dismissed L-1A Case: Non-Profit Fundraising

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18407286 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 13, 2021 
The Petitioner, describing itself as a "non-profit organization," seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary in the United States as its development director under the L-lA nonirmnigrant 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 California Service Center denied the petition on multiple grounds, concluding the 
Petitioner did not establish that: 1) it had a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer; 2) the Beneficiary is employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad, and 3) the 
Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not sufficiently cite applicable law to establish 
why it and the foreign entity do not have a qualifying relationship as non-profit entities, and further 
contends that they share common control. In addition, the Petitioner states that the Director's 
determination that the Beneficiary did not act abroad in a managerial or executive, and that she would 
not act in this same capacity in the United States, was "subjective" and not sufficiently explained. 
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. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal because 
the Petitioner did not establish that it the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a 
managerial or executive capacity. Because the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the appeal, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding whether it has a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer or whether she was employed abroad in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 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 l&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 10l(a)(l5)(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. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial capacity. The Petitioner does not claim on appeal that the Beneficiary 
would be employed in an executive capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the 
Beneficiary would be 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. 
When examining the managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly describe the 
duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in a managerial 
capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
A. Duties 
To be eligible for the 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 10l(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 offered position meets all elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, the Petitioner must 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 a given 
beneficiary's duties will be primarily managerial, we consider the Petitioner's description of the job 
duties, the company's organizational structure, the duties of a 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 a beneficiary's actual 
duties and role in a business. 
2 
The Petitioner stated that it is a non-profit entity engaged in supporting "the provision of medical 
services at thd I in Venezuela" and "dedicated to fonding medical 
research and promoting the development of medical infrastructure." The Petitioner indicated that the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer operated similarly in Venezuela for many years supporting thee=] 
The Petitioner explained that its purpose is to "financially supportc::=J through fondraising efforts 
in the United States and noted that it planned to expand fondraising efforts in thel I area since an 
"important part of the [ foreign employer] donor base has moved abroad." In support of the petition, 
the Petitioner submitted the following duties for the Beneficiary as its proposed development director: 
• Provide vision, objectives and implementation of fondraising strategies; 
• Implement fondraising efforts, including planning and execution of fondraising 
events; 
• Hold meetings with Board of Directors to review strategic goals and initiatives; 
• Manage the recruiting, hiring, and providing appropriate training for any 
fondraising support staff; 
• Serve on strategic planning committees with the Board of Directors; 
• Manage donor relationships and work closely with donors to ensure legacy giving; 
• Oversee and manage fondraising budget to ensure all events are cost-effective and 
successful; and 
• Authority over planning, development and implementation offondraising goals and 
policies to maximize giving. 
In another duty description provided in support of the petition the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
would be tasked with "finding and cultivating new prospects," "handl[ing] VIP donors," "organizing 
direct marketing campaigns," "managing social media," and "organizing and executing Fundraising 
events," including "Charity Sports Tournaments, Galas, [and] dinners." 
Later in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), which asked for more detail related to 
the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. duties, the Petitioner provided the following duty description: 
• Design the annual strategic plan for fondraising- 20%; 
• Run the fondraising campaigns and events- 40% 
• Create effective strategies to maximize donations and cultivate new donors- 30% 
• Managing budget and advise use of fonds- 10% 
Further, the Petitioner listed some of the following tasks for the Beneficiary in her U.S. role: 
• Design the strategic annual plan and manage the team for this purpose, as well as 
for the execution and post/event program analysis, 
• Responsible for the proper execution of the fonds during the events and 
manage/make the calls needed before, during and after the event, 
• Accountable for all the operational aspects of the foundation, 
• Work on cultivating donors and establishing long term relationships with other 
organizations, finding potential sponsors for recurrent campaigns and events, and 
• Have the power for making decisions with a set of predetermined guidelines 
discussed with the Board of Directors. 
3 
The Beneficiary's duty descriptions do not sufficiently demonstrate that she would primarily devote 
her time to qualifying managerial-level tasks while employed in the United States. In fact, several of 
the Beneficiary's stated duties are indicative of her direct involvement in the non-qualifying 
operational aspects of the business, such as "work[ing] closely with donors to ensure legacy giving" 
and "ensur[ing] all [emphasis added] events are cost-effective and successful." Likewise, the 
Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary would be engaged in "finding and cultivating new prospects," 
"handl[ing] VIP donors," "organizing direct marketing campaigns," "managing social media," and 
organizing and executing "Charity Sports Tournaments, Galas, [and] dinners." The Petitioner also 
explained that the Beneficiary would be responsible for the "execution of the funds during the events," 
"manag[ing]/mak[ing] the calls needed before, during and after the event," and "being accountable for 
all [emphasis added] the operational aspects of the foundation." In sum, these tasks are reflective of 
the Beneficiary's primary engagement in non-qualifying operational duties directly related to the 
provision of services. 
