remanded L-1A Case: Toy Distribution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H- USA, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV.30,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a distributor of cloth, plush, and fur toys, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as president of its new otlice 1 under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
submit sufficient evidence to establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a 
managerial or executive capacity and that it would. within one year of approvaL be able to employ 
the Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence 
addressing the Director's findings. Regarding the Beneficiary's employment abroad, the Petitioner 
provides a comprehensive letter from the foreign entity's chief executive officer (CEO) explaining 
the chain of command within the exporting department that the Beneficiary heads. The Petitioner 
also provides employee job descriptions, which, together with the support letter, help to provide a 
better understanding of duties carried out by the Beneficiary's direct and indirect subordinates. 
thereby clarifying that the organizational structure within the exporting depat1ment of the foreign 
employer is sutlicient to relieve the Beneficiary from having to allocate her time primarily to the 
operational tasks of the exporting function. 
With regard to the Beneficiary's proposed employment, the Petitioner points to evidence in the 
record which shows that the entity, despite its early stage of development. generates sufficient 
revenue to support the Beneficiary's position and hire additional employees as necessary. The 
Petitioner also points to business relationships it has with existing U.S. customers, as supported by 
its 2016 tax return, and points to its business plan, which describes the steps the Petitioner plans to 
1 
The term "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one 
year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(F). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation no 
more than one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
.
Matter <?f H- USA. LLC 
take to expand its business and allow it to employ the Beneficiary in an executive capacity within 
one year of the petition's approval. 
Upon de novo review, we find that the Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to overcome the 
grounds for denial and we will therefore withdraw the Director's decision. 
Notwithstanding our favorable determination, we find that this petition is not approvable because the 
Petitioner has not provided sutlicient evidence to establish. as required , that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
To establish a "qualifying relationship" under the Act and the regulations, a petitioner must show 
that the beneficiary's foreign employer and the proposed U.S. employer arc the same employer (i .e. 
one entity with "branch" offices), or that they are related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as 
"affiliates." See generally section 101(a)(l5)(L) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(1). 
In the present matter , the Petitioner claims to be an affiliate of the foreign entity. The term 
"atliliate" is defined in relevant part, as (I ) one of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and 
controlled by the same parent or individual, or (2) one of two legal entities owned by the same group 
of individuals, each individual owning and controlling approximately the same share or proportion 
of each entity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(K). Although the Petitioner has provided sufficient 
evidence to show that its ownership is evenly split between the Beneficiary and one other person, the 
record lacks sufficient evidence showing that the Beneficiary owns 50% of the foreign entity. as 
claimed. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant. probative, and credible 
evidence. See MaflerofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010) . 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, which instructed the Petitioner to provide 
evidence of a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer, the Petitioner 
provided a letter claiming that the Beneficiary owns 50% of the foreign entity, but that there is no 
available documentation to support this claim because "there is no requirement with the Chinese 
government to record ownership interest in a company." The Petitioner also provided a letter from 
the foreign entity's accounting firm, which referred to a statement from the claimed CEO 
and 20% owner of the foreign entity, who addressed the issue of the foreign entity's ownership. The 
accounting firm's letter stated that the foreign entity is privately owned in China and therefore it is 
not required "to register the percentage of ownership ... with any governmental agencies in China:· 
The letter also stated that shareholders are not required to report their stock ownership '·on any tax 
filings in China." The accounting firm based its knowledge of the foreign entity's ownership on 
statement. However, the referenced statement is incomplete, as indicated by the fact that it 
stops mid-sentence and is missing the signature page. No other evidence was provided to support 
the claims made by or by the foreign entity's accounting firm regarding the ownership of 
the foreign entity. 
In light of the above , we hereby withdraw the Director's decision and remand this matter for further 
consideration and entry of a new decision. The Director should request any additional evidence 
2 
Matter of H- USA, LLC 
deemed necessary to determine the Petitioner's eligibility and allow the Petitioner to submit such 
evidence within a reasonable period of time. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter of H- USA. LLC, ID# 827390 (AAO Nov. 30. 2017)