remanded L-1A

remanded L-1A Case: Software Engineering

๐Ÿ“… Date unknown ๐Ÿ‘ค Company ๐Ÿ“‚ Software Engineering

Decision Summary

The Director denied the petition, concluding the petitioner did not establish the beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity, citing generic job descriptions for subordinates and an insufficient organizational structure. The AAO found that the Director incorrectly applied the definition of managerial capacity to the beneficiary's subordinates. The matter was remanded for a new decision based on a proper review of the evidence and legal standards.

Criteria Discussed

Executive Capacity Managerial Capacity Organizational Structure Subordinate Roles

Sign up free to download the original PDF

View Full Decision Text
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 16314566 
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 : APR. 14, 2021 
The Petitioner, a software engineering and data storage company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as its "Chief Executive Officer" under the L-lA nonirnrnigrant classification for 
intracornpany transferees who are corning to be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
ยง 110l(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. The Director's analysis focused on the Beneficiary's subordinates, finding that 
their job descriptions were "rather brief and generic" and did not include "tasks that are primarily 
managerial in nature." The Director also noted that the Beneficiary's subordinates have no 
subordinates of their own and that the Petitioner therefore did not demonstrate that its organizational 
structure is sufficient to elevate the Beneficiary to an executive-level position. 1 The Director 
concluded that "[f]or the foregoing reasons," the Petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the instant petition warrants approval and reiterates its original 
claim, that the Beneficiary has been and would be employed in an executive capacity. 
Upon de nova review, we conclude that the Director incorrectly assigned elements of the definition of 
managerial capacity to the Beneficiary's subordinates. 2 Because the Director did not properly review 
the evidence and provided an analysis inconsistent with regulatory criteria, we cannot affirm the 
denial. Instead, we will remand the matter for further proceedings where the Director shall consider 
the relevant facts within the scope of applicable legal standards. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further proceedings 
consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
1 The Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity . 
2 See sections lOl(a)( 44)(A) and (B) of the Act, requiring a petitioner to establish that the beneficiary of the visa petition 
meet the statutory criteria of managerial or executive capacity. 
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.