Top 10 Reasons L-1 Applications Face RFEs and How to Overcome Them

The L-1 visa allows U.S. companies to transfer executives or managers from their foreign offices and enables foreign companies to send key personnel to establish a new office in the United States. Therefore, this visa is crucial for multinational businesses that are expanding their presence in the U.S. while retaining skilled professionals who are already integrated into the company’s culture and operations.  

However, the L-1 visa process comes with its challenges as some applicants receive Requests for Evidence (RFEs) or outright denials due to errors, insufficient documentation, or failure to meet strict eligibility requirements. A well-written and detailed business plan, meeting all immigration requirements, is necessary for a successful L-1 application. 

In this article, we discuss the 10 most common reasons L-1 visa applications are denied or receive RFEs. Using real-life scenarios and practical solutions, we explain how applicants can overcome these pitfalls, as well as how we at Joorney provide the expertise needed to build successful, well-supported cases. 

Failure to Establish a Qualifying Relationship 

Many applications fail to establish a qualifying relationship between the U.S. and foreign entities. For an L-1 visa, the entities must demonstrate a clear parent-subsidiary, affiliate, or branch relationship. This means there must be a legal and operational connection between the two entities, such as shared ownership or control. For example, a parent company may wholly or partially own the subsidiary, or the entities may be affiliates under common ownership. Failure to clearly define this relationship often results in RFEs or denials because USCIS requires concrete evidence to confirm that the entities are part of the same corporate structure. The evidence might include organizational charts, shareholder agreements, financial documentation, or incorporation certificates. 

To address this, we ensure the business plan includes a detailed description of the ownership structure, supported by visual aids such as charts that clearly outline the relationship. If the ownership or control structure is complex, we break it down into easily understandable components to provide clarity. Additionally, we make sure to classify the relationship accurately, whether it is a parent-subsidiary, affiliate, or branch to avoid inconsistencies between the business plan and other supporting documents submitted as part of the application.  

Applicant’s Position Does Not Qualify as Managerial or Executive  

When applying for an L-1 visa, applicants often struggle to prove that their position qualifies as managerial or executive. Applications fail because job descriptions are too vague or generic, making it unclear how the applicant fits the managerial or executive criteria. Additionally, USCIS may request detailed information about the applicant’s previous role in the foreign company to determine if their role abroad also fits the criteria, particularly regarding their responsibilities and the team they managed.  

In a case we worked on, USCIS noted that the provided job description included duties like “deciding plans, policies, and strategies” and “reviewing financial statements,” but these descriptions were too general and did not clarify the specific managerial tasks performed. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence of how the applicant managed subordinates at the foreign company or was relieved of non-qualifying tasks, which resulted in an RFE. 

Managerial and executive roles differ significantly, and USCIS evaluates them based on distinct criteria. A managerial role involves supervising a team, overseeing departments, and delegating work to achieve organizational goals. This includes clear oversight of subordinates, whose responsibilities must be well-defined. An executive role, on the other hand, focuses on broader strategic decisions, setting company objectives, and driving organizational direction without engaging in routine operational tasks. Establishing which category applies is critical and requires a detailed breakdown of responsibilities, subordinates, and reporting structures. 

To address these challenges, we ensure the application includes detailed organizational charts for both the foreign and U.S. company. These charts clarify where the applicant fits within the company hierarchy and outline their reporting relationships and subordinates. For the foreign company, we highlight their leadership responsibilities and expand on their duties if necessary, providing additional details about their subordinates, including roles, educational qualifications, and salaries, when USCIS requires it. For the U.S. company, we emphasize how the applicant will take on a managerial or executive role, supported by a clear description of their responsibilities and the company’s operational structure. In the role descriptions, we also include tables outlining the applicant’s responsibilities in Year 1 and Year 5, along with time allocation for each task to demonstrate the progression of the applicant’s role and their long-term contribution to the company’s growth and success.  

Lack of a Clear Three-Layer Hierarchy 

A clear three-layer hierarchy is critical to demonstrate that the applicant oversees a team of skilled employees and is not engaged in hands-on, operational tasks. Without this structure, USCIS often concludes that the role does not meet the L-1 requirements for an executive, particularly for new offices where staffing is still minimal. This issue can also arise if the hierarchy does not show future growth, leading to concerns about the long-term sustainability of the position. 

