dismissed L-1A Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9709527 
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: SEPT. 2, 2020 
The Petitioner, a provider of computing products and services, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary in the position of'...__ ________ ___, Manager (Consultant, IT Architecture)" 
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 California Service Center denied the petition concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial, executive, or 
specialized knowledge capacity, or that he would be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not consider all of the submitted evidence and 
applied a standard higher than the required preponderance of the evidence review. The Petitioner 
maintains that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and will be employed in the United States in a 
managerial capacity, specifically as a function manager. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
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 in a petition involving a new 
office, a qualifying organization must have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(3)(v)(B). 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. 
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 Petitioner claims that Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity.1 
Although the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will have indirect reports who are professional 
employees, 2 it claims that he is eligible for L-lA classification based on his management of an 
essential function within its I I division. Therefore, our discussion 
will be limited to the Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary qualifies as a "function manager." 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" al lows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to 
primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. On the other hand, the term "function manager" applies generally 
when a beneficiary does not primarily supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead 
is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" within the organization. See section 
101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
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 
101(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. 
Therefore, we will first determine whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary's position of 
~---------~Manager (Consultant, IT Architecture)" meets all elements of the 
statutory definition of "managerial capacity" at section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. In part, the Petitioner 
1 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity. 
2 The indirect reports include senior and principal software engineers, business systems analysts with "advisor" and 
"consultant" job titles, and three employees who have the same internal job title as the Beneficiary (Consultant, IT 
Architecture). 
2 
must establish that he will manage the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the organization, consistent with section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) of the Act. As the Petitioner 
indicates that he does not directly supervise any employees, it must also establish that he "functions 
at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed," as 
required by section 101(a)(44)(A)(iii) of the Act. 
A. The Director's Denial of the Petition 
The Director denied the petition, in part, based on a lack of evidence that "describes the function to be 
managed by the beneficiary and demonstrates that the beneficiary wi 11 function at a senior level within 
your organizational hierarchy." 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's role as~---~-----~ 
Manager is "to lead the information technology (IT) architecture, application vision, and strategy of 
[the company's] I I division." The Petitioner indicated that it is a "senior managerial role" charged 
with indirectly managing cross-functional teams and identifying business objectives for the 
organization." The Petitioner stated that the c=Jdivision earns revenue of $550 million (out of the 
company's $80 billion annual revenue) and "is a highly valuable function of our organization." 
However, the Petitioner did not indicate that the Beneficiary manages this division; it claims that he 
manages "projects in furtherance of this critical function." The Petitioner provided overviews of five 
projects he led during his recent tenure in this position in L-lB status, noting that one project was 
completed at a cost of $3 million over two years, and another involved $2 million in costs over 18 
months and resulted in $1 million in savings to the company. The Petitioner reiterated that the position 
"is in a senior level managerial role within the organization." 
The Petitioner also submitted a document titled "Functional Organizational Chart for U.S. Position." 
However, this chart does not depict the Beneficiary's placement within the Petitioner's organizational 
hierarchy or within th~division. It is structured as a flow chart, with the Beneficiary at the center 
identified by his internal title of "Consultant, IT Architecture." The chart provides a summary of the 
Beneficiary's job duties and other information that was included in the Petitioner's supporting letter. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director requested an organizational chart or diagram showing 
the Petitioner's organizational structure and staffing levels, noting that it should clearly identify the 
Beneficiary's position and include other employees in his immediate division, department or team. 
The Director also advised that Petitioner that if it claims that the Beneficiary is a function manager, it 
must establish how he will function at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect 
to the managed function. 
In response, the Petitioner reiterated that the function the Beneficiary mana~"the information 
technology architecture, application vision and strategy of [the company's L_J division." The 
Petitioner also stated that he is a "critical senior-level functional manager" and explained that he 
"operates at a senior managerial level by exercising wide discretion on a daily basis with (esper to 
critical decisions regarding the function under his control." The Petitioner repeated that is a 
highly valuable function of the organization and that the Beneficiary has led projects "in furtherance 
of the function." The Petitioner provided additional information regarding those projects and 
identified the indirect reports who contributed to each of them but did not provide any further 
3 
exl)lanation regarding the Beneficiary's placement within the organizational hierarchy as a whole or 
theLJdivision in which he is claimed to manage an essential function. 
In response to the Director's request for an organizational chart that clearly depicts the Beneficiary's 
position and his placement relative to other staff in the company or the division, the Petitioner 
resubmitted the "Functional Organizational Chart for U.S. position" described above. 
In his decision, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's role as "a 
critical senior-level functional manager," but found there was "a lack of clarity regarding the 
Beneficiary's involvement in managing an essential function." The Director also emphasized that the 
submitted organizational chart does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would function at a senior 
level within the organization or a clearly defined function. 
