dismissed L-1A Case: Security

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-C-._I _ ___, 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 26, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, al !business, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its security 
manager and extend his stay under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The 
L-lA classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to 
transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to work temporarily in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
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 prior to his transfer to the United States, or that he would be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity under the extended petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary was employed abroad, and would be employed 
in the United States, in a managerial capacity and asserts that the Director failed to apply the 
preponderance of the evidence standard to the facts presented. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal as the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 
was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. However, we find that the Petitioner has established 
that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity and withdraw 
the Director's adverse determination with respect to that issue. 1 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonirnmigrant 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 
1 Specifically, the record reflects that the Beneficiary , as security manager, will have managerial responsibility for 
developing security policies , plans, and programs across all .__ ____ __. and for specific I I terminals; will 
directly and indirectly manage supervisory security personnel; will have the authority to recruit and make hiring decisions 
regardinp: I I security employees; and will exercise authority overLJsecurity activities . Further, the Petitioner 
demonstrated that it is more likely than not that the Beneficiary will primarily perform higher-level activities consistent 
with the definition of managerial capacity. See section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Matter of R-C~._ _ ___. 
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. 
II. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a managerial capacity prior to his transfer to the United States in L-lA status. The Petitioner 
must establish that the Beneficiary worked for its foreign subsidiary in a managerial capacity for at 
least one year in the three years preceding the filing of the initial L-1 petition in November 2015. See 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii)-(iv). The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad in an executive 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 assessing the managerial nature of an offered position, we examine a petitioner's description of 
the job's duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii) (requiring an L-1 petitioner to submit "a detailed 
description of the services to be performed"). Beyond the required description of the job duties, we 
examine the company's organizational structure, the duties of the 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 the 
Beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
A. Job Duties 
Based on the statutory definition of managerial capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the 
Beneficiary performed certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 
1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). The Petitioner must also prove that the Beneficiary 
was 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); 
Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
As a preliminary matter, we note that there is some ambiguity in the record regarding the Beneficiary's 
employment history with the Petitioner's operations abroad. Initially, the Petitioner and foreign entity 
submitted letters stating that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity as "Chief 
Officer Safety, New Build Operations," from March 2014 until June 2015, and that he previously held 
positions "with managerial responsibilities" from 2008 to 2014, during which time he served as a 
deputy security officer and chief security officer o~ lthe Petitioner's .__ _____ ..............,abroad. 
However, the Petitioner did not provide job descriptions for the earlier positions, nor did it claim that 
2 
Matter of R-Cl~-~ 
he was eligible based on those positions. It presented the chief officer safety position as a new position 
that the Beneficiary assumed in 2014, and as the position that qualified him for L-lA classification in 
a managerial capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that "[ d]ue to an internal reorganization at the Petitioner as well as a 
clerical error, [ the Beneficiary's] job title was incorrectly listed as Chief Officer Safety, it was in fact 
Chief Security Officer." The Petitioner asserts that the previously submitted job description was 
accurate, but it does not explain the "internal reorganization," nor does it explain why it previously 
indicated that the Beneficiary assumed a new position with new duties in 2014. Nevertheless, we note 
that the Petitioner previously submitted the Beneficiary's payroll summary for 2014 and 2015 which 
shows that his job title was "chief security officer" throughout this period. 
Turning now to the Beneficiary's job duties, the Petitioner initially submitted a letter from its foreign 
subsidiary, noting that, from 2014 until 2015, the Beneficiary performed the following duties: 
Managed the I I security operations in collaboration with the local ~ 
authorities in multiple regions of the world. [The Beneficiary] was involved in the 
development of security operations on I I including, but not limited to 
analyzing security levels and threats; identification of security risks in each D 
ensured communication and collaboration with the local security and government 
agencies to ensure thel Is safety. 
The letter included a list of 17 duties and the percentage of time the Beneficiary allocated to each one. 
