sustained L-1A Case: Oil Production

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-1- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG . 26, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in research and development of equipment in the oil production 
industry, seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as its "Chairman/President" under the L-lA 
nonirnmigrant classification for intracompany transferees . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 101(a)(15)(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 executive capacity . 
The Director of the California 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 . 
On appeal, the Petitioner highlights the Beneficiary's respective positions within the foreign and U.S . 
organizations, pointing to its staff of management teams and engineering professionals, which it claims 
is sufficient to elevate the Beneficiary to the "top executive" position within each entity's 
organizational hierarchy. It also asserts that the Director did not adequately contemplate the 
Beneficiary's job duties, which it claims are essential to and are indicative of his control over both 
entities . 
Upon de nova review, we find that the Director did not adequately consider the Petitioner's claims and 
supporting evidence, which includes descriptions of the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed job duties, 
and offers sufficient insight into the Beneficiary's foreign and proposed employment. The record 
indicates that the U.S. and foreign entities are adequately staffed with managers and professional 
engineering employees and that the Beneficiary has and would continue to operate within the context 
of these developed hierarchies where he has been and would be relieved from primarily engaging in 
operational job duties. We also find that the Director incorrectly applied the statutory definition of 
managerial capacity to the Beneficiary's subordinates by asserting that the Beneficiary "must have 
directed managers, who then supervised and controlled the work of supervisory, professional or 
managerial employees . ... " (Emphasis added .) 
In sum, we find that the Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence that establishes by a preponderance 
of the evidence that the Beneficiary was and would more likely than not be employed in an executive 
Matter of G-I- LLC 
capacity in his respective positions with the foreign and U.S. entities. In light of these findings, we 
will sustain the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of G-I- LLC, ID# 4678063 (AAO Aug. 26, 2019) 
2