dismissed L-1A Case: Electrical Contracting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11879989 
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: JAN. 14, 2021 
The Petitioner, an electrical supplier and a provider of electrical contractor services, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its "CEO" under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary's employment abroad was in a managerial or executive 
capacity. The matter is now 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 employment abroad was in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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 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. 
II. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The issue to be addressed in this decision is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary 
was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 1 
1 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed in an executive capacity. 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, we review the submitted description 
of the job duties. The description of the job duties must clearly describe the duties performed by the 
beneficiary and indicate whether such duties were in a managerial capacity. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description of the job duties, we 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. Accordingly, we will discuss evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with 
evidence of the nature of the foreign entity's business, its staffing levels, and its organizational 
structure. 
A. Duties 
Based on the definition of managerial capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the Beneficiary 
performed certain high-level responsibilities. See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Second, the 
Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary was primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to 
ordinary operational activities alongside the foreign entity's other employees. See Family Inc. v. 
USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). 
The Petitioner indicated that the foreign company "produces designs and solutions in the field of 
electrical contracting, applications, designing, engineering, and electrical materials and lighting 
products." During the Beneficiary's employment abroad, he was most recently in the position of 
General Manager/CEO. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner 
provided a breakdown of the duties performed by the Beneficiary as follows: 
• Only dealing with the projects of the large-scare customer, the examination of the 
field costs, determination of efficient working methods, setting goals, running, and 
implementation of training of field managers (These duties took about 10% of the 
time of the obligated.) 
• To provide time-efficient and cost-effective management of strategic plans related 
to field production. To conduct and manage the training of field managers in this 
particular. (These duties took about 8 % of the time of the obligated.) 
• Managing and validating project management strategies, price policies and 
discounts to ensure the required level of competition, cost recovery/regaining, and 
profitability determined by the Company. (These duties took about 8% of the time 
of the obligated.) 
2 
• Selecting and hiring responsible personnel in field production such as 
foreman/leadman, project manager. Verification of subsection preferences 
received from the field managers. (These duties took about 5% of the time of the 
obligated.) 
• Determining material purchasing strategies for large-scale projects, holding 
meetings with field managers and the relevant accounting department. (These 
duties took about 5% of the time of the obligated.) 
• To evaluate and decide the subdivision preferences for subcontractor teams to be 
used in large-scale projects. (These duties took about 5% of the time of the 
obligated.) 
• To attend meetings oflarge-scale projects. (These duties took about 5% of the time 
of the obligated.) 
• To participate in sectoral activities. (These duties took about 5% of the time of the 
obligated.) 
• To choose and hire executive positions of the Company's Accounting Department, 
to determine their salaries. Presenting the general accounting strategies of the 
Company to those in executive/managerial positions, providing the necessary 
training, getting monthly reports. (These duties took about 10% of the time of the 
obligated.) 
• Making decisions, verifying and auditing matters such as the Company's payments 
and collections. To formulate strategies concerning these issues. (These duties 
took about 8% of the time of the obligated.) 
• Financial forecasts, analysis of targets and analysis. Choosing, following and 
supervising new targets in monthly meetings. (These duties took about 5% of the 
time of the obligated.) 
• Using authority and signing, checking, and signing contracts for the subjects of the 
Company's financial affairs. (These duties took about 3% of the time of the 
obligated.) 
• Attending meetings held with banks and other financial institutions. (These duties 
took about 3% of the time of the obligated.) 
• Deciding on hiring and firing for all administrative and executive positions of the 
Company. Receiving and evaluating reports on subheadings, approving 
employments, and dismissals. Deciding on staff salary hikes and bonus payments. 
(These duties took about 5% of the time of the obligated.) 
• Determination of administrative and executive needs, supervision of the training of 
new staf:t: and follow-up reports on sub-staf:t: given by the managers. (These duties 
took about 5% of the time of the obligated.) 
• To formulate strategies for the wholesale of materials and the follow-up of major 
projects, and to inform the administrative staff on these issues by completing the 
training. (These duties took about 5% of the time of the obligated.) 
• Establishing relationships with large-scale customers and fulfilling the necessary 
tasks on this subject. (These duties took about 5% of the time of the obligated.) 
• Tracking and auditing of online sales websites and other online platforms. (These 
duties tool about 2% of the time of the obligated.) 
3 
Upon review of the record, the Petitioner submitted a vague duty description that does not sufficiently 
articulate the Beneficiary's day-to-day tasks when employed with the foreign company. For instance, 
the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary was responsible for various duties that could apply to any 
manager working for any business in this industry, including that he was responsible for dealing with 
the projects of the large-scare customer, the examination of the field costs, determination of efficient 
working methods, setting goals, running, and implementation of training of field managers; provide 
time-efficient and cost-effective management of strategic plans related to field production; managing 
and validating project management strategies, price policies and discounts to ensure the required level 
of competition, cost recovery/regaining, and profitability determined by the Company; and, selecting 
and hiring responsible personnel in field production such as foreman/leadman, project manager. There 
is little detail or documentation to substantiate the financial goals and strategic plans, the project 
management strategies he developed, the material purchasing strategies, and the strategies developed 
for pricing. 