For example, in one instance, a client’s application received an RFE because USCIS was unconvinced of the applicant’s executive capacity as the organizational chart showed the applicant managing only one supervisor, with no additional layers beneath them. In another case, the applicant was shown to be directly overseeing operational staff without any supervisors in between, which raised concerns that the role involved non-qualifying, hands-on tasks rather than high-level managerial or executive duties. USCIS also questioned the growth potential of the U.S. entity, as the petition lacked projections for the role’s evolution beyond Year 1, creating doubts about whether the position would remain executive in nature as the business expanded. 

To resolve this, we revised the business plan to include a clear and well-defined three-layer hierarchy for both Year 1 and Year 5. In Year 1, we demonstrated that the applicant would oversee a supervisor and skilled team members, ensuring operational tasks were fully delegated. For Year 5, we outlined a detailed growth plan that added new managerial positions and expanded staff beneath the applicant, demonstrating how the role would evolve in line with business growth. By providing a structured hierarchy and addressing both short- and long-term staffing needs, we alleviated USCIS concerns and secured the petition’s approval. 

Failure to Provide Evidence of Subordinate Roles and Qualifications 

The importance of thoroughly describing the roles of employees to be hired, the qualifications required for those positions, and the time allocation for their tasks are often overlooked. This lack of detail raises concerns with USCIS, particularly when evaluating whether the applicant’s role meets the criteria for a managerial or executive position.  

For example, in one case, the applicant managed several employees, but their roles were not clearly defined. USCIS issued an RFE questioning whether the subordinates were performing professional or supervisory-level tasks, as their job titles appeared too vague or junior. Additionally, there was no explanation of how these employees’ duties supported the applicant’s managerial role, leading USCIS to doubt the legitimacy of the position. 

To address this, we provided a revised submission that included detailed job descriptions for each subordinate, specifying their educational qualifications, experience requirements, and primary responsibilities. We also included time allocation charts to demonstrate how much time the subordinates spent on their respective tasks and how the applicant’s oversight was essential for ensuring smooth operations. By doing so, we clarified that the subordinates held professional and skilled roles, relieving the applicant of operational duties and allowing them to focus on high-level managerial functions. 

Insufficient Evidence of Specialized Knowledge (L-1B) 

The L-1B non-immigrant classification allows U.S. employers to transfer professional employees with specialized knowledge critical to the organization’s interests from a foreign affiliate to a U.S. office. It also permits foreign companies without a U.S. presence to send specialized knowledge employees to help establish one. Specialized knowledge refers to advanced or unique expertise in the organization’s products, services, processes, or techniques, as well as their application in international markets. This expertise must set the employee apart from others and be directly relevant to the organization’s success in the U.S. However, applicants often struggle to prove that their skills or knowledge are truly unique, advanced, or essential. 

The largest challenge is demonstrating that the applicant has performed a specialized role for the foreign company and that they will continue to perform similar duties in the U.S. The applicant must provide a comprehensive record of their educational and professional background to support their claim of specialized knowledge. USCIS also requires clear evidence of how the applicant’s presence in the U.S. is vital to the success of the company’s operations. 

In this situation, we take a thorough approach to presenting the applicant’s qualifications and the need for their presence in the United States. We include the applicant’s complete academic and professional history, emphasizing their specialized expertise in the required field. We also incorporate letters of confirmation or recommendation from supervisors and industry experts to highlight the applicant’s critical skills and unique contributions to the company’s operations. Additionally, we dedicate an entire section of the business plan to explaining the necessity of the applicant’s presence in the U.S., supported by operational goals and strategic initiatives that require their expertise. The plan includes detailed descriptions of the specific projects or processes that the applicant will oversee. This is particularly important when the U.S. company will operate under the same business model as the foreign entity, as the applicant’s full familiarity with the unique processes makes their presence necessary to ensure continuity, efficiency, and successful implementation of these processes in U.S. operations. 

