Matter of Z-A-, Inc.

April 14, 2016 PM-602-0131 Policy Memorandum SUBJECT: Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016) This policy memorandum (PM) designates the attached decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in Matter of Z-A-, Inc. as an Adopted Decision. Accordingly, this adopted decision establishes policy guidance that applies to and binds all USCIS employees. USCIS personnel are directed to follow the reasoning in this decision in similar cases. Matter of Z-A-, Inc. clarifies that, when determining whether the beneficiary of an L-1A nonimmigrant classification will primarily manage an essential function, USCIS officers must weigh all relevant factors including, as pertinent in the instant case, evidence of the beneficiary's role within the wider qualifying international organization. Use This PM is intended solely for the guidance of USCIS personnel in the performance of their official duties. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or by any individual or other party in removal proceedings, in litigation with the United States, or in any other form or manner. Contact Information Questions or suggestions regarding this PM should be addressed through appropriate directorate channels to the AAO.

2016年4月14日 PM-602-0131 政策备忘录 主题：Matter of Z-A-, Inc.，Adopted Decision 2016-02（AAO 2016年4月14日） 本政策备忘录（PM）将所附行政上诉办公室（AAO）在 Matter of Z-A-, Inc. 案中的决定指定为“采纳决定”（Adopted Decision）。因此，本采纳决定确立了适用于并约束所有USCIS雇员的政策指导。USCIS人员被指示在类似案件中遵循本决定中的推理。 Matter of Z-A-, Inc. 澄清，在确定L-1A非移民类别的受益人是否将主要管理一项基本职能时，USCIS官员必须权衡所有相关因素，包括如本案所涉的受益人在更广泛的合格国际组织内角色的证据。 使用 本PM仅供USCIS人员履行公务时参考。其不意图、也不、且不得被依赖以创设任何权利或利益，无论实体性或程序性，可在法律上或由任何个人或其他当事人在遣返程序中、在与美国的诉讼中、或以任何其他形式或方式强制执行。 联系信息 有关本PM的问题或建议应通过适当的局渠道向AAO提出。

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

美国国土安全部

April 14, 2016 [1]

2016年4月14日 [1]

(3) When staffing levels are considered in determining whether an individual will act as a manager, an officer must also take into account relevant evidence in the record concerning the reasonable needs of the organization as a whole, including any related entities within the “qualifying organization,” giving consideration to the organization’s overall purpose and stage of development. FOR THE PETITIONER: Roy Watson, Esquire, Bedford, Massachusetts The Petitioner filed a Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, to extend the Beneficiary’s stay in nonimmigrant status as an L-1A intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L) (2012), and 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.1(c)(1) and 214.2(l)(14)-(15). At the time the new office extension petition was filed, the Petitioner employed the L-1A nonimmigrant Beneficiary as its Vice President and Chief Operating Officer.

(3) 在确定个人是否将担任经理时考虑人员配置水平，官员还必须考虑记录中有关整个组织合理需求的相关证据，包括“合格组织”内任何相关实体的需求，并考虑组织的总体目的和发展阶段。 申请人代表：Roy Watson，Esquire，马萨诸塞州贝德福德 申请人提交了Form I-129，非移民工人申请表，以依据《移民与国籍法》（该法）第101(a)(15)(L)条、8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L)（2012）以及8 C.F.R. §§ 214.1(c)(1)和214.2(l)(14)-(15)，延长受益人作为L-1A公司内部调任人员的非移民身份停留期限。在提交新办公室延期申请时，申请人雇用L-1A非移民受益人担任其副总裁兼首席运营官。

1 On September 13, 2013, we issued this decision as a non-precedent. We have reopened this decision on our own motion under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(5)(i) for the purpose of making revisions in preparation for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services designating it as an Adopted Decision.

1 2013年9月13日，我们作为非先例发布了本决定。我们依据8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(5)(i)自行重新开启本决定，目的是进行修订，以备美国公民及移民服务局将其指定为采纳决定。

Matter of Z-A-, Inc. Adopted Decision

Matter of Z-A-, Inc. 采纳决定

The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition requesting an extension of the Beneficiary’s stay in L-1A status, finding the Petitioner failed to establish it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity, and certified her decision to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for review. 8 C.F.R. § 103.4. We withdraw the Director’s initial decision and approve the petition.

