sustained L-1A Case: Engineered Products

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 17305985 
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: May 26, 2021 
The Petitioner, a global supplier of fiber-based engineered products, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's 
temporary employment as its "Senior Director, Strategic Initiatives" 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)(l 5)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity under 
the extended petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, the petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of 
the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). Upon 
de nova review, the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary will more likely than not be 
employed under the extended petition in a managerial capacity as defined at section 101 ( a)( 44)(A) of 
the Act. Accordingly, we will sustain the appeal. 
The Petitioner is a publicly traded company with over 2500 employees , locations in ten countries, and 
approximately $1 billion in annual sales revenue. It transferred the Beneficiary from its European 
operations to its U.S. headquarters to serve as Operations Director for one of its business units in 2015 
and promoted him to his current position of Senior Director, Strategic Initiatives in 2020. The 
Petitioner indicates that he reports to its Senior Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer and is 
responsible for leading the company's strategic growth initiatives, which it describes as "a critical 
function and component" of its global organization. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." Personnel managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other 
supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. The term "function manager" applies generally 
when a beneficiary does not directly 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 "(1) 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). 
The Petitioner sufficiently explained and documented how the strategic and business growth initiatives 
that fall under the Beneficiary's management responsibility qualify as an "essential function" within 
its organization. The evidence demonstrates that the Beneficiary, with support of technical and 
business teams throughout the organization, is charged with identifying product areas and processes 
to stimulate new business and directly advising senior executives in identifying, evaluating and 
executing business growth strategies such as mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures, as well as 
counseling them on technological aspects of the business. Information contained in the Petitioner's 
latest annual report confirms that the company is undertaking a "major strategic transformation" that 
includes process improvements and a reshaping of its business portfolio, and supports its claim that 
the Beneficiary's area ofresponsibility is core to the business. 
In a detailed letter describing the offered position, the Beneficiary's manager explains that he is vested 
with discretionary decision-making authority to define and manage the company's strategic initiatives 
and provide high level oversight of several business growth, product development, and process 
development projects with only general supervision from the chief commercial officer. The evidence 
establishes that the Beneficiary acts at a senior level within the company's organizational hierarchy, 
just below the executive level, and is not required to engage in the non-managerial, day-to-day 
operations of the company's product and business initiatives, which are can-ied out by lower level 
managers, scientists, technicians and other specialists, as well as his two direct subordinates, who are 
both professionals. While the Petitioner's detailed description and breakdown of the Beneficiary's 
duties indicates that he is called on to apply his technical expertise in performing some of his 
responsibilities, the evidence as a whole supports a conclusion that he primarily performs higher-level 
duties that are consistent with the definition of managerial capacity at section IO I (a)(44)(A) of the 
Act. 
In sum, the Petitioner has met its burden to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity under the extended petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2