remanded L-1A Case: It Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 1-T-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 12,2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an IT services provider, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its sales 
director under theL-IA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section IOI(a)(IS)(L), 8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(IS)(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 Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer. 
On appeal, the Petitioner further explains the nature of its qualifying relationship, pointing to various 
corporate documents to support its claims. The Petitioner also points to errors in the Director's 
analysis, contending that even though the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner is the parent in a 
parent-subsidiary relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer, the petition was nevertheless 
denied because the Director determined that the two entities are not owned by the same group of 
individuals and therefore do not have an "atliliate" relationship. 1 
Upon de novo review, we lind that the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to establish that it 
and the Beneficiary's employer abroad have a parent-subsidiary relationship as claimed. Although 
the Director correctly determined that there is insufficient evidence establishing that the two entities 
meet the definition of the term "afiiljate," the Petitioner has shown that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's employer abroad as the Petitioner owns the majority of the 
foreign entity's stock and is therefore the parent in a parent-subsidiary relationship with the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer. To establish a "qualifying relationship" under the Act. and the 
regulations, a petitioner must show that the beneficiary's foreign employer and the proposed U.S. 
employer are the same employer (i.e., one entity with "branch" offices), or related as a "parent and 
1 The tenn '·aftiliate" is defined, in relevant part, as (I) one of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled 
by the same parent or individual, or (2) one of two legal entities owned by the same group of individuals, each individual 
owning and controlling approximately the same share or proportion of each entity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)( I )(ii)(K). 
Mauer of 1- T-. Inc. 
subsidiary" or as •:affiliates." See generally section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1). 
Neither the Act nor the regulations require the Petitioner to establish that it meets more than one of 
these definitions. The Director imposed an undue burden upon the Petitioner by requiring it to 
establish that it meets the definition of "atliliate," despite acknowledging that the Petitioner and the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer have the requisite parent-subsidiary relationship. Therefore, the 
Director's decision must be withdrawn. 
Notwithstanding the Director's error, we find that the record as presently constituted does not 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed 'in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity as claimed. The Beneficiary's job description and the Petitioner's staffing structure do not 
adequately demonstrate that the Beneficiary ·will primarily perform managerial or executive duties. 
Although the Petitioner. claimed five employees at the time of filing and indicated that the 
Beneficiary will manage five subordinates, it is unclear who the five U.S. employees are. The 
Petitioner's organizational chart shows that two of the Beneficiary's subordinate positions were 
vacant at the time the petition was filed and the three remaining subordinate positions - a deputy 
director of marketing, an "MIS" employee, and a "manager quality"- are located in India and thus 
would not perform their respective job duties at the Beneficiary's place of work. The Petitioner did 
not explain how the Beneficiary would carry out his managerial tasks on a daily basis with no 
support staff in the United States. Further, it is unclear who would carry out the duties that would 
normally·be assigned to the account manager and business head positions, which were vacant at the 
time of filing. In light of these anomalies we cannot conclude that the·Petitioner provided sufficient 
evidence to establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. 
Accordingly, we hereby withdraw the Director's decision and remand this matter for further 
consideration and entry of a new decision. The Director should request any additional evidence 
deemed necessary to determine the Petitioner's eligibility and allow the Petitioner to submit such 
evidence within a reasonable period of time. 
ORDER: The decision of .the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter t<fl-T-, Inc., !D# 1161692 (AAO Apr. 12, 2018) 
2