sustained L-1A Case: Information Technology

. . . ~ 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF W- LTD. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 20, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology services business, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's 
temporary employment as its senor program manager under the L- I A nonimmigrant classification 
.for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101 (a)(l S)(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 executi~e capacity. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center revoked the approval of the petition, determining that 
the Petitioner did not establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial 
or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by revoking the approval based on the 
Petitioner's failure to file an amended petition when it assigned the Beneficiary to a new work 
location. 
Upon de novo review of the record, we will withdraw the Director's decision and sustain the appeal. 
The Director initially approved the petition for a two-year period in March 2016, but later issued a 
notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) after U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) attempt 
to verify the Beneficiary's employment through an administrative site visit was deemed 
unsuccessful. 1 In response to the NOIR, the Petitioner submitted additional evidence to support its 
claim that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity when the petition was filed, and at 
the time of the site visit in 20 I 6. The Petitioner also informed the Director that the Beneficiary had 
been transferred to work as a program manager at a different client worksite in February 2017. 
In the revocation decision, the Director acknowledged the change in worksite, noted that the 
Petitioner had not filed an amended petition, and emphasized that the Petitioner cannot .make 
1 As part of the administrative site visit to the worksite address provided on the petition, an immigration officer was able 
to speak to the Beneficiary's supervisor, interview the Beneficiary by phone, and collect additional documentation from 
the Beneficiary by e-mail. However, the officer was unable to speak to or otherwise contact the Petitioner's signatory on 
the Form 1-129. 
Matter of W- Ltd 
material changes to the petition to cure deficiencies. The Director treated the Beneficiary's new 
work location as an unresolved inconsistency and noted that it remained unclear where the 
Beneficiary would be working. As such, the Director concluded that it is "not evident the 
beneficiary is currently employed in a managerial position pursuant to the terms and conditions" of 
the approved petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the revocation was improperly based on its failure to file an 
amended petition at the time it transferred the Beneficiary to a new U.S. worksite. We agree with 
the Petitioner that neither the statute, regulations, nor USC IS policy expressly require an L- I 
employer to file an amended petition in every instance where a beneficiary is transferred to a new 
worksite to perform similar duties for the same employer. 2 Such determinations must be made on a 
case-by-case basis, and, based on the facts presented here, we agree with the Petitioner that the 
change in client assignment and worksite did not affect the Beneficiary's eligibility for this 
classification. The re-assignment did not warrant the filing of an amended petition, nor did it 
represent a material change or an attempt to cure deficiencies present in the original filing. 
After reviewing the totality of the evidence, we find that the Petitioner established that the 
Beneficiary was and continued to be employed in a managerial capacity as defined at section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. The initial evidence and response to the NOIR contain evidence that the 
Beneficiary supervised a team of subordinate professionals, exercised discretion over the day-to-day 
activities of a transformation program carried out for a key client, and performed primarily 
managerial duties at the time of filing and at the time of the site visit. Further, although the 
Petitioner subsequently re-assigned the Beneficiary to a new worksite, the record shows that he 
would continue to perform essentially the same duties for the duration of the petition's original 
validity. As such, we find that the approvai' of the petition was improperly revoked. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Maller qfW- Lid., ID# 1735950 (AAO Nov. 20, 2018) 
2 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(7)(i)(C) states: 
The petitioner shall file an amended petition, with fee, at the service center where the original petition 
was filed to reflect changes in approved relationships, additional qualifying organizations under a 
blanket petition, change in capacity of employment (i.e. from a specialized knowledge position to a 
managerial position), or any information which would affect the beneficiary's eligibility under section 
IO I (a)( I 5)(L) of the Act. 
2