dismissed L-1A Case: Steel Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6712152 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV. 21, 2019 
The Petitioner, describing itself as a steel sheet producer, filed a Form I-129, Petition for L-lA 
Manager or Executive seeking to temporarily employ the Beneficiary in the United States as its chief 
financial officer. 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 concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive abroad . 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not apply the preponderance of the evidence 
standard and carefully evaluate the submitted evidence. The Petitioner states that the Director 
disregarded detailed duties provided for the Beneficiary and asserts that it has demonstrated that she 
acted as a personnel manager abroad. 
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 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 10l(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. The petitioner 
must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or her 
to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. MANAGERIAL CAP A CITY WITH THE FOREIGN EMPLOYER 
The sole issues to analyze is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a managerial capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad in an executive capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a managerial 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 examining the foreign managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the 
petitioner's description of the foreign job duties. The petitioner's description of the foreign job duties 
must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties 
are in a managerial capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the required description of the 
job duties, we examine the foreign employer's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's 
foreign subordinates, the presence of foreign employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing 
operational duties, the nature of the foreign business, and any other factors that will contribute to 
understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role abroad. Accordingly, we will discuss evidence 
regarding the Beneficiary's foreign job duties along with evidence of the nature of the foreign 
employer's business, its staffing levels, and its organizational structure. 
A. Duties 
Based on the definition of managerial capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the Beneficiary 
performs certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 
1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary is primarily 
engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the foreign 
employer's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); 
Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner submitted support letters from the Beneficiary's foreign employer that did not clearly 
describe its business activities; however, other supporting evidence on the record appeared to reflect 
that her foreign employer was part of a group of Chinese companies involved in the production of 
stainless steel. In support of the petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary had acted as general 
manager of finance beginning in January 2016 until her transfer to the United States as a nonimmigrant 
in January 2018. It indicated that the Beneficiary oversaw "5 managers at our subsidiary companies 
and the professional finance team" at her foreign employer. It listed the following duties for the 
Beneficiary: 
► Manage all financial activities of [the foreign employer]. 50% 
■ Oversee financial reporting, budgeting and other financial analysis including 
scheduled period end and year-end financial close procedures. 
2 
■ Provide support in business strategy development for the group of companies 
by analyzing historic and projected financial data to identify development 
opportunities. 
■ Prioritize key financial initiatives and profitability improvement programs. 
► Develop and implement internal financial and divisional accounting procedures to 
ensure best practice performance. 25% 
■ Monitor financial activities and details to ensure that general procedures 
relating to the input of information into system, reporting standards, and local 
legal regulations that followed. 
■ Develop and implement accounting and budgeting policies and procedures for 
the company. 
■ Serve as a leader of the broader global Finance Team and ensure finance 
departments in subsidiary companies are following the same internal 
guidelines. 
► Oversee global finance projects for [the foreign employer] and be responsible for 
accuracy in the project deliverance. 25% 
■ Set and measure key KPM's. 
■ Assigning project work for appropriate finance professionals within the 
organization. 
In a later request for evidence (RFE), the Director stated that the Beneficiary's duty description did 
not provide a detailed description of her actual daily duties and requested that the Petitioner submit a 
letter from the foreign employer describing her typical managerial tasks on a daily basis. In response, 
the Petitioner provided another support letter from the foreign employer listing largely the same duties 
for the Beneficiary, but it also indicated that she performed some the following personnel functions in 
relation to the financial managers and professionals she was claimed to oversee: 
• Conduct performance assessments and appraisals of employees managed. 
• Responsible for hiring and firing team members. 
• Recommend promotion and salary increases. 
• Approve leave requests and other administrative procedures related to employees 
managed. 
• Ensure work product of direct reports is completed timely and in accordance with 
required financial standards. 
• Oversee training of personnel to further develop talent, comprehension and 
adherence to company and legal regulations. 
• Oversee and manage the preparation of financial reports and statements according 
to policies. 
• Oversee, review, evaluate work product of finance professionals. 
• Organize and allocate work to team to ensure completion of tasks on schedule. 
