dismissed L-1A Case: Consulting Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-USAG- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY31,2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a cultural exchange and consulting services business, seeks to continue the 
Beneficiary's temporary employment as its general manager/CEO under the L-lA nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. 1 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(L). The L-lA 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 revoked the approval of the petition, concluding that 
the Petitioner did not establish, as required, that the Beneficiary's prior foreign employer continues 
to do business as a qualifying organization abroad. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence, asserts that the Director relied on irrelevant 
factors in revoking the approval, and maintains that the foreign entity continues to do business in 
China. After a preliminary review of the appeal, we issued a request for evidence (RFE) and have 
incorporated the Petitioner's timely response into the record. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
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)(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. Id. 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
April 25, 2013, until April 24, 2014. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United States 
through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(F). The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation one year within the date of approval of the petition to 
support an executive or managerial position. 
.
Matter ofC-USAG- LLC 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-1 A petition that involved a new office must submit a statement 
of the beneficiary's duties during the previous year and under the extended petition; a statement 
describing the staffing of the new operation and evidence of the number and types of positions held; 
evidence of its financial status; evidence that it has been doing business for the previous year; and 
evidence that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii). This evidence must demonstrate that the beneficiary will be employed in 
a managerial or executive capacity, as defined at sections 10l(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act, under 
the extended petition. 
Under U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations, the approval of an L-lA 
petition may be revoked on notice under six specific circumstances. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A). 
To properly revoke the approval of a petition, a director must issue a notice of intent to revoke that 
contains a detailed statement of the grounds for the revocation and the time period allowed for 
rebutt<;tl. 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(B). 
II. DOING BUSINESS ABROAD 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner has established that its foreign parent 
company, ___________ continues to do business as a qualifying 
organization abroad. 
A "qualifying organization" is defined, in part, as a United States or foreign firm, corporation or 
other legal entity that is or will be doing business as an employer in the United States and in at least 
one other country directly or through a parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary for the duration of the 
beneficiary's stay in the United States as an intracompany transferee. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(G). "Doing business" means the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of 
goods and/or services by a qualifying organization and does not include the mere presence of an 
agent or office of the qualifying organization in the United States and abroad. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(H). 
Subsequent to the approval of the instant petition, officers from the Fraud Prevention Unit (FPU) of 
the U.S. Embassy in conducted a site visit at the foreign entity's claimed current and former 
addresses after speaking with the company's deputy general manager, The officers 
were unable to verify the presence of the company at the address provided on the Form 1-129, or at 
the new address provided by The Director issued a notice of intent to revoke and 
ultimately revoked the approval after reviewing the Petitioner's response to that notice. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director relied on irrelevant factors and failed to consider 
probative evidence such as lease agreements, contracts, bank statements showing business 
transactions, and the Petitioner's explanation that that it had only recently signed a lease for the new 
location at the time of the site visit in December 2015. As noted, we issued an RFE and have 
incorporated the Petitioner's response into the record. Upon review, and for the reasons discussed 
below, we find that the Director properly revoked the approval of the petition. The Petitioner has 
not established that the foreign entity continues to do business as a qualifying organization abroad. 
2 
.
Matter ofC-USAG-LLC 
A. Facts 
At the time of filing in April 2014, the Petitioner stated that the foreign entity was located at 
The Petitioner stated that the foreign 
company has a 5000 square foot high tech office with 40 employees and provides advertising, 
promotion, and other services. 
The Petitioner's initial evidence included: photographs of the foreign office with company logos and 
employees present; an organizational chart depicting more than 30 staff; a profit and loss statement 
for 2013; internally generated monthly payroll sheets for the period May 2013 through April 2014; 
website screenshots; and a lease for the claimed office location. 
The Director's notice of intent to revoke advised the Petitioner that FPU officers in China had 
spoken with and visited both the address provided on the petition 
and the new address provided in December 2015. The investigative team found no signs of 
the foreign entity at its new office location. The FPU officers also interviewed individuals working 
at the old office address, including some who were familiar with the foreign entity and indicated that 
the company had moved. One security guard at the former office location stated that the foreign 
entity had "no more than two employees." 
In response to the intent to revoke, the Petitioner explained that the foreign company moved after a 
number of its staff colluded to "secretly engage[] in some similar activities." The Petitioner 
provided documentation related to a lawsuit and settlement involving a former foreign employee. 
