remanded L-1A Case: Human Resources

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 21564595 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 31, 2022 
The Petitioner, a producer and marketer of beer and malt beverages, seeks to continue the 
Beneficiary's temporary employment as a manager, human resources operations under the L-lA 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that: 1) the Beneficiary was employed abroad for one continuous year in the 
three-years preceding the date the petition was filed; 2) he was employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity abroad; and 3) he would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United 
States. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by not adhering to U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy requiring them to articulate the basis upon which they did 
not provide deference to the Beneficiary's prior L-lA nonimmigrant visa approval for the same 
employment. 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 nova review, we will remand the matter to the 
Director for further consideration and entry of a new decision . 
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 . In denying the petition, the Director acknowledged the 
Beneficiary's prior L- lA nonimrnigrant visa approval for the same employment and their general 
obligation to defer to this prior determination. However, the Director stated that they were not required 
to provide deference, nor articulate reasons for not extending deference, since the prior petition was 
approved by the Department of State (DOS) . Although this interpretation of the deference 
memorandum is correct with respect to prior DOS approvals , the Director was incorrect to conclude 
that the Beneficiary's prior petition was approved by DOS . USCIS records, and documentation 
submitted on appeal, reflect that the prior L-lA petition was approved on behalf of the Beneficiary by 
USCIS. 
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 
USCIS deference guidance. As such, we find it appropriate to remand the matter to the Director to 
consider the extension request anew, and to take any additional action that may be necessary and 
appropriate. 
Accordingly, the following order shall be issued. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 
2