remanded L-1A Case: Yacht Distribution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF SVPY- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 18, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which distributes yachts manufactured by its parent company in Slovenia, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its chief executive officer under the L-lA nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(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 in a capacity that is managerial, 
executive, or involved specialized knowledge. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred with 
regard to the nature of the Beneficiary's position abroad and the foreign entity's staffing. 
Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a 
new decision 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 capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. 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 also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or her 
to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
Matter of SVPY- Inc. 
II. ANALYSIS 
"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. 
The Petitioner asserted that its foreign parent company employed the Beneficiary in an executive 
capacity as its vice president. The Director found that the Petitioner had not established (1) that the 
Beneficiary actually performed the duties claimed, and (2) that the foreign entity employed 
subordinate workers to relieve the Beneficiary from performing non-executive tasks. 
Upon review, we conclude that the Petitioner has established the Beneficiary's executive role with the 
foreign entity. While the Petitioner has not exhaustively documented the Beneficiary's activities 
abroad, the record suffices to establish the nature of the Beneficiary's employment by a preponderance 
of the evidence. The Petitioner has also documented the employment of several of the Beneficiary's 
subordinates, establishing that the foreign entity has a sales and marketing staff subject to the 
Beneficiary's executive authority. 
The Petitioner has overcome the only stated ground for denial, and therefore that decision cannot stand. 
Nevertheless, review of the record and publicly available source materials reveal another major issue 
that the Petitioner must address and overcome before the petition can properly be approved. 
III. THE PETITIONER'S BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND STAFFING 
The Director did not dispute the Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary would act as a function 
manager in the United States, managing the essential function of promoting U.S. sales of vessels 
manufactured abroad by the foreign parent company. The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary 
would oversee three U.S. employees: a vice president, with initials I.M.; a service manager, with 
initials K.W.; and a sales and marketing worker, with initials L.M. 
The Petitioner submitted "Payroll Details" purporting to show salary payments to I.M., K.W., and 
L.M. in the third quarter of 2018. That document indicates payments totaling $19,500; the monthly 
amounts are consistent with copies of purported pay stubs dated July and August of 2018, and a bank 
statement from early August 2018. 1 A "Tax and Wage Summary Report," however, shows total 
payments of only $13,000 (two months' pay) during the same three-month period. The Petitioner did 
not submit an actual IRS Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, or evidence that it filed 
that return. These payroll discrepancies require resolution beyond an unsupported explanation. See 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988) (petitioners must resolve discrepancies in the 
record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies). 
1 The monthly and year-to-date totals on the July 2018 receipts are the same, indicating that the Petitioner's entire staff 
began working in July 2018. The Petitioner did not report paying any salaries on its 2017 income tax return. 
2 
Matter of SVPY- Inc. 
The Petitioner indicated that the petitioning company does not sell yachts directly to the public, but 
su lies them throu h dealers. One of those dealers identified b a dealer agreement in the record, is 
A lease agreement in the record indicates that the Petitioner and ~ jointly lease the same 
commercial property o ~---------------~Florida. This shared commercial 
space between the Petitioner and a dealer that sells the Petitioner's products, but also products from 
competitors, raises questions about the nature and extent of the Petitioner's business activity in the 
United States. We emphasize that the Petitioner andc=J are separate commercial entities, and the 
record contains no evidence of a qualifying relationship between the two companies. (Approval of 
the present petition would not authorize the Beneficiary to work for0) 
As of Jul 1, 2019, the web a es at and 
identified K.W. as ~~s 
service manager, and L.M. as a marketing associate at~-~ A photograph of the Petitioner's claimed 
work site, submitted with the initial filing of the petition, shows several individuals recognizable as 
I !employees. (We note that the two co-founders ofl lhave the same surnames as K.W. and 
L.M., respectively.) Becausd~_bublicly claims K.W. and L.M. as its own employees, it does not 
appear that the Petitioner currently employs those individuals. As such, the Petitioner does not appear 
to have a subordinate staff to relieve the Beneficiary from having to perform non-qualifying tasks. 
Furthermore, discrepancies in the payroll figures, discussed above, cast doubt on claims regarding 
their past employment with the petitioning entity. 
As the matter will be remanded, the Director should request any additional evidence deemed warranted 
and allow the Petitioner to submit such evidence within a reasonable period of time. This evidence 
should address the Petitioner's staffing from 2018 to the present and the nature and extent of its 
business activity. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
Cite as Matter of SVPY-Inc., ID# 4420622 (AAO July 18, 2019) 
3