sustained
L-1A
sustained L-1A Case: Information Technology
Decision Summary
The initial denial was based on the finding that the petitioner did not demonstrate the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity, specifically by overseeing professional subordinates and being relieved of daily operational tasks. The appeal was sustained because the petitioner provided sufficient evidence showing the beneficiary would primarily oversee a staff of professional subordinates who would handle the non-managerial duties, thus qualifying him for a managerial role.
Criteria Discussed
Managerial Capacity Supervision Of Professional Subordinates Performance Of Non-Managerial Operational Tasks
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office MATTER OF C-M-H- LLC DATE: NOV. 15, 2018 APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER The Petitioner, a manufacturer and distributor of healthcare medical devices, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "IT manager" under the L- I A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U .S.C. § I 101 ( a)(l 5)(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 would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity. The Director found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would oversee professiona_l subordinates or that he would be relieved from having to carry out the. organization's daily operational tasks. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director's decision is factually incorrect pointing to previously submitted evidence regarding job requirements and job duties of the Beneficiary's 17 subordinates; it also points to the Beneficiary's previously submitted job description and explains that his support staff, rather than the Beneficiary himself, will carry out the daily operational tasks. Upon review, we find that the Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence establishing that the Beneficiary would more likely than not allocate his time primarily to overseeing a staff that is mainly comprised of professional subordinates who would relieve the Beneficiary from having to primarily perform non-managerial job duties. ·. ORDER: The appeal is sustained. Cite as Matter of C-M-H- LLC, ID# 1833515 (AAO Nov. 15, 2018)
Use this winning precedent in your petition
MeritDraft analyzes sustained AAO decisions like this one to generate petition arguments that mirror what actually gets approved.
Build Your Winning Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.