dismissed L-1A Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7699265 
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 : MAR . 27, 2020 
The Petitioner is a software development company. It seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
a "Hosting Technical Account 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 101(a)(15)(L) , 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(15)(L) . 1 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity 
with the U.S . entity . The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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 find that the Petitioner did not 
overcome the Director's adverse determination. Therefore, we will dismiss the appeal. 
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 101(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. 
1 The Beneficiary is currently working for the Petitioner based on an approved L-1 B petition for a non immigrant worker 
in a specialized knowledge capacity. The Petitioner now seeks to employ the Beneficiary under the L-lA nonimmigrant 
classification. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will assume the role of a function manager 2 where he will 
manage nine "key customer accounts" whose yearly revenue is valued at $25 million. 
The statutory definition of"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to 
primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. 
Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 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(l)(l)(ii)(B)(3). 
On the other hand, the term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not 
primarily 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 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). 
A. Factual Background 
In a supporting cover letter, the Petitioner stated that it has a workforce of over 7000 employees and 
that the Beneficiary will serve in the role of a program manager over accounts involving the 
Petitioner's! !software and in the role of a technical accounts manager over the Petitioner's 
Enterprise accounts. The Petitioner described the Beneficiary's proposed employment as a "senior 
level essential function management position" with respect to these two roles and provided "an overall 
breakdown" in which it assigned percentages of time to what were claimed the Beneficiary's seven 
"managerial responsibilities." 
The Petitioner provided separate job duty breakdowns for the Beneficiary's respective roles as 
technical account manager and program manager, listing the following as the Beneficiary's job duties 
in his role as technical account manager: manage assigned "Enterprise Accounts," collaborate with 
the Petitioner's global hosting and IT teams to resolve issues, serve as "operational lead for the 
customer engagement," collaborate to come up with ways to correct and prevent "service-impacting 
incidents," learn the customer's business and IT objectives and serve as its advocate, and track daily 
operational status and provide "managed service reporting." The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
would perform the following duties in his role as program manager: identify program goals and 
objectives and state how they would impact the business, identify and manage "key measures" that 
track "stakeholder satisfaction and objectives attainment," coordinate with internal teams to identify 
2 As the Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity, we will not discuss 
whether the proposed position fits that statutory definition. 
2 
product improvement and define a product roadmap, engage in contractqnegotiations, and serve as 
"point of contact and authorized representative" on matters involving th software, business 
plans, work statements, and budgets and finances on contracts. 
The Petitioner also stressed the Beneficiary's role in leading and facilitating meetings, noting that the 
Beneficiary works with a project portfolio that is valued at $25 million and is claimed to be "critical" 
to the Petitioner's ability to meet its revenue goals. 3 The Petitioner also stated that the Beneficiary 
reports to "the director of the company's overall unit," who is claimed to operate in a "senior level 
management position." 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner was asked to provide a list of the Beneficiary's 
managerial duties and the percentage of time he would allocate to each duty, explain how the 
Beneficiary will manage an essential function, and establish that the Beneficiary has authority and 
senior placement with respect that function. The Petitioner was also asked to provide an organizational 
chart illustrating its staffing levels and organizational structure, depicting the Beneficiary, clearly 
identifying the personnel in the Beneficiary's department by name and job title, and listing the 
respective job duties and educational credentials of such personnel. 
In response, the Petitioner identified the Beneficiary as the "Lead Technical Account Manager/Product 
Manager" and stated that this is an "upper level management position" which is "essential" and 
"critical" to the organization. The also Petitioner provided a job duty breakdown stating that the 
Beneficiary manages "9 key accounts covering a total contract value of $27 million." 
The Petitioner went on to state that as a result of working with its two largest software tools, the 
Beneficiary is required to make daily decisions about directing resources, determining "the overall 
process flow for changes" to a client's software, assigning work to "various groups," managing "other 
key technical managers over smaller accounts," and setting function-related goals and objectives. It 
claimed that the Beneficiary delegates, but does not perform, administrative tasks, and stated that the 
Beneficiary's support staff consists of three technical account managers as well as the reporting 
software systems and software development teams that execute the requested software changes and 
communicate relevant information to the appropriate department. The Petitioner added that the 
Beneficiary "leads multiple resources . . . spread across various teams" and provided two 
organizational charts, each depicting the Beneficiary as technical account manager within the context 
of a staffing structure pertaining to each of the Beneficiary's various roles within the organization. 
