sustained L-1A Case: Advertising And Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19646541 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 09, 2022 
The Petitioner, an advertising and marketing firm, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment as a Senior Creative Copywrite/Senior Copy Manager 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)(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 work temporarily 
in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity . 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that (1) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity prior to 
his transfer to the United States in 2018, and (2) the Petitioner would employ him in a managerial or 
executive capacity under the extended petition . The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
Upon de nova review, we conclude that the Petitioner has met this burden .1 Accordingly, we will 
sustain the appeal. 
The record reflect that the Beneficiary would continue to be employed in the position of Senior 
Creative Copywriter /Senior Copy Manager for the Petitioner in the United States and that he was 
previously employed in a nearly identical position with the Petitioner's Brazilian affiliate . The 
Petitioner has consistently asserted that the Beneficiary has been and would be employed in a 
managerial capacity as defined at section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
To be eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, the 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. If the Petitioner establishes that the offered position meets 
all elements set forth in the statutory definition, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary will be 
1 The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 
I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
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). 
The Petitioner indicates that that the Beneficiary's primary responsibilities as a senior copy manager 
include: developing strategies for multimillion dollar creative campaigns; managing and supervising 
creative and production teams that include both professional and supervisory staff; managing 
relationships with clients and external partners; decision-making authority related to his client 
accounts; and authority to make and recommend personnel decisions related to hiring, promotion, 
discipline, and terminations. The Petitioner provided letters from authorized representatives of both 
the U.S. and foreign entities with detailed breakdowns of the Beneficiary's duties; organizational 
charts for both entities which show his placement within the creative teams' management hierarchy 
and identify his subordinate employees (including their names, job titles, qualifications and a brief 
summary of duties); and copies of professional resumes, payroll documentation and other evidence 
intended to corroborate the information provided on the organizational charts. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision does not adequately explain the reasons 
for denial, misapplies the statutory definition of managerial capacity, and erroneously disregards 
probative evidence that, considered in the aggregate, establishes by a preponderance of the evidence 
that the Beneficiary has been and would be employed in a managerial capacity as defined in the statute. 
Specifically, the Petitioner maintains that the Director erroneously required that it establish that every 
one of the Beneficiary's subordinates possess a bachelor's degree in a relevant field in order to 
establish that he supervises and controls the work of professional staff under section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) 
of the Act and overlooked evidence that some of his subordinates in the U.S. and abroad are 
supervisors. The Petitioner further asserts that the Director summarily disregarded the submitted job 
descriptions as "generic" without conducting any meaningful analysis of the stated duties, other than 
reaching an erroneous conclusion that his responsibilities for supervising and coaching subordinate 
staff are inherently "non-qualifying" duties. Finally, the Petitioner maintains that the Director erred 
by repeatedly citing to Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988), made "unfounded claims of 
inconsistencies" in the submitted evidence, and in doing so excluded relevant, probative, credible 
evidence of the Beneficiary's continuing eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Upon de nova review of the evidence relating to the Beneficiary's previous position abroad and current 
U.S. position, we conclude that the Beneficiary's job duties are consistent with the elements of the 
statutory definition of managerial capacity at section 10l(a)(44)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act. Although the 
Director characterized the submitted job descriptions as "generic," we disagree and find that the 
Petitioner has sufficiently explained the Beneficiary's actual duties within the context of its business 
and that such duties are, more likely than not, primarily managerial in nature. We further agree that 
there were no factual or evidentiary contradictions in the record or other basis for the Director to cite 
Matter of Ho, to question the validity of the evidence, or to determine that there were inconsistencies 
which would "cast doubt on the entire petition." In addition, we agree with the Petitioner's assertion 
that it is not obligated to establish that all of the Beneficiary's subordinates are professional employees 
in order to establish his eligibility for L-lA classification, especially considering credible 
organizational charts which reflect that the Beneficiary's roles in the U.S. and abroad included 
supervision of subordinate supervisors and were not limited to first-line supervision. Finally, we 
observe that the Director did not question the Beneficiary's authority to make or recommend personnel 
2 
decisions or his responsibility for exercising discretion over the day-to-day operations of the defined 
area of activity under his authority. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(iii) and (iv) of the Act. 
Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner met its burden to establish the Beneficiary, more likely 
than not, was employed abroad and would continue to be employed in the United States in a managerial 
capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
3