remanded L-1A Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10742943 
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 its Assistant Vice President (Business Development) 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)(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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity in the United 
States. 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; 
1 The Beneficiary was previously granted L-lA status authorizing his employment with a U.S. branch oti I 
...._ _ ___,! his former Indian employer , from August 25, 2016 through August 24, 2019, and this employer filed an extension 
request for him in August 2019, which was ultimately approved . The Petitioner indicated on the instant 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. 
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. 
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, 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. 
II. WITHDRAW AL OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION 
The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary, in his role as Assistant Vice President (Business 
Development), "is a key member of our global executive and management team," who is "the North 
America Head and responsible for account management and business development activities in the 
United States." The Petitioner farther indicated that the Beneficiary oversees an account portfolio 
valued at $22 million and is responsible for the profitable growth of the company in the North 
American region. 
Initially, the Petitioner provided an eight-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 request for evidence (RFE) the Petitioner devoted 
more than 10 pages to describing the Beneficiary's responsibilities and provided additional examples 
of his "daily duties." 
In the denial notice, the Director determined that the description provided in response to the RFE was 
identical to that provided initially and concluded that "[i]t appears that the beneficiary will spend the 
majority of his time performing non-qualifying duties." The Director did not explain which duties he 
deemed to be "non-qualifying" or farther address the submitted job descriptions. 
With respect to the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary will supervise and control a team of three 
professional employees (senior consultants), the Director stated "no documentary evidence was 
submitted to demonstrate that the beneficiary will directly supervise and control the subordinates 
indicated" and did not farther address this claim. 
2 
Next, the Director's decision introduced potentially derogatory information from outside the record of 
proceeding that he had failed to mention in the RFE: 
You indicated on our Form 1-129 etition that the beneficijry will work atl I 
IL (Branch Office). '--------------------------' However, when USCIS conducted a site check on March 26, 2019, USCIS discovered 
that no one was at the office and the property manager stated that the employees were 
rarely there. As such you have not demonstrated that the beneficiary will be working 
from this location. 
A petitioner must be afforded an opportunity to review all derogatory information considered by the 
Director before a decision is rendered. See, e.g., 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i); Matter of Cuello, 20 I&N 
Dec. 94, 96-98 (BIA 1989). The Director's failure to provide the Petitioner with notice of this 
information in the RFE constitutes error. 
The remainder of the Director's analysis focused on whether the Petitioner established that the 
Beneficiary qualifies as a function manager. However, the Petitioner has consistently claimed that he 
will be employed in a managerial capacity based on his control and supervision of subordinate 
personnel; it did not claim that the Beneficiary would manage an essential function of the company. 
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. 
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 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 improperly introduced derogatory information in the denial notice, 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 evidence 
submitted. For these reasons, the Director's decision did not adequately address why the Petitioner's 
evidence was insufficient to meet its burden of proof and the 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, his placement in the corporate hierarchy and the duties of his claimed 
subordinates. The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary is responsible for account management and 
3 
business development for all of North America through his oversight of three senior consultants. 
However, it also refers to him as a "high-level sales professional" who spends one-third of his time 
traveling to meet with and deliver presentations to current and prospective clients. 
The Beneficiary's lengthy position description contains no references to the "senior consultants" that 
he will manage or his delegation of tasks to these employees. Rather, the description references his 
review of activities carried out by account managers, delivery managers, operations managers, project 
managers, lead analysts, and others, and indicates his interactions with a Vice President of Sales. None 
of these positions, however, appear on the partial U.S. organizational chart provided by the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner should be given an opportunity to submit a more comprehensive organizational chart 
that identifies the staff referenced in the Beneficiary's position description. 
With respect to the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates, we acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted 
their job descriptions, payroll records, and evidence of their educational credentials. However, the job 
descriptions for the senior consultants do not clearly establish how they would support the 
Beneficiary's role or how they relieve him from non-managerial tasks associated with his area of 
responsibility (i.e., all business development activities in North America). For example, the Petitioner 
indicates that two of the three senior consultants will be "leading our engagement and delivery with a 
couple of accounts" and working closely with account managers, solutions and delivery teams. Their 
descriptions do not mention any interactions with the Beneficiary's position, and they do not appear 
to be responsible for any business development tasks involving new clients. The third senior 
consultant is described as working with a single client I I and that company's own clients. It 
is unclear whether the senior consultants (who work in New York and California) are working at client 
sites or at the Petitioner's offices. 
For these reasons, there is some ambiguity in the record regarding the Beneficiary's supervision of 
subordinate staff and the record does not adequately explain who would relieve him from non­
qualifying duties associated with new business development if his own subordinates do not perform 
these duties. 
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 subordinates. The Petitioner replied that it could not provide this evidence 
because the Beneficiary currently works for the Texas branch office of its parent company! I I I However, all other evidence suggests that he has been working for this company's 
U.S. operations as an assistant vice president, with the same duties and responsibilities described in 
this petition. In addition, the Petitioner refers to at least one of the three senior consultants I I 
as one of the Beneficiary's current subordinates. The Petitioner did not provide a reason for the change 
in employer, but it is unclear that whether any aspects of his employment would change, other than 
the identify of his 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 
I I 
Related to this issue, USCIS records indicate that the Beneficiary's initial L-lA employer,! I I I filed a petition to extend his L- lA status just weeks before the Petitioner filed the 
4 
instant pet1t10n. The Petitioner did not indicate that he would work concurrently for both entities. 
Nevertheless, as the matter will be remanded, the Petitioner should clarify why two nearly concurrent 
petitions were filed on behalf of the Beneficiary and confirm its intent to employ him in the United 
States if this petition, like the one filed by I lis also approved. 
As the Director did not sufficiently address the Petitioner's claims and supporting evidence, provide 
notice of derogatory information, 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, and should consider additional evidence submitted for the first time in support of the appeal 
before issuing a new decision. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5