sustained L-1A Case: Analytics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 20580465 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 18, 2022 
The Petitioner is an.__ ________ _. company engaged in providing! I services wi1h 
al lstaff worldwide. It seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as its "analytics 
manager" under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees who are coming 
to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. See 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 Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, thatthe Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United 
States in a managerial capacity. 1 The Director questioned the Beneficiary's authority to hire and fire 
personnel and determined that the Petitioner provided "limited information," thus not meeting its 
evidentiary burden in establishing that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed 
in the United States in a managerial capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director disregarded evidence that was submitted in 
response to a request for evidence (RFE), including statements from representatives of the 
Beneficiary's foreign and U.S. employers, which contained information aboutthe Beneficiary's duties 
and roles in his former and current positions as well as information about the credentials and roles of 
his subordinates. The Petitioner asserts that the RFE response also contained sufficient supporting 
evidence about the Beneficiary's discretionary authority over business and personnel matters, 
including his authority to actively make and weigh in on personnel decisions regarding his 
subordinates. Further, the Petitioner argues that not only did the previously submitted evidence 
establish that the Beneficiary's subordinates, both abroad and in the United States, qualify as 
professional employees, but that they also assume supervisory roles in which they manage their own 
subordinate teams over whom the Beneficiary has and would have indirect managerial oversight. 
1 The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiaiy was employed a broad and would be employed in the United States in a 
managerialcapacityand does not claim that either position is executive in nature. 
In sum, the Petitioner contends that it has met its burden of establishing that the Beneficiary's former 
position abroad and his proposed position in the United States are consistent with the statutoty 
definition of managerial capacity. 
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 of the record, we conclude that the 
Petitioner provided sufficient evidence and established by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
Beneficiary was and would more likely than not be employed in a managerial capacity. Therefore, we 
will sustain the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2