sustained L-1A Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 20,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an import, export, transportation, and logistics company, seeks to continue the 
Beneficiary's temporary employment as its president under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees.' See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity 
under the extended petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not consider the totality of the evidence 
submitted or the Petitioner's reasonable staffing needs at the end of its initial year of operations. The 
Petitioner maintains that it submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in an executive capacity under the extended petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
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. 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. Section 101(a)(15)(L) ofthe Act. 
1 
The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
February I, 2016, to January 31, 2017. 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 A-, LLC 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-1 A petition that involved a new ot1ice 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(1)(14 )(ii). 
II. DISCUSSION 
The Director found that the evidence did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in an 
executive capacity as defined at section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. The Petitioner did not claim that 
the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity. 
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 
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) ofthe Act. If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an 
individual is acting in a managerial or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) takes into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall 
purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section 1 01 (a)( 44 )(C) of the Act. 
The Petitioner was established in September 2015 and employed eight full-time employees at the 
time of filing in December 2016, including the Beneficiary, a vice president of operations, a logistics 
director, an import and export coordinator, a director of finance, two logistics employees, and an 
executive assistant. The Petitioner provided ample evidence of its provision of import, export, and 
logistics services, its" use of third-party carriers and accounting services, and evidence of its financial 
status. 
In the denial decision, the Director referenced the position descriptions submitted for the Beneficiary 
- one which accompanied the initial filing and one submitted in response to a request for evidence -
and noted that the time allocations assigned to individual duties were difTerent. The Director further 
found that neither description was sufficiently detailed, and noted that the inconsistencies in time 
allocations cast doubt on whether the Beneficiary would primarily perform executive duties. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Director had requested a more detailed description of 
the Beneficiary's duties; therefore, it submitted a longer list of duties in response to the RFE, which 
resulted in changes to the assigned percentages of time .... Upon review, we agree with the Petitioner 
that there are no material inconsistencies in the two descriptions provided in support of the petition, 
when viewed in context of the Director's request for additional details. 
The Director also noted a concern regarding the Petitioner's staffing. Specitically, the Director 
observed, although the Petitioner stated that although the Beneficiary has "the full authority to set 
2 
Matter of A-, LLC 
the U.S. company's marketing, budgeting, sales, and operational goals and policies ... It IS not 
apparent who performs the marketing, budgeting, or sales functions of the company; as the petitioner 
does not employ staff that performs marketing or sales functions." The Director further determined 
that the Petitioner did not provide sufficiently detailed position descriptions for the Beneficiary's 
subordinates. As such, the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that it has sufficient 
staff to relieve the Beneficiary from involvement in the non-executive functions of the company. 
On appeal, the Petitioner further explains its business model, noting that it does not have dedicated 
sales and marketing positions because it primarily markets and sells its services by participating in 
procurement initiatives and by completing transportation orders and purchase requests initiated by its 
foreign affiliate. The Petitioner also points to the job descriptions for the Beneficiary's subordinates, 
highlighting duties that are directly related to the sales, marketing, and budgeting functions. 
We find that the Petitioner has sufficiently addressed the specific deficiencies discussed in the 
Director's decision. Further, after reviewing the totality of the evidence, we find that the Petitioner 
has established that the company grew sufliciently during its initial year of operations to support the 
Beneficiary in an executive capacity, and that he more likely than not has adequate support from 
seven full-time subordinates, including at least one subordinate manager, to allow him to allocate 
most of his time to executive duties, rather than to performing operational duties alongside the 
company's other employees. Whether the Beneficiary is a managerial or executive employee turns 
on whether the Petitioner has sustained its burden of proving that their duties are "primarily" 
managerial or executive. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (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 of A- LLC, ID# 593181 (AAO Sept. 20, 20 17) 
3