remanded L-1A Case: Herbal Medicine Exporter

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19784450 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 02, 2022 
The Petitioner, which is self-described as an exporter of herbal medicines, supplements, and other 
food products, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its chief executive officer (CEO) under 
the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees who are coming to be employed 
in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and National Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center initially approved the petition but later revoked the 
approval on notice, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish, as required, that the Beneficiary 
would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. The revocation 
decision was based on the Director's assessment of the submitted evidence and conclusions that 
resulted, in part, from a post-adjudicative site visit conducted by an immigration officer (10) . We 
dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal of the revocation decision, and the Petitioner 
subsequently filed two combined motions to reopen and reconsider. We initially dismissed the first 
motion as untimely filed but, upon review of the second motion, reopened it and issued a decision 
dismissing it on the merits, concluding that the Petitioner had not overcome the grounds for dismissal 
of its appeal. The matter is now before us again on a combined motion to reopen and motion to 
reconsider. 
The burden of proof to establish eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the petitioner in 
revocation proceedings . Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Cheung, 12 I&N Dec . 715 
(BIA 1968); and Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450, 452, n.1 (BIA 1987). Upon review, we will 
grant the motion to reconsider, withdraw the previous decisions, and remand the matter to the Director 
for further action and entry of a new decision, consistent with the following discussion . 1 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involved specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States . Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary must 
1 Because we are granting the Petitioner's motion to reconsider , we will dismiss the motion to reopen as moot. 
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 approval of an L-lA 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 contains a detailed statement of the grounds for revocation and the time allowed 
for rebuttal. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(B). 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported 
by affidavits or other documentary evidence 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must (1) 
state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application oflaw or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy, and (2) establish that 
the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the initial 
decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted, the Director of the California Service Center revoked the approval of the L-lA 
nonimmigrant petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that it would employ the 
Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, and we dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal 
of that decision. 
In the previously filed motion, the Petitioner contended that both the Director's revocation decision 
and our decision dismissing its appeal should not have included adverse findings regarding the 
Beneficiary's stated job duties. Specifically, the Petitioner argued that the Director's notice of intent 
to revoke (NOIR) had merely restated, but offered no analysis of, the job description the Petitioner 
had provided in support of the petition. As such, the NOIR did not inform the Petitioner of any 
deficiencies concerning the Beneficiary's job description, and the Petitioner was effectively precluded 
from an opportunity to rebut the Director's adverse findings on this issue. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(B) (requiring that USCIS provide the petitioner with a detailed statement of the 
grounds for revocation). We agreed with the Petitioner's argument and therefore withdrew our prior 
adverse findings with respect to the Beneficiary's job description. 
We nevertheless dismissed the motion after concluding that the Petitioner had not resolved certain 
discrepancies that arose based on a post-adjudication site visit conducted by an IO in December 2018, 
noting that the revocation decision was based, in part, on these issues. Specifically, we emphasized 
that the Petitioner had not adequately explained why the two employees the IO interviewed at the 
Beneficiary's worksite were unfamiliar with the Beneficiary. We acknowledged that the employees 
were relatively new hires at the time of the site visit and claimed to be "still undergoing training," but 
questioned why they would have been left unsupervised if they were new employees in training. We 
also acknowledged the Petitioner's claim that the IO referred to the Beneficiary by her Chinese first 
and last names, while the employees know her as or as "General Manage ' However, 
we determined that the Beneficiary's last name alone should have been sufficient for the company's 
employees to identify her as the company's CEO. In addition, we noted a lack of evidence regarding 
the Beneficiary's whereabouts at the time of the 2018 site visit, as she was not present when the IO 
2 
visited the worksite. As a result, we concluded there were sufficient uncertainties in the record to 
uphold our prior decision dismissing the appeal. 
On motion, the Petitioner argues that the deficiencies discussed in our most recent decision were not 
addressed in the NOIR and therefore should not have formed the basis for upholding the revocation. 
Although outside the scope of our immediate prior decision, the Petitioner also maintains that the site 
visit did not follow established USCIS policies and procedures, noting that the two employees 
interviewed by the IO were not native English speakers and were not provided with an interpreter or 
informed of their right to an interpreter. In addition, the Petitioner emphasizes that according to USCIS 
policy regarding administrative site visits, the IO should have made additional efforts to contact the 
Beneficiary and an authorized representative of the Petitioner, noting that neither of these relevant 
parties were interviewed in this case and that the employees who spoke to the IO did not reasonably 
have access to all the information that he sought. 
Finally, the NOIR and the revocation decision state that "[s]ystem checks and the site visit indicated 
that the beneficiary is not working as the CEO of the company as stated in the petition." However, 
neither the NOIR nor the decision informed the Petitioner of what "system checks" were conducted, 
what information they revealed to conclude that the Beneficiary is not working as the CEO, or how 
such information led, at least in part, to the decision to revoke the approval of the petition. USCIS 
must provide notice of any derogatory information that is discovered 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. § 103.2(b)(16)(i). The failure to do so in the NOIR issued in this 
case constitutes error. Accordingly, the revocation decision will be withdrawn, along with our prior 
decisions upholding the revocation decision. The withdrawal of the revocation decision, however, 
does not constitute a determination that the Petitioner established eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Because USCIS did not comply with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(i), the matter will be 
remanded to the Director for the issuance of a new NOIR, to identify all derogatory information 
discovered outside the record of proceedings, fully inform the Petitioner of any deficiencies in the 
record which may serve as a basis for the revocation, and allow the Petitioner the opportunity to submit 
a rebuttal to the proposed grounds for revocation before a final decision is issued. The Director should 
also consider the merits of the Petitioner's arguments that USCIS did not follow required procedures 
in conducting the administrative site visit in this matter and, if appropriate, conduct another site visit. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is granted, and the matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3