remanded L-1A Case: Data Analytics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 1624048 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for L-IA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 6, 2020 
The Petitioner, a provider of data management and analytics services, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary in the United States as its executive vice president (EVP) and head of solutions and 
innovation under the L-IA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-IA 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 it seeks to employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
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 novo review, we will withdraw the Director's 
decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with our discussion below. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-IA 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 101(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. Id. The petitioner 
must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or her 
to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. ANALYSIS 
"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. 
Based on the statutory definition of managerial capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the 
Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 
1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, the Petitioner must prove that the 
Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational 
activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 
(9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The denial did not rest directly on the description of the Beneficiary's intended duties. Instead, the 
Director found that the Petitioner had not sufficiently documented its employment of subordinates, 
and had not established that those subordinates sufficiently relieve the Beneficiary from performing 
primarily non-qualifying tasks. The Director also cited apparent discrepancies regarding the 
Beneficiary's work location. The petition indicated that he would work inl I Washington, but 
some pay records showed an address in I ,I Arkansas. At the time of filing, the Petitioner 
claimed its headquarters was inl !California; more recent filings show a New York address. 
The Petitioner's organizational chart included the following positions directly or indirectly subordinate 
to the Beneficiary's authority: 
• Vice President (who subsequently departed the United States) 
• 5 Engagement Managers 
• 12 Senior Analysts 
• 18 Consultants 
Pay receipts showed that the subordinates live throughout the United States, at addresses in 
Washington, California, Illinois, Georgia, and other states. It appears that the subordinates are 
scattered because they work for different end clients. The payroll records are consistent with foll-time 
employment at annual salaries of $70,000 or more. 
The addresses shown on the Beneficiary's payroll documents do not show internal inconsistencies. 
Older pay receipts (up until mid-July 2017) showed thd I address, but that the address 
changed tol I before the petition's filing date in October 2017. This change of address before 
the time of filing is not a disqualifying discrepancy in the Petitioner's claims or documentation. 
Taking the evidence of record into account, the above factors, as set forth in the denial notice, do not 
appear to warrant denial of the petition, and we therefore withdraw the Director's decision. The 
petition, however, cannot be approved until and unless the Petitioner addresses significant issues 
relating to repeated attempts to verify the nature and extent of the Petitioner's business activity. 
The Petitioner does not claim that it seeks the Beneficiary's services in relation to a new office, defined 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(F). Therefore, the Petitioner must show that it is currently doing business 
2 
in the United States. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(G)(2). "Doing business" means the regular, 
systematic, and continuous provision of goods, services, or both, and does not include the mere 
presence of an agent or office of the qualifying organization in the United States and abroad. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(H). Payroll records and leases for office space do not document the provision of 
goods or services, and therefore are not evidence of doing business. 
The petition form asks the Petitioner to specify the location where the Beneficiary will work, and by 
signing the petition form, the Petitioner attests that the information on that form is correct. Providing 
an address where the Beneficiary will not actually work, therefore, raises very significant questions of 
credibility. 
Over the past several years, the Petitioner has claimed several different business addresses. U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers have v~se addresses as part of routine 
verification efforts. The officers found offices belonging to L_lJ which rents office space and 
provides related services to a variety of clients. The use of providers such asl lis not inherently 
disqualifying, but the Petitioner must actually conduct business, rather than rent office space simply 
to create the appearance of business activity. 
The USCIS site visits did not produce any evidence that the Petitioner actually uses the rented space; 
in several instances, I !representatives acknowledged that the Petitioner holds leases, but stated 
that they have never seen the Petitioner's employees on the premises. Similarly, telephone numbers 
claimed by the Petitioner on other petitions have proven to be numbers belonging either toO or 
to the Petitioner's attorney of record. 
This information is of particular concern because the "Cpn.1.act.,Us" page of the Petitioner's website 
currently lists six different U.S. locations. 1 All of them arel__J locations. One of those six locations 
is the address the Petitioner claims in the present appeal. The "Contact Us" page does not list a 
telephone number for any of the six claimed U.S. locations. 2 
The Petitioner appears to be engaged in some degree of actual business activity, but it is of significant 
concern that USCIS has not been able to locate any actual workplace. The Petitioner's documented 
reliance on third party telephone numbers and (apparently) vacant office space raise serious questions 
that must be addressed before the petition can be approved. 
When considering the above issues, we note that the Petitioner had filed an earlier nonimmigrant 
~ on the Beneficiary's behalf. The approval of that petition (with receipt numberl I 
L___Jwas revoked in August 2017, owing to discrepancies in the company's claimed personnel and 
management structure. Rather than appeal or otherwise contest that decision, the Petitioner filed the 
present petition on the Beneficiar( s behalf. (The Petitioner later filed yet another petition, with 
receipt numbe~~------~ in August 2018.) 
1 Source: https://wwwl ~contact-us/ (last visited Feb. 5, 2020) . .---------------. 
2 At the time of filing, the present petition indicated the Petitioner's address as.__ ___________ __. 
I I C.:alifomia. USCIS found that address occupied by a tax filing firm, which indicated that the Petitioner was one 
of its clients, but that the Petitioner did not rent any office space there. The Petitioner's use of this address as its own raises 
serious questions that the Petitioner has not yet had the opportunity to address. 
3 
Before this petition can be approved, the Petitioner must demonstrate that it is engaged in regular, 
systematic, and continuous business activity at one or more identifiable locations that are amenable to 
users verification. 
If other issues arise that directly bear on the Petitioner's credibility or the verifiability of the 
Petitioner's claims, the Director may incorporate those issues into a new decision after giving the 
Petitioner an opportunity to address and rebut them as required by 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. 
4