remanded L-1A Case: Textile Wholesale

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22706592 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV . 14, 2022 
The Petitioner, a wholesale distributor of yam-dyed fabric and shirts, seeks to continue the 
Beneficiary's temporary employment as its managing director 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 of the Texas Service Center denied the petition on two separate grounds, concluding that 
the record did not establish that (1) the Beneficiary had been employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity and (2) the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. The Petitioner subsequently filed an appeal, which we summarily dismissed 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). The record now reflects that the Petitioner timely submitted a 
brief and additional evidence in support of the appeal which had not been incorporated into the record 
of proceeding prior to the date of our summary dismissal decision. Accordingly, we have reopened 
the Petitioner's appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(5). 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361, Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of 
Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we will remand the 
matter to the Director for further consideration and entry of a new decision. 
While the Petitioner's appeal was pending, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
updated the USCIS Policy Manual's guidance regarding deference to prior approvals. 2 USCIS Policy 
Manual A.4(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov /policy-manual; see also USCIS Policy Alert, PA-2021-05, 
Deference to Prior Determinations of Eligibility in Requests for Extensions of Petition Validity (Apr. 
27, 2021 ), https:/ /www.uscis.gov/sites/default/fi les/document/policy-manual -updates/20210427-
Deference.pdf. As noted by the Petitioner, this petition is an extension request in the same 
nonimmigrant classification, previously approved by USCIS, and filed by the same petitioner and for 
the same position. 1 Therefore, it is directly impacted by this USCIS guidance. As such, we find it 
1 The record reflects that the initial L-IA petition was denied based on a determination that the Petitioner did not establish 
appropriate to remand the matter to the Director to consider the extension request anew and to consider 
the deference guidance in the first instance. 
With respect to the Director's adverse determination regarding the Beneficiary's employment abroad, 
we note that, given the prior approval and the current USCIS policy guidance, only new material 
information would warrant reversal of the AAO's previous determination that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a qualifying capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding the filing 
of the initial L-1 A petition. If the Director intends to issue a new adverse determination with respect 
to this issue, he must advise the Petitioner of any new material information in a notice of intent to deny 
or request for evidence and provide it with an opportunity to respond. 
Regarding the proposed employment in the United States, in addition to applying the deference 
guidance in the USCIS Policy Memorandum, the Director is instructed to address the Petitioner's claim 
that the Beneficiary would be responsible for managing or directing an essential function of the 
organization, and its claim that personnel employed by Petitioner's Portuguese parent company 
perform operational and administrative activities that support the U.S. company. Neither of these 
claims was acknowledged in the Director's decision or sufficiently addressed in the RFE. However, 
the record as presently constituted contains insufficient evidence of the Petitioner's staffing at the time 
of filing, and the Director's decision, which was limited to a brief discussion of the Beneficiary's U.S. 
job duties, did not put the Petitioner on notice of this deficiency. An officer must fully explain the 
reasons for denying a visa petition 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). 
USCIS reviews the totality of the evidence when examining the claimed managerial or executive 
capacity of a beneficiary, including the company's organizational structure, the duties of a 
beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to relieve a beneficiary from 
performing operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that will contribute to 
understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. If a petitioner claims that a 
beneficiary will manage an essential function, it must clearly describe the duties to be performed in 
managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that "(l) the function is 
a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is 'essential,' i.e., core to the organization; (3) the 
beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the function; (4) the beneficiary will act at 
a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and (5) the 
beneficiary will exercise discretion over the function's day-to-day operations." Matter of G- Inc., 
Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
Here, the record raises questions regarding whether the Beneficiary had sufficient support staff, in the 
U.S. or abroad, to relieve him from performing the non-managerial and non-executive tasks associated 
with the function that he is claimed to manage or direct. We note that when the Petitioner filed its 
that the Beneficiary was employed abroad, or would be employed in the United States, in a managerial or executive 
capacity. The AAO sustained the Petitioner's appeal and the prior petition was approved. See Matter of S-A- Jnc. (AAO 
Oct. 19, 2018) 
2 
initial L-lA petition, it indicated that the company would employ six U.S.-based staff (including two 
subordinate market managers) almost immediately upon the Beneficiary's transfer to the United 
States. The approval of the initial petition was based, in part, on this evidence. Based on the 
statements and evidence submitted in support of this extension request, it is unclear that the Petitioner 
ever maintained a staff of six employees. Further, although the Petitioner indicated at the time of 
filing that it had two employees, a statement from the Beneficiary, submitted in support of the appeal, 
suggests that the company had no employees on its payroll in 2020 when this petition was filed. 
Therefore, it appears that there may have been a material change in staffing levels that needs to be 
addressed before a determination can be made regarding deference to the prior approval. 
The Petitioner also claims to rely on staff employed by its foreign parent company, but the record 
lacks updated evidence of the foreign entity's ongoing employment of these staff and the nature and 
scope of the specific services they provide to the U.S. subsidiary. While an employee who directs or 
manages an essential function is not required to directly supervise subordinate staff, the Petitioner 
must still establish that someone other than the Beneficiary is available to perform the operational and 
administrative tasks associated with the function. As noted, the Director's analysis of the 
Beneficiary's U.S. employment focused almost entirely on his job description. The Director did not 
sufficiently address the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary would manage or direct an essential 
function, and did not advise the Petitioner of evidentiary deficiencies with respect to its documentation 
of the U.S. and foreign-based staff who are claimed to perform the majority of the administrative and 
operational tasks for the petitioning company. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Director is instructed to review the record in its entirety and to issue a 
new request for evidence or notice of intent to deny, addressing the issues discussed above, prior to 
issuing a new decision. 
ORDER: The decision of the Administrative Appeals Office is withdrawn. The matter is 
remanded to the Director of the Texas Service Center for the entry of a new decision 
consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3