sustained L-1A Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 17302927 
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: JUN. 14, 2021 
The Petitioner , a software as a service (SaaS) provider, seeks to amend the Beneficiary's nonimmigrant 
status I and continue his temporary employment in the position of Manager, Quality Engineering, under 
the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees . Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a capacity involving specialized knowledge 
and that he would be employed in a managerial capacity under the amended petition. The matter is 
now before us on appeal. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010) . Upon de nova 
review, we conclude that the Petitioner has met this burden. Accordingly, we will sustain the appeal. 
First, we find sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a capacity 
that involved specialized knowledge. A beneficiary is considered to be serving in a capacity involving 
specialized knowledge with respect to a company if the beneficiary has special knowledge of the company 
product and its application in international markets or has an advanced level of knowledge of processes 
and procedures of the company. Section214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(cX2XB). 
The record reflects that, prior to his transfer to the United States in L-lB status in 2018, the Beneficiary 
had more than four years of experience as a lead quality assurance (QA) engineer with the Petitioner's 
Indian subsidiary, where he worked exclusively on the company's proprietary! 0 I sales 
compensation analytics~- The evidence indicates that, in this position, he led a seven-member 
team , took ownership ofl__J's development , QA, and deployment activities, and was responsible for 
providing mentorship on existing and new product features. The Director determined that the fact that 
the Beneficiary was hired for a "lead" position without any prior knowledge or experience with the 
1 The record reflects that the Beneficiary was initially admitted to the United States in L-1 B status as a "specialized 
knowledge" employeeunderthePetitioner's approved blanket L petition in 2018. 
organization suggests thatthe position involves only "general system analyst knowledge common within 
the field." 
The Petitioner emphasizes, however, that the Director overlooked evidence that the Beneficiary was one 
of the first engineers at the company assigned to work on the proprietary! I product It further 
explains that the Beneficiary was required to perform advanced duties as a lead engineer and subject 
matter expert for I I that resulted in him gaining special knowledge of the product (including its core 
architecture and components) that is not possessed by others within the company who have not worked 
on the product since its initial development and release, and could not be readily transferred to those with 
only general software development experience. 
While the record reflects that the petitioning group's proprietary product suite is built, in paii, on big data 
technologies that are used by other companies in the software industry, the Petitioner provided sufficient 
evidence to differentiate the Beneficiary's knowledge of its proprietaty products and technologies from 
general knowledge possessed in his field, and described how he acquired such knowledge by performing 
duties related to the initial and ongoing product development ot1 I Accordingly, we conclude that 
it is more likely than not that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a capacity that involved specialized 
knowledge of the company'd !product. 
With respect to the Beneficiary's new U.S. position, the Petitioner has consistently stated that his role 
as Manager, Quality Engineering, will be in a managerial capacity as defined at section 101 (a)( 44 )(A) 
of the Act. The Petitioner indicates that he will have responsibility for managing a team of nine 
professional lead, senior, and associate quality assurance engineers as well as establishing and 
ensuring the implementation of quality assurance processes and practices across the company's quality 
engineering organization. 
To be eligible for L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager, the Petitioner must show that 
the Beneficiary will perform the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition at 
section 101 (a)( 44 )(A)(i)-(iv) of the Act. If the Petitioner establishes that the offered position meets 
all elements set forth in the statutory definition, the Petitioner must prove that the Beneficiary will be 
primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the 
Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). 
In determining that the Petitioner did not meet its burden to establish that the offered position is 
primarily managerial in nature, the Director's analysis was limited to a brief discussion of a detailed 
job description provided in response to a request for evidence. Specifically, the Director observed 
that, based on that description, "it appears that the beneficiary will spend only 25% of his time 
'manag[ing] a team of Software Development engineers"' while the remaining 75% of the time 
"appears to be doing the day-to-day operational tasks of the business." On appeal, the Petitioner 
maintains that while it stated that the Beneficiary would spend 25% of his time specifically on 
management of his professional subordinates, "this does not mean that the remaining 7 5% of his time 
will be spent' doing the day-to-day operational tasks of the business."' The Petitioner emphasizes that 
the Director improperly dismissed most of the Beneficiary's duties as non-managerial without 
explaining her reasoning. 
2 
The Petitioner maintains that, in addition to overseeing professional personnel, the evidence reflects 
that the Beneficiary will manage the quality engineering function for the company products that fall 
within his area ofresponsibility. The Petitioner specifically points to higher level managerial duties 
that appear throughout the company's detailed breakdown of the offered position and asserts that 1he 
duties, when properly considered as a whole, are primarily managerial. 
Upon de novo review of the evidence relating to the offered U.S. position, we agree with the 
Petitioner's assertion that the Beneficiary's proposed job duties meet all elements of the statutory 
definition of managerial capacity and are primarily consistent with the high-level responsibilities set 
forth in that definition; the job description does not reflect that he would be significantly engaged in 
the "day-to-day operational tasks" of the business. In addition to supervising subordinate professional 
personnel and exercising authority to make or recommend personnel actions, the record reflects that 
the Beneficiary would be responsible for managing quality engineering processes for several of the 
company's products, that non-qualifying duties associated with carrying out those processes are 
performed by lower-level employees, and that he would be exercising discretion over the day-to-day 
operations of the activity for which he has authority. Accordingly, we conclude thatthe Petitioner met 
its burden to establish the Beneficiary would, more likely than not, be employed in a managerial 
capacity. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 
the Beneficiary was employedabroad in a position involving specialized knowledge, and that he would 
be employed in a managerial capacity in the United States. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
3