To the extent the Petitioner provides more detail as to the Beneficiary's daily activities with the foreign 
company, these tasks are more indicative of his day-to-day involvement in the non-qualifying 
operational aspects of the business, rather than a primary focus on the goals and policies of the 
organization. For instance, the Beneficiary would be responsible for the implementation ( conduct and 
manage) training of field managers; supervision of the training of new staff; selecting and hiring 
responsible personnel in field production such as foreman/leadman and project manager; and hire 
executive positions of the Company's Accounting Department and determine their salaries. These 
duties appear to be part of the human resources and training operations. In addition, the Beneficiary 
was responsible for verifying and auditing matters such as the Company's payments and collections; 
prepare financial forecasts, analysis of targets and analysis; formulate strategies for the wholesale of 
materials and the follow-up of major projects and inform the administrative staff on these issues by 
completing the training; and, tracking and auditing of online sales websites and other online platforms. 
All these duties appear to be marketing and sales duties, and it is not clear if they rise to the level of 
managerial duties. Furthermore, the Beneficiary attended meetings at large-scale projects and 
participated in sectoral activities; and attended meetings with banks and financial institutions. Without 
more information, it is not clear what specific duties are involved in attending these meetings with 
customers and banks, and what makes up sectoral activities to determine if they are managerial in 
nature. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily 
executive in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the 
regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 
41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The Petitioner provided few specifics as to how the Beneficiary performed these 
duties within the context of the business operations of the foreign company. 
On appeal, the Petitioner explains that the Beneficiary is registered as an authorized signatory for the 
foreign company and the Beneficiary is the "ultimate and only decision maker in the Company." Even 
though the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary may hold a senior position within the foreign 
employer, and is the ultimate decision-maker for the company, this does not necessarily establish 
eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial capacity within the meaning 
of section 101 (a)( 44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties 
of a foreign position be "primarily" managerial or executive in nature. Id. The Beneficiary may 
exercise discretion over the foreign employer's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level 
4 
of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making; however, the position descriptions alone 
are insufficient to establish that his actual duties abroad are 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, we 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary oversaw all domestic and foreign operations of 
the Company through "three managers who are professionals with a bachelor's degree in their field," 
and those "three professionals are in charge of 26 employees and 84 subcontractors." 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(1)(l)(ii)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner also appears to assert that the Beneficiary oversees a subordinate professional. To 
determine whether a beneficiary manages professional employees, we 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 focus on the level of education required 
by the position, rather than the degree held by a subordinate employee. The possession of a bachelor's 
degree by a subordinate employee does not automatically lead to the conclusion that an employee is 
employed in a professional capacity. 
The Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary would qualify as a 
personnel manager based on his supervision of subordinate supervisors. The organizational chart of 
the foreign company showed that the Beneficiary supervised the vice general manager, the general 
manager assistant and the business development manager. Those managers in tum supervised the 
electrical contracting manager, accounting manager, and material sales manager, who in tum 
supervised additional staff However, the description of the duties to be performed by the 
Beneficiary's direct subordinates are vague and general. For example, the general deputy manager's 
description stated that with the "orders and directives of the General Manager, he can use every 
authority of the General Manger" and he would spend 30 percent of his time on this duty. Another 20 
percent of his time was spent attending the "General Manager's meetings with big Corporate 
customers." Another 20 percent of his time was spent on "all the demands sent from the customers or 
from corporate are primarily collected by him" and he was "authorized to verify the demands up until 
this level." Further, the assistant of general manager top three duties included "works on topics such 
5 
as meetings, correspondences of the General Manager, and informing the personnel;" "organizes and 
attends the General Manager's meetings with big Corporate customers;" and, "examines all the 
information, documents and reports related to Field Production Executives, Accounting Department 
and Sales Departments, presents them to General Manager." These duties are general and do not 
provide the specific day-to-day duties performed by the subordinates, and whether the subordinate 
positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. 
Further, the organizational chart shows that the foreign company employed 30 individuals and 
approximately 84 subcontractors. In the submitted business plan, the Petitioner stated that by the end 
of 2019, the foreign company generated a net profit of approximately $142,502.49 and gross sales of 
approximately $3,351,975.94. The Petitioner also submitted copies of social security payments made 
to the foreign employees but not the actual salaries paid to all of the employees. Given that the foreign 
company had gross sales of approximately $3.3 million, it is not clear if the foreign company paid 
salaries for 30 employees and 84 subcontractors, and whether they were full-time or part-time 
positions. The Petitioner must resolve this ambiguity 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). 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel manager 
based on his oversight of professional subordinates. The Petitioner does not clearly explain why the 
positions subordinate to the Beneficiary requires a bachelor's degree. The Petitioner provided generic 
duty descriptions for the Beneficiary's claimed supervisory and other subordinates that are not 
sufficiently corroborated, nor do they demonstrate that these positions would require bachelor's 
degrees. As such, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary acts as a personnel manager 
abroad based on his management of subordinate professionals. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was employed abroad 
in a managerial capacity. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was 
employed in a managerial capacity abroad. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden 
to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The 
Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6