dismissed L-1A Case: Textiles

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-(USA) CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 12, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a seller and distributor of fabrics and garments, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's 
temporary employment as its president under the L- lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 11 0l(a)(l5)(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 was employed abroad and would be 
employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 1 These findings were based, in 
part, on foreign documents and information discovered while interviewing the Beneficiary and other 
employees of the Petitioner during a random U.S. site visit. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the Director's findings and questions the propriety of the site visit. 
The Petitioner contends that the interviewing immigration officer's (IO) report disregarded 
corroborating objective evidence and that the Director's analysis of the evidence was "naturally tainted 
and result-oriented." The Petitioner points to an affidavit that the Beneficiary previously provided 
where she emphasized that English is her second language, indicating that the claimed language barrier 
may have resulted in miscommunications between the Beneficiary and the IO. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
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 
1 Approval of this petition was originally revoked in a previously issued notice ofrevocation. Subsequent to the revocation, 
the Petitioner filed a motion to reopen, which the Director denied resulting in appeal of that decision. Based on the 
determination that the Director did not consider newly submitted evidence, we remanded the matter and a new notice of 
intent to revoke (NOIR) was issued followed by the current notice of revocation, which is now before us on appeal. 
Matter of G-(USA) Corp. 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 10l(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. 
Under U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 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. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in an executive capacity. 2 
Therefore, the primary issue to be addressed in this discussion is whether the record supports that 
claim. 
"Executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization; 
establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; exercises wide latitude 
in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. Section 101 (a)( 44 )(B) of the 
Act. 
Based on the statutory definition of executive capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the 
Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 
1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). The Petitioner must also prove that the Beneficiary 
will be primarily engaged in executive duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside 
the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); 
Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The description of the job duties must clearly describe the duties performed by the Beneficiary and 
indicate whether such duties are in an executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Beyond the 
required description of the job duties, we examine the employing company's organizational structure, 
the duties of the Beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to relieve the 
Beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that 
will contribute to understanding the Beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
A. Statement of Facts 
The petition was filed in June 2016 and approved in July 2016. The petition form indicates that the 
Petitioner is a subsidiary ofl l the Beneficiary's foreign employer, 
where the Beneficiary is claimed to have been employed from July 2011 to September 2013. In a 
2 Although the Petitioner does not expressly state whether the Beneficiary's claimed employment abroad was in a 
managerial or in an executive capacity, it uses language that is consistent with the definition of executive capacity. 
2 
Matter of G-(USA) Corp. 
supporting cover letter, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary was the foreign entity's "vice general 
manager" and that she managed five department heads in an organization comprised of 100 "workshop 
workers" and 19 employees spread out among five departments. The cover letter also included the 
Beneficiary's job duty breakdown, which indicates that the Beneficiary was responsible for strategic 
planning, setting goals and policies, determining marketing and sales strategies and approving sales 
and marketing plans, overseeing the development of new sales channels, maintaining discretionary 
authority over personnel matters, approving new product lines and operational activities, guiding the 
management team based on customer feedback, and monitoring the company's finances and cost­
effectiveness. 
The Petitioner also provided two undated organizational charts, each depicting the foreign 
organization's staffing structure with the position of vice general manager as second from top-most 
position, subordinate only to the individual who served as the chairman and general manager. 
