Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 1
Administrative Appeals Office Decision...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 2
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Trans...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 3
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Trans...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 4
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Trans...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 5
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Trans...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 6
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Trans...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 7
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Trans...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 8
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Trans...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 9
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Trans...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 10
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 11
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 12
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 13
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 14
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 15
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 16
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 17
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 18
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 19
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 20
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 21
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 22
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 23
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 24
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 25
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 26
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 27
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 28
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 29
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 30
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 31
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 32
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 33
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 34
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 35
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 36
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 37
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 38
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 39
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 40
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 41
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 42
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 43
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 44
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 45
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 46
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 47
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 48
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 49
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 50
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 51
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 52
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 53
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 54
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 55
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 56
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 57
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 58
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 59
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 60
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 61
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 62
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 63
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 64
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 65
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 66
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 67
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 68
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 69
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 70
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 71
AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Tran...
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012

1,445

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,445
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Administrative Appeals Office Decisions L-1 NIVs in 2012"

  1. 1. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 1 Administrative Appeals Office Decisions Category D7 - Intracompany Transferees (L-1A & L-1B) Decisions Issued in 2012 Compiled by Joseph P. Whalen (August 15-30, 2013) AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Jan032012_01D7101.pdf Jan032012_02D7101.pdf APPEAL SUSTAINED [L1-A] This executive will open a “New Office” for a management consultancy firm. The petitioner asked for three years but is limited to one year for a “New Office” “The director denied the petition on two independent and alternative grounds, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that it has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new operation; and (2) that the beneficiary will be employed in a bona fide manager or executive position within one year of the beginning of operations for the United States business entity.” ISSUES: 1.) Premises secured? 2.)Managerial or Executive duties? . APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] “The director denied the petition on the grounds that the petitioner failed to establish a qualifying relationship with the foreign employer and that the beneficiary would be working in a managerial or executive capacity.”
  2. 2. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 2 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Jan032012_03D7101.pdf1 Jan032012_04D7101.pdf Jan032012_05D7101.pdf Jan042012_01D7101.pdf Jan042012_02D7101.pdf Jan042012_03D7101.pdf SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-A] APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] New Office extension denied. Multiple issues including non-disclosure of prior extension petition being denied. SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-A] APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] MOTION DISMISSED [L1-B] Another Chinese Cook Case The purpose of a motion to reopen is different from the purpose of an appeal. While the AAO conducts a comprehensive, de novo review of the entire record on appeal, the AAO's review in this matter is limited to the narrow issue of whether the petitioner has presented and documented new facts to warrant the reopening of the AAO's decision to dismiss the petitioner's appeal on April 3, 2009. The AAO previously conducted a de novo review of the entire 1 Several January Decisions, posted earlier, were closely examined in another documents found at: http://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5/aao-decisions-for-intracompany-transferee-cases-in-january-2012
  3. 3. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 3 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Jan062012_01D7101.pdf Jan062012_02D7101.pdf record of proceeding, an appellate decision was issued, and the deficiencies were expressly stated in the AAO's 10- page decision. Upon review, the previous decisions of the director and the AAO will not be disturbed. APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT [L1-A] SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-A] The “Middleman” Case “…. The petitioner, a Florida limited liability company, states that it is engaged in a multi sector business including fashion retail, restaurants, food production, and industrial services. The petitioner claims to be an affiliate of located in Paris, France. The beneficiary was previously granted L-IA status for a period of three years, from July 2006 to July 2009, and the petitioner now seeks to extend his status so that he may continue to serve in the position of managing member. On November 5, 2009, the director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has been or will be employed in a managerial capacity. In denying the petition, the director found that the beneficiary is not the manager of a function as the only function he appears
  4. 4. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 4 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Jan062012_03D7101.pdf to perform is that of acquiring/investing in businesses in the United States. The director further found that the beneficiary is not actually managing the function, but is merely acting as the middleman/agent for the overseas office in acquiring U.S. businesses. On December 7, 2009, counsel for the petitioner submitted the Form I-290B to appeal the denial of the underlying petition. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. Counsel for the petitioner marked the box at part two of the Form I-290B to indicate that a brief and/or additional evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. As of this date, the appeal brief has not been received by the AAO, thus, the AAO deems the record complete and ready for adjudication.” SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-A] “On October 13, 2009, the director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has been or will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. In denying the petition, the director found that the vague and brief list of duties provided for the beneficiary fail to establish that he will be primarily employed in a managerial or executive capacity. The director further found that
  5. 5. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 5 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Jan102012_01D7101.pdf Jan112012_01D7101.pdf Jan112012_02D7101.pdf the beneficiary will not be involved in the supervision and control of the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees who will relieve him from performing the services of the U.S. company. The director observed that the petitioner has not shown that the beneficiary functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy other than in position title.” Brief not received after over 2 ½ years. REJECTED AS UNTIMELY [L1-A] APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] Restaurant “Manager”. APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] …automobile export and sales business… The director denied the petition on two independent and alternative grounds, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that the petitioner has been doing business in the United States in accordance with the regulation; and (2) that the beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity.
  6. 6. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 6 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Jan112012_03D7101.pdf Jan172012_01D7101.pdf APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] WITHDRAWN & REMANDED [L1-A] Discussion The one-year "new office" provision is an accommodation for newly established enterprises, provided for by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulation, that allows for a more lenient treatment of managers or executives that are entering the United States to open a new office. When a new business is first established and commences operations, the regulations recognize that a designated manager or executive responsible for setting up operations will be engaged in a variety of low-level activities not normally performed by employees at the executive or managerial level and that often the full range of managerial responsibility cannot be performed in that first year. In an accommodation that is more lenient than the strict language of the statute, the "new office" regulations allow a newly established petitioner one year to develop to a point that it can support the employment of an alien in a primarily managerial or executive position. In creating the "new office" accommodation, the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
  7. 7. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 7 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary recognized that the proposed definitions of manager and executive created an "anomaly" with respect to the opening of new offices in the United States since "foreign companies will be unable to transfer key personnel to start-up operations if the transferees cannot qualify under the managerial or executive definition." 52 Fed. Reg. at 5740. The INS recognized that "small investors frequently find it necessary to become involved in operational activities" during a company's startup and that "business entities just starting up seldom have a large staff." Id. Despite the fact that an alien engaged in the start up of a new office may not be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity, as then required by regulation and later by statute, the INS amended the final regulations to allow for L classification of persons who are coming to the United States to open a new office as long as "it can be expected ... that the new office will, within one year, support a managerial or executive position." Id. Accordingly, if a petitioner indicates that a beneficiary is coming to the United States to open a "new office," it must show that it is prepared to commence doing business immediately upon approval so that it will support a manager or executive within the one-year timeframe. See generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(v). At the time of filing the petition to open a "new office," a
  8. 8. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 8 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary petitioner must affirmatively demonstrate that it has acquired sufficient physical premises to house the new office and that it will support the beneficiary in a managerial or executive position within one year of approval. Specifically, the petitioner must describe the nature of its business, its proposed organizational structure and financial goals, and submit evidence to show that it has the financial ability to remunerate the beneficiary and commence doing business in the United States. Id. Upon review, counsel's assertions are persuasive. The AAO finds sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary will be employed in a bona fide managerial or executive position within one year of the beginning of operations for the United States business entity. Contrary to the director's observations, the petitioner has provided a description of the beneficiary's duties sufficient to establish that his duties are primarily related to the management of the petitioner's hotel, and not to produce a product, provide a service, or perform other non-managerial functions. The evidence submitted establishes that the beneficiary will supervise and control the work of subordinate managerial and supervisory employees and exercise authority to hire and fire employees under his supervision. See sections 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) and (iii) of the Act.
