In a non-precedent decision issued by the AAO in the In RE: 6968792 matter, an issue we dealt with commonly came up and is worth discussing a bit. This is an L-1a case involving an Indian jewelry company seeking to transfer its main owner to the U.S. to work in a similar capacity. So right off the bat, this sounds like a similar factual history to the type of case we regularly deal with in the L-1a category.

This case was unique because the employer did not say whether it was going to employ the beneficiary in a managerial or in an executive capacity. The case was originally denied and the denial was upheld on appeal. The first major mistake made by the company was that it did not explicitly say whether the beneficiary would be working in an managerial capacity or in an executive one. The AAO went (probably) further than it had to by, on its own, considering both scenarios and concluding neither definition was met. But it was a tactical error by the company not to carefully review the definitions of each type of role - which have minor overlap, but are quite different - and see which one most closely matched the planned duties. In most cases, for smaller companies just starting up their US operations, that will be as an executive.

In the last several years, the L-1a category has come under a lot more scrutiny at USCIS and perhaps rightfully so. These cases require a lot of attention to fine details in order to be approved. And one of those details is the nature of the work to be done by the proposed beneficiary.