IN THIS GUIDE · Describing what supervised employees actually do in a personnel-managing L-1A role
Start with the L-1A eligibility and application overview
Describe the team by function, not by number
Start with what each supervised person does all day, the qualifications their role requires, and where their output goes. A count of direct reports settles nothing on its own, because the classification asks whether the applicant manages an organisation, department, subdivision, function, or component. Titles inside a growing company often lag behind the work being done. Ask each team lead for two or three sentences about their own duties rather than reusing an old job posting. Ask each team lead for two or three sentences about their own week, written now rather than copied from a posting. Those sentences are the raw material, and they routinely reveal that a title has drifted from the work. Where a role has changed without a new description, note the change and roughly when it happened; a reviewer comparing a chart with payroll will notice the difference before anyone else does.
Evidence the authority actually exercised
Authority over personnel is factual: who selects candidates, who signs offers, who sets objectives and reviews performance, who approves leave, and who can dismiss. Record where the applicant decides and where they recommend to someone else. Supervising professional employees supports a managerial showing, but a first-line supervisor of routine work does not qualify merely by holding a supervisory title. The evidence should reflect the level of discretion genuinely exercised, not the level implied by a chart. Draw the line between deciding and recommending explicitly for each personnel action: selection, offers, objectives, reviews, leave, and dismissal. Write down who does which. Supervising professional employees supports a managerial showing, while a first-line supervisor of routine work does not qualify merely by holding a supervisory title, so the level of discretion genuinely exercised is the point rather than the position on a chart.
Distinguish professional roles from routine work
Separate the professional positions from the operational ones and explain why each falls where it does: the degree or credential the position requires, the judgment involved, and whether the work could be run from a written procedure. Where the applicant supervises a mixed team, describe the mix rather than presenting the most senior roles as typical. Where they also carry a caseload or handle escalations personally, record the proportion so counsel can assess the whole picture. Set out the credential or training each supervised position requires, the judgment it involves, and whether the work could be run from a written procedure. Those three answers place a role on one side of the line or the other. Where the applicant also carries a caseload or handles escalations personally, record the proportion, since a candid split lets counsel assess the whole picture instead of testing an overstated one against payroll.
Assemble the organisational evidence pack
Build the material around the description: a current organisational chart with names and positions, position descriptions for each report, payroll confirming those positions exist, approval limits, and examples of decisions the applicant made about people. Add the proposed US structure beside the existing one so continuity or change is visible. This illustration concerns a mixed professional team; advisers can assemble the pack, while a licensed US immigration attorney decides how it is characterised. Hypothetical example: a translation services company transfers a manager who directs project linguists and two coordinators, sets quality standards, and approves rates. The pack would contain a current chart with names, position descriptions written by the reports themselves, payroll confirming the roles exist, approval limits, and examples of personnel decisions made. Alongside it sit the separate requirements: a qualifying corporate relationship, and one continuous qualifying year abroad within the preceding three years.
Sources reviewed 2026-09-07. This guide covers a preparation focus; it is not an individual eligibility assessment.