remanded L-1A Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 19814660 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition forL-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 27, 2022 
The Petitioner, a management consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficia.ry in the 
United States as its director of I 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: (1) the Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a managerial 
or executive capacity; and (2) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a capacity that was 
managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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 for the 
entry of a new decision consistent with our analysis below. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary: (1) has been 
employed abroad in a qualifying capacity, and (2) will be employed in the United States m a 
managerial or executive 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. 
"Executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization; 
establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; exercises wide latitude 
in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. Section 101 (a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. 
To show that a beneficiary is eligible for L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager or 
executive, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary will perform all four of the high-level 
responsibilities set forth in the statutory definitions at section 10 I (a)( 44 )(A) or (B) 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 
or executive 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 qualify as either executive or managerial, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) considers 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. 
In this case, however, the Director's analysis focused mostly on the lack of direct, documentaty 
evidence concerning the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates and the organization's business activities, 
to the exclusion of any discussion of the Beneficiary's current and proposed job duties. While the 
decision implies that there was insufficient evidence of the company's scope and organizational 
complexity, the record identifies the Petitioner as part of a large organization, with thousands of 
employees both in the United States and abroad. Therefore, the organization appears to be sufficiently 
large and complex to support both executive and managerial positions. The denial notice consisted 
2 
largely of long quotations from a prior request for evidence, with only a few sentences identifying the 
grounds for denial. 
The denial notice must show the specific reasons for denial. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). We 
conclude that the denial notice lacked the required specificity. Nevertheless, we will not sustain the 
appeal and approve the petition at this time, because imp01iant issues must still be addressed. 
In the denial notice, the Director indicated that the Petitioner described the Beneficiary's past 
employment abroad, and his intended employment in the United States, as being in an executive 
capacity. The Petitioner has repeatedly described the positions in question as executive, but the 
Petitioner also frequently used the terms "managerial" and "management" when discussinJ those 
positions. At one point, the Petitioner stated: "The beneficiary's employment as Director o 
I I abroad qualifies as executive in that he: (a) supervises and controls the work of 
professional employees and (b) exercises direction over the day-to-day operations of the function and 
the teams/employees under his purview." These responsibilities, however, are elements of a 
managerial capacity, not an executive capacity. 
These ambiguities warrant a fuller discussion of the issue of managerial capacity, particularly in light 
of the Petitioner's asse1iions that the Beneficiary's past and proposed responsibilities would include 
direct supervision of professionals. 
The Director's questions about subordinate personnel are important, particularly because the Petitioner 
has submitted what appear to be conflicting organizational charts and descriptions of the Beneficiary's 
subordinate staff. The Petitioner initially stated that the Beneficiary would"[ d]irectly and indirectly 
manage a team of 20 experience[ d] professionals who liaise externally with our leading suppliers of 
data, analytics, and research services," and "[p ]rovide overall oversight to a global external knowledge 
team of 250 individuals." An organizational chart showed the following structure subordinate to the 
Beneficiary's intended position: 
• Knowledge Services Manager 
o Specialists 
o Coordinators 
• Technology and Operations Manager 
o Specialists 
• External Knowledge Network 
o 250 full-time employees across multiple knowledge firms 
In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner asserted that "[t]he beneficiary will 
supervise and control ... over 50 consultants, and more than 600 professionals." A revised 
organizational chart showed the following structure that would be under the Beneficiary's authority: 
• New Capabilities Specialist (Expert Networks) 
o 17 suppliers 
o 1 Expert 
o 1 Specialist 
o 1 Solutions Leader 
3 
■ 1 Solutions Manager 
■ 1 Product Owner 
■ 2 Developers 
• New Capabilities Specialist (Global Surveys) 
o 60+ suppliers 
o 2 Senior Experts 
• New Capabilities Specialist (Global Data Labs) 
o 100+ suppliers 
o 1 Specialist 
o 4 Data Scientists/Engineers 
• Product Manager (Technology and Operations) 
o 1 O+ tech suppliers 
o 1 Operations Specialist 
o 1 Operations Coordinator 
• Manager, Firm Controllership 
o 1 Financial Specialist 
o 2 Senior Analysts 
o 1 Analyst 
• Human Resources Manager 
• Global Business Research 
o 250 full time employees across multiple Knowledge Firms 
o 1 Expert 
• Knowledge Assets 
o Americas 
■ 200+ suppliers 
■ 5 Experts/Specialists 
■ 2 Coordinators 
o Europe 
■ 50+ suppliers 
■ 1 Expert 
■ 1 Specialist 
o Asia 
■ 1 O+ suppliers 
■ 1 Expert 
■ 1 Coordinator 
• Risk 
o 2 Compliance Coordinators 
The first chart indicated that the "Knowledge Services Manager" was one of only two positions 
immediately subordinate to the Beneficiary; the second chart did not show that title at all. The 
Petitioner did not explain why the description of the subordinate personnel changed from "a team of 
20 experience[ d] professionals" and "a global external knowledge team of 250 individuals" to "over 
50 consultants, and more than 600 professionals." 
