sustained L-1A Case: Distribution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF F-B- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 28, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129. PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a distributor of liquid transportation and storage systems. seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as its chief executive otlicer (CEO) under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classi tication 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-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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that the Director did not consider 
the intermittent nature of the otTered position. the duties performed by contractors and staff of the 
Petitioner's parent company. and the Petitioner's reasonable needs. The Petitioner maintains that it 
submitted sutlieient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive 
capacity. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for theL-IA 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 beneliciat-y's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(IS)(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. !d. The 
petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education. training. and employment 
qualifies him or her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(])(3 ). 
The statute defines an "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 of 
Matter of F-B- LLC' 
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 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining vYhether an 
individual is acting in a managerial or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services takes into account the reasonable needs of the organization. in light of the overall purpose 
and stage of development of the organization. See section 101 (a)( 44 )(C) of the Act. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In the denial decision, the Director found that the Beneficiary's sole U.S. subordinate is neither a 
manager nor a professional employee and that the Petitioner therefore had not established that the 
U.S. business has an organizational structure sufficient to elevate the Beneficiary to a supervisory 
position that is higher than a first-line supervisor of non-professional employees. The Director 
acknowledged the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary. who is also the CEO of its Finnish parent 
company and Thai affiliate, would continue to oversee managerial employees of those entities. hut 
determined that these responsibilities do not establish that he would be employed in a qualifying 
capacity in the United States. 
The Petitioner was established in 2015 to sell, distribute. and support its parent company·s 
proprietary flexible bulk shipping containers. It achieved sales in excess of$2.9 million in 2016 and 
employs a director of sales and marketing. The Petitioner states that personnel at the group· s 
Finnish headquarters perform many ofthc company's routine day-to-day operational tasks remotely. 
while the company outsources other tasks. such as accounting. logistics. and product delivery. to 
third-party service providers. 
The Petitioner has consistently stated that the Beneficiary. who currently oversees the U.S. company 
from abroad while serving as CEO oftwo other group companies and supervising 13 managers. will 
maintain his residence in Finland. remain on the parent company's payrolL and enter the United 
States only intermittently, when there is a need for him to perform executive level duties .. on the 
ground." Specifically, the Petitioner states that it requires him to be physically present in the United 
States occasionally to meet with executives of high-profile customers. to form strategic business 
partnerships with third parties, to ensure implementation of company policies and procedures 
developed within the Finnish headquarters. and to select and hire key personnel as the U.S. office 
grows. The Petitioner acknowledges that it does not currently have a reasonable need for a full-time. 
year-round CEO in the United States based on its current stage of development and emphasizes that 
the regulations allow for L-1A beneficiaries to work in the United States intermittently. 
We find the Petitioner's assertions persuasive and the record sunicient to establish that the 
Beneficiary would serve in an executive capacity. The Director erred by not considering the 
Petitioner's claim that the position requires only the Beneficiary's intermittent physical presence in 
the United States. The Director also overemphasized the small size of the U.S. company. The 
2 
Matter qf F-B- LLC 
Petitioner achieved nearly $3 million in sales in its first year with a limited domestic staff in place 
and has established that its sole employee. outsourced companies. and foreign staff: provide 
sufficient support for its day-to-day operations without requiring the Beneficiary"s direct 
involvement in routine operational matters. Therefore. despite the limited stat1ing. the record does 
not support the Director's finding that the Beneficiary would be required to perform non-executive 
duties during his intermittent stays in the United States. Finally. the Director did not find fault with 
the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. job duties. which are primarily. ifnot entirely. executive in nature. 
Whether the Beneficiary is an employee turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained its burden of 
proving that his duties would be '"primarily" executive. 5iee section 10 I (a)( 44 )(B) of the Act. Here. 
the Petitioner has met that burden. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has established that it will employ the Beneficiary in an executive capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofF-B-LLC, ID# 840400 (AAO Nov. 28, 2017)