dismissed L-1A Case: Information Security

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 10792752 
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 : FEB. 12, 2021 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as principal technical manager-information 
security under the L-lA nonirnmigrant classification for intracompany managers and executives . See 
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 . The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's foreign employment or his proposed U.S. work in the 
claimed managerial capacity. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing 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. 
I. L-lA MANAGERS AND EXECUTIVES 
An L-lA petitioner must demonstrate that , within the three years before a petition's filing , the 
petitioner or a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary employed a beneficiary abroad for at least one 
continuous year in a full-time capacity that was managerial, executive, or involved specialized 
knowledge . 8 C.F.R. §§ 214 .2(1)(3)(i) , (ii), (iv) . A petitioner must also establish a beneficiary's 
qualifications for an offered position, and his or her proposed employment in the United States in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii), (iv). 
II. THE FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT 
The term "managerial capacity" means employment that "primarily " involved: 1) managing an 
organization or a department, subdivision , function, or component of it; 2) supervising and controlling 
the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or managing an essential 
function of the organization, department, or subdivision; 3) having authority to hire /fire employees or 
to recommend other personnel actions, or, if not directly supervising others, functioning at a high level 
within the organizational hierarchy or regarding the function managed ; and 4) exercising discretion 
over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority . 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(l)(l)(ii)(B) . 
The job duties of an intracompany manager must meet all four elements of the definition of the term 
"managerial capacity." A petitioner must also demonstrate that a beneficiary primarily performed 
managerial duties, as opposed to operational tasks. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 
(9th Cir. 2006). 1 
In determining the managerial nature of a foreign position, USCIS considers descriptions of the job 
duties. USCIS also considers: the organizational structure and nature of the foreign business; the 
existence of other employees who relieved a beneficiary from performing operational tasks; the job 
duties of subordinate employees; and other factors that affected a beneficiary's business role abroad. 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary most recently worked in India as principal technical manager­
information security, the same position offered to him in the United States. Like the Petitioner, its 
Indian affiliate provides information technology (IT) services, including turnkey systems integration 
solutions, custom application development, upgrades, and support. The Petitioner states that the 
Beneficiary managed a five-member team in India. 
A. Personnel Manager 
The definition of the term "managerial capacity" recognizes both personnel and function managers. 
A personnel manager must have primarily supervised and controlled the work of other supervisory, 
professional, or managerial employees. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(B)(2). "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)(iv) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(ii)(B)(4). 
The Director found insufficient evidence of the foreign affiliate's employment of the Beneficiary's 
claimed subordinates and his claimed authority to recommend personnel actions. In response to the 
Director's written request for additional evidence (RFE), however, the Petitioner provided copies of 
e-mail messages of the Beneficiary. Some of the messages are to, from, or copying accounts with the 
same names as those on a list of the Beneficiary's subordinates submitted with the petition. The 
Petitioner also provided copies of university degrees in the names of listed subordinates. A 
preponderance of evidence therefore supports the foreign affiliate' s employment of the Beneficiary's 
claimed subordinates. Also, some of the e-mail messages refer to performance issues and revisions to 
salaries of the claimed subordinates and to the potential hiring of new employees. The record therefore 
also supports the Petitioner's claims that the Beneficiary recommended personnel actions. 
As the Director found, however, the Petitioner's descriptions of the Beneficiary's foreign job duties 
do not indicate that he "primarily" supervised and controlled the work of others as a personnel 
manager. The Petitioner states that, as principal technical manager-information security, the 
Beneficiary spent the following percentages of his time on the following duties: 
1 Unlike this case. Family involved an immigrant visa petition for a multinational manager. See section 203(b)(l)(C) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b )(1 )(C). The job duties of both non immigrant L-1 A managers and immigrant multinational 
managers, however. must meet the same definition of the term ·'managerial capacity." See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the 
Act (defining the term "managerial capacity"); also compare 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(ii)(B) with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(2) 
(providing the same definition of the term for L-IA and multinational managers). 
2 
• 50%. Managing the five-member team supporting information security. Overseeing the 
company's security operations center. Maintaining and reviewing policies and procedures. 
Establishing and enforcing an information security program for all client projects. Reporting 
periodically to top management. Managing licensing of various security products. Developing 
new initiatives and long-term goals and objectives. Planning security projects. 
• 20%. Reviewing results of audits and planning remediation of any gaps in security. Liaising 
with external auditors to test effectiveness of information security controls. Coordinating with 
clients on security teams and responding to due diligence reviews and queries. Assessing, 
mitigating, and reviewing project risks and reporting periodically to top management. 
Conducting information security workshops. Establishing and maintaining an information 
security awareness training program. 
• 10%. Recommending hiring, firing, and other personnel decisions. Responsible for 
recruitment of information security employees in consultation with senior management. 
• 20%. Evaluating information security products and reviewing implementations and security 
incident reports. Providing insight on critical security incidents and driving implementation 
and upgrading of information security products. Submitting budget forecasts and allocating 
time spent by team on various projects. 
The descriptions of the Beneficiary's foreign duties indicate his management and trammg of 
employees and his control of the time spent by his team on projects. But the descriptions do not 
sufficiently specify how much time the Beneficiary spent on these duties. The descriptions include 
other job duties - such as: maintaining and reviewing policies and procedures; reporting periodically 
to management; and reviewing audit results - that the record does not establish as involving 
supervision and control of others. Thus, the job-duty descriptions do not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary primarily supervised and controlled the work of others abroad. The record therefore does 
not establish his employment as a personnel manager in India. 
