dismissed L-1A Case: Business

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-G-A- LLC 
· Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 25, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which seeks to offer of Nevada, and surrounding sites, seeks 
to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as chief executive officer of its new office under the L-1 A 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 10l(a)(15)(L) , 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). TheL-IA 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 initially denied the petitiOn concluding that the 
Petitioner did not establish a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. The 
Petitioner filed an appeal which we sustained , and the petition was approved. Later, the Director 
revoked the approval of the petition , based on new information that led the Director to conclude that 
the Petitioner had not established , as required , that (1) the Beneficiary has been emplo yed abroad in 
a managerial or executive capacity , and (2) the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the 
foreign entity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits new statements and 
asserts that the Director erred by relying on an incomplete investigation. The Petitioner contend s 
that a more diligent investigation would have confirmed the foreign entity' s continued operation . 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A 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 10l(a)(l5)(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. 
.
Matter of A-G-A- LLC 
II. CONSULAR INVESTIGATION OF FOREIGN EMPLOYER 
The Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
have the right to verify any information the Petitioner submits to establish eligibility for the claimed 
immigration benefit. The right to verify this information is conferred by statute and regulation. See 
8 U.S.C. §§ 1103, 1155, 1184 and 8 C.F.R. §§ 103,204,205, and 214. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary formerly served as president of a 
private joint-stock company in Russia. The Petitioner claims affiliation with that company, because 
the Beneficiary holds all shares of both companies. Translated documents including the foreign 
company's July 2011 charter and October 2012 meeting minutes placed the company at an address 
on A purported lease agreement for the site 
indicated that the "agreement is for 36 months from July 27, 2011 to July 27, 2014." 
After the approval of the petition, an investigator at the U.S. Consulate in traveled to 
the company's claimed address on on March 25, 2014. The investigator was not 
able to locate the company's office at that address. As a result, the consulate asked the Beneficiary 
for photographs of his office. 
In response, the Beneficiary stated that the company had recently moved. The Petitioner submitted 
several photographs and a rental agreement for an office at a new location on 
The rental agreement (identifying the lessor as is dated April 1, 2014. It does not 
explain why the office was not at the address at the time of the site visit a week 
earlier on March 25th. The photographs included one exterior view of a building on 
but the windows on that structure do not match the windows shown in the interior 
photographs. Also, the interior photographs show a brick building visible through the windows. No 
similar building is visible in the exterior photograph. Therefore, the interior photographs do not 
appear to depict an office inside the building shown in the exterior photograph. 
On April 23, 2014, a consuladnvestigator visited the .office center at the newly claimed address on 
The center's access guard stated that was not in the 
center. A different company was using the office that the Petitioner had claimed as its own. 
The Director issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) in August 2015, stating that two site visits 
had not yielded any evidence that the foreign company is doing business, and therefore the Petitioner 
had not established that the Beneficiary had the required experience abroad. The Director later 
issued a superseding NOIR in March 2016, repeating this information and adding that the Petitioner 
had not established a qualifying relationship with a bonafide, active foreign company. In response 
to each NOIR, the Petitioner submitted copies of the aforementioned photographs and lease 
agreement, and a statement in which the Beneficiary made several claims in an attempt to explain 
the consular findings: 
2 
.
~--- -· ·· · 
Matter of A-G-A- LLC 
• The company had only recently moved to the new address, and therefore it was not yet listed 
on the access guard's documents. 
• The Beneficiary claimed to have asked the consular officials to call prior to any visit, but 
they did not do so. The Beneficiary stated that he made this request because the office 
complex is large and the office could be difficult to find. 
• The Beneficiary asserted that he and his co-workers were present and working in the office at 
the time of the site visit, and the investigating officer must have left after speaking to the 
guard rather than speak to the workers in the office. 
In his first response, the Beneficiary added: "The investigating officer also might be confused with 
the nameplates on walls outside the building, because they [were] left from the previous lessee." 
The business that the investigator found at the foreign company's claimed site was not one of the 
businesses named on the exterior signage shown in the photographs. 
