sustained L-1A Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 26, 2023 In Re: 26053931 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, an information technology (IT) consulting service, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as its head of immigration and shared services under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification 
for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(L), 
8 U.S.C . § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-lA 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 record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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. Id. 1 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). 
1 Our decision in this matter is limited to the question of whether the Petitioner and the Beneficiary have met all the 
requirements for the classification sought. It is not a finding that the Beneficiary is admissible into the United States. The 
visa petition procedure is not the forum for determining substantive questions of admissibility under the immigration laws. 
Matter of 0-, 8 I&N Dec. 295, 297-98 (BIA 1959). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined 
that the Petitioner did not establish that it will employ the Beneficiary in a 
managerial or executive capacity in the United States. The Petitioner specifies that the position will 
be managerial, rather than executive, and therefore we need not consider the requirements for an 
executive capacity. 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
supervises and controls the work of other supervis01y, professional, or managerial employees, or 
manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization; has authority over 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 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
To show that a beneficiary is eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, a 
petitioner must show that the beneficiary will perform all four of the high-level responsibilities set 
forth in the statutory definition at section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. If a petitioner establishes that the 
offered position meets all four elements set forth in the statutory definition, the petitioner must then 
prove that the beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary 
operational activities alongside the petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCJS, 469 F.3d 
1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). In determining whether the beneficiary's duties will be primarily 
managerial, we consider the description of the job duties, the company's organizational structure, the 
duties of the beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to relieve the 
beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that 
will contribute to understanding the beneficiary's actual duties and role in the business. 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
capacity, we must take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall 
purpose and stage of development of the organization. See section 101 (a)(44)( C) of the Act. 
Accordingly, we will discuss evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of 
the nature of the Petitioner's business and its staffing levels. 
The Petitioner sought to qualify the Beneficiary as a function manager. The Director concluded that 
the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's area ofresponsibility is an essential function, and 
the Petitioner did not document the presence of subordinate employees in the United States to support 
the Beneficiary's work. As explained below, we do not agree with these conclusions. 
The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary's managerial capacity derives not 
from supervising or controlling a subordinate staff of professionals, managers, or supervisors, but 
instead from primarily 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, 
2 
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). 
In a statement submitted with the petition, the Petitioner stated: 
As Head of Immigration and Shared Services, [the Beneficiary] will manage the 
Immigration and Shared Services function for our organization in the United States. 
This is an essential function for our business as it will ensure the successful facilitation 
of immigration and related services for our quickly growing population of foreign 
national employees working in the United States and around the world. In this senior 
managerial role, [the Beneficiary] will direct the overall operations and exercise sole 
discretion over the day-to-day operations ... of this function. Further ... , he will hold 
a senior-level position within our organizational hierarchy in the United States, 
reporting directly to the company's Chief Executive Officer. 
The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary's U.S. position would involve the same duties he already 
performs abroad as head of global mobility, and additional responsibilities to be delegated to a "U.S. 
immigration team" which "will initially be comprised [ of] four ( 4) Immigration Assistants that will 
perform the day-to-day tasks of the Immigration and Shared Services function." The Petitioner has 
consistently stated that it has not yet hired the immigration assistants; rather, ifthe petition is approved, 
then one of the Beneficiary's first actions would be to hire employees to fill the new positions. Here, 
however, the immigration assistants would not be the Beneficiary's only support staff. Rather, the 
Petitioner has documented the ongoing employment of existing staff abroad, working in the global 
mobility function that the Beneficiary would continue to oversee. See Matter ofZ-A-, Inc., Adopted 
Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). This ongoing work would entail function management 
during the limited period of time that the Beneficiary would spend setting up the immigration and 
shared services function in the United States. 
The Petitioner's foreign parent company indicated that the Beneficiary "[m]anages a team of seven 
(7) immigration and I-9 specialists responsible for carrying out the day-to-day operations of the Global 
Mobility function." Those specialists are responsible for travel anangements, immigration paperwork, 
and other operational tasks related to the international movement of personnel. Even in the initial 
absence of U.S.-based immigration assistants, the existing global mobility team would continue to 
support the Beneficiary's work as it has been doing. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites Matter of Z-A-, Inc., which allows for consideration of the work of 
employees outside the United States if their work entirely supports the beneficiary's work. We agree 
with the Petitioner that the reasoning behind Z-A- applies here. 
3 
We also conclude that the Petitioner has sufficiently described the global mobility and immigration 
and shared services function to establish, by a preponderance of evidence, that they amount to essential 
functions. The Petitioner is part of a larger organization, and the nature of the Petitioner's business 
requires the temporary dispatching of many of those workers to a variety of locations, often across 
international borders. The coordination of this activity appears to be highly important to the operation 
of the business. 
The Director concluded that the Beneficiary would be "primarily assisting in the performance of the 
day-to-day non-supervisory duties of the IT consulting services business." The Director did not cite 
to specific information or evidence in the record to support this conclusion. The Director also 
concluded that the Beneficiary's job description lacked detail, but the Petitioner elaborated upon the 
Beneficiary's intended duties in response to a request for evidence. The Petitioner also submitted 
samples ofthe Beneficiary's past work product, relating to tasks he perfonned abroad but will continue 
to perform in the United States. 
The Petitioner's evidence is sufficient to meet the "preponderance of the evidence" threshold of proof 
in this matter. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Petitioner has established, by a preponderance 
of the evidence, that it will employ the Beneficiary as a function manager in the United States. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
4