sustained L-1A Case: Information Technology

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Inunigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-S- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 21. 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting and systems integration services business, seeks 
to extend the Beneficiary's temporary employment as its "Senior Professional: Project Management" 
under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(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 revoked the approval of the petition, determining that 
the Petitioner had assigned the Beneficiary to a different entity or organization than the one indicated 
on the petition without authorization. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence, asserts that the Director's decision contains a 
clear error of fact, and maintains that there have been no material changes to the terms and 
conditions of the Beneficiary's approved L-lA employment. 
Upon de nova review of the record, we will withdraw the Director's decision and sustain the appeal. 
The Director initially approved the petition and the Beneficiary's requested extension of status in 
October 2017. The Director later issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) after U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services' (USCIS') attempt to verify the Beneficiary's employment through an 
administrative site visit was deemed unsuccessful because the Beneficiary was found to be working 
at a location other than the one the Petitioner indicated on the Form 1-129, Petition for a 
Nonimmigrant Worker. 
Specifically, the Petitioner had indicated on the petition that the Beneficiary would work at a client 
worksite located in California. When an immigration officer visited that location and 
spoke to advised that the Beneficiary was 
working at an address in ____ California. 
In response to the NOIR, the Petitioner submitted a letter from the Beneficiary 's manager explaining 
that both the and locations are client worksites belonging to 
and that the Beneficiary had been working at both sites as needed. The 
.
Matter ofC-S- Corp 
Petitioner stated that there had been no material change in the Beneficiary's employment and that he 
continued to manage the same client project for as described in the petition and supporting 
documentation. 
In the revocation decision, the Director found that although the Petitioner indicated that the 
Beneficiary would be working pursuant to an agreement with it appears that "he 
would be working for in " The Director determined that the 
Beneficiary is not "permitted to be reassigned to organizations other than that for which [the 
Petitioner] sought and gained approval." 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director clearly erred in determining that and the 
Beneficiary have an employer-employer relationship, maintaining that the Beneficiary has been 
continuously working for the Petitioner and was not reassigned to another organization. We agree 
that there was no basis for the Director's finding that the Beneficiary works directly for 
rather than for the Petitioner, or that he has been reassigned to a different entity or organization. 
The Petitioner further notes that "it would appear that the Service would be suggesting that the 
petitioner should have filed an amended petition to file a change of address." We agree with the 
Petitioner that neither the statute, regulations, nor U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) policy expressly require an L-1 employer to file an amended petition in every instance 
where a beneficiary is transferred to a new worksite to perform the same or similar duties for the 
same employer. 1 The Beneficiary's intermittent assignment to a different worksite owned by the 
same client did not warrant the filing of an amended petition, nor did it represent a material change 
in the terms of his approved L-lA employment with the Petitioner. 
For these reasons, we find that the approval of the petition was improperly revoked. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofC-S- Corp., ID# 2861761 (AAO Mar. 21, 2019) 
1 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(7)(i)(C) states: 
The petitioner shall file an amended petition, with fee, at the seIVice center where the original petition 
was filed to reflect changes in approved relationships, additional qualifying organizations under a 
blanket petition, change in capacity of employment (i.e. from a specialized knowledge position to a 
managerial position) , or any information which would affect the beneficiary's eligibility under section 
101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. 
2