remanded L-1A Case: Freight Forwarding

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF BCT-W- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 17, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a freight forwarding company, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment as its financial manager under the L-IA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 1 0l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ I 101 ( a )(l 5)(L ). The L-1 A 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 I-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)(15)(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 [B]eneficiary under 
section 101(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 Mauer 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). Here, the Director did not issue a 
written decision on the merits of the Form 1-129 and tlierefore 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)(S). However, the Petitioner is clearly seeking to 
appeal the denial of the underlying petition on its merits. 
Malter of BCT-W- 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 as Matter of BCT-W- Inc., ID# 1626748 (AAO Sept. 17, 2018) 
2