dismissed L-1A Case: Aviation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 16.2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of t1ight training and fixed base operation services. seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary temporarily as its vice president of finance 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: ( 1) the Beneficiary's employment abroad was with a qualifying entity 
and that it was in a managerial or executive capacity: and (2) the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. 
employment would be in a managerial or executive capacity. Concerning the issue of the 
Beneficiary's employment abroad with a qualifying entity. the Director pointed to an inconsistency 
between the petition, where the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary had been employed by its 
foreign affiliate and a nonimmigrant visa application completed by the Beneficiary where she 
identified a different employer during the same time period. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence contending that the Beneficiary 
was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity. The Petitioner states that during the period in question. the Beneficiary \'vas employed at 
the foreign affiliate and does not address or provide evidence to explain the inconsistency. 
Upon de novo review. we find that the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to overcome the 
Director's finding regarding the Beneficiary's intended employment with the U.S. entity and we 
hereby withdraw the Director's finding as it specifically pertains to this issue. Notwithstanding our 
withdrawal of one of the Director's findings. we will dismiss the appeal because we find that the 
Petitioner has not established. as required. that the Beneficiary was employed abroad with a 
qualifying foreign employer for a period of one year within three years preceding the Beneficiary's 
application for admission into the United States. Because the Beneficiary's employment with a 
qualifying entity abroad is fundamental to establishing eligibility. and the Petitioner has not met this 
requirement. we will not address the Director's other findings regarding the Beneficiary's claimed 
job duties with the foreign company. 
.
Matter ofA-, Inc. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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. /d. The 
petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education. training. and employment 
qualifies him or her to perform the intended services in the United States . 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(1)(3). 
II. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD WITH A QUALIFYING ENTITY 
As indicated, the Director denied the petition. in part, based on a finding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad by a qualifying entity during the statutorily 
required time period . 1 
In order to make this determination, there are several factors that need to be considered. As a 
threshold matter, the Petitioner must identify the Beneficiary"s foreign employer. Only after the 
employer is clearly identified do we move on to consider the other relevant factors, including 
whether the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary"s foreign employer such 
that the foreign employer can be deemed a qualifying entity. 2 The Petitioner must also establish that 
the Beneficiary worked for the qualifying entity abroad for one year during the relevant three-year 
time period. See section 10 I ( a)(15 )(L) of the Act. Here . the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
evidence to establish that the Beneficiary 's foreign employer was the entity that was identified in the 
petition. Further, the Petitioner has not established that the entity that the Beneficiary claimed as her 
current employer abroad meets the definition of a qualifying entity. 
In the instant petition filed in January 2017, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad, without interruption, by its affiliate. 
from September 20 II to the ··present"" time. The 
Petitioner provided evidence 
to show that the same individual - - owns the majority 
of its shares and the shares of the claimed foreign affiliate. 3 The Petitioner also provided the 
Beneficiary" s resume and internally generated payroll statements I isting the Beneficiary as 
an employee during each month in 2014 and 2015. 
1 
In order to meet the definition of a ·'qualifying organization'' the Petitioner must establish that the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer is related to the Petitioner as a parent, branch, aftiliate, or subsidiary. See 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(1)( I )(G). 
2 To establish a ·'qualifying relationship" under the Act and the regulations. a petitioner must show that the beneficiary's 
foreign employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (i.e., one entity with "branch'" offices). or that 
they are related as a "parent and subsidiary'' or as "affiliates." See general!\' section I 0 I (a)( 15)(L) of the Act: 8 C. F. R. 
§ 214.2(1). 
; The term ''affiliate'' applies when two entities are owned and controlled by the same parent or individual. .''iee 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)( I )(L). 
2 
.
