dismissed L-1A Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19828632 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition forL-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 5, 2022 
The Petitioner, a management consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary in the 
United States as a management consultant under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act(the Act) section 1 0l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 110 l(a)(15)(L). 
The L-1 A classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its 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, as required, that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a qualifying capacity. The 
matter is now 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 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 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. AN AL YSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has been employed 
abroad in a qualifying capacity (managerial, executive, or involving specialized knowledge) . The 
Petitioner specifies that the Beneficiary's position abroad was managerial. Therefore, we restrict our 
analysis to whether the Beneficiary has been 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 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
To show that a beneficiary is eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, a 
petitioner must show that the beneficiary will perform 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 performing 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 Beneficiary entered the United States in 2018 to work for the Petitioner in L-lB nonimmigrant 
status. After studying for a master's degree as an F-1 nonimmigrant student, the Beneficiary is 
currently in the United States working for the Petitioner in H-1 B nonimmigrant status. 
The Petitioner's foreign affiliate employed the Beneficiary in Nigeria as a management consultant 
(also called a business analyst) from September 2016 to December 2017. The Petitioner asserts that 
this position meets the requirements of a managerial capacity. The Petitioner states: 
As a Management Consultant, the beneficiary worked ... conducting relevant research 
and performing technical analyses of information affecting the clients' operations and 
industries; interpreting and summarizing data; and making recommendations to the 
consulting team. She provided technical support and research in performing basic 
industry and company analyses of performance trends .... 
. . . The beneficiary's responsibilities included project planning, project management, 
and resource deployment management. ... 
. . . [T]he beneficiary's managerialjob duties consisted of the following: 
• Managed key, discrete parts of consulting projects and performance of all 
required analyses, research, computations and problem-solving syntheses; 
• Developed and implemented analytical approach and project plans for work 
streams; 
2 
• Supervised the work of Junior Associates, Business Analysts and Research 
Analysts and developed external/internal data requests; 
• Led and identified innovative data sources and data collection approaches to be 
used in more advanced data analyses; 
• Managed collection of required client and industry data and performance of 
required analyses and syntheses of findings and the development of client-ready 
recommendations; 
• Oversaw the syntheses of work completed by Junior Associates, Business 
Analysts and Research Analysts into a set of findings or recommendations and 
structured the overall final written and oral presentation to client; 
• Organized and led client interviews on behalf of the engagement team; 
• Oversaw writing of parts or chapters of client reports and other documentation 
based on own analyses as well as the analyses performed by Business Analysts 
and others; and 
• Directed the development of data charts illustrating client performance trends 
and supporting the proposed recommendations. 
The Director requested more details about the Beneficiary's employment abroad, stating that the 
original job description was "vague and general." In response, the Petitioner submitted the same list 
of responsibilities shown above, and asserted that the Beneficiary "exercised direct personnel 
management authority" by supervising subordinates; directing their assignments; providing guidance; 
defining objectives; and evaluatingperfonnance. The Petitioner also described some past projects and 
stated that the Beneficiary had managerial authority over those projects. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not shown that the Beneficiary 
was employed abroad in a qualifying capacity. The Director determined that the Petitioner had relied 
on "generalized summaries" of the Beneficiary's responsibilities, without supporting evidence. 
On appeal, counsel for the Petitioner adds further claimed details about the Beneficiary's work abroad, 
stating, for instance, that she undertook"[ o ]ne-on-one coaching and overseeing of direct reports" and 
[l]eading and managing daily team problem solving sessions." Assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533,534 n.2 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of Ramirez­
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980)). Counsel cites no corroborating evidence and does not 
claim to have direct, personal knowledge of the Beneficiary's activities in Nigeria. 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary worked both as a personnel manager, by supervising and 
contra lling the work of professional subordinates, and as a function manager. The Petitioner has not 
shown that the Beneficiary was either a personnel manager or a function manager. 
The Petitioner has not articulated a specific function that the Beneficiary will manage. 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: 
(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 
3 
or with respect to the function managed; and ( 5) the beneficiary will exercise discretion 
over the function's day-to-day operations. 
MatterofG-Inc.,AdoptedDecision2017-05 (AAONov. 8, 2017). In this matter, the Petitioner states 
that the Beneficiary "functioned at a senior level with respect to the essential client engagement 
workstreams under her purview." While client engagement overall might constitute an essential 
function, the record does not establish that each individual client engagement project is an essential 
function in its own right. 
With respect to personnel management, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary "supervised and 
controlled the work of professional employees," but the record is inconsistent about the positions 
supervised. The Petitioner states that "[t]hese professional employees included Junior Management 
Consultants, Research Analysts, Visual Aids/Graphics Specialists, and administrative personnel." But 
the same letter lists the subordinate positions as "Analytics Analysts," "Junior Management 
Consultants," "Research Analysts," and "Graphic/Information/ Analytical Services Specialists." An 
organizational chart lists the subordinate titles as "Analytics Analysts," "Business Analysts," 
"Research Analysts," and "Visualization Experts." 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides another different list of job titles under the Beneficiary's 
supervision, stating that "she oversaw the work of . . . Analytics Analysts, Research Analysts, 
Visualization Experts (Graphic/Information/Analytical Services Specialists), Data Scientists, 
Research Experts, Fellows (Management Consultants) and Fellow Interns, among others." The 
Petitioner did not attempt to resolve this discrepancy in the record with independent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
It appears, from the available evidence, that the Beneficiary was not so much a manager with formal 
authority over designated subordinates as a team leader, steering the team's work but also actively 
participating in its operational tasks. Supporting this conclusion, descriptions of example projects 
indicate that different staff members worked on each project, consistent with ad hoc teams rather than a 
formal hierarchical structure. This conclusion is also consistent with the Beneficiary's (interchangeable) 
titles of "management consultant" and "business analyst," and the Petitioner's initial assertion that the 
Beneficiary's own work entailed "conducting relevant research and performing technical analyses of 
information affecting the clients' operations and industries; interpreting and summarizing data; and 
making recommendations to the consulting team," as well as "provid[ ing] technical support and research 
in performing basic industry and company analyses of performance trends." 
Overall, based on the inconsistencies addressed above, the evidence provided does not consistently 
describe the Beneficiary's duties or level of authority, nor has the Petitioner identified the placement 
of the Beneficiary's position within the company's overall organizational hierarchy. These 
deficiencies support a conclusion that the Petitioner did not meet its burden to establish the 
Beneficiary's employment abroad in a managerial capacity. 
For the above reasons, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a managerial capacity. We will therefore dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4