remanded L-1A Case: Management Consulting And Data Analytics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10551868 
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: SEPT. 23, 2020 
The Petitioner, a provider of management consulting and data analytics services, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as an account manager and extend his status under the L-lA nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees.1 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(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 Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial 
capacity. 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 to the 
Director for further consideration and entry of a new decision. 
I. LAW 
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. 
"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 
1 The record reflects that the Beneficiar] was previously granted L-lA status authorizing his employment with a U.S. 
branch of! the Petitioner's Indian parent company , from September 2016 until September 
2019. The Petitioner indicated on the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, that it was seeking a "change in 
employer" along with a two-year extension of the Beneficiary 's status. 
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 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 
10l(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, 469F.3d1313, 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. 
II. WITHDRAW AL OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary, in his role as account manager, "is a key member of our 
global executive and management team," whose primary role is "to manage and grow" the petitioning 
company. The Petitioner indicated that he manages an account portfolio valued at $3.5 million, 
manages "a large team" of analysts, manages client relationships at a high level, and "is responsible 
for profitable growth for [the company] for the southeastern region" of the United States. 
Initially, the Petitioner provided a four-page description of the Beneficiary's intended duties which 
was divided into nine categories and listed individual elements within each of those nine areas of 
responsibility. In its response to the Director's notice of intent to deny (NOID), the Petitioner devoted 
nearly nine pages to describing the Beneficiary's responsibilities and provided additional examples of 
his "daily duties." 
In the denial notice, the Director primarily addressed only the broad categories of duties and noted 
slight changes in the amount of time the Beneficiary would devote to specific tasks as an adverse 
factor. For example, he observed that one job duty was initially assigned 2.5% of his time compared 
to 2% in response to the NOID. The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner identified additional 
duties in its response but determined that the description was still overly broad. In making this 
determination, the Director took words and phrases from the position description out of context, noting 
that the description included terms such as "devise, generate, negotiate, develop" that had not been 
sufficiently defined. Finally, the Director focused on a statement made by counsel in a letter 
accompanying the NOID response. Specifically, counsel stated that "[i]t is evident that the Beneficiary 
will perform primarily managerial duties, for more than 51 % of his time." The Director's decision 
2 
implies that "more than 51 %" is not "primarily" managerial as defined in immigration laws and 
regulations. In fact, the term "primarily" is not defined in the Act or regulations. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's employment in a 
"managerial or executive capacity" without addressing any additional evidence submitted in support 
of the Petitioner's managerial capacity claim. However, in determining whether a given beneficiary's 
duties will be primarily managerial, USCIS must consider the description of the job duties, along with 
evidence relating to 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. 
Further, 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 ofM-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). 
Here, the Director did not adequately explain why the submitted job description was deficient, nor 
does the brief analysis in the decision indicate that the Director's decision was based on a review of 
the totality of the record, including all evidence submitted in support of the Petitioner's claim that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity. For these reasons, the Director's decision 
is withdrawn. 
III. BASIS FOR REMAND 
Although we withdraw the Director's decision, issues remain which the Petitioner must address before 
the petition can 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 along with the totality of the evidence, including evidence relating to 
the company's structure and his placement in the corporate hierarchy and the duties of his claimed 
subordinates. 
First, the record does not clearly demonstrate the nature and scope of the Beneficiary's authority as an 
account manager. 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. The Petitioner must establish, in part, that the 
Beneficiary "manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the 
organization" and "exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function" for 
which he has authority. 
As noted, the Petitioner represented the Beneficiary's position as one that is part of its "global 
executive and management team," and responsible for expansion of business in the southeastern 
United States, as well as management of an account portfolio that includes several accounts. However, 
3 
beyond those individual accounts, the Petitioner indicated that he develops partnership strategies, 
identifies new markets, and is responsible for "profitable growth" in the assigned geographic region 
including management of "the region, revenues, teams." However, the evidence reflects that the 
Beneficiary, his supervisor (a "Group Account Manager"), and his subordinates are and would be 
working on-site for a clientl I based at its Atlanta location. 2 A letter from I I I lrefers to the Petitioner as "a technical resource" working at its location, and indicates that his 
supervisor ensures that on-site employees like the Beneficiary "properly carry out their 
responsibilities." Further, the job descriptions provided for the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates 
suggest that their duties relate exclusively to services that the Petitioner provides tq I 
If the Beneficiary will be managing a portfolio of several major accounts and have business 
development responsibilities for an entire U.S. region, it is unclear why he would be assigned foll­
time as a "technical resource" at single client site, or why all of his subordinates would be assigned to 
a single account. In addition, if his supervisor is also placed at this client site, this raises questions as 
to whether the Beneficiary is the employee charged with managing this "department, subdivision, 
function, or component of the organization" and exercising discretion over related day-to-day 
activities, or whether these responsibilities fall to his supervisor. As this matter will be remanded, the 
Petitioner should be given an opportunity to clarify the scope of the Beneficiary's authority, inctuding 
whether it extends beyond projects being implemented for I • I in . An 
organizational chart depicting the structure of the Petitioner's complete on-site team at the client 
worksite would also assist in demonstrating where the Beneficiary's position is placed within the 
Petitioner's hierarchy. The Petitioner should also identify any other employees (and their direct and 
indirect reports) who report to the Beneficiary's manager. 
As noted, the Petitioner has consistently stated that the Beneficiary will supervise three senior analysts 
and one manager who will also work onsite inl l including authority to hire or fire or recommend 
those as well as other personnel actions. Prior to the denial of the petition, the Director requested 
copies of performance appraisals or reviews conducted by the Beneficiary for any subordinate 
employees or any other evidence demonstrating his managerial authority over subordinate employees. 
The Petitioner replied that it could not provide this evidence because the Beneficiary currently works 
for its parent company! 
0 
I However, other evidence indicates that he has 
been workTg for tlis company's U.S. operations as an account manager based atl l's 
worksite in , performing the same duties described in this petition, and supervising the same 
subordinates. The Petitioner did not provide a reason for the change in employer, but it appears that 
the only change in his employment would be the responsible payroll employer. The Petitioner should 
be given an opportunity to clarify whether there are any other changes in the Beneficiary's previously 
approved L-1 employment. If not, then it may submit evidence of his supervisory responsibilities 
performed as an employee ofl I 
Related to this issue, ~SCIS records indicate that the Beneficiary's initial L-lA employer, I I I _ filed a petition to extend his L- lA status on September 6, 2019, three weeks 
after if filed the instant petition. The information provided on the latter Form I-129 indicates that the 
request was for a "continuation of previously approved employment without change with the same 
2 One of the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates, whose title is "Manager," resides and works at a remote site in Florida 
according to his recent pay statements. 
4 
employer" and it does not appear that there was a request that he be authorized for concurrent 
employment with both the Petitioner and the parent company's U.S. branch. The Director of the 
California Service Center approved that petition on November 29, 2019, authorizing the Beneficiary's 
employment withl ltrom September 2019 until September 2021. 
As this matter will be remanded, the Director should request that the Petitioner clarify why two nearly 
concurrent petitions were filed on behalf of the Beneficiary and confirm its intent to employ the 
Beneficiary in the United States if this petition is approved. 
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. The Director should allow the Petitioner an opportunity to submit 
additional evidence that relates to the issues discussed above. 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. 
5