4 
Because the Petitioner has provided two conflicting versions of the subordinate structure that the 
Beneficiary would oversee in the United States, the Petitioner must provide independent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Nevertheless, the Director's decision did not address the discrepancy between the two lists of claimed 
subordinates, and therefore the Petitioner did not have the opportunity to address this potentially 
pivotal issue on appeal. 
The Director's denial notice did not include a substantive discussion of the Beneficiary's claimed 
duties abroad and in the United States. The Petitioner should resolve the personnel discrepancies in 
order to help establish whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity. 
In terms of an executive capacity, a given beneficiary's authority over subordinates who are deemed 
to be managers does not presumptively qualify that beneficiary as an executive. Rather, that 
beneficiary must direct the management of either (1) the organization, or (2) a major (a) component 
or (b) function of the organization. See section 101 (a)( 44 )(B)(i). Authority over a department, 
subdivision, or minor component of an organization would not qualify as an executive capacity; 
departments, subdivisions, and non-major components are addressed only in the statutory definition 
of managerial capacity; their omission from the definition of executive capacity is consistent with the 
hierarchical idea of executive positions being more highly elevated than managerial positions. 
The Petitioner states that, as director of the Beneficiary "will oversee [the 
I I service line within our in MA " and will be "at the 
top of the organizational hierarchy for [the Petitioner's 
Petitioner calls "a key function within the Firm," but has not established where stands within 
the larger organization, for example by submitting an organizational chart that sh owed relative 
position. This information is relevant to the question of whether is a major component or function 
of the organization. 
The Petitioner's response to the RFE included materials from the company's website describing the 
I I These materials do not mention and therefore do not show how 
Drelates to the larger The distinction is significant because the 
Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary has been, or will be, in charge ofl I 
overall: he would report to the "PartnerJ The web rintout also indicates 
that thel location, where the Beneficiary would work, is one of 
Locations." Therefore, information about the significance or scope of the wider 
component does not shed sufficient light on the Beneficiary's intended role within that component. 
For the reasons explained above, the record does not rule out the possibility that the Beneficiary's past 
and proposed positions qualify as at least managerial, but the Director's narrow focus on certain 
evidentiary issues in the denial notice did not afford the Petitioner an opportunity to address other 
issues of concern. 
We note that, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner expressed concerns about the privacy of its 
employees and clients, resulting in a reluctance to submit direct evidence of the company's activities. 
5 
In this regard, we note that partially redacted information can help to meet the Petitioner's burden of 
proof, provided that the information provided is credible and verifiable. 1 
In light of the deficiencies noted above, we find it appropriate to remand the matter to the Director to 
reevaluate the submitted evidence and determine whether the Petitioner has established that past 
positions abroad, and intended positions in the United States, meet the requirements of a managerial 
capacity. To aid in making this dete1mination, the Director should issue a new RFE that is more 
narrowly targeted toward the issues discussed above. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
1 We further note that the record of proceeding is subject to Privacy Act protections, and certain identifying information 
cannot be disseminated to the public without redaction of protected identifying information. See l USC IS Policy Manual 
A.7 https:/ /www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
6