sustained L-1A Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 22377020 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for L-IA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 6, 2022 
The Petitioner is an IT company with a 53-person staff. It seeks to continue to employ the Beneficiary 
temporarily as its "vice president business development" under the L-IA nonimmigrant classification 
for intracompany transferees who are coming to be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101 (a)(l 5)(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 concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial 
capacity. 1 The Director questioned whether the Beneficiary would have authority to hire and fire 
personnel and determined that the Beneficiary spends "a small portion" of his time managing 
personnel. The Director further found that the Beneficiary's job duties overlap with those of his 
subordinates and questioned whether the subordinates support and elevate the Beneficiary to a 
managerial level, concluding that the Beneficiary would not primarily perform managerial job duties. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that sufficient evidence has been submitted to establish that the 
Beneficiary manages the business development "arm" of the organization and has authority to 
supervise and hire and fire professional employees within that division . The Petitioner explains that 
its organizational chart does not include the organization at large, but rather focuses on the "direct 
hierarchy" that is most relevant to the Beneficiary of this petition. Further, by submitting numerous 
email communications between the Beneficiary and various subordinates, including! l as 
well as a sworn statement from its chief commercial officer (CCO), the Petitioner has addressed the 
Director's concern regarding an incongruity that pertains to the staffing hierarchy among the 
Beneficiary's list of subordinates . Both the emails and the statement from the CCO indicate that the 
previously noted inconsistency was likely an unintended error and that the Beneficiary more likely 
than not oversees! I a senior consultant, along with six other individuals whom the 
Petitioner's organizational chart depicts as the Beneficiary's subordinates, including three account 
managers, one senior account manager , and two senior business developers. 
1 The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary 's U.S. employment has been and would be in a managerial capacity and does 
not claim that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity. 
Further, while the Beneficiary's job duties and those of his subordinates are similarly client-driven, 
the record contains sufficient evidence showing that there are key distinctions between the 
Beneficiary's role and the respective roles of his subordinates. For instance, the roles of the 
subordinates involve more direct client interaction and lack the Beneficiary's level of discretionary 
authority over personnel and matters concerning the direction of the business development division. 
The Beneficiary's role, on the other hand, involves managerial input concerning action plans and 
achievement goals, oversight of proposals and account management, and discretion over subordinate 
personnel, including, for instance, hiring and firing personnel, "redefin[ing] the team structure," and 
developing team members towards improved performance. 
Lastly, the Petitioner points out that the nature of its business - data and analytics - as well as "the 
realities of the market," leave it well positioned to have employees who work and are managed in a 
remote setting. The Petitioner offers a multitude of email communications demonstrating a critical 
aspect of employee interactions, particularly between the Beneficiary and his various subordinates, 
thus demonstrating the Beneficiary's ability to oversee his subordinates remotely. 
Upon de nova review, we conclude that the Petitioner has adequately addressed the Director's 
concerns and provided sufficient evidence to clarify the Beneficiary's managerial role and duties with 
respect to the business development division and the subordinates who carry out the operational duties 
of that division. 
In sum, the Petitionerprovided sufficient evidence and established by a preponderance of the evidence 
that the Beneficiary would more likely than not be employed in a managerial capacity. Therefore, we 
will sustain the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2