remanded L-1B Case: Logistics And Transportation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7052597 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 16, 2020 
PETITION: Form I-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner is a logistics and transportation company that seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as its "IT Specialist" under the L-lB nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees who possess specialized knowledge . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center revoked the approval of the petition concluding that the 
Petitioner did not establish, as required, that the foreign entity is doing business . The Director also 
found that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to allow for verification of its claimed 
U.S. staffing. 1 The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will remand the matter for further 
consideration. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lB 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 101(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 specialized knowledge capacity. Id. 
Under U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations, the approval of an L-lB petition 
may be revoked on notice under six specific circumstances . 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A). To properly 
revoke the approval of a petition, a director must issue a notice of intent to revoke that contains a detailed 
1 Although the Director further found that the Beneficiary does not qualify for a change of status from a B1 /B2 
nonimmigrant to that of an LlB nonimmigrant because his B 1/B2 nonimmigrant status was revoked, a determination 
regarding a nonimmigrant change of status is not appealable. 8 C.F.R. § 248.3(g). Therefore, we are precluded from 
addressing this issue in our decision. 
statement of the grounds for the revocation and the time period allowed for rebuttal. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(1)(9)(iii)(B). 
II. BASIS FOR REMAND 
We find that the Director's decision did not adequately explain the deficiencies in the evidence. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a 
decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful 
opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). The revocation was based, in part, on findings 
from three site visits to the Petitioner's claimed overseas business locations; however, neither the 
NOIR nor the revocation decision provided relevant information about those visits, such as the date(s) 
the visits were conducted or the information discovered at each location. Likewise, although the 
Director determined that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the 
Beneficiary's claimed foreign employer was doing business, the decision does not elaborate on that 
finding or explain how the submitted evidence was deficient. In light of the deficiencies in the NOIR 
decision, we find that the Director did not provide a meaningful opportunity to challenge the findings 
from the site visits and the other factors that led to the conclusion that the foreign entity was not doing 
business. 
Further, although the Director found that a lack of evidence precluded verification of the Petitioner's 
claimed staffing, the Director did not explain how, if at all, such verification would impact any of the 
factors concerning the Petitioner's eligibility. 
For these reasons, we will remand the matter for entry of a new decision. The Director may request 
any additional evidence deemed warranted and allow the Petitioner to submit such evidence within a 
reasonable period of time. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
2