dismissed L-1A Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 22648576 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 4, 2023 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a management consulting firm, seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as its 
"Associate (Management Consultant)" under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracornpany 
transferees who are corning 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)(15)(L). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a 
managerial or executive capacity . Regarding the Beneficiary's employment abroad, the Director 
reasoned that because the Beneficiary held two positions - first as "management consultant" followed 
by "associated (management consultant)" - in the relevant three-year period that preceded this 
petition's filing, the Petitioner must therefore establish that both positions were in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 1 The Director noted, however, that the Petitioner did not address each position 
individually and determined that the record lacked sufficient evidence establishing that the Beneficiary 
managed an essential function and occupied a senior-level position with respect to an essential 
function , as required of a function manager, or that he had the authority to hire, fire, or recommend 
such actions , as required of a personnel manager. 2 See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii)-(iii) of the Act. 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 because the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad was in a managerial capacity. Because the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the 
1 The petition's date of filing - in this case was July 30, 2021 - is the proper reference point for determining the three-year 
period during which the foreign employment must have occurred. In this case that three-year period is between July 30, 
2018, and July 30, 2021. Although the Beneficiary's employment abroad commenced on October 3, 2016, only the 
employment that falls within the relevant three-year period is relevant for the purpose of determining whether the 
Beneficiary meets the foreign employment requirement. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). In this instance, because the 
Beneficiary 's employment abroad ceased on August 2, 2019, the Petitioner must establish that the Beneficiary 's 
employment from July 30, 2018, until July 30, 2019, was in a managerial or executive capacity. 
2 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. 
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). 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 
(BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230,234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of 
adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that 
has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit 
courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they 
give "individualized consideration" to the case). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's position abroad involved responsibilities that 
required him to manage both a function and a staff of professionals. See Matter of G- Inc., Adopted 
Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017) (listing the five-prong criteria for an essential 
function). However, the Petitioner refers to the Beneficiary's foreign employment by the generic 
position title of "Management Consultant," even though two of the three organizational charts 
submitted in response to the request for evidence depict the Beneficiary as "Associate (Management 
Consultant)," which is shown as subordinate to "Engagement Manager (Management Consultant)." 
Because the Petitioner makes no distinction between the two positions the Beneficiary held during the 
relevant three-year period, it has not established that both positions were in a managerial capacity. 
The Petitioner also highlights the Beneficiary's "independent autonomy and discretion" over each 
assigned project, pointing to the Beneficiary's role as a "senior team leader" who was charged with 
overseeing four to nine professionals in subordinate positions, such as junior management consultant, 
visualization expert, designer, and research and analytics analysts. However, the Petitioner does not 
establish that the individual client engagements over which the Beneficiary is claimed to have had 
autonomy and discretion were tantamount to an essential function, either individually or collectively; 
nor does the Petitioner provide an understanding of the organizational placement of the Beneficiary's 
individual client projects within the broader scope of the organization. The previously submitted 
organizational charts depicted staffing hierarchies of individual projects the Beneficiary previously 
worked on, but such charts offer only a limited view of the team that comprised a specific client 
project, and they provide no contextual information about the broader organizational hierarchy to show 
the respective placements of the Beneficiary's specific projects within that hierarchy. 
Although the record indicates that the foreign organization employed thousands of employees and 
serviced many clients, the Petitioner did not indicate that there was a hierarchy among those clients or 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary's projects, which were staffed with four to nine subordinates, were 
particularly critical to the organization and would have been deemed "essential" within the 
organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2