remanded L-1A Case: Agricultural Equipment

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25690692 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 22, 2023 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a distributor of agricultural equipment and parts, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's 
temporary employment as its president under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees .1 See 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 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 that the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in an executive capacity. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review , 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
"Executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization; 
establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component , or function; exercises wide latitude 
in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. 
To establish that a beneficiary is eligible for L-lA classification as an executive, a petitioner must 
show that the beneficiary will perform all four of the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary 's behalf which was approved for a one-year 
period ending on November 18, 2019. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United States 
through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F) . The regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation one year within the date of approval of the petition to support 
an executive or managerial position. 
definition at section 101 (a)( 44)(B) of the Act. If a petitioner establishes that the offered position meets 
all four elements set forth in the statutory definition, the petitioner must then prove that the beneficiary 
will be primarily engaged in executive 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). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the denial contains factual errors that adversely impacted the 
Director's analysis of the proposed U.S. employment. The record supports this assertion. In 
describing the evidence submitted at the time of filing, the Director incorporated information ( on pages 
6 and 8 of the decision) that pertains to the Petitioner's foreign affiliate rather than to the Petitioner. 
Therefore, the decision does not reflect that the Director reviewed the Petitioner's initial evidence 
pertaining to its staffing and structure. Further, this error led the Director to determine that the 
Petitioner made material changes to its claimed staffing and structure in response to a request for 
evidence (RFE). Specifically, the Director observed that the Petitioner had submitted two "drastically 
different accounts of the staffing over supposedly the same time period." This conclusion is incorrect; 
the staffing appeared "drastically different" because the Director compared the foreign entity's 
organizational chart to the Petitioner's organizational chart. 
The Director ultimately determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary will "direct 
the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization" consistent 
with section 101(a)(44)(B)(i) of the Act. In reaching this determination, the Director acknowledged 
that the Beneficiary is "managing the entire organization" but found that he cannot be "managing the 
management of the organization of which there appears to be only first line employees." The decision 
further states that the Petitioner lacks a "sufficiently complex organizational structure" and noted that 
the Beneficiary's direct subordinate, a vice president, "notably has no supervisory duties provided." 
An executive generally directs the management of the organization, major component, or essential 
function of a given organization by controlling the work of managerial or lower-level executive 
employees. This control could either take the form of direct supervision of those managers or 
executives or could be more indirect under some circumstances. 2 Here, the Director concluded that 
the vice president who reports to the Beneficiary "has no supervisory duties," and that she therefore 
cannot be considered a subordinate manager. 
The Petitioner indicates that the vice president, who is also a member and manager of the petitioning 
limited liability company, is responsible for managing the "overall operations, personnel and financial 
resources of the company," among other responsibilities. This position has subordinate personnel 
identified on the organizational chart whose employment is corroborated by supporting 
documentation. Therefore, the record does not provide adequate support for the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner's vice president "has no supervisory duties" and could not otherwise 
be considered a managerial employee. As noted, the Director's determination that the Beneficiary 
does not qualify for the requested classification was largely based on a determination that he will not 
"direct the management" of the organization through direct or indirect oversight of subordinate 
managers or lower-level executives under section 10l(a)(44)(B)(i) of the Act and emphasized the 
relatively small number of personnel working directly for the company. The Director did not further 
2 See generally, 2 USCIS Policy Manual L.6(D), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (discussing the definition of 
"executive capacity"). 
2 
consider the Petitioner's claims that it has a reasonable need for an executive position notwithstanding 
the small size of the company as required under section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); 
see also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must fully explain the 
reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the 
determination on appeal). Based on the foregoing discussion, we conclude that the decision contained 
both factual errors and inadequately supported conclusions, and as a result did not fully inform the 
Petitioner why its evidence was insufficient to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter to the Director for entry of 
a new decision. On remand, the Director should review the previously submitted evidence (including 
the Petitioner's appeal) considering the foregoing discussion and may request any additional evidence 
relevant to the eligibility requirements for this classification. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3