remanded L-1A Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 17291883 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: May 27, 2021 
The Petitioner, a software company engaged in the development of identity verification and 
information gathering technologies, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its "Project 
Manager" under the L-1 A noniimnigrant classification for intracompany transferees who are coming 
to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101 (a)(l 5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(l 5)(L). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity . The 
matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1361. 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. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A non immigrant 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)( l 5)(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). 
II. BENEFICIARY'S EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
The record reflects that the Petitioner's Russian affiliate has employed the Beneficiary since 2017 in 
the position of "development team manager /software engineer." The Director denied the petition 
based on a determination that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has been employed 
abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the previously submitted evidence was sufficient to establish that 
the Beneficiary has been employed in a managerial capacity as defined at section 101 (a)( 44)(A) of the 
Act, and also submits additional evidence in support of that claim. The Petitioner further maintains 
that it has consistently claimed that the Beneficiary's position abroad is in a capacity that involves 
specialized knowledge as defined at section 214( c )(2)(B) of the Act, based on his leadership of the 
development of the company's core products. The Petitioner contends that the Director's decision 
does not acknowledge or address its specialized knowledge claim and emphasizes that the statute, 
regulations and pertinent caselaw permit a Beneficiary to be transferred from a position involving 
specialized knowledge to a managerial or executive position in the United States. 
Upon review, the record supports the Petitioner's assertion that the Director did not consider its claim 
that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a capacity involving specialized knowledge. In at 
least one of its supp01iing letters, the Petitioner specifically referenced the regulatory definition of 
specialized knowledge at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(D) and stated that the Beneficiary "possesses 
specialized knowledge and is qualified to hold a managerial position." Because the Director did not 
address the specialized knowledge claim made by the Petitioner, we will withdraw the Director's 
decision and remand the matter for further review and entry of a new decision. 
On remand, the Director should consider the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary's employment 
abroad as a development team manager/software engineer involves specialized knowledge as defined 
in the statute and regulations and allow the Petitioner an opportunity to submit additional evidence in 
support of this claim. The request for evidence issued prior to the denial of the was limited to evidence 
that would be needed to establish the Beneficiary's employment in a managerial capacity. 
As noted, the Petitioner also offers additional evidence on appeal in supp01i of its claim that the 
Beneficiary's employment abroad is in a managerial capacity, including evidence of educational 
credentials for some of his claimed subordinates. As the matter will be remanded, the Director should 
consider this evidence when issuing a new decision. 
The Director should also request that the Petitioner address inconsistencies in the record regarding the 
nature of the Beneficiary's duties. A letter from the foreign entity's director provides a breakdown of 
the Beneficiary's position abroad, indicating that he spends 15% of his time reporting to the company 
president, a total of 60% of his time on supervisory and project management tasks, and the remainder 
of his time leading peer reviews. However, the Petitioner also submitted a copy of the Beneficiary's 
resume as supporting evidence. The Beneficiary indicates that his duties for the foreign entity include: 
designing, building, and maintaining business applications for PC and Mobile; building separate 
components and libraries for Android, Windows and Linux platforms; researching and building 
components for OCR including traditional computer vision algorithms and RNN; developing and 
optimizing algorithms for processing video streams for Android and Web platforms; developing 
program components for secure company intellectual property; writing unit and regression tests; code 
review; and writing documentation and providing technical support. 
While all submitted descriptions indicate that the Beneficiary leads a team of software developers, his 
own account of his job duties indicates that he also participates in direct, hands-on product 
development, documentation, testing and support activities alongside the company's other software 
developers. These duties are notably absent from the Petitioner's description of duties provided in 
2 
response to the RFE. The descriptions of the Beneficiary's duties are inconsistent and therefore cast 
doubt on the accuracy and completeness of the Petitioner's breakdown of how he allocates his time. 
See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies 
of record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies). 
If supported by the record, the Director may notify the Petitioner of any other potential grounds of 
denial. The Director should afford the company a reasonable opportunity to respond to all issues 
raised on remand. Upon receipt of a timely response, the Director should review the entire record and 
issue a new decision. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3