remanded L-1A Case: Electrical Components

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18686242 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY. 04, 2022 
The Petitioner, a manufacturer and seller of electrical components , seeks to continue the Beneficiary's 
temporary employment as its chief operating officer under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(L). 
In September 2020, the Director of the California Service Center denied the petition. 1 The Petitioner 
then filed this appeal in October 2020. Thereafter , the Director issued another decision in December 
2020 indicating that it was denying the decision because the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. We 
summarily dismissed the appeal, but later withdrew this dismissal. As such, the matter is now before 
us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de novo review, we will withdraw the Director's prior 
decisions and remand the matter for further consideration and entry of a new decision. 
While the appeal was pending , U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) updated the 
USCIS Policy Manual 's guidance regarding deference to prior approvals . 2 USCIS Policy Manual 
A.4(B)(l) , https://www.uscis.gov /policymanual; see also USCIS Policy Alert, PA-2021-05, 
Deference to Prior Determinations of Eligibility in Requests for Extensions of Petition Validity (Apr. 
27, 2021 ), https:/ /www.uscis.gov /sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates /20210427-
Deference.pdf. This petition is an extension request in the same nonimmigrant classification, 
previously approved by USCIS, and filed by the same parties and for the same position . Therefore, it 
is directly impacted by this USCIS guidance . 
In the prior denial decisions, the Director did not discuss the prior L-lA nonimmigrant visa approvals 
granted on behalf of the Beneficiary, nor did they articulate on what grounds they were not providing 
deference. As such, as a preliminary matter, we find it appropriate to remand the matter to the Director 
1 This decision did not articulate on what grounds the Director was denying the petition. 
to consider the extension request anew, and if they deny the extension request, to discuss specifically 
why deference to the prior approvals is not being provided. 
Further, it was improper for the Director to issue the initial denial without any discussion as to their 
grounds for denial or analysis as to why the Petitioner had not met its burden. An officer must fully 
explain the reasons for denying a visa petition to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the 
decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. 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). 
Although we acknowledge that the Director appeared to attempt to rectify this error by issuing a later 
decision with grounds for denial and analysis, this came after the Petitioner had already filed an appeal 
with us. Once an appeal is filed, the Director may either take favorable action or forward the appeal 
to us for review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(iii); see also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0124, 
Initial Field Review of Appeals to the Administrative Appeals Office 2, 3 (Nov. 4, 2015), 
https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. While an initial field review (IFR) may 
result in the approval of a benefit request and make appellate review by us unnecessary, the IFR 
process cannot undermine an affected party's procedural right to AAO review or the right to file an 
informed brief in support of their appeal. Accordingly, the Director erred in issuing the second 
decision after the Petitioner filed this appeal. 
As such, in any new decision, the Director should analyze each ground for denial separately, and 
clearly analyze and articulate why the Petitioner has not met its burden with respect to each ground 
for denial. Accordingly, the following order shall be issued. 
ORDER: The two prior decisions of the Director are withdrawn. The matter is remanded for 
further proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision, 
which, if adverse to the Petitioner, shall be certified to us for review. 
2