After reviewing the initial evidence, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) and instructed 
the Petitioner to provide more detailed information in support of its claim that the Beneficiary's duties 
were primarily managerial. The Director advised the Petitioner that the position description lacked 
specificity and noted that the Petitioner "omitted evidence that would demonstrate the managerial 
decisions and/or actions made by the beneficiary." In response, the Petitioner submitted a new letter 
that included the same duties listed in a different order: 
1. Managed the security team, designated to create a safe and secure environment for 
the Guests,LJand Visitors whol I (8%) 
2. Conducted trainings to all I I security and non-security and certifies them 
according to international standards and requirements for a new I I (8%) 
3. Worked closely with various vendors to ensure all deadlines were met for the 
testing and implementation all systems and tools. (3%) 
4. Established open communication with the I I and vendors on matters of 
security for thel land its perimeter. (8%) 
5. Worked closely with heads of department on development of an effective locking 
plan system ... (8%) 
6. Ensured project objectives and approved scope of work and scope changes were 
delivered on schedule and on budget. (4%) 
7. Managed the development and implementation of global security policies, 
standards, guidelines, and comp~rocedures to ensure an effective security 
system was in place for the entire L_J (5%) 
3 
Matter of R-cl._ _ ____, 
8. Oversaw and coordinated security efforts, including equipment orders, security 
team scheduling, communications, and physical installations of CCTV systems, 
intruder alarms and the locking systems (7%) 
9. Ensuring the compliance with thec=J Code and collaborating on all issues that 
would affect the c=]operation and its stay in the I I (4%) 
10. Planned thel I and equipment required for a smooth entrance and 
exit from the I I (8%) 
11. Developed the preliminary ship assessment tools to identify operational needs and 
opportunities for future enhancements of the program and make modifications as 
needed. ( 4 % ) 
12. Assisted in the development of the Os security plan, which provided a 
documented procedures for the security team to follow, ensuring a safe and secure 
operation at the highest standard. Responsible for the planning of the surveillance 
system including, location of cameras, retention requirements, work stations 
permissions and physical installation. ( 6%) 
13. Ensured the locking plan had integrity and kept thec=]areas safeguarded against 
unauthorized access. (6%) 
14. Created an early identification of vulnerable and key areas of the I I and 
developed a restricted area plan. (4%) 
15. Collaborated with the executive committee to prioritize security initiatives and 
~ training based on appropriate risk assessment and the companies training 
programs ... 
1 
(8%)I 
16. Prepared the for internal and external classification audits, to ensure that all 
protocols were in accordance with the flag state and company procedures. (6%) 
17. Compiled weekly report addressed to shore side management summarizing the 
projects progress and timeline updates. (6%) 
In the denial decision, the Director noted that a number of the listed duties did not appear to be 
consistent with those typically performed by a managerial employee. Further, the Director emphasized 
that the Petitioner "omitted documentary evidence that would corroborate your assertions of the 
beneficiary's managerial decisions and/or actions," even though the RFE had specifically mentioned 
the lack of such supporting evidence. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the specific duties that the Director called into question 
represented less than 30% of the Beneficiary's time. The Petitioner argues that, based on the lack of 
further discussion of job duties in the denial decision, "the Director has conceded that the 
preponderance of beneficiary's duties abroad, as a percentage of time, are managerial." Further, the 
Petitioner contends that "the Director failed to contemplate the scope of the work to be p[ er ]formed 
within the duties in question," and emphasizes that the Beneficiary was a high ranking officer whose 
department was responsible for the safety and security of the entire I land guests. 
We disagree with the Petitioner's contention that the Director, in effect, conceded that the 
Beneficiary's primary duties were managerial in nature. In addition to questioning whether specific 
listed duties were managerial, the Director also highlighted the lack of corroborating documentation 
submitted to establish that the Beneficiary actually carried out managerial functions, an evidentiary 
issue that had been specifically raised in the RFE and was not addressed in the Petitioner's response. 
4 
Matter of R-d~-~ 
Further, we note that it is difficult to "contemplate the scope of the work to be performed within the 
duties in question" if the duties themselves are not sufficiently detailed. The Petitioner emphasizes 
that the Beneficiary was a high-ranking officer I I its I I and emphasizes his overall 
authority over security operations, but it is still the Petitioner's burden to provide a specific description 
of the actual day-to-day duties he performed. We will not accept a broad description and speculate as 
to what the Beneficiary actually did. Here, many of the responsibilities attributed to the Beneficiary 
are vaguely written and do not provide sufficient insight into whether the associated duties were 
managerial. 
