sustained L-1A Case: Home Decor And Lighting Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6396745 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for L-IA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 24, 2020 
The Petitioner, intending to operate as a home decor and lighting design company, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as the business development manager of its new office I under the L-IA 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(l5)(L) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-IA 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 California Service Center denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner leased 
office space that would not accommodate its future staff and that the Beneficiary's subordinates "are 
primarily doing tasks to produce a product or service ." He therefore concluded that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that: (1) the Petitioner secured sufficient physical premises to house its 
business operation ; and (2) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity. The Director also concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary ' s 
employment in the United States would be in a managerial or executive position. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner emphasizes its status as a new office, indicating 
that the Director did not consider its nascent phase of operation and incorrectly determined that the 
Petitioner's current physical premises must accommodate a projected staff that had not been hired at 
the time of filing . The Petitioner argues that the Director overlooked previously submitted evidence , 
enumerating and describing earlier submissions that addressed the Petitioner's business plans , the 
Beneficiary's prospective executive role within the new business, and the Beneficiary ' s executive role 
and job duties in his position abroad as well as the respective job duty breakdowns and roles of the 
Beneficiary ' s subordinates who manage departments and the staff who carry out the operational tasks 
of those departments. 
Upon de nova review , we find that the Petitioner has correctly pointed to errors in the Director 's 
analysis , which did not consider the Petitioner's new office status or reference the applicable 
regulations to the submitted evidence . The Director also overlooked supporting evidence, which 
1 The term "new office " refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one year. 
8 C.F .R. § 214 .2(1)(1 )(ii)(F) . The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office " operation no more than 
one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position . 
includes job duty breakdowns for the Beneficiary and his subordinates in his position with the foreign 
entity, the Beneficiary's prospective role and job duties within the U.S. operation, and the office space 
that the Petitioner obtained to accommodate its current new operation. Although the Director 
discussed the Beneficiary's proposed employment in the United States, there is no indication that he 
applied the new office regulations, which allow the new business one year to support an executive 
pos1t10n.. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). Lastly, the Director incorrectly applied the statutory 
definition of managerial capacity to subordinate employees who are not subject to that statutory 
definition. 
In sum, we find that the Petitioner has met the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof and 
demonstrated that a denial was not warranted in the present matter. Therefore, we will sustain the 
appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2