dismissed L-1A Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12243698 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 26, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting services company, seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary temporarily as its "Senior Manager - QA" 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. 
§ 110l(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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that: (1) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity; and (2) the Beneficiary's proposed position in the U.S. would be 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. 
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 their services to the same employer 
or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. The petitioner must also 
establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or her to perform 
the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
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 primary issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial capacity. 1 The Petitioner does not claim that it will employ the Beneficiary 
in an executive capacity. 
To be eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, a petitioner must show that the 
beneficiary will perform 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 offered position meets all 
four of these elements, we cannot conclude that it is a qualifying managerial position. If a petitioner 
establishes that the offered position meets all four elements of the applicable statutory definition, it 
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). In determining whether a beneficiary's duties will be 
primarily managerial or executive, we consider the petitioner's description of the job duties, the 
company's organizational structure, the duties of the 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 the beneficiary's actual 
duties and role in the business. 
Therefore, we will first determine whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary's position of 
"Senior Manager - QA" meets all elements of the statutory definition of "managerial capacity" at 
section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
1 As explained below, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding whether the Beneficiary 
was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
2 
The Petitioner, established in 1997, is engaged in information technology consulting, and seeks to 
employ the Beneficiar in the !position of Senior Manager - QA. The Petitioner claims that it has been 
providing services to including developing and delivering a project entitled 'I t 
and indicates that the Beneficiary will manage a team of professional employees assigned to this 
account. The Petitioner provided a general breakdown of the areas in which the Beneficiary would 
devote his time, as follows: 
1. QA Management ( 40%) 
• Supervise and review requirements gathering and analysis performed by Lead 
Consultant (5%) 
• Guide consultants with test strategy/plans for testing I.__ ____ __. 
project/feature (10%) 
• Oversee the deployment and management of the test environment performed by 
consultants (5%) 
• Review the analysis of risk and mitigation/contingency plans prepared by 
Consultants (5%) 
• Review the result of testing of defect tracking and use scenarios performed by 
consultants and engineers (5%) 
• Guide consultants and engineers with automation integration test strategy for 
the support and maintenance of web-based and mobile applications for both 
I land server-side architectures (10%) 
2. Delivery Management (25%) 
• Provide technical and thought leadership to consultants and engineers in the 
assigned projects (20%) 
• Guide consultants and engineers with realistic expectations and timelines for 
deliverables (5%) 
3. Resource Management and Development (35%) 
• Monitor the status, coverage reports of I I of [the Petitioner] 
through weekly meetings, finalize weekly review reports, and submit it to senior 
management(5%) 
• Allocate and coordinate the daily tasks among team members and provide them 
with leadership and guidance (5%) 
• Manage resources of I I with evaluation of performance of 
activities (10%) 
• Manage process framework for increasing delivered-value over successive 
reporting periods (10%) 
• Ensure to implement Process and Cost Optimization (5%) 
The Petitioner also submitted an organizational chart demonstrating that the Beneficiary would 
oversee a total of 19 subordinate employees, composed of a lead consultant, a lead technology 
consultant, 10 senior technology consultants, two technology consultants, an associate delivery 
manager, a technology engineer, and three senior QA consultants. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director requested additional details regarding the Beneficiary's 
proposed position and the manner in which his subordinate employees would relieve him from 
performing non-qualifying duties. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
3 
will "not be engaged in technical duties, as his r,rofessional subordinates will relieve him from those 
duties." It farther stated that he will manage thel !project team by "primarily spending his 
time on performing evaluation of performance of his subordinates, allocating work to appropriate team 
members, reviewing their work products, communicating with the client as a point of contact, 
providing guidance and mentoring, and authorizing personnel and projects activities." In addition, the 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "will assign his subordinates to design and develop the project, 
plan and conduct tests, gather requirements, perform coding, and implement changes for his review." 
As a result, the Petitioner claims that these subordinates will "relieve the beneficiary from performing 
technical job duties, which are necessary to deliver the project to the client." 
The Petitioner farther stated that the Beneficiary will have the authority to hire and fire as well as 
approve other personnel actions for his subordinate employees, such as managing unplanned leave 
and implementing mitigation plans to keep the project on track. On a daily basis, the Petitioner stated 
that the Beneficiary will conduct status scrum calls, review project backlogs and progress, and update 
project plans. On a weekly basis, the Petitioner stated that he will conduct weekly meetings with his 
team as well as the client, lead discussions with consultants, and review and approve employee 
timesheets. On a monthly basis, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will conduct business 
reviews with client managers, meetings with senior managers to review client feedback, prepare 
reports for billing, and approve invoices. The Petitioner also provided an overview of quarterly and 
annual duties, which include performance reviews, training, and appraisals for team members as well 
as budget reviews. 
