sustained L-1A Case: Data Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF L-A- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 8, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a data analysis services provider, seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as its 
"engagement manager" under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act)§ 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L). The L­
IA 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 Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the 
United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner provides a brief addressing the 
Beneficiary's position abroad and his prospective position in the United States. The Petitioner 
contends that the Beneficiary has been and would be employed in a managerial capacity, focusing on 
the Beneficiary's leadership position with respect to professional employees. 
Upon de novo review, we find that the Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to establish that the 
Beneficiary has been and would be employed in a managerial capacity. Therefore, we will sustain the 
appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A 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 10l(a)(l5)(L) ofthe 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. !d. The 
petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment 
qualify him or her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
Matter of L-A- Corp. 
The statute defines the term "managerial capacity" as an assignment in which an 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 
manages an essential function within the organization; has the authority to hire and fire or 
recommend those as well as other 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 
101(a)(44)(A) ofthe Act. 
II. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
As indicated above, the Director determined that the evidence did not establish that the Beneficiary 
was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity as 
defined at section 101(a)(44)(A) ofthe Act; 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(44)(A). The Beneficiary is currently 
employed abroad as an assistant manager and is being offered employment by the Petitioner in the 
position of "engagement manager." 
In the denial, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to 
establish that the Beneficiary's current position with the foreign employer and his proposed position 
with the Petitioner involves and would involve overseeing professional employees. The record 
shows that a request for evidence was issued instructing the Petitioner to provide an organizational 
chart identifying the Beneficiary's subordinates by "name, job title, summary of duties, education 
level, and salary." The Petitioner complied with that request and provided a description of the 
Beneficiary's current and proposed job duties, which demonstrate the Beneficiary's supervisory 
relationship with respect to the subordinates depicted in the foreign entity's and the Petitioner's 
organizational charts. Nevertheless, the Director denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner did 
not submit evidence establishing that a bachelor's degree is among the job requirements of the 
Beneficiary's subordinates abroad and in the United States. We find that the Director erred in 
faulting the Petitioner for neglecting to submit educational requirements for the positions 
subordinate to the Beneficiary's position, as this specific evidence was never requested, and for 
relying on the lack of such evidence as a contributing factor in finding the Petitioner ineligible for 
the benefit sought. 
On appeal, the Petitioner restates the breakdown of the Beneficiary's job duties and their respective 
time allocations pointing to the various personnel management elements that are common to the 
Beneficiary's foreign employment and his proposed position in the United States. The Petitioner 
also provides the educational backgrounds of the Beneficiary's current and proposed subordinates 
and explains how the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed positions meet each of the four prongs of 
the statutory definition of managerial capacity. Upon review of the evidence in the record, we find 
that the Beneficiary has more likely than not been employed abroad in a managerial capacity and 
that it is more likely than not that that he would be similarly employed in his proposed position with 
the U.S. organization. 
2 
Matter of L-A- Corp. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has overcome the stated ground for denial, the appeal will be sustained. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter o.fL-A- Corp., ID# 875305 (AAO Feb. 8, 2018) 
3