sustained L-1A Case: Insurance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 1980283 7 
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 : MAR . 9, 2022 
The Petitioner, an insurance company, seeks to continue the temporary employment of the Beneficiary 
as its Regional Head of Strategy and Marketing under the L-lA classification for intracompany 
transferees. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
110l(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 work temporarily in the United States in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity 
and that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States 
under the extended petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's 
Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we will sustain the appeal. 
The Petitioner transferred the Beneficiary from its European operations to its U.S. headquarters to 
serve as its Regional Head of Strategy and Marketing in 2018. The Petitioner indicates that the 
Beneficiary reports directly to its President and is responsible for managing and overseeing the 
company's strategic planning, marketing, new business analysis and reporting, and strategic program 
management. Prior to his transfer to the United States, the Beneficiary was employed by the 
Petitioner's foreign subsidiary as its Chief of Staff/Head of Commercial Lines Underwriting and 
Reinsurance, where he collaborated with the organization's Chief Operating Officer to provide 
strategic direction, leadership, and oversight of the company's regional operations in various business 
regions as a top-level advisor. On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's performance of 
the strategic development and management function in the U.S. and abroad is essential to ensuring the 
organization's growth and profitability. 
The statutory definition of "manageria l capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 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 
10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary managed an essential function 
abroad, or will manage an essential function in the United States, it must clearly describe the duties 
performed, or 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 primarily managed ( as opposed to performed), or will primarily 
manage (as opposed to perform), the function; (4) the beneficiary acted, or will act, at a senior level 
within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and ( 5) the beneficiary 
exercised, or will exercise, discretion over the function's day-to-day operations. 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 
Chief of Staff/Head of Commercial Lines Underwriting and Reinsurance and has clearly defined the 
strategic development and management function that is essential to the foreign company's reinsurance 
business. The Petitioner has also established that the Beneficiary primarily managed the function as 
opposed to performing the function by virtue of his delegation of strategy implementation to a team 
of subordinate managers. Furthermore, it has established that the Beneficiary acted at a senior level 
with respect to the function managed, and that the Beneficiary exercised discretion over the day-to-day 
operations of the function. The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary served at a senior level within 
the foreign company's organizational hierarchy and was not required to engage in the non-managerial, 
day-to-day operations of the company's strategic development and management function pertaining 
to its reinsurance business operations. The evidence as a whole supports a conclusion that he primarily 
performed higher-level duties that are consistent with the definition of managerial capacity at section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
In addition, the Petitioner sufficiently explained and documented how the strategic and business 
growth initiatives that fall under the Beneficiary's management responsibilities in the U.S. position 
qualify as an "essential function" within its organization. The evidence demonstrates that the 
Beneficiary is charged with developing marketing strategy and provides a framework for those 
strategies to be implemented by individual country managers and their teams. The Petitioner provided 
a statement explaining why the company's marketing, new business analysis, and strategic program 
management functions are essential to ensuring the company's continued growth, along with evidence 
that the Beneficiary oversees a substantial budget in relation to the various specialty markets under his 
direction. The Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the function is core 
to the organization's activities. The record further establishes that the offered position of Regional 
Head of Strategy and Marketing is at a senior level within the organization and that it involves 
discretion over the day-to-day operations of the company's strategic management and marketing 
functions. The Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary, more likely than not, will primarily 
perform duties consistent with the definition of managerial capacity at section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the 
Act. 
In sum, the Petitioner has met its burden to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad, and will be employed under the extended petition, in a managerial 
capacity. Accordingly, we will sustain the appeal. 
2 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
3