remanded L-1A Case: Education Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 14, 2024 In Re: 31091121 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a provider of after-school education and training services for children, seeks to employ 
the Beneficiary as its chief executive officer (CEO) under the L-lA nonimrnigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. 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 the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary had at least one year of full-time continuous employment abroad in the 
three years preceding the filing of the petition. The Director further determined that the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate the Beneficiary was employed abroad, and would be employed in the United States, 
in an executive capacity. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/Christa's, Inc., 26 I&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. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary must 
seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering their services to the same employer 
or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. The petitioner must also 
establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify them to perform the 
intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iv). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
As noted, the Director denied the petition on multiple grounds, concluding 
that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that (1) the Beneficiary had the required one-year of continuous employment with its 
foreign parent company in the three years preceding the filing of the petition; and (2) the Beneficiary 
was employed abroad, and would be employed in the United States, in an executive capacity as defined 
at section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director overlooked relevant evidence, failed to provide a 
coherent explanation of the reasons for denial of the petition, reached erroneous conclusions of fact 
and law, and did not apply the preponderance of the evidence standard in adjudicating the petition. 
While we cannot sustain the appeal based on the record as presently constituted, we will withdraw the 
Director's decision and remand the matter for further consideration and entry of a new decision, in 
accordance with the discussion below. 
A. One Year of Employment Abroad 
To demonstrate eligibility for L-1 classification, the Petitioner must provide evidence that the 
Beneficiary has at least one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying 
organization within the three years preceding the filing of the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
Brief trips to the United States for business or pleasure shall not be intem1ptive of the one year of 
continuous period abroad but such periods shall not be counted toward fulfillment of that requirement. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(A). 
The Petitioner has consistently stated that its foreign parent company employed the Beneficiary as its 
"chairman" from July 15, 2020, until November 8, 2022, with no interruptions in employment. The 
Beneficiary was admitted to the United States as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor on November 9, 2022. 
The Petitioner filed this petition on May 8, 2023, and requested that the Beneficiary be granted a 
change of status from B-2 to L-lA. 
In the decision denying the petition, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner provided copies of 
its parent company's monthly payroll reports, which reflect that the Beneficiary received salary 
payments for the period October 2021 through January 2023. However, the Director emphasized that 
the time the Beneficiary spent in the United States since November 2022 (181 days at the time of 
filing) "cannot be counted towards the beneficiary's one (1) year of continuous employment abroad." 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary meets the one-year 
foreign employment requirement, apparently finding her six-month stay in the United States to be 
interruptive. 
Here, to establish that the Beneficiary meets the L-lA classification's one-year foreign employment 
requirement, the Petitioner must show that she was employed abroad for at least one continuous year 
in the three years preceding the filing of the petition, between May 2020 and May 2023. The Director 
acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted documentation intended to establish her employment with 
its parent company from October 2021 through October 2022 (a period of 13 months) which falls 
within this three-year period. Further, the record reflects that the Beneficiary was physically present 
2 
outside the United States during this entire period. The Beneficiary's six-month stay in the United 
States between November 2022 and May 2023 occurred after this period and is not interruptive under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(A). Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's determination. 
The Director's determination on remand should be based on whether the Petitioner provided sufficient 
evidence to corroborate that its foreign parent company employed the Beneficiary for at least one 
continuous year between May 2020 and her admission to the United States on November 9, 2022. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director had questioned the probative value of the foreign parent 
company's payroll records based on perceived anomalies in the amounts the company deducted from 
its employees' pay for "personal social security holding" and "personal provident fund withholding." 
Specifically, the Director observed that the parent company deducted the same amount for the 
Beneficiary as it did not her claimed direct subordinates, despite differences in their base salaries. The 
Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of additional evidence and explanations addressing 
this issue in response to the RFE but did not reach a determination on whether such evidence was 
sufficient to overcome the concerns raised therein. 
On remand, the Director should review the evidence documenting the Beneficiary's foreign 
employment for sufficiency under the preponderance of the evidence standard. 1 The Director may 
request additional independent, objective evidence of the Beneficiary's employment abroad, such as 
copies of her personal tax documents, bank records, tax filings made by the company, or any other 
relevant evidence, prior to issuing a new decision. 
B. Employment in an Executive Capacity 
The 
Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary was employed abroad, and would be employed in the United 
States, in an executive capacity as defined at section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. It does not claim that 
she was or would be employed in a managerial capacity. 
