dismissed L-1A Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 25691170 
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 : JAN . 30, 2023 
The Petitioner , a subscription-based service provider for multimedia content , seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as a Technical IT Lead 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 California Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish that (1) the Beneficiary had at least one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with 
a qualifying entity during the relevant three-year period preceding the petition's filing; (2) the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity; and (3) the Beneficiary will be employed 
in the United States in a managerial capacity . The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo . Matter of Christa 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification , a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity , or in a position requiring 
specialized knowledge for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's 
application for admission into the United States . 8 C.F.R . § 214 .2(1)(1). The prospective U.S . 
employer must also be a qualifying organization that seeks to employ a beneficiary in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(i). 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAP A CITY 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has been continuously working abroad in Ukraine for its 
organization in the position of technical lead since November of 2019, and that he will continue to 
work in that same position in the United States. In denying the petition , the Director determined that 
the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity in the 
United States. The Petitioner did not claim, in the alternative, that it would employ the Beneficiary 
in an executive capacity as defined at section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
The term "managerial capacity" means work "primarily" involving: 
• Managing an organization or its department, subdivision, function, or component; 
• Supervising and controlling the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees, or managing an essential function within the organization or its department 
or subdivision; 
• Having authority to hire and fire or recommend those and other personnel actions if 
directly supervising another employee or employees, or functioning at a senior level 
within the organizational hierarchy or regarding the managed function; and 
• Exercising discretion over the daily operations of the authorized activity or function. 
Section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
As the statutory definition indicates, an L-lA manager may manage either people or an "essential 
function" within an organization. Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. Although the Petitioner claims 
that the Beneficiary's position will involve supervising subordinate employees, it also claims that he 
will be responsible for managing the Petitioner's software platforms and technical infrastructure. We 
will therefore evaluate the managerial nature of his proposed role as both a personnel manager and a 
function manager. 
A. Duties 
To be eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, the 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 the Petitioner establishes that the offered position meets all elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial 
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 given 
beneficiary's duties will be primarily managerial, we consider the Petitioner's description of the job 
duties, the company's organizational structure, the duties of a 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 a beneficiary's actual 
duties and role in a business. 
The Petitioner initially described the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. position as follows: 
2 
As our Technical IT lead working out of the United States, [the Beneficiary] will 
remain responsible for managing a team of IT professionals in [the Petitioner's] 
back-end and front-end software development functions. This includes continuing to 
provide and oversee internal employees with timing and complexity of tasks concerns 
per assignment, as well as providing an IT road map of the technologies to be used 
and/or developed per project. He shall continue to further develops strategies to deliver 
efficient, scalable and maintainable long-term solutions for [the Petitioner's] software 
development functions and he will continue to act as the principal point of contact for 
internal personnel and outside stakeholders on calls and other communication channels 
to provide information regarding possible software development ideations and of 
implementations, as well as on calls with senior executives to discuss the weekly 
development plans of his team. 
The Petitioner further indicated that the Beneficiary will continue to supervise a team of five IT 
professionals as well as the Petitioner's new hires, noting that the Beneficiary will be responsible for 
interviewing, hiring, mentoring, and training these upcoming hires for various technical IT positions. 
The Petitioner also provided the following approximate breakdown of the percentage of time the 
Beneficiary would devote to each of his duties in the proposed position: 
► Working directly with [the Petitioner's] CEO and other executives to make key 
strategic decisions that affect the overall profitability and functionality of the company 
and its software and IT-based applications and user acceptance approval (10%); 
► Developing business and IT strategies to deliver efficient, scalable and maintainable 
long-term software development solutions (5%); 
► Ensuring development plans and organizational alignment of the teams, including all 
integrations and transitions with [ the parent company's] IT infrastructure, platform, and 
software applications (60%); 
► Ensuring fast-paced product release cycle to shorten and improve the feedback loop 
(25%). 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director noted that the submitted documentation was insufficient 
to establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity. The Director observed 
that the Beneficiary's duties did not appear consistent to those of a manager, and suggested that the 
Beneficiary would be performing non-qualifying duties on a day-to-day basis. The Director also noted 
that the Petitioner's staffing, as reflected in the organization chart, did not sufficiently demonstrate 
how the Petitioner's staff members would support its operation routines and support the Beneficiary 
in a managerial position. Consequently, the Director instructed the Petitioner to provide evidence to 
support its assertion that it would employ the Beneficiary in a capacity that was primarily managerial. 
