remanded L-1A Case: Child Care Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-I- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 9, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of day care and after-school child care services, seeks to continue the 
Beneficiary's temporary employment as its CEO under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees.1 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101 ( a )(1 S)(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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity 
under the extended petition. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the denial decision does not reflect that the Director considered all evidence previously 
submitted. 
Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for a new 
decision. 
We find that the Petitioner has now submitted sufficient evidence and information to establish, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity, as 
defined at section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, under the extended petition. Even if the director has some 
doubts, if the petitioner submits relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to 
believe that the claim is "more likely than not" or "probably" true, the petitioner has satisfied the 
standard of proof Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (citing INS v. Cardoza­
Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 (1987)). In this instance, the Director appeared to express doubt that the 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
April 26, 2017, until April 25, 2018. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United States 
through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(F). The regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3 )(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation one year within the date of approval of the petition to support 
an executive or manage1ial position. 
Matter of P-1- Corp. 
Petitioner actually employed the staff depicted in its organizational chart despite the Petitioner's 
submission of detailed corroborating wage and payroll records. The Director also questioned whether 
the three "assistant directors" who report to the Beneficiary perform supervisory or managerial 
functions. The Petitioner has addressed this concern on appeal by submitting additional evidence 
demonstrating that the Beneficiary's subordinates, at a minimum, perform supervisory if not 
managerial functions. Accordingly, the Director's decision is withdrawn. 
Another issue, however, requires further development. The Petitioner must establish that the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the 
three years preceding the filing of her initial petition for L-lA status. See 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(1)(3)(iii)­
(iv). 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary was employed by its foreign parent company in the positions 
of "Vice CEO" and "Director of Legal Counsel Department" from January 2013 until May 2016. The 
Petitioner noted that she joined the foreign entity as a full-time employee after completing her master's 
degree in international law and working as a corporate attorney for two years. However, the Petitioner 
submitted evidence that the Beneficiary completed her degree in law from I I University in June 
2014, 18 months after her claimed hire date with the foreign entity, so it is unclear how she obtained 
two years of experience as a corporate attorney prior to January 2013. 
The Petitioner submitted an undated organizational chart for the foreign entity which depicts the 
Beneficiary in both of her claimed roles. The chart shows that, as director of the legal counsel 
department, she supervised one legal specialist. The chart also shows that, as "Vice CEO" she 
supervised a project department, a "marketing & PR department," an "HR & Administrative 
Department," an accounting department, and the managers and staff of two hotels operated by the 
foreign entity. The position description submitted by the foreign entity appeared to describe the Vice 
CEO position and suggested that the Beneficiary spent relatively little time on duties related to the 
legal department. 
However, when the Beneficiary applied for Bl/B2 and L-1 visas at the U.S. Consulate in Beijing, in 
2015 and 2017, respectively, she indicated that she was employed by the foreign entity as "Director 
of Legal Counsel Department" without reference to the claimed Vice CEO position. If her primary 
role was that of a Vice CEO, it is unclear why she did not mention the position on her visa application. 
In addition, in response to a request for additional evidence of the Beneficiary's employment abroad, 
the Petitioner provided a "Quarterly Assessment Form of Legal Department Director" which shows 
that the Beneficiary held this position in 2015 and was evaluated based on her performance in this 
role. The Petitioner did not submit a comparable document con-oborating her employment as "Vice 
CEO." 
Further, the Petitioner submitted copies of the foreign entity's monthly payroll statements for 2017; 
these documents showed the company regularly employed 4 7 people and identified them by name, 
salaiy, department, and position title. However, the statements do not reflect that the foreign entity 
has positions for a "Vice CEO" or "Director of Legal Counsel Department." The Petitioner did not 
provide comparable payroll statements for the Beneficiary's period of employment with the foreign 
entity to con-oborate the structure on the undated foreign entity organizational chart. Rather, it 
2 
Matter of P-1- Corp. 
submitted a compiled statement showing that the Beneficiary received ¥34 70 on the fifteenth day of 
each month between Janua1y 2013 and May 2016; this statement did not include other staff employed 
during this period. 
Based on these discrepancies and omissions, the submitted evidence is insufficient to support the 
Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary served in the claimed executive positon of "Vice CEO" for the 
foreign entity. 
We will remand the matter to the Director for a new decision, taking the above issues into account. If 
the Director's new decision, will rely, in part, on the potentially derogatory infmmation we obtained 
from U.S. Department of State records, the Director must issue a new request for evidence or notice 
of intent to deny to advise the Petitioner of this information pursuant to 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(l 6)(i). 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
Cite as Matter of P-1- Corp., ID# 3501050 (AAO May 9, 2019) 
3