dismissed L-1A Case: Data Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 13, 2025 In Re: 36671951 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a financial services company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as its 
"Manager - Data Science" 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a 
managerial or executive capacity. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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 I&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 because the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's U.S. position 
would be in a managerial capacity.' 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 employment abroad. 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. 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, or in a position requiring 
specialized knowledge 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)(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). 
1 The Petitioner's claim rests solely on the definition of managerial capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad or that he would be employed in the United States in an executive capacity. 
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 issue to be addressed is whether 
the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence establishing that the 
Beneficiary's proposed position in the United States would be 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 Beneficiary'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 the beneficiary's job duties, the employer's 
organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinates, 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. 
The record includes a supporting statement froml the Petitioner's Vice President of Data 
Science, who listed the following eight job duties and responsibilities that would be assigned to the 
Beneficiary in his proposed position: team leadership, project management, resource allocation, 
performance management, stakeholder collaboration, strategy development, technical expertise, and 
mentorship. Under a separate heading titled "Supervision and Control," Mr. added that the 
Beneficiary "will be actively involved in the hiring process and will possess the authority to make 
recommendations regarding the hiring and dismissal of team members." Also, as part of his 
2 
supervisory role, the Beneficiary would be tasked with such actions as overseeing performance of his 
subordinates' assigned tasks, ensuring that subordinates have access to resources and personal 
mentorship, conducting performance reviews, and setting objectives. 
The record contains a separate list of ten duties and responsibilities contained in a document that names 
the Beneficiary in the heading "Management duties in India and US." This document indicates that its 
contents pertain to the Beneficiary's current position with the foreign entity as well as his proposed 
position in the United States. Of the ten items listed, two items - risk management and performance 
metrics - are specific only to this document while the remaining eight are substantially similar to those 
in Mr. letter. Lastly, we note that the information is on the foreign company's letterhead, as 
indicated by the India-based address at the top left corner of the page, however, the document contains 
no name or signature revealing the source of the information. 
A third job description is contained in what appears to be a company-generated job listing for the 
position of "Manager - Data Science." Although the listing is printed on company letterhead, it 
contains no address and does not mention the Beneficiary. It therefore appears that the job description 
applies organization-wide - abroad and in the United States - to the listed position. The listing 
identifies a "Director - Data Analytics" as the data science manager's direct superior and enumerates 
the position's 13 "key responsibilities" which include personnel management along with a number of 
IT functions, such as: "Research, design, implement, and validate custom data models and 
algorithms"; "[b ]uild out in-depth knowledge of the business success drivers ... and deliver value 
added solutions"; "solv[ e] key complex business problems through data creation, analysis, predictive 
modeling"; [ d]evelop company A/B testing framework and test model quality"; "[d[evelop processes 
and tools to monitor and analyze model performance and data accuracy"; and "[f]ine tune and iterate 
different models ... to address all stakeholder needs by providing optimum output." To the extent 
that this company-generated job description includes specific IT functions, it is inconsistent with the 
two job descriptions discussed above. Such discrepancies must be resolved through the submission 
of independent, objective evidence. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
The Petitioner also provided an organizational chart titled "Data Science (Modeling)," which depicts 
the Beneficiary as a manager within the data science hierarchy and shows that Mr. is the most 
senior employee within that hierarchy, followed by a functional analytics director and a director of 
data science as his direct subordinates. The latter is depicted as overseeing the data science 
component, which is comprised of five units, including "Underwriting (New Customers) A Scorecard" 
which lists the Beneficiary as its manager overseeing a team of employees and interns. The key at the 
bottom of the page containing the organizational chart shows that positions are categorized as "India," 
"US," and "Need Approval." The Beneficiary's position appears to fall within the "India" category, 
while his subordinates appear to be categorized as "US." 2 Although theOletter broadly refers to 
the Beneficiary's oversight of "our data science team," it does not discuss the team's location or 
specify whether the team members perform services for the foreign entity, the U.S. entity, or both. 