The Beneficiary's duty description includes several generic duties, such as stating that she "manage[ d] 
all activities of the financial department," "overs[aw] financial reporting, budgeting, and financial 
analysis," "develop[ ed] and implement[ ed] internal and divisional financial procedures," and 
"overs[aw] global finance projects." These duties could apply to any financial professional in any 
business or industry and they do not sufficiently substantiate the Beneficiary's role abroad. The 
3 
Petitioner provided insufficient examples and little supporting documentation to demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's performance of qualifying duties abroad, such as the financial reporting, budgets, and 
analysis she oversaw, the business strategies she developed, development opportunities she identified, 
key financial initiatives she prioritized, or profitability programs she put in place. Likewise, it did not 
sufficiently detail or document the accounting procedures the Beneficiary implemented, the "general 
procedures relating to the input of information into system[s]" she oversaw, accounting and budgeting 
policies she developed, global finance projects she put in place, or "KPMs" she set. 
In addition, despite the Director's request for additional detail in the RFE, the Petitioner provided few 
credible specifics to sufficiently substantiate the Beneficiary's daily tasks, but only provided generic 
personnel manager duties, such as noting that she conducted performance assessments and appraisals, 
hired and fired team members, ensured "work product of direct reports," and oversaw "training of 
personnel." However, these vague personnel tasks provided little insight into the Beneficiary's actual 
daily duties and did not sufficiently corroborate that she acted as a personnel manager in relation to 
her subordinates. The lack of detail regarding the Beneficiary's asserted foreign capacity is 
particularly notable given that the Petitioner asserts that she has acted in this role for approximately 
two years from January 2016 through January 2018. 1 On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director 
disregarded a "detailed" duty description submitted on behalf of the Beneficiary. For the foregoing 
reasons, we disagree with the Petitioner's contention that the Beneficiary's duty description 1s 
"detailed;" and on appeal, the Petitioner does little to address this evidentiary deficiency. 
The Petitioner has not submitted a sufficiently detailed duty description that describes the 
Beneficiary's actual day-to-day managerial level duties abroad or which credibly establishes that she 
devoted her time primarily to qualifying tasks. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether 
a beneficiary's duties are primarily managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would 
simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 
1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Even though the Beneficiary holds a senior position within the foreign employer, the fact that he 
manages or directs the business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an 
intracompany transferee in an managerial capacity within the meaning of section 101(a)(44)(A) of the 
Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a foreign position be 
"primarily" managerial in nature. Id. The Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the foreign 
employer's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to 
discretionary decision-making; however, the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish 
that his actual duties abroad are primarily managerial in nature. 
B. Staffing 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
capacity, the reasonable needs of the organization are taken into account in light of the overall purpose 
and stage of development of the organization. See section 101 (a)( 44 )( C) of the Act. 
1 The petition was filed on January 30, 2019. 
4 
As discussed, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary acted in a managerial capacity abroad. 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." Id. 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(1)(1 )(ii)(B)(3). Since the Petitioner does not specifically assert that the Beneficiary acted as a 
function manager abroad and states that she supervised subordinate managers and "financial 
professionals," we will only analyze whether she acted as a personnel manager abroad. 
There is substantial uncertainty as to whether the Beneficiary acted as a personnel manager abroad 
because the Petitioner submitted conflicting organizational charts on the record. In support of the 
petition, the Petitioner submitted a foreign organizational chart reflecting that the Beneficiary 
supervised the "managers of Financial departments" working for four subsidiary companies, listing 
the names of each of these companies and the names of the four subordinate financial managers. Each 
one of these financial managers was shown to supervise a substantial amount of employees, ranging 
from 22 to 135 within their respective companies. However, elsewhere in support letters and in a 
submitted organizational chart provided in response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided a 
foreign organizational chart indicating that the Beneficiary oversaw five general managers of finance 
departments at five subsidiary companies; further, the names of each of these listed financial managers 
did not match the claimed subordinates provided in the initial foreign organizational chart. 