The Petitioner described one organizational chart as a depiction of the "overall reporting and 
hierarchy" related to the Beneficiary's position with respect to "the assigned customer." The shows 
the Beneficiary's position with respect to one of his roles, depicting him at the top of a hierarchy where 
he oversees two technical leads - a technical consultant and a senior software developer- and an "SAS 
Administration Team" comprised of a senior systems developer and an "admin on-call" position. The 
second organizational chart also identified the Beneficiary as a technical account manager; the 
statements following that chart indicate that its purpose was to illustrate the Beneficiary's role as 
"program manager," whose focus would be to oversee "smaller accounts" that have no assigned 
technical account manager. This chart similarly provides a view of the Beneficiary's position in a 
3 In its supporting statement, the Petitioner stated that its ·'worldwide revenues for 2017" were $3.24 billion. but it did not 
specify its revenue goals or disclose the total revenue of the U.S. organization. 
3 
particular role - in this instance, that of program manager - and also depicts the Beneficiary at the top 
of the hierarchy with respect to this role and shows him overseeing three technical account managers. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided a job description for the Beneficiary's respective roles as account 
manarr, pro~ram manager, and "key manager person responsible for managing all activities related 
to the rogram." The Petitioner provided a time ratio of 70/30 to indicate how the Beneficiary 
would divide his time between his roles as program manager and manager of the I lprogram 
activities. 
The Director denied the petition, pointing to the Petitioner's submission of deficient organizational 
charts and lack of sufficient evidence showing how the Beneficiary will be supported in his account 
management position. The Director also found that the Beneficiary will perform multiple operational 
tasks and would not primarily manage an essential function. 
On appeal, the Petitioner objects to the denial, contending that the Director did not adequately consider 
evidence that was submitted to support the claim that the Beneficiary would assume the role of a 
function manager. 
B. Analysis 
Although the Petitioner has consistently maintained the claim that the Beneficiary would manage an 
essential function in his proposed position, it has not established that the Beneficiary's proposed 
employment meets the criteria of a function manager. 
Notably, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would assume three separate roles, with each role 
involving its own set of job duties. However, the Petitioner did not adequately explain how these 
roles, which encompass various projects, clients, and product lines, constitute an essential function, 
when considered either jointly or individually. Rather, the Petitioner focused on the Beneficiary's role 
as account manager, stating that the Beneficiary will "operate on a senior level over the company's 
account management function" and that he would manage "over a dozen key accounts" that generate 
over $89 million per year as well as related technical accounts and technical account managers in the 
Enterprise software group. The Petitioner did not identify or describe the accounts the Beneficiary 
will manage or disclose the total number of accounts and identify other account managers within the 
organization. Further, the Petitioner did not explain how the Beneficiary is "key" within the 
organization, nor did it acknowledge or address the inconsistency between this claim and the RFE 
response, where the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary manages "9 key accounts covering a total 
contract value of $27 million." The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency in the record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-
92 (BIA 1988). More importantly, the Petitioner did not establish that managing multiple individual 
client accounts - despite their cumulative monetary value - is synonymous with managing an essential 
function. 
Further, the Petitioner did not consistently and clearly explain the weight of these respective roles 
within the scope of the Beneficiary's claimed function manager position. For instance, in the initial 
supporting statement, the Petitioner stressed the importance of the Beneficiary's role as program 
manager with respect to the I I proprietary software and as technical accounts manager over the 
4 
Petitioner's Enterprise accounts, claiming that these roles comprise the essential function. However, 
in response to the RFE, the Petitioner
1
nrovidfd two more statements, both of which downplayed the 
Beneficiary's role with respect to the software, minimizing its significance in comparison to 
his respective roles as lead technical manager and program manager. The Petitioner did not indicate 
how the Beneficiary would divide his time among these two separate roles, nor did it assign a 
percentage of time to the individual job duties listed in either role. Rather, the Petitioner provided 
confusing time distriburons, cliiming that 30% of the Beneficiary's time would be allocated to job 
duties associated with software and 70% would be spent on duties associated with the 
Beneficiary's role as program manager. However, these time distributions are misleading, as they 
indicate that the Beneficiary would allocate his time only to these two roles, disregarding the time the 
Beneficiary will spend in his third, and purportedly most critical, role as technical account manager. 