The employment letter with the unknown source was similarly ambiguous in that its subject heading 
2 The key distinguishes the "India" and "US" categories by naming those in the latter inside a shaded rectangle that is 
outlined in a darker shade, while employees in the "India" categmy are named inside a shaded rectangle without an outline. 
The Beneficiary's name appears in the latter, while the names of his team members appear inside rectangles with an outline. 
3 
referenced "Management duties in India and US" and did not clearly distinguish between the 
Beneficiary's foreign and proposed U.S. employment. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's initial submissions, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE). 
Although the RFE did not specify anomalies or inconsistencies in the submitted evidence, it did seek, 
in part, clarification pertaining to the Beneficiary's proposed employment in the United States. 
Namely, the RFE recognized that the organizational chart depicted the Beneficiary as overseeing a 
team of subordinates, but it requested further evidence about those subordinates, noting that the lack 
of sufficient evidence precluded a determination as to whether the Beneficiary's position would be 
"higher than a supervisor of non-professional employees." 
In response, the Petitioner provided a statement from the head of human resources (HR),3 who is based 
out of India. The head of HR explained that the Beneficiary relocated to India in May 20224 from 
which time he has "continued overseeing the [r]isk function" in his position as data science manager. 
The statement discussed personnel management as an element of the Beneficiary's position, stating 
that the Beneficiary maintains responsibility for staff recruitment, has hiring and firing input, and is 
responsible for team management, which includes setting goals for his team members and ensuring 
that those goals are met; it also lists seven team members and their respective position titles, 
educational credentials, and salaries. We note that the employee salaries are listed in a foreign 
currency - "INR" or the Indian rupee - thus indicating that the Beneficiary's subordinates are likely 
based in India; this leads us to question why the organizational chart classified these employees as part 
of the organization's "US" component. 5 The record does not address this anomaly nor does it further 
clarify the staffing and reporting structure of the U.S. entity where the Beneficiary's proposed position 
is located. And although the head of HR stated that the Beneficiary "will continue guiding and 
managing the team," it is unclear whether his proposed position in the United States will continue to 
include oversight of team members whose foreign salaries indicate that they are physically located 
and working in India. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. 
Given the deficiencies discussed above, the Director understandably pointed to the lack of sufficient 
evidence establishing whom the Beneficiary would manage, a deficiency that reasonably explains the 
Director's concerns as to whether the Beneficiary "will be in a position that is higher than a supervisor 
of non-professional employees" which served as a ground for the denial. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director disregarded the Beneficiary's role as a function 
manager and points to the previously submitted letter from the head of HR, who referred to the 
Beneficiary's management of the risk and finance functions of the data science team. We note that 
despite the vague claims in the HR letter, none of the previously submitted statements specifically 
claimed that the Beneficiary would assume the role of a function manager. In fact, the organizational 
chart depicted the Beneficiary as manager of a team of employees and two of the previously submitted 
statements listed several personnel management duties as part of the Beneficiary's job description. As 
such, the current claim being made on appeal is inconsistent with previously submitted evidence. 
Although the employment letter from the unknown source does mention risk management as one of 
3 The signature line lists this individual's name as and does not provide both a first and last name. 
4 The foreign-based head of HR stated that prior to the Beneficiary's relocation to India, his position from March 2020 to 
April 2022 was based in the United States 
5 See FN2. 
4 
the Beneficiary's responsibilities, this information is inconsistent with both the organizational chart 
and the information provided in theDemployment letter, which makes no mention of either risk 
management or finance within the scope of the Beneficiary's proposed position. Furthermore, while 
the organizational chart lists "Model Risk Management" as one of the five sections6 comprising the 
data science function, the Beneficiary is not listed as its manager. 7 See id. 
We further note that prior to filing this petition, the Petitioner did not clearly put forth the claim that 
the Beneficiary's role in his proposed position would be that of a function manager. A petitioner 
making the function manager claim must demonstrate that "(l) 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 function's day-to-day operations." Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 
(AAO Nov. 8, 2017). The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). Here, however, the Petitioner 
has not provided such evidence. According to the staffing hierarchy depicted in the previously 
submitted organizational chart, the Director of Data Science, the position depicted as the Beneficiary's 
direct superior, manages the data science component. While the chart indicates that the Beneficiary 
manages one of the data science component's five functions, i.e., "Underwriting (New Customers) A 
Scorecard," the Petitioner has not explained how this is an essential function, nor does the record show 
that the Beneficiary will act at a senior level with respect to the data science function, which he is 
claimed to manage. See Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05. Given the inconsistencies 
catalogued herein, we cannot gauge the true nature of the position and determine whether it would be 
in a managerial capacity. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. 
