dismissed L-1A Case: Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 09477156 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 9, 2021 
The Petitioner, a technology solutions and services provider, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's 
temporary employment as a vice president and business partner under the L-lA nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 10l(a)(15)(L) , 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary's prior year of employment abroad was in a managerial position, and 
that he will be employed in a managerial position in the United States. 
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 because 
the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's employment abroad was in a managerial or 
executive capacity . Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments pertaining to the Beneficiary's proposed 
employment in the United States. 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 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)(3)(v)(B). 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. 
Section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(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 primary issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a managerial capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that he was employed in an 
executive capacity in this role. Therefore, we will restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary was 
employed in a managerial capacity. 
The Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary performed the high-level responsibilities set forth in the 
statutory definition at section 10l(a)(44)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act. If the record does not establish that the 
position meets all four of these elements, we cannot conclude that it is a qualifying managerial 
position. 
If the Petitioner establishes that the position abroad meets all elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary was primarily engaged in managerial duties, 
as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the foreign entity's other employees. See 
Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). In determining whether a given 
beneficiary's duties were primarily managerial, we consider the description of the job duties, the 
company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence 
of other employees who relieved 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 
Therefore, the first question before us is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary's 
position abroad meets all elements of the statutory definition of "managerial capacity" at section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
The record shows that the Beneficiary was employed as Vice President - Delivery Head for 
Technology with I !continuously for more than one year prior to his entry 
into the United States as a nonimmigrant. The Petitioner initially submitted evidence regarding the 
Beneficiary's duties fo~ !including a brief job description and an organizational chart 
showing his direct reports and supervisory chain. 
In responding to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a letter from an 
executive of1 I which added percentages of work hours spent on each duty to the previous 
job description, and provided additional background information regarding those duties. This letter, 
like the initially submitted letter from the Petitioner, explained that the Beneficiary "managed all 
delivery teams within the Global Delivery Center for Technology Practice," and was responsible for 
evolving strategy and "proposal preparation, delivery of products and services, and support ofi I 
global client base," and also states that he "played a key role in the development of products .... " It 
further provides some context to these responsibilities. However, the description provided, which the 
Petitioner references on appeal, does not establish that the Beneficiary's duties met all four of the 
elements of the statutory definition of "manager." 
The Petitioner first points out on appeal that the letter froml I reiterates that the Beneficiary 
managed all of the delivery teams, and asserts that this is sufficient to show his management of the 
Global Delivery Center component of the organization. It also takes issue with the Director's 
description of the Beneficiary's daily duties as "unclear," noting that the letter comprises five pages 
compared to the single paragraph which was initially submitted. However, we agree with the Director 
that the added text in this letter does little to shed light on the day-to-day tasks which the Beneficiary 
performed in this position. For example, in elaborating on the tasks involved with providing in-context 
collaboration with his teams, which the letter indicates occupied 10% of his work hours, the letter 
states that the Beneficiary ensured that the delivery team "in a collective fashion was competing for 
the successful delivery of the product," and "ensure[ d] that such collective effort was worn in to the 
sub culture of the delivery team ... " But these are goals rather than duties, and the description does 
not explain the duties he performed to ensure that these goals were accomplished. Another 10% of 
his work hours were devoted to focusing on managing value and change, which the letter states 
involved "[D]irecting the team's focus on better decision making at all levels in an organization." The 
description does not indicate how the Beneficiary directed his team's focus, or what the decision­
making processes were that he intended to improve. 
A third example is the description of the tasks involved in ensuring lifecycle traceability, accounting 
for 8% of his work hours, for which the letter states that the Beneficiary "ensures that the efforts of 
different people working within a team are properly aligned .... " We note that this goal appears to 
be very similar to ensuring that the team works collectively, discussed above, as well as the 5% of his 
duties described as "guiding efficiencies and control through collaboration, communication, and 
transparency about project information." In addition, another 3% of his responsibilities are said to 
involve "cross collaboration among various units and teams." The descriptions for these goals do not 
3 
provide insight into the actual duties performed by the Beneficiary in aligning the efforts of his team 
members or collaborating with others. 
