dismissed L-1A Case: Data Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 18, 2024 In Re: 29481419 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a data analysis provider, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its chief 
product officer under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L) , 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(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 the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad, or would be employed in the United States, in a 
managerial or executive capacity. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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 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)(l5)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary must 
seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering their 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 them 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 primary issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established 
that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in the United States in an executive capacity. 1 
"Executive capacity" means 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 101 (a)( 44 )(B) of the 
Act. 
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 101(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 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. 
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. Job Duties 
The Petitioner states that it is a data analysis provider that "provides a qualitative user reach platform 
that elevates thew voice of customers." The Petitioner claimed that in the role of chief product officer, 
the Beneficiary will "continue to oversee daily operations, translate strategy into actionable goals for 
performance and growth, and help implement organization-wide goal setting, performance 
management, and operational planning." The Beneficiary's duties were described in further detail as 
follows: 
1. Design, technology, and product development and management (40%): 
a. Allocating company resources, producing technology solutions, and taking 
user-centric design decisions to resolve priority issues. 
b. Owning the complete life cycle of the product and making all related decisions. 
1 Throughout the record and on appeal, the Petitioner affirms that the Beneficiary is an executive and claims that he will 
be performing executive duties. 
2 
c. Creating wireframes, design components, and high-fidelity pixel perfect 
designs to be farther developed by the engineering team. 
d. Meeting users to gain their feedback, learn their needs, and discover new 
possibilities in expanding the product. 
e. Preparing long-term and short-term product roadmaps. 
f. Doing daily stand-ups with the team to discuss progress and challenges. 
g. Setting up product and technical processes for successful feature launches. 
2. Employee management and payroll (10%): 
a. Conducting monthly and quarterly one-on-ones with employee to promote their 
growth. 
b. Perform yearly appraisals, promotions, salary hikes, and bonuses. 
c. Oversee administrative work and other logistics to ensure that employees are 
equipped with all necessary tools and equipment. 
3. Customer support and communication (5%): 
a. Communicating with product users and decision-makers to keep them updated 
of the latest developments in the product. 
b. Resolving bugs and other technical issues for users. 
4. Hiring (15%): 
a. Sourcing and interviewing candidates, while assessing their technical skills and 
suitability. 
b. Conducting salary negotiations. 
c. Working with recruiters to find suitable candidates from India and around the 
world. 
5. Third party vendors/services (5%): 
a. Managing third party vendors, consultancies, and service providers such as 
I I. 
b. Negotiating prices and contracts with vendors. 
6. Finances and taxes (5%): 
a. Managing finances and employee expenses. 
b. Working closely with an external finance team to track all finances and file 
company and employee taxes on time. 
7. Sales and stakeholder management (10%): 
a. Meeting with the sales department to discuss priorities and understand product 
expectations. 
b. Bringing sales leads and helping the sales team close deals. 
8. Marketing and branding (10%): 
a. Creating a marketing strategy. 
3 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), noting that the description of duties and supporting 
evidence was insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a primarily 
managerial or executive capacity. Noting that the duty description identified several non-qualifying 
tasks, the Director requested additional information clarifying the nature of his duties. In response, 
the Petitioner resubmitted the original description of duties, noting that the Beneficiary's U.S. duties 
are identical to those performed abroad and emphasizing that his duties are primarily executive in 
nature. Although the Petitioner clarified the percentages of time to be devoted to each of the 
Beneficiary's stated duties, it did not provide further clarification of his duties as requested by the 
Director. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's 
duties was insufficient, noting that the duties as stated included non-qualifying tasks such as 
administrative and technical functions and therefore did not establish that Beneficiary's duties would 
be primarily executive. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the duty description was sufficient as it 
meets and exceeds the preponderance of the evidence standard, and again emphasizes the 
Beneficiary's performance of primarily executive duties. 
For the reasons outlined below, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's role will be 
primarily executive in nature, as the job description the Petitioner offered contains generalities that 
preclude a meaningful assessment of the Beneficiary's actual tasks in the course of the Petitioner's 
daily operations. 
Whether the Beneficiary is an executive employee turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained its 
burden of proving that their duties are "primarily" executive. See sections 101 (a)( 44 )(B) of the Act. 
Here, although the Petitioner provided the percentage of time the Beneficiary would devote to each of 
his duties, it did not sufficiently document what proportion of the Beneficiary's duties would be 
executive functions and what proportion would be non-qualifying. The Petitioner listed the 
Beneficiary's duties as including both executive duties and technical and administrative tasks but did 
not quantify the time he spends on these different duties. For example, in addition to claiming that the 
Beneficiary will oversee daily operations and manage organizational goals, the Petitioner also states 
that the Beneficiary will be responsible for administrative tasks such as recruiting and hiring personnel 
and monitoring payroll, and technical tasks such as creating wireframes, design components, and 
high-fidelity pixel perfect designs. Absent a breakdown of the percentages of time the Beneficiary 
would devote to each duty, we cannot determine whether the Beneficiary would primarily perform the 
duties of an executive under an approved petition. See IKEA US, Inc. v. US. Dept. ofJustice, 48 F. 
Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's 
duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply 
be a matter ofreiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Here, the Petitioner has not articulated the specific duties 
that the Beneficiary will perform and has not offered a breakdown of how much time would be devoted 
to each qualifying and non-qualifying duty. 
Although it appears that the Beneficiary, as the U.S. entity's chief product officer, is responsible for 
establishing company goals and overseeing the company's product development, the fact that the 
Beneficiary will manage or direct a component of a business does not necessarily establish eligibility 
for classification as an intracompany transferee in an executive capacity within the meaning of section 
4 
10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a 
position be "primarily" executive in nature. Section 101(A)(44)(B) of the Act. While the Beneficiary 
may exercise discretion over the U.S. entity's daily operations and possesses decision-making 
authority regarding its product development, the position description does not establish that his 
day-to-day duties would be primarily executive in nature. 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, we also 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. 
The Petitioner claims that it was established in 2019 and had three employees at the time of filing. 
The Petitioner provided a general overview of its staffing, claiming that all the Beneficiary's 
subordinates, except one, were based abroad and provided remote support. 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position. 
Under the statute, a beneficiary 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 a major 
component or function of that organization, a petitioner must show how the organization, major 
component, or function is managed and demonstrate that the beneficiary primarily focuses on its broad 
goals and policies, rather than on its day-to-day operations. An individual will not be deemed an 
executive under the statute simply because they have an executive title or because they "direct" the 
organization as the owner or sole managerial or executive employee. 
When staffing levels are considered in determining whether an individual will act as a manager or 
executive, USCIS must also take into account relevant evidence in the record concerning the 
reasonable needs of the organization as a whole, including any related entities within the "qualifying 
organization," giving consideration to the organization's overall purpose and stage of development. 
See section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act; Matter ofZ-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 
2016). If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary's managerial or executive role is dependent on other 
staff or entities within the larger qualifying organization, it bears the burden of submitting probative 
evidence to support such claims. 
Here, the Petitioner asserts that it significantly relies on support from staff employed by its parent 
company in India but has not sufficiently documented the foreign entity's employment of these staff: 
described the services they provide, or explained how they interact or work with the Beneficiary and 
U.S. personnel. The Petitioner's general claims that its parent company provides operational and 
administrative support to the U.S. subsidiary should be corroborated with evidence explaining and 
documenting the nature and scope of this support and the specific functions performed by the foreign 
entity's personnel. Although the Petitioner submitted an organizational chart, resumes, and 
performance evaluations for several India-based individuals, the record does not include evidence that 
the Petitioner or its foreign parent pays the salaries of the India-based employees identified on the 
organizational chart, nor does it establish how they support the U.S. operation or how much time they 
5 
spend doing so. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Absent corroborating documentation of 
their employment or other evidence of the support they provide to the U.S. company, the record does 
not establish that the foreign staff support the U.S. operation. 
Moreover, despite claiming the U.S. entity had three employees at the time of filing, the Petitioner 
indicates that only one employee, the company's director of marketing, was based in the United States 
at that time. Although the Petitioner submitted the resume and a performance appraisal for its director 
of marketing in response to the RFE, the record contains insufficient evidence demonstrating the 
Petitioner actually employed this individual. The Petitioner did not submit pay stubs or payroll 
records demonstrating its employment of the director of marketing, or any other individuals, at the 
time this petition was filed in January 2023. 
USCIS must take into account the reasonable needs of the organization in light of the overall purpose 
and stage of development of the organization if staffing levels are used as a factor in determining 
whether an individual is acting in a managerial or executive capacity. See section 10l(a)(44)(C) of 
the Act. Here, while the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has been and will continue to be 
employed in a primarily executive capacity, it does not explain how the Beneficiary would be relieved 
from performing non-qualifying duties at the time of filing without subordinate employees to support 
him. Without detailed and complete information about the actual tasks performed by the Beneficiary, 
the claimed director of marketing, and the claimed overseas staff: we are unable to determine the extent 
to which they would effectively relieve the Beneficiary from significant involvement in day-to-day, 
non-executive tasks associated with operating the company. Considered in its totality, the evidence 
does not support a determination that the Beneficiary's duties are primarily executive in nature. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United 
States in an executive capacity as defined at section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
III. RESERVED ISSUES 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve its appellate arguments regarding the Director's separate determination that it did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 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 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). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established 
that it will employ the Beneficiary in an 
executive capacity. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6