remanded L-1A Case: Computing Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9434292 
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: AUG . 21, 2020 
The Petitioner, a provider of computing services, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary in the 
United States as a delivery senior director under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(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, as required, that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad, and will be employed in the 
United States, in a managerial capacity as claimed. 
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 remand the matter to the 
Director for further consideration and entry of a new decision. 
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. 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). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has been employed 
abroad, and will be employed in the United States, 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 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
To be eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, a petitioner must show that the 
beneficiary will perform the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition at section 
101(a)(44)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act. If the record does not establish that the offered position meets all 
four of these elements, we cannot conclude that it is a qualifying managerial position. 
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. 
A. Withdrawal of Director's Decision 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary will work offsite at a client company, "in the managerial role 
of Delivery Senior Director for a large West Coast account," where he "will manage both a support 
team and a team of project consultants." The Petitioner divides the Beneficiary's intended duties into 
three categories, and lists individual elements within each of those three categories. The Petitioner 
also divides the duties of the Beneficiary's prior employment abroad into four categories. Within each 
of these broad categories, the Petitioner listed individual elements. 
In the denial notice, the Director addressed only the broad categories, stating that, because the 
Beneficiary will devote 75% of his time to "Delivery Management" and 10% of his time to "Technical 
and Function Assistance," "[t]he majority of the duties appear to perform the tasks of the operation 
[sic]." Regarding the Beneficiary's earlier employment abroad, the Director arrived at the same 
conclusion because the Beneficiary devoted 40% of his time to "Program/Project Delivery 
Management" and 20% to "Pre-sales and Solution Development." The Director did not elaborate or 
address the individual elements within the three broad areas of responsibility. 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in order to allow the Petitioner a 
fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 l&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a 
decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful 
opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). The Director's summary conclusion does not 
sufficiently explain how the submitted job descriptions are deficient. 
Another issue concerns the requirement that a manager must have authority to perform or recommend 
personnel actions such as hiring and firing. Company officials who did, or will, supervise the 
2 
Beneficiary state that the Beneficiary had hiring and firing authority in his position abroad, and will 
continue to have that authority in the United States. The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not 
sufficiently establish this authority, although the Director cited no particular reason to doubt the 
Petitioner's assertions in this regard. 
Also, the Director cited the lack of documentary evidence to show that the petitioning organization 
actually employs the individuals identified as the Beneficiary's past or future subordinates. A request 
for evidence, issued before the denial decision, did not request such evidence. 
For the above reasons, the denial notice was deficient and must be withdrawn. The Director should 
issue a new decision taking the above factors into account. 
B. Basis for Remand 
Although we withdraw the Director's decision, issues remain which the Petitioner must address before 
the petition can properly be approved. Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director for 
further review and entry of a new decision. 
Our remand order rests, in part, on our conclusion that the Director should have considered the 
Beneficiary's job descriptions in more detail. Review of those descriptions reveal deficiencies that 
the Petitioner should take this opportunity to address. 
With respect to the U.S. job description, the predominant "Delivery Management" category includes 
several very general items that describe goals rather than the specific tasks that the Beneficiary would 
perform to achieve those goals. Examples include: 
I Establish a strong foundation on strategic IT partnership with clientc::=::h, project 
governance, thought leadership, and client relationship management. 
I Responsible for managing transition from incumbent support team and achiev[ing] 
steady state support successfully. 
I Manage client expectations on all delivery related aspects working closely with 
client manager. 
I Represent the account's delivery internally and externally. 
I Plan and mitigate risks on the engagement and ensure smooth product delivery. 
An accompanying letter includes some elaboration, but does not always shed more light on the specific 
tasks to be performed. For instance, with regard to the last item on the list above, the Petitioner states: 
[The Beneficiary] will anticipate risks that arise during the project and mitigate them. 
To do so, [the Beneficiary] will analyze complex situations and staff the appropriate 
resources to the risk mitigation projects. He must manage his team to continue the 
process and ensure that deliverables will be timely and satisfactory. 
The description of the Beneficiary's earlier employment abroad is similarly deficient, in many cases 
describing goals and responsibilities rather than specific, identifiable tasks. Such vague assertions do 
not sufficiently distinguish the Beneficiary from the subordinates who perform the non-qualifying 
3 
tasks, such as programming and engineering, associated with providing contracted services to the 
Petitioner's client. The Beneficiary's job descriptions should describe what he did and will do, rather 
than the results that he did, and seeks to, accomplish. 
Another issue concerns the structure of the companies where the Beneficiary has worked and will 
work. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary "will serve at a senior level within [the petitioning] 
company" and will report "directly to the executive management level" of the petitioning company. 
An organizational chart shows the Beneficiary will report directly to a "Vertical Delivery Executive," 
elsewhere identified as "Senior Director, Application Services Delivery," and indirectly to a "Client 
Executive." The chart shows ten direct reports below the Beneficiary, but does not show where this 
group fits into the company's overall structure and hierarchy. The chart does not establish that the 
Beneficiary will have managerial authority over a department, subdivision, function, or component of 
the organization, rather than supervisory authority over one of dozens of project teams dispatched to 
approximately 100 client companies. The Petitioner claims 16,000 employees in North America and 
80,000 employees worldwide. The Petitioner need not submit an organizational chart that shows all 
these employees, but a broader view is necessary to convey a sense of the Beneficiary's past and 
intended place in the organization. 
A notable deficiency is that the organizational chart does not indicate whether or not the vertical 
delivery executive has direct reports other than the Petitioner, and if so, how many. The lack of 
information about the Beneficiary's place in this very large organization, in conjunction with the lack 
of detai Is about the Beneficiary's specific tasks, makes it difficult to determine whether the Beneficiary 
has been, and will be, a manager rather than a lower-level team leader who actively participates in the 
provision of services. 
As the Director did not sufficiently address the Petitioner's claims and supporting evidence or provide 
notice of the evidentiary deficiencies addressed herein, the matter will be remanded for further review 
and entry of a new decision. At a minimum, the Director should request expanded organization charts 
and any other evidence deemed necessary to clarify the Beneficiary's placement within the 
organizational hierarchy, and job descriptions identifying the Beneficiary's tasks rather than areas of 
responsibility. The Director may also notify the Petitioner of additional, potential grounds of denial 
if supported by the record. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4