dismissed L-1A Case: Broadcast Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 15235667 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 9, 2021 
The Petitioner, a provider of broadcast and live event production solutions, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary in the United States as a "Key Accounts 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. § l 101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Director did not give proper weight to the submitted evidence. The Petitioner 
submits additional evidence on appeal and contends that this sufficiently establishes that the 
Beneficiary acted as a personnel manager abroad. 
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 nonirnmigrant 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. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAP A CITY 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary was employed 
in a managerial capacity abroad. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed in 
an executive capacity abroad . Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary was 
employed in a managerial capacity. 
"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. 
When examining the managerial capacity of a given beneficiary abroad, we will review the petitioner's 
description of the foreign job duties. The petitioner's description of the foreign job duties must clearly 
describe the duties performed by the beneficiary abroad and indicate whether such duties were in a 
managerial capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
A. Duties 
To be eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, the Petitioner must show that 
the Beneficiary performed the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition at section 
10l(a)(44)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act in his or her position abroad. If the record does not establish that the 
foreign position meets all four of these elements, we cannot conclude that it was a qualifying 
managerial position. 
If the Petitioner establishes that the foreign position meets all elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, it must prove that the Beneficiary was primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed 
to ordinary operational activities alongside other foreign employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 
F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). In determining whether a given beneficiary's foreign duties were 
primarily managerial, we consider the Petitioner's description of the foreign job duties, the foreign 
company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees abroad, the 
presence of other employees to relieve the beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature 
of the foreign business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's 
actual duties and role in a business abroad. 
The Petitioner stated that it is a U.S. based affiliate of an international company specializing "in the 
design, manufacturing, and technical support of a wide range of innovative and proprietary products 
for use in broadcast, distribution, live event, and production applications.". The Petitioner indicated 
that these products, used by television stations around the world, include "production switchers, 
automated production control systems, CG & graphic systems, robotic camera systems, routing 
systems, video servers, terminal equipment, Nielsen encoders, and social media management 
solutions." The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary had been employed abroad as a "Technical 
Solutions Manager, Asia" since 2010 1 and listed the following duties for this position: 
1 The petition was filed on January 21, 2020. 
2 
• Assigning the day-to-day activities to each of the regional Technical Solutions 
Architects, based on location, skillset, workload, business priorities and timelines. 
-20% 
• Have regular meetings or calls with the regional Sales Managers to understand their 
needs for presales support from the Technical Solutions team for their current "must 
win" sales opportunities. - 8% 
• Have regular catch up with each Technical Solution Architect to understand and 
guide them through their current work status, issues or complaints. - 7% 
• Reviewing and approving team's work. - 6% 
• Identifying issues in internal processes, mainly SalesForce and Sharepoint team 
interfaces, and developing plans for process improvements. - 4% 
• Run internal systems reports to highlight work that needs to be assigned to a 
Technical Solution Architect. - 3% 
• Organizing team seminars and team-building activities for the Technical Solutions 
group. -1% 
• Preparing Status reports for Asia Director of Sales for Quarterly Sales Meetings -
1% 
• Ensuring that the Solutions Architect team is folly equipped with the appropriate 
training, professional development, knowledge of tools required to fulfill their 
current and future responsibilities. - 7% 
• Ensure that there is appropriate team coverage to support the various geographic 
Asia sales territories and market verticals. - 5% 
• Perform annual employee performance reviews - 3% 
• Responsible for the hiring, promotions and firing. - 3% 
• Performing new staff on-boarding. - 2% 
• Scope the technical solutions to address customer requirements, assess customers' 
needs, and recommend solutions that optimize value for both the customer and [the 
company]. - 10% 
• Perform customer facing product presentations, demos, training, and workflow 
guidance to end-users and business partners at customer premises. - 2.5% 
• Educate Asia Business Partners on [company] solutions by giving technical sales 
presentations and technical training. - 10% 
• Coordinate closely with [company's] internal Sales team and business partners to 
align solutions designed to meet our customers' business requirements. - 3% 
• Manage the post sales Project Implementation for large and complex sales. - 2% 
