remanded L-1A Case: Media

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 20615532 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-1 A Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 17, 2022 
The Petitioner , a "professional media solution company," seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment as its president under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees 
who are coming to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity .1 See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101 (a)(l 5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(l 5)(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 revoked the approval of the petition after conducting a 
post-adjudicative investigation, which led the Director to conclude the following: 1) the Beneficiary 
was not employed abroad by a qualifying organization for one year prior during the relevant three­
yearperiod that preceded the Beneficiary's entry to the United States to work for the petitioning entity; 
and 2) the Beneficiary's employment abroad was not in a managerial or executive capacity. The 
decision refers to two phone interviews conducted by investigators of the Fraud Prevention Unit 
(FPU), who interviewed the Beneficiary and an unnamed HR director, whom the Director stated was 
an employee of the qualifying foreign entity, 2 The Director 
determined that both the Beneficiary and the HR director a made 
statements that called into question the claim that the Beneficiary was employed abroad a 
I !during the three-year period that preceded her application for admission to the 
United States to be employed at the petitioning entity . The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will remand the matter for further 
consideration. 
1 The Petitioner previously filed aod secured approvals for, three petitions on the Beneficiary 's behalf , with the la test 
petition (with receipt number _____ expiring on August 28, 2018 . 
2 Qualifying organization in this instance refers to the foreign entity which is an affiliate of the petitioning U.S. entity. See 
8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(l)(ii)(G)(I); see also 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(l)(ii)(L) (fordefinitionof"affiliate") . 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A 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)(l 5)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary must 
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 specialized knowledge capacity. Id. 
In addition, under U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations, the approval of an _-
1 A petition may be revoked on notice under six specific circumstances. 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(1)(9)(iii)(A). 
Prior to revoking 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 
In order to properly revoke a petition on the basis of an investigative report, the report must have some 
material bearing on the grounds for eligibility for the visa classification. The investigative report must 
establish that the Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof on an essential element that would wanant 
the denial of the visa petition. Observations contained in an investigative report that are conclusmy, 
speculative, equivocal, or irrelevant do not provide a proper basis for the issuance of a notice of intent 
to revoke and cannot serve as the basis for revocation. See Matter of Arias, 19 I&N Dec. 568 (BIA 
1988) (discussing revocation of an immigrant visa petition based on a consular return). Rather, 
"[s]pecific, concrete facts are meaningful." Id. at 570-71. 
In the matter at hand, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the FPU investigator did not accurately 
convey the Beneficiary's interview responses. We note that the record contains no transcript of that 
interview, nor does it include the name or contact information of the HR director who is the claimed 
source of the derogatory information pertaining to the Beneficiary's position withl I I I the Petitioner's foreign affiliate. In light of these deficiencies, we find that the Director 
did not provide the Petitioner with a meaningful opportunity to challenge the findings from the FPU 
investigation which led to the adverse conclusion regarding the Beneficiary's foreign employment. 
The Petitioner also argues that the Director disregarded the Beneficiary's email, which followed her 
interview with FPU and included an explanation about her position atl I 
an unaffiliated foreign entity where the Beneficiary claimed her position was 
limited to chairing board of directors' meetings and making decisions "on important issues" that did 
not concern the daily management of operations of that entity. The Petitioner also contends that the 
HR director whom the FPU interviewed was an employee of rather than 
and that the information provided during that interview was correct 
with respect to the Beneficiary's limited role with The Petitioner maintains 
that because the names of the two entities are notably similar, the Director confused those entities and 
incorrectly concluded that the Beneficiary was employed by I rather 
thanl I the Petitioner's foreign affiliate. 
2 
In supportthese assertions, the Petitioner provides new evidence, which includes the following: a letter 
from Is CEO and board of directors' chairman· a letter from the eneral manager 
of the foreign affiliate; an employment contract for I ' HR ir 
showing a hire date that preceded the FPU's investigation; and __________ 
employment contracts identifying the Beneficiary as the "legal representative" with hiring authority 
during her claimed period of employment abroad. 
Lastly, the Petitioner argues that although the Director concluded that the Beneficiary's employment 
abroad was not in a managerial or executive capacity, the revocation decision did not include an 
analysis of the foreign employment, thereby leaving the Petitioner to question how its submissions 
were deficient with respect to that issue. 
Because of the defects discussed above, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the 
matter. On remand, the Director must issue a new NOIR specifying the facts and evidence supporting 
the proposed revocation grounds. Pursuant to this remand, the Director shall also consider the new 
evidence submitted on appeal. 
Accordingly, the following order shall be issued. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 
3