For example, without more detailed information, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary's responsibilities for preparing I I for internal and external audits, preparing regular 
reports, developingc=] assessment tools, coordinating D order and installation activities, planning 
....._-...,.,..~=l'-a_n_d_,associated equipment, planning surveillance systems, and communicating with vendors 
and I I on security issues qualify as the types of higher level duties contemplated by the 
statutory definition of managerial capacity. Further, the Petitioner ~ot sufficiently described the 
specific day-to-day tasks associated with ensuring compliance witlL_Jcode, ensuring the integrity 
of the Os locking plan, "assisting" with development of the Os security plan, and preparing a 
restricted area plan. While these are important security functions, many of these responsibilities would 
likely require performance of some administrative and operational tasks. As discussed below, the 
record does not contain position descriptions for the positions that reported to the Beneficiary and we 
therefore cannot determine to what extent subordinate staff relieved him from involvement in non­
managerial security functions on a day-to-day basis. 
Overall, the description highlights the Beneficiary's authority over D security matters without 
sufficiently detailing what he was expected to do on a day-to-day basis within the context of the Os 
regular operations. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are 
primarily executive in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter ofreiterating 
the regulations. Fedin Bros. 724 ~at ll08, ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The fact that 
the Beneficiary led a department L___J the Petitioner's c=]does not necessarily establish his 
eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial capacity within the meaning 
of section 101 (a)( 44) of the Act. 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
The statutory definition of"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 10l(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." 2 Id. If a beneficiary directly 
2 To determine whether a beneficiary manages professional employees, we must evaluate whether the subordinate positions 
require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. 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"). Section IO I (a)(32) of the Act, states that "[t]he term profession shall include 
but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, 
colleges, academies, or seminaries." 
5 
Matter of R-C~~-~ 
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). 
Here, the Petitioner has consistently stated that the Beneficiary qualifies for the benefit sought based 
on his supervision of subordinate personnel; it has not articulated a claim that he acted primarily as a 
function manager. However, the Petitioner has neither consistently described nor sufficiently 
documented the Beneficiary's subordinate staff In its initial letter in support of the petition, the 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary managed "over 30 supervisory staff: security professionals, and 
technical staff:" and stated that his team included three first officers, three second officers, 
quartermasters, and "ad hoc non securityc::J and security staff (22)." The Petitioner summarized 
the duties of these positions in its letter and submitted internal position descriptions for the first officer, 
second officer, and quartermaster positions. 
However, the Petitioner submitted a l I Organization" chart showing that these are the staff who 
report to the position of "Chief Officer Safety," a position that the Petitioner now claims the 
Beneficiary never held. The same organizational chart includes a "security officer" position and shows 
that individuals in this role typically supervise two deputy security officers, a guest security supervisor, 
a security supervisor, and security guards. The record now reflects that the security officer position is 
the one the Beneficiary actually held during the relevant three-year period abroad. 
However, the record does not contain a detailed organizational chart showing the actual staffing of the 
specific I I on which the Beneficiary served, although it appears that the generic "c=J 
Organization" chart is meant to depict the standard structure aboard one of the Petitioner's c=]. More 
importantly, the Petitioner has not submitted position descriptions and requirements for the 
subordinates that were actually subordinate to the Beneficiary, specifically, the positions of deputy 
security officer, security supervisor, and security guards. 
We cannot not evaluate the supervisory or professional nature of these positions based solely on the 
provided position titles. Further, without position descriptions, we cannot determine which non­
managerial security functions were actually delegated to subordinate staff I ltheO to which 
the Beneficiary was assigned. Therefore, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that the 
Beneficiary qualified as a personnel manager based on his supervisory duties, nor has it supported its 
claim that the subordinate security staff relieved him from performing administrative and operational 
duties, such that he was able to engage primarily in managerial tasks. The record is simply deficient 
in this regard. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary was the highest ranking security officer I I thee=] 
to which he was assigned and emphasized the importance of ensuring the safety and security of the 
c=J and passengers; however, the issue is not the extent of the Beneficiary's authority, but whether 
all relevant factors, taken together show that the Beneficiary primarily performed managerial duties. 
For the reasons cited above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a managerial capacity. 
6 
Matter of R-C-~I -~ 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of R-C- □, ID# 4527218 (AAO July 26, 2019) 
7