In response, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary would continue to perform the same analogous 
duties to those performed in his position abroad, noting that his transfer to the United States "will 
allow for both a continuity and consistency in [its] software development including [its] front-end, 
3 
back-end, and quality assurance software operations with the intent that this function and department 
will continue to transition and grow in the future within the United States." The Petitioner further 
noted that the Beneficiary's job duties would be performed more efficiently by being closer to 
managers and executive who work out of the Petitioner's Florida office, and emphasized that his 
relocation to the United States would allow him to assist in the development and training of its newly 
hired IT professionals. 
The Petitioner also amended the original job duty breakdown as follows: 
► Working directly with the [Petitioner's] CEO and other executives/managers to make 
key strategic decisions that affect the overall profitability and functionality of the 
company and its software and IT-based applications and user acceptance approval 
(10%); 
► Working directly with the petitioners CEO and other senior managers to make key 
strategic decisions related to the offering and mechanisms for staff performance, staff 
implementation and staff hires, promotions, evaluations, terminations, etc. (10% ); 
► Developing business and IT strategies to deliver efficient, scalable and maintainable 
long-term product development and software development solutions (5%); 
► Preparing and optimizing budgets to ensure timely execution and quality products 
(5%); 
► Ensuring development plans and organizational alignment of the teams to carry out 
business and IT strategies (10%); 
► Supervising and managing all integrations and transitions with [the parent company's] 
IT infrastructure, platform, and software applications by using his authority to direct 
the day-to-day job duties and responsibilities of his subordinate team members to allow 
[the Beneficiary] to perform his management level duties while his support staff 
relieves him from performing operational and administrative duties (20%); 
► Building and improving department efficiency and effectiveness utilizing regular 
employee meetings and performance evaluations (15%); 
► Ensuring the fast-paced product release cycle to shorten and improve the feedback loop 
by using his authority to direct the day-to-day job duties and responsibilities of his 
group under management (25%). 
Upon review, we agree with the Director's determination that the job descriptions do not provide 
sufficient insight into the nature of the Beneficiary's day-to-day duties. For example, the Petitioner 
claims that the Beneficiary will supervise and manage all integrations and transitions within the parent 
company's IT structure, ensure development plans and the organizational alignment of teams to carry 
out the company's strategies, and make key strategic decisions. These identified responsibilities 
appear to overlap and the description does not identify the specific tasks that will occupy the 
4 
Beneficiary's time. Moreover, while the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will use his authority 
to direct the day-to-day job duties and responsibilities of his subordinate team members, and claims 
that this will allow the Beneficiary to perform his management-level duties, no further details 
regarding the actual day-to-day duties to be performed, and their manner of delegation, was provided. 
Reciting the Beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not 
sufficient; the regulations require a detailed description of the Beneficiary's daily job duties. Fedin 
Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient detail or explanation of the Beneficiary's activities in the 
course of his daily routine. The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. 
See id. 
B. PersonnelManager 
The statutory definition of"managerial capacity" allows 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 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a beneficiary directly supervises other employees, the 
beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or recommend those actions, 
and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary will serve as a personnel manager, claiming that "he shall 
continue to manage his IT product development team within [the Petitioner's organization], he will 
supervise and control the work of his team, he will continue to have the authorization to recommend 
personnel actions and he shall still exercise day-to-day control over his group's operations as well as 
his team's activities." In this matter, however, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
is primarily a personnel manager. 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary will oversee a team of five subordinate employees as well 
as oversee the hiring and training of new IT employees upon his transfer to the U.S. position. The 
Petitioner did not initially provide a breakdown of the percentage of time the Beneficiary would devote 
to personnel management, and its response to the RFE only vaguely stated that 20% of his time would 
be devoted to directing the day-to-day job duties and responsibilities of his subordinate team members 
to allow him to perform his managerial duties while his subordinates "relieve him from performing 
operational and administrative duties." Although the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary will also 
engage in remote telephone call and video conference calls with his staff and conduct performance 
evaluations, no further details regarding the level of interaction with and supervision of staff was 
provided. Consequently, absent a clear breakdown of his supervisory duties and the percentage of 
time he would devote to each duty, we are unable to determine whether he will primarily supervise 
others in the capacity of a personnel manager. 
Moreover, as noted by the Director, the Beneficiary's subordinate employees perform services 
pursuant to consulting agreements, copies of which were submitted in support of the petition. 
