remanded L-1A Case: Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19396243 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 27, 2021 
The Petitioner, which machines die and mold components, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as vice president of operations of its new office I under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 11 0l(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 record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad, and will be employed at the 
new office within one year, in a managerial or executive capacity. The matter is now before us on 
appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's 
decision and remand the matter for a new decision. 
I. LAW 
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 proposed nature and scope 
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. 
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. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad, and would be employed in the new office within one year, in a qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity. 
"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. 
To show that a beneficiary is eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, a 
petitioner must show that the beneficiary will perform all four of the high-level responsibilities set 
forth in the statutory definition at section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. If a petitioner establishes that the 
offered position meets all four elements set forth in the statutory definition, the petitioner must then 
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). In determining whether the beneficiary's duties will be primarily 
managerial, we consider the description of the job duties, the company's organizational structure, the 
duties of the 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 the beneficiary's actual duties and role in the business. 
Since 1999, the Beneficiary has served as the manager of production, assembly, and quality control at 
the Petitioner's foreign parent company (a manufacturer of photographic equipment). An 
organizational chart shows the following positions under the Beneficiary's authority: 
Waste and Hazard Management 
Conventional Lathe Operator 
CNC Operator 
Mechanical Design and Quality Control Manager 
Tool and Die Assembly and Maintenance Manager 
Assembly and Quality Control Manager 
L2 Assemblers 
Surface Grinder Operator 
Press Shop Manager 
L2 Press Operators 
2 
The projected organizational chart for the Petitioner's new office shows the following hierarchical 
structure: 
President 
Lvice President of Operations (the Beneficiary) 
LMachining Supervisor 
LMachine Operators (two in the first year, three thereafter) 
Waste and Hazard Manager 2 
The Director based the denial decision on the conclusion that the Petitioner did not show that the 
Beneficiary's past or intended future subordinates are managers or professionals. A given position 
may also qualify as managerial, however, if the individual in that position primarily supervises and 
controls the work of supervisors. The Director did not make any determinations regarding this issue, 
and therefore the Director's initial determination is incomplete. The Director only considered the 
claimed supervisory positions in the context of managerial positions, stating: "The descriptions for 
the claimed supervisory or managerial positions do not indicate any tasks that are primarily managerial 
in nature." 
The Director must render a new decision which takes into account the Petitioner's claims that the 
Beneficiary did, and will, have authority over supervisors in his positions abroad and at the new office. 
At the same time, we note that the Petitioner must establish that the intended United States operation, 
within one year of the approval of the petition, will support an executive or managerial position. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). In this instance, the Petitioner claims that, at the end of the first year, it 
would have a president, a vice president, and a supervisor, overseeing two machine operators and a 
waste and hazard manager. The Petitioner has not adequately explained how three front-line 
employees warrant or require three layers of supervisory or managerial authority. The top-heavy 
management structure raises questions as to whether the Petitioner seeks to bring the Beneficiary to 
the United States out of business necessity, or rather to obtain immigration benefits for a major 
shareholder. 
We further note that job descriptions for both the Beneficiary and some of his intended subordinates 
appear to have been copied, in large part, from generic job descriptions on O*NET, a Department of 
Labor database of job information. These descriptions show the range of duties that a given occupation 
typically entails, but because of their general nature, they do not explain the specific duties inherent 
in any particular position. 
These generic descriptions include inapplicable or overlapping duties. For example, the Petitioner 
states that the machining supervisor would "[d]etermine ... budgets," but the Beneficiary's own job 
description as vice president of operations indicates that he, the Beneficiary, would "develop budgets," 
seemingly giving both individuals the same task. 
The Beneficiary's job description also refers to "warehousing" and negotiating with federal agencies, 
although the Petitioner does not appear to own or lease a warehouse and the Petitioner has not 
2 Despite the word "manager" in the title, the proposed duties of the waste and hazard manager are entirely operational, 
involving the collection, sorting, and disposal of waste materials. 
3 
explained how the Beneficiary's work would involve discussions with unnamed federal agencies. The 
Petitioner's reliance on generic language of uncertain applicability raises questions regarding the 
extent to which it has planned the business and the roles of its prospective employees. Likewise, the 
business plan in the record, while detailed in some ways, does not indicate who would handle 
administrative tasks, finances, sales, and other functions. 
For the reasons discussed, the Director has not sufficiently considered the Petitioner's assertion that 
the Beneficiary managed the work of supervisory employees abroad, and will do so at the new office. 
But additional information and evidence will be necessary to establish eligibility. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4