  9. 9. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 9 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Jan302012_01D7101.pdf Furthermore, the AAO notes that section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act does not require that the beneficiary supervise only professionals; the beneficiary may supervise other supervisory or managerial employees as is the case here. The hotel operations manager will manage the day- to-day functions of the company as well as low-level personnel while the beneficiary attends to more executive duties like budgeting, strategic planning, and negotiating alliances for new business. The AAO is also satisfied that the beneficiary exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the hotel, as required by section 101 (a)(44) (A)(iv) of the Act. While the beneficiary will undoubtedly be required to perform some marketing and administrative tasks, the AAO is persuaded that the majority of the day-to- day non-managerial tasks required to operate the business will be carried out by the beneficiary's subordinates within one year. The petitioner need only establish that the beneficiary devotes more than half of his time to managerial or executive duties. The petitioner has met that burden.” Also addresses “Qualifying Relationship”. APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT [L1-A]
  10. 10. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 10 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Jan302012_02D7101.pdf Jan302012_03D7101.pdf APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT [L1-A] 2nd MOTION DISMISSED [L1-A] DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the director, Vermont Service Center. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the subsequently filed appeal and affirmed the director's decision to deny the petition. The filed a motion to reopen and/or motion to reconsider with the AAO which the AAO also dismissed. The matter is now before the AAO on a second motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO will dismiss the motion. The petitioner, a jewelry business, filed this nonimmigrant visa petition on September 12, 2007 seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-l A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § I 101 (a)(15)(L). The petitioner has employed the beneficiary as its president since November 2005 and now seeks to extend his L-l A status for two additional years. The director denied the petition on December 21, 2007, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or
  11. 11. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 11 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Jan302012_04D7101.pdf executive capacity. The AAO summarily dismissed the petitioner's subsequent appeal in a decision dated January 30, 2009, pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v). In dismissing the appeal, the AAO noted that the petitioner failed to submit a brief or additional evidence to the AAO in support of the appeal within 30 days, and had not otherwise identified specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the director.” APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] ….The petitioner, a New York corporation, states that it operates a perfume and cosmetics business FN1 It claims to be a branch office of Rozni Impex Pvt. Ltd, located in Mumbai, India. The petitioner has employed the beneficiary in L-1A status since November 2004 and now seeks to extend his status so that he may continue to serve in the position of managing director. The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. _______________ FN1 The record reflects that there are two
  12. 12. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 12 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Jan302012_06D7101.pdf United States entities with the same name as the petitioning entity. One entity was established in 2002 in New York and a second was established in 2006 in New Jersey. The petitioner submitted two sets of 2008 tax returns with different tax identification numbers and incorporation documents for each entity. The petitioner used the tax identification number for the New York corporation on the Form 1-129. SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-B] The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to classify the beneficiary as an L-1B nonimmigrant intracompany transferee with specialized knowledge pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a foreign company qualified to do business in California, is a software services company. ….. * * * * * The director denied the petition on January 26, 2010 concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that sufficient physical premises were secured to house the new operation. Specifically, the director found that the submitted office services agreement was deficient in that it did not secure physical premises for the beneficiary for the 36 month requested period and the agreement only provided space for one employee.
  13. 13. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 13 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Feb012012_01D7101.pdf The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner requests reconsideration of the denial based on "changed facts." * * * * * As a preliminary matter, the petitioner filed the nonimmigrant petition on March 11, 2009. The new Office Services Agreement was not entered into until November 19, 2009, after the date of filing. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm'r 1978). Furthermore, inasmuch as the petitioner has not identified specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact as a basis for the appeal, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v). APPEAL SUSTAINED [L1-A] NEW OFFICE ….The petitioner, a publicly-traded corporation established in Nevada, states that it intends to provide products and services in the technology and energy
  14. 14. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 14 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Feb022012_01D7101.pdf sectors…… * * * * * The director denied the petition based on two independent and alternative grounds, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that the U.S. company secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office; and (2) that the U.S. and foreign entities have a qualifying relationship. APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] “The petitioner, an Illinois corporation established in March 2009, states that it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of [REDACTED] located in China. It indicates that it intends to engage in the wholesale and retail sale of caps and hats. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as the president of its new office in the United States for a period of three years.” Note: A new office petition is limited to approval for one-year only. “The director denied the petition based on two independent and alternative grounds, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that the United States and foreign companies have a qualifying relationship; and (2) that the beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity.”
