dismissed L-1A Case: Oil And Gas Industry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 12008801 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV . 27, 2020 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer of pipes for the oil and gas industry, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as 
a technical manager under the L-lA nonirnrnigrant visa classification for intracompany managers and 
executives . See 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 . The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's employment abroad - or his proposed U.S. work - in 
the claimed managerial capacity . 
The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing 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. INTRA COMP ANY MANAGERS AND EXECUTIVES 
An L-lA petitioner must demonstrate that it would employ a beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity in the United States and that the beneficiary has the qualifications for the proposed work. 
Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 214 .2(1)(3)(i), (iv). An L-lA petitioner must also 
establish that, for at least one continuous year of the three-year period before a beneficiary's admission 
into the United States, the petitioner , a branch, parent, affiliate, or subsidiary employed the beneficiary 
full-time in a capacity that was managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge . Section 
101(a)(15)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(1)(3)(iii), (iv). 
II. PROPOSED U.S . EMPLOYMENT 
The term "managerial capacity" means employment that would "primarily" involve: 1) managing an 
organization or its department, subdivision, function, or component; 2) supervising and controlling 
the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or managing an essential 
function within the organization, department, or subdivision; 3) having the authority to hire and fire 
subordinates or to recommend those and other personnel actions or, if no employee was supervised, 
functioning at a senior level within an organizational hierarchy or regarding the function managed; 
and 4) exercising discretion over daily operations of the activity or function for which the employee 
had authority. Section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(B). 
A petitioner claiming a beneficiary's proposed employment in a managerial capacity must demonstrate 
that his or her work would meet all four elements of the term's definition. A petitioner must also 
establish that a beneficiary would "primarily" perform managerial-level duties, as opposed to 
operational tasks. See Matter of Church Scientology Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (Comm'r 1988) (stating 
that "[ a ]n employee who primarily performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide 
services is not considered to be employed in a managerial or executive capacity"). 
The definition of the term "managerial capacity" allows for both managers of personnel and essential 
functions. In its letter supporting the petition, the Petitioner at one point referred to the Beneficiary as 
a "function manager." On appeal, however, the Petitioner neither claims that he would work as a 
function manager nor faults the Director for not considering him in that role. We will therefore 
consider the Beneficiary only as a personnel manager. A personnel manager must "primarily" 
supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. See 
section 101 (a)( 44)(A)(ii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(B)(2). "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." Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 
2 l 4.2(1)(ii)(B)( 4). 
In considering the managerial nature of proposed employment, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) examines the job duties of the offered position. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii) 
(requiring a "detailed description of the services to be performed"). We also consider: the nature and 
structure of the U.S. business; the existence of subordinates who could relieve a beneficiary from 
performing operational tasks; the duties of subordinates; and other factors potentially affecting the 
nature of a beneficiary's proposed role in the United States. 
Here, the record shows that the Petitioner makes and sells submerged, arc-welded pipes for the oil and 
gas industry. In December 2016, the Beneficiary transferred to the United States from the Petitioner's 
parent company in India in L-lB nonimmigrant visa status to work as an internal coating specialist 
and coordinator. 1 The Petitioner states that it later promoted the Beneficiary to the offered position of 
technical manager and seeks to extend his U.S. stay in L-lA status. 
As the Director found, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. 
employment would meet all four elements of the definition of "managerial capacity." Specifically, 
the record does not establish the Beneficiary's prospective authority to hire and fire subordinates or to 
recommend those and other personnel actions. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(iii) of the Act, 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(3). 
The Director's written request for evidence (RFE) notified the Petitioner of the evidentiary deficiency. 
The Petitioner's RFE response included copies of employee evaluations and documentation of training 
1 L-lB status allows qualified foreign nationals to temporarily work in the United States in positions involving "specialized 
knowledge." See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(D) (defining the term "specialized knowledge"). 
2 
sessions that the Beneficiary conducted in the proposed position. These materials, however, do not 
demonstrate the Beneficiary's authority to hire and fire or to recommend personnel actions. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director disregarded the Beneficiary's resume. The resume 
states that, in the current offered position of technical manager, the Beneficiary "[r]ecommend[s] 
hiring and firing of hourly employees." 
On the L Classification Supplement to Form 1-129 and in the Petitioner's letter supporting the petition, 
however, the company did not state the Beneficiary's authority to hire and fire or recommend 
personnel actions. Also, in listing the Beneficiary's proposed job duties, the L Classification 
Supplement refers to the Petitioner's letter, not to the Beneficiary's resume. Thus, the unexplained 
discrepancies between the Beneficiary's resume and the L Classification Supplement and the 
Petitioner's letter cast doubt on his proposed authority to recommend personnel actions. See Matter 
of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591 (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies ofrecord). 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Director requested more evidence than required. The Petitioner 
contends that its letter alone demonstrated the managerial nature of the Beneficiary's proposed 
employment. 
In L-1 extension pet1t10ns, "supporting documentation is not required, unless requested by the 
director." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(i) (emphasis added). Here, pursuant to Ho, the Director requested 
supporting documentation. Also, as previously discussed, the Petitioner's letter did not state the 
Beneficiary's authority to hire and fire or to recommend personnel actions. Thus, even if only a letter 
was required, the Petitioner's letter would not have demonstrated the Beneficiary's proposed 
employment in a managerial capacity. 
The Petitioner further asserts its submission of a letter stating the Beneficiary's responsibility of 
"recommending [the] hiring, firing, and disciplining" of employees. That letter, however, is from the 
Petitioner's parent and describes the Beneficiary duties in his last position abroad. The parent's letter 
therefore does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would hire and fire or recommend personnel 
actions in the United States. 
Also, although unaddressed by the Director, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary would 
"primarily" supervise and control the work of others as required of a personnel manager. See section 
10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(B)(2). The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
would spend 20% of his time in training-related activities that appear to be supervisory in nature. But 
the record does not establish that the Beneficiary's other duties - such as: ensuring smooth and uniform 
quality of coatings; ensuring proper documentation for process parameters; and monitoring budgets 
for capital projects - would involve supervision and control of others' work. Thus, contrary to the 
requirements of a personnel manager, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary would 
"primarily" supervise and control others' work. Thus, in any future filings, the Petitioner must submit 
additional evidence that the Beneficiary would primarily serve as a personnel manager. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Director "failed to adequately address and consider each piece of 
evidence provided." The Petitioner cites a U.S. district court case where USCIS "failed to consider 
3 
the key piece of evidence" included in a petitioner's RFE response . Earehart.com v. Kaumans, 2020 
WL 820878 *3 (D.D.C. Feb. 19, 2020). 
Federal district court decisions do not bind us in other matters. See, e.g., Matter of H-G-G-, Adopted 
Decision 2019-01 6 n.9 (AAO July 31, 2019) ( citations omitted). Moreover, unlike in Earehart. com, 
the Petitioner here has not demonstrated the Director's disregard ofrelevant evidence. 
For the foregoing reasons, the record does not establish the Beneficiary's proposed employment in the 
United States in the claimed managerial capacity. We will therefore affirm the Director's decision. 
III. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
The petition is not approvable. We therefore need not decide and hereby reserve judgment on the 
claimed managerial nature of the Beneficiary's employment abroad. See INS v. Eagamasbad, 429 
U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (holding that "agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of 
which is unnecessary to the results they reach") . 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's proposed work in the United States in the 
claimed managerial capacity. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4