Reciting a beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; 
the regulations require a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. The actual duties 
themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. 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). Here, the Petitioner has not provided 
the necessary detail or an adequate explanation of the Beneficiary's activities in the course of his daily 
routine. 
In addition, some of the broad responsibilities and goals appearing in this job description appear to be 
shared with others in the Beneficiary's team or elsewhere in the organization. For instance, the job 
description indicates that 10% of the Beneficiary's duties involved risk assessment, including risks to 
a project arising from technical and regulatory issues. However, the job descriptions for three of the 
positions shown as reporting to the Beneficiary also indicate that these individuals "forecast project 
risks." The job description for the Beneficiary's former position does not explain how his 
responsibilities in this regard differed from those of his subordinates, and thus accounted for 10% of 
his work hours. 
Considering the vague and repetitive nature of the description of the Beneficiary's duties withl I 
.__ _ _.I it has not been established that he primarily managed a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of this organization. 
Turning to whether the Beneficiary supervised and controlled the work of other supervisory, 
managerial, or professional employees in compliance with section 101 (a)( 44 )(A) of the Act, the record 
includes a partial organizational chart fo~ I showing five positions under his direction: (1) 
General Manager CM/PR; (2) Vice President GRC; (3) Associate Vice President - Trace 
Ready; (4) PMO-Lead; and (5) Lead Architect. The chart shows that the first three of these positions 
have subordinate employees or "resources." In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner 
submitted identical job descriptions for each of these three positions. However, descriptions were not 
provided for the other two positions indicated on thel I organizational chart as directly 
reporting to the Beneficiary, although we note that a description was included for the lead architect 
position as it appears on the Petitioner's organizational chart. The organizational chart does not show 
that the employees in these two positions have managerial or supervisory duties. While a beneficiary 
is not required to supervise personnel, if a petitioner claims that a beneficiary's duties involve 
supervising employees, then a petitioner must establish that the subordinate employees are 
supervisory, professional, or managerial. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
To determine whether a beneficiary manages professional employees, we 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 101 ( 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." 
4 
Therefore, we focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree held by 
the 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. 
Although the Petitioner indicated in its RFE response that the individual in the lead architect position 
holds an MBA degree, it has not established that a bachelor's degree or higher is actually necessary to 
perform the duties of that position or any of the others which the I I chart showed as the 
Beneficiary's direct reports. 
In addition, the organizational chart shows that the other three positions which reported to the 
Beneficiary at I I General Manager CM/PR, Vice President GRP, and Associate Vice 
President TraceReady, each had dozens of "resources" or team members. A separate letter from the 
samel !official who described the Beneficiary's duties includes briefjob descriptions for 
each of these positions, which are identical except for their area of product or service responsibility. 
Each position is described as being responsible for profit and loss in the specific area, closely working 
with the sales department on client leads, ensuring adherence to process and local regulations, ensuring 
project deliverables meet client expectations, and forecasting project risks and mitigating them. None 
of these descriptions indicate any managerial or superviso[ tasks performed by the individuals in 
these positions. Further, we note that while the letter from I states that the Beneficiary 
"had multiple levels of managers and submanagers reporting both directly and indirectly to him," this 
is not reflected in the organizational chart submitted. 
Accordingly, the evidence does not establish that in the position of Vice President - Delivery Head 
for Technology for I ,I the Beneficiary managed a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of this organization, or that he supervised and controlled the work of other supervisory, 
professional, or managerial employees, as required by section 10l(a)(44)(A)(i)-(ii) of the Act. As 
such, we conclude that the Beneficiary was not employed in a primarily managerial capacity for 
I 
III. UNITED STATES EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAP A CITY 
The Director also found that the Beneficiary's position with the Petitioner in the U.S., Vice President 
& Business Partner, Serialization Services, is not managerial, for many of the same reasons that his 
position wit~ I did not qualify as such. Because our findings regarding the Beneficiary's 
employment abroad warrant denial of the petition and dismissal of the appeal, we need not reach this 
additional issue, and therefore reserve it 1. Our reservation of this issue is not a stipulation that the 
Petitioner has overcome it and should not be construed as such. Rather, there is no constructive 
purpose to addressing the issue here because it cannot change the outcome of the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24. 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
5