Inadequate Business Plan for New Office Petitions and Business Viability of the U.S. Entity  

USCIS frequently denies applications with vague or incomplete business plans, often stating: “The evidence provided does not establish that the new office will support an executive or managerial position within one year of approval.” This emphasizes the importance of submitting a comprehensive document that addresses the USCIS’ concerns with clarity and precision. 

Applications are often denied due to several common shortcomings, such as the lack of detailed business plans that fail to outline the proposed activities, organizational structure, and financial goals of the new office. Weak or unrealistic financial projections undermine the credibility of the operation, particularly when profitability goals are unsubstantiated. Insufficient market analysis leaves USCIS questioning the viability of the office in the industry, while operational strategies that lack clear timelines or hiring plans often result in RFEs. Moreover, inadequate evidence of funding, such as missing documentation of the foreign entity’s financial ability to invest in the U.S. office, weakens the case significantly. 

For instance, in one case we handled, USCIS required proof that the new office would support an executive position. The petition failed to provide sufficient details about the new office’s financial goals, operational plans, and organizational structure. Specifically, USCIS noted the absence of a detailed description of the office’s activities, its ability to remunerate the applicant, and evidence of a realistic timeline for achieving key milestones. The petition was further weakened by insufficient documentation of the foreign entity’s financial ability to support the U.S. office, as it lacked wire transfer receipts, bank statements, and investment details. 

To address these challenges, we took a proactive approach by creating a detailed business plan that outlined a clear development strategy over the years, including milestones such as securing premises, hiring personnel, and scaling operations. We also provided a detailed market analysis supported by credible sources to validate sales assumptions with industry-specific data and demonstrate the plan’s feasibility. For funding, we assessed the client’s initial investment and determined whether adjustments or additional documentation were needed. We used market averages to show that the proposed funding is sufficient to cover first-year expenses, including operational costs and the applicant’s salary. This way, we ensured that financial projections were realistic and aligned with industry benchmarks, giving USCIS confidence in the viability of the proposed operation. 

Business Viability of the U.S. Entity 

A similar challenge to the previous one is demonstrating the business viability of the U.S. Entity, especially for new office petitions. While the previous challenge focuses on the overall importance of a business plan, this issue evaluates its ability to prove the U.S. office can sustain operations long-term. USCIS often raises concerns, such as: “The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the U.S. entity is operational or has the financial ability to sustain the applicant’s position.” These issues commonly stem from missing documentation, such as lease agreements, financial records, or a comprehensive business plan. 

To address business viability, we emphasize establishing the credibility and readiness of the U.S. entity. Unlike role-specific challenges, we detail the entity’s infrastructure, financial stability, and operational preparedness. We include evidence such as signed lease agreements to confirm premises (if available), detailed financial records to demonstrate sufficient funding, and an operational strategy that outlines the steps toward achieving full functionality within the first year. If a lease agreement is not yet finalized, we provide a detailed discussion of the future location of operations, highlighting why the entity selected that specific area, the benefits it offers for the business, and the steps currently underway to secure the lease. Thus, demonstrating to USCIS that the U.S. entity is actively planning and progressing toward establishing its physical presence. By combining these elements, we clearly demonstrate that the U.S. office is fully capable of sustaining the applicant’s role while meeting USCIS requirements. 

Failure to Prove the Need for the Applicant’s Role in the U.S. 

USCIS sometimes denies L-1 petitions when the U.S. entity fails to clearly demonstrate why the transferee’s role is essential to its operations. This typically occurs when there is insufficient evidence of the company’s activities, staffing needs, or how the transferee’s specific expertise directly contributes to the entity’s success. For instance, in one case we handled, USCIS requested additional evidence to prove that the specific function managed by the applicant was critical or essential to the U.S. entity. 

To address this, we provided comprehensive details on the applicant’s role in the operations, emphasizing their unique contributions. We highlighted how the applicant was essential for maintaining supplier relationships critical to the business, detailing their communication with key suppliers and their role in ensuring smooth supply chain operations. Additionally, we demonstrated that the applicant was absolutely necessary due to their familiarity with the company’s business model and operations, their in-depth knowledge of the supply chain, and their ability to effectively implement strategies and maintain continuity. By connecting the applicant’s responsibilities to the company’s operational success, we demonstrated the indispensable nature of their role, which helped secure approval. 

