dismissed L-1A Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7906376 
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 : APR. 29, 2020 
The Petitioner is a business information technology consulting company. It seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as a "Program Manager" 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, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United 
States 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. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal because the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's position in the United States would be in a managerial 
capacity. Since the identified basis for denial is dis positive of the Petitioner 's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the Beneficiary's foreign 
employment 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 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. 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 10l(a)(15)(L) of the Act. 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. Id. 
Section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § l 10l(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 the Beneficiary will manage a specific project and will therefore be 
employed in a managerial capacity. 1 Although the Petitioner claims that project management will 
involve managing a team of rofessionals, it indicates that the Beneficia 's foremost responsibility 
will be managing the.__ ___________________ ____,project. 
A. Factual Background 
The Petitioner claimed a net income of $3.9 billion and a U.S. workforce of 18,800 employees. It 
stated that the Beneficiary would earn $87,500 in his proposed position. In a supporting cover letter, 
the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would manage "a component of [the] organization," 
specifically thel I project, claiming that he 
would exercise "discretion over the day-to-day operations" of this or other "project(s) under [his] 
purview," thereby indicating that the Beneficiary's project assignments would change and that he 
would not be consistently assigned to a specific project. The Petitioner explained that in the course of 
managing any given project, the Beneficiary will be responsible for the following: 
• Overseeing the work of "professionals assigned to the project(s)," including delegating tasks 
within the scope of a project's needs and available resources; 
• Creating, coordinating, and managing project plans; 
• Adhering to a project's schedule, budget, and quality standards and adjusting the project 
schedule as needed; 
• Delegating "technical tasks and assignments" to and monitoring performances of subordinates; 
• Reallocating team members based on individuals' abilities and project needs; 
1 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity. 
2 
• Regularly reviewing project status and mitigating risks; and 
• Reviewing "key deliverables" and communicating with "stakeholders" to update and address 
concerns regarding a particular project. 
The Petitioner claimed that members of the Beneficiary's subordinate team would carry out the non­
managerial tasks associated with a given project, "leaving the Beneficiary free to direct the overall 
operations of the project(s)." The Petitioner provided a "Proposed Onsite ~anizational Chart" 
for the I . I project showing a "Segment Head" at the top of the L___J project hierarchy, 
followed by the "Client Partner," who is depicted as overseeing the Beneficiary, a "Release Manager," 
a "QA Lead," and a "DevOps Lead," thus indicating that the Beneficiary and three other employees 
were positioned two tiers below the project head. The Beneficiary is shown as overseeing a developer, 
a test analyst, and two web developers, whom the Petitioner described as professional subordinates 
holding bachelor's degrees. 
The Petitioner emphasized the Beneficiary's discretionary authority over each project he oversees, 
stating that he controls the project budget, decides how to allocate fonds and staff the project, and 
recommends personnel actions with regard to the employees comprising the project team. The 
Petitioner resubmitted the organizational chart depicting the I ~ project's staffing hierarchy and 
provided the Beneficiary's job duty breakdown stating that the Beneficiary would allocate his time in 
the following manner: 
• 15% to conveyinJ "strategic objectives" and development plans to the client as client liaison; 
• 20% to assessing_ I's processes, tools, and methodologies to establish which business 
management disciplines and processes to implement and overseeing subordinates who execute 
and report on the execution of these processes; 
• 20% to attending weekly meetings to make estimates about the budget and effort necessary to 
accommodate needs of the existing project; 
• 15% to reviewing deliverables to find ways to improve the project and coordinating testing 
and audits with the assurance team; 
• 10% to monitoring project progress and mitigating risks; 
• 10% to meeting with the client to make presentations and report on project details; 
• 5% to appraising subordinates' performances and making personnel recommendations; and 
• 5% to determining project requirements and making hiring decisions accordingly. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Beneficiary's subordinates are not 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, and farther found that the Beneficiary would not 
primarily perform job duties that are consistent with managing an essential function. 
In light of the Petitioner's submission of company-generated position requirements and evidence that 
the Beneficiary's subordinates meet those requirements, we disagree with the Director's finding that 
the Beneficiary would oversee non-professional employees. However, because the Petitioner claims 
that the Beneficiary would primarily "manag[e] a component of [the] organization" and it has not 
provided sufficient evidence to support that claim, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the 
Beneficiary will not be employed in a managerial capacity. 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the denial and points to evidence that the Director did not discuss, 
asserting that the Director did not adequately inform the Petitioner of the reason for the denial. The 
Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary will be supported by a team of professional employees who 
will relieve him from performing primarily non-managerial job duties. 
B. Analysis 
Despite claiming that the Beneficiary would oversee the work of professional employees, it appears 
that he would primarily focus on performing job duties in support of thel !project, 
including working with the client to understand its "strategic objective," managing the budget and 
time estimates of the project, realizing improvement opportunities by coordinating with the assurance 
team, monitoring and reporting on project progress, and identifying and mitigating risks. Although 
the Beneficiary's proposed position may entail reviewing and weighing in on the respective 
performances of employees who perform the underlying IT tasks of thel !project, employee 
~isi~n appears to be only ancillary to his primary responsibility which is to support the I I 
L__JproJ ect. 
Further, despite claiming that the Beneficiary would manage thel ~ project, the Petitioner did 
not establish that the Beneficiary would occupy a senior-level position with respect to that project. As 
noted earlier, thq I project's organizational chart depicts a hierarchy in which the Beneficiary 
occupies a position that is second from the bottom of that project's hierarchy, senior only to the four 
employees whom the Beneficiary would oversee in their execution of specific IT requirements of that 
project. The chart also indicates that the Beneficiary's position would be at the same organizational 
level as three other employees who are also shown as working on various components of the same 
project and, like the Beneficiary, are depicted as subject to the two levels of management within the 
hierarchy of the project itself 
Also, the Petitioner provided an organizational chart that only shows the Beneficiary's position within 
a single project's organizational hierarchy and does not show the Beneficiary's placement within the 
scope of the overall organization; therefore, we cannot determine whether the Beneficiary holds a 
senior position within the broader organizational hierarchy. Further, given that the Petitioner did not 
provide evidence showing that the Beneficiary's role would be at a senior level with respect to the 
component he is claimed to manage or with respect to the overall organization, the Beneficiary's 
transfer to the United States would not be consistent with Congress's purpose in creating this 
classification, which was intended to facilitate the transfer of key managers or executives within a 
multinational organization ensuring that these senior, managerial personnel advance their respective 
organizations' core activities. 
In sum, although the Beneficiary would have some oversight responsibilities with respect to 
professional employees who carry out various IT aspects of that component, the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary would occupy a senior management position either with respect to that 
component or within the scope of the organization. In light of these deficiencies, the Petitioner has 
not established that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal will be dismissed. 
4