remanded L-1A Case: Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-1-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 5, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a consulting company, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary employment as 
its chief executive officer (CEO) under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section I 0 I (a)(I5)(L), 8 U.S. C. 
§ II 0 I (a)(IS)(L). The L-1 A classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its 
affl!iate 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: (!)it was doing business in the United States; and 
(2) it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity under the extended 
petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the Director's revocation 
decision raised issues not discussed in the notice of intent to revoke (NOIR), and did not take into 
account the totality of the evidence submitted. 
Upon de novo review of the record, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter 
for entry of a new decision. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L: I A nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section IOI(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. Jd. 
Under U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USC IS) 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, a director must issue a notice of intent to revoke that 
Maller of B-1-. LLC 
contains a detailed statement of the grounds for the revocation and the time period allowed for 
rebuttal. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(9)(iii)(B). 
ll. ANAL YSlS 
Upon review, we find that the Director's NOIR did not contain a sufficiently detailed statement of 
the grounds tor revocation. As such, the Petitioner was not given adequate notice of those grounds 
and did not have sufficient opportunity to address the Director's concerns. 
The Director initially approved the petition and granted the Beneficiary a two-year extension of L­
lA status from June 2014 until June 2016. The Director issued the NOlR on September 19, 2017, 
advising the Petitioner that the notice was being sent as a result of a USCIS administrative site visit 
conducted in August 2014. The Director noted that a USC IS officer "found the address to be a 
residence and the beneficiary was not present." The officer also found that the telephone number 
provided on the petition did not belong to the company. 
Based on these two findings from the site visit, the Director questioned whether "the U.S. company 
has been operating and will continue to operate," and whether "the Beneficiary has been employed 
under the terms and conditions" stated in the petition. The Petitioner responded with an explanation 
for its use of a residential office, explained why the Beneficiary was not in the office at the time of 
the site visit, and provided evidence that it had obtained a new business telephone number right 
around the time of filing. The Petitioner also submitted recent bank statements from 2017. The 
Director's determination that the Petitioner was not doing business was based on these bank 
statements, which post-date the validity of the petition, rather than on the results of the site visit or 
an analysis of evidence of the Petitioner's business activities between 2014 and 2016. 
In ·response to the Director's concern about whether the Beneficiary was employed under "th.e terms 
and conditions" stated in the petition, the Petitioner submitted evidence of payments made to the 
Beneficiary in 2015 and 2016, showing that he had been receiving his stated salary. As noted, the 
Director ultimately determined that the Beneficiary was not employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity, but did not sufficiently address this issue in the NOIR. The Petitioner did not have 
adequate notice of the Director's concerns regarding the Beneficiary employment capacity. 
The record as presently constituted does not establish that the Petitioner and Beneficiary were 
eligible tor the benefit sought at the time of tiling. However, the Petitioner adequately addressed the 
specific deficiencies addressed in the NOlR. As the Director's decision went beyond the scope of 
the issues raised in the NOIR, the Petitioner should be given an opportunity to submit additional 
evidence to establish that it was doing business and able to employ the Beneficiary in a managerial 
or executive capacity as of the date of filing and throughout the validity of the petition. 
Accordingly, the Director's revocation decision will be withdrawn and the matter remanded for 
issuance of a new NOIR and entry of a new decision. 
2 
Mauer of B-1-. LLC 
ORDER: The matter is remanded for the entry of a new decision consistent with the foregoing 
analysis, which, if adverse, shall be certified to us for review. 
Cite as Matter ofB-1-. LLC, 10# 1237520 (AAO June 5, 2018) 
3