dismissed L-1A Case: Analytics Solutions

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9504992 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 31, 2020 
The Petitioner, an analytics solutions provider, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its 
Director of Consumer Packaged Goods (CPG), Analytics Solutions 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity. On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that the Director failed to consider evidence submitted in response to her request for evidence 
(RFE) regarding the Beneficiary's business strategy and planning duties, as well as evidence about the 
importance of the consumer packaged goods (CPG) team that the Beneficiary would lead. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 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 101(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 AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The sole issue for consideration on appeal is whether the Petitioner has established that the 
Beneficiary's proposed employment in the United States will be in an executive capacity. The 
Petitioner did not claim that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity. 
The term "executive capacity" is defined 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 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
When examining the executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look to the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. 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, its staffing levels, and its organizational structure. 
A. Job Duties 
To be eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as an executive, the Petitioner must show 
that the Beneficiary will perform the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition at 
section 10l(a)(44)(B)(i)-(iv) of the Act. If the record does not establish that the offered position meets 
all four of these elements, we cannot conclude that it is a qualifying executive position. 
If the Petitioner establishes that the offered position meets all elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, the Petitioner must then prove that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in executive 
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). In determining whether a given 
beneficiary's duties will be primarily executive, we consider the petitioner's description of the job 
duties, the company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, 
the presence of other employees to relieve the 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. 
The Petitioner provided a description of the Beneficiary's job duties as Director of Consumer 
Packaged Goods (CPG), Analytics Solutions which indicated that he would divide his time as 
follows: 1 
1 Another version provided in the Petitioner's initial supp01ting letter stated his division of duties differently, with business 
2 
• Business strategy, planning and pricing (30%) 
• Meet with existing customers for account growth (25%) 
• (Manage) 2 sales conversations with new accounts (10%) 
• (Spearhead) workshops and brainstorming session with customers/prospects (25%) 
• Team goal setting, performance review, hiring and capability development (10%) 
In her decision, the Director found that duties comprising a majority of the Beneficiary's proposed 
responsibilities, including meeting with existing customers, sales conversations with new clients, and 
workshops and brainstorming sessions, were not executive in nature but involved providing a service. 
In particular, the Director noted that the some of the more detailed duties included under the broader 
responsibilities involved direct client contact. On appeal, the Petitioner focuses on the words 
"manage" and "spearhead," which it asserts indicate that the Beneficiary will not be performing these 
duties himself, but relying upon subordinates. In addition, it asserts that these are normal executive 
functions, and that it would be "ludicrous to assume that an executive such as the Beneficiary would 
just sit in an office and not engage in any of these functions." However, as noted above, the issue is 
not whether the Beneficiary will perform executive tasks exclusively, but rather whether he will 
primarily engaged in executive duties. 
Further, while the inclusion of the words "manage" and "spearhead" in one of the two initial versions 
of the job description suggests that the Beneficiary would rely on others to have sales conversations 
and conduct workshops and brainstorming sessions with clients, the differing language and 
percentages of time devoted to these duties presents an unresolved inconsistency. More importantly, 
the Petitioner's description of the daily tasks the Beneficiary would perform to carry out these duties 
do not support the assertion that others will be performing them. For example, in explaining his 
responsibility of meeting with existing customers, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary would 
"engage with existing customers," "understand key challenges in meeting defined goals," and "finalize 
key focus areas for improvement." While the Petitioner added subtasks under this last task which 
indicate that the Beneficiary would direct others in the provision of analytics solutions, the description 
of this duty as a whole indicates that the Beneficiary would be primarily engaged in non-executive 
tasks. 
Similarly, a review of the tasks listed under the "workshops and brainstorming sessions" responsibility 
leads to the same conclusion. Here, the Beneficiary's tasks would include working with customers to 
set up brainstorming sessions, facilitating these sessions, and developing a "detailed approach plan" 
presumably based on the results of the sessions. As with the duty discussed above, the Petitioner 
included additional subtasks indicating that the Beneficiary would guide his team during the 
brainstorming sessions, help them conduct customer interviews, and review the execution plan put 
strategy and planning at 15%, meeting with existing customers at 50%, sales conversations at 10%, workshops and 
brainstorming at 15%, and team goal setting and performance review at 10%. The description of the tasks involved in 
carrying out these duties was identical in both cases, although this alternative version stated that the Beneficiary would 
"manage" sales conversations and "spearhead" workshops and brainstorming, while those two words did not initially 
appear in the version below. The Director did not reference this version in her RFE or decision, nor did the Petitioner in 
responding to the RFE or on appeal. 
2 While these terms in parentheses appeared in the alternative position description described in FN 1, they did not initially 
appear in the job description ultimately accepted by the Director, but were added with the Petitioner's RFE response. 
3 
together by the team, but overall the tasks described under this responsibility show that he would be 
performing operational sales tasks. 