The Petitioner must resolve this ambiguity in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing 
to where the truth lies. Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. In any event, the Petitioner has not established 
that the Beneficiary's three distinct roles, together or on their own, qualify as a clearly defined activity 
that is an essential function. 
The Petitioner also provided deficient organizational charts that show a limited view of the 
organization and its staffing structure and do not illustrate a reporting hierarchy showing the teams or 
departments that are claimed to collaborate with and/or support the Beneficiary's position. For 
instance, one chart provides a narrow view of the Beneficiary's position with respect to one of his 
roles, depicting the Beneficiary at the top of the limited hierarchy overseeing two technical leads - a 
technical consultant and a senior software developer- and an "SAS Administration Team" comprised 
of a senior systems developer and an "admin on-call" position. As no employee name was provided 
in the space assigned to the "admin on-call" position, it appears that this position may have been vacant 
at the time of filing. The Petitioner did not clarify or explain how the Beneficiary would compensate 
for a potentially vacant position among this four-person support staff Further, despite claiming that 
the Beneficiary reports to "the director of the company's overall unit," who is claimed to operate in a 
"senior level management position," the Petitioner did not offer evidence of the respective placements 
of the Beneficiary and his superior within the context of the broader organizational hierarchy. In 
another organizational chart, the Petitioner similarly offered only a narrow view of the Beneficiary's 
role as program manager, depicting the Beneficiary at the top of a limited hierarchy overseeing three 
technical account managers. 
As indicated by the various deficiencies described above, the Petitioner provided organizational charts 
that do not illustrate the Beneficiary's position within a broader organizational context and thereby 
fail to provide insight as to the Beneficiary's level of seniority either with respect to the company's 
organizational hierarchy as a whole or with respect to the specific function the Beneficiary is claimed 
to manage within an organization comprised of over 7000 employees. See Matter of G-, Adopted 
Decision 2017-05 at 6. Without this critical information, there is little evidence to support the claim 
that the Beneficiary manages a function that is essential to organization or that he occupies a placement 
that is either senior within the organization or with respect to the claimed 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). Moreover, by assigning the Beneficiary different sets of job 
duties based on his varying roles within the organization and by providing two different organizational 
charts showing separate staffing hierarchies in support of those roles, the Petitioner undermined the 
claim that the Beneficiary manages an essential function that is a clearly defined activity. 
5 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary manages "the essential Account Management 
function" for accounts that cumulatively generate over $80 million in revenue, claiming that "a large 
segment" of the Beneficiary's time is devoted to managing nine "key" accounts associated with the 
Petitioner's largest software portfolio while also janagilg "other groups of smaller accounts" and 
spending a "a small portion" of his time managing accounts. While the Petitioner focuses on 
the cumulative value generated by these accounts, it has not established that the Beneficiary manages 
the broader account management function as opposed to managing individual client accounts within 
the context of an IT organization that provides such services and presumably has other IT specialists 
providing similar services among its workforce of over 7000 employees. As noted above, the 
Petitioner did not provide an organizational chart depicting the wider organizational structure and the 
Beneficiary's placement and the placement of the essential function he is claimed to manage within 
that broader context. Although the Petitioner refers to "personnel and departments" and claims that it 
has "dozens of different teams that help support different areas," it provided organizational charts that 
do not show these departments or teams and, instead, offer limited information about the Beneficiary's 
individual roles, which are depicted only with respect to the immediate support staff of three or four 
individuals who support those respective roles. As such, we are precluded from assessing either the 
Beneficiary's placement or the placement of the function he is claimed to manage with respect to 
others in the organization and therefore we cannot determine that the Beneficiary is employed at a 
senior level within the organization or with respect to a function, nor can we determine whether that 
function is essential, i.e., core to the organization. See Matter of G-, Adopted Decision 201 7-05 at 3 
(stating that "[c]onstruing the term 'essential function' as a core activity of an organization is consonant 
with Congress's purpose in creating this classification: to facilitate the transfer of key managers or 
executives within a multinational organization.") 
In sum, the Petitioner did not identify a clearly defined activity or establish that the Beneficiary would 
manage a function that is essential to the organization. The Petitioner also provided insufficient 
evidence to establish the Beneficiary's organizational placement and employee reporting structure 
with respect to an essential function within the organization. In light of these deficiencies, the 
Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a 
managerial capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal will be dismissed. 
6