Likewise, in the foreign organizational chart submitted in response to the RFE and its support letters 
the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary oversaw a deputy general manager of finance, a chief 
accountant, a general manager of audit department, and a chief auditor, all working for her foreign 
employer. However, these subordinates were not listed in the foreign organizational chart that was 
submitted in support of the petition. In addition, it is notable that the Beneficiary's subordinate 
managers listed in the organizational chart provided with the petition were all shown to oversee large 
departments ranging from 22 to 135 employees, whereas the foreign organizational chart provided in 
response to the RFE did not indicate how many employees each of her nine claimed subordinate 
managers oversaw. These material discrepancies leave material question as to the identity and nature 
of the Beneficiary's actual subordinates abroad. The Petitioner must resolve this discrepancies 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). 
In both organizational charts however, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary supervised 
subordinate managers and supervisors abroad; however, it has submitted little supporting 
documentation to substantiate this assertion. For instance, the Petitioner provided claimed 
performance evaluations the Beneficiary completed every two months during 201 7 for four of her 
claimed subordinates listed in the organizational chart provided in response to the RFE. These 
evaluations were specific to three of the general managers of finance working for foreign employer 
subsidiary companies and one of her claimed subordinates working for the foreign employer, the 
deputy general manager of finance. 
5 
However, the foreign organizational chart submitted in response to the RFE reflected that the 
Beneficiary supervised general managers of finance at five subsidiary companies and a deputy general 
manager of finance, a chief accountant, a general manager of audit, and a chief auditor working for 
the her foreign employer, or a total of nine subordinate managers. The Petitioner has provided asserted 
performance evaluations related to only four of her claimed nine subordinate managers. Further, the 
asserted performance evaluations are not credible, as they include no indication that they were 
completed by the Beneficiary. The evaluations are also generic and lack credible commentary specific 
to each employee and each lists the same generic duties for each employee, despite their differing 
roles, such as indicating that they are responsible for "capital receipt and payment," "risk control," 
"supervis[ing] and inspect[ing] the cashiers work," and "domestic procurement and sales business." 
In addition, one of the performance evaluations is relevant to a I I lists this employee as the 
general manager of the financial department of the foreign employer; however in apparent conflict, 
this employee is asserted elsewhere on the record as the general manager of finance of I I 
I I 
Beyond these problematic performance evaluations, the Petitioner submits little evidence to reflect the 
Beneficiary's personnel authority over her claimed managers. We acknowledge that the Petitioner 
provided a "transfer application form" dated in December 201 7 related to the Beneficiary's claimed 
general manager of finance department asserted as working for the subsidiary company, I I I I This one personnel document is not sufficient to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary had personnel authority over nine high level finance managers as claimed. The lack of 
supporting documentation to corroborate the Beneficiary's claimed high level role leaves doubt as to 
whether she acted in her asserted role. 
The Petitioner further provided meeting minutes to substantiate that the Beneficiary acted in a 
managerial capacity abroad. However, this documentation again did not sufficiently corroborate the 
Beneficiary's claimed personnel manager role. For instance, the Petitioner provided meeting minutes 
from April 2017 which listed the Beneficiary as a participant, but this document made no reference to 
her involvement in the meeting and did not reflect her providing direction to her claimed subordinates. 
Further, the participants of the meeting included only one of the asserted subordinates listed in the 
RFE organizational chart, while also notably listing two of her stated subordinates in the conflicting 
organizational chart provided in support of the petition. Again, submitting one example of a meeting 
the Beneficiary attended does not properly substantiate that she acted as a higher level manager 
overseeing nine subordinate supervisors as claimed. 
The Petitioner also provided several emails including the Beneficiary's name; however again, they did 
not clearly indicate that she acted as a personnel manager in relation to her claimed subordinate 
managers. For instance, only two of the emails reflect the Beneficiary communicating with her 
claimed subordinates listed in the RFE and neither of these two emails showed her providing direction 
to these claimed subordinates. Further, a few of the submitted emails from one of her claimed 
subordinates include other apparent discrepancies. For example, emails dated in July and October 
201 7 from the asserted general manager of finance of 1 I 
indicate that this employee actually worked forl I Otherwise, 
the submitted emails did not sufficiently establish that the Beneficiary exacts regular personnel 
authority over subordinate managers and supervisors. 
