remanded L-1A Case: Health/Scientific Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and In1n1igration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-3 CORP. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SER VICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 5, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a health/scientific research/sale business, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as its President/CEO under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees.1 See 
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 Vermont Service Center revoked the approval of the petition, concluding that the 
Petitioner did not establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity. On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the Director's findings, claiming that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity. 
Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a 
new decision. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary 
must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her 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 him or her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf, approved for the period from July 
20, 2015, until July 19, 2016. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United States 
through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F). The regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation one year within the date of approval of the petition to support 
an executive or managerial position. 
Matter of G-3 Corp. 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-lA petition that involved a new office must submit a statement 
of the beneficiary's duties during the previous year and under the extended petition; a statement 
describing the staffing of the new operation and evidence of the numbers and types of positions held; 
evidence of its financial status; evidence that it has been doing business for the previous year; and 
evidence that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii). This evidence must demonstrate that the beneficiary will be employed in 
a managerial or executive capacity, as defined at sections 10l(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act, under 
the extended petition. 
Under U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services regulations, the approval of an L-lA petition may 
be revoked on notice under six specific circumstances. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A). To properly 
revoke the approval of a petition, a director must issue a notice of intent to revoke that contains a 
detailed statement of the grounds for the revocation and the time period allowed for 
rebuttal. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(B). 
11. EXECUTIVE CAPACITY IN THE UNITED STATES 
The Director initially approved the petition and granted the Beneficiary a two-year extension of 
status from July 20, 2016, to July 19, 2018. Following approval of the extension petition, an 
administrative site visit was conducted at the address listed on the petition on February 17, 2017. 
According to the Director, the evidence obtained during the site visit failed to show that the 
Petitioner has been and will continue to do business, and that the Beneficiary is employed in a 
qualifying managerial or executive position in the United States. The Director issued a notice of 
intent to revoke (NOIR) to the Petitioner requesting evidence of the Petitioner's operations and the 
Beneficiary's employment. 
Following receipt of the Petitioner's response to the NOIR, the Director issued a notice of revocation 
and determined that the record does not establish that the Beneficiary is employed in a qualifying 
managerial or executive position in the United States. Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A), the approval was revoked because the Beneficiary is no longer eligible under 
section 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. 
In the revocation decision, the Director noted that the Petitioner's statements concerning the 
Beneficiary's job duties restated portions of the L-lA regulations. She stated that while the 
Beneficiary's "level of discretionary authority is not in dispute," the description of the Beneficiary's 
duties does not establish that they are primarily managerial or executive in nature, or that the 
Beneficiary would be relieved from performing primarily non-qualifying duties. She also noted that 
the duties are not consistent with the size, scope, and number of employees of the business. The 
Director also determined that the record does not show that the Beneficiary is supervising and 
supervisory, professional, or managerial workers and that she is performing as a first-line supervisor. 
The Director further stated that "it appears that the beneficiary is primarily engaged in sales and 
promotion of [the Petitioner's] organization and its offerings, and is not employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity." Thus, the Director revoked the approval of the petition. 
2 
Matter of G-3 Corp. 
While we agree with that the job description submitted for the Beneficiary may be lacking in detail, 
the Beneficiary's duties were not analyzed in any meaningful way to support the conclusions 
reached. The decision does not reflect that the Director considered the evidence in its totality, nor 
does the decision adequately explain how that evidence led the Director to conclude that the 
Beneficiary does not primarily perform managerial or executive duties. An officer must fully 
explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in order 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). 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, the Director should have reviewed the company's 
organizational structure, the duties of the Beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other 
employees to relieve her from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, and any 
other evidence submitted to support the Petitioner's claims. While the revocation decision states that 
the Director reviewed "the totality of evidence," there is no discussion of the Petitioner's 
organizational chart, staffing levels, employee job descriptions and resumes, payroll records, or other 
evidence the Petitioner submitted to establish that it had sufficient staff to relieve the Beneficiary 
from involvement in its day-to-day operations. 
Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for issuance of a new 
decision on this issue, which should take into account and fully discuss the totality of the evidence 
submitted in support of the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive 
capacity. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Director's decision will be withdrawn for the foregoing reasons, and the matter will be 
remanded. The Director should review the totality of the evidence and the issues addressed above, 
and, if warranted, issue a new NOIR prior to entering a new decision. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
Cite as Matter ofG-3 Corp., ID# 2596938 (AAO Apr. 5, 2019) 
3