According to these agreements, each of the Beneficiary's subordinate employees perform services 
remotely for the Petitioner as independent contractors, and each individual is solely responsible for 
determining when and how their services are performed. Based on these documents, the extent of the 
Beneficiary's authority over these individuals, if any, is unclear. 
5 
Nevertheless, even if the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary's duties are primarily supervisory 
in nature, which it did not, it has not demonstrated that he would direct subordinate supervisory, 
professional, or managerial employees. The Petitioner's organizational chart, which shows a two­
tiered structure within the product development department, does not support a finding that any of the 
Beneficiary's subordinates supervise subordinate staff members or manage a clearly defined 
department or function of the petitioner, such that they could be classified as managers or supervisors. 
Nor does the Petitioner assert that any of the Beneficiary's subordinates hold managerial or 
supervisory positions. 
The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary's subordinates hold professional positions. In evaluating 
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 
10l(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 subordinate employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee does 
not automatically lead to the conclusion that an employee is employed in a professional capacity. The 
record indicates that the Beneficiary oversees a back-end developer, a front-end developer, a back-end 
engineer, and two quality assurance specialists. The Petitioner claimed that the back-end developer 
holds a master's degree in economics, the front-end developer has an unspecified degree in the field 
of computer science, and the remaining three employees possess either specialist degrees or a form of 
higher education. In addition to not corroborating the educational backgrounds of these individuals 
with documentary evidence, the Petitioner has not shown that any of these positions require a 
bachelor's degree in a specific relevant area of study. We cannot determine based on the information 
submitted whether a bachelor's degree is required for any of the subordinate positions in order for 
them to perform the "operational and administrative duties" of the product development department. 
C. Function Manager 
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 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a petitioner claims that 
a beneficiary will manage an essential function, it must clearly describe the duties to be performed in 
managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that "(l) the function is 
a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is 'essential,' i.e., core to the organization; (3) the 
beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the function; (4) the beneficiary will act at 
a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and (5) the 
beneficiary will exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day operations." Matter of G- Inc., 
Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
6 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will oversee its technology platform through his leadership 
position in its product development department. Regarding the Beneficiary's role as a function 
manager, the Petitioner stated that he would remain responsible for managing the Petitioner's back-end 
and front-end software development functions, including the following: 
• Providing and overseeing employees with timing and complexity of tasks concerns per 
assignment, as well as providing an IT road map of the technologies to be used and or 
developed per project; 
• Developing strategies to deliver efficient, scalable and maintainable long-term 
solutions for locals software development functions, and 
• Acting as the principal point of contact for internal personnel and outside stakeholders 
on calls and other communication channels to provide information regarding possible 
software development ideations and of implementations, as well as on actively 
participating calls with senior executives to discuss the weekly development plans of 
his team. 
The Petitioner also claimed that the Beneficiary would remain responsible for managing the continued 
transition and integration of its platform and software into the parent company. Specifically, the 
Petitioner stated: 
The functions that [the Beneficiary] will continue to oversee shall remain essential to 
[the Petitioner] as they provide the fundamental elements of [the Petitioner's] 
technology platform, which is at the core of [the Petitioner's] scope of business which 
includes research, product offerings, and operations tools such as management utilities, 
reporting, and billing. [The Beneficiary] will continue to be responsible for delivering 
production software as defined by the product management team. As such, in his sole 
discretion, he still will be tasked (through his subordinate team members on a daily 
basis) to meet these deliverables and he will remain solely responsible for the quality 
of the code delivered and meeting the agreed upon schedules. 
The Petitioner did not, however, establish that the Beneficiary's position would be at a senior level 
either within the organization or with respect to the function. It also did not establish that the 
Beneficiary would primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the function. See id. 
With regard to the Beneficiary's placement within the Petitioner's management hierarchy, the 
Petitioner provided an organizational chart depicting the staffing structure of the product development 
department. According to the chart, the product development department, which reports directly to 
the Petitioner's president, has four subdivisions, and each subdivision is overseen by a product 
manager, a technical lead (the Beneficiary's position), a solutions architect, and a mobile team lead, 
respectively. Although the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary is primarily responsible for 
overseeing the Petitioner's technology platform, the Petitioner provides no explanation with regard to 
the role of the other three individuals in the product development department that appear to hold 
supervisory or managerial roles on the same level as the Beneficiary. There is likewise no discussion 
of the roles and contributions of the employees in the other subdivisions, which include the three 
7 
supervisory employees as well as flutter developers and a designer. While the organizational chart 
depicts five subordinate employees at an organizational tier directly below the Beneficiary, the 
Petitioner did not provide evidence to support the claim that the Beneficiary would occupy a position 
that will be senior with respect to all the staff within the product development department. 
