dismissed L-1A Case: It Consulting And Software Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 15840658 
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 : MAR . 3, 2021 
The Petitioner, a provider of IT consulting and software services, seeks to employ the Beneficiary 
temporarily as an "Associate Engagement Manager" under the L-lA nonimrnigrant 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. 
§ 110l(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 before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
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 the Beneficiary's position abroad was in a managerial capacity. 1 Since 
the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the Beneficiary's proposed employment in the 
United States. 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 of L-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 
An immigrant visa is available to a beneficiary who, in the three years preceding the filing of the 
petition, has been employed outside the United States for at least one year in a managerial or executive 
capacity, and seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render managerial or executive 
services to the same employer or to its subsidiary or affiliate. Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act. 
The Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, must include a statement from an authorized 
official of the petitioning United States employer which demonstrates that the beneficiary has been 
1 The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity and does not claim that the foreign 
employment was in an executive capacity . 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding 
the filing of the petition, that the beneficiary is coming to work in the United States for the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer, and that the prospective U.S. employer 
has been doing business for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3). 
Section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(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. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence establishing that the 
Beneficiary's position abroad was in a managerial capacity. 
To be eligible for immigrant visa classification as a multinational manager, the Petitioner must show 
that the Beneficiary performed 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 Beneficiary's 
proposed position meets all four of these elements, we cannot conclude that it is a qualifying 
managerial position. 
If the Petitioner establishes that the position in question meets all elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary primarily performed managerial duties, as 
opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside other employees within the U.S. entity. See 
Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). In determining whether a given 
beneficiary's duties are primarily managerial, we consider that beneficiary's job duties, the employer'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 states that its organization provides 1f services to "Jore than 1,279 major companies." 
It named two of those companies~ I and,__ ____ _, -as the focus of the Beneficiary's 
2 
employment abroad. The Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary worked at a "high level" and 
"exercised autonomy" in making decisions with respect to the projects he managed, stating that the 
Beneficiary set project goals, determined staffing requirements, and provided "managerial direction 
and technical guidance" to a 54-person "globally distributed team" of supervisory and professional 
employees who supported the Beneficiary's projects. 
The Petitioner also r,rovided an organizational chart depicting the Beneficiary as "Senior Project 
Manager I ' directly overseeing a "Technical Architect" and six project managers and 
indirectly overseeing the project managers' respective subordinates. Despite indicating that the 
Beneficiary's position was supervisory with respect to a number ofIT personnel, the chart pertained 
exclusively to an unidentified cross section of the foreign organization and included no information 
clarifying the placement of this cross section within the broader scope of the organization. As such, 
we are unable to assess the Beneficiary's organizational placement or that of the two clients he 
managed within the overall scope of the organization. 
Furthermore, the organizational chart shows that there were six managerial tiers above the 
Beneficiary's position, starting with a "CEO" at the top-most tier, followed by a "COO," a "President­
Deputy ~ "SVP-SOH RCL," a "VP-Delivery Head I I" and a "Senior Delivery 
ManagerL___j" who is depicted as the Beneficiary's direct superior. The Petitioner did not claim, 
nor does the organizational chart demonstrate, that the Beneficiary primarily managed a department, 
subdivision, function, or component of the organization pursuant to sections 10l(a)(44)(A)(i) of the 
Act or that he managed an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision 
of the organization pursuant to sections 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "directed and 
supervised the work of subordinate managers and professionals." The Petitioner conveyed this 
information in greater detail in a job duty breakdown which highlights the Beneficiary's discretionary 
authority over matters concerning his assigned projects, including project logistics, finances, client 
communications, and the personnel who carry out the underlying tasks associated with those projects. 
However, the Petitioner neither indicated nor did it provide evidence showing that I , I and 
I I either individually or collectively, represented a department, subdivision, function, or 
component within the foreign organization. Further, even though the foreign organizational chart 
indicates that the Beneficiary's position involved overseeing a team of project managers and IT 
personnel, the same organizational chart shows that the Beneficiary was subordinate to six tiers of 
management thereby indicating that he was not sufficiently elevated in the staffing hierarchy that 
pertained tol I andl I 
Although the Beneficiary may have exercised discretion over the day-to-day operations of projects 
with respect to two of the foreign entity's clients, the Petitioner must still establish that the position 
meets all elements of the statutory definition of managerial capacity in the course of performing 
primarily managerial duties. For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
I I andl I represented a department, subdivision, function, or component of the 
organization and that the Beneficiary managed a department, subdivision, function, or component of 
the organization, as required by section 10l(a)(44)(A)(i) of the Act. 
3 
The Petitioner also did not establish that the Beneficiary managed an essential function pursuant to 
section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The term "function manager" applies generally when a 
beneficiary does not 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). 
In this matter, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's position abroad focused on two specific 
clients. However, it has not established that the foreign entity's clients represent a clearly defined 
activity or that the clients are "essential" to the organization, as required by the first two prongs of the 
function manager analysis. Although the Petitioner claimed that its organization services over 1400 
clients, it did not indicate trat there was a hierarchy among those clients, nor did it demonstrate that 
I landl were particularly critical to the organization so that they would have been 
deemed "essential" within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization. 
Further, because the Petitioner provided an organizational chart that offered only a limited cross 
section of the foreign organization, we are precluded from gaining a meaningful understanding of how 
that cross section fits within the broader scope of the foreign organization's hierarchy. This lack of 
clarity further hinders our ability to properly assess the Beneficiary's position and determine whether 
it incorporated the characteristics of someone who was employed in a managerial capacity. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's position abroad 
was in a "managerial capacity" as defined in the statute governing this classification. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4