  15. 15. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 15 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Feb032012_01D7101.pdf This decision contains deep discussion of the two independent reasons for denial. APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] ….The petitioner, a Delaware corporation, states that it is an Internet publisher and a subsidiary of Times Internet Limited, located in India. The beneficiary was previously granted L-1A status for a one- year period in order to open a new office in the United States and the petitioner now seeks to extend his status in the position of executive manager for three additional years. The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsider. The director granted the motion but affirmed his decision to deny the petition. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO. On appeal, counsel cites unpublished AAO decisions in support of his assertion that the beneficiary is primarily performing executive or managerial duties despite the small size of the U.S. company. Counsel further relies on a 2004 USCIS
  16. 16. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 16 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary memorandum to support his assertion that the director should have given deference to the prior approval the L-1A petition filed on behalf of the beneficiary by the same employer. See Memorandum of William R. Yates, Assoc. Dir. Operations, "The Significance of a Prior CIS Approval of a Nonimmigrant Petition in the Context of a Subsequent Determination Regarding Eligibility for Extension of Petition Validity," (April 23, 2004). * * * * * Finally, the AAO acknowledges counsel's argument that the instant matter is a request for an extension of the beneficiary's previously approved L-IA classification petition under the policy outlined in the Yates memorandum. Counsel's reliance on the Yates memorandum and contention that deference should be given to the prior approval are not persuasive. First and foremost, the memorandum specifically states that it does not apply to L-l new office extension petitions like the case at hand. Memo at p.2, fn. 1. In the prior petition, the petitioner indicated that it was a new office, and the petition was adjudicated under the relevant regulations for new offices. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(v). In the present matter, the petitioner is no longer a new office, and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(v) does not apply. As the petitioner is requesting a first extension after the opening of a new office, the petitioner
  17. 17. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 17 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Feb072012_01D7101.pdf must now satisfy its burden under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(14)(ii) in order to establish eligibility. Accordingly, the fact that the petitioner is no longer a new office, and is now requesting a first extension after opening a new office, represents a changed circumstance. In fact, the director had a duty to carefully examine the present petition and render a full adjudication, as the petitioner has new regulatory requirements in the present proceeding that did not apply to the prior petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l) (14)(ii). The Yates memorandum does not apply to new office extensions. The director's close analysis and detailed request for evidence were appropriate in light of the referenced memorandum and the petitioner's evidentiary burden. APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] …The petitioner, a New Jersey corporation established in March 2007, states that it is engaged in the import, export and distribution of consumer products. It claims to be a subsidiary of Summit Co., Ltd., located in Seoul, South Korea. The petitioner currently employs the beneficiary as its executive director and seeks to extend his L-1A status for two additional years.FN1 ____________ FN1 The beneficiary was approved for L-lA classification for the period October 31, 2008 through October 30, 2009. The
  18. 18. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 18 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Feb072012_02D7101.pdf record shows that the U.S. company was established in March 2007 and achieved sales of $121,045 during that calendar year. It appears that the petitioner was treated as a "new office" as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(F) at the time the beneficiary‟s previous L-1A petition was adjudicated. Therefore, the AAO will adjudicate the instant petition as a request for an extension of a petition involving a new office pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(14)(ii). * * * * * The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] …The petitioner, an Illinois corporation, provides training and business consulting services for aspiring entrepreneurs in Central and Eastern Europe. It claims to be an affiliate of the beneficiary's foreign employer located in Bulgaria. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the position of Vice President, International Small & Medium enterprises (SME) Development, for a period of three years. The director denied the petition
  19. 19. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 19 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Feb072012_03D7101.pdf Feb072012_04D7101.pdf concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. APPEAL SUSTAINED [L1A&B] ….The petitioner operates a business information technology consulting firm and claims that it has a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer in Mumbai, India. The petitioner states that the beneficiary was first admitted to the United States in L-1B status on August 20, 2004. The beneficiary‟s L-1B status was due to expire on October 2, 2009. The petitioner now seeks an amendment of the beneficiary‟s stay from L-1B to L-1A status for the remaining period of September 4, 2009 through October 25, 2009. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the position of Project Manager. MOTION DISMISSED[L1-A] DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The petitioner has previously filed a total of three appeals and three motions with the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). Most recently, the AAO dismissed the
  20. 20. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 20 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Feb082012_01D7101.pdf petitioner's motion to reopen and reconsider in a decision dated October 19, 2009. The matter is once again before the AAO on a motion to reopen and reconsider. The petitioner seeks to extend the employment of the beneficiary as its Vice president as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to § 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, claims to be engaged in the wholesale of general merchandise and states that it is a subsidiary of [REDACTED]. The beneficiary was initially granted a one- year period of stay in the United States in L-1A status in order to open a new office, and the petitioner seeks to extend the beneficiary's stay. APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] ….The petitioner, a California corporation established in October 2006, states that it is an information technology business. The petitioner claims to be a subsidiary of [REDACTED] located in Istanbul, Turkey. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as the chief operations officer of its office in the United States. The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to
  21. 21. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 21 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Feb082012_02D7101.pdf establish that the beneficiary has been and will be employed in a position that is primarily executive or managerial in nature. APPEAL SUSTAINED [L1-A] …The petitioner was formed as a limited partnership under the laws of the State of Maryland in 2004, and is a business information technology consulting firm. It claims to be an affiliate of Tata Consultancy Services Limited in Mumbai, India. The petitioner is seeking L-IA status for the beneficiary as Business Development Manager for an additional period of two years. The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. * * * * * III. Conclusion Upon review, the petitioner's assertions are persuasive. The AAO finds sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial capacity. The director's determination appears to be based in part on the director's pre-conceived impression of what duties are typically performed by project managers or
  22. 22. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 22 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary program managers for IT workers rather than on the evidence submitted by the petitioner. The director should not hold a petitioner to his undefined and unsupported view of the standard duties of an occupation in making a determination as to whether the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The director should instead focus on applying the statute and regulations to the facts presented by the record of proceeding. The evidence submitted establishes that the beneficiary supervises and controls the work of professional employees and possesses authority to recommend personnel actions for employees under his supervision. See sections 101(a)(44) (A)(ii) and (iii) of the Act. Furthermore, the AAO does not agree with the director that "given the number of employees the petitioner employs, the beneficiary cannot possibly function at a high level within the organization when the beneficiary only controls sixteen employees." The record indicates that the client account for which the beneficiary is responsible generates significant revenue, and the beneficiary manages four major projects assigned to the account. Sec. 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. The petitioner established a reasonable need for a managerial level employee to manage projects delivered to this account. In addition, the beneficiary does not directly
  23. 23. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 23 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary oversee such projects, but rather oversees subordinate project managers, who, in turn, supervise the technical resources. Finally, the AAO is satisfied that the beneficiary exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the projects under his responsibility, as required by section 101(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. While the beneficiary will undoubtedly be required to apply his technical expertise in carrying out his job duties and perform some administrative tasks, the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the majority of the day-to- day non-managerial tasks required to produce the products and provide services for the client are carried out by the beneficiary's subordinate project managers and technical staff. The petitioner need only establish that the beneficiary devotes more than half of his time to managerial duties. The petitioner has met that burden. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has sustained that burden. Accordingly, the director's decision dated December 15, 2009 is withdrawn. ORDER: The appeal is sustained. APPEAL SUSTAINED [L-1A]
