remanded L-1A Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship Non-Precedent Decision of the
and Immigration Administrative Appeals Office 
Services 
In Re: 25857036 Date: MAY 11, 2023 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner , a logistics and freight forwarding company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as its chief executive officer under the L-1 A non immigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that: ( 1) the Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity; and (2) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a capacity that is managerial , executive, 
or involves specialized knowledge. 1 The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § I03.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis . 
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)(15)(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 Director also concluded that the Beneficiary is not eligible to change nonimmigrant status, because his prior B-1 
nonimmigrant status had expired. The regulations do not provide an appeal process for the denial of a change of status, 
which is administratively separate from the nonimmigrant visa petition. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction over this issue. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad, and will be employed in the 
United States, in an executive capacity. We therefore need not consider the separate requirements 
relating to specialized knowledge and managerial capacity. The Director determined that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's employment abroad and his proposed employment 
in the United States met the requirements of an executive capacity. 
"Executive capacity" means a position in which the employee primarily directs the management of 
the organization or a major component or function of the organization; establishes the goals and 
policies of the organization, component, or function; exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision­
making; and receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level executives, the board of 
directors, or stockholders of the organization. Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes that the offered position meets all four elements set forth in the statutory 
definition, the petitioner must then prove that the beneficiary has been or will be primarily engaged in 
executive duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the petitioner's other 
employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). In determining whether 
the beneficiary's duties were or will be primarily executive, we consider the description of the job 
duties, the company's organizational structure, the duties of the beneficiary's subordinate employees, 
the presence of other employees to relieve the beneficiary from performing operational duties, the 
nature of the business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding the beneficiary's 
actual duties and role in the business. 
The Petitioner submitted a three-page job description for the proposed U.S. position, identifying nine 
responsibilities, each with an explanatory paragraph. In the denial notice, the Director listed the nine 
responsibilities and determined that the Petitioner did not "specifically explain or discuss how the 
beneficiary will direct the management of the U.S. company on a day-to-day basis," and "did not 
explain how the beneficiary will direct the activities to be performed." 
On appeal, the Petitioner observes that, while each of the listed responsibilities included an 
explanatory paragraph, the Director's "[d]enial takes the titles of each of the duties ... and puts them 
in a single block quote and then states that this description is insufficient." We agree with the 
Petitioner that the Director did not fully develop the discussion of the Beneficiary's intended duties. 
We make no finding that the job description was adequate; several of the listed items are short-term, 
one-time projects rather than ongoing duties, and some of the others relate to tasks such as quarterly 
meetings that would occupy minimal time overall. But 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i) requires the Director 
to explain the specific reasons for denial, and the denial notice in this case is not sufficiently detailed 
to allow the Petitioner the opportunity to fully understand the basis of denial and to prepare an appeal. 
With regard to the Petitioner's staffing, the Director questioned the company's payroll documentation 
for several reasons. The Director noted: "Of the 131 names that are listed, the report shows that 97 
of the employee names [are] listed [in] 'TERMINATED' status .... [I]t appears that more than half 
of the U.S. company's employees are no longer employed at the U.S. company." This analysis is 
missing crucial context from the record. At the time of filing, the Petitioner indicated that the company 
had approximately 34 employees, which is the difference that remains after subtracting the 97 
terminated employees from the larger total of 131. There is no indication that the Petitioner attempted 
to inflate its staff size by counting terminated employees among its current staff. We agree with the 
2 
Petitioner that the payroll records are cumulative, showing past as well as present employees. IRS 
Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statements issued to terminated employees do not necessarily raise 
credibility issues either, in the absence of further information, because wages previously paid to a 
terminated employee would still be reported on Form W-2 at the end of the year. 
The Director also observed that many ofthe employees "do not reside near the U.S. company address," 
which the Director concluded was inl IFlorida. The Florida address on the Forms W-2 belongs 
to a contracted payroll company; the record shows that the Petitioner is located in California. The 
Petitioner, on appeal, explains that most of the employees reside in California near the Petitioner's 
location, while the remaining few work remotely on sales and administrative tasks that do not require 
the employees' presence on-site. 
As shown above, the Director's determination about the Beneficiary's intended U.S. employment 
appears to rest, in part, on erroneous assumptions and interpretations of the record. Therefore, we will 
withdraw that determination. 
The Director's conclusions about the Beneficiary's employment abroad are based on the Beneficiary's 
employment as general manager of the foreign parent company from February 2020 to May 2021. 
Government records, however, show that the Beneficiary was in the United States for much of that 
time, from October 9, 2020 to March 24, 2021, and therefore he did not have the statutory minimum 
of one continuous year of employment abroad in that position. Therefore, the Director must consider 
the Beneficiary's earlier position as risk and compliance manager from December 2018 to February 
2020. In doing so, the Director must take into account evidence newly submitted on appeal. The 
Petitioner submitted this additional evidence regarding this earlier employment after we notified the 
Petitioner that the Beneficiary did not accumulate enough continuous experience as general manager 
in 2020-2021. The Director, rather than the Administrative Appeals Office, should make the first 
determination as to whether or not the Beneficiary's 2018-2020 experience abroad as risk and 
compliance manager was in a qualifying capacity. 
For the reasons listed above, we will remand this matter for the Director to consider whether the 
Beneficiary's employment abroad from December 2018 to February 2020, and his intended position 
in the United States, meet the requirements of an executive capacity. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3