加利福尼亚服务中心主任拒绝了请求延长受益人L-1A身份停留期限的申请，认定申请人未能证明其将雇用受益人担任管理职务，并将其决定认证至行政上诉办公室（AAO）进行审查。8 C.F.R. § 103.4。我们撤回主任的初步决定并批准该申请。

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Petitioner is a U.S. subsidiary established in December 2011. The Petitioner’s Japanese parent company is a publicly-traded firm with over $900 million in sales. The parent company owns a research and development laboratory, seven factories, and nine subsidiaries located in Japan and five other countries. The Petitioner imports, markets, and distributes packaging solutions designed and manufactured by its parent company for customers in the medical, pharmaceutical, and food industries. The Beneficiary is the Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Petitioner. He was selected to head the Petitioner’s United States operations based on his previous overseas management experience. He reports to the General Manager of the parent company’s International Department, who in turn reports to the President and Chief Executive Officer of the parent company. The Beneficiary’s duties include: directing and managing the Petitioner’s financial, legal, trade, administrative, and sales activities; establishing financial and budgetary plans and goals; reviewing and monitoring sales activities performed by the Petitioner’s sales manager; liaising with the parent company; and interacting with customers and outside service providers. With regard to its staffing levels, the Petitioner employs a sales manager and an administrative specialist at the U.S. office. In addition, the Petitioner regularly retains outside professional service providers. The record substantiates that eight staff members within the parent company’s headquarters office in Japan also exclusively support the Beneficiary’s work. The Petitioner closely coordinates and interacts with its parent company’s International Department, which performs sales, production planning, export, and distribution activities. The Petitioner established that the aforementioned foreign staff includes three sales employees, a shipping and invoicing specialist, and four engineers involved in research, development, and production. The Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial capacity as defined under section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. The Director determined that, because the Petitioner does not have an “organizational structure” sufficient to support the Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive position, the Beneficiary would primarily perform sales duties. The Director’s analysis of the company’s structure took into account the two U.S. payroll employees, but not the duties performed by the eight foreign staff located in Japan. In its brief submitted on certification, the Petitioner asserts that the Director mischaracterized the nature of the Beneficiary’s responsibilities and disregarded his placement within the corporate group’s organizational hierarchy. The Petitioner contends the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary primarily manages the essential function of market development in the Americas, a role

I. 事实和程序背景 申请人是成立于2011年12月的美国子公司。申请人的日本母公司是一家上市公司，销售额超过$900 million。母公司拥有一个研发实验室、七家工厂以及位于日本和其他五个国家的九家子公司。申请人进口、营销和分销由其母公司设计和制造的包装解决方案，客户来自医疗、制药和食品行业。 受益人是申请人的副总裁兼首席运营官。他因以往的海外管理经验而被选为领导申请人的美国业务。他向母公司国际部总经理报告，该总经理又向母公司总裁兼首席执行官报告。受益人的职责包括：指导和管理申请人的财务、法律、贸易、行政和销售活动；制定财务和预算计划及目标；审查和监督申请人销售经理执行的销售活动；与母公司联络；以及与客户和外部服务提供商互动。 关于其人员配置水平，申请人在美国办公室雇用一名销售经理和一名行政专员。此外，申请人定期聘请外部专业服务提供商。记录证实，母公司日本总部办公室内的八名工作人员也专门支持受益人的工作。申请人与母公司的国际部密切协调和互动，该部门执行销售、生产计划、出口和分销活动。申请人已证明上述外国工作人员包括三名销售雇员、一名运输和发票专员以及四名从事研究、开发和生产的工程师。 主任拒绝了该申请，结论是申请人未能证明其将雇用受益人担任该法第101(a)(44)(A)条所定义的合格管理职务。主任认定，由于申请人没有足以支持受益人担任合格管理或行政职位的“组织结构”，受益人将主要履行销售职责。主任对公司结构的分析考虑了美国工资单上的两名雇员，但未考虑位于日本的八名外国工作人员所履行的职责。 在认证时提交的简报中，申请人主张主任错误描述了受益人职责的性质，并忽视了其在公司集团组织层级中的位置。申请人主张，证据证明受益人主要管理美洲市场开发这一基本职能，该角色

