remanded L-1A Case: Logistics And Transportation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22685994 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 04, 2022 
The Petitioner, a logistics and transportation company, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment as its president under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The 
L-1 A 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 that (1) its foreign parent company continues to do business in China; and (2) the 
Beneficiary was employed by a qualifying entity abroad for at least one year in the relevant three-year 
timeframe . 1 The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's 
Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon review, we will withdraw the Director's decision 
and remand the matter for entry of a new decision. 
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 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 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary 's behalf ; that petition was approved for the 
period April 1, 2016 , until March 31 , 2017 . A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United 
States through a parent , branch , affiliate , or subsidiary for less one year, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(F). The Petitioner 
subsequently filed an extension petition (with receipt number which was denied in June 2017. Finally , 
the Petitioner filed a third petition in December 2017 (with receipt number that was approved and valid 
from January 10, 2019, until January 1, 2020 . 
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. 
As defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(G), a "qualifying organization" is a United States or foreign 
legal entity which (1) meets exactly one of the qualifying relationships specified in the regulatory 
definitions of parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary; (2) is or will be doing business in the United States 
and in at least one other country directly or through a parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary for the 
duration of the L-1 beneficiary's stay in the United States; and (3) otherwise meets the requirements 
of section 101 (a)( 15)(L) of the Act. 
The term "doing business" means the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or 
services by a qualifying organization and does not include the mere presence of an agent or office of 
the qualifying organization in the United States and abroad. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted, the Director denied the petition based on a determination that the Petitioner did not establish 
that (1) its parent company is doing business abroad, and (2) the Beneficiary had the required one year 
of qualifying employment abroad with the Petitioner's parent company. 
At the time of filing in December 2019, the Petitioner submitted a current business license and lease 
agreement for the foreign entity I a a published 
company brochure providing an overview of the company's services, and copies of the parent 
company's audited financial statements for 2016, 2017 and 2018. With respect to the Beneficiary's 
employment abroad, the Petitioner stated on the Form 1-129 that he was employed as the parent 
company's general manager from 2002 until 2016. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director stated: 2 
You indicate that the foreign entity is systematically and continuously carrying out their 
business activities in China. The consulate conducted three site visits to three claimed 
locations for the foreign entity in 2018. It appears that the foreign entity, I 
I I is not doing business as required by the L-1 
requirements. 
2 As noted by the Petitioner on appeal, the site visits referenced by the Director were conducted in connection with an L-
1 B classification petition _____ the Petitioner filed on behalf of a different beneficiary. The Director revoked 
the approval of that petition, in part, based on information obtained during the referenced site visits. The Petitioner 
appealed the decision to the AAO, and we withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the matter to the Director for 
further action after determining that both the notice of intent to revoke (NOTR) and revocation decision failed to provide 
the Petitioner with adequate notice of the details of those visits and the derogatory information derived from them. See In 
Re: 7052597 (AAO Jan. 16, 2020). USCTS records reflect that, on remand, the approval of the L-1 B petition was affirmed 
without further action to address the site visits that led to the issuance of the NOIR. We emphasize that the approval of 
that separate petition does not signify that the Petitioner has resolved or overcome any derogatory information raised during 
the site visits. 
2 
Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i), the Director is obligated to provide notice of 
any derogatory information that is discovered outside of the record of proceedings. Further, the 
Director must make that derogatory information part of the record along with any rebuttal provided 
by the Petitioner. Id. The Director may make such evidence part of the record by describing it in the 
notice, provided there is sufficient detail that the Petitioner may make an informed rebuttal. 
Although the issuance of the RFE in this matter was directly correlated to derogatory information 
obtained during the referenced 2018 site visits, neither the RFE nor the final decision provides relevant 
information about those visits, such as the date(s) the visits were conducted, the specific locations 
visited, or the information discovered at each location. Considering these deficiencies, we conclude 
that the Director did not provide the Petitioner a meaningful opportunity to challenge the findings from 
the site visits and the other factors that led to the determination that the foreign entity was not doing 
business. In addition, we observe that the Director's request for additional evidence pertaining to the 
Beneficiary's employment abroad likely resulted from questions regarding the foreign entity's 
operating status. Therefore, while the Director raised valid concerns regarding the sufficiency of the 
Petitioner's response to the RFE, the RFE did not comply with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(16)(i) and did not provide the Petitioner with adequate notice of derogatory information 
obtained by USCIS so that it could provide a rebuttal to such information. Accordingly, the Director's 
decision is withdrawn, and the matter will be remanded to the Director. 
On remand, the Director is instructed to issue a new RFE or notice of intent to deny in accordance 
with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(16)(i) and to allow the Petitioner a reasonable opportunity to respond before 
issuing a new decision. The Director may also raise any additional issues relevant to the eligibility 
requirements for the requested classification. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3