The Petitioner also stated that the foreign entity was still transitioning to its new office and in the 
process of rebuilding at the time of the FPU site visit. In order to establish that the foreign entity 
continued to do business, the Petitioner submitted: 
• Copies of the foreign entity's leases for its current and prior office locations 
• Internally generated "staff payroll sheets" for the period February 2015 through June 2017 
• Untranslated Chinese language documents described as "Invoices and Tax Payment" 
• Copies of two "Enterprise promotional film production contracts" entered by the foreign 
entity in April 2015 and December 2016 
• Untranslated ______ account statements for the period February 2016 through 
May 2017 
• The foreign entity's business license, with translation 
• Office photographs 
• Screenshots of the foreign entity's website 
On appeal, the Petitioner again emphasizes that the FPU officers visited the foreign entity's new 
office just a few weeks after it signed its new lease, and noted that, based on the nature of the 
business, the company is actually capable of operating without a central office. The Petitioner 
maintained that "the vast weight of the evidence shows that has been doing business 
based on its contracts with various Chinese companies, its payment of taxes, its social security 
payments, the flow of its income and expenses, its having a business license, and its lease of office 
3 
.
Matter ofC-USAG- LLC 
space, among other things." On appeal, the Petitioner submits translated versions of the foreign 
entity's monthly bank statements for 2015 and copies of electronic tax payment vouchers showing 
that the foreign entity made disability insurance payments in 2014 and 2015. 
In our RFE, we asked the Petitioner to provide additional evidence showing that the foreign entity 
paid rent at both office locations according to the terms of the submitted lease agreements. We 
noted that, although there were references to rent payments in some of the 2015 bank statements, the 
amount paid was not the amount indicated in the submitted lease agreement. We also noted the 
record did not contain any evidence of rental payments made by the foreign entity at its newer 
location. 
We acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted a payroll sheet indicating that the foreign entity paid 
nearly 77,000 RMB in salaries to 24 employees in December 2015, but noted that the foreign 
entity's December 2015 bank statement showed no salary payments made during that month. We 
asked the Petitioner to explain the apparent discrepancy. Finally, we provided a list of suggested 
evidence that may support the Petitioner's claim that the foreign entity continues to do business 
abroad, such as audited financial statements or tax returns, translated bank statements for 2016 and 
2017, evidence of ongoing rental payments in accordance with the foreign entity's lease agreement, 
evidence of business transactions ( contracts, purchases, invoices issued to clients, correspondence 
with clients, etc.), and evidence of the current number of employees working for the foreign entity. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner states that its parent company pays part of its rent in cash 
according to its landlord's preference, so the full rental amount is not recorded in its bank 
transactions. It also maintains that the landlord pays for the foreign entity's utilities even if the lease 
agreement states that it is the responsibility of the foreign entity. The Petitioner explains that the 
foreign entity's "operates in a business environment in China where a lot of transactions are done in 
cash," and therefore its bank statements generally "do not show the full extent of its business 
transactions." The Petitioner emphasizes that the foreign entity's 2015 bank statements nevertheless 
show continuous flow of income and payment of expenses that are consistent with doing business. 
The Petitioner also explains that the foreign entity's equipment and supplies purchases were paid in 
cash, so that the bank statements do not reflect all of the company's expenses. It maintains that 
"whatever expenses are shown in the bank statements should be sufficient to prove the company's 
regular, systematic and continuous provision of services because the size of its operations, amount of 
income, or amount of its expenditures is not an element of the definition of' doing business."' 
In addition, the Petitioner submits a letter from the foreign entity's HR manager, who reiterates that 
the company has many cash transactions and explains that vendors prefer to be paid in cash and do 
not issue receipts for cash purchases. The HR manager also explains that company tax returns do 
not exist in China and states that the Petitioner is instead providing the foreign entity's annual 
reports filed with the ______________ which is claimed to be 
"the equivalent of a tax return." 
4 
Matter ofC-USAG- LLC 
The Petitioner submits: the foreign entity's annual reports for the years 2013 through 2016; 
translated bank statements for 2016, 2017, and 2018; copies of contracts dated in 2017; and the 
foreign entity's current employee list. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the foreign entity 
continued to do business as a qualifying organization abroad for the duration of the Beneficiary's 
approved period of stay in L-lA status. Accordingly, the approval of the petition was properly 
revoked. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A)(l). 
The newly submitted annual reports for the foreign entity report "0" in revenue for the years 2013 
through 2016, with total profits ranging from -980,000,000 RMB in 2013 and 2014, to -92,800 RMB 
in 2015, to -78,000 RMB in 2016. The Petitioner has not explained why the foreign company 
reported having no revenue during this four-year period and does not attempt to reconcile this 
evidence with its own statements regarding the foreign entity's level of business activity. Although 
the Petitioner provided copies of bank statements indicating that the foreign entity had incoming 
funds, the record does not contain any other financial records or business documents that would 
corroborate the source of the deposits made to the foreign entity's bank account. 
