PAST APPROVAL OF A CASE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OR PREDICTION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE CASES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE.
We filed an L-1A for a managerial level employee seeking a second two year extension of the beneficiary’s classification as a nonimmigrant intracompany transferee (L-1A) to enable the beneficiary to continue in his position as Director-Product Engineering, a position he had held since the approval of the initial petition. Subsequent to filing the petition we received a Request for Evidence (RFE). We responded and the petition was then approved. The RFE requested additional information regarding the beneficiary’s qualifications, the managerial position abroad (to prove he had at least one continuous year, within the three years prior to his application for admission to the U.S., of full time employment with a qualifying foreign organization (which was the case, as the U.S, company was a 100% subsidiary of the foreign company)), and the proposed managerial position in the U.S. In the response to the RFE we provided extensive narratives and corroborating documents explaining further and beyond what was submitted with the initial L-1A filing. In addition to a response letter we provided extensive corroborating evidence as exhibits that included letters from authorized representatives of both companies that very comprehensively addressed the concerns and which themselves included exhibits. The hurdle here was proving that a second extension was warranted from a legal and factual standpoint. Our legal argument combined with the significant volume of corroborating evidence proved successful.