dismissed L-1A Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 21920248 
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 : AUG . 30, 2022 
The Petitioner, a design and construction company, seeks to continue temporarily employing the 
Beneficiary in the United States as a senior server operations manager. The company requests his 
classification under the L-lA nonimmigrant visa category in a managerial capacity . See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate its proposed employment of the Beneficiary as a manager of an essential 
function. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that, when questioning the Beneficiary's management of 
the function, the Director misinterpreted evidence. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance 
of evidence. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1361 (discussing the burden of proof); see also 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010) (discussing the standard of proof). Upon de 
nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. L-lA MANAGERS 
A petitioner seeking to employ an L-lA manager must demonstrate that - for at least one continuous 
year in the three years before a beneficiary's admission to the United States - the petitioner or its 
parent, branch, subsidiary, or affiliate employed the beneficiary abroad in a capacity that was 
managerial, executive , or involved specialized knowledge. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(i), (iii), (iv). The 
petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualifies 
them for the proposed managerial position in the United States . 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(1)(3)(ii), (iv) . 
II. THE PROPOSED U.S. POSITION 
Employment in a "managerial capacity" must "primarily" involve managing people or an essential 
function. Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act (defining the term "managerial capacity"). To support 
employment of a function manager, a petitioner must demonstrate that the function : is a clearly 
defined activity; and "essential," i.e., core to the organization . Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 
2017-05, 3 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). A petitioner must also show that the beneficiary would: primarily 
manage, as opposed to perform, the function; act at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy 
or with respect to the function; and exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day operations. Id. 
If incidental to managing the function, a function manager may also oversee personnel. Id. 
When considering the managerial nature of an offered position, USCIS reviews a petitioner's 
description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii) (requiring "a detailed description of the 
services to be performed"). The Agency also considers: the business's organizational structure; 
whether other employees would relieve a beneficiary from performing non-qualifying, operational 
duties; the duties of any proposed subordinate workers; the business's nature; and other factors 
potentially affecting a beneficiary's role. 
The Director found that the Petitioner's descriptions of the offered position's job duties do not 
demonstrate the Beneficiary's primary proposed performance of managerial duties, as opposed to 
operational or administrative tasks. The Director found that, in "managing" the company's server 
operations and cell phone services, the Beneficiary appears to work "independently and directly 
performs the operational duties associated with the claimed function." 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that its job-duty descriptions indicate that, based on the Beneficiary's 
authorizations, other employees would make daily updates and changes to the company's 
technologies. The Petitioner states: "His expertise is required to ensure the correct operations are 
approved, the correct service orders are approved, and the correct licensures are obtained, but he is not 
responsible for implementing the changes throughout each function of the company." 
As the Petitioner argues, most of its job-duty descriptions indicate that the Beneficiary would authorize 
technology changes, repairs, and purchases and that other employees or vendors would locally 
implement the authorizations. For example, the Petitioner's descriptions state that the Beneficiary 
would: "[a]pprove specs, provisioning server hardware, and software based on project requirement;" 
"[e]stablish hardware and software policies;" [a]pprove hardware and software service orders;" "issue 
incident tickets for local IT to action accordingly;" and "[m]onitor, coordinate and approve vendors to 
execute the repair process." Thus, contrary to the Director's determination, we find that the 
Petitioner's job-duty descriptions sufficiently support the managerial nature of the proposed U.S. 
position. 
Nevertheless, we agree with the Director that the record lacks sufficient evidence showing the 
Beneficiary's proposed performance of the described job duties and that employees and vendors 
relieve him from primarily performing operational tasks. See Matter of G-, supra, at 5 (finding that 
the existence of support staff would allow the beneficiary "to primarily manage the ... function rather 
than perform it himself''). 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's employment in the offered position began in January 2021, 
about seven months before the petition's filing. As proof of the job's managerial nature, the company 
submitted copies of the Beneficiary's e-mail exchanges. 
As the Director found, most of these e-mail exchanges occurred, or discuss matters that occurred, 
before the Beneficiary's purported promotion. These e-mails therefore do not necessarily reflect the 
duties of the offered position. Also, because the Petitioner received the RFE in August 2021, the 
2 
Director properly disregarded e-mails from September 2021 and October 2021. These post-RFE e­
mails could have been created as evidence in response to the Director's request and thus do not reliably 
reflect the nature of the Beneficiary's position. 
