dismissed L-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-M-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 16, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Beneficiary seeks employment temporarily as the director of a "new office" established in the 
United States under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 1 See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L). The L-1A 
classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a 
qualifying foreign employee to the United States to work temporarily in a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
record did not establish that (1) a qualifying relationship existed between the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer and the U.S. company; (2) the Beneficiary had been employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity for the foreign entity; (3) sufficient physical premises for the new office had been 
secured; and (4) the new office would support a managerial or executive position within one year 
after approval of the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a statement asserting that oral argument is necessary to 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity for the foreign entity and to 
explain that the U.S. company would lease office space after the L-1A petition had been approved.2 
The Petitioner states that a brief will be submitted to address the other reasons for denial. To date, 
however, no additional evidence or a brief has been submitted for the record. The record as 
currently constituted is considered complete. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
1 The Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, states that the Petitioner's name is "N/A." The L Classification 
Supplement to the petition identifies the Beneficiary as the Petitioner. Although the record includes evidence of a U.S. 
company where the Beneficiary seeks to work under this classification, the petition does not identify a U.S. entity to 
employ the Beneficiary; therefore, an importing employer did not file the petition. For this reason alone, the petition is 
not approvable. We will, however, discuss the issues outlined in the Director's decision. 
2 We decline the request for oral argument. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(b). 
' \ 
Matter ofT-M-
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the Beneficiary in a 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. Section 101 (a )(15)(L) of the 
Act. 
The term "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States 
for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F). Ifthe Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker, indicates that the Beneficiary is coming to the United States in L-1A status to open or to be 
employed in a new office, the Petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new office 
will be able to support a managerial or executive position within one year. This evidence includes 
information regarding the new office's physical premises, the proposed nature and scope of the 
entity, its organizational structure, its financial goals, and the size of the U.S. investment. See 
generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
II. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director denied the petition based, in part, on a finding that the record did not establish that the 
foreign entity employed the Beneficiary for one continuous year in the three year period preceding 
the filing of the petition in an executive or managerial capacity. Upon our de novo review of the 
record we find sufficient evidence to conclude that the Beneficiary had been employed in a 
managerial capacity for the foreign entity for the pertinent time period. The record includes a copy 
of the foreign entity's organizational chart, and descriptions of the Beneficiary's duties and those of 
her subordinates who supervise and carry out the operational tasks of the sales and purchase 
departments. The record is sufficient to establish that more likely than not the Beneficiary was 
relieved of performing operational tasks and was employed in a managerial capacity for the foreign 
entity. Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's decision to the contrary. 
III. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The Director also denied the petition finding that the record did not establish a qualifying 
relationship between the U.S. company and the Beneficiary's foreign employer. The petition 
indicates that the U.S. entity is a subsidiary of the foreign entity; however, the U.S. company's stock 
certificate is issued to an individual, the person that is also described as owning 100 percent of the 
foreign entity. The Director determined, based on the totality of the record, including the U.S. 
company's Internal Revenue Service Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, and the U.S. 
company's bank statements, that no money, property, or other consideration had been paid in 
consideration of the U.S. entity's stock ownership. Thus, the Director concluded that the record is 
insufficient to establish a qualifying relationship between the U.S. company and the Beneficiary's 
2 
Matter ofT-M-
foreign employer. This issue is not addressed on appeal. As the record supports the Director's 
conclusion and no evidence or argument was submitted on appeal to overcome the Director's 
determination, the appeal is also dismissed on this issue. , 
IV. NEW OFFICE 
The remaining two grounds for denial relate to the U.S. company's status as a new office. At the 
time of filing the petition to open a "new office," the record must demonstrate that the U.S. company 
has acquired sufficient physical premises to commence business, that it has the financial ability to 
commence doing business in the United States, and that it will support the beneficiary m a 
managerial or executive position within one year of approval. See 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
A. Sufficient Physical Premises 
When a petition indicates that a beneficiary is coming to the United States to open a "new office," 
the record must show that the U.S. entity is ready to commence doing business immediately upon 
approval. Securing physical premises to house the new office is a specific evidentiary requirement 
to establish eligibility for approval of a "new office" petition. See 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). 
In this matter, the record shows that the Beneficiary made inquiries into leasing premises for a "new 
office," but the record does not include a copy of a signed lease demonstrating that physical 
premises had been secured when the petition was filed. The record on appeal includes a reference to 
the U.S. entity entering into a lease agreement after the petition has been granted; however, this does 
not comply with the requirement that the U.S. company have sufficient physical premises to house 
the "new office" and be ready to commence doing business upon approval of the initial new office 
petition. As the record does not include the required evidence of physical premises for the "new 
office" and no additional evidence was submitted on appeal to overcome the Director's decision on 
this issue, the appeal must also be dismissed on this ground. 
B. Employment in a Managerial or Executive Capacity 
To establish that the new office, within one year of the approval of the petition, will support a 
managerial or executive position, the Petitioner must submit information regarding the proposed 
nature of the office describing the scope of the entity, its organizational structure, and its financial 
goals; the size of the United States investment and the financial ability of the foreign entity to 
remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business in the United States; and the 
organizational structure ofthe foreign entity. 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
. 
The new office 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. However, the Petitioner's evidence in support 
of a new office petition should demonstrate a realistic expectation that the enterprise is prepared to 
3 
Matter ofT-M-
commence business operations and rapidly expand as it moves away from the developmental stage 
to full operations, where there would be an actual need for a manager or executive who will 
primarily perform qualifying duties. 
The record in this matter does not include sufficient evidence that the U.S. company will support the 
Beneficiary in a managerial or executive position within one year of approval as required by 
regulation. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). The Director noted that the record, including the U.S. 
entity's business plans, did not describe the U.S. company's proposed positions in detail, did not 
indicate whether the employees would be employed part-time or full-time, and did not explain how 
the Beneficiary would be relieved from performing non-qualifying tasks. The Director also found 
that the record did not include evidence of sufficient funds for the new office to commence doing 
business as set out in the U.S. entity's proposed btisiness plans. Further, the Director determined 
that the record did not include evidence that the foreign entity and its employees would support the 
Beneficiary in her managerial capacity. The Director concluded that the record is insufficient to find 
that the new office would support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity within one 
year of approval of the petition. As the record does not include sufficient evidence on this issue and 
no additional evidence or argument was submitted on appeal to overcome the Director's decision on 
this issue, the appeal must also be dismissed on this ground. 
' 
V. CONCLUSION 
The appeal is dismissed because the record does not include sufficient evidence to establish that: (1) 
a qualifying relationship exists between the U.S. company and the Beneficiary's foreign employer; 
(2) the U.S. entity has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office; and (3) within 
one year of the approval of the petition, the U.S. company will support a managerial or executive 
position. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofT-M-, ID# 335441 (AAO May 16, 2017) 
4