sustained L-1A Case: Smart Card Technology

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 1-C- LTD 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Admini strative Appeals Office 
DATE: Y1AR. 15, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner , a s mart card sa les a nd marketing company , seeks to continue the Beneficiary's 
temporary emp loyment as the global business manager of its U.S. subsidiary 1 under the L-1 A 
non immigrant classitica tion for intracompa ny transferees. See lmmi gration and Nationa lity Act (the 
Act) sectio n l 0 I (a)( 15)(L), 8 U .S.C. § 1101 (a)( 15)(L). The L-1 A classification allows a corporation 
or other legal entity (including it s affi liate or subs idiary) to transfer a qualifying foreig n employee to the 
United States to work temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center appro ved the petition , but later revoked the approval 
following the issuance of a notice of intent to revo ke. The Director concluded that the reco rd did not 
esta blish that the Petitione r' s U.S. subsidial)· was doing business as required by the regulations or that 
the Beneficiary wou ld be employed in a manager ial or executi ve capacity under the extended 
petition . On appea l, the Petiti one r submits addi tional evidence and contends that the approval was 
revoked in error. 
Upon de novo review, we concl ude t hat the reco rd now contain s suffici ent ev idence to overco me the 
gro unds for revocation. First, the Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that its 
U.S. subsidiary is regu larly, sys tema tically , and conti nuou sly providing services to its foreign parent 
company by bui lding brand awareness , cont ributing to research and development, and streng thening 
relations hips with Jjnancial institutions in rhe United States . The Petiti oner aJso submits subs tantial 
supporting documcmation reflecting that the Beneficiary's U.S. subordin ates coordinate with several 
exis ting U.S. clients on the design and manufacture of credit cards. The Petitioner has established· 
that it is doing business as required by the regu lations. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(H). 
Further , the Petitioner has submi tted a credible and detailed duty desc ription for the Beneficiary and 
substantial supporting eviden ce indic ating that his s ubordinate s relieve him from primaril y 
perform ing non-q ualifying ope rational tasks . The Petiti oner explained how the U.S. subsidiar y fits 
into the broader qualifying organizati on and explained why it does not have a reasonable need for a 
larger U.S.-based statl to perfor m n on-executive functions at the presen t time . The evide nce 
' The Petitioner in this matter, is a South Korean entity with a U.S. subsidial)'. 
which serves as the Beneficiary's U.S. employer. 
!Yfal/er of 1-C- Lid 
credibly demonstrates that the Benellciary's subordinates, with support from the Korean parent, 
allow him to primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the subsidiary company rather than 
the day-to-day operations of the enterprise and that he will have wide latitude in discretionary 
decision making over the organization. Section I 0 I (a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
The totality of the evidence establishes that that the Petitioner is more likely than not doing business 
as defined by the regulations and that the Bencllciary will be employed in an executive capacity 
under the extended petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ojl-C- Ltd, ID# I 015769 (AAO Mar. 15, 2018) 
2