remanded L-1A Case: Automobile Sales

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20292686 
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 : APR. 12, 2022 
The Petitioner, a company engaged in the sale and service of automobiles, 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)(15)(L) , 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that: 1) the Beneficiary's foreign employer was doing business; 2) the Petitioner 
was doing business; 3) the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad; 
and 4) the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States . 
In addition, the Director stated within the analysis for each ground for denial that 
"fraud /misrepresentation is confirmed." The Director further concluded within each section of the 
analysis that the Petitioner "misrepresented information about its foreign parent company and about 
the Beneficiary's work history and submitted fraudulent documents to suppo11 those claims." On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition and contends that it did not 
commit fraud or willfully misrepresent material facts. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's 
decision and remand the matter for further consideration and entry of a new decision . 
I. DEFERENCE TO PRIOR NONIMMIGRANT VISA APPROVALS 
While the appeal was pending , U.S . Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) updated the 
USCIS Policy Manual's guidance regarding deference to prior approvals. 2 USCIS Policy Manual 
A.4(B)(l), https: //www.uscis.gov /policymanual; see also USCIS Policy Alert, PA-2021-05, 
Deference to Prior Determinations of Eligibility in Requests for Extensions of Petition Validity (Apr. 
27, 2021 ), https ://www.uscis.gov /sites/default/files /document /policy-manual-updates /20210427-
Deference .pdf. This petition is an extension request in the same nonimmigrant classification, 
previously approved by USCIS , and filed by the same parties and for the same position . Therefore , it 
is directly impacted by this USCIS guidance. 
In the denial decision, the Director discussed prior L- lA nonimmigrant visa approvals granted on 
behalf of the Beneficiary and listed those situations where USCIS does not defer to prior approvals, 
specifically where: 1) there was a material error with respect to the prior approval(s), 2) there was a 
material change in circumstances or eligibility requirements, and 3) there was material information 
that adversely impacts the petitioner's or the beneficiary's eligibility. However, although the Director 
noted discrepancies specific to the Beneficiary's asserted foreign employer and employment, they did 
not clearly articulate on which grounds they declined to give deference to the prior nonimmigrant visa 
approvals. 
As such, we find it appropriate to remand the matter to the Director to consider the extension request 
anew, and if they deny the extension request, to discuss specifically why deference to the prior 
approvals is not being provided. 
II. FRAUD AND WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION 
As discussed, the Director stated within the decision with respect to each ground for denial that 
"fraud/misrepresentation is confirmed" and also concluded that the Petitioner "misrepresented 
information about its foreign parent company and about the Beneficiary's work history and submitted 
fraudulent documents to support those claims." For the following reasons, we will withdraw the 
Director's decision on this issue and remand the matter for further consideration. 
First, the Director did not clearly articulate a definitive conclusion that the Petitioner and/or the 
Beneficiary had committed fraud, and/or whether each or both had willfully misrepresented material 
facts. As such, in any new decision, the Director should clearly articulate whether a finding of fraud 
and/or willful misrepresentation is being made, and, if so, whether each finding is being made against 
the Petitioner, the Beneficiary, or against both parties. 
Next, the decision insufficiently analyzed the elements of fraud and willful misrepresentation of 
material fact. A finding of fraud against a petitioner or beneficiary requires the following elements: 
• The petitioner or beneficiary procured, or sought to procure, a benefit under U.S. 
immigration laws; 
• The petitioner or beneficiary made a false representation; 
• The false representation was willfully made; 
• The false representation was material; 
• The false representation was made to a U.S. government official, generally an 
immigration or consular officer; 
• The false representation was made with the intent to deceive a U.S. government official 
authorized to act upon the request (generally an immigration or consular officer); and 
• The U.S. government official believed and acted upon the false representation by 
granting the benefit. 
See 8 USCIS Policy Manual J.2(C), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
2 
A finding of willful misrepresentation of material fact against a petitioner or beneficiary requires the 
following elements: 
• The pet1t10ner or beneficiary procured, or sought to procure, a 
benefit under U.S. immigration laws; 
• The petitioner or beneficiary made a false representation; 
• The false representation was willfully made; 
• The false representation was material; and 
• The false representation was made to a U.S. government official. 
See 8 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at J.2(B). 