  24. 24. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 24 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Feb082012_03D7101.pdf Feb082012_04D7101.pdf Feb092012_01D7101.pdf The petitioner is a Delaware company engaged in dredging services. The petitioner states that it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Royal Boskalis Westminster NY, located in The Netherlands. Accordingly, the United States entity petitioned United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (US CIS) to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant intracompany transferee (L-1 A) pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner seeks to extend the beneficiary's stay in order to continue to fill the position of project development manager for a two-year period. The director denied the petition on January 6, 2010, concluding that the record contains insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily executive or managerial capacity by the foreign company. APPEAL REJECTED, CASE REMANDED Untimely appeal returned to the Service Center for consideration as a Motion. MOTION DISMISSED [L1-A] APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A]
  25. 25. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 25 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Feb132012_01D7101.pdf Feb132012_02D7101.pdf The petitioner, a California corporation established in 2009, intends to operate a computer parts wholesale business. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as the manager of its new office in the United States for a period of three years. The director denied the petition based on two independent and alternative grounds, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that the petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer; and (2) that the petitioner has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office. APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] The petitioner, a California corporation, claims that it is sale & distribution of value-added special applied materials products, such as optical data storage, solar cell, etc." The petitioner states that it is a subsidiary 0f [REDACTED] located in Taiwan. Accordingly, the United States entity petitioned United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant intracompany transferee (L-IA) pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary to fill the position of regional sales manager for a three-year period. (NOTE:
  26. 26. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 26 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Feb132012_03D7101.pdf Feb132012_04D7101.pdf Feb132012_05D7101.pdf As a “new office” an approval would have been limited to one-year at this point.) The director denied the petition on December 28, 2009, concluding that the record contains insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily executive or managerial capacity by the U.S. company. The director noted that it did not appear that the beneficiary supervises a staff of professional, managerial, or supervisory personnel who will relieve the beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties, and thus the beneficiary will be primarily involved in performing the day-to-day services essential to running a business. APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT [L1-A] Beneficiary is now a conditional LPR. APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT [L1-A] Beneficiary is now a conditional LPR. APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT [L1-A] Beneficiary is now an EB LPR. APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A]
  27. 27. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 27 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Feb142012_01D7101.pdf Feb142012_02D7101.pdf Working 25 hrs/week at a motel was not found to be primarily managerial or executive in nature. APPEAL WITHDRAWN & ADMINISTRATIVE FINDING OF WILFILL MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION [L1-A] A Texas gas station w/convenience store petitioned for an executive. The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity, or that the U.S. entity would support a managerial or executive position within one year of commencing operations in the United States. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserted that the director placed undue emphasis on the size and nature of the petitioner's retail business in determining whether the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. On January 5, 2012, in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)
  28. 28. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 28 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary (16)(i), this office issued a notice of derogatory information and intent to deny, advising the petitioner that the evidence in record, considered with other information available in public records, raised serious questions regarding the credibility of the evidence submitted to establish the petitioner's ownership of its claimed U.S. subsidiary. The AAO afforded the petitioner 30 days to submit documentation and explanation to address the significant discrepancies noted. On January 26, 2012, counsel requested that the appeal be withdrawn. A withdrawal may not be retracted and may not be refused. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(6); Matter of Cintron, 16 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 1976). The appeal will be dismissed based on its withdrawal by petitioner's counsel. Although the appeal will be dismissed, the remaining issues that must be addressed in this matter are: (1) whether the petitioner sought to procure an immigration benefit through willful misrepresentation of a material fact; and, if so, (2) whether the withdrawal of the appeal constitutes a timely recantation of the misrepresentation. * * * * * As a preliminary mater, the AAO will address whether the evidence submitted with respect to the petitioner's claimed ownership of the U.S. company, rises to the level of a misrepresentation. A
  29. 29. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 29 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Feb212012_01D7101.pdf misrepresentation is an assertion or manifestation that is not in accord with the true facts.FN1 ___________ FN1 The terms "fraud" and "misrepresentation" are not interchangeable. Unlike a finding of fraud, a finding of material misrepresentation does not require an intent to deceive or that the officer believes and acts upon the false representation. See Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. 288 (BIA 1975). A finding of fraud requires a determination that the alien made a false representation of a material fact with knowledge of its falsity and with the intent to deceive an immigration officer. Furthermore, the false representation must have been believed and acted upon by the officer. See Matter of G-G-, 7 I&N Dec. 161 (BIA 1956). APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] …. The petitioner has employed the beneficiary as its president in L-1 A status since January 2007 and now seeks to extend his status for two additional years. The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity.
  30. 30. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 30 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Feb212012_02D7101.pdf Feb212012_03D7101.pdf Feb212012_04D7101.pdf Feb232012_01D7101.pdf APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT [L1-B] Beneficiary is now an LPR. APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT [L1-A] Beneficiary is now an LPR. _____________________________ APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT [L1-A] Beneficiary is now an LPR. APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] …. The petitioner, a Texas corporation established in 2008, states that it intends to engage in the retail sale and wholesale of cellular phones and accessories. It claims to be a subsidiary of Chemitex Industries, Ltd. and Ittehad Chemicals Ltd., both located in Pakistan. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as the operation manager of its new office in the United States for a period of two years. The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive status within one year of approval of the petition.
  31. 31. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 31 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Mar022012_01D7101.pdf Mar022012_02D7101.pdf Relates to #4 of the same date. Mar022012_03D7101.pdf APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT [L1-A] Beneficiary is now an LPR. APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] Following revocation due to untrue statements as to the “qualifying relationship” between U.S. and foreign employers. They don’t qualify. APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] ….. The petitioner, a Tennessee corporation established in November 2009, states that it intends to operate a grocery store. It claims to be a subsidiary of [REDACTED] located in India. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as the chief executive officer of its new office in the United States for a period of two years. The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that the beneficiary has at least one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of the petition; and (2) that the petitioner has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office.
  32. 32. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 32 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Mar022012_04D7101.pdf Relates to #2 of the same date. Mar022012_05D7101.pdf APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] Following revocation due to untrue statements as to the “qualifying relationship” between U.S. and foreign employers. They don’t qualify. SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-A] The petitioner, a New York corporation, states that it is engaged in the trade of new and reconditioned machinery. The beneficiary was previously granted one year in L-1A status in order to open the new U.S. office. The petitioner now seeks to extend the beneficiary's status so that he may continue to serve as the U.S. company's general manager and chief executive officer. The director denied the petition on February 11, 2010 concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that it was doing business as defined in the regulations for the previous year; and (2) that the new office has grown to the point where it can support a qualifying managerial or executive position. Alleged no factual errors, misapplication of any law, and offered no new evidence.