• Provide feedback to the Technical Solutions members on their Project 
Implementations - 1 % 
• Reviewing Product feature roadmaps and provide feedback to Product Teams- 1 % 
• Working with Marketing and the Region Sales Managers to plan events, such as 
Tradeshows, Roadshows and Demos - 3% 
• Managing the Marketing event's technical requirements, staffing allocation and 
equipment logistics. - 3% 
• Works as the regional liaison for the Demo & Tradeshow Equipment (DTE) 
Manager to jointly determine and manage within agreed to performance envelope 
the regional demo and tradeshow inventory. - 2% 
3 
• Coordinates tradeshow technical design, booth setup and demonstration stations. -
2% 
The Petitioner submitted a foreign duty description for the Beneficiary and other supporting evidence 
that does not sufficiently establish he devoted his time primarily to qualifying managerial duties while 
employed abroad. In fact, the Beneficiary's duties, and other supporting evidence, appear to reflect 
his primary involvement in the direct provision of products and services to clients, or at minimum, his 
performance of non-qualifying operational activities alongside his subordinates. For instance, the 
Beneficiary's duty description includes several non-qualifying tasks appearing to relate to the direct 
provision of goods and services to clients, including him coordinating with sales managers to 
understand client requirements, running internal systems reports, preparing status reports for upper 
management, and scoping technical solutions. Likewise, the Beneficiary's foreign duties also state 
that he performed several other non-qualifying operational tasks, including performing product 
presentations and demonstrations for clients, educating business partners on the company's solutions, 
coordinating with internal sales staff on solution design, implementing solutions, and setting up 
demonstrations at tradeshows. 
In addition, the Petitioner provides a job posting on appeal related to the Beneficiary's position 
including other apparent non-qualifying operational tasks such as scoping technical solutions, working 
on "highly technical projects," creating drawings for opportunities, as well as preparing customer 
proposal supplements, responses to request for proposal, and "channel partner product awareness 
presentations." Similarly, the Petitioner provided examples of the Beneficiary's projects abroad which 
also listed apparent non-qualifying operational duties, including as his coordination of testing between 
software development teams. Again, this evidence indicates the Beneficiary's wide-ranging 
involvement in the direct provision of goods and services to clients, rather than his primary delegation 
of these duties to subordinates. Despite this evidence of apparent operational tasks on the part of the 
Beneficiary, the Petitioner contends that he devoted all of his time to managerial duties abroad. 
Further, as noted by the Director, the Petitioner provides little supporting documentation to 
substantiate that the Beneficiary primarily delegated non-qualifying duties to his subordinates. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits 2019 performance reviews the Beneficiary completed for a 
subordinate technical specialist and solution architects. These performance reviews farther indicate 
the Beneficiary likely performance of non-qualifying operational duties alongside these employees, 
rather than his primary delegation of these tasks. For instance, performance reviews completed by the 
Beneficiary for a subordinate technical specialist and a solutions architect both state that in the coming 
year these employees should "manage one ... project implementation, start to finish," suggesting that 
until these employees are self-sufficient, the Beneficiary has and would perform these service related 
tasks. In addition, each review states that the Beneficiary's subordinates should "create a 1-hour 
presentation for Business partners on [company] solution[ s]." This again indicates that the Beneficiary 
primarily performed these customer facing sales tasks rather than his subordinates, a responsibility 
which is also listed in his foreign duty description. 
Whether the Beneficiary is a managerial employee abroad turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained 
its burden of proving that their duties were "primarily" managerial. See sections 10l(a)(44)(A) of the 
Act. Here, the Petitioner does not sufficiently document what proportion of the Beneficiary's foreign 
duties would be managerial functions and what proportion would be non-qualifying. The Petitioner 
4 
lists the Beneficiary's foreign duties as including both managerial tasks and administrative or 
operational tasks but does not quantify the time he spends on these different duties. This lack of clarity 
is important because several of the Beneficiary's daily tasks do not fall directly under managerial 
duties as defined in the statute. For this reason, we cannot determine whether the Beneficiary primarily 
performed the duties of a manager abroad. See IKEA US, Inc. v. US. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 
22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
Even though the Beneficiary manages or directs a portion of the foreign business does not necessarily 
establish eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial capacity within 
the meaning of section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires 
that the duties of a foreign position be "primarily" managerial in nature. Id. The Beneficiary may 
exercise discretion over a portion of the foreign employer's day-to-day operations and possess the 
requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making; however, the foreign 
position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that his actual duties were primarily managerial 
in nature. 