Here, the Director did not sufficiently analyze the elements of fraud and willful misrepresentation. 
The Director stated only that "fraud/misrepresentation is confirmed," concluded that the Petitioner 
misrepresented information, and that it had submitted "fraudulent documents." 
In addressing fraud and willful misrepresentation, the Director pointed to three discrepancies in the 
record related to the Beneficiary's asserted foreign employer and employment abroad. The Director 
stated that "public records" indicated that the foreign employer was established on December 1, 2005, 
not on November 20, 2012, as asserted by the Petitioner. The Director also stated that "public records" 
reflected a different address for the foreign employer in China than that set forth in the record. 
However, the Director did not sufficiently disclose the "public records" or provide the Petitioner 
sufficient opportunity to rebut the derogatory information and present information on its own behalf. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(i). 
In addition, the Director indicated that during the time of the Beneficiary's claimed foreign 
employment from November 2012 to May 2017, he listed different foreign employers when applying 
for other nonimmigrant visas. However, the Director did not identify the prior nonimmigrant visas 
the Beneficiary filed, nor where he claimed conflicting foreign employment. The Director also did 
not specifically identify and analyze this asserted conflicting foreign employment in the denial 
decision. A petitioner must be afforded an opportunity to review all derogatory information 
considered by the Director before a decision is rendered. See, e.g., id.; Matter of Cuello, 20 I&N Dec. 
94, 96-98 (BIA 1989). 
Further, in response to the notice of intent to deny (NOID), the Petitioner submitted additional 
assertions and documentary evidence to rebut the discrepancies noted by the Director. However, the 
Director does not appear to have analyzed the Petitioner's statements or reviewed the additional 
evidence provided prior to finding there was fraud and/or willful misrepresentation. An officer must 
fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest 
the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 
103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must 
fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to 
challenge the determination on appeal). 
Therefore, we will remand this matter to the Director to sufficiently analyze the elements of fraud and 
willful misrepresentation in this case, if deemed necessary. The Director should make any specific 
3 
findings of fraud and/or willful misrepresentation, if applicable, against the proper parties and 
sufficiently disclose the derogatory information on which they relied. The Director must also provide 
the Petitioner sufficient opportunity to rebut the derogatory information, present information on its 
own behalf, and properly consider the evidence submitted in response to the NOID and on appeal. 
III. GROUNDS FOR DENIAL 
As discussed previously in this decision, the Director denied the petition on four separate grounds, 
concluding that: 1) the Beneficiary's foreign employer was not doing business; 2) the Petitioner was 
not doing business; 3) the Beneficiary was not employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad; 
and 4) the Beneficiary would not be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United 
States. The Director did not properly analyze each ground of denial consistent with the applicable 
statutory and regulatory requirements. 
For example, as noted, the Director only listed the three claimed discrepancies on the record, all 
relating to the Beneficiary's claimed foreign employer and employment abroad. However, it is not 
clear how the noted discrepancies are relevant to whether the Petitioner is doing business according to 
the regulations 1 or whether the Beneficiary would act in a managerial or executive capacity in the 
United States. 2 Further, although we acknowledge that the discrepancies emphasized by the Director 
could be relevant to whether the foreign employer was, and is, doing business, and whether the 
Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad, the decision includes no 
specific analysis as to each of these grounds. 
As such, in any new decision, the Director should analyze each ground for denial separately, and 
clearly analyze and articulate why the Petitioner has not met its burden with respect to each ground 
for denial. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the Director's decision is withdrawn and the matter will be remanded for 
further consideration, which should include issuance of a new NOID if the new decision will include 
a finding of fraud and/or willful misrepresentation of a material fact. The Director may request any 
additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination and any other issue. 
1 "Doing business," is defined as the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods or services. 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(14)(ii)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(H). 
2 When examining the managerial or executive capacity of a given beneficiary, we will review the petitioner's description 
of the job duties. The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the 
beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in a managerial or executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). If 
the Petitioner establishes that the offered position meets all elements set forth in the statutory definition, the Petitioner 
must prove that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial or executive duties, as opposed to ordinary 
operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. Sec Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 
2006). In determining whether a given beneficiary's duties will be primarily managerial or executive, we consider the 
Petitioner's description of the job duties, the company's organizational structure, the duties of a 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 a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
4 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 
5