Further, although the Petitioner provided the Beneficiary's job duty breakdown highlighting his 
discretionary authority over certain aspects of the oversight of the Petitioner's technology platform, 
including software development and product development, the job description is primarily comprised 
of vague statements that do not disclose the Beneficiary's actual tasks in the routine course of the 
product development department's daily or weekly activities. For instance, the Petitioner claimed that 
the Beneficiary will spend 25% of his time "ensuring the fast-paced product release cycle to shorten 
and improve the feedback loop by using his authority to direct the day-to-day job duties and 
responsibilities of his group under management." However, it is unclear what actual tasks the 
Beneficiary would perform on a daily or weekly basis or that he would primarily perform tasks that 
are indicative of overseeing the Petitioner's technology platform. Moreover, as noted above, the 
Beneficiary's role, and the role of his subordinates, comprise only one subdivision of the product 
development department, and the record contains insufficient evidence to demonstrate how the 
employees of the other subdivisions within the department contribute to the performance of 
non-qualifying duties, if at all, to relieve the Beneficiary from performing such tasks. We rely on 
specific information about a beneficiary's actual daily tasks as an important indication of whether their 
duties are primarily managerial in nature; otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter 
ofreiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1103, aff'd, 905 F.2d 41. 
Here, given the generalized overview of the Beneficiary's job duties as a function manager, it is 
unclear precisely how the Beneficiary would oversee the Petitioner's technology platform with the 
assistance of remotely based subordinate employees and other onsite employees within the product 
development department whose specific roles are not sufficiently defined. 
The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary will spend 10% of his time working with its CEO and 
other managers to "make key strategic decisions related to the offering and mechanisms for staff 
performance, staff implementation and staff hires, promotions, evaluations, [and] terminations." 
However, the Petitioner did not establish that recruiting, hiring, and training IT personnel is consistent 
with overseeing the Petitioner's technology platform. The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary 
will develop business and IT strategies "to deliver efficient, scalable and maintainable long-term 
product development and software development solutions" and will continue to be responsible for 
delivering production software as defined by the product development team, meeting deliverables, and 
"will remain solely responsible for the quality of the code delivered." It is not clear that delivering 
software according to deliverables, and ensuring and verifying the quality of the products developed, 
are consistent with overseeing the Petitioner's technology platform, as opposed to performing the 
duties of that function. Moreover, the assertion by the Petitioner that the Beneficiary will deliver 
software "as defined by the product development team" implies that the Beneficiary will receive 
direction from others within the product development department, thus raising questions regarding the 
extent to which he oversees, rather than performs essential duties required to manage and maintain the 
Petitioner's technology platform. While performing non-qualifying tasks necessary to produce a 
product or service will not automatically disqualify the Beneficiary as long as those tasks are not the 
majority of the Beneficiary's duties, the Petitioner still has the burden of establishing that the 
Beneficiary is "primarily" performing managerial duties. Section 10l(a)(44) of the Act. An employee 
8 
who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not 
considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See, e.g., section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial duties); 
Matter of Church Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593,604 (Comm'r 1988). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director failed to apply the preponderance of the evidence 
standard and contends that it is clear that the Beneficiary will manage "an essential and extremely 
profitable function of [the Petitioner], namely its technical IT platform and infrastructure through the 
oversight of [the petitioner's] product development group .... " However, the Petitioner must support 
its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
at 376. As discussed above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's role will be 
senior with respect to the function he is claimed to manage. Furthermore, despite the Petitioner's 
assertions to the contrary on appeal, the job descriptions the Petitioner offered contain deficiencies 
and generalities that preclude a meaningful assessment of the Beneficiary's actual tasks in the course 
of the Petitioner's daily operation. 
In light of the deficiencies described above, we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary will primarily 
allocate his time to performing managerial job duties. 
III. RESERVED ISSUES 
As noted, the Director denied the petition on multiple grounds and further concluded that the record 
did not establish that the Beneficiary had one continuous year of employment abroad with a qualifying 
entity during the relevant three-year period that preceded the filing of the petition and that his claimed 
foreign employment was in a managerial or executive capacity. Since the identified basis for denial 
is dispositive of the appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments 
regarding the remaining grounds for denial. 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"). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that the Beneficiary will be employed in a primarily 
managerial capacity in the United States. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9