dismissed L-1A Case: Welding

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 11968914 
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 : NOV . 27, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to continue employing the Beneficiary as welding manager under the L-lA 
nonimmigrant visa classification for intracompany managers and executives . See 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 . The Director concluded that , contrary 
to the Act and regulations, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's employment abroad in 
a capacity that was managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing 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. 1 
I. INTRACOMP ANY MANAGERS AND EXECUTIVES 
An L-lA petitioner must demonstrate that it would employ a beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity in the United States and that the beneficiary has the qualifications for the proposed work. 
Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(1)(3)(i), (iv). An L-lA petitioner must also 
establish that, for at least one continuous year of the three-year period before a beneficiary's U.S . 
admission, the petitioner, a branch, parent, affiliate, or subsidiary employed the beneficiary full-time 
in a capacity that was managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge. Section 
10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F .R. §§ 214 .2(1)(3)(iii), (iv) . 
II. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
The Petitioner does not specifically assert whether the Beneficiary worked abroad in a capacity that 
was managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge. We will therefore consider all three 
possibilities . The Petitioner, however, would not meet its burden of proof by claiming that the 
Beneficiary performed as a "hybrid" manager /executive who performed a combination of managerial 
1 On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, the Petitioner indicated that it would submit a written brief and/or additional 
evidence within 30 days of the appeal's filing. As of the date of this decision, however, we have not received any additional 
materials from the Petitioner in this matter. 
and executive duties. Rather, a petitioner must establish that a beneficiary's duties met all criteria 
stated in the definition of "managerial capacity," "executive capacity," or "specialized knowledge." 
A. Managerial Capacity 
The term "managerial capacity" means employment that "primarily" involved: 1) managing an 
organization or its department, subdivision, function, or component; 2) supervising and controlling 
the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or managing an essential 
function within the organization, department, or subdivision; 3) having the authority to hire and fire 
subordinates or to recommend those and other personnel actions or, if no employee was supervised, 
functioning at a senior level within an organizational hierarchy or regarding the function managed; 
and 4) exercising discretion over daily operations of the activity or function for which the employee 
had authority. Section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(B). 
A petitioner claiming a beneficiary's employment in a managerial capacity must demonstrate that his 
or her work met all four elements of the term's definition. A petitioner must also establish that a 
beneficiary "primarily" performed managerial-level duties, as opposed to operational tasks. See 
Matter of Church Scientology Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (Comm'r 1988) (stating that "[a]n employee 
who primarily performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not 
considered to be employed in a managerial or executive capacity"). 
The definition of the term "managerial capacity" allows for both managers of personnel and essential 
functions. The Petitioner does not assert the Beneficiary's management of an essential function 
abroad. We will therefore consider his foreign employment only as a personnel manager. A personnel 
manager must have "primarily" supervised and controlled the work of other supervisory, professional, 
or managerial employees. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(2). 
"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." Section 
101(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(ii)(B)(4). 
In determining whether a beneficiary worked abroad in a managerial capacity, we consider the job 
duties of the foreign position. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii) (requiring a "detailed description" of 
services performed). We also consider: the nature and structure of the foreign business; the existence 
of subordinates who relieved a beneficiary from performing operational tasks; the duties of a 
beneficiary's subordinates; and other factors that potentially affected the nature of a beneficiary's role 
abroad. 
1. Job Duties 
Here, the record indicates that the Petitioner and its parent company in India make and sell submerged 
arc-welded pipes for the oil and gas industry. The Petitioner states that, before the Beneficiary joined 
it in the United States in L-lA status in 2015, its parent employed him in India for more than a year 
as senior manager of welding operations. The Petitioner submitted a letter from its parent stating that 
the Beneficiary spent the following percentages of his time on the following duties: 
2 
• 20%. Interviewing and hiring workers. Preparing job descriptions and safety analyses for the 
welding department. Training supervisors, engineers, and technicians in welding techniques 
and job safety. Planning tasks and assigning them to workers. Directing welding workers 
engaged in set-up and operations of various welding machines. Supervising work to ensure 
completion and compliance with standards. Rewarding and disciplining workers. Addressing 
complaints and resolving issues. 
• 20%. Setting budget and production targets. Ensuring efficiency of welding machines. 
Developing alternative vendors for welding parts. Developing spares for welding machines. 
Executing projects and planning development of welding productivity. Maintaining quality 
and consistency of welding equipment. 
• 25%. Analyzing welding defects to correct and prevent them in the future through trouble­
shooting tools. Analyzing weld quality issues and suggesting corrective and preventative 
measures. Developing new work instructions, job safety analyses, standard operating 
procedures, and training materials for all welding activities. Monitoring and controlling 
consumption of flux, welding wires, stores, and spares. Investigating, testing, and 
implementing improvements to welding procedures. Monitoring and maintaining cost­
effective inventories of supplies, tools, and materials. 
• 25%. Reviewing welding procedure specifications and process qualification records. Planning 
welding operations to meet customer specifications. Reviewing welding details in drawings. 