B. Function Manager 
The Petitioner also argues that the Beneficiary managed the foreign affiliate's "information security 
function." To establish a beneficiary's employment in a managerial capacity as a "function manager," 
a petitioner must demonstrate that: 1) the function is a clearly defined activity; 2) the function is 
"essential," i.e., core to the organization; 3) the beneficiary primarily managed, as opposed to 
performed, the function; 4) the beneficiary acted at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy 
or with respect to the function managed; and 5) the beneficiary exercised discretion over the function's 
day-to-day operations. Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov.8.2017). 
Securing information appears to constitute an essential business function. But the record here does 
not establish whether the Beneficiary managed the information security of clients or of the foreign 
affiliate. If the Beneficiary managed the information security of clients, the record does not establish 
that securing their information constitutes a core function of the foreign ctfiliate. The Petitioner has 
not established provision of information security services to clients as an essential function of the 
foreign affiliate. The record therefore does not establish the Beneficiary's employment abroad as a 
function manager. 
3 
The Petitioner has not established the claimed managerial nature of the Beneficiary's employment 
abroad. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
C. One Continuous Year Abroad 
Although unaddressed by the Director, the record also does not establish the Beneficiary's 
employment abroad in the claimed managerial capacity for at least one continuous year in the three 
years before the petition's filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iv) (requiring evidence that a foreign 
national's "prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was managerial, executive, or 
involved specialized knowledge"). 
The Petitioner describes the Beneficiary's job duties abroad as a principal technical manager­
information security. The record, however, indicates that the Beneficiary did not obtain that position 
until April 2018, while working for the Petitioner in the United States in L- lA status. The record 
indicates that the Beneficiary did not begin working in that position outside the United States until 
October 2019, about a month before the petition's filing. Periods spent in the United States in lawful 
status do not interrupt the required one year of continuous employment abroad. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(l)(l(ii)(A) (defining the term "intracompany transferee"). "[B]ut such periods shall not be 
counted toward fulfillment of that requirement." Id. The Petitioner therefore must demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's employment abroad in a managerial capacity for an additional 11 months before his 
February 2017 transfer to the United States. 
The Petitioner submitted a business plan stating that the company's Indian affiliate employed the 
Beneficiary as "Manager-Information Security Services" from 2014 until his 2017 transfer to the 
United States. In response to the Director's RFE and on appeal, however, the Petitioner states that, 
before his U.S. transfer, the Beneficiary served in India as "Assistant Manager-Information Security" 
since January 2013. ( emphasis added). The inconsistencies in the Beneficiary's prior position title 
and position start date cast doubt on the accuracy of the Petitioner's information. See Matter of Ho, 
19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies of record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies). Moreover, the Petitioner has not 
described the Beneficiary's pre-transfer job duties. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary "started managing [the group's] IT Security 
function in January 2013" and, while in L-lA status in the United States, "continued to manage the 
said program." Thus, the Petitioner suggests the Beneficiary's performance of the same job duties for 
his entire tenure with the group. 
As previously indicated, however, the discrepancies in the Beneficiary's position title and start date 
cast doubt on the Petitioner's assertions. The record lacks independent, objective evidence of the 
Beneficiary's prior role with the Indian affiliate. Also, if the Beneficiary has continued to perform the 
same job duties throughout his time with the group, the Petitioner has not explained the purpose or 
significance of his promotion to the position of principal technical manager-information security in 
April 2018. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591 (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies 
of record). 
4 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's employment abroad 
in the claimed managerial capacity for the required one-year period. In any future filings in this matter, 
the Petitioner must explain the inconsistencies in the Beneficiary's foreign employment history. The 
company must also submit additional evidence of the Beneficiary's claimed, prior one-year period of 
continuous foreign employment in a managerial capacity. 
III. THE PROPOSED U.S. EMPLOYMENT 
A. Personnel Manager 
As previously indicated, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary would work in the United States in 
his current position of principal technical manager-information security. The Petitioner's description 
of the proposed position mirrors its description of the Beneficiary's current position and suffers from 
the same defect: it does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would primarily supervise and control 
the work of others. 
The descriptions of the proposed position include job duties involving supervision and control of 
others, such as: supervising a team of 18 professionals; and leading team members in establishing 
automation workflow. But the descriptions include other duties that do not appear to involve 
supervising and controlling the work of others, such as: planning and directing strategic and long­
range goals; and negotiating final IT security operations contracts. The record does not sufficiently 
specify the amounts of time the Beneficiary would devote to the duties involving supervision and 
control of the work of others. Thus, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary would primarily 
supervise and control the work of others. The Petitioner therefore has not demonstrated the 
Beneficiary's proposed employment as a personnel manager. 
B. Function Manager 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary would manage the function of information security. But, as 
discussed in the context of the Beneficiary's employment abroad, the record does not establish whether 
he would manage the information security of clients or of the Petitioner. If the Beneficiary would 
manage the information security of clients, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that securing their 
information would constitute an essential function of the Petitioner. In a letter with the petition, the 
Petitioner estimated that the Beneficiary's division would generate about $3 million of the Petitioner's 
expected revenues of $50 million in its 2019-20 fiscal year. Based on the relatively small percentage 
of revenues expected of the Beneficiary's division, the record would not establish the Petitioner's 
provision of information security services to clients as a core function of the company. The Petitioner 
therefore has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's proposed employment as a function manager. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The record does not demonstrate the Beneficiary's foreign or proposed U.S. employment in the 
claimed managerial capacity. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
5 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6