sustained L-1A Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 15840645 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 15, 2021 
Form 1-129, Nonimmigrant Petition for an Intracompany Transferee 
The Petitioner , a digital and information technology services business, seeks to continue the 
Beneficiary's temporary employment as a technical director under the L-1 A non immigrant classification 
for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-IA 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 on the ground that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity 1 under the extended petition, as required in 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). In particular, the 
Director determined that the Beneficiary would not be employed as a function manager, and that the 
Beneficiary would not be employed as a personnel manager because the record did not establish his 
duties would primarily involve managing subordinate personnel as opposed to performing day-to-day 
operations of the busines. 
On appeal the Petitioner asserts that it has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity, both as a function manager and as a personnel 
manager. Upon de nova review, we will sustain the appeal. 
As defined in section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, the term "managerial capacity" means an assignment 
within an organization in which the employee primarily -
(i) Manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the 
organization; 
(ii) Supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees, or manages an essential function within the organization, or a department 
or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) If another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the authority to 
hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions ( such as promotion 
and leave authorization) or, if no other employee is directly supervised, functions at a 
1 Though the Director denied on both managerial and executive capacity grounds, the Petitioner does not actually claim 
that the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity. 
senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function 
managed; and 
(iv) Exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which 
the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a 
managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the 
employees supervised are professional. 
Thus, the definition of "managerial capacity" encompasses both personnel managers, who primarily 
supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, and 
function managers who primarily manage an essential function within the organization. 
The record indicates that the Petitioner's initial L-1 A petition on behalf of the Beneficiary was 
approved in April 2017. The Beneficiary came to the United States as an intracompany transferee in 
June 2017 to work in the Petitioner's! I Georgia, office in the nosjtjol of development team 
lead. In July 2019 the Beneficiary was transferred to the Petitioner' sl office with augmented 
job duties and the new title of technical director. 2 The instant petition to extend the Beneficiary's 
stay in L-lA status was filed in February 2020, and denied by the Director on August 11, 2020, for 
failure to establish the "managerial capacity" of the Beneficiary's prospective employment in the 
United States. 
In its appeal the Petitioner reviews its previously submitted evidence, takes issue with the Director's 
interpretation thereof, and provides additional explanations regarding the Beneficiary's duties and the 
nature of his proposed position. In visa petition proceedings the "preponderance of evidence" standard 
of proof applies. To establish its eligibility for the immigration benefit it seeks the Petitioner must 
submit sufficiently probative and credible evidence to establish that its claim is "more likely than not" 
or "probably" true. See Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). To sustain this 
appeal, therefore, the Petitioner must establish that its claim that the Beneficiary will be employed in 
a managerial capacity in the United States is more likely than not to be true based on the evidence 
provided. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
Based on the additional evidence and argument submitted on appeal, the Petitioner has met its burden 
and established, by a preponderance of evidence, that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial 
capacity in the United States, within the meaning of section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2 Three earnings statements from early 2020 show that the Beneficiary was receiving gross pay of$7,083.33 on a biweekly 
basis, which when allocated over the entire year would amount to an annual salary of $184,166.58. In the current L-1 A 
petition and an accompanying letter from its general counsel the Petitioner stated that it intends to pay the Beneficiary at 
least $170,000 per year plus standard company benefits including health, life, and disability insurance, as well as 
participation in the company's 40l(k) plan. 
2