remanded L-1A Case: Retail

U.S. Department af Hornetand Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly wnwananted 
i~ion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
SRC 04 081 52261 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 HOV 1 9 2007 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 04 081 52261 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimrnigrant visa petition was initially approved by the acting director, Texas Service 
Center (TSC). The acting director subsequently revoked the approval on the grounds that the petitioner failed 
to establish that (1) it has a qualifjing relationship with the beneficiary's claimed foreign employer; or (2) the 
beneficiary has been or will be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The decision of the 
director will be withdrawn and the case will be remanded for Mer consideration and action. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to extend the employment of its president as an L-1A 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 4 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a corporation formed under the laws of the State of 
Texas, claims to operate a convenience store pursuant to an assigned lease. The petitioner also asserts that it 
is an affiliate of located in Mumbai, India, based upon the beneficiary's claimed majority 
ownership and control of both entities. 
On January 20,2005, the acting director sent a Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOR), providing the petitioner thirty 
(30) days to submit additional evidence in support of its petition. On June 22,2005, noting that no response had 
been received to the NOR, the acting director revoked the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to 
establish that (1) it has a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's claimed foreign employer; or (2) the 
beneficiary has been or will be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that a response to the NOlR was sent and that it was received by the TSC on February 
22, 2005. In support of this claim, counsel submits a photocopy of the response as well as Federal Express 
signature delivery confirmation. . 
Upon review, the AAO finds that the petitioner in this matter has established that it is more likely than not the 
TSC received the response to the NOR within the required time period. As it is clear that the acting director's 
decision did not consider this response, the decision of the acting director must be withdrawn, and the matter must 
be remanded to the acting director for further action. Upon remand, the acting director is directed to review the 
response submitted by counsel on behalf of the petitioner and render a new decision after reviewing and 
considering this additional evidence. 
ORDER: 
 The decision of the director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded to the director for further 
action consistent with the above and entry of a new decision.