remanded L-1A Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF N-R-G-O-N-A-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 23, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which manages information systems and technology functions for its corporate group 
in North America, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary employment as its "Lead Business 
Solutions - Costing" under the L- lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(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 Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity under 
the extended petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the denial decision, arguing that the Director erroneously evaluated 
a position description submitted for a subordinate employee as the Beneficiary's own description, and 
misinterpreted the Petitioner's statements with respect to the composition of the team he manages. The 
Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Beneficiary will continue to be employed 
in a managerial capacity. 
Upon de nova review, and for the reasons discussed below, we will withdraw the Director's decision 
and remand the matter for entry of a new decision. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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 10l(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). 
Matter ofN-R-G-O-N-A-, Inc. 
II. BASIS FOR REMAND 
Upon review, we find that the Director's decision contains two material factual errors. First, in 
evaluating the Beneficiary's job duties, the Director quoted a list of duties that was submitted for the 
position of"Business Solutions Specialist-F&C Costing," a job title held by two of the Beneficiary's 
subordinates. The Director appears to have attributed the subordinates' duties to the Beneficiary and 
did not analyze the expanded job description the Petitioner provided in response to a request for 
evidence (RFE). Therefore, to the extent that the denial decision included an analysis of the proposed 
job duties, it did not focus on the Beneficiary's role as described in the record. 
The Director further found that the record contained inconsistencies with respect to the identity of the 
Beneficiary's subordinates. Specifically, the Director observed that, while the Petitioner stated in its 
supporting statements that the Beneficiary will supervise a director of finance, a director and product 
supply controller, and a costing manager, the submitted organizational charts identify the 
Beneficiary's subordinates as "specialist business solutions," "expert business solutions," and 
"external consultants." Based on these perceived inconsistencies, the Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not sufficiently describe its organizational hierarchy or the number or type of employees 
the Beneficiary would supervise, and did further address the Beneficiary's supervisory responsibilities. 
However, we note that the Petitioner has consistently stated that the Beneficiary will manage the 
development and implementation of business solutions through a subordinate staff that includes "two 
Business Solution Exports and two Business Solutions Specialists." Therefore, we do not find that 
the Petitioner submitted conflicting statements regarding the positions held by the Beneficiary's direct 
reports. The Petitioner also consistently stated that the Beneficiary would provide guidance to the 
director of finance, director and product supply controller, and costing manager, and it further clarifies 
on appeal that the Beneficiary works closely with these employees to align IT strategies throughout 
the Petitioner's group. 
As a result of these errors, we find that the Director's decision did not adequately explain the 
deficiencies in the evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&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). Accordingly, the 
Director's decision will be withdrawn. 
However, although the decision will be withdrawn, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity under the extended petition. 
The statutory definition of"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to primarily 
supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. Contrary 
to the common understanding of the word "manager," the statute plainly states that 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." Id. If a beneficiary directly 
supervises other employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire those 
2 
Matter ofN-R-G-O-N-A-, Inc. 
employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner also claims on appeal that the Beneficiary qualifies as a function manager. The term 
"function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the work of a 
subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" within the 
organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. Here, the Petitioner indicates that the 
Beneficiary will allocate 50% of his time to "manage and delegate the day-to-day activities of 
subordinate cos
1
ing spectlists" and perform additional supervisory duties as part of his responsibility 
for overseeing' projects." Based on this description of the role, the Beneficiary's duties are 
primarily supervisory and the position should be analyzed as a personnel manager rather than as a 
function manager. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act; see also Matter of G- Inc., Adopted 
Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017) (stating that "a position that a petitioner claims to be primarily 
supervisory in nature should be evaluated as a personnel manager.") 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary manages "supervisors and degreed professionals" but has 
not adequately supported this claim. As noted, the Beneficiary's subordinates hold the positions of 
"specialist business solutions" and "expert business solutions." The Petitioner has submitted two 
versions of the "specialist business solutions" position, and has not provided a description for the 
"expert business solutions" position. The submitted job description for the "specialist" position does 
not identify any supervisory duties. 
To determine whether a beneficiary manages professional employees, we must 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." 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's subordinates are "degreed professionals" but did not 
provide evidence of their educational qualifications. Moreover, based on the definition of 
"profession," we must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree 
held by a subordinate employee. One of the two submitted position descriptions for the business 
solutions specialist indicates that the basic minimum requirements for the position include a "high 
school diploma or GED equivalent"; a bachelor's degree is preferred but not required. Another version 
of the position description submitted on appeal does not list any minimum educational requirements. 
We cannot conclude that the Beneficiary's subordinates are professionals or supervisors based on the 
evidence currently in the record. 
Finally, we note that the Petitioner has not submitted a sufficiently detailed position description for 
the Beneficiary. The definition of managerial capacity has two parts. First, the Petitioner must show 
that the Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 
940 F .2d 1533 (Table), 1991 WL 1444 70 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991 ). Second, the Petitioner must prove 
that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational 
activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See, e.g., Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 
3 
Matter ofN-R-G-O-N-A-, Inc. 
1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d at 1533. The record as presently constituted lacks 
the necessary information about the Beneficiary's daily tasks. 
For example, the Petitioner indicated that as part of his responsibility for directing deployment of 
costing and finance projects, and maintaining previously implemented projects, the Beneficiary is 
expected to "develop strategic responses" to the company's operating concerns in the region, "lead the 
application" of solutions to these operating concerns," and "manage incident resolutions." The 
Petitioner did not describe the actual tasks associated with these responsibilities. On appeal, the 
Petitioner submits its official internal description for the position, but it includes similarly broad duties 
some of which are not clearly managerial, such as "collaborates with peers to provide solutions for 
new business requirements," and "works with the Finance function to understand business 
requirements and assist the technical team in designing functionalities/solutions." Additional 
information regarding the Beneficiary's specific day-to-day tasks would be needed to determine the 
nature and extent of his hands-on involvement in designing and developing the business solutions 
assigned to his team. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Although the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial capacity, we find that the Director's decision did not adequately analyze the 
facts of the matter. As the Director did not satisfy this condition, we will remand the matter for entry 
of a new decision. The Director should request any additional evidence deemed warranted and allow 
the Petitioner to submit such evidence within a reasonable period of time. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
Cite as Matter of N-R-G-0-N-A-, Inc., ID# 5058084 (AAO July 23, 2019) 
4