dismissed L-1A Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-T-L-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 5, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a tannery, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a cost accounting manager 
under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees . Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 101(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: (1) the Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a 
managerial or executive capacity; and (2) 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 by 
disregarding persuasive evidence of eligibility . 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss 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 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)(15)(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). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director denied the petition based, in part, on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that it 
will employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. The Petitioner asserts that the 
Matter of M-T-L-, Inc. 
Beneficiary has been, and will continue to be, employed in a managerial capacity. Therefore, we 
restrict our analysis accordingly. 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
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; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Based on the statutory definition of managerial capacity, a pet1t10ner must first show that the 
beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 
1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, the petitioner must prove that the 
beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational 
activities alongside the petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 
(9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
When examining the claimed managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly 
describe the duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in a 
managerial or executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description of 
the job duties, we examine the company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's 
subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing 
operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that will contribute to 
understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
Accordingly, we will discuss evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of 
the nature of the Petitioner's business and its staffing levels. 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner described the Beneficiary's intended duties in the United States and the approximate 
time he would devote to each: 
• Manage Cost Accounting support for the four leather production facilities in the 
United States, Vietnam, Italy and China by directing the Cost Accounting team and 
ensuring that plant production costs stay within budget (20% ); 
• Approve of operating expense requests from other departments and confirm against 
budget impact for overall organization (5%); 
• Lead meetings with other departments for costing control, including Purchasing, 
Receiving and Accounts Payable (10%); 
• Coordinate auditing procedures by directing third party vendors' audits for 
coordination with our organization (5%); 
2 
Matter of M-T-L-, Inc. 
• Proficiently control financial reporting, balance sheet reconciliations, budgeting, 
general ledger administration, forecasting, and financial review, with emphasis on 
revenue and expense on daily, weekly and monthly basis (10%); 
• Supervise team on the gathering of all raw materials (raw leather and chemicals), 
purchase information, booking journal, and preparation of costs of goods sold and 
standard costing (20%); 
• Prepare internal reporting to upper management on issues such as recommendations 
to improve the efficiency of cost controlling based on analysis of cost drivers, gross 
margin report, and consolidation ofMFS (15%); 
• Review, maintain, and enforce quality and chemicals consumption control of each 
plant (5%); 
• Hire and train newly hired accountants and planners (10%). 
With respect to the claim that the Beneficiary spends about 10% of his time hiring and training 
subordinates, the Beneficiary has very few subordinates and the record does not show much personnel 
turnover. Therefore, it is not evident that such personnel duties would occupy a significant amount of 
the Beneficiary's time. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's intended "position is similar to a Financial Manager ... , 
as the Beneficiary is primarily supervising employees who do financial reporting and accounting." 
The Petitioner submitted printouts from the Occupational Outlook Handbook, published online by the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Handbook entry for financial managers contains this passage: 1 
Financial managers typically do the following: 
• Prepare financial statements, business activity reports, and forecasts 
• Monitor financial details to ensure that legal requirements are met 
• Supervise employees who do financial reporting and budgeting 
• Review company financial reports and seek ways to reduce costs 
• Analyze market trends to maximize profits and find expansion opportunities 
• Help management make financial decisions 
The above list overlaps somewhat with the Beneficiary's responsibilities, but the Petitioner did not 
establish that those responsibilities rise to the level of a financial manager. It is significant that the 
Petitioner's organizational chart shows the Beneficiary as being subordinate to a financial manager 
(who also holds the title of vice president of finance and administration). 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the Beneficiary's job description is vague and does not 
show "that the beneficiary's proposed duties would be primarily managerial in nature." On appeal, 
the Petitioner asserts: "The ... Director failed to consider the abundant evidence ... regarding the 
Beneficiary's job duties." Rather than go into more detail on this point, the Petitioner asserts that the 
evidence should be reviewed again, and then the Petitioner turns to the assertion that it will employ 
1 According to the submitted Handbook printout, the 2017 median compensation for a financial manager was $125,080 
per year, which is more than double the Beneficiary's proposed salary of $54,000 per year. Another printout from the 
same source indicated that accountants and auditors earned a median annual salary of $69,350 in 2017, which is also 
significantly higher than the salary that the Beneficiary would earn while purp01tedly supervising accountants. 
3 
Matter of M-T-L-, Inc. 
the Beneficiary as both a personnel manager and a function manager. We discuss each of these claims 
below. 
B. Personnel Manager 
The statutory definition of"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See sections 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to 
primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. 
The statute plainly states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial 
capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are 
professional." Section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(B)(4). If a petitioner claims 
that a beneficiary directly supervises other employees, those subordinate employees must be 
supervisory, professional, or managerial, and the beneficiary must have the authority to hire and fire 
those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. Sections 
10l(a)(44)(A)(ii)-(iii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(2)-(3). 
To determine whether the Beneficiary manages professional employees, we must evaluate whether the 
subordinate positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. 
Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (defining "profession" to mean "any occupation for which a United States 
baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the 
occupation"). Section 10l(a)(32) of the Act states that "[t]he term profession shall include but not be 
limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary 
schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." 
