dismissed L-1A Case: Audio-Visual Systems

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7163905 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for an L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 9, 2020 
The Petitioner, a distributor of court recording audio-visual systems and equipment, seeks to continue 
the Beneficiary's temporary employment as its operations manager under the L-lA nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that: (1) the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity under an 
extended petition; and (2) the Beneficiary had at least one year of qualifying employment abroad in a 
managerial or executive capacity in the three years preceding his transfer to the United States in L-lA 
status . 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary 
was employed abroad, and will continue to be employed in the United States, in a managerial capacity. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). 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. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" 
as an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(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. 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. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The primary issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a managerial capacity. The Petitioner states on appeal that the 
Beneficiary "has worked for [the company] in the managerial capacity since he was hired" and does 
not claim that he is employed in an executive capacity. 
To be eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, the Petitioner must show that 
the Beneficiary will perform the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition at 
section 10l(a)(44)(A)(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 managerial position. 
If the Petitioner establishes that the offered position meets all elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, 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). In determining whether a given 
beneficiary's duties would be primarily managerial, 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. 
Therefore, the first question before us is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary's 
position of operations manager meets all elements of the statutory definition of "managerial capacity" 
at section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
The Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's position indicates that he will be responsible for 
managing the company as a whole, have the authority to hire any future employees and to take other 
personnel actions, and have discretion over the company's day-to-day operations, consistent with 
section 101(a)(44)(A)(i), (iii), and (iv) of the Act. However, we agree with the Director's 
determination that the record does not establish that the Beneficiary's operations manager role 
2 
involves either supervision of subordinate supervisory, professional or managerial employees or 
management of an essential function, as required by section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii). 
First, the Petitioner has not articulated a claim that the Beneficiary would manage an essential function 
of the organization. See Matter of G-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05, *3 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
Further, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be supervising any employees as 
of the date of filing. According to its 2017 and 2018 federal tax returns, the Petitioner paid no salaries 
and wages to employees and made no payments to contractors in the two years preceding the filing of 
this extension petition in March 2019. The Petitioner provided an organizational chart which 
identified the Beneficiary as its sole U.S. employee and included proposed positions for a head ofIT, 
a human resources manager, a pre/post-sales manager and a technical support manager. The Petitioner 
must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the 
time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); see also Matter of 
Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978) (stating that a petitioner must 
establish that the position offered to a beneficiary, when the petition was filed, merits classification as 
a managerial or executive position.) 
While the Petitioner does not have any employees other than the Beneficiary, it initially claimed that 
the Beneficiary will "manage labor for the installation of audio visual court recording equipment." 
The Petitioner's organizational chart identifies four individuals who are claimed to be employees or 
contractors of its South African affiliate. The chart identifies them as a pre-/post-sales manager, 
technical support manager, "chief JA VS consultant and skilled technician," and "system installation 
sub-contractor." Although the record contains some evidence of email communications between the 
Beneficiary and these individuals, the record does not establish that he supervises and controls their 
work and does not sufficiently document their employment or the terms of any contractual relationship 
between them and either the Petitioner or its affiliate. Finally, the Petitioner has neither claimed nor 
provided evidence to establish that these individuals are supervisory, managerial, or professional 
employees. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would supervise and 
control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or manage an essential 
function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization, as required by 
section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that the offered 
position is in a "managerial capacity" as defined in the statute governing this classification. 
As the Petitioner did not establish that the position will be in a managerial capacity, we will not 
conduct a foll analysis of the remaining evidence related to the Beneficiary's U.S. position. However, 
we agree with the Director's determination that the submitted job description does not support a 
finding that his duties would be primarily managerial in nature. The Petitioner indicates that the 
Beneficiary will spend 15% of his time on "market research," 20% on "product and system 
development," and 25% providing "customer assistance in training, product support, supply 
management." None of these duties, as described, can be classified as managerial in nature. Further, 
there are other non-managerial tasks included in the Beneficiary's job description, such as billing, 
invoicing, and customer relations. 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that "under no circumstances would a non-managerial employee 
negotiate international contracts for installation of court reporting equipment on behalf of foreign 
government agencies." However, the Petitioner does not address the Director's finding that many of 
the duties included in the Beneficiary's job description, requiring more than half of his time, are non­
managerial in nature. By statute, eligibility for L- lA classification in a managerial capacity requires 
that the duties of a position be "primarily" managerial. Section 10l(A)(44)(A) of the Act. 
While the Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess 
the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making, the Petitioner must still 
establish that the position meets all elements of the statutory definition of managerial capacity and that 
it requires the Beneficiary to perform primarily managerial duties. Here, the Petitioner did not meet 
that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
III. RESERVED ISSUES 
As noted, the Director also determined that the Petitioner did not establish that: (1) the Beneficiary 
had at least one continuous year of foll time employment with a qualifying organization abroad in the 
three years preceding the filing of his initial L-lA petition in April 2016; and (2) the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. However, because the Beneficiary's lack of 
qualifying managerial employment in the United States is dispositive in this case, we need not reach 
these issues and therefore reserve them. See Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4