dismissed L-1A Case: It Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22649519 
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 : OCT . 21, 2022 
The Petitioner, an I consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as an associate (management consultant) under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees . 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 the record did not establish 
that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity or that he would be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary oversaw professional subordinates abroad who 
primarily relieved him from performing non-qualifying operational tasks while they provided 
professional consulting services to clients . The Petitioner further contends that the Beneficiary would 
qualify as a manager in the United States working in a similar role as he did abroad . 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal, as the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 
was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad . 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. 
Since this issue is dispositive, we decline to reach and hereby reserve its arguments with respect to 
whether the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity 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 
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 101(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. The petitioner 
must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or her 
to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. MANAGERIAL CAP A CITY WITH THE FOREIGN EMPLOYER 
The sole issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a managerial capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad in an executive capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary was 
employed in a managerial capacity. 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
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; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
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 101(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 foreign position meets all elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary was primarily engaged in managerial duties 
abroad, 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 foreign duties were primarily managerial, we consider the description of the 
Beneficiary's foreign job duties, the foreign employer's organizational structure, the duties of a 
beneficiary's subordinate employees abroad, the presence of other employees to relieve the beneficiary 
from performing operational duties, the nature of the foreign business, and any other factors that will 
contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role with the foreign employer. 
The Petitioner is a large I consulting company with affiliates and operations 
in many countries. The Petitioner stated that the company's function "is to assist corporations, 
government entities and charitable organizations worldwide to solve major business problems." The 
Petitioner indicated that when clients engage the firm, both abroad and in the United States, they form 
engagement teams to address client problems, teams that vary in size and complexion based on the 
nature of the engagement. The Petitioner stated that each one of these engagement teams is led by a 
managerial level "management consultant" responsible for directing the team. The Petitioner 
explained that the Beneficiary acted in this managerial role as a management consultant for a foreign 
affiliate from August 2016 to July 2018. It provided the following duties for this position: 
2 
• Managed key, discrete parts of consulting projects and ensured performance of all 
required analyses, research, computations and problem-solving syntheses (20% of his 
time); 
• Oversee development and implementation of analytical approaches and project plans 
for work streams (10% of his time); 
• Supervise the work of Junior Associates and Business Analysts and develop 
external/internal data requests (15% of his time); 
• Lead and identify innovative data sources and data collection approaches to be used in 
more advanced data analyses (5% of the time); 
• Manage collection of required client and industry data and performance of required 
analyses and syntheses of findings and the development of client-ready 
recommendations (10% of his time); 
• Oversee the syntheses of work completed by Junior Associates and Business Analysts 
into a set of findings or recommendations and structure the overall final written and 
oral presentation to client (15% of his time); 
• Organize and lead client interviews on behalf of the engagement team and lead selected 
client interviews (5% of his time); 
• Oversee writing of parts or chapters of client reports and other documentation based on 
won analyses as well as analyses performed by Business Analysts and others (15% of 
his time); and 
• Direct the development of data charts illustrating client performance trends and 
supporting proposed recommendations (5% of his time). 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted explanations of projects the Beneficiary worked abroad, and 
duties related to these projects. For instance, the Petitioner pointed to a project the Beneficiary was 
engaged in for a "Major I electrical player" involving the foreign employer setting up their 
trading department, including him being tasked with "defining underlying mathematical models that 
would be used to guide trading decisions," collaborating "with a client team of 5 people to expand the 
department," and advising a "team of 8 professional-level employees from external agencies to create 
dashboards." Likewise, the Petitioner highlighted the Beneficiary's work on another project with a 
I lbank and his work for the client in effectuating "a I I transformation." The 
Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary was responsible for assessing "the current situation of the 
bank'sl practice and [the] identification of potential improvement levers" as well as 
conducting "multiple interviews with the bank's management team ... to understand the current set­
up." Further, the Petitioner emphasized the Beneficiary's work with the bank in "creating 
advanced analytics sales models as well as the user interfaces required to ease usability of the tool," 
including him acting as a "key point of contact for the sales executive of the bank," "gather[ing] their 
feedback on desired tool features," and "communicat[ing] project progress." 
The above discussed duties suggest the Beneficiary's direct involvement in the provision of services 
to clients and leave uncertainty as to whether he was primarily performing qualifying managerial 
duties, or in the alternative, merely providing services to clients in cooperation with his colleagues. 
Again, Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary was primarily engaged in managerial duties abroad, 
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). We acknowledge that the Petitioner states that 
the Beneficiary "managed," "oversaw," "supervised," and "led" client projects and oversaw 
3 
subordinate professionals who relieved from him from primarily performing non-qualifying 
operational duties. However, the Petitioner has provided little supporting documentation to 
substantiate this assertion, such as evidence demonstrating his claimed personnel authority over 
professional subordinates, his direction of them, and his delegation of non-qualifying duties to them. 
