dismissed L-1A Case: Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7869881 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for an L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 29, 2020 
The Petitioner, a machinery manufacturer , seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as its 
manufacturing manager under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees . 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L) . 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity 
or in a position requiring specialized knowledge for at least one year during the three years prior to 
filing this petition . 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not provide an analysis discussing whether the 
Beneficiary's employment abroad was in the role of a function manager. The Petitioner also contends 
that the Beneficiary's employment abroad was not only in a managerial capacity , but that it also 
qualifies as employment that required specialized knowledge. 
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. 
I. ANALYSIS 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification , a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity , or in a position requiring 
specialized knowledge for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's 
application for admission into the United States . 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1). In addition, the beneficiary 
must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her service s to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(1)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner in this matter focuses on two positions that the Beneficiary held abroad , claiming that 
the position of "Industrial Improvement Engineer ," which the Beneficiary held from January 2016 
through August 2018 , and the position of "Operation Excellence Manager, " which he assumed in 
September 2018, involved specialized knowledge and also qualified as employment that was in a 
managerial capacity. We will address these claims in our discussion below. 
A. Managerial Capacity Abroad 
The first issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a managerial capacity. The Petitioner has consistently maintained that the Beneficiary has 
been working abroad in a "senior managerial" position of"Industrial Improvement Engineer" and was 
subsequently "promoted to his high-level managerial position" of "Operation Excellence Manager" 
that involves "oversight for significant areas of the company's global industrial production." 1 
Section 101(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. 
The Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary performed the high-level responsibilities set forth in the 
statutory definition. In determining whether a given beneficiary's duties were primarily managerial, 
we consider the description of the job duties, the company's organizational structure, the duties of a 
beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees who relieved 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. 
As discussed above, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary held two different positions during the 
three years prior to this petition's May 2019 filing date, indicating that both positions qualified as 
employment in a managerial capacity. Because the Beneficiary did not assume his current position of 
1 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary's foreign employment has been in an executive capacity. 
2 
"Operation Excellence Manager" until September 2018, he only held the latter pos1t10n for 
approximately nine months before this petition was filed. Therefore, even if the position of"Operation 
Excellence Manager" were deemed managerial, it would not establish that the Petitioner is eligible for 
the benefit sought herein because the Beneficiary did not hold that position for at least one year in the 
three years that preceded the filing of this petition. The opposite is true of the Beneficiary's former 
position as "Industrial Improvement Engineer," which he held for over two years during the period in 
question. 2 As such, in order to determine whether the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a 
managerial capacity for at least one year within the three years of filing this petition, we will focus 
exclusively on his former position as "Industrial Improvement Engineer." 
In an initial supporting statement, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's former role involved 
leading "cross-disciplinary teams" and managing "key projects in product development, cost reduction 
and the improvement of internal processes." The Petitioner also provided the Beneficiary's resume, 
which reiterates claims about his role with respect to "cross-disciplinary teams" and "key projects" 
and states that the Beneficiary served as "Lean Production Trainer across various teams" and was 
responsible for improving and controlling "the internal processes." Although the Petitioner claimed 
that the Beneficiary "was given increasing responsibilities at two production sites" and further stated 
that the Beneficiary "held managerial positions since January 2016," it did not provide a description 
of the Beneficiary's job duties or explain how his former role as "Industrial Improvement Engineer" 
was managerial. 
The Petitioner also provided an organizational chart titled "General Management" depicting the 
foreign entity's overall management structure. Although this chart includes a division titled 
"Industrial," it does not list either the Beneficiary or his superior. As such, it is unclear where the 
Beneficiary's position falls within the foreign entity's broader organizational hierarchy. Despite 
claiming that the Beneficiary occupied a "senior managerial" position within the foreign entity's 
organization, this organizational chart did not corroborate this claim. 