The Director found the Petitioner's responses to be insufficient, and revoked the approval of the 
petition. On appeal, the Beneficiary asserts that the foreign entity exists, as attested by a registration 
certificate. This document attests to the company's existence as a legal entity, but it does not show 
that the company has ever actively conducted business, or that it was doing so at the time of filing. 
Our regulations define "doing business" as the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of 
goods, services, or both. The definition does not include the mere presence of an agent or of1ice. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(H). 
The Petitioner submits a translated letter attributed to the chief executive officer of 
repeating the claim that the access guard for the office complex had an outdated list of occupants. 
This assertion is uncorroborated by first-hand evidence such as the occupant lists from the period in 
question. Also, this claim does not take into account the report that the investigator entered the 
office center after speaking with the access guard, and found another company in the office that the 
Petitioner claims to have rented. The Beneficiary, on appeal, acknowledges that the investigator 
found "a different company," but maintains that "our real employees were [in] place and working." 
This assertion 
denies the Director's finding but does not rebut or overcome it. 
The Beneficiary states: "I've never seen a requirement in the Law that we must ... work in an 
office to be eligible [for the] LIA visa .... [W]e can do business remotely, there is no need [to work] 
in a physical office any more." Nevertheless, in this instance, the Petitioner had provided two 
specific addresses for the foreign company, and a consular investigator found no evidence that the 
company was operating at either site. The Petitioner cannot resolve these major discrepancies with 
the observation that a company can, in principle, operate remotely. 
The Petitioner notes the prior approval of the petition. That approval, however, took place before 
the consular investigation, and therefore the prior approval does not demonstrate that the revocation 
was m error. 
3 
.
Matter of A-G-A- LLC 
III. WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION OF A MATERIAL FACT 
In both NOIRs and in the revocation notice, the Director stated: "It appears that material 
misrepresentations were made in order to obtain an immigration benefit and that the [Beneficiary] 
was not working" 
for the foreign company as claimed. 
A misrepresentation is an assertion or manifestation that is not in accord with the true facts. As 
outlined by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), a material misrepresentation requires that the 
alien willfully make a material misstatement to a government official for the purpose of obtaining an 
immigration benefit to which one is not entitled. See Matter ofKai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. 288, 289-
90 (BIA 1975). The term "willfully" means knowing and intentionally, as distinguished from 
accidentally, inadvertently, or in an honest belief that the facts are otherwise. See Matter of" Healy 
and Goodchild, 17 I&N Dec. 22, 28 (BIA 1979). To be considered material, the misrepresentation 
must be one which "tends to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the alien's eligibility , and 
which might well have resulted in a proper determination that he be excluded. " Matter ol Ng, 17 
I&N Dec. 536, 537 (BIA 1980). 
USCIS will deny a visa petition if the petitioner submits evidence which contains false information. 
In general, a few errors or minor discrepancies are not reason to question the credibility of an alien 
or an employer seeking immigration benefits. See Spencer Enters. Inc. v. US., 345 F.3d 683, 694 
(9th Cir. 2003). However, if a petition includes serious errors and discrepancies, and the petitioner 
does not resolve those errors and discrepancies after an officer provides an opportunity to rebut or 
explain , then the inconsistencies will lead USCJS to conclude that the facts stated in the petition are 
not true. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
In this case, the continued operation of the foreign company is material to the statutory requirements 
at section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Act and the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(i) and (iii). 
Because repeated efforts to verify the Petitioner's claims have not yielded evidence that the foreign 
company continues to operate, the Petitioner has not established that its claims in this regard are true 
or credible. When given an opportunity to rebut these findings, the Petitioner provided copies of 
information already provided to the consulate and contended that the investigator could not find 
office, or possibly went to the wrong place. The Petitioner did not submit 
verifiable documentary evidence, such as receipts or invoices documenting ongoing business activity 
or utility .bills confirming the company 's continued occupancy of the named office space. 
The foreign company ' s lease for the office on did not expire until July 2014, and its 
purported lease for the space on did not commence until April 2014. The 
Petitioner has not explained why the office was already empty in March 2014, or 
how the company was able to operate without a workplace. It did not acknowledge or attempt to 
explain the period during which it appears the business did not have an office. We will not disregard 
the results of the second site visit simply because the Beneficiary asserts that the investigator could 
not find the right office location. 
4 
.
