remanded L-1A Case: Financial Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 14275354 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 5, 2021 
The Petitioner, a provider of financial services, seeks to continue employing the Beneficiary as an 
application systems engineer under the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification for intracompany 
managers and executives . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(L), 
8 U.S .C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(L) . 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition . The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's qualifications for the offered position. The Director 
also found that the company did not establish the Beneficiary's employment abroad in the claimed 
specialized knowledge or managerial capacities, or his proposed U.S . work in the claimed managerial 
capacity. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit. See section 291 of 
the Act, 8 C.F.R. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand 
the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis. 
I. L-lA MANAGERS AND EXECUTNES 
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 admission 
into the United States, the petitioner, a branch, parent, affiliate, or subsidiary employed the beneficiary 
full-time, abroad in a capacity that was managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge. 
Section 10l(a)(15)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 214 .2(1)(3)(iii), (iv). 
II. THE BENEFICIARY'S QUALIFICATIONS 
An L-1 A petition must include evidence that a 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)(iv). 
Here, the Petitioner states that, as application systems engineer, the Beneficiary would oversee and 
lead development and delivery of the organization's "Robotic Process Automation (RP A)" 
technology, which uses logic-driven robots to execute pre-programmed rules on data. A copy of a 
diploma indicates that an Indian university awarded the Beneficiary a bachelor of business 
management degree. A letter from the Petitioner's Indian affiliate states that the Beneficiary worked 
for it almost six years, including for more than one year overseeing RP A design, development, and 
implementation. The Petitioner also stated its employment of the Beneficiary in the offered position 
since January 2018. 
In a written request for additional evidence (RFE), the Director questioned the claimed, specialized­
knowledge nature of the Beneficiary's employment abroad. The Petitioner's RFE response did not 
address the concerns about specialized knowledge, but rather claimed the Beneficiary's employment 
abroad in only a managerial capacity. The Director found that the company did not demonstrate the 
Beneficiary's qualifications for the offered position. 1 
Beneficiaries' qualifications for offered positions, however, are separate determinations from the 
natures of the beneficiaries' employment abroad. Petitioners must demonstrate both the qualifying 
natures of beneficiaries' employment abroad ( executive, managerial, or specialized knowledge) "and" 
the beneficiaries' qualifications for offered positions. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iv) (emphasis added). 
The regulatory inquiry into beneficiaries' qualifications focuses on the suitability of their levels of 
education, training, and experience "to perform the intended services in the United States." Id. 
The Director mistakenly confused the Beneficiary's qualifications for the offered position with the 
nature of his employment abroad. The Beneficiary's bachelor's degree and his years of relevant 
experience qualify him for the offered position. We will therefore withdraw the Director's contrary 
finding. 
III. THE NATURES OF THE FOREIGN AND U.S. EMPLOYMENT 
The term "managerial capacity" means employment that "primarily" involves: 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). 
The definition of the term "managerial capacity" allows for both managers of personnel and essential 
functions. A personnel manager must "primarily" supervise and control the work of other supervisory, 
professional, or managerial employees and have authority to hire and fire subordinates or recommend 
those as well as other personnel actions. Sections 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii), (iii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(B)(2), (3). In contrast, a function manager must "primarily" manage an essential 
1 On appeal, the Petitioner states that it no longer claims the Beneficiary's employment abroad in a specialized knowledge 
capacity. Thus, the Petitioner effectively waives that claim, and we need not consider it. See, e.g.. Matter of M-A-S-. 
24 l&N Dec. 762. 767 n.2 (BIA 2009) (declining to address an argument omitted on appeal). 
2 
function and work at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or regarding the function 
managed. Id. 
The Petitioner's RFE response seemed to assert the Beneficiary's employment abroad and proposed 
U.S. work as both a personnel and function manager. On appeal, the Petitioner claims the 
Beneficiary's prior and proposed employment as only a personnel manager. 2 The Director's decision, 
however, considers the Beneficiary's employment as only a function manager. 
The Director's decision does not consider the Beneficiary's employment abroad or proposed U.S. 
work in the claimed capacity of personnel manager. We will therefore remand the matter. 
On remand, the Director should consider the Beneficiary's prior and proposed employment as a 
personnel manager. The Director should also ask the Petitioner to explain inconsistencies regarding 
the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employment. The company's initial letter states the Beneficiary's 
proposed supervision of two employees. But the company's initial organizational chart identifies three 
proposed subordinates, and the firm's later letter and organizational chart indicate his proposed 
supervision of six employees. The discrepancies in the number of the Beneficiary's proposed 
subordinates cast doubt on the accuracy of the Petitioner's evidence. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 
582, 591 (BIA 1988) (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies of record with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies). 
If supported by the record, the Director may notify the Petitioner of any other potential grounds of 
denial. The Director should afford the company a reasonable opportunity to respond to all issues 
raised on remand. Upon receipt of a timely response, the Director should review the entire record and 
issue a new decision. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Contrary to the Director's decision, the record establishes the Beneficiary's qualifications for the 
offered position. The Director, however, must consider the nature of the Beneficiary's employment 
abroad and proposed U.S. work as a claimed personnel manager. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2 The Petitioner therefore effectively waives claims of the Beneficiary's employment abroad and in the United States as a 
function manager. See Matter of M-A-S-, 24 l&N Dec. at 76 7 n.2. 
3