#### HEALTHY AND NATURAL TRADING LLC; Marcelo Salles Pereira de Lucena, Principal Beneficiary, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; California Service Center; Vermont Service Center; Jeh Charles Johnson, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security; Leon Rodriguez, Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services—Substituted for Alejando Mayorkas; Kathy Baran, in her official capacity as Director of the California Service Center; Carrie Selby, Acting Director of the Vermont Service Center—Substituted for Daniel Renaud, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-55030

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 9, 2016 * Pasadena, California

Filed May 24, 2017

Richard M. Wilner, Agnieszka (Aggie) Dolinska, Attorney, Wilner & O’Reilly, APLC, Orange, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

OIL-DCS Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Durwood H. Riedel, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See.*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Healthy and Natural LLC (Healthy) and Marcelo Salles Pereira de Lucena (Luce-na), appeal a district court decision granting summary judgment in favor of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). USCIS denied Healthy and Lucena’s petition to extend Lucena’s nonimmigrant L-1A visa for failure to establish Lucena as a qualifying executive or manager under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L) and 8 U.S.C. § 1101(44)(A)-(B). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

*4381. The district court did not err in affirming the USCIS’s determination that Lucena was not primarily employed in an executive or a managerial capacity. *See Brazil Quality Stones, Inc. v. Chertoff,*531 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2008) (reviewing under the Administrative Procedures Act). Healthy submitted vague, conclusory job descriptions that lacked specificity, failed to clarify Lucena’s day-to-day non-supervisory duties, and merely recited the elements of the regulatory definition of “executive.” See *id.*at 1070 (requiring “documents submitted to the agency [to] describe with particularity” the duties of the employee).

2. USCIS was not bound by its decision granting Healthy’s initial L-1A petition. *See id.*at 1066-67, 1071 (affirming the denial of a second petition despite approval of an initial petition). An L-1A petitioner applying for an extension must reestablish eligibility under the applicable statute and regulations. *See*8 C.F.R. § 214.2(2)(7)(i)(A)(2),(3); *see also Brazil Quality,*531 F.3d at 1066-67.

3. USCIS properly considered the size of Health/s organization. *See Brazil Quality,*531 F.3d at 1070 (holding that although “an organization’s small size, standing alone, cannot support a finding that its employee is not acting in a managerial capacity, .... size is nevertheless a relevant factor in assessing whether an organization’s operations are substantial enough to support a manager”) (citation, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted).

4. We decline to address the challenge to the evidentiary standard applied by US-CIS because that issue was not sufficiently raised in the district court. *See United States v. Williams,*846 F.3d 303, 311 (9th Cir. 2016).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.