2

2

Matter of Z-A-, Inc. Adopted Decision

Matter of Z-A-, Inc. 采纳决定

which reasonably requires him to rely on services from the foreign staff members whose duties directly support the U.S. subsidiary. The Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary influences decision-making at the highest level of the parent company with respect to U.S. market development and expansion, and that his responsibilities do not primarily involve day-to-day sales, marketing, and other non-managerial functions.

合理要求其依赖职责直接支持美国子公司的外国工作人员的服务。申请人强调，受益人在母公司最高层面对美国市场开发和扩展的决策具有影响力，且其职责主要不涉及日常销售、营销和其他非管理职能。

[A]n alien who, within 3 years preceding the time of his application for admission into the United States, has been employed continuously for one year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render his services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized knowledge. . . . (emphasis added). This case presents a “managerial capacity” scenario. The Act defines “managerial capacity” as follows:

[A]n alien who, within 3 years preceding the time of his application for admission into the United States, has been employed continuously for one year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render his services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized knowledge. . . . （强调为后加）。本案呈现的是“管理职务”情形。该法对“管理职务”定义如下：

The term “managerial capacity” means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily—

“管理职务”一词指组织内的指派，其中雇员主要——

(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; (ii) 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; (iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions (such as promotion and leave authorization) or, if no other employee is directly supervised, functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and (iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. . . . Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(B) (defining “managerial capacity”). Finally, section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act provides:

(i) 管理组织，或组织的部门、分支、职能或组成部分； (ii) 监督和控制其他监督、专业或管理雇员的工作，或管理组织内的一项基本职能，或组织的部门或分支； (iii) 如果直接监督另一名或多名雇员，有权雇用和解雇或推荐雇用和解雇以及其他人事行动（如晋升和准假），或者，如果没有直接监督其他雇员，则在组织层级内或就所管理职能而言在高级层面运作；以及 (iv) 对雇员拥有权限的活动或职能的日常运营行使自由裁量权。…… 该法第101(a)(44)(A)条；另见8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(B)（定义“管理职务”）。 最后，该法第101(a)(44)(C)条规定：

3

3

Matter of Z-A-, Inc. Adopted Decision

Matter of Z-A-, Inc. 采纳决定

If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial or executive capacity, the [Secretary of Homeland Security] 2 shall take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, component, or function in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization, component, or function. An individual shall not be considered to be acting in a managerial or executive capacity (as previously defined) merely on the basis of the number of employees that the individual supervises or has supervised or directs or has directed.

如果人员配置水平被用作确定个人是否以管理或行政职务行事的因素，[国土安全部部长] 2 应考虑组织、组成部分或职能的合理需求，结合组织、组成部分或职能的总体目的和发展阶段。个人不得仅基于该个人监督或曾监督、或指导或曾指导的雇员人数而被视为以管理或行政职务（如前所定义）行事。

III. ANALYSIS

III. 分析

The central issue here is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary will be employed in a qualifying “managerial capacity” as defined in the Act and Department of Homeland Security regulations. Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(B). As part of that inquiry, we must examine whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary will primarily manage an essential function within the organization. 3 Our focus today, however, is not what constitutes such an essential function, but rather whether U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, when analyzing whether the Beneficiary will primarily manage the function, must consider evidence presented by the Petitioner of personnel employed by another related entity within the qualifying organization who perform day-to-day non-managerial tasks for the petitioning entity. A. Managerial Capacity The definition of “managerial capacity” in section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act and the implementing regulation allow for both “personnel managers” and “function managers.” Personnel managers must primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, whereas function managers must primarily manage an essential function within the organization. When examining the managerial capacity of a beneficiary, we look first to the petitioner’s description of the job duties. A petitioner who claims that the beneficiary qualifies as a function manager must identify the essential function and describe in detail the “services” or job duties to be performed in managing that function. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(ii). After examining the petitioner’s description of the job duties and services to be performed by the beneficiary, the next step is to determine whether those duties will be primarily managerial in nature. In doing so, we must consider the totality of the record and weigh all relevant factors, including: the nature and scope of the petitioner’s business; the petitioner’s organizational structure, staffing levels, and the beneficiary’s position within the petitioner’s organization; the scope of the beneficiary’s authority; the work performed by other staff within the petitioner’s

