sustained L-1A Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8866500 
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 : OCT . 1, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a deputy director of operations under the L-1 A 
nonirnrnigrant classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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 that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will sustain the appeal. 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonirnrnigrant 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. 
"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 supervisory, 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 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers ." See sections 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. The term "function manager" applies 
generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead 
is primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" within the organization. See section 
10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary managed an essential function, it 
must clearly describe the duties 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 primarily managed, as opposed to pe-rformed, the 
function; (4) the beneficiary acted at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy 
or with respect to the function managed; and ( 5) the beneficiary exercised discretion 
over the function's day-to-day operations. 
See Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
Here, the Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary served as 
a function manager for a qualifying organization abroad. It has meaningfully described his duties as 
lead systems administrator; it has clearly defined the systems operations function that is essential to 
its global operations; it has established that the Beneficiary primarily managed the function as opposed 
to performing the function; it has established that the Beneficiary acted at a senior level with respect 
to the function managed; and it has established that the Beneficiary exercised discretion over the day­
to-day operations of the function. 
The Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary served as a 
function manager abroad. We will therefore sustain the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2