In addition, in describing the tasks involved in managing sales conversations with new accounts, the 
Petitioner states that the Beneficiary would define "go to market strategy" for the CPG business unit, 
and guide its development. But he would also engage with prospective customers and articulate how 
the company's analytics solutions could add value for them, which would include providing 
demonstrations of the company's products. Additional subtasks indicate that the Beneficiary would 
train and mentor sales teams and review their presentations. The daily tasks described here are almost 
entirely hands-on operational sales activities, and the Petitioner has not established that the duties of 
mentoring and reviewing work meet one of the high-level executive responsibilities set forth in the 
Act. We further note that in its initial filing, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would have 
"frequent interaction with existing and prospective customers engaging in in-depth discussions ... " 
which indicates that managing sales conversations and meeting with existing customers would 
comprise a greater proportion of his work hours than is indicated by the percentages provided. 
Also, the daily tasks described under the 'Team goal setting, performance review, hiring and capability 
development" responsibility also do not reflect the sort of high-level responsibilities spelled out in the 
four elements of the statutory of "executive capacity." Although these tasks show that the Beneficiary 
would be relieved of operational duties to some extent, several of them, such as "define goals for all 
team leads, optimally allocate responsibilities aligned to organization needs and individual strengths" 
and "periodically review progress on defined goals, provide feedback and guidance to help team meet 
required objectives" are limited to the setting of individual rather than broader component or 
organizational goals. This is also shown in the Petitioner's statement in responding to the Director's 
RFE that the Beneficiary "will be responsible for training the team on I ~ products and 
services ... " 3 
The tasks identified under the "Business strategy, planning and pricing" responsibility involve setting 
goals for the CPG solutions component, including budget and sales targets, and designing its 
organizational structure. Whether these duties will comprise 15% or 30% of the Beneficiary's working 
time, however, the overall proposed duties and daily tasks for the proposed position do not show that 
the Beneficiary would primarily direct the management of the CPG solutions component of the 
Petitioner's organization, and thus that he would serve in an executive capacity. 
3 We note that in responding to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner asserts that his authority to hire and fire personnel shows 
the Beneficiary's wide latitude in discretionary decision-making and his receipt of only general supervision or direction. 
However, the authority over personnel actions is an element in the definition of a managerial position per section 
I0l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. A petitioner claiming that a beneficiary will perform as a "hybrid" manager/executive will not 
meet its burden of proof unless it has demonstrated that the beneficiary will primarily engage in either managerial or 
executive capacity duties. See section I0l(a)(44)(A)-(B) of the Act. While in some instances there may be duties that 
could qualify as both managerial and executive in nature, it is the petitioner's burden to establish that the beneficiary's 
duties meet each criteria set forth in the statutory definition for either managerial or executive capacity. A petition may 
not be approved if the evidence of record does not establish that the beneficiary will be primarily employed in either a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
4 
B. Organizational Structure 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on an employee's elevated position 
within an organizational structure. Under the statute, such an employee must have the ability to "direct 
the management" and "establish the goals and policies" of an organization or major component or 
function thereof. Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. To show that a beneficiary will "direct the 
management" of an organization, or of one of its major components or functions, a petitioner must 
show how the organization, component, or function is managed and demonstrate that the beneficiary 
primarily focuses on its broad goals and policies, rather than its day-to-day operations. 
Here, the Petitioner indicates that in the role of Director of CPG Analytics Solutions, the Beneficiary 
would have three direct reports, and would "continue to have oversight of his current India team from 
the U.S." As in his current role, he would report directly to the company's chief technology officer. 
The organization chart initially submitted supports these statements, but does not provide a view of 
the proposed position within the Petitioner's overall organization. 
In addition to the organizational descriptions and charts, the Petitioner also submitted job descriptions 
for his three direct reports, one of whom is currently located in the United States. Two of these 
positions, despite having "Director" titles, clearly involve primarily operational duties such as "own 
client acquisitions and revenue from sales of the solutions portfolio" and "conduct solution 
presentations and participate in solution discovery workshops." The job description for the other 
position, a manager, includes both operational and supervisory duties, such as acting as a "bridge 
between delivery and client teams to ensure smooth delivery of services" and "lead(ing) client site 
teams in terms of mentorship, project oversight, support, client interaction and effective bridge with 
project managers." Although the Petitioner states that each of these subordinates are managers with a 
team that reports to them, this is not reflected in the organizational chart, and is only suggested in one 
of the job descriptions. This evidence, together with the analysis of the proposed job description 
above, shows that while the Beneficiary would be freed from performing some operational tasks, he 
would not be primarily focused on the broad goals and policies of the CPG component, but rather 
direct oversight of those performing operational duties. 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Beneficiary's duties "will be significantly higher and more 
managerial than those of his subordinates" and "would be focused on developing and directing the 
growth of this unit." However, the Petitioner has clearly stated that the Beneficiary would be an 
executive and not a manager, so having a higher percentage of managerial-level duties than his 
subordinates does not show that he would perform in an executive capacity. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal is dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in an executive capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5