sustained L-1A Case: Recruitment

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-W-A-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DA TE: DEC. 28, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
.PETITION: FORM 1-129, P.ETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a professional recruitment and executive search solutions company, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as a "recruitment manager, IT sales department" under the L-1 A nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 10}(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 101(a)(l5)(L). The L-IA 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 is employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director did not sufficiently address its assertion that the 
Beneficiary manages an essential function abroad. The Petitioner contends that it has submitted a 
detailed duty description for the Beneficiary and specific duty descriptions and performance reviews 
relevant to his subordinates which demonstrate that he primarily acts as a function manager. 
Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Petitioner has overcome the sole basis for denial. The 
submitted evidence reflects that the Beneficiary was more likely than not employed abroad as a 
function manager primarily managing the foreign employer's information technology sales specialist 
department based in Spain. · 
Although the record indicates that the Beneficiary likely performs some non-managerial duties and 
the Petitioner _acknowledges this, it also provided credible evidence that he has discretionary 
authority over four professionals who primarily handle the provision of IT recruitment services 
within his department. The Petitioner also submitted a sufficiently detailed explana~ion of the 
Beneficiary's duties which specifically describes how the Beneficiary delegates non-qualifying tasks 
within his function to subordinate recruitment consultants. In addition, the evidence demonstrates 
that the Beneficiary has full financial responsibility over his function, that he sets performance 
indicators for his subordinates and monitors their performance, and that he has discretionary 
authority on all matters related to his function. The Petitioner also provided detailed, credible duty· 
descriptions for the Beneficiary's subordin_ates indicating that they more likely than not primarily 
relieve him from performing non-qualifying operational tasks. Therefore, the Petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evi~ence to establish that the Beneficiary exercises discretion over the day:to-
Maller<?[ R-W-A-C-
day operations of his information technology sales specialist department and demonstrated that he 
primarily manages the function, and acts at a senior level with respect to the function managed, 
consistent with the statutory definition of managerial capacity. See 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. § 110l(a)(44)(A). 
The totality of the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary more likely than not acts in a managerial 
capacity abroad. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of R-W-A-C-, ID# 1841749 (AAO Dec. 28, 2018) 
.\ 
2