sustained L-1A Case: Manufacturing And Engineering

MATTER OF S-USA INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 4, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a manufacturing and engineering company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as its general manager under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101 ( a)(l5)(L ). The L-1 A 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that it has established by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial 
capacity. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant 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)(l5)(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. !d. The 
petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment 
qualifies him or her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the foreign entity has employed the 
Beneficiary in a managerial capacity as defined at section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. Specifically, the 
Matter ofS-USA Inc. 
Director concluded that the Petitioner did not provide a sufficiently detailed description of the 
Beneficiary's day-to-day tasks or establish that he acts in a capacity above that of a first-line supervisor. 
Upon review, we disagree with the Director's assessment ofthe Beneficiary's job description and his 
placement within the foreign employer's organization. The Petitioner has submitted sufficient 
evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary is more likely than not employed by the foreign 
employer in a managerial capacity. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers'' and 
"function managers." See section l0l(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers are 
required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees. Contrary to the common understanding of the word "manager," the statute 
plainly states that 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." Section 10l(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. If a beneficiary directly supervises other 
employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or 
recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner has submitted a detailed and credible description of the Beneficiary's position with its 
foreign affiliate, where he serves as general manager of the supply chain department. Letters 
submitted by the foreign employer's managing director provide details regarding the Beneficiary's 
managerial level tasks and the duties of his managerial subordinates. Further, the Petitioner has 
submitted documentary evidence to substantiate the Beneficiary's role as a personnel manager. The 
submitted evidence indicates that he has substantial authority for personnel actions within his 
department which includes three managerial subordinates and approximately 18 employees overall. 
The evidence credibly establishes that the Beneficiary's subordinates relieve him from performing 
non-qualifying operational and administrative tasks so that he can perform primarily managerial 
duties. Further, the record demonstrates that the Beneficiary manages a department for the foreign 
entity, has authority to hire and fire staff, and that he exercises discretion over his department's day­
to-day operations. See section 101(a)(44)(A) ofthe Act. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad m a managerial 
capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter o.fS-USA Inc .. ID# 875776 (AAO Jan. 4, 2018) 
2