The sole remaining e-mail exchange from March 2021 tends to demonstrate the Beneficiary's 
authority over the Petitioner's server system. But we find the single exchange insufficient to 
demonstrate that employees or vendors act on the Beneficiary's authorizations and that the offered 
position "primarily" involves the performance of managerial duties. See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the 
Act; Matter of Church Scientology Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm'r 1988) (stating that a 
qualifying beneficiary "must be primarily at the managerial or executive level"). The Petitioner must 
support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 376. Because the Beneficiary worked in the position for about seven months before the 
petition's filing, we reasonably expect more evidence of the primary managerial nature of the job, 
such as copies of additional e-mail messages, work orders, invoices, or similar documentation showing 
others' completions of actions that the Beneficiary authorized. 
The descriptions of the Beneficiary's job duties indicate that the position involves managerial tasks. 
But a determination of the position's eligibility requires a comprehensive analysis of not only the job 
duties, but all the evidence. See Matter of G-, supra, at 4 ( considering "all factors relevant" to the 
criteria for work in a "managerial capacity"). Besides stating job duties, the record should demonstrate 
that others would relieve the Beneficiary from primarily performing non-managerial tasks. Id. 
( considering "operational and administrative work performed by staff within the organization"). The 
record lacks sufficient evidence corroborating the Beneficiary's primary performance of the described 
duties and the purported actions of employees and vendors to relieve him from operational tasks. We 
will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
III. ELIGIBLITY FOR L-lB-TO-L-lA EXTENSION 
Although unaddressed by the Director, the Petitioner also did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's 
eligibility for the requested extension of his nonimmigrant visa status from L-lB to L-lA. 
The L-lB visa category covers proposed U.S. employment in a specialized knowledge capacity and 
allows an approved beneficiary to remain in the United States in L-lB status for up to five total years. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(15)(ii). In contrast, the L-lA category for managers or executives allows total 
U.S. stays for up to seven years. Id. 
A noncitizen previously admitted in L-lB status may extend their U.S. stay for sixth and seventh years 
in L-lA status if the worker received a promotion to a managerial or executive position. Final Rule 
for Temporary Noncitizen Workers Seeking Classification Under the Act, 56 Fed. Reg. 61111, 61114 
(Dec. 2, 1991). To receive the additional L-lA years, a noncitizen must have worked in the managerial 
or executive capacity for at least six months. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(15)(ii). Also, USCIS must have 
approved a petition authorizing the beneficiary's change to managerial or executive duties "at the time 
that the change occurred." Id. 
The record shows that, as of this petition's filing in August 2021, the Petitioner had employed the 
Beneficiary in L-lB status in the United States for nearly the five-year categorical limit. The Petitioner 
3 
claims that the Beneficiary qualifies for a two-year extension in L-lA status because the company 
began employing him in the proposed managerial position in January 2021, more than six months 
before the petition's filing. 
Besides not demonstrating the managerial nature of the offered position, however, the Petitioner has 
not established its claimed promotion of the Beneficiary in January 2021. Although letters from the 
Petitioner's human resources director state the Beneficiary's promotion at that time, the record lacks 
independent, documentary evidence corroborating the date and nature of the claimed personnel action. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not established that USCIS approved a petition to change the 
Beneficiary's duties "at the time that the change occurred." See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(15)(ii). Rather, 
the company appears to have begun employing the Beneficiary in the offered position without proper 
authorization. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(7)(i)(C) (requiring the filing of an amended petition to reflect 
a "change in capacity of employment (i.e., from a specialized knowledge position to a managerial 
position)"). 
In November 2020, two months before the Beneficiary's purported promotion to the managerial 
position, the Petitioner filed a petition to extend his L-lB visa status by seeking to recapture time he 
spent outside the United States during the visa validity period. The company stated that it did not file 
this L-lA petition, notifying USCIS of his change in duties, until after the approval of the L-lB 
extension petition in July 2021 "to ensure that there was no issue with the 'last action rule."' 
The informal "last action rule" holds that USCIS' most recent approved action in a matter governs a 
noncitizen's U.S. status. Citing the rule, for example, an Agency official stated that an approved 
change-of-status application with a future effective date remains valid if a noncitizen travels abroad 
after the application's approval but reenters the United States before the effective date. See "USCIS 
Discusses Last Action Rule, Effect of Intervening Admission," 81 No. 48 Interpreter Releases 1777 
(Dec. 20, 2004). The Petitioner, however, does not explain how the rule excuses its delay in filing an 
L-lA petition upon the Beneficiary's change in duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(15)(ii). 
Because the Petitioner did not receive notice of these evidentiary deficiencies, they do not warrant the 
appeal's dismissal. But, in any future filing in this matter, the Petitioner must include additional 
evidence demonstrating the Beneficiary's claimed promotion to the offered position in January 2021 
and the company's filing of a petition at the time he changed duties. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated its proposed employment of the Beneficiary in the claimed 
managerial capacity. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4