  33. 33. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 33 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Mar052012_01D7101.pdf Mar072012_01D7101.pdf APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] …. The beneficiary was previously granted L-1A status for a period of two years, from December 2006 to December 2008, and the petitioner now seeks to extend his status so that he may continue to serve in the position of general manager. The director initially approved the petition for a two-year period commencing on December 28, 2008. The director then revoked the approval of the petition on November 16, 2009, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has been and will be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] …. The petitioner, a New York corporation established in June 2008, states that it manufactures and imports surgical and dental instruments. The petitioner claims to have a qualifying relationship with B.A.K. Industry located in Pakistan. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as the general manager of its new office in the United States. The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to
  34. 34. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 34 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Mar072012_02D7101.pdf Mar072012_03D7101.pdf establish that the beneficiary will be employed in a bona fide manager or executive position within one year of the beginning of operations for the United States business entity. APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] .. The petitioner, a California corporation, states that it is a retailer and wholesaler. It claims to be an affiliate of the beneficiary‟s foreign employer, [REDACTED] Pvt. Ltd., located in India. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the position of project manager for a period of three years. The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] The petitioner, a Texas corporation, states that it is engaged in retail sales and services. The petitioner states that it is a branch office 0f [REDACTED] located in India. The United States entity petitioned United States Citizenship and immigration Services (USCIS) to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant
  35. 35. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 35 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Mar072012_04D7101.pdf Mar142012_01D7101.pdf intracompany transferee (L-1A) pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner was initially granted a one-year period of stay to open a new office and was subsequently granted an extension of L-1A status for two years. The petitioner now seeks to extend the beneficiary's stay in order to continue to fill the position of Executive Director for a two-year period. On April 8, 2009, the director revoked the petition concluding that the petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence in rebuttal to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services' ("USCIS") Notice of Intent to Revoke (''NOIR'') and has not overcome the grounds for revocation. APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] This Decision contains in-depth discussion on what is and what is NOT a “new office”. APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] …The petitioner, a California limited liability company established in October 2009, states that it intends to in promotional consulting, on-air product demonstrations, and infomercials. It claims to be an affiliate of [REDACTED] located in Toronto, Canada. The
  36. 36. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 36 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as the president of its new ill the United States for a period of one year. The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that the petitioner has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office; (2) that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity within one year of approval of the petition; or (3) that the beneficiary has been employed by the foreign entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary's proffered position is in an executive capacity and that the nature of the petitioner's and foreign entity's business requires the use of independent contractors on an "as-needed" basis. Counsel further states that the beneficiary is "in the process of securing premises for his business as it is newly established and in the process of expanding." * * * * * The fact that the owner(s) and only employees of the foreign entity have been residing and intend to continue residing in the United States raises the question of whether the foreign affiliate is still doing
  37. 37. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 37 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Mar142012_02D7101.pdf business so that a qualifying relationship exists pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l) (1)(ii)(G). For this additional reason, the petition cannot be approved. ________________________ Sells a toy at a mall kiosk and wants to make a two-minute infomercial for it. SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-A] …The petitioner, a Hawaii corporation, operates a wedding coordination business. It claims to be an affiliate of [REDACTED]. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the position of Coordinating Manager for a period of three years. The director initially approved the petition on January 9, 2009. On February 4, 2010, the director issued a notice of intent to revoke the approval pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9) (iii)(A)(5), based on a finding that the approval of the petition involved gross error. The director revoked the approval on April 1, 2010, after reviewing the petitioner's response to the notice of intent to revoke. The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded the
  38. 38. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 38 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary appeal to the AAO for review. The appeal consists of a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion signed by [REDACTED] in his capacity as president, who is identified elsewhere in the record as holding the position of “President/Vice President/Treasurer." Where asked to "provide a statement explaining any erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed, the petitioner indicates: Fact: After moving to Hawaii I was promoted to Vice President of the company. Fact: I am performing the duties of a Vice President for [the U.S. company]. Fact: I have set our monthly goal at 30 weddings per month. I have instituted several new programs to move the company toward this goal by introducing beach weddings, photo shoot opportunities, vow renewals and wedding receptions .... The statement goes on to provide four additional facts regarding the vice president's duties. The petitioner indicated that no supplemental brief or additional evidence would be submitted to the AAO. To establish eligibility for the L-l nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization
  39. 39. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 39 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary must have employed the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary‟s application for admission into the United States. 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, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. * * * * * Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the revocation of the petition approval. On appeal, the petitioner has not identified an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the director as a basis for the appeal, or even raised any specific objection to the director's findings. Rather, the petitioner describes the duties performed by the vice president of the company. [REDACTED], who is identified in the record as the company's vice president and who signed the Form 1-290B on behalf of the petitioner, appears to be making the statement in the first person. As the instant petition was filed to classify a different individual for a different position (Coordinating Manager), the statements made on Form I-290B appear to be wholly irrelevant to the stated grounds for denial.
  40. 40. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 40 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Even if the AAO assumed, in the alternative, that the first-person statement on the Form 1-290B should be attributed to the beneficiary, we note that the petitioner has consistently indicated that the beneficiary in this matter was transferred to the United States to serve in the position of "Coordinating Manager" and continued to hold this position as of March 2010 when the petitioner responded to the notice of intent to revoke. If the beneficiary has been promoted, then the petitioner had ample opportunity to provide her new job title and job duties prior to the revocation of the petition approval. If the petitioner is now claiming that the beneficiary is employed as its vice president, the AAO notes that on appeal, a petitioner cannot offer a new position to the beneficiary, or materially change a position's title, its level of authority within the organizational hierarchy, or the associated job responsibilities. The petitioner must establish that the position offered to the beneficiary when the petition was filed merits classification as a managerial or executive position. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg. Comm'r 1978). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998).
  41. 41. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 41 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Mar152012_01D7101.pdf Mar152012_02D7101.pdf APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] The director initially approved the petition and granted the requested status on February 11, 2009. On February 5, 2010, the director issued a notice of intent to revoke the approval, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(9)(iii)(A)(5), based on a finding that the approval of the petition involved gross error. The director instructed the petitioner to submit additional evidence or arguments in rebuttal of the issues raised in the notice of intent to revoke. The petitioner submitted rebuttal evidence on March 5, 2010. The director revoked the approval of the petition on March 15, 2010, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the United States and foreign entities are qualifying organizations. APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] ….The petitioner, a New Jersey corporation established in November 2009, states that it intends to operate a grocery store. It claims to be a subsidiary of [REDACTED] located in India. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as the vice president of its new office in the United States for a period of 35 months.
  42. 42. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 42 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Mar192012_01D7101.pdf The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that the petitioner has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office; and (2) that the U.S. company would support a qualifying managerial or executive position within one year. APPEAL REJECTED AS IMPROPERLY FILED [L1-A] DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition, and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) summarily dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Subsequently, the AAO dismissed the petitioner's combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The matter is now before the AAO again on appeal. The AAO will reject the appeal as improperly filed. * * * * * On June 7, 2011, the petitioner filed a second appeal. The appeal must be rejected. The AAO does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over AAO decisions. The AAO exercises appellate jurisdiction over the matters described at 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (as in effect on February 28, 2003). See DHS Delegation Number 0150.1; 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(iv). Accordingly, the appeal is not properly before the AAO.
  43. 43. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 43 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Mar202012_01D7101.pdf APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to extend the Beneficiary's employment as a nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a Texas limited liability company, states that it operates an oilfield equipment supply business. The petitioner claims to be a subsidiary of [REDACTED] located in Netherlands. The beneficiary was previously granted L-IA classification for a period of one year in order to open a new office in the United States, and the petitioner now seeks to extend his status so that he may continue to serve as the U.S. company's general manager. The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. * * * * * As a preliminary matter, we acknowledge the petitioner's claims that it may take several years to move beyond the start-up or development phase of operations. The AAO also acknowledges that a downturn in the economy over the initial year of operation may have postponed original start-up timelines. However, we
  44. 44. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 44 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Mar202012_02D7101.pdf emphasize that the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa is not an entrepreneurial visa classification that would allow an alien a prolonged stay in the United States in a non-managerial or non- executive capacity to start up a new business. The regulations allow for a one-year period for a U.S. petitioner to commence doing business and develop to the point that it will support a managerial or executive position. By allowing multiple petitions under the more lenient standard, USCIS would in effect allow foreign entities to create under-funded, understaffed or even inactive companies in the United States, with the expectation that they could receive multiple extensions of their L-1 status without primarily engaging in managerial or executive duties. The only provision that allows for the extension of a "new office" visa petition requires the petitioner to demonstrate that it is staffed and has been "doing business" in a regular, systematic, and continuous manner for the previous year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l) (14)(ii). The petitioner concedes the U.S. company was not staffed at the time of filing. APPEAL DISMISSED [L-1A] USCIS made a site visit to the business address and a home address and found nobody still there!
