sustained L-1A Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-T -G-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 3 L 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a proprietary trading company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as its 
chief financial officer under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L). The 
L-1 A 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and a brief contending that the Director failed 
to apply the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof in reviewing the record, and did not 
consider the petitioning organization's reasonable needs. The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary 
has been employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity, 
specifically as a function manager. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA 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 101(a)(15)(L) of the 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 
qualifies him or her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
Matter of A-T-G-, LLC 
II. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
As stated above, the Director determined that the evidence did not establish that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad and would be employed in a managerial capacity as defined at section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. The Petitioner's Canadian subsidiary currently employs the Beneficiary as 
its finance manager and the Petitioner has offered him the position of chief financial officer at the 
company's U.S. headquarters. 
In the denial decision, the Director discussed the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed positions and in 
both instances found that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient information about the job duties 
performed by the employees of the U.S. and foreign entities. The Director also found that neither 
entity's organizational structure appeared sufficient to support the Beneficiary in a managerial 
position. 
The term "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. The term "essential function'' is 
not defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary will manage an essential 
function, a petitioner must clearly describe the duties to be performed in managing the essential 
function, or more specifically, identify the function with specificity, articulate the essential nature of 
the function, and establish the proportion of a beneficiary's daily duties attributed to managing the 
essential function. See 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(3 )(ii). In addition, a petitioner's description of a 
beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary will manage the function rather than 
perform duties related to the function. See Matter ofZ-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO 
Apr. 14, 2016). 
On appeal, the Petitioner explains both entities' respective management and staffing hierarchies in 
greater detail, and clarifies who performed and will perform the primary portion of the operational tasks 
associated with the finance function that the Beneficiary has managed and will continue to manage. 
The statute does not require the Beneficiary to allocate 100% of his time to managerial-level tasks, so 
long as the Petitioner demonstrates that the non-managerial tasks the Beneficiary performed abroad and 
would perform in his proposed U.S. position were and would be only incidental to the respective 
positions. The Petitioner need only show that the Beneficiary's duties were and would be "primarily" 
managerial. See section 101(a)(44)(A) ofthe Act. 
We find that the Petitioner has met this burden by providing additional evidence that clarifies prior 
ambiguities about the Beneficiary's role with respect to the finance function and each entity's chain of 
command, which places the Beneficiary in a senior position with respect to that function. The 
explanation provided on appeal also conveys a better understanding of the Beneficiary's level of 
discretionary authority with respect to the essential function and his ancillary managerial role with 
respect to those who performed and would perform the underlying operational tasks associated with the 
function. The new evidence also supports the Petitioner's claim that many of these operational tasks are 
handled by outsourced firms who take direction from the Beneficiary. 
2 
Matter of A-T-G-, LLC 
Overall, the record now establishes that the Beneficiary's current foreign and proposed U.S. roles 
require him to primarily manage the essential finance management function, to operate at a senior level 
with respect to this function, and to exercise discretion over the day-to-day operations of this function. 
Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner sustained its burden of establishing that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad and would be employed in the United States as a function manager. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has overcome the two stated grounds for denial, the appeal will be sustained. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of A-T-G-, LLC, ID# 724786 (AAO Oct. 31, 2017) 
3