remanded L-1A Case: Clothing Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-S- INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY27,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a clothing and apparel manufacturer and distributor, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as its operation and distribution manager under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-1A 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, a qualifying relationship between the petitioning U.S. entity and the 
Beneficiary's claimed foreign employer. 
In its appeal, the Petitioner submits evidence that two shareholders of the foreign entity have a long­
standing voting agreement that requires them vote in concert as a single unit. The voting agreement 
establishes that these two shareholders own_ and control a majority interest in the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer's parent company. As these same two shareholders also own and control the 
Petitioner, the evidence now establishes a qualifying relationship between these two entities. 
Upon de novo review of the record, however, we find that the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient 
evidence to establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad, or would be employed in the United 
States, in a managerial or executive capacity. 
Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter to the Vermont 
Service Center for entry of a new decision. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge 
capacity, for one continuous year within three years preceding the Beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. 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 
.
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
thereof in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. Section 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the 
Act. 
The Act defines the term "executive capacity" as an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily: directs the management of the organization or a major component or function 
thereof; 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) ofthe Act. 
The Act defines the term "managerial capacity" as an assignment within an organization in which 
the employee primarily: manages the organization or a department, subdivision, function, or 
component; supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees, or manages an essential function; if the employee directly supervises other employees, 
has the authority to take personnel actions, or if no other employee is directly supervised, functions 
at a senior-level within the organization 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) ofthe Act. 
II. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The record as presently constituted does not establish that theBeneficiary has been employed abroad 
in a managerial or executive capacity, or that the Petitioner will employ him in a managerial or 
executive capacity. As the Director did not address these issues in her decision, we will remand the 
matter for further proceedings and entry of a new decision. 
A. Employment Abroad 
In a letter submitted in support of the petition, the Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary had started 
his own company, in 2009, which focused solely on 
B2B/Reseller accounts and on serving the Petitioner's sublimation product line. The Petitioner 
asserted that the Beneficiary was appointed as the international operations and distribution manager 
of its foreign affiliate, in July 2016, after acquired 
the Beneficiary's company, The record does not include probative evidence that the 
Beneficiary worked for for one full year in the three years preceding the filing of this petition 
on September 19, 2016, so the Petitioner must establish that his prior position with was also in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
Additionally, the Petitioner provided a vague description of the Beneficiary's duties as "Operations 
Manager of the Foreign company." This description is ambiguous and does not clearly indicate 
1 The record includes documentation showing that 
Beneficiary's employer from 2009 to July 2016. 
acquired an approximate 66 percent interest in 
2 
the 
.
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
whether the Beneficiary's duties were primarily managerial or primarily executive in nature. 
Further, the descriptions provided are broadly-stated so that it is not possible to ascertain what 
proportion of the Beneficiary's duties was managerial, what proportion was executive, and what 
proportion was non-qualifying. The Petitioner does not explain how the Beneficiary's position at 
meets the four-prong definition of executive capacity or the four-prong definition of managerial 
capacity. As the record does not include a consistent and detailed position description and the duties 
described do not fall directly under managerial or executive duties as defined in the statute, the 
Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has been primarily performing the duties of a 
manager or an executive. See IKEA US, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of.Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 
1999). 
The record also includes an initial and revised organizational chart for the foreign entity. The 
Petitioner, however, does not explain the addition of positions and tiers to the revised organizational 
chart or the expansion of the number of employees at Further, although the Petitioner 
submitted numerous pages of payroll documentation for the record does not include payroll 
evidence of any of the employees at except the Beneficiary. 
The record does not include consistent, probative evidence of the number of employees and 
pos1t10ns at Additionally, neither the foreign entity nor the Petitioner provided detailed or 
consistent information regarding the nature of business and the roles of the Beneficiary and 
his direct subordinates. The record does not include the necessary evidence to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's position at was either executive or managerial in nature. For this reason, the 
petition cannot be approved. 
B. U.S. Employment 
The Petitioner, a Florida company established in 2006, stated that it is a ten-employee "clothing and 
apparel distributor focusing on team uniforms and apparel" and that it "is interested in developing 
manufacturing in Florida and further expanding its business." 
In the letter in support of the petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will be employed as 
its "Operations and Development Manager" and provided a brief description of the Beneficiary's 
proposed duties. The Director asked for a more detailed duty description in a request for evidence 
(RFE). Although the Petitioner referenced an additional job description for the Beneficiary in its 
letter in response to the RFE, the record only includes job descriptions for the Beneficiary's claimed 
U.S. subordinates, and no further description of the Beneficiary's proposed tasks. 
Without additional detailed information regarding the Beneficiary's proposed position, we cannot 
ascertain the Beneficiary's actual role within the U.S. company. For example, the initial description 
includes references to the Beneficiary's involvement in the U.S. company's "store." However, the 
Petitioner claims that it is a clothing and apparel distributor with plans to explore manufacturing. It 
is not clear that the generic description provided is applicable to the Petitioner's distribution 
operations and planned manufacturing business. Additionally, reciting the Beneficiary's vague job 
3 
Matter of A-S- Inc. 
responsibili.ties or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the regulations require a detailed 
description of the Beneficiary's daily job duties. The Petitioner has not provided any detail or 
explanation of the Beneficiary's activities in the course of his daily routine. The actual duties 
themselves will reveal the true n<I;ture of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. 
Supp. 1103,1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989),aff'd, 905 F.2d41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
The Petitioner's organizational charts also indicate that several positions are vacant, temporary, or 
interim positions. Although the Petitioner indicated that the positions "will be filled and 
regularized" when the Beneficiary is hired, the Petitioner must establish that all eligibility 
requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and 
continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.2(b )(1 ). The record did not include recent 
employer's quarterly tax returns or other evidence identifying the number of employees working 
when the petition was filed in September 2016. Without evidence substantiating its employees, such 
as pay stubs, payroll records, or relevant employer's quarterly reports, the record does not establish 
that the Petitioner employs subordinate staff who would relieve the Beneficiary from performing 
non-qualifying duties. Thus, the record as presently constituted is insufficient to establish that the 
Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we will remand this matter to the Director for a new decision. The 
Director should request any additional. evidence deemed warranted and allow the Petitioner to 
submit such evidence within a reasonable period of time. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter of A-S-Inc., ID# 462641 (AAO July 27, 2017) 
4