sustained L-1A Case: Smart Home Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-L- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 6. 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129. PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a supplier of smart home appliances and technological solutions for commercial and 
residential use, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as vice president of its new office
1 
under 
the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L). The L-1A 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 it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity 
within one year of the approval of the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not consider the totality of the evidence and 
did not apply the preponderance of the evidence standard to the facts presented. The Petitioner 
maintains that it submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the new office would support a 
managerial or executive position within one year. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification for a new office, a qualifying 
organization must have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity for one 
continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the 
United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). 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 or executive capacity. Section 101 (a)(IS)(L) of the 
Act. The petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and 
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. 
Malter ofT-L Corp. 
employment qualify him or her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3). 
The petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new ot1ice will be able to support a 
managerial or executive position within one year. This evidence must establish that the petitioner 
secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation and disclose the proposed nature and 
scope of the entity, its organizational structure, its financial goals, and the size of the U.S. 
investment. See generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
II. DISCUSSION 
The Petitioner is the U.S. subsidiary of a Chinese entity that holds a number of patents for smmi 
switches and other smart home appliances. The foreign entity has a North American department 
dedicated to designing products for the United States market and seeks to transfer the Beneficiary to 
the United States to oversee the development of the market. 
The Director found that the evidence did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity as defined at section 10l(a)(44) of the Act. In the denial decision, 
the Director determined that the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary" s duties was not 
sufficiently detailed to establish the nature of his proposed day-to-day duties. further. the Director 
detennined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary would have a subordinate 
level of managerial employees. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that, based on the evidence previously submitted, which included 
evidence of its recruitment efforts, it has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
Beneficiary's subordinates would include a manager and professionals. The Petitioner also 
maintains that the Director primarily limited his review of the petition to the proposed organizational 
chart and did not consider the totality of the evidence, including evidence of a $1 million investment 
from the Petitioner"s parent company. 
Upon de novo review of the record, we find that the Petitioner has established that the company 
would more likely than not grow sufficiently during its initial year of operations to support the 
Beneficiary in a managerial capacity. The Petitioner has submitted a sutliciently detailed and 
credible description of the Beneficiary's proposed duties and the record that. within one year, he 
would primarily manage the organization, oversee a subordinate statl of managerial and professional 
employees with authority to make personnel decisions, and exercise discretion over the day-to-day 
operations of the business. See section 10 I (a)( 44 )(A) of the Act (defining "managerial capacity"'). 
Although the Director questioned whether the Petitioner would hire bona fide managers and 
professionals, the Petitioner provided evidence corroborating its claims regarding the nature of the 
proposed subordinate positions. 
Further, the record shows that the foreign entity's well-stafled North American department will 
support the Petitioner's activities, leaving the Beneficiary free to primarily manage, rather than 
2 
Matter ofT-L Corp. 
become significantly involved in, the day-to-day activities of the business by the end of its initial 
year of operations. 
Whether the Beneficiary is a managerial employee turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained its 
burden of proving that their duties would be "primarily" managerial. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) of 
the Act. Here, the Petitioner has met that burden. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has established that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity within 
one year of the approval of the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter o(T-L- Corp., ID# 696854 (AAO Feb. 6, 2018) 
3