remanded L-1A Case: Hospitality Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-A-I- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 16, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of equipment and services to the hospitality industry, seeks to continue 
employing the Beneficiary as an executive director under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). This 
classification allows an international business to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United 
States to temporarily work in a managerial or executive capacity. 
After initially granting an extension of the Beneficiary's L-lA status, the Director of the California 
Service Center revoked the petition's approval. The Director concluded that she erred in extending 
the petition. Specifically, the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that it will employ 
the Beneficiary as a manager or executive. 
On appeal , the Petitioner asserts that the Director misconstrued facts and disregarded evidence that 
the company will employ the Beneficiary in an executive capacity. It also contends that the Director 
should have deferred to her prior determination that the Beneficiary qualifies for L-1 A status. 
Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the following analysis. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To obtain L-IA status, a petitioner must establish that, within the three years before a beneficiary's 
admission into the United States, the petitioner or its parent, subsidiary, or affiliate employed the 
foreign national abroad in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity for at least one 
continuous year. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. A petitioner must also demonstrate that a 
beneficiary will temporarily serve it or a qualifying organization in a managerial or executive 
capacity. Id. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), however, may revoke a petition's approval "at 
any time, even after expiration of the petition." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(i). Unless a petitioner 
withdraws an individual petition or neglects to request indefinite validity of a blanket petition, 
USCIS must send the petitioner a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR). 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(1)(9)(ii), 
(iii)(A). USCIS must issue an NOIR under six specific circumstances, including when an approval 
Matter of S-A-I- Corp. 
involved "gross error." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A). An NOIR must "contain a detailed statement 
of the grounds for the revocation and the time period allowed for the petitioner's rebuttal." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(B). USCIS must "consider all relevant evidence presented in deciding whether to 
revoke the petition." Id. 
II. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAP A CITY 
Upon review, we find that the Director's NOIR did not contain a sufficiently detailed statement of 
the grounds for 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 term "executive capacity" means an assignment where an employee primarily directs the 
management of an organization or a major component or function of it; establishes the goals and 
policies of the organization or its component or function; exercises wide latitude in discretionary 
decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level executives of 
the organization, its board of directors, or its stockholders. Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. A 
petitioner must show that a beneficiary will perform the high-level duties described in the statutory 
definition. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table 
decision). A petitioner must also prove that a beneficiary will primarily perform executive duties, as 
opposed to ordinary, operational tasks. Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); 
Champion World, 940 F.2d at 1533. 
When determining the executive nature of a position, USCIS examines a petitioner's description of 
the job's duties. A petitioner must provide "a detailed description of the services to be performed." 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). USCIS also considers: a petitioner's organizational structure; whether 
other employees exist to relieve a beneficiary from performing operational duties; the nature of the 
business; and other factors indicating a beneficiary's actual duties and business role. 
Here, the Director's NOIR notified the Petitioner that in April 2018, about four months after the 
grant of the petition's extension, a USCIS officer visited the company's worksite under the 
Administrative Site Visit and Verification Program. 1 The NOIR describes the site visit, stating 
information obtained and the officer's observations. The notice, however, did not state how the 
information or observations undermined the claimed, executive nature of the offered position. 
Contrary to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(B), the NOIR therefore lacked "a detailed statement of the 
grounds for the revocation." 
In addition, the revocation decision went beyond the issues raised in the NOIR and primarily faulted 
the Petitioner's NOIR response for lacking "sufficient documentation about all the personnel whom 
the beneficiary will manage" and adequate descriptions of their job duties. But the NOIR did not 
request additional documentation or information about the Beneficiary's subordinates. As such, the 
1 This program involves unannounced visits to worksites by USCIS officers to verify that petitioners and beneficiaries 
are following applicable immigration laws and regulations. See USCTS, "Administrative Site Visit and Verification 
Program," https ://www. usci s. gov/ about-us/ directorates-and-pro gram-o ffices/rraud-detection-and-national-security / 
administrative-site-visit-and-verification-program (last visited July 31, 2019). 
2 
Matter of S-A-I- Corp. 
Petitioner was not given adequate notice of those grounds and did not have sufficient opportunity to 
address the Director's concerns. 
The NOIR neither sufficiently notified the Petitioner of the revocation grounds, nor allowed it to 
adequately respond to the notice. We will therefore withdraw the Director's decision and remand 
the matter. On remand, the Director should issue a new NOIR. The new notice must: include a 
detailed statement of the revocation grounds; supporting the grounds with analysis of the evidence of 
record; specify any types of additional proof required; and state the period allowed for the 
Petitioner's rebuttal. Upon receipt of a timely response, the Director should review the entire record 
and enter a new decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Contrary to 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(B), the NOIR lacked "a detailed statement of the grounds for 
the revocation." For the same reason, the Petitioner did not receive an adequate opportunity to 
respond to the notice. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
Cite as Matter of S-A-1- Corp., ID# 5462569 (AAO Sept. 16, 2019) 
3