The uncertainty as to the Beneficiary's proposed duties is heightened by the Petitioner's apparent lack 
of employees and subordinates. The Petitioner did not submit a U.S. organizational chart, assert that 
it had any employees beyond the Beneficiary, or provide any supporting evidence to indicate that she 
would have any subordinates as of the date the petition was filed. For instance, the Petitioner's most 
recent 2019 IRS Form 990-EZ, Short Form Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax, 
reflected that it collected just under $58,000 in donations in the year just prior to the date the petition 
was filed and incurred only approximately $6,000 in expenses during that year. 1 This leaves 
substantial question as to what "fundraising support staff' or "teams" the Beneficiary would oversee 
and to whom she would delegate the apparent non-qualifying tasks discussed above. For example, it 
is not clear who would be tasked with collecting donations, organizing events, soliciting donors, 
paying vendors, performing the company's accounting, amongst other reasonably foreseeable 
operational tasks. 
The Petitioner's assertions and the supporting evidence reflect very limited operations and suggest 
that it would be the Beneficiary's sole responsibility to establish its position in the United States. 
Again, given these limited operations it is not clear who, other than the Beneficiary, would perform 
the non-qualifying aspects of sufficiently establishing its fundraising activities in the United States as 
of the date the petition was filed. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the 
immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through 
adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
Whether the Beneficiary is a managerial employee turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained its 
burden of proving that their duties are "primarily" managerial. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Here, the Petitioner does not credibly document what proportion of the Beneficiary's duties would be 
managerial functions and what proportion would be non-qualifying. The Petitioner lists the 
Beneficiary's duties, and submits supporting documentation, indicating her substantial performance 
of administrative and operational tasks necessary to establish its operations, but it does not sufficiently 
quantify the time she would spend on these non-qualifying duties as compared to managerial tasks. 
For this reason, we cannot determine whether the Beneficiary would primarily perform the duties of a 
manager. See IKEA US, Inc. v. US. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
1 The petition was filed in February 2020. 
4 
In contrast, the Petitioner provided little detail to substantiate the Beneficiary's proposed managerial 
duties as of the date the petition was filed. For instance, there is little detail as to the "strategic plans" 
the Beneficiary would establish, "effective strategies to maximize donation" she would implement, 
budgets she would manage, guidelines she would implement from the board of directors, or long-term 
relationships with "other organizations" she would foster. Although we do not expect the Petitioner 
to articulate and document every managerial task performed by the Beneficiary, it is reasonable to 
expect that it would provide sufficient detail and documentation to corroborate her likely performance 
of qualifying managerial duties. 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a position with a managerial title within the organization, the fact 
that he will manage or direct 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)(A) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a 
position be "primarily" managerial in nature. Id. The Beneficiary may exercise discretion over some 
of the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess some requisite level of authority with respect to 
discretionary decision-making; however, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish 
that her actual duties would be primarily managerial in nature. 
B. Staffing 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
capacity, we take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose 
and stage of development of the organization. See section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. 
As discussed, the Petitioner contends on appeal that the Beneficiary would be employed in a 
managerial capacity. 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 employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(B)(3). 
As previously noted, the Petitioner did not submit a U.S. organizational chart, duties for any asserted 
subordinates to the Beneficiary, or any other assertions or documentation to indicate that it had any 
employees as of the date the petition was filed. In fact, the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker reflected in part 5, section 14 that it had "O" employees. Given this, the Petitioner does not 
clearly assert or demonstrate with supporting evidence that the Beneficiary would be employed as a 
personnel manager overseeing subordinate supervisory, professional, or managerial employees as of 
the date the petition was filed. 
Therefore, the only remaining consideration is whether the Beneficiary would be employed as a 
function manager. The Petitioner vaguely asserts on appeal that the Director "use[ d] an incorrect legal 
5 
standard by ignoring or rejecting qualification by [the Beneficiary through] managing a function." 
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 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 "(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." Matter of G- Inc., 
Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the Beneficiary would qualify as a function 
manager. On appeal, the Petitioner points only to the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (Handbook) and its description of"Public Relations and Fundraising Managers." In 
pointing to this definition, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary's position is "by definition" 
managerial. However, according to this reasoning, a petitioner's burden of proof would be merely based 
on their assigned title and a reference to a generic definition promulgated by the DOL. The Petitioner 
has not articulated the specific function that the Beneficiary would manage or indicated why it is 
essential. It only generally indicates that the Beneficiary would be the company's executive director 
overseeing the establishment of its entire U.S. operations. 
Further, the Petitioner has not properly demonstrated how the Beneficiary would primarily manage a 
function, even if clearly defined, rather than perform the function. As we have discussed in this 
decision, the Petitioner has provided a duty description for the Beneficiary indicating her wide 
engagement in non-qualifying operational activities necessary to establish the Petitioner's fundraising 
activities in the United States. The Petitioner has not sufficiently articulated or documented how the 
Beneficiary would be primarily relieved of these non-qualifying duties, and as noted, it appears to 
have no staff to discharge her of these tasks. As such, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
Beneficiary would be employed as a function manager. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would be employed 
in a managerial capacity in the United States. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6