此处的核心问题是，申请人是否证明受益人将受雇于《移民与国籍法》及国土安全部法规所定义的合格“管理能力”岗位。《移民与国籍法》第101(a)(44)(A)条；8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(B)。作为该审查的一部分，我们必须审查申请人是否证明受益人将主要管理组织内的一项基本职能。3 然而，我们今天的重点不是何为该等基本职能，而是美国公民及移民服务局在分析受益人是否将主要管理该职能时，是否必须考虑申请人提交的关于合格组织内另一关联实体雇用的人员为申请实体执行日常非管理任务的证据。 A. 管理能力 《移民与国籍法》第101(a)(44)(A)(ii)条及其实施法规中“管理能力”的定义允许“人事经理”和“职能经理”两种类型。人事经理必须主要监督和控制其他主管、专业或管理雇员的工作，而职能经理必须主要管理组织内的一项基本职能。 在审查受益人的管理能力时，我们首先看申请人对工作职责的描述。主张受益人符合职能经理资格的申请人必须指明该基本职能，并详细描述管理该职能所要履行的“服务”或工作职责。见8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(ii)。 在审查申请人对受益人将要履行的工作职责和服务的描述后，下一步是确定这些职责是否主要具有管理性质。在此过程中，我们必须考虑记录的整体情况并权衡所有相关因素，包括：申请人业务的性质和范围；申请人的组织结构、人员配置水平以及受益人在申请人组织中的职位；受益人的权限范围；申请人组织内其他工作人员所执行的工作，

2 Pursuant to section 1517 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (“HSA”), Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 2311 (codified at 6 U.S.C. § 557 (2012)), any reference to the Attorney General in a provision of the Act describing functions that were transferred from the Attorney General or other Department of Justice official to the Department of Homeland Security by the HSA “shall be deemed to refer to the Secretary” of Homeland Security. See also 6 U.S.C. § 542 note (2012); 8 U.S.C. § 1551 note (2012). 3 The Petitioner does not assert that the Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel manager.

2 依据2002年《国土安全法》（“HSA”）第1517条，Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 2311（编入6 U.S.C. § 557 (2012)），《移民与国籍法》条文中凡提及司法部长且描述的是依HSA从司法部长或其他司法部官员移交国土安全部的职能之处，“应视为指”国土安全部部长。另见6 U.S.C. § 542注(2012)；8 U.S.C. § 1551注(2012)。 3 申请人未主张受益人符合人事经理资格。

