dismissed L-1A Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 24216333 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 21, 2023 
The Petitioner, a management consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an 
associate (management consultant) under the L-IA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101 (a)(l 5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101 (a)(15XL). The L-1 A classification allows a corporation orotherlegal entity(includingits affiliate 
or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to work temporarily in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad, and will be employed in the United States, in a 
qualifying 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 Christo '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-1 A 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)(l 5)(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. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary has been and will be employed in a managerial capacity, 
rather than an executive 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 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
To show that a beneficiary is eligible for L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, a 
petitioner must show that the beneficiary will perfonn all four of the high-level responsibilities set 
forth in the statutory definition at section 101 ( a)( 44)(A) of the Act. If a petitioner establishes that the 
offered position meets all four elements set forth in the statutory definition, the petitioner must then 
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 the beneficiary's duties will be primarily 
managerial, we consider the description of the job duties, the company's organizational structure, the 
duties of the beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to relieve the 
beneficiary from perfonning operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that 
will contribute to understanding the beneficiary's actual duties and role in the business. 
The statutory definition of"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers," with authority 
over supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, and "function managers," with authority 
over an essential function within the organization. See sections IO 1 (a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 
At various times in this proceeding, the Petitioner has asserted that the Beneficiary would be both a 
function manager and a personnel manager. 
In the denial notice, the Director stated that the Petitioner had not established that it would employ the 
Beneficiary as a personnel manager or as a function manager. We agree with the Director that the 
Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's intended position in the United States would meet 
each of the requirements for either type of managerial capacity. 
A. Personnel Manager 
Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, 
professional, or managerial employees. Personnel managers must have the authority to hire and fire 
those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. Sections 
101(a)(44)(A)(ii)-(iii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(2)-(3). 
The Petitioner stated: 
[T]he beneficiary will manage workstreams for client engagements, drawing on his 
experience with [the Petitioner's affiliate] abroad, to ensure that the team's deliverables 
align with the client's objectives. The beneficiary's responsibilities will include project 
planning, project management, and resource deployment management. In addition, he 
2 
will have supervisory authority over a team of ... professionals supporting each study, 
including Business Analysts (Management Consultants), Research Analysts, and other 
members of the consulting team. 
The Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary would "supervise and control" teams comprising "1-2 
Analytics Analysts, 1-3 Business Analysts, 1-3 Research Analysts, and Visualization 
Specialists/Experts." The Petitioner did not establish how these teams fit into the company's overall 
organizational structure, or specify the layers of authority above the Beneficiary. 
The Petitioner did not indicate that the teams are fixed structures within the organization. Rather, 
"[t]he Finn fonns an engagement team for each client assignment. The organization and size of the 
team depend upon many factors including the nature, complexity and diversity of the problem being 
solved." Thus, the Beneficiary would not have exclusive authority over any subordinates. 
Under section 10 I (a)(44)(A)(iii) of the Act, direct supervision of other employees must entail "the 
authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions (such as promotion 
and leave authorization)." Initially, the Petitioner did not directly state that the Beneficiary would 
have such authority. Instead, the Petitioner stated that "the beneficiary will be responsible for 
evaluating ... team members ... , which will directly inform decisions relating to hiring, firing, year­
end performance, and bonus/compensation." Evaluations that do not involve recommendations for 
specific personnel actions do not satisfy the statutory and regulatory criteria for a managerial capacity. 
The Director requested more information showing the employment of professionals who would be 
subordinate to the Beneficiary and demonstrating the Beneficiary's authority related to hiring and 
firing and other personnel actions. 
In response, the Petitioner stated: "the beneficiary will generally lead a team staffed by Analytics 
Analysts, Business Analysts, Research Analysts, and Visualization Specialists/Experts," but "his 
subordinate team will vary depending on upon the size and complexity of the project." The Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary "will supervise and control his team members' work, specifically by 
organizing their workload, overseeing the quality of their output, guiding team members on their 
respective pieces/analyses as well as training and developing the knowledge of consultants staffed on 
the team." The Petitioner added: "No single employee at [the petitioning company] has direct hiring 
or firing authority for management consulting roles. Instead, individuals in managerial positions 
provide strategic input on decisions that directly influence these outcomes, and they further contribute 
directly to subordinate employees' performance reviews." 
In the denial notice, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not adequately establish that the 
Beneficiary would have managerial authority over specific professional employees. The Director also 
stated that the Petitioner "did not provide evidence of [the Beneficiary's] input or influence in the 
process of individuals being hired or fired." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's "supervisory duties over the professional 
employees" would include "the authority to contribute to their formal evaluation process based on 
their performance, which impacts hiring, firing and compensation." The Petitioner has not established 
the extent or weight of these contributions. In this respect, it is particularly significant that the 
3 
Beneficiary would not have fixed authority over any particular employees. The available information 
indicates, instead, that the Petitioner would lead ad hoc teams, each assembled temporarily for the 
duration of a particular project. 
The Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary would have all the required responsibilities of a 
personnel manager. 
B. Function Manager 
To establish that a beneficiary will manage an essential function, the Petitioner must clearly descnbe 
the duties to be performed in managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must 
demonstrate that: 
(1) 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. 
MatterofG-Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
The Petitioner stated: 
[T]he beneficiary's position in the U.S. will entail the management of an essential 
function within our business operations. Specifically, the beneficiary will manage 
specialized and critical workstreams by leading and guiding various projects teams and 
supervising analysts ... [and] will manage these workstreams by leading his teams to 
validate data, create potential solutions based on that data, build portfolio models, and 
highlight subsequent implications of such models. The beneficiary will be brought in 
to lead these specific client engagements. 
The Petitioner has not established that each individual project orworkstream - as opposed to the wider 
orchestration or coordination of all such projects - is an essential function of the organization. 
The Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary "will function at a senior level with respect to the essential 
client engagement workstreams under his purview." But the Petitioner has not fully documented the 
organizational structure relating to these workstreams. Partial organizational charts in the record show 
only two layers of employees, with the Beneficiary alone at the top, and all the stated subordinates 
below. The record does not show to whom the Beneficiary would rep01i, or establish the 
responsibilities of the Beneficiary's superior(s) with regard to the various projects. The record also 
does not specify whether the Beneficiary would select the members of project teams or if they would 
be assigned by higher-ranking officials. If one or more individual superior to the Beneficiary would 
have the authority to select the projects and participants, and assign them to the Beneficiary, then it is 
not evident that the Beneficiary's authority would rise to a "senior level" as asserted. 
4 
The Beneficiary's discretion and authority, as described, appears to be limited to individual projects, 
rather than to any essential function of the petitioning entity. 
We conclude that the Petitioner has not established that it would employ the Beneficiary in the United 
States as a function manager. 
Because the above discussion is sufficientto determine the outcome of the appeal, we need not discuss 
the issue of the Beneficiary's previous employment abroad, and we therefore reserve appellate 
argument on that issue. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, 
federal agencies are not generally required to make findings and decisions 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that it will employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a 
managerial capacity. We will therefore dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5