sustained L-1A Case: Health/Scientific Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8774488 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: WL Y 14, 2020 
The Petitioner, describing itself as "a health/scientific research/sale business," sought to continue the 
Beneficiary's temporary employment as its president and chief executive officer under the L-lA 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L). 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center approved the petition, but later revoked the approval 
following the issuance of a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR). The Director concluded that the 
Beneficiary was no longer employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States. The 
Petitioner later appealed this decision and we remanded the matter for entry of a new decision. The 
Director again issued a decision determining that the Petitioner did not overcome the previous grounds 
for revocation. The matter is now before us again on appeal. 
Upon de nova review, we conclude that the record now contains sufficient evidence to overcome the 
grounds for revocation . In withdrawing the Director's initial decision and remanding the matter, we 
stated that the Director did not sufficiently review the totality of the evidence or explain how it 
concluded that the Beneficiary was not, and would not, act in a managerial or executive capacity. 
Specifically, we noted that the Director should have reviewed the Petitioner 's organizational structure, 
the duties of the Beneficiary 's subordinates , the nature of the business, as well as other evidence; such 
as its organizational chart, staffing levels, subordinate duty descriptions , payroll records, or other 
relevant evidence. In affirming the revocation in a later decision, the Director stated that the Petitioner 
had "four (5) [sic] workers including the beneficiary; " and as a result, did "not have the organizational 
complexity to support the managerial or executive position for the beneficiary and guarantee that the 
beneficiary is relieved from primarily performing menial tasks associated with a small scale sales 
operation." 
First, we find that the Director did not sufficiently analyze of the Petitioner's organizational structure 
and the other supporting evidence on the record. For instance, the Director only generically stated that 
the Petitioner had four or five employees and did not discuss these subordinates , their duties, or any 
of the other specific supporting documentation on the record. Further, the supporting documentation 
submitted in response to the Director's NOIR in November 2017 indicated that the Petitioner had more 
than four or five employees. In fact, the Petitioner provided state employer's quarterly wage and 
payroll documentation reflecting that it had nine employees in place in November 2017. 
Upon review of the entire record, we conclude that the Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to 
establish that the Beneficiary more likely than not acted, and would act, in an executive capacity. The 
Petitioner submitted a credible and detailed duty description for the Beneficiary and substantial 
supporting evidence indicating that her subordinates were relieving her from primarily performing 
non-qualifying operational tasks as of the time of the NOIR response. The evidence credibly 
demonstrates that the Beneficiary's subordinates, with support from its Brazilian parent company, 
allowed her to primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the Petitioner company rather than 
the day-to-day operations of the enterprise and that she had wide latitude in discretionary decision 
making over the organization. Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
As such, the totality of the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary more likely than not was acting 
in an executive capacity when the Petitioner responded to the Director's NOIR; therefore, we will 
withdraw the Director's revocation of the approved petition. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2