4

4

Matter of Z-A-, Inc. Adopted Decision

Matter of Z-A-, Inc. 采纳决定

organization, including whether those employees relieve the beneficiary from performing operational and administrative duties; and any other factors that will contribute to understanding the beneficiary’s actual duties and role in the business. Ultimately, we must determine whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the essential function. While an L-1A function manager may use his or her business expertise to perform some operational or administrative tasks, he or she must primarily manage an essential function. See Matter of Church Scientology Int’l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm’r 1988) (“[T]he [L-1A] employee’s duties must be primarily at the managerial or executive level. An employee who primarily performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be employed in a managerial or executive capacity.”); see also Brazil Quality Stones, Inc. v. Chertoff, 531 F.3d 1063, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that the petitioner bore the burden of demonstrating the beneficiary “was primarily engaged in overseeing essential functions of [the] business rather than performing them himself”); Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25, 29 (D.D.C. 2003) (determining that the former INS reasonably concluded that the L-1A position was “not primarily managerial” because the record failed to establish that the alien was “not merely performing the functions of the company”); IKEA US, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice INS, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24-25 (D.D.C. 1999) (sustaining agency’s determination that a beneficiary did not qualify as a function manager where the petitioner failed to document what proportion of the beneficiary’s duties would be managerial functions) (citing Republic of Transkei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1991)). Finally, when staffing levels are considered in determining whether an individual will act as a manager, we must also take into account relevant evidence in the record concerning the reasonable needs of the organization as a whole, including any related entities within the “qualifying organization,” 4 giving consideration to the organization’s overall purpose and stage of development. See section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. Given that Congress created this visa classification to “eliminate problems . . . faced by American companies having offices abroad in transferring key personnel freely within the organization,” it is reasonable for a petitioner to assert that the organizational needs include those of its related foreign components. See generally H.R. Rep. No. 91-851, § 1(b), at 5 (1970), as reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2750, 2754. To support this type of claim, the petitioner bears the burden of submitting probative evidence to establish the reasonable staffing needs of the organization and how those needs are material to whether the beneficiary will act as a manager. An adjudicating officer in turn must assess all relevant evidence in the record concerning the beneficiary’s position within the wider “qualifying organization” in determining whether the petitioner has satisfied that burden. B. The Application of Law to Facts Upon examination of the detailed position description and the totality of the evidence, the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary’s responsibilities will primarily consist of managerial duties associated with development of the United States market for the Petitioner’s international organization. Specifically, the Beneficiary will manage the implementation of all policies and strategies and establish goals pertaining to the import, sales, and marketing of the parent company’s 4 See generally 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(G) for the definition of “qualifying organization.”

组织，包括这些员工是否使受益人免于履行运营和行政职责；以及任何其他有助于理解受益人在企业中的实际职责和角色的因素。 最终，我们必须确定申请人是否已证明受益人将主要进行管理，而非履行基本职能。虽然L-1A职能经理可以使用其商业专长来履行某些运营或行政任务，但他或她必须主要管理一项基本职能。参见Matter of Church Scientology Int’l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm’r 1988)（“[L-1A]员工的职责必须主要在管理或行政层面。主要履行生产产品或提供服务所必需任务的员工不被视为以管理或行政能力受雇。”）；另参见Brazil Quality Stones, Inc. v. Chertoff, 531 F.3d 1063, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 2008)（解释申请人负有举证责任，证明受益人“主要从事监督[企业]的基本职能而非亲自履行这些职能”）；Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25, 29 (D.D.C. 2003)（认定前INS合理得出结论，L-1A职位“并非主要管理性质”，因为记录未能证明该外国人“并非仅仅履行公司职能”）；IKEA US, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice INS, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24-25 (D.D.C. 1999)（维持机构裁定，即受益人未符合职能经理资格，因为申请人未能记录受益人职责中管理职能所占比例）（引用Republic of Transkei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1991)）。 最后，当在确定个人是否将作为经理行事时考虑人员配置水平，我们还必须考虑记录中关于整个组织合理需求的相关证据，包括“合格组织”4内任何相关实体，并考虑组织的总体目的和发展阶段。参见该法第101(a)(44)(C)条。鉴于国会设立此签证类别是为了“消除……在海外设有办事处的美国公司在组织内自由调动关键人员所面临的问题”，申请人主张组织需求包括其相关外国组成部分的需求是合理的。参见一般H.R. Rep. No. 91-851, § 1(b), at 5 (1970), as reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2750, 2754。为支持此类主张，申请人负有举证责任，提交有证明力的证据以确立组织的合理人员配置需求以及这些需求如何对受益人是否将作为经理行事具有实质意义。裁决官员则必须评估记录中关于受益人在更广泛“合格组织”内职位的所有相关证据，以确定申请人是否已满足该举证责任。 B. 法律适用于事实 经审查详细职位描述和全部证据，申请人已证明受益人的职责将主要包括与为申请人的国际组织开发美国市场相关的管理职责。具体而言，受益人将管理所有政策和战略的实施，并确立与母公司进口、销售和营销相关的目标 4 关于“合格组织”的定义，一般参见8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(G)。

