remanded L-1A Case: Trading And Mortgage Loans

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-G-G-USA 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE : JULY 26, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which describes itself as a "trading and mortgage loan business," seeks to continue the 
Beneficiary's temporary employment as its president under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees.1 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 11 0l(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 approved the petition, but later revoked that approval, 
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 Beneficiary will be employed 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 relying on a flawed report from a post-adjudication site visit. 
Upon de nova review, we will remand the matter for further consideration and action, based in part on 
newly discovered information . 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification , a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity for one continuous year within 
three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B) . In addition , the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States temporarily to 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
from December 5, 2016 to December 4, 2017. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United 
States through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary 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 one year within the date of approval of the petition to 
support an executive or manageri al position . 
Matter of H-G-G-USA 
continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a 
managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-lA petition that involved a new office must submit a statement of 
the beneficiary's duties during the previous year and under the extended petition; a statement 
describing the staffing of the new operation and evidence of the numbers and types of positions held; 
evidence of its financial status; evidence that it has been doing business for the previous year; and 
evidence that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(14)(ii). 
II. ADDRESS 
Throughout this Jroceeding, the Petitioner has stated that its address is I !Boulevard, Suite 
800, I California. It is this address that an officer of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services visited on May 30, 2018. 2 The officer found signage identifying the business as 'I I 
and concluded that the Petitioner did not operate at that address. But the record shows that the 
Petitioner had claimed an association withl I since the beginning of this proceeding. 
The Petitioner's initial submission indicated that the Petitioner began subletting office space, 
designated Suite 880, from I I Home Loans, Inc. in July 2017. The Petitioner farther asserted 
that it purchased I la few months later. A stock purchase agreement refers to the Petitioner's 
purchase of I I Home Loans, Inc., a Maryland corporation," from 
I I signed the purchase agreement as president of I I'--------~ 
California business records, searchable at https://businesssearch.rs.ca.rv/, indicate that 
I I remains active in California, and continues to use the Blvd. a;:..:d=-=d=r-=-e=ss::..:.·-====,---,.,,..... 
signed a Statement of Information (Foreign Corporation) as president of.__ _____ _. on 
November 21, 2r8, wyh no changes reported, indicating, if indirectly, that the company continues to 
operate from the Blvd. address. 
There are also two different companies using the name I I both listed as "active" in 
California, both at thel IBivd. address, and both showing I I as president: I I 
Home Loans, Inc., a Maryland corporation; and I I Financial Corporation, incorporated in 
California. The record does not show that either! lorl I Financial Corporation 
has a qualifying relationship with the petitioning entity as an affiliate, parent, or subsidiay. Without 
such a qualifying relationship, any business activity undertaken b~ 
0 
I or by_ I I Financial Corporation would not constitute business activity by the Petitioner or by any related enti,!Y:_, 
The record requires additional clarification to show the extent to whichl land L_J 
I I Financial Corporation are actively doing business at Suite 800. 
I I busiuess license records, searchable I' https:ruslllesslicensd [.gov/Search/ 
Index/BusinessLicense, show another company, Group, Inc., operating from Suite 800. 
2 The Petitioner has protested that the site visit was unannounced, but this spontaneity is a critical part of the inspection 
process, to ensure that an inspecting officer observes a company's actual business operations rather than conditions that 
may be staged for the purpose of misleading or misdirecting the officer. 
2 
Matter of H-G-G-USA 
~-~I Group's Statement of Information filed with the State of California on July 9, 2019, also shows 
the same Suite 800 address, and indicates that at least four company officials use that address. 
If multiple companies, including at least three headed by I l are all doing business from 
Suite 800, then the Petitioner's ability to operate from that address would seem to be greatly reduced. 
If multiple companies are not actually conducting business from Suite 800, but are claiming the 
address anyway, then this practice raises questions of its own that the record does not yet answer. 
