remanded L-1A Case: Retail Investment

MATTER OFiSRIE-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
(. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 7, 2016 
PETITION: FORMI-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a retail investment company operating a convenience store, seeks to extend the 
Beneficiary's temporary employment as its president/chief executive officer (CEO) under the L-1 A 
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). TheL-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 an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, initially approved the petition on April16, 2014, granting a 
validity period of April 11, 2014 to Apr1110, 2016. On October 23, 2014, the Director issued a 
notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the petition's approval, based on the results of an investigation by 
consular officials. 
On July 22, 2015, the Director ultimately revoked the approval of the petition, concluding that the 
Petitioner did not establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity or that the 
Beneficiary was employed at the foreign entity in a full-time managerial or executive capacity for 
one continuous year within with the three years preceding the filing of the initial petition. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits the same documents it 
submitted in response to the NOIR and states that the Director erred in her decision. 
Upon de novo review, we find that the Director's NOIR did not sufficiently detail the grounds of 
revocation. As such, we will withdraw the,Director's decision to revoke the petition's approval and 
remand the matter to the Director for entry of a new decision. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge 
capacity, 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 
Matter of SRIE-, Inc. 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge 
capacity. !d. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) state~ that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, shall be accompanied by: . 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will 
employ the alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph 
(l)(l)(ii)(G) ofthis section. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or 
specialized' knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the 
services to be performed. 
' 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time 
employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition. 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position 
that was~ managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the 
alien's prior education, training, and employment qualifies him/her to perform 
the intended services in the United States; however, the work in the United 
States need not be the same work which the alien performed abroad. 
I 
II. NOTICE OF INTENT TO REVOKE 
The regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(9)(i) states that a service center director may revoke a petition 
at any time, even after the expiration of the petition. Under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A), the 
approval of an L-1 petition may be revoked on notice under six specific circumstances: 
(1) One or more entities are no longer qualifying organizations; 
(2) The alien is no longer eligible under section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Act; 
/ 
(3) A qualifying organization(s) violated requirements of section 10l(a)(15)(L) of 
the Act;' 
( 4) The statement of facts contained in the petition was not true and correct; or 
(5) Appr<?val ofthe petition involved gross error; or 
(6) None of the qualifying organizations on a blanket petition have used the 
blanket petition procedure for three consecutive years. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of SRIE-, Inc. 
To properly revoke the approval of a petition, the Director must issue a NOIR 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). 
After reviewing the NOIR, we find that the Director did not identify the grounds of revocation or 
give the Petitioner the detailed notice required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i) , such that the Petitioner 
could meaningfully respond to the Director's findings. In the NOIR, the Director advised the 
Petitioner that an investigation by consular officials in revealed material deficiencies 
regarding its qualifying relationship with the foreign entity and the Beneficiary's qualifications . 
Specifically, the Director stated that a site visit to the Indian company indicated that the Beneficiary 
had been incorrectly designated on tax forms as the sole proprietor of the foreign entity, when he 
actually has been listed as a silent partner solely for tax purposes and has never been an employee of 
the foreign entity. However , the Director did not disclose the source of the information concerning 
the foreign entity's ownership or state how the Beneficiary's designation on the tax forms impacts 
eligibility. The Director further stated that the investigation indicated that the State Bank Tax 
documents submitted from the ' have been Jalsified. 1 However , the 
Director did not sufficiently identify the documents, detail how the bank documents were determined 
to be false, or state how these documents impact eligib~lity. 
In the NOIR, the Dire,ctor also stated that the Beneficiary has not worked as a qualifying L-lA 
executive or manager in India and that it was unclear whether the foreign entity was conducting 
business. The Director ,provided a blanket review of the documentation that could be provided to 
establish eligibility, but did not provide a detailed statement informing the Petitioner as to why the 
previous documentation in the record was now insufficient or how it was contradicted by the site 
visit information. Other than stating that the site visit indicated that the Beneficiary "has never 
worked at the business ," the Director did not specify the source of the information or state what 
evidence was used to reach the conclusion that the Beneficiary was not employed by the foreign 
entity in a managerial or executive capacity for one continuous year within with the three years 
preceding the filing of the initial. The Director also did not provide a basis for her statement that the 
foreign entity did not appear to be conducting business. 
The Petitioner responded to the Director's NOIR and submitted additional evidence attempting to 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary owns 50% of the foreign entity and holds negative control over the 
business in order to establish an affiliate relationship between the two entities. The Petitioner also 
submitted a letter from director of the foreign entity, describing the 
Beneficiary's claimed executive position and job duties during his seven-year employment at the 
foreign entity. In response to the Director's finding that the Petitioner submitted false documents, 
the Petitioner stated that "the Bank that the Indian company uses is not the 
as mentioned in the NOIR." 
1 Although not stated in the NOIR, the reference to the 
"Taxpayers Counterfoil " documents drawn on the 
petition. 
3 
specifically relates to the four 
submitted in support of the 
.f 
~ ~ -
I 
: L 
' 
}. 
' 
t 
!' 
(b)(6)
Matter of SRIE-, Inc. 
On July 22, 2015, the Director revoked its approval ofthe petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity or that the Beneficiary was 
employed full-time for one continuous year within with the three years preceding the filing of the 
initial petition at the foreign entity. The Director's decision re-stated the information contained in 
the NOIR and added that overseas verification and partnership records indicate that the foreign entity 
has been run since its inception without any alteration, and that the Beneficiary has been listed as a 
silent partner, not directly involved in business operations. The Director again stated that the 
investigation indicated that State Bank Tax documents submitted from the 
in support of the petition have been falsified. 
In this instance, the NOIR did not contain information pertaining to the persons interviewed or how 
it was discovered that tax documents 
had been falsified by the Petitioner; nor did the Director state 
how the tax documents related to the Petitioner's eligibility or explain the basis of the finding that 
the Beneficiary had not been employed abroad. As the Director's final decision was based on the 
derogatory information revealed by the overseas investigation and the Director did not provide 
sufficient information pertaining to its investigative findings and evidence of falsified documents for 
the Petitioner to submit rebuttal evidence, pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i), we are remam,ling 
this matter to the Director for a new and complete decision. 
We will withdraw the decision to revoke the petition's approval and remand this matter to the Director 
for a new decision. ·The Director should request any additional evidence deemed warranted and allow 
the Petitioner to submit such evidence within a reasonable period of time. Any future NOIR must 
specifically detail the grounds of revocation and provide sufficient information concerning the evidence 
used in making any determination ofthe Petitioner's eligibility. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). 
ORDER: The decision of the Director, California Service Center, is withdrawn. The matter is 
remanded to the Director, California Service Center, for further proceedings consistent 
with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter ofSRIE-, Inc., ID# 18227 (AAO Sept. 7, 2016) 
4 
f'! 
. \ 
'i ., 
... 
l 
'•