The record also does not establish that the Beneficiary's proposed position meets all four elements 
that comprise the definition of managerial capacity. See section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Namely, 
the record shows that the Petitioner has not adequately addressed the Director's concerns regarding 
the second prong of the statutory definition, which requires a showing that the Beneficiary would 
supervise and control the work of supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. Section 
10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. As noted above, the submitted evidence is unclear as to whom the 
Beneficiary would oversee in his proposed position; although the letter from the head of HR indicates 
that the Beneficiary currently supervises professional employees, the record does not establish that the 
Beneficiary would oversee the work of supervisory, professional, or managerial employees in his 
proposed U.S. position. Since the Beneficiary's current subordinates appear to be in India rather than 
the United States, additional evidence is necessary to determine precisely how the Beneficiary would 
remotely manage a team oflndia-based employees from his proposed U.S. location. 
Also, while not specifically discussed in the Director's decision, the reporting structure depicted in the 
organizational chart does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's position meets the first prong of 
managerial capacity, which requires the Petitioner to establish that the Beneficiary "manages the 
organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization." Section 
6 The other four sections comprising the data science function are: "Marketing/Sales"; Underwriting (New Customers) A 
Scorecard"; "Management (Existing Customers) B Scorecard"; and "Collection/Legal C Scorecard." 
7 The manager position of the "Model Risk Management" section is listed as "Manager (open)," thus indicating that this 
position was vacant at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8) and (12). 
5 
10l(a)(44)(A)(i) of the Act. To be clear, the management hierarchy depicted in the previously 
submitted organizational chart shows that I I not the Beneficiary, is the at the top of the 
hierarchy, serving in the position of "VP Data Science." The same chart shows that two directors - a 
"Functional Analytics Director" and a "Director of Data Science" - serve as Mr. direct 
subordinates and occupy the next tier of the "Data Science (Modeling)" component's management. 
The data science director is shown as overseeing the data science function, which is subdivided into 
five sections, including "Underwriting (New Customers) A Scorecard," which the Beneficiary is said 
to manage. In other words, the Beneficiary is depicted as manager of one of five parts of the data 
science function; he therefore cannot be deemed as someone who manages the organization. And 
while the Beneficiary is depicted as managing a section within the data science function, the record 
lacks evidence to show that this section qualifies as an essential function. See Matter of G- Inc., 
Adopted Decision 2017-05. As such, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary "manages 
the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization." 
In addition, the company-generated job description we discussed earlier states that "Manager - Data 
Science" reports directly to "Director - Data Analytics," a position that is not listed in the 
organizational chart. And of the two iterations of job descriptions - one from Mr. and the other 
from an unknown source based in India - neither indicated that the Beneficiary has or would report to 
a "Director - Data Analytics." Although the organizational chart lists a functional analytics director 
as one of Mr. two subordinate directors, it is unclear whether this position is synonymous with 
a "Director - Data Analytics" and the record does not contain evidence resolving this additional 
anomaly. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. Likewise, the record does not resolve the multiple 
iterations of the Beneficiary's job description which are contained in the Dletter, the letter from the 
unknown source, and the company generated job description, the latter of which lists several IT 
functions that are indicative of operational tasks. As previously stated, even if the Petitioner were to 
establish that the offered position meets all elements set forth in the statutory definition of managerial 
capacity, the Petitioner must still 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); see also section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the 
Act. Here, given the previously discussed IT functions that were listed in the company-generated job 
description, it does not appear that the Beneficiary's proposed position would consist of primarily 
managerial job duties. 
For the reasons discussed above, the record does not support the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary 
would be employed in a managerial capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6