dismissed L-1A Case: Textile Sales

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-L-INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 30, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a textile sales and distribution company, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's 
employment as its president under theL-IA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section IOI(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(L). The 
L-1 A 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 Vermont Service Center revoked approval of the petition, concluding that the 
Petitioner did not establish, as required, that the Beneficiary had at least one continuous year of full­
time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the Director's conclusion, contending that the decision included 
"erroneous findings of fraud." We note, however, that the Director did not make a finding of fraud 
or willful misrepresentation. As stated above, the chief basis for the revocation, as articulated by 
Director, pertains to the Beneficiary's period of employment abroad prior to the filing of this 
petition. 
Upon de novo review, we find that the Petitioner has not overcome the basis for the revocation. 
Therefore, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for theL-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 IOI(a)(IS)(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. Jd. 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). 
.
Mauer of A-L- Inc. 
According to the regulations, a beneficiary must have "one continuous year of full-time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the tiling of the petition." 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
The term " intracompany transferee" is defined as: 
An alien who, within three years preceding the time of his or her application for 
admission into the United States, has been employed abroad continuously for one 
year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or parent , branch, affiliate or 
subsidiary thereof , and who seeks to enter the United State s temporarily in order to 
render his or her services to a branch of the same emplo yer or a parent, affiliate, or 
subsidiary thereof in a capacity that is managerial, executive or involves special ized 
knowledge. Periods spent in the United States in lawful status for a branch of the 
same employer or a parent, affiliate , or subsidiary thereof and brief trips to the 
United States for business or pleasure shall not be interruptive of the one year of 
continuous employment abroad but such periods shall not be counted toward 
fulfillment of that requirement. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(I)(ii)(A). 
Under U.S. Citizenship and Immigr ation Services regulations , the approval of an L-1 A 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 petiti on, a director must issue a notic e 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). 
Il. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
The primary issue in this proceeding is whether the Petition er has establ ished that the Beneficiar y 
had at least one continuous yea r of full-time employment abroad with a qua lifying organization 
within the three years that immediatel y preceded the filing of this petition. As the instant petition 
was filed on September 1, 2016, the Petitioner must provide evidence to show that it was employed 
abroad for one continuous year by a qualifying entity during the three-year period from September 
2013 to September 2016. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons discussed below, we 
find that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary had one year of continuous 
employment with the foreign entity during the relevant three-ye ar period. 
In the Form I-129 L Classification Supplement, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary had two 
consecutive periods of employment with two related foreign entities. Spec ifically , the Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiar y was first employed by Homesen se Inc. from October 2009 to October 
2015 followed by a position with from October 
2015 to the present. We note the Petitioner did not complete section I, item 9 of the L Classification 
Supplement; which asks the Petitioner to identify the nature of its qualifying relation ship with the 
2 
.
Matter (~f A-L- Inc. 
Beneficiary 's foreign employer. 1 However , in response to section 1, item 10 of the L Classification 
Supplement , the Petitioner described an affiliate rela tionship with stating that the 
Beneficiary owns I 00% of the foreign entity and has majori ty ownership of the Petitioner through 
direct and indirect ownership .2 
The Petitioner also provided the Beneficiary' s resume, which indicate s that the B.eneficiary's 
employment with began in November 2015. This information is incon sistent with the 
petition , where the Petition er claimed that the Beneficiary's employment with 
commenced in October, rather than November
, of 2015. The Petitioner must resolve this 
discrepancy in the record with independent , objective evidenc e point ing to where the truth lies. 
Matter (~fHo , 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
In a supporting statement, the Petitioner claimed that purchased m 
April 2016. To corroborate this claim, the Petitioner provided a document entitled 
which named as the buyer and as the seller of 
The documen t further indicates that the business is subject to an outstanding bank loan and that the 
bank's consent is necessar y to complete the transfer of owner ship betwee n and 
Clause 8 of the document further states , "If the bank of [sic] any reason refuses to give its 
consent to the transfer of the said business than [sic] this agreement will be treated as cancelled ." 
We note, however, that the record lacks evidence showing that the bank consented to the ownership 
transfer. Ther efore, the Petiti oner did not establi sh that purchased 
Although the Director initiall y approved the petition, the Petitioner's eligibility came under question 
following the Beneficiary ' s November 2016 interview at a U.S. con sular office overseas and a 
subsequent tield visit to place of business. In a notice of intent to revo ke, the 
Director informed the Petitioner that November 2015 date of incorporation indicate s 
that the Beneficiary could not have worked there for at least one year prior to Septemb er 2016, when 
this petition was filed. The Director also pointed to an interview with the fore ign entity's acco unt 
manager and seve ral of the foreign entity's employees, who confirmed that the foreign entity was 
established in November 20 15; the Director noted various observations that were made during the 
site visit, including lack of warehou se space and the small workspace . 
The Petitioner' s response included an aftidavit from the Beneficiary in which he addressed the 
Director 's concerns regarding the warehouse and workspace issues and clarified role 
as the "back office" with resp ect to the U.S. operation. The Beneficiary state d that is 
the succes sor-in-interest to by virtue of its purcha se "in full" of the latter entity; the 
1 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., one entity with "branch" offices), or that 
they are related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See generally section IOI(a)( I5)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1). 
2 
The tenn "affiliate" is defined, in relevant part, as (I) one of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled 
by the same parent or individual; or (2) one of two legal entities owned by the same group of individuals, each individual 
owning and controlling approximately the same share or proportion of each entity. 8 C. F.R. § 214.2(1)( I )(ii)(L). 
3 
.
Mauer of A-L- Inc. 
Beneficiar y claimed that he started working for in October 2015 , despite the fact that 
it was incorporated in 2015. 
We find, however, that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence documenting 
successorship over As previously noted, the April 2016 sales contrac t only 
establishes the purchaser's and seller's agreement to go forward with a transfer of ownership. rt 
does not, however, serve as evidence that the required consent was obtained from the third party, i.e., 
the lender , whose consent is required in order to fully execute the tran sfer of ownership. As the 
Petitioner has not established that Affinity India 
was successor-in-interest or that the 
Petitioner is otherwise related to through an affiliate or parent-subsidiary relationship , 
the Beneficiary's employment with is not relevant in this matter and it will not count 
toward his period of emplo yment abroad with a qualifying entity. 
The Petitioner also has not established that the Beneficiary has the requir ed one year of employment 
with as this entity was not established until 2015. The claim that the 
Beneficiary was employed by before its date of incorporation is unsubstanti ated. The 
Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant , probative, and credible evidence. See Matter l~( 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Moreover, even if existed in 
2015, the Beneficiary still would not have met his foreign employment requirem ent, as he 
wou ld 
have to establish that he was employed by as of September 1, 2015, one year prior to 
the date the instant petition was tiled . 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we find that the Petitioner has not established that the Benefici ary 
met the forei gn employment requi rement. The revocation of the app roval is therefore affirmed and 
the appeal will be dismi ssed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-L-Ine., ID# 1240552 {AAO May 30, 20 18) 
4