dismissed L-1A Case: Research And Intelligence

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 18822320 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEP . 22, 2021 
The Petitioner , describing itself as a "research and intelligence firm ," sought to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as its "Global Head of Sales and Strategy" under the L-1 A nonirnmigrant classification 
for intracompany transferees . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(L). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center revoked the approval of the instant petition , since the 
Petitioner did not respond to a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) issued following a site visit to its 
office location . Since the Petitioner did not respond to the NOIR, the Director concluded that the 
Beneficiary was not, and would not be, employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United 
States and revoked the approved petition. 
On appeal , the Petitioner contends that it did not respond to the NOIR because neither it nor its counsel 
received the NOIR. The Petitioner now submits additional evidence on appeal to "rebut the assertions 
made by the Service in the Revocation Notice ." 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-IA 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. The petitioner 
must also establish that the beneficiary 's prior education , training , and employment qualify him or her 
to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R . § 214 .2(1)(3). 
Under U.S . Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations , the approval of an L-IA 
petition may be revoked on notice under six specific circumstances . 8 C.F .R. § 2 l 4.2(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. GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION 
The Director revoked the approved petition on October 1, 2020, following the issuance of a NOIR on 
May 5, 2020. In the NOIR, the Director pointed to a post adjudication site visit to the Petitioner's 
business conducted in September 2019 during which the Beneficiary indicated that he traveled "40-
50% of the time to meet new clients." The Director also stated that the site visit indicated that the 
Beneficiary likely performed non-qualifying operational sales work since he was the only apparent 
employee in its office. The Director concluded that this indicated that the Beneficiary was not 
primarily employed in a managerial or executive capacity. As previously discussed, the Petitioner did 
not respond to the Director's NOIR, claiming that it and its listed counsel, did not receive it. 
III. PETITIONER'S LACK OF RESPONSE TO THE NOIR 
On appeal, the Petitioner has not sufficiently corroborated its assertion that it did not receive the NOIR 
issued by the Director. For this reason, we will dismiss the appeal. 
In general, the Director's decision to revoke the approval of a petition will be affirmed if the Petitioner 
fails to offer a timely explanation or rebuttal to a properly issued notice of intent to revoke, 
notwithstanding the submission of evidence on appeal. Matter of Arias, 19 I&N Dec. 568, 569 (BIA 
1988). Our records confirm that the Director issued the NOIR on May 4, 2020 1 and sent this notice 
to those addresses for the Petitioner and counsel listed in the G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as 
Attorney or Accredited Representative (provided in support of the petition and now on appeal), the 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, and the current Form I-290B Notice of Appeal or 
Motion. We note that the addresses for the Petitioner and listed counsel have not changed in any of 
this documentation throughout the record. As noted, the Petitioner claims that it did not receive the 
NOIR. 
In support of this assertion, the Petitioner only provides a letter stating that it, and counsel, did not 
receive the NOIR. However, an uncorroborated, self-serving denial of receipt is not probative 
evidence, even if sworn. Joshi v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 732, 735 (7th Cir. 2004). As such, absent 
sufficient corroborative evidence to support the Petitioner's claim that it did not receive a copy of the 
Director's NOIR, we conclude that the available evidence reflects that the Director sent the NOIR to 
the correct address of record, which as we have noted, the Petitioner continues to use on appeal. 
Therefore, we conclude that the NOIR was properly served in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.8. A 
petitioner's unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally will be insufficient to 
carry its burden of proof. See Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
In addition, the NOIR set forth reasonable issues specific to whether the Beneficiary was acting, or 
would act, in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States based on direct statements to an 
immigration officer and an apparent lack of support staff at the Petitioner's business location. 
Therefore, we conclude that this NOIR was properly issued on good and sufficient cause and was not 
1 However, we note that the notices were dated the next day on May 5, 2020. 
2 
"conclusory, speculative, equivocal, or irrelevant." See Matter of Arias, 19 I&N Dec. 568, 569 at 570. 
Further, the failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be 
grounds for denying the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l4). Therefore, the Director was correct in 
revoking the approved petition based on the Petitioner's failure to respond to the NOIR. As such, 
for the foregoing reasons, the Director properly revoked the previously approved petition, as the 
Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary acted, or would act, in a managerial or executive capacity 
in the United States. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3