Although both charts depict the same organizational structure, one chart shows I I in the 
position of vice general manager, while the second chart shows the Beneficiary in that position with 
I I in a seemingly demoted position as director of foreign sales - one of five department 
heads shown as having been directly subordinate to the Beneficiary, along with a director of domestic 
sales, a production director, a financial/accounting director, and a warehouse manager. The Petitioner 
also provided 12 months-worth of payroll records for 2012. According to the December 2012 
statement, the Beneficiary's monthly compensation was RMB4500 which was lower than four of her 
subordinate directors whose monthly compensation was RMB6500. Among the Beneficiary's 
subordinates, only the warehouse manager, whose monthly compensation was indicated as RMB3500, 
received a salary that was below the Beneficiary's. With the exception of the December 2012 
statement, the remaining 11 months-worth of payroll records were not accompanied by translations. 3 
After the petition was approved, the Petitioner was selected for a random administrative site visit, 
which took place in November 2016 and during which the Beneficiary was interviewed. In the latest 
notice of intent to revoke (NOIR), the Director provided the details of that interview noting that the 
Beneficiary's responses regarding her position abroad were inconsistent with the information the 
Petitioner provided in support of the petition. Namely, the IO noted that when asked about her foreign 
employment, the Beneficiary stated that she worked as a customer service employee and that she did 
not assume a management or supervisory role. The IO further noted that the Beneficiary was unable 
to remember any business classes she attended in the course of obtaining her degree in marketing and 
could not articulate how her customer service experience abroad prepared her to be the head of the 
U.S. entity. 
The NOIR also acknowledged the Petitioner's prior submission of an affidavit from the Beneficiary 
in which she claimed that maintaining good customer relations was inherent to her position as vice 
general manager of the foreign entity and that her "good foreign language skill" and product 
knowledge were the reasons she was given a management role within the company. The Director 
observed that the Beneficiary's affidavit did not offer more detailed information about her duties 
abroad and referred to the original support letter for a description of her foreign job duties. The 
Director also discussed previously submitted business plans for the foreign entity's marketing, product 
development, and sales, finding that the Beneficiary's direct involvement in creating those plans was 
3 Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
3 
Matter of G-(USA) Corp. 
consistent with her site visit responses and information she provided in a prior nonimmigrant visa 
application, which she claimed to have filed for the purpose of attending a trade show. The Director 
determined that the Beneficiary performed, rather than delegated, the duties required to execute the 
business plans she actively helped to create and that she was actually carrying out marketing duties 
rather than managing the foreign entity's marketing division. 
Further, the Director found that despite having some discretionary authority over certain employees 
and personnel matters, the Beneficiary did not exercise such authority over managerial, professional, 
or supervisory subordinates and received a salary that was below that of four out of five of her claimed 
subordinates. The Director observed that the Beneficiary's salary was on par with other sales 
managers and therefore did not correspond with her placement at a top level within the foreign entity's 
organizational hierarchy. 
In response, the Petitioner reiterated the contents of the Beneficiary's previously submitted affidavit 
and emphasized the Beneficiary's "limited English skill" as the reason for her conflicting statements 
during the 2016 site visit. To support its claim, the Petitioner provided a sworn declaration from an 
owner of a business that offers lessons and assessments to those for whom English is a second language 
(ESL). The declarant indicated that she tested the Beneficiary's written and verbal skills and found 
that the Beneficiary was shy and humble because of her cultural background and therefore did not 
elaborate on her job duties during the U.S. site visit interview. The Petitioner also offered a 
"Development Strategy Plan" as evidence of the Beneficiary's duties with respect to strategic planning 
and the Beneficiary's performance evaluations of her five claimed reports as evidence of her 
supervisory role. In addition, the Petitioner provided translated business reports and copies of business 
plans contending that the Beneficiary's signature serves as evidence that she reviewed, evaluated, and 
signed, but did not prepare, the reports and plans. The Petitioner also argued that although the 
Beneficiary attended a trade show, she did not perform non-qualifying job duties and instead focused 
on leading "a delegation team"; it claimed that her role was limited to directing employees and 
performing managerial and executive job duties. In an effort to explain the disparity between the 
Beneficiary's salary and those of employees positioned below her within the foreign entity's hierarchy, 
the Petitioner provided year-end bonus notices for 2011 and 2012 and referred to an "allowance plan," 
claiming that these additional fonds were part of her compensation package. 
Lastly, the Petitioner referred to a statement from the foreign entity's owner, who described the foreign 
entity as a family business and claimed that the Beneficiary is his niece who interned at the business 
prior to graduating college. He claimed that he arranged for the Beneficiary to assume a "senior 
position" at his company once she graduated. Although the Beneficiary's uncle claimed that he 
recognized the Beneficiary's "potential to communicate effectively with clients" and "deal with" 
personnel and other departmental issues, he did not discuss the duties the Beneficiary performed nor 
did he explain how the internship prepared her for assuming a top leadership role within the 
organization. 
