sustained L-1A Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 10713629 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEPT . 23, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting firm, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's 
temporary employment as assistant general manager under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S .C. 
§ 11 0l(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial capacity , or that 
he 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 will sustain the appeal. 
The Petitioner has consistently claimed that the Beneficiary was 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 as a function manager. Nevertheless, the Director denied the petition, in part, 
based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's hiring and firing authority 
over subordinate personnel. 
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 Beneficiary was employed abroad as finance manager for the Asia-Pacific 
Region and would be employed in the United States as assistant general manager within the company's 
North American finance group, responsible for overseeing the financial operations of a major U.S. 
subsidiary company. In each instance, the Petitioner clearly articulated the function managed by the 
Beneficiary and established that it is core to the organization's activities. 
Further, the Petitioner has established that, in both his current U.S. position and former position 
abroad, the Beneficiary could rely on support from lower-level finance 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. 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted organizational charts documenting the Beneficiary's senior position 
with respect to the financial functions for which he has managerial responsibility, as well as internal 
documents such as e-mail communications, which demonstrate that his discretionary authority over 
the day-to-day operations of those functions. 
In sum, the Petitioner has provided sufficient information and evidence to establish, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad, and would be employed in 
the United States, in a managerial capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2