dismissed L-1A Case: It Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe : 7512396 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for L-IA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 24, 2020 
The Petitioner , a provider of IT consulting and "back office" services , seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as its "SAP Business One Manager" under the L-IA 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)(l 5)(L ). To establish eligibility for the L-IA 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. Id. 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. 
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. 
On appeal , the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Beneficiary "manages IT personnel on 
projects ," claiming that such management includes determining the scope of assigned projects and 
selecting and supervising personnel. The Petitioner also contends that it previously provided 
employee academic backgrounds and established that an employee with a degree in microbiology has 
sufficient work experience to perform "essentially the job of a QA engineer." Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the entire record , for the reasons set out below , we have determined that the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United 
States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard as specified in Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 
(AAO 2010). 
In the denial, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the foreign organization 
actually employed the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates or that the Beneficiary's employment 
abroad involved supervisory authority, such as delegation of tasks and the right to hire and fire 
subordinate employees. The Director made similar findings regarding the Beneficiary's proposed 
employment and also found that the Petitioner did not explain how the Beneficiary managed and would 
manage subordinates who are stationed in different countries. Further, although the Director 
acknowledged the Petitioner's response to the request for evidence, he determined that the Petitioner 
did not provide further insight into the nature of the Beneficiary's role and job duties in his current 
and proposed positions. 
Upon consideration of the entire record, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision with the 
comments below. See Matter of P. Singh, Attorney, 26 I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) (citing Matter of 
Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994)); see also Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) 
("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts and evaluative judgments prescinding from them have 
been adequately confronted and correctly resolved by a trial judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal 
is free simply to adopt those findings" provided the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention 
to the case). 
Regarding the Director's discussion of the Beneficiary's role within the foreign organization, we 
would add that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary's 
position abroad was primarily comprised of managerial job duties. The Petitioner must support its 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 
376 (AAO 2010). Here, the Petitioner previously submitted a copy of the Beneficiary's resume, which 
lists 18 of the foreign entity's clients and identifies the Beneficiary as either "functional support 
consultant" or "functional lead & support" with respect to 16 of the 18 projects. Although the 
Beneficiary was listed as "functional lead" in two of the projects, the elements that were attributed to 
this role included coordinating the team, motivating team productivity, setting and maintaining 
"[p ]rocess for [ c]lient requirement," and "assigning [t]ask & get it done within stipulated time." Thus, 
the Beneficiary's role did not involve primarily supervising subordinate personnel, evaluating their 
respective performances, or having input as to the hiring, firing, or other personnel actions. Although 
the Petitioner also provided the Beneficiary's performance review, no evidence was submitted to 
establish that the Beneficiary performed such reviews for his claimed subordinates. 
We further note that the Beneficiary's job duty breakdowns for his foreign and proposed positions 
indicate that the only managerial job duties the Beneficiary performed and would perform include 
assigning and monitoring project deliverables, "[c]oaching & counseling" the team by providing 
"verbal feedback" and addressing "performance issues," and performing personnel management tasks, 
such as time and payroll authorization and approvals for training and vacation. However, these tasks 
cumulatively consume no more than 30% of the Beneficiary's time in his foreign and U.S. positions. 2 
The remainder of his time would be allocated to operational tasks, including analyzing and developing 
business process documentation, analyzing and documenting user requirements, using "system 
2 The job duty breakdown indicated that coaching and counseling and personnel management would each consume "5-
10%" of the Beneficiary's time, thus indicating that these two functions would not consume more than 20% of his time, 
while assigning and monitoring project deliverables would consume 10% of his time. 
2 
analysis techniques and methods" to help specify functional requirements, reviewing and evaluating 
deliverables, and developing training materials. The job duty breakdown indicates that the Beneficiary 
allocated and would allocate 85-90% of his time to these non-managerial job duties. 3 An employee 
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., sections 
10l(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial 
or executive duties); Matter of Church Scientology Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm'r 1988). 
Although there are some elements of personnel management incorporated into the Beneficiary's 
foreign and proposed positions, the job duty breakdown shows that these elements have not and would 
not comprise the primary portion of the Beneficiary's time in either position. 
Further, despite providing an organizational chart that depicts the Beneficiary in a managerial role 
with respect to five employees, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary allocated the primary 
portion of his time to supervision of professional personnel. In a "Self Appraisal," which instructed 
the Beneficiary to discuss his "main duties and responsibilities," the Beneficiary stated that he was 
responsible for using his knowledge and skill "to add value to customer [sic]," provide "prompt 
support to end [the] user," "provide proper presentation [and] demonstration to [the] client," and 
contribute towards the company's growth. Although the Beneficiary stated that he "handle[d] 
management tasks" as one of his achievements, neither his self-assessment nor his resume indicated 
that managing personnel was or would be his primary responsibility. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides a brief statement claiming that the Beneficiary is tasked with 
determining the scope of the work and assembling an IT team based on project specifications and 
employee backgrounds and experience. It also argues that an employee with ten years of experience in 
performing tasks that are "essentially" those of a "QA Engineer" should be deemed a professional,4 
despite the fact that the employee's degree is microbiology rather than an IT-related field. However, the 
Petitioner did not provide information about the position itself or the position's requirements to support 
its claims. See Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. Moreover, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
evidence establishing that the Beneficiary allocated and would allocate his time primarily to personnel 
manager duties. 
II. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden here, and the petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 The Petitioner indicated that "5-10%" of the Beneficiary's time would be allocated to developing training materials. 
4 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 IO I (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. 
3