To establish that the Beneficiary's employment in an executive capacity, the Petitioner must show that 
she performs the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition at section 
10l(a)(44)(B)(i)-(iv) of the Act. If the Petitioner establishes that her former and proposed positions 
meet all elements set forth in the statutory definition, it must also show that the positions require her 
performance of primarily executive duties, as opposed to performing ordinary operational activities 
alongside other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). In 
determining whether a given beneficiary's duties are primarily executive, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) will consider the petitioner's description of the job duties, the 
company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence 
of other employees to relieve the beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the 
1 In this regard, we observe that the Petitioner indicated on the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, that the 
Beneficiary's period of employment with the foreign entity ended on November 8, 2022, and submitted a letter from the 
foreign entity also confirming her employment ended on this date. However, the Petitioner initially submitted foreign 
payroll documents for the period January 2022 through January 2023 as evidence of the Beneficiary's one year of 
employment abroad and did not explain why she continued to receive her full salary in the months after she left the 
company. Without an explanation, this discrepancy raises further questions regarding the probative value of the foreign 
entity's internally prepared payroll statements. 
3 
business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and 
role in a business. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director's decision did not reflect consideration of all these 
relevant factors. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner submitted multi-page descriptions of the Beneficiary's previous 
and proposed positions in response to the RFE, organizational charts and staff lists for both companies 
accompanied by payroll documentation, job descriptions for the Beneficiary's subordinates, evidence 
documenting the nature of both entities' business activities, and internal documents intended to 
corroborate the nature of the duties the Beneficiary performed with the foreign entity. While the 
Director acknowledged the submission of this evidence, the decision rested on a determination that 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate that either company has the organizational complexity to support 
an executive position. This conclusion was based, in large part, on the Director's findings that the 
Petitioner did not provide sufficiently detailed job descriptions for the Beneficiary's direct 
subordinates to demonstrate they are managerial employees. The Director did not discuss the 
probative value of the expanded job descriptions provided for the Beneficiary in response to the RFE, 
the nature of the business, or the organizational structure and overall staffing of the companies. 
We agree with the Petitioner that the Director did not sufficiently address the Petitioner's claims and 
evidence in evaluating whether the Beneficiary was, and would be, employed in an executive capacity. 
An officer must fully explain the specific reasons for denying a visa petition. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l)(i). Absent a specific explanation for denial and adequate notice of why the submitted 
evidence was insufficient to establish eligibility, a petitioner does not have a fair opportunity to contest 
a denial through the motion or appellate process. Cf 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). 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in an executive 
capacity, USCIS must take into account the reasonable needs of an organization in light of its overall 
purpose and stage of development. See section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. Here, the Director 
determined that neither the foreign entity (which employees over 40 workers), or the U.S. entity (which 
employees approximately 15 workers) has the organizational complexity to warrant having an 
executive position but did not provide a sufficient explanation for reaching this conclusion or address 
other relevant evidence relating to the Beneficiary's claimed executive capacity. 
While we agree with the Petitioner that the Director's decision was deficient in this regard, we note 
an issue that warrants further review on remand. As noted, the Petitioner has offered the Beneficiary 
the position of CEO. One of her claimed proposed subordinates (S-L-) is the sole owner of the foreign 
parent company, and therefore indirectly owns the Petitioner. The Petitioner states that it employs S­
L- as the manager of itsl ICalifornia office, and pays him an annual salary of $48,000. However, 
there are multiple documents in the record, including lease agreements and a fictitious name statement, 
signed by S-L- in his capacity as the Petitioner's CEO, the same position that is now offered to the 
Beneficiary. The Petitioner's 2022 federal income tax return shows that it paid S-L- $75,000 and 
reported his earnings as "compensation to officers." 
4 
Despite the evidence in the record showing S-L-'s role as CEO, the Petitioner does not indicate that 
its current staff includes a CEO, nor does it explain its need to transfer a second employee from its 
parent company to fill the same position. 2 The Petitioner shall be provided an opportunity to address 
this issue on remand prior to the issuance of a final decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons addressed above, the Director's decision is withdrawn, and the matter will be remanded 
for further review and 
entry of a new decision that complies with 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). If the new 
decision will be based on derogatory information which has not yet been disclosed to the Petitioner, 
the Director must first issue a new RFE or notice of intent to deny in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l6)(i) and allow the Petitioner a reasonable opportunity to respond before issuing the 
decision. The Director may also raise any additional issues relevant to the eligibility requirements for 
the requested classification. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2 USCIS records reflect that S-L- was the beneficiary of an approved Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, 
in which the Petitioner offered him the permanent position of CEO under section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act, the first 
preference employment-based classification for multinational managers and executives. 
5