remanded L-1A Case: Automotive

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Y-1-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 25, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an automobile dealership, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary employment as 
its finance manager under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(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 and issued a written decision denying 
the extension of stay the Petitioner requested on the Beneficiary's behalf When requesting an extension 
of a previously approved L-1 petition, a petitioner must apply for the petition extension and the 
beneficiary's extension of stay concurrently on Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, and 
the service center director must make separate decisions on the merits of the petition and on the 
beneficiary's eligibility for an extension of stay. See 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(1 S)(i). The Director issued a 
decision notifying the Petitioner that the requested extension of stay was denied because "[t]he 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed to extend classification of the beneficiary under section 10l(a)(l5)(L) 
has been denied"; however, the record reflects that the Director did not issue a written decision on the 
merits of the petition. 
When denying a petition, a director has an affirmative duty to explain the specific reasons for the 
denial. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter ofM-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). Here, the Director did not issue a written 
decision on the merits of the Form 1-129 and therefore did not perform this duty. 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director for issuance of a decision. 1 
1 We note that there is no appeal from the denial of an extension of stay filed on Form 1-129, which is granted or denied at 
the service center director's discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.l(c)(5). However, the Petitioner is clearly seeking to appeal 
the denial of the underlying petition on its merits. 
Matter of Y-1-, Inc. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis, which, if adverse, shall be certified 
to us for review. 
Cite asMatter ofY-1-, Inc., ID# 3158581 (AAO Apr. 25, 2019) 
2