dismissed L-1A Case: Film And Television Production

.
MATTER OF H-C-TV, 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 31,2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a production company , seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as chief financial 
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). 
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 , approved the petition but later revoked that approval 
based on a finding that the Beneficiar y's foreign employer has ceased to do business , and therefore 
the Petitioner has no qualifying relationship with a multinational organization. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence in an 
etiort to establish continued 
business activity by the foreign company. 
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 beneficiar y " 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 beneficiar y 
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. 
II. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The Director revoked the 
approval of the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner no longer has 
a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary 's foreign employer. 
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. 
..
Matter of H-C- TV. 
one entity with "branch" offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See 
generally section 10l(a)(15)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1). In this case, the Petitioner asserts 
that it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of 
A qualifying organization 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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(G)(2). "Doing business" means the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of 
goods, services , or both, by a qualifying organization and does not include the mere presence of an 
agent or office. 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(H). 
If the petitioning U.S. employer or the Beneficiary's former foreign employer ceases to be a 
qualifying organization. then the approved L-1 A petition is subject to revocation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A)(J). 
The Petitioner's provided an address for on 
rented office space from 
Petitioner submitted interior office photographs which showed 
desk and several United States flags at various locations in the office. 
China. 
The 
logo at the front 
The Director approved the petition on January 29, 2015, two days after its tiling. In July of that 
address and year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services investigators visited 
contacted the Beneficiary and the company's general manager, and reported the 
following findings: 
• The office identified 
as belonging to had been abandoned for several months. 
logo was visible inside the office, but the sign outside the office identified 
the location as a travel agency. Other signs outside the office indicated that the property 
manager had locked the occupants out of the office for non-payment of various fees. A 
receptionist on the first floor of the office building knew that the closed office had been a 
travel agency, but was not fami]iar with 
• The Beneficiary stated that she had been in 
offices in several months. 
and had not been to 
• told the investigators that was still active at the address 
provided, but she acknowledged that she had not visited that office for several months. 
The Director issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the approval of the petition , stating that the 
above infonnation indicated that the foreign company was no longer doing business, and is therefore 
no longer a qualitying organization. 
In the NOIR, the Director stated that "indicated she is not the general manager and legal 
person for" the foreign company. This is a transcription error from an earlier communication, which 
indicated that "confirmed she was now the general manager and legal person" for the 
2 
..
Af·alfer of H-C- n~ 
foreign company. We correct the error here because the Director cited the incorrect quotation as one 
of the grounds for the adverse finding. 
In response to the NOTR, the Petitioner disputed several of the investigators' findings. The 
Petitioner claimed that the foreign company continuously occupied its office until July 2015, when a 
dispute with the landlord led to the company's removal. The Petitioner claimed that "the Property 
Manager has locked the office several time[s] in July," before forcing the company out of the office 
on July 31, 2015. The Petitioner claimed to have learned, in "November 2016, that the property 
manager had illegally taken possession of the company's property that had been locked in the office. 
The Petitioner stated that the employees called the police for assistance, and that local television 
covered the dispute, although the Petitioner did not submit any corroborating evidence to support 
these claims. An attorney for the foreign company repeated these allegations, stating that legal 
action was pending and that the company had lodged complaints with local and national government 
agenctes. The attorney added that the company would soon file a countersuit against the property 
manager. 
The Petitioner provided what it called "A TRUE AND ACCURATE TTMELINE OF FACTS," 
including this assertion: "On and after August 2015, to avoid fight and to protect our employees' 
safety, The Company had to assign their employees either to work from home or at partners' job site 
tor almost a year ever since.'' 
The Petitioner submitted a translated letter from 
staffed "all the time prior to July 31, 2015," and that 
works in and does not work in 
indicating that the company was tully 
had "never stated [the Beneficiary] 
stated that she did not mention the 
landlord's actions when she first spoke to the investigators because of cultural factors that 
discourage open discussion of such matters. 
Statements attributed to other employees contained similar claims that the landlord 
unlawfuiJy forced the company out of the office on July 31, 2015, and that the company has 
continued operating and paying its employees nevertheless. The foreign company's human 
resources manager stated that "more than 10 core management personnel, have been working at a 
temporary office at our partner's company worksite." The Petitioner did not identify the partner or 
the partner's company or provide an address. The company's cameraman stated that the filming 
staff works "at my friend's studio who operates a film and television advertising company. We have 
to borrow their equipment to prepare domestic programs for our US Branch." 
The Petitioner submitted what purport to be copies of tax and payroll records from after July 2015. 
The numbers on the photocopied tax documents are too faint to read. 
We note that the site visit, when the investigators reported that they found the office vacant and 
"bare" apart from a receptionist's desk, occurred on Wednesday, July 29, 2015, two days before the 
Petitioner claims that the foreign company's employees were forced to leave the premises on 
m and more than a year hetore the Petitioner claims the foreign company 
.
.
Matter of H-C- TV. 
learned of the confiscation of its property in November 2016 . None of the letters explained or 
acknowledged the exterior sign for a travel agency that the investigators saw when they visited the 
site. With regard to the receptionist's assertion that the office had been closed for months , the 
Petitioner simply called that statement "not true.'' 
Copies of complaint letters addressed to government entthes are dated several 
weeks after the Director issued the NOIR on November 1, 2016, and do not show that the foreign 
company had taken any remedial action before the Petitioner received the NOIR. Some court 
documents show earlier dates, but those documents relate to the property manager 's suit against 
Documentation of legal action against for non-payment of fees does 
not establish that company ' s continued existence and operation as an active business. 
The Director revoked the approval of the petition, stating that the Petitioner "did not provide 
evidence of actual business activity" by the foreign company during the disputed period , or identify 
any specific location from which the company conducted business during late 2015 or 2016. The 
Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of payroll and tax documents, but found that 
these materials did not show the company's active engagement in business. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states: 
''The parent company is engaged ... in production and distribution 
of films, TV programs , [and) large shows." The Petitioner submits copies of what purport to be 
recent production contracts for commercials , live events, and other programming, mostly showing 
dates in the second half of 2016 . The record contains no evidence that the Petitioner fulfilled these 
contracts, most of which purport to have been executed after the landlord confiscated 
equipment but before the Petitioner learned of the confiscation. The Petitioner has 
not established how it fulfilled the contracts without its equipment. 
The Petitioner has submitted various paperwork originating from but the record lacks 
independent corroboration to contirm that the company continues to engage in the regular, 
systematic , and continuous provision of goods, services , or both. The Petitioner has provided 
business addresses but investigators have been unable 
to confirm actual business activity there. 
continued existence on paper cannot suffice to show that the company has, at all 
relevant times, not only employed workers but also done business as the regulation defines that term. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary ' s foreign employer ts a qualifying 
organization. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofH-C- TV. , ID# 547789 (AAO Jan. 31, 2018) 
4