sustained L-1A

sustained L-1A Case: Market Research

πŸ“… Date unknown πŸ‘€ Company πŸ“‚ Market Research

Decision Summary

The initial denial was based on the conclusion that the Beneficiary was not employed in a managerial capacity abroad and would not be in the U.S. The appeal was sustained because the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence, including credible duty descriptions and corroborating documents, to establish that the Beneficiary primarily acts as a personnel manager overseeing professional subordinates both abroad and in the proposed U.S. role.

Criteria Discussed

Employment Abroad In A Managerial Or Executive Capacity Employment In The U.S. In A Managerial Or Executive Capacity Supervision Of Professional Subordinates

Sign up free to download the original PDF

View Full Decision Text
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF I-R-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 27, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONlMMJGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a market research company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a media 
consultant/statistical modeler under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transterees. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. Β§ l 10l(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 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, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity. In addition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On. appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director incorrectly concluded that the Beneficiary did 
not oversee professional subordinates abroad and also that he would not supervise professionals in 
the United States. The Petitioner also states that the Director overemphasized certain operational 
duties in the Beneficiary's foreign and U.S. duty descriptions and notes that it is only required to 
demonstrate that he would spend a majority of his time on managerial duties. 
Upon de nova review, we conclude that the Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to establish 
that the Beneficiary acts abroad, and would act in the United States, as a personnel manager. 
Although the Petitioner submits duties and evidence indicating that the Beneficiary likely perfonns 
some non-qualifying operational duties abroad, such as those related to statistical modeling, it also 
provided credible documentary evidence reflecting that he primarily delegates these tasks to the 
seven professional members of the "Lift Development Team" he oversees abroad. The Petitioner 
also submits credible duty descriptions for the analysis modelers he oversees and evidence 
corroborating the claims that these subordinate positions require bachelor's degrees for minimum 
~ntry. Therefore, the evidence demonstrates that the Beneficiary acts as a personnel manager abroad 
overseeing professional subordinates. Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
For similar reasons, we also conclude that the Beneficiary would likely act in a managerial capacity 
in the United States. Similar to the Beneficiary's foreign employment, the evidence demonstrates 
that the Beneficiary would oversee a team of professionals and direct the company's newly created 
Matter of 1-R-, Inc. 
"Lift Development Team" in the United States. Again, although the Beneficiary's duties indicate 
that he would likely perform some non-qualifying operational duties in the United States such as 
building complex statistical algorithms, it' also provided credible duties and other documentary 
evidence demonstrating that he would more likely than not be primarily relieved from nonΒ­
qualifying duties by the professional members of the team he would oversee. The Petitioner also. 
sufficiently established that the Beneficiary's subordinates in the United States are required to hold 
bachelor's degrees; and therefore, are considered professionals as defined by the regulations. c_'f 
8 C.F.R. Β§ 204.5(k)(2) (defining "profession" to mean "any occupation for which a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the 
occupation"). 
Therefore, the totality of the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary more likely than not acts in a 
managerial capacity abroad and he will act in a managerial capacity in the United States. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of 1-R-, Inc., ID# 1847627 (AAO Nov. 27, 2018) 
2 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Use this winning precedent in your petition

MeritDraft analyzes sustained AAO decisions like this one to generate petition arguments that mirror what actually gets approved.

Build Your Winning Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.