The Petitioner claims that the foreign entity does not generate documentation for every cash 
transaction, but it is reasonable to expect an operational company to have some invoices, receipts, 
accounting records, correspondence, or other types of documentation incidental to doing business 
beyond bank statements and contracts, of which the Petitioner submitted only two dated in 2015 or 
2016. The Petitioner emphasizes that business practices are different in China and rely more on cash 
transactions, but has not credibly explained why the foreign entity cannot provide any additional 
evidence of its activities. We provided the Petitioner with an opportunity to submit additional 
documentation, and did not simply request receipts for purchases as implied by the Petitioner's 
response to the RFE. While the bank statements do show incoming and outgoing funds in most 
months, they are not consistent with the information the foreign entity provided in its own annual 
reports filed with governmental authorities in China and are not sufficiently corroborated with other 
evidence. 
In addition, the reported "number of people engaged," as stated on the foreign entity's annual 
reports, ranges from one to three employees. As the Petitioner provides evidence that the foreign 
entity filed this document with governmental authorities in China, we find that it has greater 
probative value than the internally generated payroll records showing that the foreign company has 
consistently maintained a staff of more than 20 payroll employees. The Petitioner has not offered an 
explanation for this significant discrepancy in the number of employees. Further, we note that the 
FPU officers interviewed a security guard at the foreign entity's previous location who stated that 
the company employed "no more than two employees," which would be consistent with the 
information provided in the annual reports, notwithstanding the Petitioner's claim that the security 
guard's statement was "obviously a lie and incredible." 
5 
Matter ofC-USAG- LLC 
Moreover, the salary payments recorded in the foreign entity's bank statements are generally 
inconsistent with the information stated in the corresponding payroll sheets for the same month. For 
example, the foreign entity's 2016 payroll records show total monthly salaries and wages in the 
range of 80,000 to 86,000 RMB throughout that calendar year. The monthly bank statements show 
payroll expenses ranging from 80,000 to 100,000 RMB for January through May 2016, and no 
payroll expenses for the remainder of the year. In fact, payroll expenses do not re-appear on the 
foreign entity's bank statements until September 2017, despite the Petitioner's submission of payroll 
sheets for the first six months of that year which indicate that the foreign entity continued to pay 
more than 20 employees. 
The Petitioner also places emphasis on the foreign entity's lease agreements and irregular rent 
payments as evidence that the company continues to have an office from which to conduct business. 
As noted, the Petitioner asserts that the foreign entity changed locations near the end of 2015. The 
Petitioner's claim that the foreign entity's landlords expected to be paid in some combination of cash 
and bank transfer, and that this expectation changed from month to month, is not adequately 
supported by the terms of the submitted lease agreements. The Petitioner has not provided other 
evidence, such as a letter from the foreign entity's current or former landlord, to corroborate its 
assertions. The one-year lease signed in November 2015, and renewed in 2016 and 2017, indicates 
an annual rental rate of 600,000 RMB. Between November 2015 and October 2017, the foreign 
entity's bank statements show a single rent payment of 85,000 RMB. Further, the foreign entity's 
annual reports for 2015 and 2016, filed in 2016 and 201 7, continue to show the street address 
indicated on the F·orm 1-140 and not the "new" address provided in 2015 just before the FPU site 
visit. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, there are a number of discrepancies in the Petitioner's evidence. 
The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). The Petitioner has not 
done so and in fact has submitted new evidence that introduces additional discrepancies into the 
record, such as the annual reports indicating that the foreign entity had few employees and no 
revenue for a period of four consecutive years. Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to 
reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested 
immigration benefit. Id. 
The evidence as a whole is insufficient to establish that the foreign company relocated at the end of 
2015 as claimed or that it continued to do business at the time of the FPU site visit. The Petitioner's 
claim that the company had simply not yet set up the new office location at the time of the site visit, 
on its face, is not unreasonable based on the timeline involved. However, given that the FPU was 
not able to verify the company's existence, the Petitioner has a burden to submit evidence that the 
foreign entity has been operating since the time of the claimed office relocation. In light of the 
deficiencies and unresolved discrepancies already addressed, the foreign entity's bank statements, 
business license, contracts, internally generated payroll records, and lease agreements have limited 
probative value. 
6 
Matter ofC-USAG- LLC 
The Petitioner contends that the documentation it provided is sufficient to establish by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the foreign entity continues to do business, and that we should 
not require a certain staffing level or number of business transactions in determining whether the 
foreign entity satisfies the definition of "doing business." The Petitioner correctly notes that it must 
establish that it meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a preponderance of the 
evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I& N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). In other words, a petitioner 
must show that what it claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. To determine whether a 
petitioner has met its burden under the preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, 
but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id at 
376; Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
For the reasons discussed, there are omissions, deficiencies and unresolved inconsistencies in the 
evidence the Petitioner submitted to establish the foreign entity's ongoing operations. While we do 
not require that the foreign entity establish a certain revenue figure, staffing level, or scope of 
operations in order to meet the "doing business" standard, it is reasonable to require the Petitioner to 
support its own claims regarding these factors with relevant, consistent, and probative evidence. The 
Petitioner has not met this burden. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer continues to do business as a qualifying organization abroad. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-USAG-LLC, ID# 1209023 (AAO July 31, 2018)