dismissed L-1A Case: Real Estate

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 2878770 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC. 10, 2019 
The Petitioner , 1 a real estate investment, management, and development business, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as its senior portfolio manager under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification 
for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center revoked the approval of the petition, concluding that the 
record did not establish, as required, that: (1) the Petitioner is doing business as defined in the 
regulations; (2) the Beneficiary's foreign employer is doing business; (3) the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity; and (4) the Beneficiary would be employed 
in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. In the notice of intent to revoke (NOIR), 
the Director stated that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) intended to revoke the 
approval "with a finding of fraud." In the revocation order, the Director referenced the NOIR, and 
stated that the grounds for revocation had not been overcome. However, the Director did not articulate 
a finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not contest the revocation of the approval, but emphasizes that "nowhere 
in the [NOIR] or Decision is there any specific allegation of falseness, fraud or material 
misrepresentation." The Petitioner maintains that the decision leaves unresolved whether a finding of 
fraud was confirmed, and states that it filed the appeal for the sole purpose of requesting that any fraud 
finding be "expressly deleted." 
The burden of proof to establish eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the petitioner in 
revocation proceedings. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1361; Matter of Cheung, 12 I&N Dec. 715 
(BIA 1968); and Matter ofEstime, 19 I&N Dec. 450,452, n.1 (BIA 1987). Upon de nova review, we 
will dismiss the appeal, as the Petitioner concedes that it did not establish that it meets all eligibility 
requirements for the requested classification. The revocation of the approval of the petition will 
remain undisturbed. Further, we conclude that the Director did not, in fact, make a finding of fraud 
or willful misrepresentation of a material fact and that the record does not support such a finding . 
1 We are sending this decision to the Petitioner 's address of record, with a courtesy copy to _________ -
1 I Public records show that the Petitioner registered the new address with the Florida Division 
of Corporations in March 2019. 
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. Id. 
Under 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 rebuttal. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(B). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted, the approval of this petition was revoked after the Director identified four independent and 
alternative grounds of ineligibility. Further, the Director's NOIR and revocation decision suggested, 
but did not expressly state, that a finding of fraud or material misrepresentation may be warranted. 
We will discuss these issues separately below. 
A. Revocation of the Approved Petition 
In the NOIR, the Director advised the Petitioner that the evidence of record was insufficient to show 
that the Petitioner and its Canadian subsidiary (the Beneficiary's foreign employer) were doing 
business as defined in the regulations, and insufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary has been 
employed abroad and would be employed in the United States, in a managerial or executive capacity 
as defined at section 10l(a)(44) of the Act. The Director advised the Petitioner of the evidentiary 
deficiencies in the record and provided a list of suggested documentation that may assist in overcoming 
the grounds for revocation. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner did not submit a timely response to the NOIR, which was mailed 
to the company address stated on the petition. 2 Therefore, the Director determined that the Petitioner 
had not overcome the deficiencies discussed in the NOIR and revoked the approval of the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not contest the revocation of the approval based on the merits of the 
petition, and even states that "[l]ooking at the grounds for revocation in 8 CFR 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A) a 
good case could be made that subsection 5 'Approval of the petition involved gross error' may have 
been the case." We, therefore, consider these uncontested issues to be abandoned. See Sepulveda v. 
US. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); see also, Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-
27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *l, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the plaintiff's 
claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
2 The Petitioner submitted a late response, advised the Director that it did not receive the NOIR in a timely fashion because 
it had moved to a new location, and requested additional time to respond. The Director did not grant the request for 
additional time. 
2 
Accordingly, we will affirm the revocation of the petition's approval and dismiss the appeal. 
B. Fraud or Willful Misrepresentation 
The remaining issue pertains to the Petitioner's request that any finding of fraud made by the Director 
be "expressly deleted." We find that the Director did not make a finding of fraud or willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact, nor did the decision provide an analysis to support such a finding. 
Any foreign person 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 the Act is inadmissible. See section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). 
A finding of fraud requires a determination that the alien or petitioner made a false representation of 
a material fact with knowledge of its falsity and with the intent to deceive an immigration officer. 
Furthermore, the false representation must have been believed and acted upon by the officer. See 
Matter ofG-G-, 7 I&N Dec. 161 (BIA 1956). 
As outlined by the Board of Immigration Appeals, a material misrepresentation requires that one 
willfully makes a material misstatement to a government official for the purpose of obtaining an 
immigration benefit to which one is not entitled. Matter of Kai 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 Tijam, 22 
I&N Dec. 408,425 (BIA 1998); 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 m a proper 
determination that he be excluded." Matter of Ng, 17 I&N Dec. 536, 537 (BIA 1980). 
Accordingly, for an immigration officer to find a willful and material misrepresentation in visa petition 
proceedings, he or she 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 ofM-, 6 I&N Dec. 149 (BIA 1954); 
Matter ofL-L-, 9 I&N Dec. 324 (BIA 1961); Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. at 288. 
Here, the Director indicated an intent to revoke the approval of the petition with a "finding of fraud" 
but did not address why the facts of this case support such a finding based on the elements of fraud or 
willful misrepresentation of a material fact. In fact, both the NOIR and the revocation decision contain 
a single reference to an intent to make a finding of fraud, and no other mention of fraud or 
misrepresentation. 
The NOIR advised the Petitioner that the proposed revocation was based, in part, on statements the 
Beneficiary had made during her interview when she applied for an L-1 visa at the U.S. consulate in 
I I and on further inquiries conducted by the consulate. Specifically, the NOIR advised the 
Petitioner of the following: 
3 
• [T]he beneficiary stated that she only manages independent contractors and her daily 
control of their work i[s] nominal in her current role with the foreign entity." 
• The Petitioner's CFO, also an owner of its parent company, stated that "the company 
in Canada is not involved in any traditional business activities," but owns and manages 
some property. He explained that the company mainly seeks to find new investors for 
the U.S. enterprise, and engages in administrative support of the U.S. business. 
The Director did not draw any connection between the consular interview and subsequent inquiries 
and the intent to make a finding of fraud. Further, upon review of the record, the statements made by 
the Beneficiary and the Petitioner's CEO are generally consistent with the statements made in support 
of the petition. The record reflects that the Petitioner and the foreign entity operate a business that 
relies primarily on independent contractors. The Petitioner itself indicated that it has one employee 
and 21 contractors and the Petitioner did not claim that the Canadian entity was structured differently; 
its organizational chart shows contractors, vendors, and one temporary accounting staff Therefore, 
the Beneficiary's statement that she supervises only independent contractors does not lead to a 
conclusion that the Petitioner misrepresented her job duties or the staffing or structure of the Canadian 
company to users. 
With respect to the nature of the business in Canada, the Petitioner stated in its December 2015 letter 
in support of the petition that the Canadian entity owns several investment properties and "served as 
the administration and control division for all three U.S. based [Petitioner] fonds." This statement is 
consistent with the statement the Petitioner's CFO made in response to the consulate's inquiries. 
As discussed, the Director's revocation decision did not expressly articulate a finding of fraud or 
willful misrepresentation of a material fact, but, as noted by the Petitioner, was inconclusive as to 
whether fraud or misrepresentation was confirmed. We find that the facts of this case do not warrant 
a finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation against either the Petitioner or the Beneficiary. 
Therefore, the Director's reference to an "intent to revoke with a finding of fraud" is withdrawn. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The revocation of the previously approved petition is affirmed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4