Without this supporting evidence, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the Beneficiary 
was primarily engaged in qualifying managerial tasks, as opposed to non-qualifying duties directly 
related to the provision of services to clients, such as "defining underlying mathematical models that 
would be used to guide trading decisions," advising them, collecting their requirements, formulating 
improvements, conducting interviews for them to collect data, creating advanced analytics, acting as 
a point of contact gathering their feedback, and communicating project progress to them. The 
Petitioner must resolve ambiguity in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Whether the Beneficiary was a managerial employee abroad turns on whether the Petitioner has 
sustained its burden of proving that their duties were "primarily" managerial. See sections 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Here, the Petitioner does not document what proportion of the Beneficiary's 
duties were managerial functions and what proportion represented non-qualifying operational tasks 
directly related to the provision of services to clients. The Petitioner submits evidence indicating that 
the Beneficiary's foreign duties included administrative or operational tasks, but it did not quantify 
the time he spent on these duties. For this reason, we cannot determine whether the Beneficiary was 
primarily performing the duties of a manager or an executive abroad. See IKEA US, Inc. v. US. Dept. 
of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
Even though the Beneficiary held a senior position within the foreign employer, the fact that he 
managed or directed a portion of the business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification 
as an intracompany transferee in a managerial capacity within the meaning of section 10l(a)(44) of 
the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a foreign position be 
"primarily" managerial in nature. Id. The Beneficiary may exercise discretion over certain aspects of 
the foreign employer's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect 
to discretionary decision-making; however, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish 
that his actual duties abroad are primarily managerial in nature. 
B. Staffing 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual was acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, the reasonable needs of the organization are taken into account in light of the 
overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
The statutory definition of"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to primarily 
supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. Contrary 
to the common understanding of the word "manager," the statute plainly states that 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." Id. If a beneficiary directly 
supervises other employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire those 
4 
employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner provided general organizational charts related to the projects the Beneficiary worked 
abroad. For example, the Petitioner submitted a chart related to the Beneficiary's engagement with "a 
majorl lenergy company" reflecting that he oversaw three data scientists, a research analyst, 
and two "UX designers." The Petitioner also provided a chart specific to the Beneficiary's assignment 
to "a major bank" indicating that he supervised a management consultant, two marketing 
experts, and two visualization experts. Yet another project specific chart reflected that he managed 
four data scientists and two visualization experts. The Petitioner asserts that all the Beneficiary's 
subordinates on all three projects held bachelor's degrees required to perform the duties of these 
positions. 
First, the Beneficiary could not qualify as a personnel manager abroad based on the oversight of 
subordinate supervisors or managers as the provided foreign organizational charts reflect that he did 
not supervise these employees abroad. On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary 
supervised professional subordinates and that he held personnel authority over them. To determine 
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. 
However, the Petitioner did not submit supporting documentation to corroborate that he oversaw teams 
of professionals abroad who relieved him from performing non-qualifying operational duties directly 
related to the provision of services to clients, nor did it provide supporting evidence to demonstrate 
that him held personnel authority over several subordinate professionals. Further, although the 
Petitioner provided general duty descriptions for the various professional positions the Beneficiary 
was claimed to supervise, it also did not submit other substantiating evidence, such as the salaries of 
these employees or documentation to establish that they held bachelor's degrees. The Petitioner also 
does not indicate how the Beneficiary was selected for a managerial level position overseeing several 
professionals with bachelor's degrees only approximately three months after he had obtained his own 
bachelor's degree abroad. In addition, the Petitioner submitted no evidence reflecting his delegation 
of non-qualifying operational duties to his claimed subordinates abroad. Therefore, the Petitioner did 
not sufficiently establish that the Beneficiary acted as a personnel manager abroad. 
The Petitioner also appears to assert on appeal that the Beneficiary qualified as a function manager 
abroad asserting that this position included "functional managerial responsibilities in the form of 
project planning, project management and resource development management." 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 
5 
organization. See section 101(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). 
The Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Beneficiary acted as a function manager 
abroad. As we have noted, the Petitioner provided evidence indicating the Beneficiary's performance 
of non-qualifying operational duties directly related to providing services to foreign employer clients. 
Again, the Petitioner did not submit supporting documentation to substantiate that the Beneficiary was 
primarily engaged in managing a function rather than performing it. The Petitioner contends that he 
manages teams of professionals who relieve him of from performing non-qualifying operational tasks, 
but it provided little evidence to substantiate his direction of these employees abroad or his delegation 
of tasks to them. Further, the Beneficiary's responsibilities abroad appear to be wide ranging and 
dictated by the client, or project, to which he is assigned. The same could be said with respect to his 
various asserted professional subordinates who appear to fluctuate according to his specific 
assignment or the client's needs. Therefore, the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the 
Beneficiary's function is well defined and that he has senior level discretionary authority over it. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was employed abroad 
in a managerial capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6