sustained L-1A Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17345016 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 14, 2021 
The Petitioner, an IT services provider, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary employment as a 
"marketing communications manager" under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees who are coming to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity.1 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101 (a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director determined that approximately 65% of the Beneficiary's time would be spent performing 
duties that were deemed vague and that only 30% of his time would be spent managing personnel. 
The Director also determined that the record lacks sufficient evidence of"ongoingmanagerial actions" 
taken by the Beneficiary and that the Petitioner failed to distinguish the Beneficiary's position from 
that of his subordinates, who share his position title and whom the record does not establish are 
managerial or professional employees . 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the Director's findings, pointin reviousl submitted evidence, 
including a detailed statement from the corporate vice president o _______ __, marketing, who 
directly oversees the Beneficiary in his role as manager of the marketing communications 
function, which is deemed a key component of the broader ' ______ Marketing Group." The 
Petitioner points to the Beneficiary's level of authority with respect to the I I marketing 
communications function . This highlights the Beneficiary's discretion over the resources of that 
function, including the professional subordinates and contracted vendor teams, who carry out the 
underlying duties of that function, and a $6 million marketing budget and a $10 million social and 
paid media spending budget, which the Beneficiary's team uses to "rais[e] awareness of, driv[e] 
purchase intent for, and ultimately driv[ e] transaction of [the Petitioner's 11 I products via social 
media marketing." The Petitioner also clarifies the distinction between the Beneficiary's role and 
those of his subordinates, expounding on the subordinates' respective roles and highf ghtinfhatwhile 
the Beneficiary's subordinates are limited to managing a specific segment of the marketing 
communications function, the Beneficiary is responsible for managing the function in its entirety. 
1 The instant petition is an extension from a previously filed blanket petition with a validity date for the period April 26, 
2017, until June 28 , 2020. 
In addition, the Petitioner points out that the regulations do not require the Beneficiary to primarily 
manage personnel and argues that performing "a small number" of non-managerial tasks would not 
preclude the Beneficiary from meeting the statutory criteria for managerial capacity. The Petitioner 
further contends that the Director did not explain or substantiate a basis for concluding that the 
Beneficiary's position appears to be comprised primarily of non-managerial tasks that are akin to that 
of a team lead, arguing that the Director failed to consider the Beneficiary's job duties within the 
context of the reviously submitted organizational chart, which depicts the Beneficiary as second from 
the top of the I Social Media Marketing Team's reporting hierarchy, overseeing the 
employees and contractors who carry out the teaj's opertional tasks and subordinate directly to the 
corporate vice president ofl I marketing for 
Upon de nova review, we conclude that the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence, including evidence 
submitted on appeal, which clarifies the Beneficiary's role and duties in his U.S. position and 
distinguishes that role from those of his subordinates. The Petitioner also adequately demonstrated 
that the Beneficiary occupies a leadership role with respect to thel I marketing communications 
function and that the Beneficiary's proposed position would more likely than not involve primarily 
managerialjob duties. 
In sum, the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence and established by a preponderance of the evidence 
that the Beneficiary would more likely than not be employed in a managerial capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2