dismissed L-1A Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11854082 
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: OCT. 23, 2020 
The Petitioner, a software and IT services provider, seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as a 
"Senior Software Engineer" 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. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
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 and would be employed in the United 
States in a managerial or executive capacity. The matter is before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish 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 because 
the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's position in the United States would be in a managerial 
or executive 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 
employment 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 101(a)(15)(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 IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity1 and that his 
foremost responsibility will be to manage an essential function. 
"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 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" al lows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 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 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 wi 11 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 
The petition form shows that the Petitioner claimed a gross income of $125.8 billion and a workforce 
of 83,562 em lo ees. In a supporting cover letter, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would 
manage which it claims is an essential function because it is a "key and rapidly 
expanding feature" of th ~--------~collaborative tool, which has over 36 million 
users. The Petitioner described the practical functionality of 1 f' stating that it offers 
I I rooms I !organized by topic, private groups, member only groups, and direct 
message in a user[-]friendly unified communication and collaboration platform." The Petitioner 
explained that the Beneficiary will work with a team to deliver, maintain, and enhance the features of 
the j I function. The Petitioner further stated that the Beneficiary will operate at a 
senior level with respect to this function and provided a job duty breakdown stating that the 
Beneficiary would manage timelines and oversee completion of tasks, oversee enhancements of 
I I' architecture, use coding skills to control team work flow, manage a migration 
1 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity. 
2 
plan, mentor a team of software engineers, and represent the ~I -----~t organization and 
collaborate with other feature teams. 
The Petitioner also provided an organizational/flow chart depicting the I t staffing 
hierarchy and workflow. The chart shows the "principal software engineer manager" at the top of the 
I I· hierarchy, followed by the Beneficiary at the second tier of the hierarchy. The 
chart identifies the Beneficiary as the point of contact for "escalations" and depicts the Beneficiary as 
overseeing a functional project team in charge of migration, storage provisions of the files engineering 
team, and delivery of updates performed by the framework team. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director informed the Petitioner that it did not adequately show 
that the Beneficiary would primarily manage a function, stating that the Petitioner did not provide 
sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary's position would be directly related to a 
function that is necessary for the provision of an end product or service of the company. 
In response, the Petitioner resubmitted the organizational/flow chart described above and provided a 
statement froml I the "principal" to whom the Beneficiary reports and who is responsible 
for managing "the full suite ofl !features" as well as "mentoring team members" 
on both technical and non-technical issues. I I stated that the Beneficiary will not oversee a 
subordinate staff, but rather that he will offer "strategic thought and project-based leadership to 
multiple teams" who are responsible for developing the I I feature. 
I !deemed '....._ ____ ~ to be a clearly defined function that is essential or core within 
the organization and stated that the Beneficiary will work at a senior level with respect to the I I 
feature. He emphasized that ineffective management of this feature would 
._d_i_m-in-i-sh_t_h_e_P-et-it-io_n_e-r'_s_.ability to "increase adoption of ....._ ____ ~[sic]" among newl I 
users, poiTng out~hat the Beneficiary will work closely with "members of the leadership team" and 
with other embers to ensure proper completion of testing of the I t features. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates the claim that the Beneficiary will assume the role of a function 
manager because he will manage ·I , I" a function the Petitioner contends is essential to 
its organization. The Petitioner also contends that the Beneficiary will not carry out the underlying 
duties that constitute that function. 
B. Analysis 
Despite identifying the function that the Beneficiary would manage and describing the duties he would 
perform in managing that function, the Petitioner did not establish that the j t feature 
constitutes a function that is essential to the organization. 
As determined in Matter of G-, the term "essential function" applies to an activity that is "core" to an 
organization and as such, it must be managed by someone who is "key" within the organization and 
who in turn is able to "advance their organizations' core activities." Adopted Decision 2017-05. In 
the matter at hand, the Petitioner does not demonstrate that....._ _____ _. in itself is core to the 
Petitioner's organization. Rather the Petitioner focuses on the Beneficiary's top placement with 
respect to the 1 t function, discussing the Beneficiary's role in managing the 
workflow surrounding the anticipated enhancements to the functionality of the I I 
3 
feature and the potential that the enhanced functionality will benefit the Petitioner in terms of giving 
it "an edge" over its competitors and making it appealing to a broader range of users. However, the 
Petitioner does not establish that this feature, which is specific to thel !collaborative 
tool, is an essential function within the context and hierarchy of the Petitioner's overall organization. 
Further, as noted earlier, the Petitioner claimed over 83,000 employees at the time of filing, thereby 
indicating that its organization is likely comprised of a complex staffing and management structure 
serving multiple functions, not all of which are essential. 2 As such, merely demonstrating that the 
Beneficiary manages a function within the organization is not sufficient for the purpose of determining 
that he is a function manager under section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. The Petitioner must establish 
that not only does the Beneficiary manage a function with the organization, but also that the function 
managed is essential or core to the organization. See Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 
(concluding that the financial planning and analysis (FP&A) function of the petitioning entity was 
"essential" because its "revenue planning and forecasting process impacts every business unit and 
geographic area within the worldwide organization" and the "executive team and board of directors 
depend on these FP&A reports and strategies to drive [the petitioner's] financial health and make 
critical decisions regarding mergers and acquisitions"). In this case, the record focuses exclusively on 
the Beneficiary's position with respect to a single function and does not include evidence clarifying 
where that function falls either within the broader scope of this highly complex organizational 
structure or even within the more narrow scope of the organizational structure within I I 
which the Petitioner also has not established as a function that is essential to its organization. Thus, 
although the ,___ _____ ~ organizational chart depicts the Beneficiary at the top of that 
function's hierarchy and despite the commercial "edge" this function may offer the Petitioner over its 
industry competitors, this evidence does not adequately support the Petitioner's claim that the function 
to be managed by the Beneficiary is essential to the organization. 
In light of the deficiencies described above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary will primarily manage an essential function within the organization. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 An organization may have more than one core activity, such as the manufacture or provision of an end product or service, 
and research and development into other products or services. 
4