sustained L-1A Case: Computing Products And Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6642290 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV. 21, 2019 
PETITION: Form I-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
The Petitioner, a provider of computing products and services, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as "Director, Product Management - IT" under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees who are coming to be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial, executive, or 
specialized knowledge capacity or that he would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity 
in the proposed position with the U.S. entity. With respect to the Beneficiary's foreign employment, 
the Director found that the Beneficiary was not relieved from having to primarily perform non­
qualifying job duties and therefore performed primarily operational tasks. The Director also found 
that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence showing that the Beneficiary managed 
professional subordinates and that be had managerial authority over those subordinates. The Director 
made nearly identical findings with regard to the Beneficiary's proposed position with the petitioning 
entity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner reasserts the claim that the Beneficiary was and 
would be employed in a managerial capacity. More specifically, the Petitioner contends that the 
Beneficiary's job duties and placement within the foreign and U.S. entities are consistent with those 
of a function manager. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we find that the Petitioner has met its 
burden of establishing that the Beneficiary was more likely than not employed abroad and would more 
likely than not be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity . 
The tenn "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the 
work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" 
within the organization . See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a petitioner claims that a 
beneficiary will manage an essential function , it must clearly describe the duties to be performed in 
managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that "(l) the function is 
a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is 'essential,' i.e., core to the organization; (3) the 
beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the function; (4) the beneficiary will act at 
a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and ( 5) the 
beneficiary will exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day operations." Matter of G- Inc., 
Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
We find that the Director did not properly assess the essential nature of the functions the Beneficiary 
has and would manage, and misinterpreted the Beneficiary's role and the impact of that role on the 
organization's chief objectives concerning product delivery. The Petitioner submitted detailed job duty 
breakdowns that explain the Beneficiary's essential functions and highlight specific elements that 
illustrate the essential nature of those functions. The Petitioner also submitted evidence of the 
monetary value of the Beneficiary's contributions to the organization and provided a detailed 
description of the reporting structures of each entity, demonstrating the Beneficiary's senior 
placements with respect to the functions he managed and would manage. The Petitioner established 
that the Beneficiary's role abroad and in the U.S. inherently involve discretionary authority over 
professional subordinates who carried out and who would carry out the underlying tasks of each 
essential function. In light of these findings, the Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence showing 
that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a managerial 
capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2