sustained L-1A Case: Supply Chain Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7142146 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 23, 2020 
The Petitioner, a supply chain consulting and engineering company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a supply chain transformation director in the United States under the L-lA 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 Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary is employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad. 
In addition, the Director determined that the Beneficiary would not be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary qualifies as a personnel manager abroad based 
on his supervision of subordinate managers and professionals. The Petitioner also contends that the 
Beneficiary would qualify as a personnel manager in the United States. 
Upon de nova review, we conclude that the record is sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary more 
likely than not acts in a managerial capacity abroad. First, the Petitioner has submitted a detailed 
foreign duty description for the Beneficiary indicating that he was primarily engaged in qualifying 
managerial tasks overseeing a department including two subordinate managers supervising 
subordinate supply chain consultants with specialized bachelor's degrees. The submitted evidence 
also sufficiently establishes that the Beneficiary had the authority to hire, fire, and take other personnel 
actions with respect to the members of his department and indicates that he exercised discretion over 
its day-to-day operations. Further, the record demonstrates that the members of the Beneficiary's 
department more likely than not relieved him from primarily performing non-qualifying operational 
level tasks. As such, the evidence demonstrates that the Beneficiary was employed as a personnel 
manager abroad. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner has also demonstrated that the Beneficiary would more likely than not be employed as 
a personnel manager in the United States. Again, the Petitioner submitted a detailed U.S. duty 
description for the Beneficiary indicating that he would be primarily engaged in qualifying managerial 
tasks overseeing a department with a subordinate manager supervising professional supply chain 
consultants with specialized bachelor's degrees. The submitted evidence indicates that it is more likely 
than not that the Beneficiary would be primarily relieved from performing non-qualifying operational 
duties by the professional members of his department. Therefore, the evidence establishes that the 
Beneficiary will be employed as a personnel manager in the United States. 
The totality of the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary is more likely than not employed in a 
managerial capacity abroad and that he would be employed in a managerial capacity abroad. In visa 
petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2