurement, manpower and recruitment." The 
Petitioner explained that it was "working to establish the company" in thel Iarea and provided 
a business plan laying out its plans for this purpose. 2 The Petitioner submitted the following duty 
description for the Beneficiary as its president: 
• Create blueprint policies for the company and implements them for the betterment of 
the employees in the country- 10% of his time 
2 The petition was filed in April 2024. 
3 
• Establishing company's plans which include pricing and discount policies, preparing 
budgets, revenue projections and establishing productivity measure and goals- 10% of 
his time 
• Creating innovative ideas to the business and looks for opportunities to expand and 
create a goodwill in the market- 10% of his time 
• Develop strategies to boost sales and profits of the company and plan the future 
prospects of the company- 15% of his time 
• Reviewing weekly reports from sales, accounts and Business Development Team and 
providing input on ways to improve and increase sales and overall efficiency- 10% of 
his time 
• Approving and/or signing all company purchase contracts, sales contracts and payroll 
checks- 10% of his time 
• Meeting with sales manager to assess current sales, explore new business markets and 
suggest ways to increase overall sales- 15% of his time 
• Monitor overall department operations and ensure efficient procurement and delivery 
of goods- 10% of his time 
• Review company finances to ensure compliance with set out budgets and review the 
accounts receivables and payables- 5% of his time 
• Social gathering with key customers, government representatives and community 
organizations- 5% of his time 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded the Beneficiary's duties lacked sufficient detail and 
indicated that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his day-to-day 
managerial or executive level duties. Notably, the Petitioner does not address this conclusion of the 
Director on appeal, nor does it discuss the Beneficiary's duties with specificity. As we have noted, 
analyzing the Beneficiary's duties and confirming that they will be primarily managerial, or executive­
level tasks is a critical step in assessing his eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Upon review, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner did not sufficiently articulate the 
Beneficiary's managerial or executive-level duties. The Petitioner did not detail or document the 
blueprint policies the Beneficiary created, pricing plans or budgets he set, business expansion he 
directed, or sales strategies he developed. Likewise, the Petitioner did not explain or document 
purchase or sales contracts he approved, financial decisions he made, or key customers he worked 
with. In addition, the Beneficiary's duties discuss him coordinating with sales employees, a business 
development team, and a sales manager. However, the Petitioner indicated in support of the petition, 
and states on appeal, that it had no employees beyond the Beneficiary when the petition was filed. 
This lack of detail and documentation is particularly noteworthy since USCIS records reflect that the 
Beneficiary was admitted into the United States in December 2019 on an approved L-lA 
nonimmigrant visa, yet there was no supporting documentation to substantiate his performance of any 
managerial or executive-level tasks more than four years later when the petition was filed. The lack 
of evidence leaves substantial question as to whether the Beneficiary would primarily perform 
qualifying managerial or executive-level tasks when the petition was filed. Specifics are clearly an 
important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily managerial or executive 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). The 
4 
Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies and ambiguities in the record with independent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the organization, the fact that he will 
manage or direct 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)(A) and 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that 
the duties of a position be "primarily" managerial or executive in nature. Id. 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; however, the position descriptions alone are 
insufficient to establish that his actual duties would be primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
B. Operations and Staffing 
Pursuant to section 10l(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, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) must take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in 
light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. 
In denying the petition, the Director pointed to the Petitioner's organizational chart showing that he 
had no subordinates and highlighted his asserted tasks coordinating with other subordinate employees. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director improperly denied the petition only on the basis that 
the Beneficiary was its sole employee. The Petitioner indicates the Beneficiary entered the United 
States in December 2019, but that its hiring plans were not effectuated because of the COVID-19 
pandemic. 
In the petition, the Petitioner indicated that it had only one employee and listed its gross annual and 
net annual income as "growing entity." The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart reflecting 
that it projected to hire a general manager supervising a manager- business development, a project 
manager, and a finance manager. The chart further showed that the manager- business development 
would supervise a procurement officer, and the project manager would oversee a recruitment 
coordinator and a design engineer. 