In denying the petition, the Director noted that despite providing an extensive description of the 
proffered position, the Petitioner did not explain in detail how the Beneficiary will supervise and 
control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that the statements contained in its initial supporting documents and its RFE response 
establish eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Upon review of the record in its entirety, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
"supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees," 
consistent with section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
The definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." Here, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity 
based on his proposed supervision and control of subordinate personnel and does not claim that he 
will be employed as a function manager. 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." 2 Id. 
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 secondary schools, 
colleges, academies, or seminaries." 
4 
The Petitioner claimed to employ 4 7 5 employees at the time of filing, and indicated that 19 of those 
individuals will be directly supervised by the Beneficiary as part of the I t project for 
I I the Petitioner's client. Specifically, the chart indicates that the project team is composed of a 
lead consultant, a lead technology consultant, 10 senior technology consultants, two technology 
consultants, an associate delivery manager, a technology engineer, and three senior QA consultants. 
The direct chain of supervision is somewhat unclear based on the chart's composition, but it appears, 
at a minimum, that the Beneficiary will directly oversee the lead consultant, several senior technology 
consultants, and various other technology and QA consultants. 3 Regarding the organizational 
hierarchy of the Beneficiary's team, the Petitioner stated that the senior and lead consultant positions 
are entry-level management positions "wherein employees are responsible for managing both 
subordinate professionals and functions." 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently establish that the Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel manager based 
on his supervision of subordinate managers or supervisors. Although the petitioner's RFE response 
described in farther detail the duties of the Beneficiary's subordinates, and the manner in which they 
would conduct work on the project for I O I the Petitioner did not submit sufficiently detailed duty 
descriptions for the Beneficiary's claimed supervisory subordinates to substantiate that they act in 
their claimed roles, and the inconsistencies in the hierarchical levels on the organizational chart render 
it difficult to determine which subordinate employees, if any, exercise control over their fellow team 
members. 
In the alternative, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel 
manager based on his supervision of professional subordinates. In evaluating whether the Beneficiary 
manages professional employees, we review evidence of the subordinate positions and whether they 
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 must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree 
held by the subordinate employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by subordinate employees 
does not automatically lead to the conclusion that an employee is employed in a professional capacity. 
The Petitioner submitted copies of the diplomas held by the Beneficiary's subordinate employees; 
however, it has not explained in detail why the duties of the Beneficiary's subordinate employees 
require them to hold a bachelor's degree. As discussed, the Petitioner provided generic duty 
descriptions for the Beneficiary's claimed professional subordinates that do not sufficiently 
corroborate their roles, nor do they demonstrate that these positions would require bachelor's degrees. 
While we note that all team members are involved in various forms of software consulting, there is no 
indication that a bachelor's degree is required to perform their duties. In addition, the Petitioner 
3 The organizational hierarchy of the Beneficiary's team is not clearly defined in the organizational chart. The chart 
demonstrates that the Beneficiary directly supervises some technology consultants, while simultaneously indicating that 
similar technology consultants are subordinate to senior technology consultants that are not directly listed under the 
Beneficiary's chain of supervision. It appears, generally, that the Beneficiary collectively supervises the team in its entirety 
without sub-tiers of managerial or supervisory employees. 
5 
provided no supporting documentation to support his personnel authority over, or his delegation of 
duties to, professional subordinates. As such, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
will act as a personnel manager based on his management of subordinate professionals. 
As previously noted, the definition of "managerial capacity" contains four elements. The Petitioner 
must show that the position meets each of the four elements. In looking at the second element alone, 
the evidence of record does not show that the Beneficiary "supervises and controls the work of other 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees" as required to meet the first part of the 
definitional element of"managerial capacity" at section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. As noted above, 
the Petitioner does not allege that the Beneficiary "manages an essential function," which is the second 
part of the definitional element of "managerial capacity" at section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. As 
the record does not establish that the Beneficiary meets either part of the definitional element at section 
10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Petitioner has not established that the offered position meets all four 
of the elements at section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
The fact that the Beneficiary will manage a department or team of a business as a senior employee 
does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in a 
managerial capacity within the meaning of section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. While the Beneficiary 
may exercise discretion over the day-to-day operations of assigned projects and possess the requisite 
level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making within the scope of those projects, the 
Petitioner must still establish that the position meets all elements of the statutory definition of 
managerial capacity. As the Petitioner did not meet that burden, the appeal will be dismissed. 
III. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve its arguments regarding whether the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial 
or executive capacity. 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 of L-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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6