remanded L-1A Case: Printer Sales And Import

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF X-C-USA T- CORP 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 20,2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an importer and seller of large tonnat printers, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's 
temporary employment as its general manager under the L-IA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. 1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section I 01 (a)(I5)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § II Ol(a)(IS)(L). The L-1 A classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including 
its a11iliate 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 Petitioner did not 
·establish, as required, that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity under 
the extended petition. 
On appeaL the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director's decision to deny 
the petition was based on a number of factual errors and should be overturned for that reason. 
Upon de novo review of the record, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter 
for further proceedings consistent with our discussion pel ow. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A 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 101(a)(IS)(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. !d. 
1 
The Petitioner previously filed a "'new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
August 3, 2016, until August 2, 2017. A ·'new office'' is an orgar)ization that has been doing business in the United 
States through a parenl. 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. 
ivfaller ofX-C- USA T- Cmp 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-1 A 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 statling 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 benel1ciary's foreign employer. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii). This evidence must demonstrate that the beneficiary \Viii be employed in 
a managerial or executive capacity, as defined at sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act, under 
the extended petition. 
II. ANAL YSlS 
When denying a petition, a director has an affirmative duty to explain the specific reasons for the 
denial: this duty includes informing a petitioner why the evidence did not satisfy its burden of proof 
pursuant to section 291 of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Maller ofM-P-, 20 l&N Dec. 
786 (BlA 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). 
We agree with the Petitioner that the Director's decision contains a number of factual errors and 
indicates that the Director overlooked evidence that was material to the Beneficiary's eligibility. As 
a result, the record does not support the Director's specil1c reasons for the denial, and the Petitioner 
was not provided with a meaningful analysis of its evidence to serve as a basis for its appeal. 
The Director noted that the Petitioner did not submit a position description for the Benel1ciary at the 
time of tiling, but overlooked a lengthy description of the Beneficiary's duties submitted as exhibit 
22 with the initial supporting evidence. The job description that the Director ultimately analyzed in 
the denial decision, provided in response to a request for evidence (RFE), is not the Beneficiary's job 
description but one belonging to a subordinate employee. Therefore, the Director's decision is not 
based in any part on an analysis of the Beneficiary's stated job duties. 
Further, the Director partially described the Petitioner's organizational chart in the decision, and 
concluded that the Beneficiary would supervise only one employee. However, the Petitioner's 
organizational chart and supporting evidence submitted at the time of tiling and in response to the 
RFE showed that the company has four employees subordinate to the Beneficiary, and the decision 
does not appear to be based on a complete review of this relevant evidence. Accordingly, the 
Director's decision is withdrawn. 
However, the record as presently constituted contains insufficient evidence to show that the 
Beneficiary is eligible for the bene lit sought. The job description that the Petitioner submitted at the 
time of tiling, while lengthy, was very broad and did not describe the Beneficiary's actual day-to­
day duties within the context of the Petitioner's business. Although the Petitioner submits additional 
information regarding the Beneficiary's duties on appeal, this description bears little resemblance to 
the one provided at the time of tiling, and the record does not include a consistent and detailed 
account of the Beneficiary's specific duties at the end of the first year of operations. 
2 
.
Maller of X-C-USA T- Corp 
We have also compared the company's first-ye ar staffi ng plan (described in the Petition er's business 
plan) to its actual organizational structure at the end of the first year of ope ratio ns. The sta fling plan 
indicat es that the Petitioner intended to hire a vice mana ger, an impo rt-export manage r, a sales 
manage r, a technician, and an accountant during its initial year of operatio ns. The Petitioner 
indicate s that it has staffed the positions of sa les-marketing manager, e-co mme rce manager, sales 
representativ e, and senior technician, but has not explained who is performi ng import -expo rt or 
accounting functions. 
The Petiti oner indicated that it was in the proce ss of filling additional posi tions and submitted copies 
of job postings from lndeed .com. The job posting s - for a technical support spec ialist, a senior sales 
representa tive, and an e-commerce specialist - were quite detailed, but the job dutie s listed for these 
proposed positions were not consistent with the sta ted nature of the Petitioner 's business. Thi s 
evidence raises questions as to whether has provid ed a complete descrip tio n of the natur e and scope 
of its business. For ~xampl e, the Petitioner states that it imports and se lls large format printer s and 
provided evidence related to this type of busin ess act ivity. Howev er, the job post ing for its senior 
sales representative positi on which states , "Jo in the market leader in t he corporate and educatio n 
mark ets !", makes no referen ce to printer s or printin g, and suggests that the Petitioner is engaged in a 
different indu stry. The · Petitioner also indicat es that it operate s its e-co mm erce department under the 
!1ctitious name ' ' but it has not submitt ed ev idence related to this area of the business 
beyond the fictitious name certi!lcatc. 
We are remanding this matter so that the Director can properly make the initial determina tion on the 
issue of the Beneficiary's employment in a managerial or executive capacity after a thoroug h rev iew 
and analysi s of the Petiti one r's ev idence. The Director should reques t any additional ev idence 
deemed warranted and allow the Petitioner to submit such evid ence within a rea sonable period of 
time. 
ORDER : The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded fo r further 
proceedings con siste nt with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Maller (~(X-C-USAT- Corp. ID# 1091365 (AAO Mar. 20, 2018) 
3