sustained L-1A Case: Information Technology Consulting

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal pnvac' 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: MAY 11 2011 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Irrnnigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 1 o I (a)(J5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(J5)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vennont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will sustain the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-IA nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 I (a)( IS)(L) of the Imm igration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. § I IO I (a)(1 S)(L). The petitioner, a business infonnation technology consulting company, states that it 
is subsidiary of the beneficiary's foreign employer, The petitioner has 
employed the beneficiary in L-IA status since April 2006 and seeks to extend his status for two additional 
years so that he may continue to serve in the position of Business Relationship Manager. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary would be 
employed by the U.S. entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary supervises, 
directly and indirectly, a total of 191 professional employees who relieve him from performing non­
managerial tasks, and is responsible for managing a client account that generates over $12 million annually. 
The petitioner contends that the proffered position fulfills all requirements for a position in a managerial 
capacity as set forth in the statute and regulations. 
To establish eligibility for the L-I nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 10 I (a)( IS)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one 
continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States. 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, executive, or 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Fonn 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the 
alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (I)(I)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be perfonned. 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
Page 3 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies himlher to perform the intended 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The sole issue in this matter is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary has been employed by 
the foreign entity in a primarily managerial capacity. The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary will be 
employed in an executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 1 (a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" as 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 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. 
The petitioner filed the nonimmigrant petition on December 19, 2008. In a letter dated December 15, 2008, 
the petitioner stated that the beneficiary was admitted to the United States in L-IA status under the company's 
Blanket L petition in April 2006 to serve as a senior program manager for a group of client projects. The 
petitioner indicated that, in 2007, the beneficiary assumed his current position of business relationship 
manager for the petitioner's client, The Nielsen Company, based at the client's worksite in Florida. The 
petitioner provided a lengthy description of the position. Briefly, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary 
meets with senior client executives to maintain and develop the petitioner's relationship with the clients, 
develops new business opportunities, attends meetings of senior management to formulate strategies, and 
manages ongoing development projects within the client's portfolio. The petitioner indicated that the 
beneficiary holds the discretionary authority to prepare cost and revenue budgets for all projects within the 
Nielsen account, and the authority to assess and control staffing needs for such projects. The petitioner stated 
Page 4 
that the beneficial)' supervises six project managers, who in turn supervise over 185 professional engineers 
and technology consultants, and a total of approximately 50 projects. Finally, the petitioner indicated that the 
beneficial)' has the ultimate authority for all decisions regarding hiring and firing of associates assigned to 
Nielsen projects. 
The petitioner submitted an organizational chart identifYing the structure outlined in the petitioner's letter. The 
chart shows that the beneficiary reports to the position who in tum reports to 
the 
On Janual)' 6, 2009, the director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE). The director instructed the 
petitioner to provide additional infonnation regarding the beneficial)"s duties, and the management and 
personnel structure of the U.S. entity, including infonnation regarding the number of subordinate supervisors 
working under the beneficiary's management, their job titles and job duties, the amount of time the 
beneficial)' devotes to managerial duties versus non-managerial duties, and the degree of discretional)' 
authority the beneficial)' has over day-to-day operations. The director also observed that the petitioning 
company has filed a number of L-IA petitions which have been approved by USCIS, but questioned whether 
"a company the size and scope identified in the instant petition could reasonably support that many 
managers. I! 
In a response dated February 17, 2009, the petitioner emphasized that the company employs more than 
130,300 people worldwide and has a significant presence in the United States requiring it to deploy a 
significant number of managers to oversee wide-scale engagements with corporate clients. 
The petitioner stated that the beneficial)' "is a manager operating at a senior level within our organizational 
hierarchy whose primal)' function is to manage, not to perform technical or administrative duties." The 
petitioner submitted the requested detailed description of the beneficial)"s duties, including the percentage of 
time the beneficial)' would devote to each area of responsibility. Briefly, the duties were described under the 
following headings: 
• Prepare business growth strategies - 10% 
• Supervise project managers and direct projects - 15% 
• Plan project manpower - 10% 
• Appraise employee perfonnance - 8% 
• Overall responsibility for personnel actions - 10% 
• Recommend team member trainings - 8% 
• Respond to Requests for Proposal and prepare proposals based on the new requirements 
-7% 
• Attend relationship level review meetings and planning sessions - 10% 
• Control and monitor project and program level risks - 10% 
• Plan and manage client visits; Attend Conferences and Exhibitions and Conduct Team 
Building Events - 5% 
• Overall responsibility for financial planning - 7%. 