Preparing business plans for the department's financial years. Preparing rework and rejection 
reports and developing corrective and preventative measures with the quality control 
department. Arranging training for engineers and workmen. Minimizing pipe rejections by 
adhering strictly to parameters. Monitoring consumption. 
• 10%. Training team on technical codes. Training employees for radiography testing of welds 
and seams. Ensuring implementation of safety standards. Training and qualifying engineers, 
supervisors, and operators. Monitoring job training and training supervisors. 
Also, in response to the Director's written request for additional evidence (RFE), the Petitioner 
submitted a "detailed job description" of the Beneficiary's activities as senior manager of welding 
operations abroad. The description states that the Beneficiary had the following responsibilities: 
1. Production. Achieving monthly production targets. Monitoring productivity and taking 
corrective action if required. Monitoring pipes in welding section. Coordinating between 
quality and maintenance. Checking "bottleneck" areas and initiating improvement action. 
Measuring and monitoring quality and quantity of individuals' work. Monitoring and 
maintaining conditions of machines. Monitoring flux recovery and effective use. 
2. Job Planning. Preparing shift schedules. Preparing proposed welding procedure specifications 
for pipes and repairs and final welding procedure specifications. Establishing and maintaining 
QSP on shop floor. 
3. Quality Control and Assurance. Monitoring quality issues and rejections, taking corrective 
and preventative actions. Coordinating with TPI. Checking process chart. Qualifying PQT 
and PQR. Checking quality of submerged arc-welding pipes. 
4. Budget Control. Checking effective use of manpower, DV, SV, tools, and spares. 
5. People Development. Training engineers and operators. Teaching and developing new skills 
in operators. Rotating jobs. Identifying training needs. Qualifying welders. 
3 
6. Industrial Safety. Preventing production nonconformity. Ensuring safe working conditions 
and practices. 
7. Documentation and Records. Maintaining and monitoring records as needed to meet quality 
management system standards. 
As the Director found, the job duties described in the Petitioner's RFE response differ from those first 
stated in the petition. For example, contrary to the initial list of duties, the most recent description 
does not indicate that the Beneficiary: interviewed and hired applicants; rewarded and disciplined 
workers; or addressed complaints and resolved issues. A petitioner must resolve inconsistencies of 
record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). The unresolved discrepancies between the job-duty descriptions cast doubt 
on the Beneficiary's true duties abroad. 
Also, the most recent job-duty description does not indicate the Beneficiary's authority to hire or fire 
workers or to recommend those and other personnel actions. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(iii); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(B)(3). Thus, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary's foreign job 
duties met all four elements of the definition of the term "managerial capacity." 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director disregarded evidence of the Beneficiary's authority 
to hire and fire workers or to recommend personnel actions. The Petitioner notes that the initial letter 
from its parent states the Beneficiary's interviewing and hiring of applicants and his rewarding and 
disciplining of employees. 
As previously indicated, however, the unexplained omission of those duties from the most recent job­
duty description casts doubt on the Beneficiary's claimed authority to hire and fire or recommend 
personnel actions. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec, at 591 (requiring a petitioner to resolve 
inconsistencies of record). The Director therefore did not disregard the initial letter. Rather, the 
Director noted the letter's inconsistency with other evidence of record and, under Ho, required the 
Petitioner to explain, which it has not done in response to the RFE or on appeal. 
The Petitioner also argues that, because the Beneficiary purportedly functioned at a senior level within 
the organizational hierarchy, the company need not demonstrate his authority to hire and fire or to 
recommend personnel actions. The Act and regulations, however, allow functioning at a senior level 
to satisfy the definition of "managerial capacity" only "if no other employee [wa]s directly 
supervised." Section 101(a)(44)(A)(iii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(B)(3). The job-duty 
descriptions state the Beneficiary's supervision of others' work, and the parent's organizational chart 
indicates his direct supervision of two employees. Thus, under the statutory and regulatory definition 
of the term "managerial capacity," the Petitioner must demonstrate that, pursuant to the first part of 
101(a)(44)(A)(iii) of the Act, the Beneficiary had authority to hire and fire his subordinates or to 
recommend personnel actions. 
As the Director also found, the job-duty description in the RFE response does not indicate how much 
time the Beneficiary spent on his purported foreign duties. The omission of amounts of time the 
Beneficiary devoted to his duties prevents USCIS from determining whether he "primarily" engaged 
in managerial duties. See section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B). 
4 
The Petitioner notes that the initial description of the Beneficiary's foreign duties includes a time 
percentage for each duty. But the lack of similar percentages in the later job-duty description, together 
with the listing of different job duties, casts doubt on the true amounts of time the Beneficiary spent 
on his duties. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591 (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies 
of record). 
Moreover, the time percentages in the initial job-duty description do not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary "primarily" supervised and controlled others' work abroad. The description states that he 
planned tasks and assigned them to employees, directed workers in the set-up and operations of 
welding machines, and supervised work to ensure completion and compliance with standards. But the 
description indicates that the Beneficiary spent less than 20% of his time on those managerial duties. 