  45. 45. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 45 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Mar202012_03D7101.pdf Mar212012_01D7101.pdf APPEAL REJECTED AS UNTIMELY FILED [L1-unspecified] SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-A] ….The petitioner, a Texas corporation, is self-described as an investment business. It claims to be a subsidiary of [REDACTED] located in India. The petitioner has employed the beneficiary as its Director/Manager of Operations since December 2007 and seeks to extend his status for two additional years. The director denied the petition on September 15, 2011, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal on October 14, 2011. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, counsel for the petitioner indicated that she would submit a brief and/or additional evidence to the AAO within 30 days. Counsel indicated that "the documentation previously submitted did not completely and accurately describe the nature of the Petitioner's business and [the
  46. 46. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 46 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Mar292012_01D7101.pdf Beneficiary's] role in the business." Counsel indicated that the petitioner would be providing additional documentation, including a business plan, to establish eligibility under Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Act. As of this date, no brief or evidence has been submitted and the record will be considered complete. SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-A] …The beneficiary was previously granted one year in L1-A classification in order to serve as president of the petitioner's new office in the United States and the petitioner now seeks to extend her status for two additional years. The director denied the petition on January 28, 2011 concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. In denying the petition, the director noted that the record demonstrates that the petitioner abandoned the original business plan which served as the basis of the new office approval granted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal on March 2, 2011. The director
  47. 47. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 47 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Mar292012_03D7101.pdf declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO. On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, counsel for the petitioner asserts that "users did not properly understand the nature of the business, and so it did not provide a full understanding of how the Beneficiary satisfied the requirements for the L-l A manager." Counsel indicated that he would submit a brief and/or evidence to the AAO within 30 days of filing the appeal. As of this date, the AAO has not received counsel's brief or any additional evidence in support of the appeal, and the record will be considered complete. SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-A] …The petitioner, a Georgia limited liability company established in 2008, states that it operates an [REDACTED] franchise retail store. It claims to be a subsidiary of [REDACTED] Limited, a Nigerian company. The beneficiary was previously granted one year in L-1A classification, from April 26, 2008 until April 25, 2009, in order to open a new office in the United States. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied the petitioner's subsequent request to extend the beneficiary status on June 26, 2009. The petitioner now seeks to extend the beneficiary's status for one additional
  48. 48. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 48 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Mar292012_04D7101.pdf year so that she may serve in the position of executive manager. The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. The director further determined that the petitioner failed to establish that the U.S. company had been doing business for the previous year. APPEAL REJECTED, CASE REMANDED [L1-A] DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected as untimely filed. The AAO will return the matter to the director for consideration as a motion to reopen and reconsider. The petitioner filed the nonimmigrant petition seeking to classify the beneficiary under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L) as an intracompany transferee employed in a managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner, a California limited liability company, states that it operates a production company. It claims to be a subsidiary of [REDACTED] located in
  49. 49. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 49 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Mar292012_06D7101.pdf [REDACTED], Georgia. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as the director of business development for its new office in the United States for a period of one year. The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that the beneficiary has been employed by the foreign entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; and (2) that it has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office in the United States. * * * * * It was timely filed, either without a check for the fee, or with a check in the wrong amount, and was returned to the petitioner. When it was resubmitted, it ended up being late (at 41 days since date of decision being appealed). * * * * * The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2) (v)(B)(2) states that, if an untimely appeal meets the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, the appeal must be treated as a motion, and a decision must be made on the merits of the case. The official having jurisdiction over a motion is the official who made the last decision in the proceeding, in this case the Director of the California Service Center. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-A]
  50. 50. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 50 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Mar292012_07D7101.pdf Mar292012_08D7101.pdf …The petitioner, an Arizona corporation states that it is engaged in the import and export of meat. It claims to be a subsidiary of [REDACTED] located in Mexico. The petitioner has employed the beneficiary as its USA Sales Executive in L-1A status since May 2008 and now seeks to extend his status for three additional years. The director denied the petition on June 18, 2010, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that it will employ the beneficiary in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-A] This appears to a second copy of the previously listed decision. SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-A] …The petitioner, a Florida corporation, states that it is engaged in the sale of concentrated orange juice and books. It claims to be a subsidiary of [REDACTED] located in Brazil. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the position of president for a period of three years. The beneficiary was previously granted one year in L-1A status, from July 24, 2009 until July 23, 2010, in order to open
  51. 51. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 51 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary a new office in the United States. The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. In denying the petition, the director observed that the petitioner postponed operation of its proposed orange juice distribution business. The director noted that, while the beneficiary now appears to be acting as a sales representative for a book company, the U.S. entity has only two employees and has not shown that it has grown to the extent that it can support a primarily managerial or executive position. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the beneficiary submits a letter explaining that he "tried for a few months to launch the business I planned to start and develop here but it was not possible." The beneficiary states: "I really understand that what the examiners meant to see was that, during the startup year, I was able to develop and grow my business. And this, believe me, was my biggest hope." The beneficiary indicates that "it was my real intention, and I haven't measured any efforts to develop and raise my business here."
  52. 52. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 52 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Apr022012_02D7101.pdf SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-A] …The petitioner, a Florida corporation, states that it is engaged in the export of new and used construction equipment. It claims to be a subsidiary of [REDACTED] located in Colombia. The beneficiary was previously granted one year in L-1A status in order to open the petitioner's new office in the United States as the company's president. The petitioner now seeks to extend her status for three additional years. The director denied the petition on June 21, 2010 concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. In denying the petition, the director noted that the petitioner submitted an incomplete response to a request for additional evidence issued on April 29, 2010, thus leaving several unresolved discrepancies in the record. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal on July 26, 2010. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, counsel states: "The denial letter makes an incorrect assumption, namely, that the beneficiary ... was not acting in a 'managerial
  53. 53. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 53 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Apr022012_03D7101.pdf Apr022012_04D7101.pdf Apr022012_05D7101.pdf Apr022012_06D7101.pdf position.' There will be provided more evidence concerning the 'parent company.' Additional time is needed to gather the necessary evidence." Counsel indicated that he would submit a brief and/or evidence to the AAO within 30 days of filing the appeal. As of this date, the AAO has not received counsel's brief or any additional evidence in support of the appeal, and the record will be considered completed. SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-A] Two Georgia dry cleaning stores. SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-A] …The petitioner, a Texas corporation established in 2009, states that it is engaged in the manufacturing and stamping of metal parts. SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-A] …The petitioner, a California corporation, states that it operates a clothing wholesale distribution business. SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-A]
  54. 54. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 54 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Apr022012_08D7101.pdf Apr022012_09D7101.pdf Apr022012_10D7101.pdf …The petitioner is a New Jersey limited liability company engaged in the wholesale distribution of beverages. SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-A] …The petitioner is a Tanzanian company engaged in mining and mineral product exports. SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-A] …The petitioner is a New Jersey limited engaged in the wholesale distribution of beverages. Seems to be another copy of #6, above. SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-A] …The petitioner, a Florida corporation established in 2010, states that it intends to operate a retail and wholesale store specializing in women's lingerie. * * * * * The director denied the petition on June 23, 2010, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that the U.S. company will support a primarily managerial or executive position within one year; or (2) that the U.S. company has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office.
