sustained L-1A Case: Biopharmaceutical Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7051685 
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 : APR. 30, 2020 
The Petitioner is a biophannaceutical research company that seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as its president under the L-lA nonimmigrant 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. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United 
States in a managerial or executive capacity. The Director relied on findings that resulted from the 
Beneficiary's 2016 interview with a U.S. consulate officer, who determined that the Beneficiary 
provided statements that were inconsistent with claims made by the Petitioner regarding the 
Beneficiary's U.S. and foreign employment. The Director also determined that the Petitioner did not 
provide sufficient evidence establishing that the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed employment 
primarily involve supervision and control over supervisory, professional, or managerial subordinates. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the consular officer's findings as well as the grounds for denial, 
arguing that the Director focused primarily on the consular officer's findings and did not adequately 
contemplate previously submitted evidence, which included job descriptions for the Beneficiary and 
his subordinates, approvals from the U.S . Food and Drug Administration of the Petitioner's 
pharmaceutical products, the foreign entity's continued investment of sizable funds into the U.S. 
entity's research operation, and the organization's manufacturing, sales, and research facilities in 
China, Cambodia, and Singapore. The Petitioner also points to industry recognition of the foreign 
entity, its vaccine products, and the Beneficiary's top leadership role within the organization that has 
developed and advanced those products on a global scale, highlighting the Beneficiary's discretionary 
authority over managerial personnel and his direction of the organization's research projects. 
Upon de nova review, we find that the Petitioner provided sufficient supporting evidence to support 
its claims. Although we generally give deference to the Department of State's consular officers based 
on presumption of regularity, even with the consular memo on the record, the Petitioner has satisfied 
the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof. Therefore, we will sustain the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2