dismissed L-1A Case: Safety Video Solutions

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 12, 2024 In Re: 30663172 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a provider of safety video learning solutions and content, seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary temporarily as its "National Sales Manager" under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification 
for intracompany transferees who are coming to be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(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 capacity.1 The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a managerial capacity. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments 
regarding the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employment. 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. LAW 
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). The beneficiary must also be 
seeking to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
1 The Petitioner's claim rests solely on the definition of managerial capacity. The Petitioner did not claim that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad or that he would be employed in the United States in an executive capacity. 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(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. 
II. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The issue to be addressed is whether 
the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence establishing that the 
Beneficiary's position with the Canadian affiliate was in a managerial capacity.2 
To be eligible for nonimmigrant visa classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial 
capacity, the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary performed the high-level responsibilities set 
forth in the statutory definition at section 101(a)(44)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act. If the record does not 
establish that the position in question - in this case the foreign position - meets all four of these 
elements, we cannot conclude that it is a qualifying managerial position. 
If the Petitioner establishes that the position in question meets all elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary primarily performed managerial duties, as 
opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside other employees within the foreign entity. See 
Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). 3 
2 The record indicates that the Petitioner and I the Beneficiary's employer in Canada, are affiliates by virtue 
of both entities being majority owned by I a common parent entity. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(L )( I). Although the record shows that the Beneficiary was first employed by the parent entity in Australia, 
he was later transfened to work for the Canadia affiliate where he held various positions, the latest of which - that of sales 
manager- is the basis for the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary met the foreign employment requirement. 
3 In determining whether a given beneficiary's duties are primarily managerial, we consider that beneficiary's job duties, 
the employer'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 record in this matter shows that the Beneficiary had been employed as a sales manager at the 
Petitioner's Canadian affiliate where he was responsible for leading and training a team of sales 
representatives "on the proper and consistent use" of the affiliate group's proprietary platform and 
"strategic sales processes and procedures." The Beneficiary's job duties included setting the team's 
metrics and goals and evaluating individual performances, managing client accounts and controlling 
financial risks, helping with recruitment of sales representatives, and improving the company's 
internal "strategic sales processes and procedures." 
The Petitioner did not specifically discuss the foreign entity's reporting structure. Accordingly, the 
Director addressed this deficiency in a request for evidence (RFE), where the Petitioner was asked to 
provide an organizational chart or diagram illustrating the Canadian entity's organizational structure 
and staffing levels and to list the employees subject to the Beneficiary's management, including the 
employees' respective names, job titles and duties, and levels of education. The Petitioner was further 
asked to provide evidence establishing that the Beneficiary's subordinates were either assigned 
management or supervisory duties, or alternatively that the subordinate positions required bachelor's 
degrees. The RFE explained that in evaluating whether a beneficiary managed professional 
employees, we look to the level of education required of the subordinate position(s) rather than the 
degree actually held by the subordinate(s). 
In response, the Petitioner provided an organizational chart listing the Canadian affiliate's employees 
in descending order, which appears to correspond to their respective placements within the company's 
hierarchy. The Canadian entity's president/general manager (GM) is listed at the top of the hierarchy, 
followed by the Beneficiary in his position as sales manager. The position below the Beneficiary is 
listed as "administration" with the employee's initials appearing next to the position title. The 
remaining tier is comprised of a ten-person sales team whose individual initials were also provided. 
In a separate statement, the Canadian entity's GM listed the Beneficiary's job duties, with primary 
focus on managing and expanding the sales team and working "intensely" with members of that team 
"to drive the sales forward." Thus, while the organizational chart does not specifically describe a 
reporting structure, the Beneficiary's list of job duties indicates that his supervisory responsibilities 
extended to the sales staff but not to the "administration" position. Because the Beneficiary's 
subordinate sales representatives were depicted as occupying the bottom tier of the hierarchy, there 
were not employees for them to manage or supervise, thus indicating that the Beneficiary did not 
supervise or control the work of supervisory or managerial employees; nor does the record show that 
the Beneficiary supervised or controlled the work of professional employees, as the Petitioner did not 
comply with the RFE request for a listing of position requirements for the Beneficiary's subordinates. 
See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
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. A beneficiary who directly 
supervises other employees 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). 
3 
In the present matter, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary supervised or controlled 
the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, as required by section 
10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. As discussed earlier, the RFE notified the Petitioner of the evidentiary 
deficiency concerning this requirement, but the Petitioner did not respond with the requested evidence. 
We note that failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be 
grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
Accordingly, the Director denied the petition finding that the record lacks evidence showing that the 
Beneficiary supervised and controlled the work of supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. 
On appeal, the Petitioner explains that it and its related entities operate with similarly sized staff and 
within the structure of a similar hierarchy, which includes a GM, a sales manager, sales 
representatives, and administrative personnel. The Petitioner goes on to summarize the supporting 
evidence, asserting that the GM's "testimonial" letter describes the Beneficiary's role and establishes 
that his "level of responsibility in the organization [is] above merely supervising other employees." 
The Petitioner also lists the Beneficiary's subordinate and asserts that their "testimonial" letters further 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary's position with the Canadian affiliate was managerial. 
We disagree that the written testimonies of the Beneficiary's superior and subordinates are sufficient 
to establish that the Beneficiary's position with the Canadian affiliate meets the four-prong statutory 
definition of managerial capacity. While the Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence of the 
Beneficiary's supervisory authority over the sales team, satisfying the second prong of the statutory 
definition of managerial capacity requires the Petitioner to establish that the employees over whom 
the Beneficiary had supervisory control were supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. See 
section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
As discussed previously, the record shows that the sales representatives the Beneficiary supervised 
had no subordinates and thus they cannot be deemed supervisory or managerial employees. The record 
also lacks evidence showing that the positions comprising the sales team were subject to job 
requirements that were consistent with those of professional employees. Cf. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) 
(defining "profession" to mean "any occupation for which a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation"). In fact, the Petitioner does not 
discuss the job requirements of the Beneficiary's subordinates, focusing instead on his supervisory 
duties and control over the employees he supervised. However, despite the Beneficiary's authority to 
hire and train employees and instruct them to take certain actions, the record lacks evidence showing 
that the employee supervision the Beneficiary exercised was over other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees, pursuant to the statutory definition. Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a managerial capacity and on the basis of this conclusion the petition cannot be approved. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4