dismissed L-1A Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 22660957 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 21, 2022 
The Petitioner, a I firm , seeks to continue 1 its employment of the Beneficiary 
temporarily as its "Senior Solution Analyst" under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees who are coming to be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(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, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United 
States in a managerial or executive capacity. The matter is before us on appeal. 
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 because 
the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's position abroad was in a managerial capacity .2 
Because the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal , we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the Beneficiary's proposed employment 
in the United States. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not 
required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); 
see also Matter ofL-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). 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification , a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a position requiring 
specialized knowledge for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's 
1 Although thePetitionerhadnotpreviously filed aFormI-129, Petition foraNonimrnigrant Worker, on the Beneficiary's 
behalf , it states that the Beneficiary "joined " its organization in February 2021 and assumed the position of "Senior 
Solution Analyst"while he was in the F-1 nonimmigrant status. USCIS records show that the Beneficiary requested and 
was granted work authorization, which was valid from February 1, 2021, to January 31, 2022. 
2 The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity and does not claim that the foreign 
employment was in an executive capacity . 
application for admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1). 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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214 .2(1)(3 )(ii). 
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. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence establishing that the 
Beneficiary's position abroad was in a managerial capacity. 
To be eligible for immigrant visa classification as a multinational 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. If the record does not establish that the Beneficiaty's 
proposed position meets all four of these elements, we cannot conclude that it is a qualifying 
managerial position. 
If the Petitioner establishes that the position in question meets all elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary primarily performed managerial duties, as 
opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside other employees within the foreign entity. See 
Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). In determining whether a given 
beneficiary's duties are primarily managerial, we consider that beneficiary's job duties, the employer'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. 
In a supporting cover letter, the Petitioner claimed I lemployees in the United States and described 
itself as anl firm" that addresses "major business problems" for 
2 
charitable organizations as well as corporate and government entities. The Petitioner stated that an 
"engagement team" is created for each client and explained that multiple factors, such as "the nature, 
complexity, and diversity of the problem being solved," determine the organization and size of each 
team. In discussing the Beneficiary's employment abroad, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
was a data analyst in the !Solutions team"I I whose role was to help clients by 
providing their pricing decision makers with the data necessary to "set optimal prices to generate the 
most value from every transaction." 
The Petitioner also provided an untitled organizational chart depicting the Beneficiary at the top of a 
six-person hierarchy, which shows the Beneficiary directly overseeing a junior solution analyst, an 
analytics analyst, and a data analyst, and indirectly overseeing a junior analytics analyst and a junior 
data analyst. Despite indicating that the Beneficiary's position was supervisory with respect to these 
positions, the organizational chart pe1iained exclusively to an unidentified cross section of the foreign 
organization and included no information clarifying the placement of this cross section within the 
broader scope of the organization. The Petitioner did not specifically identify the Beneficiary's clients, 
nor did it disclose the number o clients the foreign entity serviced or claim that the Beneficiary 
had broad authority and input over all clients. Because the Petitioner offered no context for the 
Beneficiary's team within the broader organizational hierarchy, we are unable to assess his 
organizational placement within the overall scope of the organization. 
Furthermore, although the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary assumed a managerial position within 
the I team, it did not off er a description of the team's management and reporting 
structure, nor did it claim that the Beneficiary primarily managed a department, subdivision, function, 
or component of the organization pursuant to sections 101 (a)(44)(A)(i) of the Act or that he managed 
an essential function within the organization, or within a department or subdivision of the organization 
pursuant to sections 10 l(a)( 44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
In a request for evidence, the Director informed the Petitioner that it did not provide sufficient 
supporting evidence to establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 
As such. the Petitioner was asked to explain its organization's reporting structure and provide evidence 
substantiating the claim that the Beneficiary managed professional employees and had the authority 
to hire and fire or recommend other personnel actions for those individuals. 
