remanded L-1A Case: Moving And Shipping

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-M-A-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 2, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a moving and shipping company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
president and chief executive officer under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(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 denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity; and (2) the Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the Director erred by selectively reading the Beneficiary's job descriptions and by relying 
on a grammatically incorrect interpretation of the statute. 
Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for a new 
decision. 
We find that the Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence and information to establish, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, that the Beneficiary has served in a primarily executive capacity 
abroad, and would do so in the United States. Even if the director has some doubts, if the petitioner 
submits relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is 
"more likely than not" or "probably" true, the petitioner has satisfied the standard of proof. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (citing INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 
(1987)). In this instance, inconsistencies or discrepancies in the record appear to be relatively minor; 
the record as a whole is consistent with a finding that the Beneficiary has been an executive, and would 
be one in the future. 
Another issue, however, requires further development. The Petitioner must establish a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. See generally section 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Act; 
.
Matter ofM-M-A-, Inc. 
8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1). The Petitioner asserts that the two companies are affiliates, because the 
Beneficiary owns most of the foreign entity and all of the petitioning U.S. entity. 
The Petitioner does not appear to have submitted sufficient evidence that the Beneficiary owns the 
petitioning U.S. entity. 
The Petitioner submitted what purport to be the minutes of a meeting of the Petitioner's board of 
directors, indicating that "100% of the shares of common stock of the corporation [have] reverted back 
to [the Beneficiary]." There are several problems with this document: 
• The first page of the document referred to the Petitioner as a " 
' although the Petitioner is a moving company. 
• The document indicates that the board meeting occurred on July 22, 2014, in 
California, and the Beneficiary signed the document twice, once in his capacity 
as president and secretary, and once as a director of the corporation. But government records 
do not indicate that the Beneficiary was in the United States on July 22, 2014. He departed 
on May 22, 2014, and his next known entry was on August 26, 2014. 
• The signatures attributed to and appear to be in the same 
handwriting. signed the Petitioner's 1997 Articles oflncorporation, on file with 
the State of California. ; signatures on that 1997 document are visibly different 
from his purported signature on the 2014 meeting minutes. 
The 2014 meeting minutes called for the officers of the company to file "with the Commissioner of 
Corporations of the State of California ... any necessary Notice of Issuance of Securities pursuant to 
Subdivision (f) of ... Section 25102 of the California Corporate Code," but the record does not reflect 
any such filing. (The record does not reflect whether or not this transaction would, in fact, have 
required such a notice.) 
Furthermore, the Petitioner's bylaws (Article VIII, Section 4) require the issuance of share certificates 
to all shareholders. The Petitioner, however, did not submit copies of the Beneficiary's share 
certificate or a share ledger showing the history of share ownership. Without full disclosure of all 
relevant documents, we are unable to determine the elements of ownership and control. 
We remand the matter to the Director for a new decision, taking the above issues into account. 
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 ofM-M-A-, Inc., ID# 3162712 (AAO May 2, 2019) 
2