The description indicates that he spent most of his time on other tasks, such as: setting budget and 
production targets; maintaining welding equipment; and training employees. The record does not 
establish that the duties on which the Beneficiary spent most of his time involved supervising and 
controlling the work of others. 
Thus, the job duties provided by the Petitioner do not establish that the Beneficiary primarily worked 
abroad as a personnel manager. 
2. Structure and Staffing 
As previously indicated, the Petitioner submitted an organizational chart from its foreign parent 
indicating that, as senior manager of welding operations, the Beneficiary directly supervised two 
employees. The chart describes the subordinates as "shift incharge [sic] welding" and states that they 
were "[r]esponsible for shiftwise production in [the] welding section." The chart also indicates their 
direct supervision of eight engineers. 
As the Director found, however, the record lacks sufficiently detailed job duties of the Beneficiary's 
foreign subordinates. The record does not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's subordinates performed 
duties relieving him from operational tasks and allowing him to primarily focus on managerial duties. 
See section 291 of the Act (placing the burden on a petitioner to demonstrate eligibility for a requested 
benefit). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's employment abroad 
in a managerial capacity. We will next consider the executive nature of his foreign work. 
B. Executive Capacity 
The term "executive capacity" means employment that "primarily" involved: 1) directing the 
management of an organization or a major component or function of it; 2) establishing the goals and 
policies of the organization, component, or function; 3) exercising wide latitude in discretionary 
decision-making; and 4) receiving only general supervision or direction from higher-level executives, 
a board of directors, or stockholders ofan organization. Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(C). 
5 
In determining whether a beneficiary worked abroad in an executive capacity, we consider the job 
duties of the foreign position . See 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(1)(3)(ii) (requiring a "detailed description" of 
services performed). We also consider: the nature and structure of the foreign business; the existence 
of subordinates who relieved a beneficiary from performing operational tasks; the duties of a 
beneficiary's subordinates; and other factors potentially affecting the nature of a beneficiary's role 
abroad. 
First, as previously indicated, the Petitioner provided inconsistent descriptions of the Beneficiary's 
foreign job duties. The unresolved discrepancies cast doubt on the Beneficiary's true duties as senior 
manager of welding operations in India and the amounts of time he spent on those duties. See Matter 
of Ho , 19 I&N Dec. at 591 (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies ofrecord) . 
Also, the job-duty descriptions do not establish that the Beneficiary "primarily" engaged in executive­
level duties, as opposed to operational tasks. See section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)( 1 )(ii)(C). The description in the RFE response does not indicate the amounts of time the 
Beneficiary spent on his duties. Also, the initial job-duty description states that the Beneficiary set 
budget and production targets and developed operating procedures for the welding department. But 
the initial description indicates that the Beneficiary spent less than half his time on these duties. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary primarily worked 
abroad in an executive capacity. We will next consider whether the Beneficiary's foreign work 
involved specialized knowledge . 
C. Specialized Knowledge 
The term "specialized knowledge" means "special knowledge possessed by an individual of the 
petitioning organization's product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other 
interests and its application in international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise 
in the organization's processes and procedures ." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(ii)(D) . 
The Petitioner does not assert the Beneficiary's special knowledge of specific organizational products, 
services, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests. The company also does 
not assert his special knowledge in their applications in international markets. In addition, the 
Petitioner does not claim the Beneficiary's possession of an advanced level of knowledge in the 
organization's processes and procedures. The Petitioner therefore has not demonstrated the 
Beneficiary's foreign employment in a capacity involving specialized knowledge. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Director "failed to adequately address and consider each piece of 
evidence provided." The Petitioner contends that the Director's denial "fails to address any of the 
specific evidence and documentation actually submitted in the RFE response." 
The Petitioner cites a U.S. district court case where USCIS "failed to consider the key piece of 
evidence" included in a petitioner's RFE response . Earehart.com v. Kaumans, 2020 WL 820878 *3 
(D.D.C. Feb. 19, 2020). Federal district court decisions, however, do not bind us in other matters. 
See, e.g., Matter of H-G-G-, Adopted Decision 2019-01 6 n.9 (AAO July 31, 2019) (citations omitted). 
Moreover, unlike in Earehart.com, the Petitioner here has not demonstrated the Director's disregard 
6 
of relevant evidence. Also, contrary to the Petitioner's assertion, the Director's decision did discuss 
documentation in the company's RFE response . As previously indicated, the Director noted that job 
duties described in the RFE response differ from those described in the petition. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Director requested more evidence than required. The Petitioner 
contends that the initial letter from its parent alone demonstrated the Beneficiary's claimed, qualifying 
employment abroad. 
In most L-1 extension petitions, "supporting documentation is not required, unless requested by the 
director." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(i) (emphasis added). Here, the Director requested supporting 
documentation . Also, as previously discussed, the initial letter did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's 
primary employment abroad in a requisite capacity. Thus, the letter alone did not demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's qualifying foreign employment. See section 291 of the Act (requiring a petitioner to 
demonstrate eligibility for a requested benefit). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's employment abroad in a capacity that was 
managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge . We will therefore affirm the petition's 
denial. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7