5

5

Matter of Z-A-, Inc. Adopted Decision

Matter of Z-A-, Inc. 采纳决定

specialized products into the market. The record here substantiates the Petitioner’s claim that the Beneficiary manages an essential function, as contemplated by sections 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. See also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(B)(1)-(2). 5 Further, the record demonstrates that, as a member of the senior management team for the Americas region, the Beneficiary functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy and with respect to the function managed. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(iii) of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(B)(3). Finally, the Beneficiary has significant discretionary authority over the day-to-day activities related to development of the United States market. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(B)(4). The Director’s decision focused on the size of the Petitioner and the small number of employees working for the Petitioner in the United States. The Director, however, did not address the Petitioner’s substantial evidence relating to the support provided by the overseas staff located in Japan. Specifically, while the Director considered staffing levels to determine whether the Beneficiary acts in a managerial capacity, the Director did not evaluate relevant evidence in the record concerning the reasonable needs of the organization as a whole, consistent with its overall purpose and stage of development, as required by section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. Cf. Matter of Leacheng Int’l, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 532, 535 (AAO 2015) (taking into consideration the organization as a whole for purposes of satisfying the “doing business” requirement for the conceptually similar immigrant classification for multinational managers and executives authorized under section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C) (2012)). The evidence establishes that the United States Petitioner, established for 16 months at the time of filing, works closely with its Japanese parent company’s International Department, which employs technical, sales, and administrative staff who are dedicated exclusively to supporting the growth of the group’s business in the Americas. The record amply substantiates the existence of the foreign staff and the nature of and need for the services they provide to the Petitioner and the organization as a whole. See Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm’r 1998) (clarifying that going on record without supporting evidence does not suffice to meet the burden of proof). Notwithstanding the small number of staff in the United States, the Petitioner has provided evidence that it achieved revenues of nearly $600,000 in the previous eight months. The Beneficiary reports to the General Manager of the parent company’s International Department as part of the wider qualifying international organization. Eight employees in Japan are required to support the day-to-day operational needs of the Petitioner by performing administrative and other duties related to production planning, technical support, research and development, sales, logistics, and distribution for the U.S. market. That a petitioner may have only a few employees directly on its payroll, although a relevant consideration in the determination of whether a beneficiary qualifies as an L-1A manager, does not necessarily compel a conclusion that the beneficiary primarily performs day-to-day operational duties. See Brazil Quality Stones, 531 F.3d at 1070 (“[A]n organization’s small size, standing alone, cannot support a finding that its employee is not acting in

专业产品推向市场。本案记录证实了申请人关于受益人管理一项基本职能的主张，符合该法第101(a)(44)(A)(i)和(ii)条的规定。另见8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(B)(1)-(2)。5 此外，记录表明，作为美洲地区高级管理团队的成员，受益人在组织层级内以及就其管理的职能而言均在高级层面履职。见该法第101(a)(44)(A)(iii)条；另见8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(B)(3)。最后，受益人对与美国市场开发相关的日常活动拥有重大自由裁量权。见该法第101(a)(44)(A)(iv)条；8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(B)(4)。 主任的决定侧重于申请人的规模以及申请人在美国为其工作的雇员人数很少。然而，主任并未处理申请人关于位于日本的海外员工所提供支持的大量证据。具体而言，尽管主任考虑了人员配置水平以确定受益人是否以管理身份行事，但主任并未按照该法第101(a)(44)(C)条的要求，评估记录中关于整个组织的合理需要、与其总体目的和发展阶段相一致的相关证据。参见Matter of Leacheng Int'l, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 532, 535 (AAO 2015)（为满足该法第203(b)(1)(C)条、8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C) (2012)授权的跨国经理和高管概念上类似的移民类别的“doing business”要求，将组织作为一个整体加以考虑）。 证据表明，美国申请人（提交时已成立16个月）与其日本母公司的国际部密切合作，该国际部雇有技术、销售和行政人员，专门致力于支持集团在美洲的业务增长。记录充分证实了外国员工的存在以及他们向申请人和整个组织提供服务的性质和需要。见Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998)（阐明在没有支持性证据的情况下仅凭记录陈述不足以满足举证责任）。尽管美国员工人数很少，申请人已提供证据表明其在过去八个月中实现了近$600,000的收入。 受益人向母公司国际部总经理汇报，作为更广泛合格国际组织的一部分。日本的8名员工需要支持申请人的日常运营需求，为美国市场履行与生产计划、技术支持、研究与开发、销售、物流和分销相关的行政及其他职责。申请人可能只有少数员工直接在其工资单上，尽管这是确定受益人是否符合L-1A经理资格的相关考虑因素，但并不必然得出受益人主要从事日常运营职责的结论。见Brazil Quality Stones, 531 F.3d at 1070（“[A]n organization's small size, standing alone, cannot support a finding that its employee is not acting in

