remanded L-1A Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11822509 
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: OCT. 19, 2020 
The Petitioner, describing itself as a global manufacturer and servicer of highly engineered precision 
products, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "Manager, Engineering" in the United 
States under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees . Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 101(a)(l5)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad full-time for one continuous year in 
the three years preceding the date the petition was filed. In addition, the Director determined the 
Petitioner did not establish that: ( 1) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a position that was 
managerial, executive, or that involved specialized knowledge, 2) the Beneficiary was qualified to 
perform the intended services in the United States, and 3) the Beneficiary's position in the United 
States would involve specialized knowledge. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts it has submitted sufficient personnel records and other supporting 
documentation to establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad full-time for the required one 
year. Further, the Petitioner contends it provided substantial evidence to demonstrate the Beneficiary's 
specialized knowledge and qualifications , including a lengthy and detailed support letter explaining 
his more than 12 years of experience within the organization and laying out comparisons of his 
knowledge against the other engineers working within the organization. 
Upon de nova review, we conclude that the Director improperly analyzed whether the Beneficiary's 
position in the United States would involve specialized knowledge since the petition in this matter is 
for an L-lA managerial or executive intracompany transferee visa. In the Form 1-129, Petition for a 
Nonirnmigrant Worker, the Petitioner indicated in part 2, item 1 that it was filing an L-lA petition . 
Likewise, in section 1, part 13 of the L Classification Supplement to the Form 1-129, the Petitioner did 
not answer the questions applicable to an L-lB specialized knowledge petition and in section 1, part 
7 explained the Beneficiary's U.S. position as "manag[ing] a major function of the engineering 
activities" and "direct[ing] the development of system requirements and specifications." In addition, 
in response to the Director's notice of intent to deny (NOID), the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary's "job title will change when he moves to the United States" noting that he would become 
an "engineering manager." It further emphasized that the Beneficiary would have "direct reports," 
including four "process improvement engineers," reflected as his subordinates in a provided U.S. 
organizational chart. The Petitioner also noted that "hiring [ would] commence once the VISA is 
approved." For these reasons, we conclude that the Petitioner filed an L-lA managerial or executive 
intracompany transferee petition, not an L-lB specialized knowledge petition. 
Therefore, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand it for the entry of a new decision. 
Notwithstanding our withdrawal of the Director's decision, we find that the record as presently 
constituted is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary would act in a managerial or executive 
capacity in the United States. For instance, it is noteworthy that the Petitioner stated the Beneficiary 
would not have any subordinates in the United States as of the date the petition was filed and otherwise 
did not sufficiently demonstrate that he would qualify as a function manager, as it only vaguely 
discussed him "managing a major function" in the Form I-129. The Petitioner must establish that all 
eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and 
continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
Accordingly, we will remand the matter for the Director to consider the petition as an L- lA petition 
and to adjudicate in the first instance any additional issues as may be necessary and appropriate. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2