dismissed L-1A Case: Data Analytics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF L-A- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG.31,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM l-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of data analytics services, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
client engagement manager under the · L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-1A 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, as required, that the Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred by disregarding evidence that met the Petitioner's burden of proof. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
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 specialized knowledge 
capacity, for one continuous year within three years preceding the Beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. 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 aftiliate 
thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Section 1 Ol(a)(15)(L) of the Act. 
A managerial capacity is an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization, 
and exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the 
employee has authority. If the manager supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, 
professional, or managerial employees, then the manager must also have the authority to execute or 
recommend personnel actions such as hiring, firing, and promotions. A manager may instead 
manage an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
Matter of L-A- Corp. 
organization, and function at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the 
function managed. Section 101 (a)( 44 )(A) of the Act. 
An executive capacity is 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) ofthe Act. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must take into account 
the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of 
the organization. See section 101 (a)( 44 )(C) of the Act. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that it will employ the Beneficiary in a 
managerial or executive capacity. On appeal, the Petitioner repeats previous assertions and states 
that "the team members are involved in the actual delivery of the analytical services to the 
Petitioner's client, whereas the Beneficiary manages them as they go about their technical duties." 
We find that the Petitioner has not met its burden of proof, for the reasons explained below. 
A. Duties 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of the Beneficiary, we will look first to the 
Petitioner's description of the job duties. The Petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly 
describe the duties to be performed by the Beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in a 
managerial or executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
The definitions of managerial and executive capacity each have two parts. First, the Petitioner must 
show that the Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World. Inc. v. 
INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, the Petitioner must prove 
that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial or 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); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will work offsite, at the main office of a major social media 
company, while his subordinates will be at the Petitioner's parent company in India. The Petitioner 
stated that it "typically assigns on-site engagement managers who have an advanced level of 
knowledge of [the Petitioner's] delivery process/systems, as well as managerial experience on other 
projects in which [the Petitioner's] on-site/offshore methodology was implemented." The Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary would be a "manager as well as [a] senior executive." 
2 
Matter of L-A- Corp. 
In the denial notice, the Director concluded that the Beneficiary would be "primarily assisting with 
the day to day non-supervisory duties of the business" and "primarily involved in the performance of 
routine operational activities." 
The record contains several -different descriptions of the position the Petitioner has offered to the 
Beneficiary. The Petitioner's letter to the Beneficiary, informing him of his selection for the 
engagement manager position, listed four principal duties: 
• Be the face of [the Petitioner] in the client location and help define analytics­
driven consulting solutions to business problems 
• Translate business problem into analytic solution requirements and work with the 
off-shore ... team to develop high quality solutions 
• Communicate effectively with client/offshore team to manage client expectations 
and ensure timeliness and quality of insights 
• Develop expertise in client's business and help translate that into increasingly 
high value added advisory solutions to client 
The Petitioner prepared longer job descriptions specifically for the petition. In one, the Petitioner 
listed the responsibilities of the U.S. position and the approximate percentage of time to be devoted 
to each: 
• Function as the onsite face of the [Petitioner] for our client .... Interact with [the 
client's] managers on a regular basis to discuss day-to-day matters and issues. 
(5%) 
• Understand the [client's] business problems and convey them to the oflshore team 
to formulate innovative solutions. (I 0%) 
• Participate in the project estimation exercise; and fore<.:;ast resource requirements. 
(10%) 
• Prepare project plans and monitor/track the progress of tasks as per the project 
plan, tracking issues to closure. (5%) 
• Liaise with the client's personnel to ensure the availability of adequate hardware, 
software, communication infrastructure, technical support and other resources for 
the [Petitioner's] team. 
• Ensure that projects are completed on time and on budget. (I 0%) 
• Coordinate weekly and monthly client calls with the stakeholders. Consult with 
client to get feedback on the deliverables and convey themto the offshore team. 
Function as the single point of escalation for client matters and resolve issues 
between the client and the team. ( 1 0%) 
• Ensure that laid down procedures and processes are followed by the [Petitioner's] 
employees. (5%) 
• Guide the offshore team in understanding and appreciating the importance of the 
processes when and where required. (5%) 
• Prioritize, allocate and monitor tasks for [the Petitioner's] team members. (5%) 
3 
Matter of L-A- Corp. 