The Petitioner submitted two additional division charts with the Beneficiary's njme: (lJ "Industrial­
Industrial Improvements and Service"; and (2) "Industrial - Technologic Unit "3 The chart 
titled "Industrial - Industrial Improvements and Service" lists the Beneficiary's position title as 
"Industrial Improvement Technologic Unitl t and indicates that he, alongside five other 
employees, was subordinate to the head of that division and had no subordinates of his own. The other 
chart, titled "Industrial - Technologic Unit I I" appears to provide a more detailed breakdown of 
the organizational hierarchy within that unit in I ,I Ttaly, and lists the Beneficiary, with no 
subordinates, in the position of "Improvement UTE RN," which is depicted as one of six positions 
subordinate to the head of this unit. Although the six positions appear to only be subordinate to the 
head of the unit and do not appear to be subordinate to one another, they are depicted vertically at 
different levels, thus indicating that there is a hierarchy among these six employees. Specifically, this 
2 Based on the petition's date of filing- May 24, 2019 -the relevant three-year period that preceded that date commenced 
on May 24, 2016. Taking into account the dates of this three-year period and the Beneficiary's dates of employment as 
"Industrial Improvement Engineer," it is reasonable to conclude that the Beneficiary held this position for approximately 
two years and three months as of the date this petition was filed. 
3 The Petitioner also provided two other charts titled, "Business Unit Other Materials" and "Wood Division - Industrial." 
Because these charts do not include the Beneficiary's name or list his position, they are not relevant in this matter and need 
not be addressed in the discussion above. 
3 
organizational chart depicts the following hierarchy under the head of the unit: (1) "safety"; (2) 
"quality assurance"; (3) "maintenance"; (4) "Improvement UTE RN" (the Beneficiary's position); and 
(5) "operations.". 
We also reviewed the description of the Beneficiary's duties with respect to his role as "Industrial 
Improvement Engineer." We agree with the Director's determination that the submitted job 
description lacked sufficient details and did not allow for a conclusion that the Beneficiary performed 
primarily managerial job duties. For instance, the job duty breakdown from the foreign entity's human 
resources director indicated that the Beneficiary allocated 35% of his time to "sites production 
management," which included managing human and material resources, making decisions about 
equipment and maintenance, ensuring "that standard operating procedures are adhered to," and 
expanding and monitoring "appropriate use of Methods Time Management." However, there was no 
explanation as to who and what comprised the human and materials resources the Beneficiary was 
claimed to have managed, nor did the Petitioner offer farther insight as to the materials he managed 
or decisions he made. There was also no explanation as to how the Beneficiary ensured adherence to 
operating procedures or the significance of "Methods Time Management" within the scope of the 
Beneficiary's former position. 
Further, the job duty breakdown indicates that 20% of the Beneficiary's time was allocated to 
managing human resources, including selecting personnel, conducting performance evaluations, and 
providing yearly performance appraisals. However, as discussed above, the Petitioner offered 
organizational charts that did not support these claims. The Petitioner also broadly claimed that the 
Beneficiary "led cross-disciplinary teams and managed key projects," but it did not farther explain 
these duties. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary need not have managed subordinate employees 
in order to meet the statutory criteria for "managerial capacity" and asserts that it is erroneous to make 
a determination of whether the Beneficiary assumed the role of a function manager without conducting 
an four-prong analysis in line with Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016), 
which stressed the importance of considering a beneficiary's job duties along with other relevant 
evidence, including the nature and scope of an employer's business; the employer's organizational 
structure, staffing levels, and the beneficiary's position within that organization; the scope of the 
beneficiary's authority; the work performed by other staff within the organization, including whether 
those employees relieve the beneficiary from performing operational and administrative duties; and 
any other factors that will contribute to understanding the beneficiary's actual duties and role in the 
business. Although the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's employment abroad was "comprised 
of exclusively managerial duties," it offered a deficient job description that does not state precisely 
what job duties the Beneficiary performed in his former position as "Industrial Improvement Manager" 
and provided insufficient evidence to show that the Beneficiary's placement within the foreign entity's 
organizational hierarchy was consistent with that of someone employed in a managerial capacity. 
Further, 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 
4 
a clearly defined act1v1ty; (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). 