Insufficient Financial Resources of the U.S. Entity 

Another common reason for L-1 petition denials is the inability of the U.S. entity to demonstrate sufficient financial resources to support the L-1 employee and sustain operations. USCIS scrutinizes whether the U.S. company has the funding required to commence business, pay the applicant, and achieve its operational goals. Weak or incomplete financial documentation often raises red flags. The most common example we see in our cases is that USCIS requests documentation to prove the financial stability of the U.S. entity, particularly for new offices. These requests often include evidence such as proof of capital contributions, wire transfers, deposit receipts, or bank statements detailing the monetary amounts invested in the U.S. entity, either from the applicant or the foreign entity. USCIS uses this information to evaluate whether the U.S. entity has sufficient resources to support the L-1 employee and sustain its operations. 

For instance, in one case, USCIS required a capitalization table and wire transfer receipts showing that the foreign entity had transferred funds directly to the U.S. entity’s account to support its startup costs. Additionally, they asked for a letter from the foreign entity outlining the specific investment amount and its purpose and confirming that the foreign entity would continue to provide financial support as needed. To further strengthen the case, audited financial statements of the foreign entity can be included, demonstrating its strong financial performance and ability to sustain U.S. operations. Details like this satisfied USCIS’ concerns and demonstrated the U.S. entity’s readiness to support the L-1 employee and achieve operational success. 

Sufficient Physical Premises 

For L-1 petitions involving a new office, USCIS requires evidence that sufficient physical premises have been secured to support the intended operations and accommodate the necessary employees. This means providing more than just a copy of the lease agreement as USCIS expects specific details about the office space, including the exact square footage, its intended use, and evidence that the premises are adequate for the company’s operational needs. 

In one example from our client, USCIS found the evidence submitted insufficient because, although a lease agreement was included, it did not specify the exact square footage of the office space. Furthermore, the photocopies of the premises submitted were black and white and lacked the level of clarity USCIS required. USCIS requested additional documentation such as color photos of the interior and exterior of the premises, a floor plan of the space, and a detailed explanation of the office’s intended use. 

To address these requirements, we included detailed information such as the total square footage, the intended use of the space, and confirmation that it will support the company’s employees and operations. High-quality, colored photos of both the interior and exterior of the office were included, ensuring USCIS can clearly see the premises. Additionally, we provided a detailed statement explaining the purpose of the space (administrative tasks, manufacturing, warehousing) and how the chosen location benefits the business. By presenting these materials comprehensively, we provided USCIS with a clear understanding of the adequacy of the physical premises, effectively addressing their concerns and strengthening the petition. 

Errors or Inconsistencies in the Petition 

Inaccuracies or inconsistencies in forms, supporting documents, or translations are among the leading causes of outright denials. Common issues include mismatched dates, incomplete forms, or contradictory information across documents. For example, if the job offer provided by the applicant lists certain duties but those duties are not reflected in the petition or supporting documents, it raises questions about the accuracy of the application. Similarly, when percentages of time allocated to specific job responsibilities are provided but later revised after an RFE, USCIS often views these changes as an attempt to secure approval rather than reflecting the actual role. 

To prevent such issues, it is critical to ensure consistency across all documents. If the applicant already has a job offer that outlines specific duties, we align those duties with the petition to avoid discrepancies. Additionally, we do not alter hiring plans or other essential details unless instructed by legal counsel and only when they provide a clear justification for the change. This way, we ensure that any updates are defensible and do not appear as arbitrary adjustments.  

Joorney Can Help You Answer Requests for Evidence 

RFEs are a frequent issue for L-1 applicants and answering them properly is key to keeping your application on track and moving forward. This requires an understanding of the underlying issue and how to provide a satisfactory answer for USCIS.  

That’s why Joorney offers RFE response support. We will answer your RFE in a professional and timely manner that helps to resolve the issue and provides immigration authorities with the information they need to proceed. Don’t let a misunderstanding of what USCIS is asking for or an incomplete response potentially ruin the chances of success.