It is notable that the Petitioner claims five employees outside of I l but the sublease for Suite 
880 refers to only one office and one parking space. I f s own lease for Suite 800 shows a 
"Maximum Parking Allocation" of "Fifteen (15) parking passes," which presumably includes the 
spaces provided to sublessees because! I would not have the authority to sublet parking spaces 
not already under its control. The Petitioner initially claimed that I I has 20 employees of its 
own, not including the Petitioner's employees, which later expanded to 38 employees in June 2018 
after I I acquired! !Financial Group. 
It is also of interest that, although the Petitioner claims to have sublet Suite 880 since July 2017, and 
used that address on a Statement oflnformation filed that month, the Petitioner's bank statements from 
late 2017 show the Beneficiary's residential address i~ I and they do not reflect the monthly 
$1100 rental payments specified in the sublease agreement. These discrepancies raise further 
questions about the extent of the Petitioner's actual presence atl I Blvd. 
III. OTHER BUSINESS ACTIVITY 
The Petitioner initially stated: "As of November 30 2017, [the Petitioner] has been engaged in two 
types of business: a[n] import and export business and a mortgage loan business." The only 
documentation of the Petitioner's import/export business consists of three purchase orders, dated 
September and October 2017. All three purchase orders related to the same client inl I 
which had ordered several thousand metric tons of rolled paper. 
The three submitted purchase orders from September and October 201 7 showed prices adding up to 
nearly $2.7 million, but a financial statement for the "Eleven Months Ended November 30, 2017" 
showed less than $500,000 in income, categorized as follows: 
Sales Products Service $418,463.06 
Sales - Other 2,327.97 
Investment Income 45,000.00 
This discrepancy requires an explanation. 
Furthermore, the record does not reveal who took or processed the orders, who arranged for shipping, 
or where the inventory was stored pending shipment. The Petitioner did not identify any employees 
responsible for these tasks, and its sublet office space is not suitable for receiving, storing, or shipping 
thousands of tons of inventory. 
3 
Matter of H-G-G-USA 
The Petitioner must address these issues in order to provide a more complete and credible picture of 
the actual nature, and full extent, of its business activities ( and therefore its need for the Beneficiary 
to fill a managerial or executive position). The Director must seek additional information to determine 
the nature and extent of the business activities at I I Blvd., Suite 800, including, where 
possible, independent, third-party documentation. 
Some of the above information derives from sources outside the record. This remand order constitutes 
notice of that information as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(i). Nevertheless, if the Director 
concludes that the Petitioner has not met its burden of proof: and intends to use any of the new 
information as a basis for revocation, then the Director must issue a new notice of intent to revoke. A 
petitioner must be given the opportunity to offer evidence in support of the petition and in opposition 
to the grounds alleged for revocation of the approval. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii). 
The initial notice of intent to revoke, and revocation notice, discussed issues regarding the 
Beneficiary's claimed duties both in the United States and abroad. The findings relating to the 
Beneficiary's employment abroad derived, in part, from statements that the Beneficiary made to 
consular officials while applying for a nonimmigrant visa. In light of the additional discussion above, 
we offer no conclusions about those issues in this decision, but reserve them in the event that this case 
again comes before us. One assertion that may require further development is that, in October 2013, 
the Beneficiary indicated that her "Primary Occupation" was at~---------~ Image 
Design Center. The Petitioner has since contended that "the company was managed through 
Beneficiary's assistant ... [so that] it would not interfere with her job performance and duties with 
the Parent Company," an assertion that raises the question of how a job that took up little of the 
Beneficiary's time could amount to her "Primary Occupation." Any further attempts to address this 
issue should take into account that the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988) ( citing Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 
17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980)). 
We note that the Administrative Appeals Office is not in possession of the record of proceedings for 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, with receipt numbe~ I Therefore, 
we cannot determine whether or not the above issues have been resolved in that case, or if that 
immigrant petition was approved in error. 
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 of H-G-G-USA, ID# 4676659 (AAO July 26, 2019) 
4