sustained L-1A Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13093479 
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: DEC. 18, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting services company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary in the position of "Manager-Consulting" in the United States under the L-lA nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish, 
as required, that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad. In 
addition, the Director determined that the Beneficiary would not be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary qualified as a personnel manager abroad based 
on her supervision of subordinate professionals. The Petitioner also contends that the Beneficiary 
would qualify as a personnel manager in the United States on the same basis. 
Upon de nova review, we conclude that the record is sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary more 
likely than not acted in a managerial capacity abroad. First, the Petitioner has submitted a detailed 
foreign duty description for the Beneficiary indicating that she was primarily engaged in qualifying 
managerial tasks in her former position abroad overseeing several subordinate information technology 
professionals holding bachelor's degrees, including technical leads, an "assistant manager- clinical 
informatics," senior software engineers, solution architects, among others. The submitted supporting 
documentation also sufficiently establishes that the Beneficiary had the authority to recommend the 
hiring and firing of these subordinates and that she was responsible for other personnel actions with 
respect to them. Further, evidence in the record further demonstrates that the Beneficiary's 
subordinate professionals relieved her from primarily performing non-qualifying operational level 
tasks. As such, the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary was employed as a personnel manager 
abroad. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(1)(ii)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner has also demonstrated that the Beneficiary would more likely than not be employed as 
a personnel manager in the United States in a role very similar to her former position with the foreign 
employer. Again, the Petitioner submitted a detailed U.S. duty description for the Beneficiary 
indicating that she would be primarily engaged in qualifying managerial tasks overseeing subordinate 
information technology professionals in positions requiring bachelor's degrees, much like her former 
role abroad. The Petitioner also provided substantial supporting documentation reflecting the 
Beneficiary's personnel authority over subordinate information technology professionals with 
bachelor's degrees, including authority to recommend the hiring and firing of these employees and to 
perform other similar personnel actions with respect to them. Likewise, the submitted evidence 
indicates that the Beneficiary wou Id be relieved from performing primarily non-qualifying operational 
duties by her professional subordinates. Therefore, the evidence sufficiently establishes that the 
Beneficiary would be employed as a personnel manager in the United States. 
The totality of the evidence demonstrates that the Beneficiary was more likely than not employed in a 
managerial capacity abroad and that she would be employed in a managerial capacity in the United 
States. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has met that 
burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2