remanded L-1A Case: Automotive Components

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 3, 2024 In Re: 33360385 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer of automotive components, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a plant quality control systems manager under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification 
for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a qualifying capacity, and that the 
Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. The 
matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
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. 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). 
Since January 2018, the Beneficiary has worked for the Petitioner's foreign parent company in India 
as a plant quality manager in 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's past employment abroad and intended employment in the 
United States both meet the requirements of a managerial capacity. The Petitioner did not claim that 
either position qualifies as an executive capacity, or that the position abroad involved specialized 
knowledge. The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that either position qualifies 
as 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. 
To show that a beneficiary is eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, a 
petitioner must show that the beneficiary will perform all four of the high-level responsibilities set 
forth in the statutory definition at section I01 (a)(44)(A) of the Act. If a petitioner establishes that the 
offered position meets all four elements set forth in the statutory definition, the petitioner must then 
prove that the beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary 
operational activities alongside the petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 
1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). In determining whether the beneficiary's duties will be primarily 
managerial, we consider the description of the job duties, the company's organizational structure, the 
duties of the beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to relieve the 
beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that 
will contribute to understanding the beneficiary's actual duties and role in the business. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
capacity, we must take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall 
purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary is employed abroad as a personnel manager, with 
authority over 28 subordinates, but that he would be employed as a function manager in the United 
States, with a smaller subordinate staff. An organizational chart for the petitioning U.S. entity shows 
six positions subordinate to the Beneficiary, with one of those positions vacant at the time of filing. 
We will remand the matter for a new decision because the record requires further development. In the 
denial notice, the Director stated that the job descriptions for the Beneficiary's position abroad and his 
intended U.S. position contain unexplained technical language. When the Director first asked for more 
details related to both positions in a request for evidence, the Director did not raise this issue. Job 
descriptions submitted on appeal appear to include less technical information about the Beneficiary's 
past and intended future duties, and the Director has not yet had an opportunity to review and consider 
these materials. The Petitioner has also submitted materials relating to most of the Beneficiary's 
claimed subordinates abroad, which also warrant consideration. 
2 
The appeal also includes correspondence from South Carolina's Secretary of Commerce, which may 
be material to the petition and should also be considered. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary will manage the company's essential function of "Plant 
Quality Control." We acknowledge that ensuring the quality of manufactured parts can be understood 
to be an essential function. The quality of those parts affects not only the Petitioner's reputation among 
its customers, but also potentially the safety of drivers and passengers in the vehicles incorporating 
those parts. But review of the Petitioner's U.S. organizational chart reveals an issue that may warrant 
further exploration. The chart shows that the Beneficiary, as plant quality control systems manager, 
would report directly to the "Quality Manager." The chart does not show that the quality manager 
would have any other direct reports, and it does not describe the quality manager's responsibilities or 
duties. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary, rather than the quality 
manager to whom he would report, would manage the quality control function at the petitioning plant. 
The Director's denial notice relies in significant part on issues not clearly raised in the request for 
evidence, and the record as it now stands neither confirms nor precludes the Beneficiary's eligibility for 
the classification sought. Therefore, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for 
consideration of the newly submitted materials and further development of the record, including, if the 
Director deems necessary, issuance of a new request for evidence. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3