Maller of A-, Inc. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided a comprehensive chart listing the group of companies in which 
is claimed to have an ownership interest. Among the entities listed was the 
- the entity the Beneficiary identified in her 
February 2015 nonimmigrant visa application as her current employer - in which was 
claimed to have a 33% ownership interest. Although the Petitioner claimed that it was submitting 
evidence of "shareholding situation:· the translated document found in 
corresponding "Exhibit 12" does not contain the name of the investor. As such. it cannot be 
determined that claimed ownership is accurate. That said, even if the 
Petitioner were to provide adequate documentation to substantiate claimed 33% ownership 
interest, such evidence would not establish that the Petitioner has a qualifying affiliate relationship 
with given that 33% does not amount to a majority ovmership interest. such 
as 
the one has with respect to the Petitioner. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's submissions , the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) 
informing the Petitioner of inconsistent evidence pertaining to the Beneficiary's claimed 
employment abroad with the Petitioner's foreign affiliate. Specitically, the Director stated 
that according to the Beneficiary's nonimmigrant visa application. which she signed under the 
penalty of perjury and submitted to the U.S. Department of State in February 2015. the Beneficiary 
identified her "current" employer abroad as rather than 
as claimed in the petition and the corresponding supporting documents described above. The 
RFE instructed the Petitioner to provide further evidence to address and clarify this inconsistency. 
In response, the Petitioner provided a translated statement from discussing the Beneficiary's 
duties since September 2011 when her alleged employment with that entity commenced. In other 
words, the statement reiterated claims made in the petition regarding the Beneficiary's employment 
abroad with the qualifying entity, but did not explain why the Beneficiary identified a different 
employer- - on her nonimmigrant visa application in February 2015. The 
RFE response also contains a statement from the Petitioner and more of internally generated 
payroll documents ret1ecting the Beneficiary's alleged employment with from September 20 II 
through December 2016. Neither the Petitioner's statement. nor the statement from its affiliate. 
acknowledged or specifically addressed the inconsistency between the Petitioner's claim in the 
petition and the Beneficiary's claim in her February 2015 nonimmigrant visa application. The 
Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency in the record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter 
(?fHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). In the present 
matter, while the Petitioner offered multiple payroll statements from reflecting the 
Beneficiary's employment during the statutorily relevant time period, these internally generated 
documents are not sufficient to adequately address and resolve the above described inconsistency. 
In the denial decision, the Director reiterated the derogatory information of which the Petitioner was 
notified in the previously issued RFE. The Director also reiterated that the initially submitted 
evidence. which included 2015 and 2016 payroll documents. was insutlicient to establish 
that the Beneficiary's foreign employment meets the statutory and regulatory criteria. 
.
Matter of A-, Inc. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides the Beneficiary's employment history, claiming that she worked 
at from 2006 to September 2011, thereby maintaining its original claim that 
the Beneficiary worked for the Petitioner's foreign affiliate. during the required time period. 
Again, the Petitioner does not acknowledge the inconsistency of which it was informed in the RFE 
with regard to the Beneficiary's separate claim indicating that she worked at 
during the relevant time period, rather than as the Petitioner has claimed and continues to 
claim on appeal. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative. and credible 
evidence. See Matter (?l Chawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Here. we find that the 
foreign entity 's internally generated payroll document s are neither probative nor credible. as many of 
the statements were originally submitted in support of the petition and have already been deemed 
insufficient in light of the inconsistency between the Petition er' s claims and the Beneficiary's 
statements, which she made independently in support of a separate tiling. 
In sum, the Petitioner's inability to offer sufficient evidence to resolve a considerable discre pancy 
pertaining to the Beneficiary 's employment abroad precludes us from finding that she was employed 
with a qualif ying entity for one continuous year during the requi site time period and on the basis of 
this deficienc y the petition cannot be approved. Further, as this finding is fundament al to the 
Petitioner's claim regarding the Beneficiary's employment abroad, we need not conduct the 
remaining portion of the foreign employment analysis in which we examine the Benefici ary' s job 
duties as well as her role and placement within the organizational hierarchy of the employer abroad. 
IlL CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed as the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's employment 
abroad was with a qualif ying entity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Malter ofA-. Inc., ID# 720889 (AAO Oct. 16, 20 17) 
4