remanded L-1A Case: Automotive Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF D-A-T- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG . 20, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an automotive parts manufacturing company, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's 
temporary employment as a development 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. 
§ 11 0l(a)(15)(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 
record did not establish, as required, that the U.S. entity is doing business in the United States in 
accordance with the regulations, 1 or that the Beneficiary will continue to be employed primarily in a 
managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 2 The revocation was based on a site visit made 
by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in July 2018 to the factory in Georgia where 
the Beneficiary was supposed to be working. The factory was not operational and the Beneficiary was 
not located on the premises at the time of the site visit. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional 
evidence and asserts that its plant closure was part of an annual one-week summer shutdown. It states 
1 A petitioner must establish that it is a qualifying organization. The regulations define a qualifying organization as one 
doing business as an employer in the United States. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(2). "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(1)(1 )(ii)(H). 
2 An L-lA petitioner must establish that, within the three years before a beneficiary 's admission into the United States, it 
or its parent, branch, subsidiary, or affiliate employed the beneficiary abroad full-time for at least one continuous year in 
a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.3(1)(3)(i), (iii), (iv). A petitioner must also 
demonstrate that it would employ a beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily manages the 
organization, or a department , subdivision , function, or component of the organization; supervises and controls the work 
of other supervisory, professional , or managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the organization , or 
a department or subdivision of the organization ; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within 
the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the day-to-day 
operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority . Section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Matter of D-A-T- Inc. 
that it is engaged in the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and services, and that 
the Beneficiary continues to be employed in a managerial capacity at the manufacturing plant. 
Upon de nova review, we find that the Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to establish that it 
is more likely than not that the manufacturing plant is doing business in the United States, and that the 
Beneficiary will continue to be employed there in a managerial capacity. However, the record as 
presently constituted contains anomalies and deficiencies regarding the identity of the Petitioner and 
its qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's employer abroad. We will therefore remand the 
matter to the Director. 
I. IDENTITY OF THE PETITIONER 
On the petition, the Petitioner identified itself as ~-----=----~----.....,,......,. Inc. It listed a 
mailing address in Alabama and stated that the Beneficiary will work in Georgia. However, the 
Beneficiary's IRS Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statements, indicate that he was employed by a separate 
entity,! I Georgia, LLC, from 2015 through 2018. We reviewed a 
website maintained by the State of Georgia to determine whether the Petitioner is in good standing 
and authorized to transact business in Georgia. 3 Based on Georgia state records, the Petitioner is not 
qualified to transact business there. 4 Ga Secretary of State, Corps. Div., 
https://ecorp.sos.ga.gov/BusinessSearch (last visited Aug. 1, 2019). Instead, the record shows that the 
Petitioner was incorporated in Delaware. 5 The Petitioner's lack of qualification to transact business 
in Georgia where it purportedly operates an automotive parts manufacturing facility, coupled with the 
payment of the Beneficiary's wages by a separate entity, raises questions about the identity of the 
Petitioner; whether it is an importing employer; 6 and whether it is authorized to conduct business in a 
regular and systematic manner in Georgia where the Beneficiary works. See section 214(c)( 1) of the 
Act; see also 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(G) and (1)(3). As a result of such anomalies, we will remand 
the matter to the Director to clarify the identity of the Petitioner. 
II. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
Further, share certificates in the file indicate that I I Inc. is owned 
80.52% by J,___ _____ ___.l. Co. Ltd. in South Korea, and 19.48% by I I SK, s.r.o., in 
Slovakia. 7 On the petition, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary was employed abroad by 
3 See Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 590-7-21-.07 (requiring a foreign limited liability company transacting business in Georgia 
to procure a certificate of authority to do so from the Georgia Secretary of State). 
4 Further, based on Alabama state records, the Petitioner is not qualified to transact business there. Ala. Sec'y of State, 
Bus. Entity Records, https://www.sos.alabama.gov/government-records/business-entity-records (last visited Aug. 1, 
2019). 
5 Del. Dep't of State, Div. of Corps., https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/Ecorp/EntitySearch/NameSearch.aspx (last visited 
Aug. 1, 2019). 
6 It is fundamental to the intracompany transferee nonimmigrant classification that a U.S. importing employer files the 
petition. See Section 214( c )(1) of the Act. Fmthermore, in order to meet the definition of "qualifying organization," there 
must be a U.S. employer. See 8 C.F.R. 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(G)(2). 
7 The consolidated financial statements forl I Inc. and subsidiaries in the record state that 
on October 31, 2014, I ISK, s.r.o., an affiliate in Slovakia, acauired a 19.48% ownership in I I I I Inc. and that, as a result, I I Inc. is "80.52% owned b~ I. 
2 
Matter of D-A-T- Inc. 
~----~I Co. Ltd. from September 3, 2007, to February 22, 2015. 8 In a letter submitted with 
~tition, the Petitioner claimed a qualifying parent/subsidiary relationship between " 
L__J Co., Ltd. f;k/a I I Ind. Co., Ltd." and~-----~--- ....... Inc. 
However, the record contains no evidence of the name change from~ _____ _. Ind. Co., Ltd. to 
~-----~I Co. Ltd. 9 To establish a "qualifying relationship," the 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 section 
101(a)(15)(L) of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii) (providing definitions of the terms 
"parent," "branch," "subsidiary," and "affiliate"). Here, based on deficiencies in the evidence, the 
qualifying relationship between the proposed U.S. employer and the Beneficiary's foreign employer 
is not clear. We will therefore remand the matter to the Director to clarify the qualifying relationship. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we will withdraw the Director's decision and return the matter for 
further development of the record. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
Cite as Matter of D-A-T- Inc., ID# 05440666 (AAO Aug. 20, 2019) 
Co. Ltd., (the 'Parent') in Korea and 19.48% owned by I I SK, s.r.o." Prior to Octpber 31 2014 fhe share 
certificates reflect thatl I Inc. was a wholly-owned subsidiary of._L ____ _._ Ind. Co. 
~ I 8 Certificates of income and employment in the record indicate that the Beneficiary was employed abroad by 
c=Jco. Ltd. from 2009 to 2014. ,.__ _ ___, 
9 The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). The burden of proof is on the Petitioner in this matter. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361. 
3