In the revocation decision, the Director summarized the NOIR findings, again questioning the nature 
of the Beneficiary's job duties in light of information she provided in the 2016 site visit interview. 
The Director reiterated concerns about the Beneficiary's involvement in developing marketing plans 
and her attendance at a trade show, noting that these factors are consistent with non-managerial and 
4 
Matter of G-(USA) Corp. 
non-executive employment. The Director determined that the Beneficiary made various personnel 
decisions with respect to non-supervisory or non-professional employees and found that the 
Beneficiary's salary of RMB4500 was not consistent with her placement within the foreign entity 
when considered in comparison to other employees who were depicted at lower organizational levels 
but received salaries that were equal to or greater than the Beneficiary. 
The Director accepted that the Beneficiary may have been nervous during the site visit interview, but 
pointed to the IO's description of the Beneficiary's demeanor during that interview as "calm and 
comfortable" and also recalled the Beneficiary's previously submitted affidavit, where she indicated 
that her ability to speak English factored into the decision to hire her for a leadership position at the 
foreign entity. The Director observed that the Beneficiary took more classes in the English language 
than in business, despite claiming that her business background was a consideration in hiring her for 
the foreign position. The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner's NOIR response included the 
Beneficiary's job description, but determined that the information was overly vague and did not 
adequately state what the Beneficiary did on a daily basis. The Director also acknowledged that the 
Petitioner submitted new documents, but questioned their authenticity based on the "wet-ink 
signatures" they contained, which led the Director to believe that documents containing dates that 
were consistent with the Beneficiary's period of employment abroad were actually drafted recently 
for the purpose of responding to the NOIR. 
On appeal, the Petitioner addresses the Director's findings and continues to focus on the perceived 
language barrier as the reason for the Beneficiary's inability to accurately convey information about 
her foreign employment. The Petitioner argues that the Director's decision was arbitrary and biased 
and further asserts that the Director did not consider portions of the NOIR response, including plans 
for new product development, internet sales, and textile export. 
B. Analysis 
We find that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence establishing that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad in an executive capacity prior to filing this petition. 
The Petitioner contends that the Director did not properly assess or give weight to previously submitted 
evidence and resubmits certain documents on appeal for our review; however, the previously 
submitted evidence is insufficient to overcome the contradictory statements the Beneficiary made 
during the 2016 site visit interview when she stated that she was employed abroad as a customer 
service employee and did not assume a managerial or supervisory role during her foreign employment. 
The Beneficiary's account is inconsistent with the previously provided job duty breakdown which 
indicates that the Beneficiary focused on the foreign entity's goals and policies and had discretionary 
authority over matters concerning the company's product sales and development as well as its business 
strategies and personnel. The Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary's poor command of spoken 
English is to blame for her inconsistent and deficient statements and points to the previously submitted 
declaration from the owner of a business offering various ESL-based services. The declarant offered 
an explanation based on her assessment of the Beneficiary's written and verbal English skills, claiming 
that the Beneficiary's shy demeanor and reluctance to provide additional information about her job 
duties were the result of her shy personality and being part of a cultural in which "[b ]eing humble is 
5 
Matter of G-(USA) Corp. 
culturally acceptable." This assessment does not, however, overcome the IO's observations of the 
Beneficiary's demeanor, which are vastly different from those of the declarant. As the declarant was 
not present at the Beneficiary's interview with the IO, she cannot attest either to the Beneficiary's 
demeanor or to the content of what was said. We forth er note that the declarant' s statement did not 
convey any new information about the Beneficiary's foreign job duties, nor did it explain why the 
Beneficiary expressly stated that she did not assume a supervisory role if: in fact, she did, as the 
Petitioner claims. 
Moreover, we note that records made by public officials in the ordinary course of their duties generally 
are deemed to evince "strong indicia ofreliability." See Felzcerekv. I.NS., 75 F.3d 112, 116 (2d Cir. 
