sustained L-1A Case: Information Technology

US. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
OfJice ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
identifying data deleted O 
 U. S. Citizenship 
prevent clearly unwanantsd and Immigration 
invash of persaral priv(cy 
Pmlc COPY 
File: EAC 08 203 5 1374 
 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 l(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
hief, Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 08 203 51374 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont 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-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 5 1 10 l(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, an information technology consulting company, states that it is the 
parent company of the beneficiary's previous foreign employer, - The beneficiary has 
been employed by the petitioner since November 2005 in L-1B status and currently serves in the position of 
project manager. The petitioner now seeks to change the beneficiary's status from L-1B to L-1 A and extend 
his stay for three additional years. 
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, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director 
unfairly disregarded evidence submitted in response to a request for evidence (RFE), and denied the petition, 
in part, based on the petitioner's failure to provide evidence that was never requested. The petitioner submits a 
brief and additional evidence in support of its claims that the beneficiary will be employed in a managerial 
capacity. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(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. 5 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 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 (l)(l)(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 performed. 
EAC 08 203 51374 
Page 3 
(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. 
(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 himher 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 10 1 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(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 July 17,2008. In a letter dated July 11, 2008, the petitioner 
stated that the beneficiary, who had been employed by the petitioner and its foreign subsidiary as a systems 
analyst since December 2003, was promoted to his current position of project manager on April 1, 2007. The 
indicated that, in his current role, the beneficiary supervises and manages professionals including project 
managers, software engineers, and other staff assigned to the projects under the beneficiary's responsibility. 
EAC 08 203 5 13 74 
Page 4 
The petitioner further stated that the beneficiary has the authority to recommend hiring and firing and to make 
other personnel decisions, and exercises discretion over the day-to-day operation of projects. 
The petitioner attached a separate detailed description for the beneficiary's position in which it indicated the 
number of hours he devotes to various responsibilities on a weekly basis. Briefly, the petitioner indicated that 
the beneficiary's duties are allocated as follows: 
Engagement and disengagement of employees and contractors on projects (2.5%) 
Project management including preparation of project plan and scheduling (20%) 
Offshore Team Management (1 5%) 
Resource assessment and allocation including budget management (2.5%) 
Ensuring compliance with system specifications and parameters (2.5%) 
Quality control (1 0%) 
Communicating with client's management (1 5%) 
Providing detailed reports to upper management (2.5%) 
Conducting project meetings (1 5%) 
Providing management of help desk and final technical support in complex situations 
(5%) 
Generating New Business for the Organization (1 0%) 
The petitioner stated that the beneficiary manages a project team comprising 25 software professionals. The 
petitioner provided an organizational chart depicting the beneficiary as "Project Manager, GE Power 
Generation" reporting to an engagement director. The chart indicates that the beneficiary supervises three 
onsite employees, including a Systems Analyst -EFCM Development, a System Analyst -EFCM Support, 
and a System Analyst - EPIC Project. The chart indicates that three offshore teams also report to the 
beneficiary. These teams including three project managers, a team lead, 10 systems or software engineers, six 
associate engineers, and three senior engineers. The chart indicates that the offshore project managers are 
responsible for the EPIC, eFCM and ILS projects. 
The petitioner provided additional job descriptions showing breakdowns of job duties for the positions of 
project manager, technical leader, software engineer and systems analyst. 
The petitioner also submitted a copy of a letter from the petitioner dated July 24, 2007, addressed to the 
beneficiary and advising him of his promotion to the position of project manager. 
On August 5, 2008, the director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE). The director instructed the 
petitioner to provide additional information regarding the beneficiary's duties, and the management and 
personnel structure of the U.S. entity, including information regarding the number of subordinate supervisors 
working under the beneficiary's management, their job titles and job duties, and the degree of discretionary 
authority the beneficiary has over day-to-day operations. 
EAC 08 203 5 13 74 
Page 5 
In a response dated September 10,2008, the petitioner described the beneficiary as a "very senior member" of 
the petitioner's management team, and indicated that he is supervising a group of projects being implemented 
for a single client in the United States and offshore. Specifically, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary 
"manages Division of Power Generation of GE Infrastructure which provides revenue of approximately 2 
Million dollars a year." 
In response to the director's request for a description of the duties the beneficiary performs on a daily basis, 
the petitioner reiterated the detailed position description submitted with the initial petition. The petitioner 
indicated that the beneficiary has multiple supervisors and managers reporting to him, who in turn supervise 
teams of more than 20 professionals assigned to the various projects that are under the beneficiary's 
responsibility. 
In a separate statement, the petitioner provided brief descriptions of six projects managed and supervised by 
the beneficiary, which included ILS Helpdesk, ILS Informatica Support, eFCM Development, eFCM Support, 
ECA Development, and EPIC, and submitted an organizational chart depicting the various project teams and 
the beneficiary's supervision of such teams. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from its senior manager, human resources, Vijay T.S., who summarized 
the beneficiary's duties and stated that the beneficiary "has an absolute authority in management of the 
Division of Power Generation of GE Infrastructure," which provides revenue of approximately two million 
dollars annually. 
The director denied the petition on December 2, 2008, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that 
the beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial capacity. The director noted 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 further stated that a "project manager for IT workers often performs the day-to-day tasks which 
support the workers whom he coordinates." The director noted that "[a] [plroject manager may prepare 
documentation of technical requirements, of user requirements, and of application schematics, which are basic 
activities associated with providing a product or service." The director concluded that the, beneficiary "will 
not manage the organization or a department, subdivision, function or component of the organization," but 
rather "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 it is "clearly evident" that the beneficiary's responsibilities are 
managerial in nature because he manages functions within the organization, supervises and controls the work 
of other managerial employees, has the authority to hire and fire personnel or recommend these actions, and 
exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activities or functions for which he has authority. 
EAC 08 203 5 1374 
Page 6 
Specifically, the petitioner states that the beneficiary "manages a sub-division of our organization directly 
involved with the Power and Utilities sector that is referred to as GE Power Generation." 
The petitioner objects to the director's finding that the petitioner failed to provide a sufficiently detailed 
breakdown of the beneficiary's duties, noting that it provided a breakdown of the duties the beneficiary 
performs each week. The petitioner notes that "the beneficiary operates within an ever evolving environment 
that does not always allow for set daily routines." The petitioner emphasizes that the beneficiary is aligned 
with a strategic account related to GE Energy, and "is leading a sub-business function" within "our 
organization referred to as GE Power Generation." The petitioner nevertheless provides a breakdown of the 
number of hours per week the beneficiary devotes to his various duties, and similar breakdowns for the 
beneficiary's subordinate employees. 
Finally, the petitioner objects to the director's assessment that the beneficiary "is engaging in activities 
directly associated with producing a product or providing a service." The petitioner states that the beneficiary 
"is, in essence, a Supervisor Manager whose job is to oversee and manage several projects undertaken by 
teams of professionals." The petitioner asserts that the position is "a clear example of managing a function of 
our business as we are an IT Consultancy Firm." 
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 determination appears to 
be based in part on the director's pre-conceived impression of what duties are typically performed by project 
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 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) and (iii) of the Act. 
Furthermore, the AAO concurs with the petitioner's assertion that the beneficiary's management of a discrete 
group of on-siteloff-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. 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 10 1 (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 
EAC 08 203 51374 
Page 7 
project managers, technical leaders and engineers. 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. 8 1361. Here, the petitioner has sustained that burden. Accordingly, 
the director's decision dated December 2,2008 is withdrawn. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is sustained. The petition is approved.