Page 5 
The petitioner reiterated that the beneficiary directly supervises six subordinate project managers who each 
manage multiple projects and supervise a total of 185 subordinate professional employees who are 
responsible for carrying out the day-to-day tasks required for the provision of services to the client. The 
petitioner provided a position description for each project manager who reports to the beneficiary. The 
petitioner indicated that the beneficiary will spend approximately 90 percent of his time on managerial duties 
and will "maintain the authority to hire and fire his team members, conduct performance appraisals of direct 
subordinates, reward employees based on performance, approve vacation leave of subordinates, approve or 
reject claims submitted by teams for various project and personal expenses incurred," and "relocate team 
members to various projects based on specific project requirements and associated skill sets." Finally, the 
petitioner stated that the beneficiary will approve cost and revenue budgets of the projects he oversees. 
The director denied the petition on March 9, 2009, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial capacity. The director observed that the proffered 
position appears to contain some managerial components, but determined that the petitioner did not establish 
that the beneficiary would be primarily engaged in managerial duties. The director determined that the 
petitioner's response to the request for evidence included only a "generalized breakdown" of the beneficiary's 
activities, and failed to include position descriptions for the beneficiary's team members. 
The director emphasized that, in order to establish the beneficiary's eligibility as a manager, the petitioner 
must demonstrate that he primarily manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function or 
component of the organization. The director noted that the activities associated with managing a client 
project can be distinguished from controlling a function or component of the organization. In this regard, the 
director noted that "a Business Relationship Manager for IT workers often performs the day-to-day tasks 
which support the workers he coordinates." Finally, the director noted that the beneficiary will "manage a 
team that works on a specific client project, engaging in activities directly associated with producing a 
product or providing a service." 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that that the beneficiary'S responsibilities are managerial in nature because he 
manages an important client account that generated over $12 million in revenues in 2008, supervises and 
controls the work of supervisory and professional employees, has the authority to hire and fire personnel, and 
exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the many client projects that are performed under his 
superviSion. 
The petitioner objects to the director's finding that the petitioner failed to provide a sufficiently detailed 
breakdown of the beneficiary'S duties. The petitioner nevertheless provides a breakdown of the number of 
hours per week the beneficiary devotes to his various duties. The petitioner also provides copies of Statements 
of Work for projects undertaken by the petitioner for and evidence of wages paid to the beneficiary'S 
six subordinate project managers. Finally, the petitioner objects to the director's assessment that the 
beneficiary is encumbered with the daily operations of providing services to the client, or merely supporting 
the employees providing such services. Counsel emphasizes that the beneficiary supervises 191 professional 
employees and has the authority to exercise discretion over the day-to-day operations of the projects carried 
out by the petitioner at the client's site. 
Page 6 
Upon review, the petitioner's assertions are persuasive. The AAO finds sufficient evidence to establish that 
the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial capacity. The director's detennination appears to 
be based in part on the director's pre-conceived impression of what duties are typically performed by project 
managers or business relationship managers for IT workers rather than on the evidence submitted by the 
petitioner. The director should not hold a petitioner to his undefined and unsupported view of the standard 
duties of an occupation in making a determination as to whether the beneficiary will be employed in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity. The director should instead focus on applying the statute and 
regulations to the facts presented by the record of proceeding. 
Upon review, the AAO finds that the evidence submitted establishes that the beneficiary supervises and 
controls the work of professional employees and possesses authority to recommend personnel actions for 
employees under his supervision. See sections 10 I (a)(44)(A)(ii) and (iii) of the Act. 
Furthennore, the AAO concurs with the petitioner's assertion that the beneficiary's overall management of a 
large group of on-site/off-shore projects for a single client, within the context of the facts presented in this 
matter, can be equated to managing a subdivision, function or component of the organization. See section 
101 (a)( 44)(A)(i) of the Act. The client account for which the beneficiary is responsible generates significant 
revenue. Further, the beneficiary does not directly oversee such projects, but rather oversees subordinate 
project managers, who, in tum, supervise the technical resources. Finally, the AAO is satisfied that the 
beneficiary exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of projects under his responsibility, as required 
by section 101(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. 
While the beneficiary will undoubtedly be required to apply his technical expertise in carrying out his job 
duties, the AAO is persuaded that the vast majority of the day-to-day non-managerial tasks required to 
produce the products and provide services for the client are carried out by the beneficiary's subordinate 
project managers and technical staff. The petitioner need only establish that the beneficiary devotes more 
than half of his time to managerial duties. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has sustained that burden. Accordingly, 
the director's decision dated March 9, 2009 is withdrawn. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.