remanded L-1A Case: Tire Import/Export

C 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
US. Departmeat of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: SRC 04 209 50175 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
IN RE: 
' . 
JUL 15 2010 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 10 1 (a)(] 5)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 04 209 50175 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, initially approved the nonimmigrant visa petition. 
Upon subsequent review, the director issued a notice of intent to revoke approval and ultimately revoked 
approval of the petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
AAO will withdraw the director's decision and remand the matter to the director for further action and entry 
of a new decision. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 1 0l(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. fj 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a Florida corporation established in February 2003, states that it is 
engaged in the import, export and retail sale of tires. It claims to be a subsidiary of - - C.A., located in Venezuela. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its impodexport 
manager for a period of two years. 
The director initially approved the petition and granted the beneficiary L-1A classification from September 
29, 2004 until September 29, 2005. On April 19, 2007, the director issued a notice of intent to revoke the 
approval, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A)(4), based on a finding that the statement of facts contained 
in the petition was not true and correct. The director instructed the petitioner to submit additional evidence 
or arguments in rebuttal of the issues raised in the notice of intent to revoke. The petitioner submitted rebuttal 
evidence on May 18,2007. 
The director revoked the approval of the petition on August 20, 2008, based on two independent and 
alternative grounds. Specifically, the director determined that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that the 
beneficiary had at least one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization 
within the three years preceding the filing of the initial L-1A petition; and (2) that the foreign entity continues 
to do business as a qualifying organization abroad. The director noted in the final decision that the results of a 
consular investigation were inconsistent with the petitioner's claims regarding the beneficiary's employment 
with the foreign entity, and the continuity of the foreign entity's business operations. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director's 
decision was in error as it was based on adverse information of which the petitioner was never informed. The 
petitioner submits additional evidence in support of the appeal. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying 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. 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, executive, or 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
SRC 04 209 50175 
Page 3 
(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) of this 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 himher 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. 
Under U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations, the approval of an L-1A petition may 
be revoked on notice under six specific circumstances. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A). To properly revoke the 
approval of a petition, the 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. 5 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(B). Here, 
the director revoked the approval on the basis of 8 C.F.R. $5 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A)(I) and (4), based on a finding 
that the facts contained in the petition are not true and correct, and based on a finding that the one of the 
entities is no longer a qualifying organization. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner contends that the director improperly revoked the approval of the 
petition without first providing the petitioner with the required detailed statement of the grounds for 
revocation, as required by 8 C.F.R. 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A), and without providing the petitioner with notice of 
derogatory information, as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.2(16)(i). 
Upon preliminary review of the record, the AAO concurs with counsel that the director erred by failing to 
provide notice of derogatory information that was unknown to the petitioner, and failing to provide the 
required detailed statement of the grounds for revocation. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(16)(i) states: 
If the decision will be adverse to the applicant or petitioner and is based on derogatory 
information considered by the Service and of which the applicant or petitioner is unaware, 
helshe shall be advised of this fact and offered an opportunity to rebut the information and 
present information in hislher own behalf before the decision is rendered. 
SRC 04 209 501 75 
Page 4 
In the notice of intent to revoke dated April 19,2007, the director stated: 
Based on information received from the American Consulate in Caracas, Venezuela, it 
appears that the beneficiary is not eligible for approval under this petition. The beneficiary 
was interviewed at the Consulate on February 1 1,2005, and through the interview and further 
investigation, it has been determined that this Notice of Intent to Revoke must be issued. 
The director did not provide any further discussion of any adverse information discovered during the 
interview or subsequent investigation, and merely requested documentation of the beneficiary's employment 
with the foreign entity and copies of the foreign entity's bank statements from 2004 and 2005. However, the 
director was obligated under the circumstances to notify the petitioner of the derogatory information and to 
provide the petitioner with a detailed statement of the grounds for revocation. 
The AAO agrees with the director that the information contained in the report from the U.S. Consulate raises 
questions regarding the beneficiary's eligibility for L-1 classification. However, the director failed to provide 
the petitioner with sufficient information with which to prepare a complete response to the proposed grounds 
for revocation. In an effort to give the petitioner every opportunity to resolve the issues, the AAO will 
withdraw the director's decision and remand the petition to the director for further action and entry of a new 
decision. The director is instructed to issue to the petitioner a detailed notice of intent to revoke advising the 
petitioner of the adverse information known to the director. 
When denying a petition, a director has an affirmative duty to explain the specific reasons for the denial; this 
duty includes informing a petitioner why the evidence failed to satisfy its burden of proof pursuant to section 
291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(i). 
ORDER: The decision of the director dated August 20, 2008, is withdrawn. The matter is remanded 
for further action consistent with the above discussion and entry of a new decision. Upon 
entry of the new decision, the director shall certify the decision to the AAO for review.