remanded L-1A Case: Oil And Gas Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25551641 
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 : FEB. 14, 2023 
The Petitioner describes itself as an oil and gas engineering services operation. It seeks to continue 
the Beneficiary's temporary employment as "president" 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 Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for consideration and entry of a new 
decision consistent with the following analysis. 
The record indicates that the Petitioner previously filed a new office petition, which was approved for 
one year. 2 A petitioner seeking to extend an L-lA petition that involved a new office is subject to 
specific provisions that are enumerated in 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(1)(14)(ii). Although some provisions are 
common to new office and non-new office extensions, certain provisions are unique to the filing of a 
new office extension, such as evidence that the petitioner had been doing business for the previous 
year, 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 
1 The record indicates that the Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary 's behalf , and that 
petition was approved for the one-year period from July 17, 2019, until July 16, 2020. 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. 
2 The Petitioner responded "yes" in Section I, Item 12 of the L Classification Supplement , when asked whether the 
Beneficiary is coming to the United States to open a new office . However , there is no provision in USCIS regulations that 
allows for a petitioner to extend this one-year period as a new office. Because the Petitioner's prior petition was under the 
new office designation, the Petitioner cannot file a second new office petition . It is unclear whether they checked the new 
office petition box in attempt to reflect an extension of a new office petition. 
positions held along with evidence of wages paid to employees when the beneficiary will be employed 
in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
However, in the denial, the Director did not acknowledge that the Petitioner's prior filing was for a 
new office, nor did the Director cite the regulations that apply when a petitioner seeks an extension of 
a previously filed new office petition. 3 Rather, the Director cites to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3), which 
applies to any individual petition that is not either a new office or new office extensions. Because the 
Director did not cite the applicable regulations for a new office extension or apply those regulations 
to the facts in this matter, the Director's decision cannot be affirmed based on this deficiency. 
Notwithstanding the Director's error, the record does not indicate that sufficient evidence was 
provided to demonstrate that the Beneficiary would perform primarily managerial or executive duties 
or that the Petitioner has the capacity to relieve the Beneficiary from having to perform primarily 
operational tasks under an approved new office extension petition. The Director must review the 
petition and evidence and determine whether the Petitioner has established eligibility within the 
context of the applicable regulations. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3 In the Petitioner's initial supporting statement, the Petitioner referred to the prior petition as "the initial request for an L­
1A visa," and the current petition lists the one-year approval period which is consistent with a new office filing. 
2