  55. 55. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 55 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Apr052012_01D7101.pdf Apr052012_04D7101.pdf 2nd APPEAL REJECTED AS IMPROPERLY FILED [L1-A] [AAO LACKS JURISDICTION] …retail sale of wireless products and services…. The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed by the U.S. entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity within one year. The AAO dismissed the petitioner's appeal in a decision dated February 5, 2010. In addition to finding that the beneficiary would not be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity, the AAO found that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that it had secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(v)(A); and (2) the size of the United States investment, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 14.2(l)(3)(v)(C)(2). SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-B] …The petitioner, a [REDACTED] corporation, is a software and services company with an Indian subsidiary, [REDACTED]. The petitioner seeks to transfer the beneficiary to the United States to serve in the position of senior software engineer for a three-year period.
  56. 56. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 56 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Apr052012_05D7101.pdf The director denied the petition on December 21, 2010, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has specialized knowledge or that he would be employed in the United States in a position that requires specialized knowledge. 2nd APPEAL REJECTED AS IMPROPERLY FILED [L1-A] [AAO LACKS JURISDICTION] The petitioner, a Hong Kong corporation, claims to be the parent company of the beneficiary's U.S. employer, an Illinois corporation that operates as a freight forwarding company. The beneficiary was initially granted L-1A classification for a one-year period in order to open a new office in the United States, and the petitioner now seeks to extend his status for three additional years. The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. The petitioner appealed the director's decision to the AAO. On March 12, 2010, the AAO dismissed the appeal concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or
  57. 57. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 57 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Apr052012_06D7101.pdf executive capacity. The AAO acknowledged that the director had overlooked evidence related to the beneficiary's subordinate staff, took this evidence into consideration, and concurred with the director's ultimate conclusion that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary would be engaged in duties that are primarily managerial or executive in nature. On April 9, 2010, counsel for the petitioner filed a second Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, and indicated under part two that he is filing an appeal. The appeal must be rejected. The AAO does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over AAO decisions, The AAO exercises appellate jurisdiction over the matters described at 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (as in effect on February 28, 2003). See DHS Delegation Number 0150.1; 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(iv). It should be noted that the AAO advised the petitioner in its previous decision that it had the option of filing a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider the AAO's decision pursuant to the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. The regulations do not provide the petitioner the option of filing more than one appeal with respect to the same visa petition. Accordingly, the second appeal is not properly before the AAO. APPEAL REJECTED AS UNTIMELY FILED [L1-unspecified]
  58. 58. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 58 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Apr092012_01D7101.pdf DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsider. Although the director granted the petitioner's motion, the underlying denial of the petition was affirmed in a second decision. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected as untimely filed. * * * * * The AAO further notes that even if the appeal were not untimely filed, it would have been summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) states, in pertinent part: An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. APPEAL REJECTED AS UNTIMELY, CASE REMANDED [L1-unspecified] DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, revoked the nonimmigrant visa petition approval. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected as untimely filed. The AAO will return the matter to the director for consideration as a motion to reopen and reconsider.
  59. 59. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 59 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Apr112012_01D7101.pdf Apr122012_01D7101.pdf SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-A] …The petitioner states that it is "engaged in commercial investments in chain of fast food restaurants." The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president - CEO. The beneficiary was initially granted a one-year period of stay in L-1A status to open a new office in the United States. The petitioner now seeks to extend the beneficiary‟s stay in order to continue to fill the position of President - CEO. On December 19, 2011, the director denied the petition, concluding that: (1) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will be employed in a position that is primarily executive or managerial in nature, (2) the petitioner failed to establish that it has sufficient physical premises to house the office, and (3) the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the foreign entity invested sufficient funds into the petitioner. APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-B] …The petitioner, a Kansas corporation, states that it is engaged in the development and manufacture of railway speed and control technology. The petitioner claims to be a subsidiary of
  60. 60. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 60 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary [REDACTED], located in Harbin, China. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the position of field engineer for a period of three years. The director initially approved the petition and granted the requested status on June 4, 2008. On February 5, 2010, the director issued a notice of intent to revoke the approval, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A)(5), based on a finding that the statement of facts made in the petition was not true and correct. The director instructed the petitioner to submit additional evidence or arguments in rebuttal of the issues raised in the notice of intent to revoke. The petitioner submitted rebuttal evidence on March 4, 2010. The director revoked the approval of the petition on March 19, 2010, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the United States and foreign entities have a qualifying relationship. In revoking the approval, the director found that the petitioner failed to overcome serious discrepancies in the record that undermine its claim that it is a subsidiary of the beneficiary's foreign employer. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner submits evidence intended to establish that it has filed amended tax
  61. 61. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 61 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Apr132012_01D7101.pdf Apr132012_02D7101.pdf returns with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) which reflect that the beneficiary's foreign employer owns the U.S. company. APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] …The petitioner, a New York corporation, states that it operates an art gallery and provides consulting services to Russian clientele. It claims to be a subsidiary of [REDACTED] Liability Company, located in Russia. The beneficiary was previously granted one year in L-1A status in order to open a new office in the United States and the petitioner now seeks to extend her status for two additional years. The director denied the petition based on two independent and alternative grounds, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish (1) that the beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; and (2) that the foreign entity continues to do business as a qualifying organization abroad. DENIAL AFFIRMED ON CERTIFICATION [L1-A] The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to classify the beneficiary as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)
  62. 62. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 62 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Apr132012_04D7101.pdf (L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a Delaware limited liability company, operates a Japanese restaurant in Hawaii. It claims to have an affiliate relationship with the beneficiary's last foreign employer, Nobu London Limited, and with the beneficiary's current U.S. employer, Nobu Associates (South Beach) L.P. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the position of beverage and bar manager and requests a two-year extension of the beneficiary's L- 1A status. In a decision dated July 27, 2010, the director recommended that the petition be denied and certified the decision to the AAO for review. The director's recommendation was based on a finding that the U.S. petitioner does not have a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's last foreign employer. In accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 1 03 A( a )(2), the director notified the petitioner of the certification and provided an opportunity for the petitioner to submit a brief to the AAO within 30 days. As of this date, the AAO has received no brief or additional evidence and the record will be considered complete and ready for adjudication. SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-A]
  63. 63. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 63 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Apr132012_05D7101.pdf The petitioner filed a nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to continue the employment of the beneficiary in the position of president for an additional three years as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition based on the finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has been and would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. On appeal, counsel did not expressly dispute the director's finding. Rather, counsel checked off the box in the Form I- 290B indicating that an appellate brief or additional information would be provided within 30 days in support of the appeal. To date, however, approximately eleven months since the appeal was filed, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has received no supplemental information in support of the appeal. Therefore, the AAO will consider the record complete as presently constituted. SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-A] The petitioner filed a nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to continue the employment of the beneficiary in the
  64. 64. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 64 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Apr192012_02D7101.pdf position of president for an additional three years as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition based on the following adverse findings: 1) the petitioner misrepresented a material fact and failed to establish that it maintained sufficient physical premises where the beneficiary would be employed; and 2) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has been and would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] …The petitioner, a California corporation established in November 2009, states that it intends to engage in the import of gold jewelry. It claims to be a subsidiary of [REDACTED] located in [REDACTED]. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as the general manager of its new office in the United States. The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that the beneficiary has been employed by the foreign entity in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; and (2) that the petitioner has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office.
