remanded L-1A Case: Export Of Chemical And Industrial Products

MATTER OF M-U-H-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 19, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM l-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an exporter of chemical and iJ?-d~strial products, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's 
employment as its president under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. 1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110 I ( a)(l 5)(L ). The L-1 A 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, as required, that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity 
under an extended petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the Director's decision, arguing that the decision was not based on 
the relevant facts and evidence in the record. 
Upon de nova review, we find that the Director did not offer an adequate analysis of the evidence 
submitted so that the Petitioner was afforded a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow a 
meaningful appellate review. Therefore, we will remand the matter for further proceedings 
consistent with our discussion below. 
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 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
March I, 2017, until February 28, 2018. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United 
States through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary 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 one year within the date of approval of the 
petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
Matter of M-U-H-, LLC 
continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a 
managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-lA petition that involved a new office must submit a statement 
of the beneficiary's duties during the previous year and under the extended petition; a statement 
describing the staffing of the new operation and evidence of the numbers and types of positions held; 
evidence of its financial status; evidence that it has been doing business for the previous year; and 
evidence that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(14)(ii). 
II. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
As noted earlier, we find that the Director's decision did not adequately explain the deficiencies in 
the evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) 
(finding that a decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a 
meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). As the Petitioner points out on 
appeal, the Director did not analyze the job description that corresponds to the Beneficiary's newly 
offered position, which the Petitioner states would be in an executive capacity; instead, the Director 
incorrectly conflated that job description with the description of job duties that pertained to the 
Beneficiary's prior year of employment - when the Petitioner was operating as a new office. More 
specifically, the Petitioner notes that the Director quoted portions of the prior year's job description 
and incorrectly stated that the Beneficiary would "continue" to perform those duties, which have not 
been incorporated in the Beneficiary's proposed position. 
The Director also misinterpreted the Petitioner's organizational chart by incorrectly referring to the 
Beneficiary as "branch manager" rather than to her proposed position title of "president & CEO" and 
by excluding a portion of the support staff that the Beneficiary hired during the company's new 
office phase of operation. Furthermore, despite the Petitioner's repeated references to "the larger 
international subordinate staff' who work at the Petitioner's foreign affiliate office, the Director did 
not address this claim or indicate that all relevant factors, such as the size and staffing of the entire 
organization, were considered prior to arriving at the final determination. 
Notwithstanding the Director's lack of a complete analysis, the record is currently insufficient to 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive or managerial capacity, as claimed. 
Namely, the record includes a broad job description that lacks sufficient detail about the specific 
tasks the Beneficiary would perform within the context of the Petitioner's retail operation. The 
actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd v. Sava, 
724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Further, although the 
Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary would be supported by an overseas staff in addition to the 
newly hired U.S.-based employees, it has not explained the logistics of relying on overseas 
employees to carry out necessary operational duties that are associated with shipping, receiving, and 
warehousing the goods it plans to purchase and sell. Accordingly, the record does not include 
sufficient evidence to show that the Petitioner's organizational hierarchy, at the time of filing, was 
2 
Matter of M-U-H-, LLC 
adequately complex and could support the Beneficiary in a position where she would devote her 
time primarily either to directing the management of the organization and focus on the broad goals 
and policies of the organization rather than the day-to-day operations of the enterprise, or, 
alternatively, that she would allocate her time primarily to managing an essential function. The 
Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been 
satisfied from the time of filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). That 
includes evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner is sufficiently staffed and able to relieve the 
Beneficiary from having to allocate her time primarily to non-executive or non-managerial tasks. 
The definitions of executive and managerial capacity have two parts. First, the Petitioner must show 
that the Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 
940 F.2d I 533 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). Second, 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, e.g., Family Inc. v. 
USCJS, 469 FJd 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d at 1533. The record as 
presently constituted does not meet these criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Although the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to meet its burden of establishing that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity, the Director's decision did not 
adequately analyze the facts of the matter and apply the law. As the Director did not satisfy this 
condition, we will remand the matter for entry of 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 M-U-H-, LLC, ID# 1690658 (AAO Oct. 19, 2018) 
3