Although we agree with the Petitioner's assertion that one need not manage employees in order to 
meet the statutory definition of "managerial capacity," we do not find that the Petitioner offered 
sufficient evidence to satisfy the criteria specified in Matter of G-. Despite restating elements of a 
previously provided job description and claiming that the Beneficiary did not spend a "significant 
amount of time ... handling administrative tasks or dealing with the function (manufacturing) itself," 
the Petitioner did not clearly identify an activity-focused function or establish how that function was 
essential to the organization. See id. Instead, the Petitioner makes a passing reference to 
"manufacturing or product development" as an essential function, claiming that the Beneficiary did 
not perform the underlying duties, but rather managed that function. However, the Petitioner does not 
explain how these two seemingly separate activities - manufacturing and product development -
represent a clearly defined activity that is essential to the foreign entity, nor does it define the 
Beneficiary's role with respect to these activities to explain how he managed manufacturing and 
product development without performing the underlying operational tasks associated with that 
function. Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted organizational charts that did not depict the 
Beneficiary in a position that was at a senior level with respect to the "manufacturing or product 
development" function. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
In light of the deficiencies described above, the Petitioner did not establish that the former position as 
"Industrial Improvement Engineer" was in a "managerial capacity" as defined in the Act at section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
B. Specialized Knowledge Capacity Abroad 
Next, we will address the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary's employment abroad qualifies as 
employment that required specialized knowledge. 4 
The Petitioner did not initially claim that the Beneficiary's foreign employment required specialized 
knowledge; however, in its RFE response, the Petitioner claimed that "[t]he Beneficiary's experience 
in Italy also demonstrates the application of specialized knowledge." 
As a threshold issue, we must determine whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge. If the evidence is insufficient to establish that he possesses 
specialized knowledge, then we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary's past employment involved 
specialized knowledge. 
4 As noted earlier, the Beneficiary only held the position of "Operation Excellence Manager" for approximately nine 
months during the three-year time period that preceded the filing of this petition. As such, we will only discuss whether 
the Beneficiary's position of"Industrial Improvement Engineer," which he held from January 2016 through August 2018, 
was in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
5 
A beneficiary is deemed to have specialized knowledge ifhe or she has: (1) a "special" knowledge of 
the company product and its application in international markets; or (2) an "advanced" level of 
knowledge of the processes and procedures of the company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. A 
petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the claimed position 
satisfy either prong of the statutory definition. 
As both "special" and "advanced" are relative terms, determining whether a given beneficiary's 
knowledge is "special" or "advanced" inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary's 
knowledge against that of others. With respect to either special or advanced knowledge, the petitioner 
ordinarily must demonstrate that the beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly held throughout the 
particular industry and cannot be easily imparted from one person to another. The ultimate question 
is whether the petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that 
the beneficiary's knowledge or expertise is special or advanced, and that the beneficiary's position 
requires such knowledge. 
Once a petitioner articulates the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge, it is the weight and type 
of evidence which establishes whether or not the beneficiary actually possesses specialized 
knowledge. We cannot make a factual determination regarding a given beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge if the petitioner does not, at a minimum, articulate with specificity the nature of its products 
and services or processes and procedures, the nature of the specific industry or field involved, and the 
nature of the beneficiary's knowledge. The petitioner should also describe how such knowledge is 
typically gained within the organization, and explain how and when the individual beneficiary gained 
such knowledge. 
Here, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence about the Beneficiary's knowledge to 
establish that such knowledge is specialized, as claimed. Despite claiming that the Beneficiary's 
foreign employment "was clearly managerial in nature," the Petitioner made a parallel claim in its 
RFE response, stating that "[t]he Beneficiary's experience in Italy also demonstrates the application 
of specialized knowledge." The Petitioner stated that the foreign entity is "devoted to manufacturing 
machinery and systems" and claimed that the Beneficiary is a "trained engineering manager" with 
"expertise" in manufacturing solutions. However, when it made this claim in the RFE response, the 
Petitioner did not identify the Beneficiary's knowledge as either "special" or "advanced." Moreover, 
the Petitioner did not articulate with specificity the nature of the Beneficiary's knowledge, nor did it 
either point to a product or service that the foreign entity makes or offers or identify specific processes 
and procedures that the foreign entity utilizes. 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to the Beneficiary's "high level within the organization" as well as 
previously submitted evidence, such as the Beneficiary's resume and job descriptions, to support the 
claim that he possesses specialized knowledge. Although the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary 
has advanced knowledge of "these concepts" in industrial technology and process implementation, it 
does not specifically identify "these concepts" or compare the Beneficiary's knowledge of the 
undefined "concepts" with that of others within the company. As such, the Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary's knowledge is advanced. 
II. CONCLUSION 
6 
In light of the evidentiary deficiencies described above, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary's employment abroad was in a managerial capacity. Further, because the Petitioner did 
not establish that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, we cannot conclude that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad in a position requiring specialized knowledge. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7