  65. 65. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 65 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Apr232012_01D7101.pdf APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-Blanket] The petitioner filed this blanket petition seeking continuing approval of itself and its subsidiaries as qualifying organizations for the purpose of transferring employees to the United States as L-1 nonimmigrant intracompany transferees pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in computer aided design engineering and development. It states that it is the parent company of four wholly-owned subsidiaries, including: (1) Cambric Limited (Bahamas); (2) Cambric Consulting SRL, located in Romania; (3) Cambric GmbH, located in Germany; and (4) Cambric Services, LLC, located in Armenia. The director denied the blanket petition after concluding that the petitioner meets none of the three eligibility conditions set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(4)(D), of which at least one must be satisfied in order for the requested extension to be granted. Specifically, the director observed that there is no record that the petitioner has obtained approval of at least 10 "L" managers, executives, or specialized knowledge professionals during the previous 12 months; no
  66. 66. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 66 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Apr232012_02D7101.pdf Apr232012_03D7101.pdf evidence that the petitioner's income from U.S. operations is $25 million; and no evidence that the petitioner employs a United States workforce of at least 1 ,000 employees. DISMISSED AS MOOT [L1-A] A review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records indicates that subsequent to the denial of the instant petition, the petitioner filed a new Form 1-129 on the beneficiary's behalf. US CIS records further indicate that this second petition was approved, granting the beneficiary L-1A status from March 1, 2010 until February 28, 2011. US CIS approved a subsequent petition extending the beneficiary's status through February 28, 2013. SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-B] The petitioner is a corporation established in the Philippines. It seeks to transfer the beneficiary to its claimed U.S. branch, [REDACTED], a California limited liability company established in November 2009. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary in the position of executive business evaluator in the new U.S. office for a period of one year.
  67. 67. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 67 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Apr242012_02D7101.pdf The director denied the petition on April 15, 2010, citing two independent and alternative grounds for denial. Specifically, the director determined that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or that she would be employed in the United States in a position that requires specialized knowledge; and (2) that the United States and foreign entities have a qualifying relationship. APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter then came before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. On January 26, 2012, this office provided the petitioner with notice of adverse information in the record and afforded the petitioner an opportunity to provide evidence that might overcome this information. * * * * * …Given that the petitioner's corporate status is shown as administratively dissolved, the AAO finds that the petitioner is no longer a legal entity that is qualified to file a nonimmigrant petition in the beneficiary's behalf. Where there is no active and legal U.S. entity, no legitimate job offer exists, and the request that a foreign worker be allowed to fill the position offered in the petition has become moot. (Footnote omitted.)
  68. 68. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 68 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Apr242012_04D7101.pdf APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. It then came before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. On January 4, 2012, this office provided the petitioner with notice of adverse information in the record and afforded the petitioner an opportunity to provide evidence that might overcome this information. * * * * * In order to seek employment of the beneficiary as an intracompany transferee, the petitioner must be a United States legal entity that is the same employer as the firm, corporation, or other legal entity that employed the beneficiary abroad or the U.S. petitioner must be a subsidiary or affiliate of that foreign entity, and it must be doing business as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(H). Given that the petitioner's corporate status is shown as inactive and administratively dissolved, the AAO finds that the petitioner is no longer a legal entity that is qualified to file a nonimmigrant petition in the beneficiary's behalf.
  69. 69. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 69 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Apr272012_01D7101.pdf MOTION DISMISSED [L1-A] …The petitioner, a Texas corporation established in September 2008, intends to operate a retail business. The petitioner claims that it is a subsidiary of MIS Shoe Shoppe, located in India. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as the president and chief executive officer of its new office in the United States for a one- year period. The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The AAO dismissed the petitioner's appeal on April 29, 2010, based on a finding that the petitioner: (1) failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity within one year of approval of the petition; (2) failed to establish that the petitioner had secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office as of the date of filing; and (3) failed to provide evidence of the size of the United States investment. In dismissing the appeal, the AAO discussed in detail the petitioner's claimed acquisition of a 50 percent interest in an established U.S. company, and whether the acquisition impacted the petitioner's initial claim that it is a "new office" as defined at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(l) (1)(ii)(F).
  70. 70. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 70 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Apr272012_02D7101.pdf Apr272012_03D7101.pdf APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] …The petitioner, a corporation established under the laws of the State of Florida, states that it operates an import and export business. It claims to be a subsidiary of Champion S.A. Importaciones Exportaciones, located in Paraguay. The beneficiary was previously granted L-1A classification for a period of one year in order to open a new office in the United States as the company's general manager. The petitioner now seeks to extend the beneficiary's status for one additional year. The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that the beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition; or (2) that the petitioner had sufficient physical premises to house the U.S. operation. The director affirmed this determination on motion. APPEAL DISMISSED [L1-A] The petitioner claims to be a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Maryland. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its vice president. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant
  71. 71. To obtain a pdf version of this document, e-mail: joseph.whalen774@gmail.com Page 71 AAO Non-Precedent L-Intracompany Transferee Decisions of 2012 Link to Decision Result, Excerpts, or Commentary Apr272012_04D7101.pdf alien pursuant to section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition based on a determination that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary had at least one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of the petition. The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(i), this office notified the petitioner on January 12,2012 that, according to the AAO's search of State of Maryland corporate records and business registrations, the petitioner's corporate status has been forfeited. … SUMMARILY DISMISSED [L1-A] The petitioner, a Florida limited liability company, states that it operates a retail clothing store. It claims to be a subsidiary of [REDACTED]. The beneficiary was previously granted L-1A status from February 22, 2009 until December 28, 2009 in order to open the new office in the United States. The petitioner now seeks to extend the beneficiary's status so that he may continue to serve as the manager of the U.S. company for two additional years.

×