• Guide the team members through complex technical requirements; monitor the 
overall workload and make any changes required to team size. (5%) 
• Manage innovation; supervise the team in identifying business problems and 
developing innovative solutions. (5%) 
• Ensure high morale and motivation of the [Petitioner's] whole ... team; ensure 
adequate support within [the company] for unforeseen situations. (5%) 
• Educate the client about [the Petitioner's] capabilities, work with the offshore 
team to prepare RFPs and presentations on innovative solutions case studies 
relating to the pain points of potential clients. (1 0%) 
• Negotiate terms of business with [the client] to achieve win-win results that 
provide the basis of strong on-going relationships. Serve as the key resource to 
renew contracts, negotiate price and agree on scope of work for new projects. 
There appear to be redundant or overlapping items in the above list. "Understand the [client's] 
· business problems and convey them to the offshore team to formulate innovative solutions" appears 
to mean something similar to "supervise the team in identifying business problems and developing 
innovative solutions." Also, several items refer to monitoring and tracking the progress of projects, 
with no explanation as to how these items differ from one another. 
Apart from the percentage breakdown, the Petitioner provided additional information about five 
facets of the Beneficiary's position: "Client Engagement," "Project Management," "Liaison 
between U.S. and India offices," "Commercial," and "People Management." Within these 
descriptions, the information is ambiguous regarding the Beneficiary's direct involvement in various 
activities. For instance, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "will participate in project 
estimation and forecast resource requirements and prepare project plans," and "manage the planning, 
design and implementation of our projects." (The Petitioner listed these elements twice, under 
"Client Engagement" and again under "Project Management.") The Petitioner has not shown that 
preparing estimates, forecasts, and project-specific plans are managerial duties. 
The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary will be "interacting with clients on a regular basis to 
discuss day-to-day matters and issues." All of the Beneficiary's subordinates will be in India; the 
Beneficiary will be the Petitioner's only employee at the client's worksite. Front-line customer 
service is not a managerial duty, nor is the Beneficiary's responsibility for translating business 
requirements into solution requirements or developing expertise in the client's business. In addition, 
the Beneficiary "will be responsible for generating and delivering winning contract[] bids." The 
Petitioner has not explained the extent to which this activity will involve non-managerial tasks such 
as marketing. 
The Petitioner has claimed, in the alternative, that the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive 
capacity. The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated 
position within a complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the 
organization, and that person's authority to direct the organization. Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" and "establish 
4 
Matter of L-A- Corp. 
the goals and policies" of that organization. Inherent to the definition, the organization must have a 
subordinate level of managerial employees for a beneficiary to direct and a beneficiary must 
primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than the day-to-day 
operations of the enterprise. A beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary 
decision making" and receive only "general supervision or direction from higher level executives, 
the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization." I d. 
In this instance, the Beneficiary's supervision of three subordinates, none of whom are managers, 
does not constitute directing the management of the organization or a major component or function 
thereof. 1 Furthermore, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary wou.ld ensure compliance with 
company procedures, but the Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary will be establishing the 
policies or goals of the organization or a component thereof. The Beneficiary's authority to 
negotiate with one client does not constitute wide latitude in discretionary decision-making 
consistent with the definition of "executive capacity" as the Petitioner has claimed. Finally, to show 
that the Beneficiary would receive only general supervision from executives, directors, or 
stockholders, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has the authority to hire his own subordinates, 
but local hiring authority does not demonstrate the extent to which higher-level officials control or 
supervise the Beneficiary. 
Finally, the Petitioner's organizational chart does not support the claim that the Beneficiary is a 
"senior executive." The Beneficiary is on one of the lower tiers of the Petitioner's organizational 
chart, below the chief executive officer, vice president-west coast, and a director. Most of the 
positions shown on the chart are of equal or higher rank to the Beneficiary. 
The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary will manage a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the company because he "will manage the Petitioner's major client" and "will not do 
the routine tasks" associated with the project. The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" 
allows for both "personnel managers" and "function managers." See sections 101 (a)( 44)(A)(i) and 
(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. The term 
"essential function" is not defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary 
will manage an essential function, a: petitioner must clearly describe the duties to be performed in 
managing the essential function, i.e., identify the function with specificity, articulate the essential 
nature of the function, and establish the proportion of a beneficiary's daily duties dedicated to 
managing the essential function. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(ii). In addition, a petitioner's 
description of a beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary will manage the 
function rather than perform the duties related to the function. 
Here, data analysis is a function of the petitioning company, but the Beneficiary is not in charge of 
the Petitioner's data analysis operation. Rather, the Petitioner states that he supervises one team that 
1 
The Petitioner did not establish that this client account is a major component or function of the petitioning organization. 
