remanded L-1A Case: Clothing Distribution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-(USA) CORP. 
Non- Preccdcn t [)ecision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 10,2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a clothing importer and distributor, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment as its president under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(I5)(L). The 
L-1 A classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its at1iliate 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 determining that 
the Petitioner did not establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a 
managerial or executive capacity prior to her transfer to the United States; and (2) that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. The 
Director denied the Petitioner"s subsequent motion to reopen and the Petitioner has appealed that 
decision. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's latest decision "showed that [U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS)] was splitting hair[s] to try to lind fault in this case," and 
requests a "more thorough evaluation of the case." 
Upon de novo review of the record, we will withdraw the Director's decision to deny the Petitioner's 
motion and remand the matter for entry or a new decision. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility lor the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," tor one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section I 0 I (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. !d. 
Under US CIS 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 petition, 
.
lvfaller 4Ci-(USA) Corp. 
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. ANALYS IS 
The Director revoked the approval of the petition atter determining that, based on stateme nts t he 
Beneficiary made to a USCJS oftice r during an administrativ e site v isit, she was not employed 
abroad, and would not be employed in the United States, in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Petitioner 's motion to reopen included a briet: a detailed letter from the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer, and a number of documentary exhibits intended to demonstrate the nature of the 
Beneliciary' s duties and her level of authority within both the foreign entity and the Petitioner. The 
new evidence also included the Beneficiary' s transcript from 
in China, where she majored in international business. This evidence was submitted in 
response to the Director' s finding that the Petitioner had not submitted evidence that the Beneficiary 
was qualil"ied for her position with the foreign entity. 
Upon review·, we find that the Director's decision did not sufticicntly address the new evidence 
submitted in support of the motion to reopen. Further, the decision improperly introduced 
information' obtained from outside the record of proceeding which the Director deemed to be 
derogatory to the Petitioner's claim of eligibility. 
The Director's decision referred to a statement in the Petitioner's brief that "there might have been 
some miscommunication during the [USCIS officer's] visit." The Director concluded that "there is 
no indication that [the Beneficiary] misunderstood " the questions asked of her, emphasizing that the 
newly submitted transcript showed that she completed at least 20 courses in English. The Director 
also observed that "on a visa application the beneticiary prepared in June of2012, she states that her 
course of study was English." The Director acknow ledged that the Petitioner submitted other 
evidence in support of the. motion to reopen, but concluded without further analysis that the evidence 
did not present "new Jacts that sufticiently clarify the discrepancies noted in the ... revocation 
notice." 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in order to allow the Petitioner a 
fair opportunity to contest the decision and to a llow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate 
review. See 8 C.F.R. s I 03.3(a)(l)( i); see also Mauer 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). Here, the Director's decision did 
not address the vast majority of the new evidence submitted in support of the motion t o reopen or 
explain why the Petitioner's evidence was insufficient to overcome the issues raised in the 
revocation decision. 
Further, the Director is obligated to provide notice of any derogatory information that is d iscovered 
outside of the record of proceedings, and to make that derogatory information part of the record 
along with any rebuttal provided by the Petitioner. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(b)( 16)(i). The Director did not 
2 
Mauer of G-(USA) Corp. 
provide notice of the information obtained from the Beneficiary's 2012 nonimmigrant vtsa 
application prior to including this information in the motion decision. 
Accordingly, the Director's decision denying the motion to reopen will be withdrawn and remanded 
for entry of a new decision. If the new decision will be based on derogatory information obtained 
from outside the record, and not mentioned in the previously issued notice of intent to revoke, the 
Director must provide the Petitioner with proper notice prior to issuing the decision. 
ORDER: The matter is remanded for the entry of a new decision consistent with the foregoing 
analysis. 
Cite as Maller o(G-(USA) Corp., ID# 12333 71 (AAO May I 0, 20 18)