sustained L-1A Case: Food Industry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 17291738 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for L-IA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: May 19, 2021 
The Petitioner, a provider of vegetable oils and fats for the food ingredient, chocolate and 
confectionary industries, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as its controllerunderthe L-1 A 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 that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad, or would be employed in the United States, 
in a managerial capacity. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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, we conclude that the Petitioner has 
met this burden. Accordingly, we will sustain the appeal. 
The Petitioner, which has 500 employees in the United States and annual revenue of $700 million, 
has consistently claimed that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad and would continue to be 
employed in the United States in a managerial capacity as defined at section 101 (a)(44)(A) of the Act 
Specifically, the Petitioner indicates that his responsibilities have included and will include managing 
the accounting function, as well as supervising professional personnel who support the day-to-day 
activities of that function. 
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 record reflects that the Petitioner's foreign affiliate has employed the Beneficiary as its controller 
since 2013 and he has now been offered the same position within the U.S. company, managing 
accounting personnel and operations for its California-based facility. Based on the submitted position 
descriptions and organizational charts, the Beneficiary's current foreign position and proposed U.S. 
position involve substantially similar levels of authority, responsibilities, and placement within the 
companies' respective management hierarchies. In each instance, the Petitioner clearly articulated the 
Beneficiary's authority to manage the accounting function and established that the function is core to 
the organization's activities. The record also demonstrates his authority to exercise discretion over 
the day-to-day operations of the accounting function for the Mexican and U.S. affiliates, respectively. 
Further, the Petitioner has established that, in both his current position abroad and proposed U.S. 
position, the Beneficiary is supported by lower-level accounting managers and professionals who 
perform the non-managerial duties that the function requires. The Petitioner clearly identified these 
individuals, documented their employment, and described their job duties and qualifications. The 
Beneficiary's own position descriptions indicate that he performs a number of higher level duties that 
include planning and strategizing the companies' finances, controls and investments alongside the 
finance director/CFO, establishing local accounting practices and procedures, and counseling regional 
and global executive leadership regarding the financial performance of the Mexican and U.S. 
operations. We note that the Director questioned whether the Beneficiary's responsibilities for 
preparing certain financial reports and analyses were qualifying duties. On appeal, the Petitioner 
provides additional explanation regarding the nature of these duties and explains how they are 
managerial in nature given the size and complexity of the petitioning group's global operations and 
the fact that the Beneficiary, with support from his subordinates, is required to synthesize regional 
information that global-level executives rely on for financial decision-making. 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted organizational charts documenting the Beneficiary's senior position 
with respect to the accounting function. In both the current and proposed positions, the Beneficiary 
reports to a CFO-level employee whose responsibilities include executive oversight of multiple 
financial functions. However, the record establishes that the Beneficiary is the senior manager 
responsible for accounting. For example, in Mexico, the Petitioner leads a 15-person accounting 
department. He reports to a Finance Director, who also supervises a risk manager, head of financial 
planning, systems manager, and other managerial personnel. The Finance Director acts in an executive 
capacity and is not responsible for primarily managing the accounting function. Based on the 
evidence provided, the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary has performed and will perform 
at a senior level within the company hierarchy and with respect to the function managed. 
In sum, the Petitioner has provided sufficient information and evidence to establish, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad, and would be 
employed in the United States, in a managerial capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2