6 
Furthermore, the Petitioner also submitted three policy documents on the record; however, it is not 
clear how these demonstrate the Beneficiary's personnel manager capacity abroad. For example, the 
Petitioner submitted a document titled "Subsidiaries Internal Audit Procedures" dated in March 201 7; 
however, it provided no context as to how this document relates to the Beneficiary and the document 
did not include her name. The Petitioner also provided a one page document called "Integrated 
Management Department Document Release Form" signed by the Beneficiary in January 2017; but 
again, it does not explain the relevancy of this document and its vague nature does not sufficiently 
demonstrate that she acted as a personnel manager. Lastly, the Petitioner submitted only one other 
policy signed by the Beneficiary named "Approval & Signature Flow," also signed by the Beneficiary 
in January 201 7. However, this document is also generic and the Petitioner does not explain its 
probative nature, the Beneficiary's involvement in this claimed policy, nor does not describe how this 
demonstrates that she is a personnel manager. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has 
not provided sufficient supporting evidence to establish that the Beneficiary acted as a personnel 
manager abroad. 
In the alternative, the Petitioner also states that the Beneficiary supervised "financial professionals," 
suggesting that she qualifies as a personnel manager based on these grounds. 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 10l(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." Therefore, we must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather 
than the degree held by subordinate employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate 
employee does not automatically lead to the conclusion that an employee is employed in a professional 
capacity. 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary qualifies as a 
personnel manager based on the supervision of subordinate professionals. First, as we have noted, the 
Petitioner presented two conflicting organizational charts thereby leaving uncertainty to her actual 
subordinates abroad. Further, as we have discussed, the Petitioner provides little supporting 
documentation to demonstrate that the Beneficiary exercises regular personnel authority over her 
claimed subordinates despite stating that she was responsible for "overseeing, reviewing and 
appraising their work product, issuing performance reviews," and performing all other matter of 
personnel actions with respect to them. As noted, the Petitioner provides performance evaluations 
related to only some of these subordinates, which did not even substantiate that they were completed 
by the Beneficiary. Based on these same reasons, there is substantial question as to whether she 
qualifies as a personnel manager of professional subordinates. 
In addition, we acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted degree information for the Beneficiary's 
asserted subordinates working for the foreign employer, including the general manager of finance, the 
chief accountant, general manager of the audit department, and the chief auditor. However, the 
Petitioner does not indicate why these subordinates should be deemed professional according to the 
regulatory definition. Further, the Petitioner provided vague duty descriptions for each of the 
Beneficiary's claimed foreign employer subordinates. For example, it vaguely stated that the general 
7 
manager of the finance department was tasked with "handling execution and accounting affairs" and 
performing "analysis of annual budget," but there is insufficient detail to properly substantiate this 
subordinate position, such as detail on the accounting affairs they handled or the budgets they 
analyzed. 
Likewise, the Petitioner indicated that the chief accountant was responsible for "financial accounting 
and assisting in the company's analysis" and "assessment of annual budget and final accounting," yet 
it does not submit credible specifics such as the accounting issues they resolved or dealt with or 
budgets they assessed. The Petitioner also provided similarly generic duty descriptions for the general 
manager of the audit department and the chief auditor which could apply to any employees generally 
involved in finance. These generic duty descriptions do not sufficiently corroborate the claimed 
professional positions subordinate to the Beneficiary. Therefore, the duty descriptions for the 
Beneficiary's claimed professional subordinates were not sufficiently detailed to establish that these 
positions required a bachelor's degree to perform their duties. 
In conclusion, the Petitioner provided a generic foreign duty description for the Beneficiary and 
submitted little detail and supporting documentation to substantiate her primary involvement in 
qualifying managerial level tasks abroad. Further, the Petitioner submitted conflicting foreign 
organizational charts leaving uncertainty as to the Beneficiary's actual subordinates abroad. The 
record also included little evidence of the Beneficiary delegating duties to her claimed subordinates or 
documentation reflecting her personnel authority over them. In addition, the Petitioner submitted 
vague duty descriptions for the Beneficiary's claimed professional subordinates that did not 
sufficiently demonstrate that these positions required bachelor's degrees. In sum, the provided 
evidence does not sufficiently establish that the Beneficiary acted in a managerial capacity abroad. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8