dismissed L-1A Case: Hospitality Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 22, 2024 In Re: 33360176 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a hotel and resort management organization, seeks to employ the Beneficiary 
temporarily as its "Chef De Cuisine" 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 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 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 position 
abroad was in a managerial capacity. 1 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. 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 did 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. 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 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 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. 
The record shows that the Beneficiary had been employed as a sous chef at the Petitioner's foreign 
affiliate where he was responsible for "directing the activities of the kitchen staff and ensuring the 
quality of culinary dishes produced in his assigned kitchen." In a supporting cover letter, the Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary holds "a senior management position" within the foreign entity's food and 
beverage department where he manages chefs, ensures that food production meets safety and menu 
guidelines, and develops recipes and menus. The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary has the 
2 
authority to hire, fire, train, and discipline subordinates who relieve him from having to primarily 
perform operational tasks. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided company generated job descriptions for the kitchen staff, including 
one for the Beneficiary's position of sous chef, whose objective is to "[a]ssist[] the Executive Sous 
Chef in monitoring the operation and function of the assigned kitchen." The job description also lists 
the position's 22 "primary responsibilities" and corresponding reporting strncture in which the sous 
chef"[ r ]eports to the Executive Sous Chef," thus indicating that the executive sous chef rather than 
the sous chef is at the top of the departmental hierarchy. Meanwhile, the Beneficiary's position of 
sous chef is charted with directly supervising "the entire kitchen staff, including the line cooks, prep 
cooks, and dishwashers." 
The Petitioner also provided an organizational chart further illustrating a departmental staffing 
structure, but that chart is inconsistent with the reporting structure conveyed in the above company 
generated job description. First, while the latter states that the sous chef reports to the executive sous 
chef, the organizational chart shows that the direct superior of the Beneficiary's sous chef position is 
a chef de cuisine and it is that position, not the sous chef position, that is depicted as the direct report 
of the executive sous chef. Also, while the company job description also states that the sous chef 
"directly" oversees line cooks, prep cooks, and dishwashers, the organizational chart lists an entirely 
different set of subordinate positions for the Beneficiary. Namely, the chart shows that the Beneficiary 
is one of two sous chefs, both of whom are subordinate to a chef de cuisine and are listed at the third 
tier of this department's hierarchy; the chef de cuisine and executive sous chef are depicted at the two 
top tiers. The fourth tier, shown as vacant at the time of filing, pertains to a junior sous chef, followed 
by five individuals occupying the position of "Chef De Partie" at the fifth tier, three individuals 
occupying the "Commis II" positions at the sixth tier, and two stewards at the bottom tier of the 
hierarchy. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988) (stating that inconsistencies in 
the record must be resolved through the submission of independent, objective evidence). 
In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner maintained that the Beneficiary managed a 
department of the foreign organization where he supervised subordinate supervisors and managers, 
had authority to make decisions concerning subordinate personnel, and exercised discretionary 
authority over departmental matters. The Petitioner discussed the previously submitted organizational 
chart and position descriptions, claiming that the Beneficiary is supported by managerial and 
supervisory staff, which includes a junior sous chef and employees occupying the "Chef De Partie" 
position, as well as operational staff, which includes the "Commis II" and steward positions who carry 
out duties associated with food production. The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary was charged 
with overseeing kitchen staff, identifying and analyzing training needs, and performed personnel 
functions, such as interviewing and hiring employees, assisting with employee orientation, and 
performing employee appraisals. A sampling of annual employee appraisals for 2023 were submitted 
showing that the Beneficiary assessed the performances of his "Chef De Partie" subordinates. 
Although the record shows that the Beneficiary had discretionary authority over certain personnel 
matters, the evidence does not establish that he supervised and controlled the work of other supervisory 
or managerial employees, as claimed. Despite the several layers of subordinates depicted below the 
Beneficiary in the previously submitted organizational chart, the chart shows that the junior sous chef 
position, which is depicted as directly subordinate to the two sous chefs, was vacant at the time of 
3 
filing. Meanwhile, the job description for the "Chef De Partie," five of which are depicted as directly 
subordinate to the junior sous chef, does not list employee supervision among that position's "primary 
responsibilities." Further, the job description states that the objective of the "Chef De Partie" position 
is to "[a]ct as an extension of kitchen managers to communicate food consistency & quality"; while 
the "technical responsibilities" of this position include training "the culinary employees in that section 
of the kitchen," employee supervision is not listed. As such, the "Chef De Partie" employees who 
were subordinate to the Beneficiary and his fellow sous chef cannot be considered as occupying 
managerial or supervisory positions. And because a baccalaureate degree is not required of a "Chef 
De Partie," this position cannot be deemed as that of a professional employee. 2 In sum, the evidence 
does not show that the sous chef position supervises or controls the work of supervisory, managerial, 
or professional employees as required to meet the second prong of managerial capacity. Section 
10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
The Director denied the petition concluding that the record lacks sufficient evidence showing that the 
Beneficiary supervised and controlled the work of supervisory, professional, or managerial employees 
and had the authority to hire and fire or recommend personnel actions regarding his subordinates. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the Director's decision, asserting that the Director did not properly 
consider the previously submitted job description of the sous chef and overlooked its submission of 
the Beneficiary's performance appraisals of his subordinates. 
Regarding prong three of the managerial capacity definition, which requires a showing that the 
Beneficiary had discretionary authority over personnel matters, the Petitioner satisfied this 
requirement through its submission of performance appraisals which were completed and signed by 
the Beneficiary in a supervisory capacity with respect to the individuals being appraised. Because the 
submitted evidence demonstrates that the Beneficiary more likely than not had authority to recommend 
personnel actions, we will withdraw the Director's adverse finding regarding prong three of the 
statutory definition. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(iii) of the Act. 
However, a totality of the evidence analysis indicates that the Petitioner did not adequately address 
the Director's key points of contention concerning the second prong of the statutory definition of 
managerial capacity, which requires a showing that the Beneficiary supervised and controlled the work 
of supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
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. 
Here, as previously discussed, the Petitioner submitted a job description and an organizational chart 
showing several layers of personnel below the Beneficiary, but neither document adequately 
2 To determine whether a beneficiary manages professional employees, we must 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 secondmy schools, 
colleges, academies, or seminaries." 
4 
demonstrates that the employees the Beneficiary managed were supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees, as required. Id. 
Further, while not specifically discussed in the Director's decision, the record shows that neither the 
organizational chart nor the reporting structure described in the company generated job description of 
the Beneficiary's position abroad demonstrates that the 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 101(a)(44)(A)(i) of 
the Act. Despite claiming that the Beneficiary managed the foreign entity's "Kitchen Department," 
the Petitioner provided evidence which shows that the executive sous chef occupied the top position 
with the departmental hierarchy. This evidence detracts from the claim that the Beneficiary, whose 
position as sous chef is two tiers below the executive sous chef, managed a department or component 
of the organization. See id. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a managerial capacity and on the basis of this conclusion the petition cannot be approved. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5