1996). As discussed above, the USCIS officer personally met with the Beneficiary and obtained 
information establishing that the statements pertaining to the Beneficiary's foreign employment are 
inconsistent with information that the Beneficiary herself provided during her interview with the IO. 
Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume that the USCIS official properly discharged his duties in 
making the reports. The Petitioner has not otherwise demonstrated the reliability of the Beneficiary's 
own claims and evidence. Consequently, based on the derogatory information obtained during the 
U.S. site visit and the contradictions between the Petitioner's claims and the Beneficiary's evidence 
and claims, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary performed the duties it listed in 
support of this petition. 
Next, we turn to the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary received bonuses in addition to her base 
compensation during her period of employment. To support this claim, the Petitioner submitted a 
2011 and 2012 "Issuance Notice for ... Year-[E]nd Bonus" and "Reward Notice." Although each 
issuance notice states that the Beneficiary received "an allowance of RMB 10,000" and a "double pay" 
year-end bonus, the reward notices show that each year-end bonus was RMB19,000 and are silent 
about any additional "allowance" fonds. Based on the Beneficiary's claimed monthly salary of 
RMB4500, her annual base pay should have been RMB54,000 giving her a "double pay" bonus of 
RMB108,000, not RMB19,000 as indicated in each "Reward Notice." Aside from this inconsistency, 
it is unclear why the Beneficiary's bonus compensation was the same in 2012, when she is claimed to 
have worked for 12 months, as it was in 2011, when she worked half that time because she did not 
assume her position with the foreign entity until July 2011. The Petitioner did not explain or justify 
this seemingly unreasonable bonus structure, nor did it provide objective contemporaneous evidence, 
as opposed to internally generated documents, to substantiate the information contained in these 
notices. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Furthermore, as noted earlier, although we 
acknowledge the Petitioner's submission of multiple monthly payroll statements for the foreign entity, 
only the December 2012 statement was accompanied by an English language translation; that 
statement made no mention of a bonus or an allowance for additional fonds. In fact, given the absence 
of certified translations of the foreign entity's payroll records for January through November 2012, 
we cannot verify the Beneficiary's foreign employment during those months. 4 
4 Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. ~ 103.2(b )(3). 
The translator must certify that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. Id. As the Petitioner did not submit a properly certified 
English language translation of all of the foreign entity's payroll documents, we cannot meaningfully determine whether 
the untranslated material supports the Petitioner's claims regarding the Beneficiary's salary and period of employment. 
6 
Matter of G-(USA) Corp. 
In the appeal brief: the Petitioner contends that the Director failed to consider certain "new evidence" 
that was provided in response to the NOIR. The Petitioner submits three documents for our 
consideration, referring to these documents as plans for new product development, internet sales, and 
textile export. The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary evaluated and approved, but did not create 
the three documents, as indicated by the phrase "Evaluated and approved by" on the signature line, 
immediately preceding the Beneficiary's signature. Despite providing a translator's certification with 
each document submitted on appeal, none of the translations appear to match the corresponding 
original foreign documents with respect to length or format. For instance, the translation of the product 
development plan consists of two paragraphs - the first longer than the second - and a signature line 
as described above. However, the foreign counterpart to that document consists of three paragraphs 
with the first two undistinguishably similar in length and both longer than the third paragraph. The 
foreign document also contains a phone number and what is perhaps the address at the upper left-hand 
side; it also includes an additional one line of writing centered at the bottom of the page. The 
translation does not contain any of these characteristics. 