The submitted evidence indicates that the Petitioner was not sufficiently operational to support the 
Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity when the petition was filed in April 2024. On 
appeal, the Petitioner submits a request for evidence (RFE) response it submitted in 201 7, related to 
another L-1 A nonimmigrant visa petition, including a business plan it also provided in support of the 
current petition. It is also noteworthy that the Petitioner already filed a new office petition3 that was 
3 To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving a new office, a qualifying 
organization must have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity for one continuous year within 
three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). 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. 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 establish that the petitioner secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation and disclose the 
5 
approved on behalf of the Beneficiary, and he entered pursuant to this nonimmigrant visa in December 
2019, more than four years prior to the date this petition was filed. However, there is little evidence 
to indicate the Petitioner acted substantially on these business plans during this time, including hiring 
its projected staff. Although the Petitioner submitted a 2023 IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Tax 
Return, reflecting it earned approximately $150,000 during that year, it is not clear how this revenue 
was generated as it provides no supporting evidence to support any transactions of goods or services 
nor explanations as to the goods and services it provided in the United States. For instance, the 2023 
IRS Form 1120 also reflects that the company spent approximately $51,000 on "material and 
equipment," however; there is little evidence to support these asserted operations. In fact, it provided 
a business plan dating back to 20 l 7 reflecting wholly prospective operations and vaguely asserted that 
it would provide services, such as procurement, engineering design, manpower supply, and 
recruitment services. However, there is little evidence to corroborate that the Petitioner ever provided 
any of these services in the United States, and through its own admission, it employed no staff to 
provide them when the petition was filed. The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies and ambiguities 
in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 
19 I&N Dec. at 582, 591-92. Although we acknowledge the disruption caused by the COVID-19 
pandemic to businesses, the statutory and regulatory requirements nonetheless apply, and the 
Petitioner must demonstrate that it was operating sufficiently when the petition was filed to support 
the Beneficiary in a qualifying capacity where he would be primarily relieved from performing non­
qualifying operational tasks. Here, the Petitioner has not met this burden. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 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." 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 term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary is primarily responsible for 
managing an "essential function" within the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If 
a petitioner claims that a beneficiary will manage an essential function, it must clearly describe the 
duties to be performed in managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate 
that "(1) the function is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is 'essential,' i.e., core to the 
organization; (3) the beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the function; (4) the 
beneficiary will act at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function 
managed; and (5) the beneficiary will exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day 
operations." See Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
First, the Beneficiary cannot qualify as a personnel manager under the regulations without 
subordinates. Further, the Petitioner does not specifically articulate how the Beneficiary would qualify 
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). 
6 
as a function manager. The Petitioner did not describe the function the Beneficiary would manage, or 
how he would primarily manage a function rather perform it, a particularly questionable discrepancy 
since it had no employees to perform the non-qualifying operational tasks of the business when the 
petition was filed. Therefore, the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
would be employed in a managerial capacity. 
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 10l(a)(44)(B) 
of the Act. To show that a beneficiary 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. A beneficiary 
must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision making" and receive only "general 
supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the 
organization." Id. 
The Petitioner's statements and the supporting evidence leave substantial uncertainty as to whether it 
was sufficiently operational to support him in a qualifying executive capacity when the petition was 
filed in April 2024. On appeal, the Petitioner acknowledges that it had no employees but contends 
that the Beneficiary could nevertheless qualify as an executive as its sole employee. Regardless of 
this assertion, the submitted evidence and statements of the Petitioner reflect that it had limited 
operations as of the time the petition was filed leaving uncertainty as to whether it could have 
supported the Beneficiary in an executive capacity. For example, the Petitioner had no employees to 
provide its asserted oil and gas services when the petition was filed and there is no evidence that it 
provided any services in the United States since the Beneficiary's entry as a non-immigrant more than 
four years ago. The lack of subordinates leaves substantial question as to who performs the non­
qualifying operational tasks of the business, if any, and there is little detail and no supporting 
documentation to substantiate the Beneficiary's primary performance of qualifying executive-level 
tasks during his lengthy stay in the United States. Therefore, it is doubtful given the Petitioner's 
apparent operations when the petition was filed, the submitted supporting documentation, and the 
nature of the business, that the Beneficiary would have acted in an elevated executive-level capacity 
where he would primarily focus on broad goals and policies rather than day-to-day operations. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in an executive capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7