Matter of A-G-A- LLC 
Beyond the adjudication of the visa petition, a misrepresentation may lead USC IS to enter a finding 
that a beneficiary sought to procure a visa or other documentation by willful misrepresentation of a 
material fact. This finding of fact may lead USCIS to determine, in a future proceeding, that the 
alien is inadmissible to the United States based on the past misrepresentation. 
Section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C) , provides: 
Misrepresentation. - (i) In general. - Any alien who, by fraud or willfully 
misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has 
procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other 
benefit provided under 
this Act is inadmissible. 
To find a willful and material misrepresentation in visa petition proceedings , an immigration officer 
must determine: 1) that the petitioner or beneficiary made a false representation to an authorized 
official of the United States government; 2) that the misrepresentation was willfully made; and 3) 
that the fact misrepresented was material. See Matter of M-, 6 I&N Dec. 149 (BIA 1954); Matter of 
L-L-, 9l&N Dec. 324 (BIA 1961); Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. at 288. 
First, as previously discussed, the Petitioner provided USCIS with documents regardin g the 
Beneficiary's claimed employment with the foreign entity. A misrepresentation can be made to a 
government official in an oral interview, on the face of a written application or petition, or by 
submitting evidence containing false information . INS Genco Op. No. 91-39, 1991 WL 1185150 
(April30, 1991). Here, the Beneficiary, acting in his capacity as ali oflicial ofthe petitioning entity, 
provided false information to government officials of USC IS and the U.S. Consulate in 
regarding two claimed addresses for 
Second, we find that the Beneficiary willfully made the misrepresentation. As a claimed official of 
the foreign entity, the Beneficiary would have knowledge of the company ' s location and operation al 
status. He would also know whether the submitted photographs depicted the company's ot1ices. 
Furthermore, the Beneficiary signed the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmi grant Worker, certifying 
under penalty of perjur y that the information provided with the petition is all true and correct. See 
section 287(b) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(b); see also 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2). 
Third, the evidence is material to the Benefici ary' s eligibility. To be considered material , a false 
statement must be shown to have been predictably capable of affecting the decision of the decision­
making body. Kungys v. U.S, 485 U.S. 759 (1988). In the context of a visa petition , a 
misrepresented fact is material if the misrepresentation cut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to 
the eligibility criteria and that inquiry might well have resulted in the denial of the visa petition. See 
Matter ofNg, 17 I&N Dec. at 537. 
The misrepresentations cut off a potential line of inquiry regarding the Beneficiary 's claim of 
continued employment with and the ongoing qualifying relationship between 
the foreign company and the Petitioner. The company's continued existence is directly material to 
5 
Matter of A-G-A- LLC 
the requirement that the Beneficiary has worked at least one continuous year for the foreign entity, 
and that a qualifying relationship continues to exist between the U.S. and foreign employers at 
10l(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Based on the information referenced above, it is reasonable to question 
whether the Beneficiary willfully misrepresented material facts regarding his claimed prior 
employment abroad during the relevant three-year time period, and the current status of the foreign 
company. The Director advised the Petitioner on three occasions that the Petitioner and the 
Beneficiary appeared to have misrepresented information about the foreign company. In light of the 
information we described above, we find that the Petitioner's and the Beneficiary's 
misrepresentations were material to the Beneficiary's eligibility. 
By signing the petition form, providing unverifiable addresses for the foreign company, and 
submitting photographs that do not appear to depict that company's actual offices, the Beneficiary 
has sought to procure a benefit provided under the Act through the willful misrepresentation of 
material facts. Accordingly, we will enter a finding that the Petitioner and the Beneficiary willfully 
misrepresented material facts. This finding of willful material misrepresentation shall be considered 
in any future proceeding where admissibility is an issue. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not overcome the consular investigator's finding that the foreign company is not 
at either of its claimed locations. Therefore, the Petitioner has not met its burden of proof regarding 
the Beneficiary's claimed former employment and the ongoing qualifying relationship between the 
U.S. and foreign employers. The Petitioner and the Beneficiary willfully misrepresented material 
facts by providing false addresses for the foreign company. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter qf A-G-A- LLC, ID# 595754 (AAO Sept. 25, 2017) 
6