The Beneficiary's subordinates in China, who would continue to report to the Beneficiary after his 
transfer to the United States, include two cost accountants with the following responsibilities: 
[C]ontrolling inventory movement, preparing weekly and monthly inventory summary 
reports and liquidity reports for review, preparation of financial documents and reports 
including Gross Margin reports, balance sheet and inventory reconciliation reports, 
quality reports, forecasting, claim reports, energy and natural resources consumption 
reports, and more. [The cost accountants] are also responsible for the preparation of 
audit procedures, obtaining all the raw material purchase information, control 
warehouse datum, and general journal entries for monthly book closings. 
There is also a cost accountant assistant, whose "responsibilities include registering new product 
articles, controlling warehouses datum, reviewing inventory data and checking the finance system to 
verify warehouse data, and providing output weekly reports." 
The Petitioner asserted that all three of these individuals are professionals, and submitted a printout 
from the Handbook showing that accountants and auditors typically need bachelor's degrees. The 
Petitioner, however, did not establish that the Beneficiary's subordinates all hold bachelor's degrees 
or that their positions require them. The Petitioner showed that one of the cost accountants holds a 
four-year bachelor's degree in accounting, but the other cost accountant earned a three-year degree in 
finance. The Petitioner submitted an evaluation of the four-year degree, but not the three-year degree. 
4 
Matter of M-T-L-, Inc. 
Because both individual hold the same position, it is significant that only one of them appears to hold 
a bachelor's degree. The record therefore indicates that the degree is not a requirement for the position. 
An organizational chart showed dotted lines between the Beneficiary and an accounting supervisor, 
and between the Beneficiary and a chief accountant, indicating links in the "[ o ]rganizational structure" 
but not in the "[d]isciplinary structure." A second chart showed the Beneficiary and the accounting 
supervisor on the same hierarchical level, immediately below the financial manager. The Petitioner 
did not explain the extent, if any, of the Beneficiary's managerial authority over the accounting 
supervisor and chief accountant, but we note that the Petitioner repeatedly left those positions out 
when listing the Beneficiary's subordinates. 
The Petitioner submitted "[ w ]ork product examples demonstrating the professional accounting 
information prepared and provided to the Beneficiary by those who work in his department." The 
Petitioner did not explain how these materials - essentially spreadsheets showing items, prices, and 
sometimes dates - amount to "professional accounting information" representing inherently 
professional-level work rather than data entry or bookkeeping. 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not provide enough information about the duties of his 
subordinates, or show that those subordinates are managers, supervisors, or professionals. The 
Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of printouts from the Occupational Outlook 
Handbook and educational materials regarding two subordinates, but the Director found that these 
materials did not show that the subordinates are professionals. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director "failed to consider the abundant evidence that the 
Beneficiary would be serving in a managerial role for the Appellant in the United States." The 
Petitioner notes that the Handbook printouts identified cost accounting as a professional occupation, 
but, as the Director noted, the Handbook is a general guide. The Petitioner did not establish that its 
own cost accounting positions are professional, and the employment of a cost accountant with a three­
year degree tends to suggest otherwise. 
The Petitioner has not established that it would employ the Beneficiary as a personnel manager. 
C. Function Manager 
The Petitioner described cost accounting as an essential function. In the denial notice, the Director 
found that "the record does not contain sufficient information describing what function the beneficiary 
will be managing." The Petitioner contests this assertion on appeal, saying: 
The Beneficiary will be in charge of managing the Cost Accounting Function for 
Mississippi and for providing financial advice to the company's top executives. [The 
Beneficiary] will be responsible for managing the cost accounting function for all three 
leather plant facilities located in the United States, Vietnam, and China. This position 
is critical for the Mississippi operation as it continues to grow and become more 
profitable. The Cost Accounting Manager position is necessary to help the organization 
5 
Matter of M-T-L-, Inc. 
handle its growth and help to prepare the company for continued increases in inventory 
and staff 
The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary's managerial capacity derives not 
from supervising or controlling a subordinate staff, but instead from primarily managing an "essential 
function" within the organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a petitioner claims that 
a beneficiary will manage an essential function, it must clearly describe the duties to be performed in 
managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that: 
(1) the function is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is "essential," i.e., core to 
the organization; (3) the beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the 
function; ( 4) the beneficiary will act at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy 
or with respect to the function managed; and ( 5) the beneficiary will exercise discretion 
over the function's day-to-day operations. 
Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). In this matter, the Petitioner has 
not described or provided evidence that the Beneficiary manages an essential function. The 
Beneficiary will not act at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the 
function managed, because he will continue to report to the financial manager. While financial matters 
relate to an essential function, the Petitioner has not shown that cost accounting, specifically, is an 
essential function by itself rather than a subset of the essential function of financial management 
(overseen by a higher-level official). 
Based on the deficiencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that it would employ the 
Beneficiary in a managerial capacity in the United States. 
III. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN A QUALIFYING CAPACITY 
The Director also found that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad 
in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge. Because our findings 
regarding the Beneficiary's proposed employment in the United States warrant denial of the petition 
and dismissal of the appeal, we need not reach this additional issue, and therefore reserve it. Our 
reservation of this issue is not a stipulation that the Petitioner has overcome it, and should not be 
construed as such. Rather, there is no constructive purpose to addressing the issue here, because it 
cannot change the outcome of the appeal. We farther note that the Beneficiary worked in essentially 
the same capacity abroad, with the same subordinates, and therefore many of the above findings would 
apply to the Beneficiary's employment abroad as well as to his proposed employment in the United 
States. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
6 
Matter of M-T-L-, Inc. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofM-T-L-, Inc., ID# 2573653 (AAO Sept. 5, 2019) 
7