remanded L-1A Case: International Trade

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-S-1-(USA) INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 23, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an international trade business, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its 
president under the L-lA 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-lA 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 revoked the approval of the petition, determining that 
the Petitioner did not establish, as required, that the Beneficiary had at least one continuous year of 
full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing 
of the petition; and that she was employed abroad in the capacity stated on the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that it sufficiently rebutted the issue 
raised in the Director's notice of intent to revoke (NOIR). The Petitioner emphasizes that the 
Director's revocation decision contains additional reasons for revocation that were not raised in the 
NOIR and which it did not have the opportunity to rebut. 
Upon de nova 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-lA 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 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary must 
seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering their 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 them to perform the 
intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
Matter of S-S-I-(USA) Inc. 
Under U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations, 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 the revocation and the time period allowed for rebuttal. 
8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(B). 
II. BASIS FOR REMAND 
Upon review, we find that the Director's NOIR did not contain a sufficiently detailed statement of the 
grounds for revocation. Further, the Director's decision introduced additional grounds for revocation 
that were not included in the NOIR, and these were based, in part, on derogatory information from 
outside the record of proceeding. 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 originally approved the petition for a three-year period commencing on July 1, 2016. 
The Petitioner indicated on the petition and in the supporting documents that the Beneficiary had been 
employed by its Chinese parent company,! !Company since January 2014, and 
that she had previously worked for the I I Bank. 
In June 2018, the Director issued the NOIR. The NOIR included the statutory definitions of 
managerial capacity, executive capacity, and specialized knowledge; noted that the Petitioner did not 
claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a specialized knowledge capacity; and stated only 
the following as the intended basis for revocation: 
The beneficiary was · late-Shanghai and claimed 
that she worked for Bank and was not in fact 
employed at the claimed employer '--------.-----' Company. Thus, 
contradicting the information provided to USCIS for the current petition .... For the 
foregoing reasons you have not established that the beneficiary has been employed 
abroad in a position that was managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge. 
The Petitioner submitted a timely rebuttal to the NOIR. The Director addressed the Petitioner's 
rebuttal evidence, but also cited the following reasons for revocation: 
• In July 2014, the Beneficiary submitted a Form DS-160, Nonimmigrant Visa Application, 
signed under penalty of perjury, indicating that her current employer wasl I .__ ______ __,I Bank, not I I Company as claimed on the petition. 
• The Beneficiary submitted visa applications in April 2011, April 2012, and April 2013, in 
which she identified I I Bank as her current employer. 
• Department of Homeland Security (DHS) records reflect that the Beneficiary spent the 
majority of her claimed period of qualifying employment abroad in the United States on a B2 
nonimmigrant tourist visa, with her longest trip outside the United States lasting approximately 
three months. 1 
1 We note that the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary worked for its parent company from January 1, 2014, until the 
2 
Matter of S-S-I-(USA) Inc. 
On the basis of the foregoing, the Director determined that the Beneficiary was not employed abroad 
in the capacity stated on the petition and that she did not have the requisite one continuous year of 
qualifying employment abroad in the three-year period preceding the filing of the petition. The 
Director revoked the approval pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A)( 4) after concluding that the 
statement of facts in the petition was not true and correct. 
The Director is obligated to provide notice of any derogatory information that is discovered outside of 
the record of proceedings, and must 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 Director's failure to do so in 
this case constitutes error. The Petitioner was not given adequate notice that the Director intended to 
rely on the Beneficiary's prior visa applications and travel history. As a result, the NOIR in this matter 
did not provide a detailed statement of the grounds that ultimately led to the revocation of the petition's 
approval, and the Petitioner was not given the opportunity to rebut those grounds. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(B). Accordingly, the Director's decision is withdrawn. 
The record as presently constituted does not establish that the Beneficiary was eligible for the benefit 
sought at the time of filing. However, as the Director's decision went beyond the scope of the issues 
raised in the NOIR, the Petitioner must be given an opportunity to submit additional evidence in 
support of the petition and in rebuttal to the revocation. Accordingly, the matter is remanded for 
issuance of a new NOIR and entry of a new decision. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
Cite as Matter of S-S-I-(USA) Inc., ID# 3158420 (AAO July 23, 2019) 
filing of the petition on May 31, 2016, a period of 882 days. During this period, the Beneficiary was physically present in 
the United States for more than 600 days. Periods spent in the United States as a visitor do not count towards a beneficiary's 
one year of continuous employment abroad. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(A). 
3