5 Although the record demonstrates that market development is an essential function in this matter, our decision should not be read to imply that this function is necessarily essential to all businesses. As with all factual determinations, we will assess essentiality case-by-case based on the record at hand.

5 尽管记录表明市场开发在本案中是一项基本职能，但我们的决定不应被解读为暗示该职能对所有企业都必然是基本的。与所有事实认定一样，我们将根据手头记录逐案评估基本性。

6

6

Matter of Z-A-, Inc. Adopted Decision

Matter of Z-A-, Inc. 已采纳决定

a managerial capacity, but size is nevertheless a relevant ‘factor in assessing whether [its] operations are substantial enough to support a manager.’”) (quoting Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006)); see also section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act (“An individual shall not be considered to be acting in a managerial or executive capacity . . . merely on the basis of the number of employees that the individual supervises or has supervised or directs or has directed.”). Here, the record shows that the Beneficiary, in his role as Vice President, will continue to rely on the support of the eight staff members in Japan and two employees in the United States to accomplish non-managerial duties, and that the purpose of his transfer is to oversee the short-term and long-term expansion of the Petitioner’s presence in what is still a new market. Given the overall purpose of the organization and the organization’s stage of development, the Petitioner has established a reasonable need for a senior-level employee to manage the essential function of developing its brands and presence in the United States, notwithstanding that the Petitioner employs directly only two other employees in the United States. While the Beneficiary may be required to perform some operational or administrative tasks from time to time, the Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary will primarily manage an essential function, while day-to-day, non-managerial tasks will be performed by a combined staff of 10 employees of the Petitioner and its parent company, located in the United States and Japan, respectively.

管理身份，但规模仍然是评估‘[其]运营是否足够实质以支持一名经理’的相关‘因素’。”）（引用Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006)）；另见该法第101(a)(44)(C)条（“个人不得仅基于该个人监督或曾监督或指导或曾指导的雇员人数而被视为以管理或高管身份行事……”）。 在此，记录显示，受益人作为副总裁，将继续依靠日本8名员工和美国2名员工的支持来完成非管理职责，其调动的目的是监督申请人在仍属新市场的存在的短期和长期扩张。鉴于组织的总体目的和组织的发展阶段，申请人已证明有合理需要一名高级别员工来管理开发其品牌和在美国存在的基本职能，尽管申请人在美国仅直接雇用另外两名员工。 虽然受益人可能不时需要履行一些运营或行政任务，但申请人已以优势证据证明受益人将主要管理一项基本职能，而日常的非管理任务将由申请人和其母公司分别位于美国和日本的合计10名员工组成的员工队伍履行。

IV. CONCLUSION It is the Petitioner’s burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). The Petitioner has sustained that burden. ORDER: The Director’s initial decision is withdrawn and the petition is approved. Cite as Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016)

IV. 结论 申请人有责任证明其符合所寻求移民福利的资格。该法第291条；Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012)。申请人已履行该责任。 命令：主任的初步决定予以撤回，申请予以批准。 引用为Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016)

7

7