remanded L-1A Case: Mergers And Acquisitions

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11997018 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 23, 2020 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner, a mergers and acquisitions firm, sought to continue its temporary 
employment of the Beneficiary as its chief operating officer (COO) 1 under the L-lA nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees who are coming to be employed in the United States in a 
managerial or executive capacity. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center revoked approval of the petition concluding that the 
Petitioner is not doing business in the United States. The Director based this determination on a 2019 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) site visit that was conducted at thd I 
address the Petitioner identified as its place of business at the time this petition was filed. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will remand the matter for further 
consideration. 
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 101(a)(15)(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 managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
Under U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services regulations, the approval of an L-lA petition may 
be revoked on notice under six specific circumstances. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(9)(iii)(A). To properly 
1 After filing this petition, the Petitioner finalized its purchase of I I in August 2017. 
Following the 2017 merger, the Petitioner changed its name tol I and indicated that it would 
"continue □ the business operations of! I as a publicly traded company." The Petitioner also indicated 
that the Beneficiary would assume the position of "vice president and director" of the merged entity , thereby indicating 
that it no longer seeks to employ the Beneficiary in the position of COO, which was listed in the petition. 
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(I)(9)(iii)(B). 
11. BASIS FOR REMAND 
The regulations state that approval of a petition may be revoked if the Director determines that 
revocation is warranted based on one of six identified grounds. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(9)(iii)(A). Because 
the revocation notice does not identify which of the six grounds prompted the revocation of this 
petition's approval, the decision does not constitute proper notice of the intended grounds for 
revocation, as required. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(9)(iii)(B). We are withdrawing the revocation 
decision and remanding the matter to the Director. 
We also conclude that the record as presently constituted does not warrant approval of the petition 
because it lacks sufficient evidence demonstrating that: (1) the Beneficiary would be employed in the 
United States in a managerial or executive capacity; (2) the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship 
with the Beneficiary's foreign employer; and (3) the Petitioner is doing business in the United States. 
The regulations require a petitioner to file an amended petition "to reflect changes in approved 
relationships ... or any information which would affect the beneficiary's eligibility under section 
101(a)(15)(L) of the Act." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(7)(C). 
In this matter, the record indicates that after this petition was filed and approved, the Petitioner 
experienced organizational changes that may have affected its eligibility. On the petition form, the 
Petitioner claimed to have a parent-subsidiary relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer 
and indicated that it was seeking to employ the Beneficiary as its chief operating officer (COOll.!J.Q., 
that it was engaged in "equity investment and acquisition consultation" activities at its office inL_J 
I I Following a 2019 USCIS site visit at the business address provided in the petition, the Petitioner 
provided a statement discussing its acquisition of and merger with I lcand its related 
subsidiaries) in August 2017, approximately one month after this petition was approved. The 
Petitioner discussed chan es that took place after the merger, including its name change to that of 
a change in the Beneficiary's position from COO to "vice resider and 
director of.___ _ _. and a new chain of command requiring the Beneficiary to report to CFO. 
Further, although t \l,<-J.....i....u..LJ.J,,,LJLJ..I.J.., stated that it planned for the Beneficiary to engage in ongoing travel 
between China and it claimed that it established a "new branch office" in California in 
May 2019 and closed the~--~office in June 2019. 
Despite the various developments catalogued above, the Petitioner did not file an amended petition 
reflecting the organizational changes, nor did the Petitioner provide sufficient evidence demonstrating 
that it (1) has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer, (2) is doing business 
in the United States, and (3) employs the Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity under the new circumstances that materialized after the Petitioner's merger with I I I I The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
2 
Although the Petitioner claimed that it intended to "conduct continuous business operations o~ I" 
whose "primary business" is to provide "smart connected devices and cloud service solutions" on a 
global scale, it did not provide evidence demonstrating that it was engaging in these business activities 
in the United States on a regular, systematic, and continuous basis. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(H) 
(defining the term "doing business"). Rather, the Petitioner provided an internally generated business 
plan discussing! I "pending acquisition" of another entity and a supply agreement between a 
Delaware limited liability company andl , 0 0 I However, these documents do 
not establish that the Petitioner is and has been doing business in the United States. Although the 
Petitioner now offers invoices for office space rented at a I I California location, those 
invoices show that they were issued to the attention of an individual at a China address and identify 
I I as the account name. As such, the invoices do not establish that the Petitioner necessarily 
occupied the office space inl ,!California following its merger. Moreover, the mere presence 
of an agent or office of the qualifying organization is not sufficient to establish that the Petitioner was 
doing business on a regular, systematic, and continuous basis. Id. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner's claim regarding the issue of doing business is undermined by findings 
from a California business entities data base search, which did not identify the Petitioner as an entity 
or a branch office that was registered and authorized to do business in California. 
https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov (last visited on Oct. 7, 2020). In addition, further research was 
conducted using the federal employer identification number (FEIN) that the Petitioner provided on the 
first page of the petition form. That search was also inconclusive, as the FEIN the Petitioner 
represented as its own is not linked to the Petitioner, either under its original name or under the name 
it assumed after merging with.__ _____ _____. In light of the Petitioner's initial supporting 
documents, which show that it was incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, the lack of evidence 
showing that the Petitioner was authorized to do business in the United States as a parent, branch, 
affiliate, or subsidiary of the Beneficiary's employer abroad gives rise to further question whether the 
Petitioner is eligible for this visa classification. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(i). 
Because the Director did not comply with the specific requirements that pertain to the revocation of 
an approved petition, we cannot affirm the Director's decision. That said, the record as presently 
constituted does not demonstrate that a sustain of this appeal is warranted. Accordingly, we will 
remand the matter for entry of a new decision. If the Director determines that revocation of the 
approval may be warranted, the Director should issue a new notice of intent to revoke identifying 
which one of the six circumstances listed in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A) prompted the notice and 
provide a detailed statement of the reasons for the intent to revoke the approval of the petition. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for entry of a new decision. 
3