sustained L-1A Case: Software Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18239135 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 05, 2021 
The Petitioner, a provider of software and services to the biopharmaceutical, academic and 
government research markets, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary employment as an 
Engagement Manager for a period of approximately two years. The Petitioner has employed the 
Beneficiary in an L-1 B specialized knowledge capacity and requests an amendment of her status to 
the L-lA classification for intracompany transferees who work in a managerial or executive capacity. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary is entitled to a period of stay in L-1 status beyond the five-year limit 
imposed on L-1 B nonirnmigrant intracompany transferees by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(12)(i), and did not 
meet the conditions at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(15)(ii) that would allow U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) to grant her an additional extension following her promotion to a managerial 
position. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, the petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 
(AAO 2010). Upon de nova review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. 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. Id. 
Pursuant to section 214(c)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(D)(ii), a nonimmigrant admitted 
to render services in a capacity that involves "specialized knowledge" under section 101(a)(15)(L) of 
the Act shall not exceed 5 years. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(12)(i) states in pertinent part: 
[A] new individual petition may not be approved for an alien who has spent the 
maximum time period in the United States under section 101(a)(15)(L) and/or (H) of 
the Act, unless the alien has resided and been physically present outside the United 
States, except for brief visits for business or pleasure, for the immediate prior year. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(15)(ii) states: 
The total period of stay may not exceed five years for aliens employed in a specialized 
knowledge capacity. The total period of stay for an alien employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity may not exceed seven years. No farther extensions may be granted. 
When an alien was initially admitted to the United States in a specialized knowledge 
capacity and is later promoted to a managerial or executive position, he or she must 
have been employed in the managerial or executive position for at least six months to 
be eligible for the total period of stay of seven years. The change to managerial or 
executive capacity must have been approved by [USCIS] in an amended, new, or 
extended petition at the time that the change occurred. 
II. ANALYSIS 
At issue in this matter is whether a new individual petition may be approved for the Beneficiary under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(12)(i) and whether she is eligible for an extension of stay beyond the maximum 
five-year period granted to individuals who initially enter in L-1B nonimmigrant status, pursuant to 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(15)(ii). 
The Petitioner filed this petition on September 4, 2020. At the time of filing, the Beneficiary was in 
the United States in L-lB status, with two previously approved L-lB petitions that were valid for a 
combined period of five years, from September 8, 2015 until September 7, 2020. 1 The Petitioner 
requested that the Beneficiary be granted L-lA classification based on a "change in previously 
approved employment," and requested an extension of her status through July 19, 2022. In its letter 
in support of the petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary had been promoted to the position 
of"Engagement Manager" in November 2019 and provided a detailed description of her duties as well 
as an organizational chart and other supporting evidence in support of its claim that she would be 
employed in a managerial capacity, as defined at section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, under the extended 
petition. 
In the denial decision, the Director stated that "the only issue to be evaluated in this case is whether 
the beneficiary is entitled to an extension of stay or whether the beneficiary is required to spend one 
year abroad before reapplying for L-1 classification." 2 The Director, citing to the regulations at 8 
1 The Petitioner stated on the Form 1-129. L Classification Supplement, that the Beneficiary's period of stay in the United 
States was from "03/24/2016 to present." The Petitioner indicated that she continued her employment with its Indian 
subsidiary through March 22, 2016. 
2 Prior to issuing the decision, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) in which he addressed the Beneficiary's 
employment capacity abroad and her proposed employment capacity in the United States. The RFE did not raise the issue 
2 
e.F.R. §§ 214.2(1)(12)(i) and (15)(ii), emphasized that the Petitioner did not timely file its request to 
amend the Beneficiary's status from L-lB to L-lA, noting that such request must be filed "at least six 
months prior to the five-year limit in a specialized knowledge capacity." The decision does not include 
any farther discussion of the facts or evidence presented. 
Upon review, we disagree with the Director's determination that the Beneficiary had already reached 
the five-year limitation on stay applicable to L-lB nonimmigrants and that, under 8 e.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(12)(i), a new individual petition may not be approved on her behalf until she has been 
physically present outside the United States for one year. 
Although the two L-1 B petitions filed on behalf of the Beneficiary have a combined validity period of 
five years (September 8, 2015 to September 7, 2020), the Petitioner has consistently stated that the 
Beneficiary's initial admission to the United States occurred on March 24, 2016, more than six months 
after the approval of the initial L-1 B petition. users records confirm that this was her initial date of 
admission in L-lB status, and at the time of filing, her total period of stay in the United States 
amounted to less than four and one-half years. As the Beneficiary has not been physically present in 
the United States in L-lB status for the maximum five-year period, the regulation at 8 e.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(12)(i) does not bar the approval of this petition. 
Further, we disagree with the Director's determination that the regulation at 8 e.F .R. § 214.2(1)(15)(ii) 
bars approval of this amended petition. This regulation sets forth conditions that must be met for a 
beneficiary initially admitted in L-lB status to be eligible for a foll seven years in L-1 status after a 
promotion. However, a beneficiary may still be granted an amendment of status based on a promotion 
to a managerial position, even if these conditions are not met, if they have not reached the maximum 
period of stay in L-lB status. As discussed, based on the dates of the Beneficiary's physical presence 
in the United States, she had not reached this five-year limit. 
As the Director raised no other grounds for denial, and we conclude that all other eligibility 
requirements for the requested amendment to L-lA classification have been met, we will withdraw 
the Director's decision and sustain the appeal. 
We cannot conclude, however, that the Beneficiary is eligible for the foll period of extension requested 
by the Petitioner. As noted, the regulation at 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(1)(15)(ii) allows an L-lB beneficiary 
who later receives a promotion to a managerial or executive position to be granted a total period of 
stay of seven years in L-1 status when two conditions are met: ( 1) the beneficiary has been employed 
in a managerial or executive position for at least six months; and (2) the petitioner obtains users 
approval of the change to managerial or executive capacity in an amended, new, or extended petition 
at the time that the change occurred. If a petitioner does not establish that both conditions have been 
met, the beneficiary is not eligible for the seven-year period of stay available to those initially admitted 
as L-lA nonimmigrants. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary's promotion to a managerial pos1t10n in 
November 2019 makes her eligible for both an amendment of her status from L-lB to L-lA and an 
of the Beneficiary's prior L-lB petitions, the duration of her stay in L-lB status, or the timeliness of the Petitioner's request 
for an amendment of her status from L-lB to L-lA. 
3 
extension for the requested period of approximately 22 months. However, the record reflects that the 
Petitioner opted to wait ten months to file an amended petition rather than filing "at the time the change 
occurred" in November 2019. The requirement to obtain USCIS approval of an amended petition at 
the time of the promotion is clearly stated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(15)(ii) and the ability to extend an L­
lB beneficiary's status beyond the five-year limit is conditioned on meeting this requirement. Based 
on the facts presented here, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is eligible for a total 
period of stay of seven years. Rather, her extension will be limited to the remainder of the five-year 
period permitted by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(12)(i). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary is eligible for an amendment of 
her status from L-lB to L-lA based on her promotion to a managerial position, and that she is eligible 
for an extension of stay for the remainder of the five-year maximum period applicable to individuals 
who initially entered the United States in L-lB status. 3 Accordingly, we will sustain the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
3 In this case, as the Beneficiary was initially admitted to the United States on March 24, 2016, the record reflects that she 
is eligible for an extension through March 23, 2021. 
4