sustained L-1A Case: Industrial Lubricants

' identifybgQrrM6a 
prevent claa ummsrmted 
igvasiondpcosoaalprivacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20536 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 07 240 541 39 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: FEB 2 0 2008 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l 5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, hief 
w 
'\ Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 07 240 54 139 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The decision of the director will be 
withdrawn, and the appeal will be sustained. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as its plant manager as 
an L- 1 A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws 
of the State of Michigan and is a manufacturer of specialty industrial lubricants. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was 
employed abroad in an executive or managerial capacity for one continuous year within the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner asserts ,that the director erred and that 
the beneficiary was employed abroad in either a managerial or specialized knowledge capacity. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one 
continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States. 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, executive, or 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form L129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) 
 Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the 
alien are qualifiing organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) 
 Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 
(iii) 
 Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of hll-time employment abroad 
with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of the petition. 
(iv) 
 Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies himlher to perform the intended services 
in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the same work 
which the alien performed abroad. 
WAC 07 240 54139 
Page 3 
Section 10 l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1 101 (a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) 
 manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of 
the organization; 
(ii) 
 supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees, or manages an essential function within the organization, or a department 
or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) 
 if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the authority to 
hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions (such as 
promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly supervised, 
functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the 
function managed; and 
(iv) 
 exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function for 
which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is not considered to be 
acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory 
duties unless the employees supervised are professional. 
Upon review, the AAO concludes that the petitioner established that the beneficiary was employed abroad for at 
least one year in a managerial capacity, and the director's decision will be withdrawn. The petitioner established 
that the beneficiary, the holder of a diplome d'ingenieur fiom the School of Chemistry, Physics, and Electronics 
of Lyon, France, was employed abroad by the foreign employer in two capacities within the past three years. 
From January 2003 until March 2006, the beneficiary was employed as manager of the foreign employer's 
industrial lubricants and engineering laboratory. In that capacity, the beneficiary managed both the laboratory 
and its staff consisting of six persons, including professional employees. Begnning in April 2006, the beneficiary 
became employed as the powder production unit plant manager. In that capacity, the beneficiary managed a 
subordinate tier of shift supervisors who, in turn, supervised subordinate workers. The beneficiary supervised, 
directly or indirectly, a total of 26 workers in France in his last assignment. 
Consequently, the petitioner has established that the beneficiary managed a subdivision of the foreign employer, 
supervised and controlled the work of other supervisory andlor professional workers, had authority over his 
subordinates, and exercised sufficient discretion over the operations of the activity for which the beneficiary had 
authority. Furthermore, it does not appear as if the beneficiary was a first-line supervisor of non-professional 
workers. 
Therefore, the petitioner has established that the beneficiary was employed abroad for at least one year in a 
managerial capacity, and the director's decision will be withdrawn.' 
1 
While counsel on appeal asserts that the beneficiary was also employed abroad in a capacity involving 
specialized knowledge, it is noted that the petitioner failed to identify any special or advanced body of 
knowledge which would distinguish the beneficiary's role from that of other similarly experienced workers 
* 
WAC 07 240 54139 
Page 4 
Accordingly, the director's decision will be withdrab, and the appeal will be sustained. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
employed by the petitioning organization or in the industry at large. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)).