sustained L-1A Case: Fund Advising Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 24993083 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 8, 2023 
The Petitioner , a Canadian entity that provides fund advising services, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as vice president of its New York branch office under the L-lA nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees . 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. 1
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition . The Director observed that a support 
letter was provided with the petition and a Securities and Exchange Commission document was 
provided in response to a request for evidence (RFE), highlighting the Petitioner's declaration that the 
U.S . branch office is not a registered legal entity . The Director determined that the Petitioner did not 
provide sufficient evidence of the foreign entity's ownership and control of the U.S. branch office and 
therefore concluded that the Petitioner did not establish the existence of the requisite qualifying 
relationship between it and the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the denial, asserting that it previously submitted evidence 
establishing the nature of the Petitioner's relationship with the foreign employer and demonstrating 
that by virtue of owning and controlling its Canadian subsidiary, the foreign employer, where the 
Beneficiary was previously employed , also owns and controls the Canadian subsidiary's New York 
branch office where the Beneficiary seeks be employed under an approved petition. See 8 C.F.R . 
§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(J) and (K) (for the definitions of branch and subsidiary , respectively). 
The Petitioner also acknowledges and addresses an error in its RFE response statement. Namely, the 
Petitioner claims that it inadvertently omitted the word "separate" which was intended to precede the 
phrase "legal entity," thus resulting in an incorrect reference to the U.S. branch as "not a legal entity" 
as opposed to "not a separate legal entity," as intended. The Petitioner explains that , indeed, it is a 
1 To establish eligibility for the L-1 A 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)(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 employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
"separate legal entity" and resubmits multiple previously submitted documents in support of this 
claim. Such documents include evidence of the Petitioner's formation in Canada and its filing of a 
2020 Form 1120-F, U.S. Income Tax Return of a Foreign Corporation, which shows that the Petitioner 
declared earnings and paid taxes in the United States. The record shows that in addition to these 
documents, the Petitioner also previously submitted other material evidence, such as its quarterly New 
York State tax returns, a 2020 lease agreement for office space it leased and continues to lease in New 
York City, and evidence of its ownership by I the foreign entity where the 
Beneficiary was previously employed. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 53 7, 53 7 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we conclude that the record contains sufficient evidence establishing that the Petitioner has a U.S. 
branch office through which it carries on business in the United States and that the Petitioner also has 
a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity that previously employed the Beneficiary. In light of 
such evidence, we conclude that the Petitioner has met its burden of proof and we will therefore sustain 
the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2