In response, the Petitioner reiterated much of the information provided in its initial cover letter, 
including the value of the services that the team offers to the foreign entity's clients and the claim 
that the Beneficiary assumed a managerial position within thatteam. Although the Petitioner provided 
a supplemental organizational chart, the chart included no title and contained no information indicating 
that it represented the hierarchy of the entire team. Further, the supplemental organizational chart 
depicts the Beneficiary as subordinate to a senior data analyst, thus indicating that the senior analyst, 
rather than the Beneficiary, may be the manager of the component depicted in the chart. Furthermore, 
the supplemental chart shows the Beneficiary overseeing "2-3" solution analysts, "1-2" junior data 
analysts, and "2-3" analytics analysts, whereas the organizational chart that was originally submitted 
showed the Beneficiary directly overseeing a junior solution analyst, an analytics analyst, and a data 
analyst, and indirectly overseeing a junior analytics analyst and a junior data analyst. The Petitioner 
must resolve this inconsistency in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Moreover, because neither 
3 
chart offers information about the broader scope of the foreign entity's organizational hierarchy, we 
have no means of gauging the placement of the Beneficiary and his team with respect to others in the 
organization. This lack of clarity hinders our ability to properly assess the Beneficiary's position 
within the context of the foreign entity's organizational hierarchy, which is a critical element in 
determining whether the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity. In addition, without 
further infmmation about the Beneficiary's reporting structure, we cannot rule out the possibility that 
he was subordinate not only to a senior data analyst but also to other management tiers that may be 
more senior within the organizational hierarchy, thus calling into question whether the Beneficiary's 
position abroad was truly in line with the statutory definition of managerial capacity. See section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Fmiher, although the Petitioner broadly stated that the Beneficiary "was the leader of critical 
workstreams for the Fi1m and had sole day-to-day discretion over the project team's activities," it did 
not explain what the "critical workstreams" are or clarify their relationship to theOteam or their 
placement within that team and the foreign entity's broader organizational hierarchy. The Petitioner 
also stated that the Beneficiary"[ e ]valuated the performance of subordinate professional employees . 
. . and contribut[ ed] to their formal evaluation process based on their performance," but it provided no 
evidence to support this claim or to show that the Beneficiary had authority to take or recommend 
personnel actions with regard to the positions listed as his subordinates. Also, the Petitioner referred 
to the Beneficiary's subordinates only by position title and stated that the team "varied depending 
upon the size and complexity of the project," thereby indicating that the Beneficiary's supervision of 
a given team did not extend beyond project completion and likely did not include the authority to hire 
and fire employees or recommend personnel actions with respect to the analysts who worked on the 
client projects that the Beneficiary led. The Petitioner must support its asse1iions with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
Although the Beneficiary may have exercised discretion over the day-to-day operations of certain 
projects within thel lteam, the Petitioner must still establish that the position 
meets all elements of the statutory definition of managerial capacity in the course of performing 
primarily managerial duties. For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
the untitled organizational charts discussed above represented a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the foreign organization and that the Beneficiary managed a department, subdivision, 
function, or component of that organization, as required by section 101 ( a)( 44)(A)(i) of the Act. 
The Petitioner also did not establish that the Beneficiary managed an essential function pursuant to 
section 101 (a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The term "function manager" applies generally when a 
beneficiary does not supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily 
responsible for managing an "essential function" within the organization. See section 
101 (a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiarywillmanage 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 
4 
function's day-to-day operations." Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 
2017). 
In the matter at hand, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's position abroad involved "functional 
managerial responsibilities," which are said to include project planning, project management, and 
resource deployment management. The Petitioner also states that the Beneficiary's focus, as that of 
all data analysts within its organization, is "to assist clients, managing discrete parts of the project and 
performing analyses within each work stream." However, the Petitioner has not identified a specific 
function or shown that the Beneficiary managed an essential function. Rather, the Petitioner describes 
the Beneficiary's role as that of a senior team leader with respect to "any given engagement," thus 
indicating that the Beneficiary managed client projects. However, the organizational chart that the 
Petitioner submitted in response to the RFE shows a senior analyst above the Beneficiary's position, 
thereby indicating that the more senior position, rather than the Beneficiary, assumed the role of 
project manager. Alternatively, the Petitioner has not established that the projects the Beneficiary is 
said to have managed represented a clearly defined activity or that the projects, either individually or 
collectively, were "essential" to the organization, as required by the first two prongs of the function 
manager analysis. Although the Petitioner indicated that the foreign organization serviced many 
clients, it did not indicate that there was a hierarchy among those clients, nor did it demonstrate that 
the projects that the Beneficiary is claimed to have managed were particularly critical to the 
organization so that they would have been deemed "essential" within the organization, or a department 
or subdivision of the organization. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's position abroad 
was in a managerial capacity as defined in the statute governing this classification. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5