remanded L-1A

remanded L-1A Case: Real Estate

๐Ÿ“… Date unknown ๐Ÿ‘ค Company ๐Ÿ“‚ Real Estate

Decision Summary

The appeal was remanded because the Director incorrectly applied the 'new office' regulatory provisions, as the petitioner had been operating for over a year. Furthermore, the AAO identified credibility issues due to inconsistencies between the beneficiary's prior visa application and the petition documents regarding her role at the foreign entity.

Criteria Discussed

Managerial Or Executive Capacity New Office Requirements Qualifying Employment Abroad

Sign up free to download the original PDF

View Full Decision Text
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF LWI-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 14,2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
~ . 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a real estate developer, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its president 
under the L-1A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. ยง 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-1A 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 Petitioner did 
not submit sufficient evidence to establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in the United States 
in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of commencing its U.S. operation as a new 
office. The Director relied on the regulatory provisions at 8 C.F.R. ยง 214.2(1)(3)(v), which pertain to 
a beneficiary who is coming to the United States to open or to be employed in a new office. 1 
However, the record shows that when filing the petition, the Petitioner responded "No" when asked 
whether the beneficiary would be coming to the United States to open a new office.
2 
Therefore, the 
Petitioner did not file the Form 1-129 seeking treatment as a new office. The record also contains 
evidence showing that the Petitioner was established in August 2015 and therefore was not a new 
office in October 2016 when the petition was filed. 
As the Director applied an incorrect regulatory provision when making the determination regarding 
the Beneficiary's proposed position with the Petitioner, we will withdraw the Director's decision and 
remand the matter for a new decision. 
In addition, we find that additional evidence is necessary to overcome inconsistencies regarding the 
Beneficiary's employment with the foreign entity. Namely, in the course of verifying the 
Petitioner's claims, we reviewed U.S. Department of State records which show that, in the 
Beneficiary's application for a B 1 /B2 nonimmigrant visa, filed in May 20 15, the Beneficiary stated 
that her position with the foreign employer was that of an administrative department manager. This 
information is inconsistent with the Beneficiary's resume and the foreign entity's organizational 
1 The term "new office" is defined as 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. ยง 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(F). 
2 
See Section 1, No. 12, Form 1-129, L Classification Supplement. 
Matter of LWI-, Inc. 
chart, both of which the Petitioner offered as supporting evidence. According to the Beneficiary's 
resume, the Beneficiary has been employed as the foreign entity's "Deputy General Manager" since 
2013. The foreign entity's organizational chart also depicts the Beneficiary in the position of 
"Deputy General Manager" further showing that the Beneficiary oversees three employees, 
including a "Director of Administration," who in' turn oversees the manager of administration, the 
same position the Beneficiary claimed in her 2015 nonimmigrant visa application. In light of this 
information, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner's claims regarding the Beneficiary's 
employment with the foreign entity are credible. 
Accordingly, we hereby withdraw the Director's decision and remand this matter for further 
consideration and entry of a new decision. The Director should request any additional evidence 
deemed necessary to determine the Petitioner's eligibility and allow the Petitioner to submit such 
evidence within a reasonable period of time. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter of LWI-, Inc., ID# 432777 (AAO June 14, 20 17) 
2 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Draft your L-1A petition with AAO precedents

MeritDraft uses real AAO decisions to generate compliant petition arguments tailored to your evidence.

Sign Up Free →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.