B. Analysis 
On appeal, the Petitioner refers to the Beneficiary's role as "the functional manager for essential D 
cost-savings programs." It emphasizes that its D division is "of the utmost importance to its 
business operations" and "the continued optimization of the I I division 
through a strategic review of operations and implementation of efficiency and cost-savings programs 
is necessary to the success of the division as a whole." 
In addressing whether the Beneficiary would be employed at a senior level, the Petitioner states that 
his role "must be viewed within the context of the organization as one of the largest technology 
companies worldwide." The Petitioner maintains that it established that the Beneficiary "serves in a 
senior leadership capacity with respect to thee=] programs under his control by leading a team of 
cross-functional professionals in performing the program's technical functions." The Petitioner also 
emphasizes that "[g]iven the sheer enormity of its size and scope," the company has "thousands of 
team members worldwide who are considered 'senior managers' within the company." The Petitioner 
maintains that the Beneficiary functions at a senior level with respect to the function he manages. 
Upon review, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will "manage the organization, or 
a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization," consistent with section 
101(a)(44)(A)(i) of the Act. Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that he "functions at a senior level 
within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed," as required by section 
101(a)(44)(A)(iii) of the Act. 
To support a function manager claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that the function is a clearly 
defined activity that is 'essential,' i.e., core to the organization. Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 
2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). Construing the term "essential function" as a core activity of an 
organization is consonant with Congress's purpose in creating this classification: to facilitate the 
transfer of key managers or executives within a multinational organization in order to advance the 
organization's core activities. Id. 
The evidence reflects that the Beneficiary will be responsible for leading a series of "projects" and 
"programs" that are "in furtherance of the~function," but has not demonstrated how these projects 
amount to a "clearly-defined activity" or a core activity. The record does not contain information 
4 
regarding how theDcJivision is structured or organized in support of the Petitioner's claim that the 
Beneficiary is responsible for managing a distinct function or component within this division. The 
Petitioner now states that he manages the function of "cost-saving programs" withinLJ but we 
cannot determine, for example, that the Beneficiary has the authority to identify and initiate all cost 
savings programs within the division or whether "cost savings programs" are a clearly defined 
component of the overall division. 
In addition, the record on appeal does not provide any additional information regarding his placement 
in the company's hierarchy, within his division, or within the function he is claimed to manage. The 
Director requested that the Petitioner submit an organizational chart that clearly depicts the 
Beneficiary's position and its placement in the company's hierarchy; however, it did not provide this 
evidence. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be 
grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
As noted above, the Petitioner initially claimed that the Beneficiary will function at a senior level 
within the company as a whole and now claims on appeal that he will function at a senior level with 
respect to the function he manages. Without an organizational chart depicting the position's placement 
within the organization or within a clearly defined function, the Petitioner has not supported either of 
these claims. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
Because of these deficiencies, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will manage the 
organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization, consistent with 
section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) of the Act. Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that he "functions at a senior 
level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed," as required by 
section 101(a)(44)(A)(iii) of the Act. As the record does not establish that the offered position meets 
all four of the elements at section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, the Petitioner has not established that it is 
a qualifying managerial position. 
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. 
Ill. FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The remaining issue addressed by the Director is whether the Petitioner established that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. The Petitioner claims that he was 
employed as a function manager in the position of 1 I Project Manager 
(Solutions Architect)" from November 2013 until July 2015, when he transferred to the United States 
as an L-1B specialized knowledge employee. Because of the dispositive effect of the above finding 
of ineligibility, we will only briefly address this issue. 
The evidence related to the Beneficiary's position with the foreign entity, and the Petitioner's claims 
regarding the managerial nature of the role, are very similar to that offered with respect to the U.S. 
5 
position. Accordingly, the deficiencies addressed above are applicable to this discussion. The 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "managed a "key function of the Indian entity's I I 
'---,-----,--------,___,,.,...,...,........ 
department, including development activities and technical implementation" 
related to several different internal projects. The Petitioner noted that his role involved "architecting 
of several IT systems enabling [company] offerings" and redesigning "Manufacturing IT landscapes" 
resulting in significant cost savings to the company. 
As with the U.S. position, the Director requested an organizational chart clearly depicting the 
Beneficiary's placement in the foreign entity's structure and additional information in support of the 
Petitioner's claim that he managed a clearly defined essential function of the organization. The 
Petitioner provided a "functional organizational chart," similar to the one provided for the U.S. 
position, which included only the Beneficiary's position without identifying its placement with the 
organization as a whole, or within th0division. 
Accordingly, the record does not support the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary managed a clearly 
defined function of the foreign company or that he occupied a senior level position within the 
organization or within the function managed. The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's 
position abroad met all four elements of the statutory definition of managerial capacity at section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal wi 11 be dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that it wi 11 employ the Beneficiary 
in a managerial capacity in the United States or that he was employed in a managerial capacity abroad. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6