We observe similar anomalies with the two remaining documents. Namely, the translation of what 
appears to be the textile export plan contains three main headings - "Customer Groups," "Channels," 
and "Pricing Strategy" - with each heading numbered 3-5 and paragraph No. 4 containing two 
subheadings - "Marketing Channel" and "Promotional Model" - numbered (1) and (2). The bottom 
paragraph is marked as Roman numeral III and is titled "Allocation and Budget"; this section contains 
a list of items numbered 1-4. The corresponding foreign language document that was submitted on 
appeal, however, appears to contain only the Roman numeral portion and does not appear to include 
any of the preceding material. We further note that what the Petitioner offers as the textile export plan 
on appeal, it previously offered as part of the internet sales plan when submitted earlier in support of 
the motion to reopen. In addition, the translation of the new product development plan that is offered 
on appeal consists of the following words: "Use of Fund: New product development, purchasing of 
new raw materials, advertising and promotional expenses." However, the corresponding foreign 
document submitted on appeal does not match the single sentence translation, as the foreign document 
consists of items numbered one through five and contains several lines of additional information 
immediately following the numeric portion. 
The Petitioner must resolve the above described inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved 
material inconsistencies, such as those cataloged in this decision, may lead us to reevaluate the 
reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. 
Id. As the noted discrepancies are not reconciled, we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary delegated, 
but did not execute, the non-qualifying tasks of the organization and that he was working abroad in an 
executive capacity for the foreign entity. 
III. REMAINING ISSUES 
In addition, while not previously discussed in the Director's decisions, information that the Petitioner 
has provided at various times throughout this proceeding leads us to question whether the Petitioner 
7 
Matter of G-(USA) Corp. 
provided sufficient evidence to establish that it 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., one 
entity with "branch" offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See generally 
section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1). The Petitioner must support its assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner claims that it is the subsidiary in a parent-subsidiary relationship 
with the foreign entity. In order to establish that the foreign entity is the parent in a parent-subsidiary 
relationship with the Petitioner, the Petitioner would have to provide evidence showing that the foreign 
entity owns and controls the U.S. entity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(K). 
Regulation and case law confirm that ownership and control are the factors that must be examined in 
determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and foreign entities. See, 
e.g., Church Scientology Int'!, 19 l&N Dec. 593; Matter of Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 362 
(Comm'r 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 l&N Dec. 289 (Comm'r 1982). Ownership refers to the direct 
or indirect legal right of possession of the assets of an entity with full power and authority to control; 
control means the direct or indirect legal right and authority to direct the establishment, management, 
and operations of an entity. Matter of Church Scientology Int'!, 19 l&N Dec. at 595. 
In the present matter, although the Petitioner claims to be owned by the foreign entity, it offered 
supporting statements and affidavits from its employees all stating that the Beneficiary is the 
Petitioner's president and owner. Further, although the Petitioner submitted the minutes from a 2013 
organizational meeting authorizing the sale of 500,000 of its shares to the foreign entity for $500,000, 
the record does not contain sufficient evidence showing that the foreign entity paid the required 
amount in exchange for ownership of the U.S. entity. Rather, the Petitioner provided a purported 
board resolution from the foreign entity wherein it was decided that a third party entity would act by 
proxy on behalf of the foreign entity and the third party would wire the Petitioner $200,000 as a means 
of paying down on an alleged debt that the third party entity owed to the foreign entity. The Petitioner 
provided no documentary evidence of the alleged business relationship between the foreign entity and 
the third party entity that wired funds to the Petitioner's U.S. bank account, nor did it establish that 
the funds were intended as payment in exchange for an ownership interest in the Petitioner. Moreover, 
given the considerable anomalies regarding other translations in the record, the translation of the 
foreign entity's purported board resolution would not be deemed a reliable source of establishing the 
parent-subsidiary nexus between the Petitioner and the foreign entity. As previously noted, unresolved 
material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence 
submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Ho, 19 l&N Dec. at 591-92. 
While we are precluded from making an adverse determination based on findings without first 
notifying the Petitioner, we note the adverse information for the record so as to inform the Petitioner 
8 
Matter of G-(USA) Corp. 
that it may need to address this information in any future proceedings where a qualifying relationship 
with the foreign entity is a factor of eligibility. 5 
Lastly, based on the dis positive effect of our findings regarding the Beneficiary's foreign employment, 
the appeal will be dismissed and we will reserve the issue regarding the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. 
employment in a managerial or executive capacity. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofG-(USA) Corp., ID# 3498498 (AAO June 12, 2019) 
5 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). 
9