B. Staffing 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
capacity abroad, we take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall 
purpose and stage of development. See section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. 
The Petitioner submitted a foreign organizational chart reflecting that the Beneficiary supervised a 
technical specialist and four solutions architects. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary 
acts in a managerial capacity based on his supervision of subordinate professionals. The statutory 
definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function managers." 
See section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and 
control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. Contrary to the 
common understanding of the word "manager," 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." Id. If a beneficiary directly supervises other 
employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or 
recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(3). Since 
the Petitioner does not contend on appeal that the Beneficiary qualifies as a function manager abroad, 
we will only analyze whether it has established that he qualifies based on his personnel authority over 
subordinate professionals. 
To determine whether a 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 U.S. 
baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the 
occupation"). Section 101 ( 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." Therefore, we must focus on the level of education 
required by the position, rather than the degree held by the subordinate employee. The possession of 
a bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee does not automatically lead to the conclusion that an 
5 
employee is employed in a professional capacity. 
First, we acknowledge that on appeal the Petitioner submits performance reviews appearing to 
demonstrate the Beneficiary's personnel authority over his subordinates abroad. Further, the evidence 
provided on appeal appears to indicate that these subordinates have bachelor's degrees. However, as 
discussed, the possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee does not automatically 
lead to the conclusion the employee is employed in a professional capacity. We must focus on the 
level of education required by the position, rather than the degree held by subordinate employee. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides job postings for the solutions architect and a technical specialist 
positions subordinate to the Beneficiary, yet neither job posting indicates that a bachelor's degree is 
required for minimum entry into the positions under the section 'job requirements." For instance, 
both job postings state these positions require a "minimum [ of] 5 years of combined sales, sales 
engineering, presales experience, systems application or product specialist experience" as well as 
"technical solution expertise in a customer facing environment." This evidence leaves substantial 
uncertainty as to whether a bachelor's degree was required for the technical specialist and solutions 
architect positions the Beneficiary supervised abroad. Further, the Petitioner also does not clearly 
explain why the positions subordinate to the Beneficiary require bachelor's degrees. The Petitioner 
must resolve inconsistencies and ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Furthermore, the performance reviews submitted on appeal only farther indicate that a bachelor's 
degree was not required for the positions subordinate to the Beneficiary and that these positions do 
not meet the definition of professional as defined by the regulations. For example, a performance 
review completed for one of the Beneficiary's technical specialists based in Korea notes his attendance 
at several trainings, including "Ultrix training, Tessera SE training, Piero operations, Xpression basic 
designing, Salesforce, Apttus, Carbonite, Dashboard, Lightning and Ross Way to Sell." Likewise, a 
review completed for a solutions architect in the Asia-Pacific region suggests that she "take a training 
course" on "IP and UHD/HR workflow," while another review mentions a solutions architect taking 
"several courses this year." Similarly, the performance review completed for a solutions architect 
based in China noted approximately nine trainings he completed that year and stated that he 
"performed online training using the [company] University or Webinars for Xpression, Dashboard, 
Streamline, Mira and Caprica." Although we acknowledge that many jobs require training, these 
performance review suggest that the positions subordinate to the Beneficiary likely do not require a 
specific level of education, such as an architect, engineer, or lawyer, but that these positions are wholly 
learned on the job through technical and sales trainings or through previous sales or technical 
expenence. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the Beneficiary's subordinates qualify as 
professionals as defined by the regulations; and that in tum, that his duties in supervising them can be 
considered managerial as defined by the regulations. Contrary to the common understanding of the 
word "manager," the statute plainly states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting in 
a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are 
professional." See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Further, as discussed, the Beneficiary's foreign 
duty description and other supporting evidence reflects that he was likely primarily performing non-
6 
qualifying operational duties related to the provision of services to clients or performing these duties 
alongside his colleagues. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed in a 
managerial capacity abroad. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7