remanded L-1A Case: Systems Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7632214 
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 : MAR. 3, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its international systems manager under 
the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-lA 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 denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary (a) 
was employed abroad in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity; (b) was qualified 
to perform the intended services in the United States; and ( c) would be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity in the United States . 
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 novo review , we will withdraw the Director's 
decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA 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)(15)(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. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner stated on the petition that the Beneficiar: had been em[ loved as an international 
business manager with its affiliate,! , ,I in I Venezuela , from 
September 12, 2011 , until the date the petition was filed on December 18, 2018. It plans to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary in Puerto Rico in the position of international systems manager. With the 
petition, the Petitioner submitted numerous supporting exhibits, including documents relating to the 
qualifying relationship between the Petitioner and its foreign affiliate; corporate and financial 
documents of the Petitioner; corporate and financial documents of the foreign affiliate; documents 
relating to the Beneficiary's position abroad and his proposed position in Puerto Rico; and documents 
relating to the Beneficiary. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) dated December 31, 2018, requesting evidence 
related to the Beneficiary's position abroad. However, when detailing the evidence that it found 
deficient in the record, it quoted the Petitioner's description of Beneficiary's proposed duties in the 
United States rather than the foreign affiliate's description of his duties in Venezuela. It is not clear 
from the RFE that the Director reviewed any of the evidence submitted with the petition regarding the 
Beneficiary's duties abroad. The first RFE did not request any information about the Beneficiary's 
proposed position in Puerto Rico or his qualifications for that position. The Petitioner's March 2019 
response to the first RFE included two letters from the Beneficiary's foreign employer abroad detailing 
the Beneficiary's duties and the duties he delegates to his subordinates; two foreign organizational 
charts; and a list of employees and subcontractors under the Beneficiary's supervision abroad showing 
the job title, education level, salary, and job duties of each position. 
In a second RFE dated March 13, 2019, the Director indicated that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) records show that the Beneficiary was unlawfully present in the United States at the 
time of filing on December 18, 2018. He requested evidence to establish that the Beneficiary was 
lawfully present in the United States on that date. The RFE did not request any information about the 
Beneficiary's position abroad, his qualifications, or his proposed position in Puerto Rico. In a May 
2019 response to the second RFE, the Petitioner submitted a letter dated April 24, 2019, from the 
Beneficiary and additional evidence showing that he was in Venezuela on December 18, 2018. 
The Director's decision covered three issues. First, under the heading "Position Abroad," the Director 
discussed the Petitioner's initial description of the proposed US. position and its May 2019 response 
to the second RFE. The Director concluded that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 1 However, his 
analysis included inapplicable descriptions of the Beneficiary's proposed duties in Puerto Rico and 
did not reflect that he considered evidence of the Beneficiary's position in Venezuela in its totality, 
including evidence submitted by the Petitioner in response to the first RFE. The Beneficiary's actual 
duties abroad were not analyzed in any meaningful way to support the conclusions reached. An officer 
must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in order to allow the Petitioner a fair 
opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 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). Beyond the required description of the job 
duties, the Director should also have reviewed the foreign entity's organizational structure, the duties 
of the Beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to relieve him from 
performing operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other evidence submitted regarding 
the Beneficiary's position abroad. There is no discussion of the foreign entity's organizational charts, 
1 On appeal, the Petitioner asse1is that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity. 
2 
staffing levels, employee job descriptions, or other evidence submitted to establish that the foreign 
entity had sufficient staff to relieve the Beneficiary from involvement in its day-to-day operations. 
Second, under the heading "Beneficiary Qualifications," the Director discussed the Petitioner's initial 
description of the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. position; its May 2019 response to the second RFE; 
and the Director's first RFE requesting additional evidence of the Beneficiary's position abroad. In 
describing the first RFE, the Director's decision is incomplete and is missing content. 2 Further, the 
Director concluded that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary was "employed abroad in a 
position that was managerial, executive, or involved managerial, or executive experience." However, 
his analysis does not reflect that he reviewed the correct issue relating to the Beneficiary's 
qualifications for the proposed job, precluding a fair opportunity to contest the decision and 
meaningful appellate review. See id. 
Third, under the heading "Not a Manager or Executive in the United States," the Director discussed 
the Petitioner's initial description of the proposed U.S. position and its May 2019 response to the 
second RFE. In describing the RFE, the Director's decision is incomplete and is missing content. 3 
The Director concluded that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in 
the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 4 However, his analysis did not reflect that he 
considered the evidence in its totality, precluding a fair opportunity to contest the decision and 
meaningful appellate review. See id. The Beneficiary's actual duties were not fully analyzed to 
support the conclusions reached. Further, beyond the description of the job duties, the Director should 
have also reviewed the Petitioner's organizational structure, the duties of the Beneficiary's subordinate 
employees, the presence of other employees to relieve him from performing operational duties, the 
nature of the business, and any other evidence submitted to support the Petitioner's claims. There is 
no discussion of the evidence the Petitioner submitted to establish that it had sufficient staff to relieve 
the Beneficiary from involvement in its day-to-day operations. 
Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for issuance of a new 
decision, which should take into account and fully discuss the totality of the evidence submitted to the 
record. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2 It states "USCTS informed you at the time that the evidence was insufficient because:" but does not provide the reasons 
that the evidence was insufficient. 
3 It states "USCIS informed you at the time that the evidence was insufficient because:" but does not provide the reasons 
that the evidence was insufficient. 
4 On appeal, the Petitioner asse1is that the Beneficiary will be employed in Puerto Rico in a managerial capacity. 
3