remanded L-1A Case: Transportation Services

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-L-A- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 15, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of transportation services, seeks to continue1 the Beneficiary's employment 
as its president 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. § 110l(a)(15)(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 denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity under an 
approved petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision contains several errors of fact and law. 
First, the Petitioner notes that the Director misinterpreted one of the Petitioner's organizational 
charts, which was intended to reflect staffing during the first year "new office" phase of its 
operation. The Petitioner points out that it provided another organizational chart to show its current 
staffing structure, which includes more employees to staff its two business locations and an 
expanded management tier that the Beneficiary relies upon to "direct[] the management of the 
organization." Section 10l(a)(44)(B)(i) of the Act. The Petitioner contends that its expanded 
management tier is evidence of the growth in its business activity and notes that the additional staff 
was necessary to accommodate its growing business needs. It emphasizes that the Director 
overlooked this current organizational chart as well as job descriptions provided for the 
Beneficiary's subordinate employees. The Petitioner also argues that the Director incorrectly 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's; that petition was approved for the period 
April 1, 2016, until March 31, 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(l)(l)(ii)(F). The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation one year within the date of approval of the petition to 
support an executive or managerial position. Subsequent to the approval of the initial new office petition, the Petitioner 
filed an extension petition (with receipt number , which was denied in June 2017 . The Beneficiary 
returned to China pending a final decision on the current petition, which the Petitioner filed in December 2017, well after 
the new office petition expired. Therefore, although the Petitioner indicated that it was seeking to continue the 
Beneficiary's previously approved employment, the record does not indicate that the Beneficiary currently has U.S. 
employment that can be extended. 
Matter of H-L-A- Inc. 
applied elements of the definition of managerial capacity to the Beneficiary's proposed position, 
despite the claim that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity. 
Upon de nova review, we find that the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to establish that it 
would more likely than not employ the Beneficiary in an executive capacity as defined at section 
101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. We agree with the Petitioner's assertion that the Director overlooked 
relevant evidence of the Petitioner's current staffing levels, ~d that such evidence supports the 
Petitioner's claim that it employs a tier of managerial staff and has the ability to support the 
Beneficiary's executive position and relieve him from involvement in the day-to-day operations of 
the company. In addition, we find that the Director erred by applying the statutory definition of 
"managerial capacity" to the Beneficiary's subordinates; there is no requirement that the 
Beneficiary's subordinates themselves must meet the statutory definitions applicable to L-lA 
nonimmigrants. 
Notwithstanding our withdrawal of the Director's decision, we find that the record as presently 
constituted contains anomalies in the evidence that was submitted to establish the claimed parent­
subsidiary relationship between the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's foreign employer. As a result of 
such anomalies we find that the Petitioner has not established that it has a qualifying relationship 
with the Beneficiary's employer abroad, as claimed. As such, we will remand the matter for further 
consideration. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 10l(a)(l5)(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 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
II. BASIS FOR REMAND 
As previously noted, we find that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish 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 are the same employer (i.e., 
one entity with "branch" offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See 
generally section 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1). The Petitioner must support its 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 
369,376 (AAO 2010). 
2 
Matter of H-L-A- Inc. 
The Petitioner claims that it is a subsidiary of the foreign entity. In order to establish that the foreign 
entity is the parent in the claimed parent-subsidiary relationship, the Petitioner would have to 
provide evidence to show that the foreign entity is the majority shareholder. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(K). However, as noted in the Director's request for evidence (RFE), Schedule G of 
the Petitioner's 2016 tax return identified the Beneficiary as the owner of 100% of the Petitioner's 
stock. 
Although the Petitioner attempted to resolve this inconsistency in response to the RFE, some of the 
new evidence contained additional anomalies. Namely, the Petitioner submitted a shareholders 
resolution, which contained factually inconsistent information. The translation of the resolution 
indicates that during a general shareholders meeting, which was held on March 8, 2015, the foreign 
entity "in August 2018 decided to set up and invest in a U.S. subsidiary." This statement is 
problematic because it refers to a future date - August 2018 - to establish when the foreign entity 
made the decision to set up the U.S. subsidiary. If the decision was already made as of March 2015, 
it cannot be made more than three years in the future in August 2018. We further note that the dates 
in the translation do not match those cited in the copy of the foreign language original document, 
which appears to cite August 2015, not August 2018, as the month and year during which the 
resolution was made to open a U.S. subsidiary. This too is problematic because August 2015 was 
six months in the future as of the date the purported resolution was made in March 2015. 
The resolution further states, "The shareholders made the decision that [sic] first invest fifty 
thousand USD ($500,000) .... " This sentence shows an inconsistency between the spelled out 
dollar amount and the numeric dollar amount inside the parentheses. The same anomaly appears in 
the photocopied foreign language document, thereby indicating that the inconsistency originated in 
the foreign language document and now precludes us from being able to determine the total amount 
of the intended shareholder investment. The Petitioner must resolve these discrepancies in the 
record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Further, we acknowledge the Petitioner's submission of other evidence, including an amended 
Schedule G that accompanied the accountant's statement of explanation, a 2016 balance sheet, an 
"Equity Transaction Report," and bank statements. However, these documents do not resolve the 
inconsistencies in the shareholder resolution; the Petitioner's internally generated documents, 
including the amended tax return and list of "equity transactions," cannot be deemed independent 
objective evidence and therefore are not sufficient to resolve the above-noted inconsistencies. The 
Petitioner has not provided consistent evidence that shows the value of its stock and establishes that 
the foreign entity paid for its ownership of that stock when the Petitioner issued its stock certificate. 
Accordingly, we are remanding this matter for further consideration and entry of a new decision. 
The Director should request any additional evidence deemed necessary to determine the Petitioner's 
eligibility and allow the Petitioner to submit such evidence within a reasonable period of time. 
3 
Matter of H-L-A- Inc. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
Cite as Matter of H-L-A-lnc., ID# 1581474 (AAO Aug. 15, 2018) 
4