5 
Matter of L-A- Corp. 
performs that function for one client. We will discuss these stated subordinates further below. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary will not perform the project's routine tasks, 
but he will be the Petitioner's only employee at the client's site. The Petitioner has not explained 
why the Beneficiary will be stationed with the client if he will not be directly providing any services 
to that client. Several of the duties have only vague descriptions, but they appear to involve non­
managerial tasks such as day-to-day customer service, identifying technical problems that require 
attention, and learning about the client's business requirements. 
Overall, the Petitioner's descriptions of the Beneficiary's duties do not establish that he would be 
primarily performing executive duties or primarily managing an essential function of the company. 
B. Staffing 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when 
examining the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, including 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 the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity, in part, because he 
will supervise subordinate personnel and have the authority to hire and fire his subordinates. 
Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, 
professional, or managerial employees. 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." Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act; 
8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(B)( 4). If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary directly supervises other 
employees, those subordinate employees must be supervisory, professional, or managerial, and the 
beneficiary must have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or recommend those actions, 
and take other personnel actions. Sections 101(a)(44)(A)(ii)-(iii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(B)(2)-(J). 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would continue to supervise the same three 
subordinates, all employed at the Petitioner's foreign parent company, that he already oversees in his 
current position in India. On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director cannot properly deny the 
appeal based solely on the number of subordinates whom the Beneficiary will oversee. The 
Director, however, did not deny the petition based on the size of the subordinate staff. 
The Petitioner submitted the following job descriptions for the Beneficiary's three overseas 
subordinates: 
6 
Matter of L-A- Corp. 
Senior Analyst 
Define analytics-driven consulting solutions to business problems. Apply principles 
of mathematics, statistics, econometrics, computer science and operations research to 
solve client's business problems. Develop dashboards and other business 
applications for clients to enable decision-making. Develop proprietary algorithms, 
statistical modeling and research tools. Participate in analytic modeling process, 
solution design, data sampling, variable design, segmentation analysis, and 
development of statistical models. 
Analyst 
Extract, process, collate and prepare data from various sources (databases, big data 
platforms, etc.) and work with large amounts of unstructured data using business 
intelligence reporting tools such as SAS, MS Office, Tableau and R. Apply statistical 
modelling techniques/machine learning techniques to understand and derive insights 
to solve business problems. 
In a separate statement, the Petitioner stated that one of the analysts "works on data extraction, data 
processing, data transformation, modelling and generating business insights," while the other analyst 
"is responsible for updating the models and monitoring the quality of the models. He also works on 
[sic]" (the description, as submitted, cuts off mid-sentence). The Petitioner stated that the senior 
analyst "manages interactions with the clients, prioritizes projects, allocates tasks and deliverables to 
his team, and packages PPTs and insights to be presented to the client." These stated duties appear 
to overlap with those of the Beneficiary, who would be stationed at the client's site in order to 
interact with the clients and make determinations about proj~cts and tasks. 
In the denial notice, the Director also concluded that the Petitioner had not established that the 
Beneficiary's subordinates are professionals whose positions require bachelor's degrees. On appeal, 
the Petitioner submits background information that indicates the positions are professional. The 
Petitioner has not, however, established that the Beneficiary's primary responsibilities would include 
controlling the work of the overseas subordinates rather than performing work directly for the client. 
The Petitioner did state that the Beneficiary would have hiring authority over his subordinates, 
which would fulfill one element of managerial capacity. The Director found that the Petitioner had 
not established "the beneficiary's authority to control the work of the subordinates as stated." On 
appeal, the Petitioner repeats the prior claim that the Beneficiary will remotely supervise three 
subordinates in India, but provides no new information regarding this issue. The record shows that 
three overseas employees would work on the Beneficiary's projects, but the available evidence 
provides little concrete information about the nature of the daily interaction between the engagement 
manager and the analysts working abroad: The job offer letter issued directly to the Beneficiary 
stated only that the Beneficiary would "work with the offshore . . . team" and "[ c ]ommunicate 
effectively with" those employees. 
Matter of L-A- Corp. 
The record does not support the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary will be an executive of the 
petitioning company, and the Petitioner has not provided enough information and evidence to show 
that the Beneficiary will be a personnel manager or function manager in his capacity as a client 
'engagement manager. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish that it will employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of L-A- Corp., ID# 557890 (AAO Aug. 31, 2017) 
8