dismissed L-1A Case: Cannabis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10065800 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 24, 2020 
The Petitioner identifies itself as a business that cultivates, manufactures, dispenses, and conducts 
laboratory testing of cannabinoid medicines. It seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as its 
"Senior Vice President, Head of Business Development" under the L-IA nonimmigrant classification 
for intracompany transferees who are coming to be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center approved the petition, but later determined that (1) the 
Petitioner is engaged in business activities that contravene a federal law and (2) the Beneficiary's 
employment abroad was not in a managerial or executive capacity. The Director therefore concluded 
that the Petitioner is ineligible for the requested immigration benefit and revoked approval of the 
petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal because 
the Petitioner did not overcome the determination that it operates a business that is in violation of a 
federal statute. Since the identified basis for revocation is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we 
decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding the Beneficiary's 
employment abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 
(1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is 
unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a position requiring 
specialized knowledge for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's 
application for admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1). The prospective U.S. 
employer must also be a qualifying organization that seeks to employ a beneficiary in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(1)(3)(i). 
II. ILLEGAL OR INVALID EMPLOYMENT 
The issue to be addressed in this matter is whether the petition for the Beneficiary's proposed 
employment is based on an illegal offer of employment. 
A. Procedural Background 
The Petitioner states that it has a multi-state business presence that includes owning and operating 
cannabis dispensaries and sites where cannabis is cultivated and processed for distribution. The 
Petitioner described the Beneficiary's role within its organization as one that will involve managing 
corporate finance and mergers and acquisitions, identifying new business opportunities, negotiating, 
ensuring completion of transactions, and managing efforts to raise capital for existing and future 
business opportunities. 
In a notice of intent to revoke, the Director cited Matter of I- Corp., Adopted Decision 2017-02 (AAO 
Apr. 12, 2017), which precludes U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) from approving 
a visa petition that is based on employment that contravenes another federal law. The Director 
determined that because the Beneficiary would perform job duties in support of a business whose 
activities are related to marijuana, the Beneficiaiy' s proposed employment would be invalid as it 
would violate the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which restricts the manufacture and distribution 
of marijuana in the United States. See 21 U.S.C. § 812, 841(a)(1). The Director also cited the U.S. 
Attorney General's January 2018 memorandum, which states the following regarding the federal 
government's current policy with respect to marijuana: 
In the Controlled Substances Act, Congress has generally prohibited the cultivation, 
distribution, and possession of marijuana. 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. It has established 
significant penalties for these crimes. 21 U.S.C. § 841 et seq. These activities also may 
serve as the basis for the prosecution of other crimes, such as those prohibited by the 
money laundering statutes, the unlicensed money transmitter statute, and the Bank 
Secrecy Act. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956-57, 1960; 31 U.S.C. § 5318. These statutes reflect 
Congress's determination that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that marijuana 
activity is a serious crime. 
Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Att'y Gen., Memorandum for All United States Attorneys: Marijuana 
Enforcement (Jan. 4, 2018). 
Applying this memorandum to the matter at hand, the Director determined that the Beneficiaiy' s 
proposed employment would be in violation of the CSA and therefore precludes approval of this visa 
petition. 
In response, the Petitioner challenged the Director's reliance on the adopted decision and the Attorney 
General's memorandum, citing U.S. v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2016), whose finding has 
the effect of prohibiting the federal government from prosecuting state-licensed entities or individuals 
under the CSA, where such entities or individuals have been authorized to engage in activities related 
2 
to medical marijuana. The Petitioner further argued that revoking approval of this petition would be 
inconsistent with certain legal principles established by the U.S. Constitution. 
In revoking approval of the petition, the Director rejected the Petitioner's constitutional arguments, 
pointing out that the instant adjudication is not a criminal proceeding and that questions of guilt or 
innocence are not at issue. The Director dete1mined that although the Petitioner's business is legal in 
certain states, it nevertheless violates the CSA thereby leading the Director to conclude that the 
Beneficiary's proposed employment is in violation of a federal law and that the Beneficiary does not 
merit the requested nonimmigrant classification. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates its prior constitutional arguments and challenges the Director's 
reliance on Matter of I- Corp., the 2018 Attorney General memorandum, and provisions of the CSA 
to support the decision to revoke approval of this petition. 
B. Analysis 
We conclude that the Director's revocation of the approval of the petition was correct. USCIS may 
not approve a visa petition that is based on employment that contravenes another federal law. 
The CSA states that "it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally ... to manufacture, 
distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled 
substance." 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(l ). Under the CSA, anyone seeking to manufacture or distribute 
marijuana must apply for registration. See 21 U.S.C § 822(a)(l). 
Although ce1iain states have legalized or decriminalized the use of marijuana, its possession, 
cultivation, and distribution remains illegal under federal law. Thus, applying the CSA together with 
the Attorney General's 2018 memorandum, there is little question that the Petitioner's marijuana 
manufacturing and distribution activities contravene federal law. 
We further note that the Petitioner's citation of U.S. v. McIntosh in this instance is not relevant, as this 
is an immigration proceeding which does not involve a federal criminal prosecution by the U.S. 
Department of Justice. Rather, our assessment seeks to determine for immigration purposes whether 
it is more likely than not that the Beneficiaiy' s employment as stated in the petition would involve 
conduct that contravenes federal law. Except where a different standard is specified by law, a 
petitioner must prove eligibility for the requested immigration benefit by a preponderance of the 
evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Under the preponderance of 
the evidence standard, the evidence must demonstrate that the Petitioner's claim is "probably true." 
Id. at 376. Therefore, following the Director's notice of intent to revoke, which raised questions about 
the legality of the proposed position, the Petitioner was required to demonstrate that it is more likely 
than not that the Beneficiary's employment would not contravene federal law. Given the Petitioner's 
participation in business activities that include cultivation, manufacturing, and distribution of 
marijuana products, the Petitioner has not met this burden. In fact, even though engaging in these 
activities may be legal in certain states, the submitted evidence demonstrates that the Beneficiary's 
proposed employment would more likely than not involve duties that contravene federal law. 
3 
The Petitioner also challenges the Director's reliance on Matter of I- Corp .. arguing that because the 
adopted decision concerns an entity that violated state and federal labor law, it is "factually and legally 
inapplicable" to the matter at hand, where the violation of labor laws is not in question. The 
Petitioner's reasoning would have the effect of narrowly limiting the applicability of the adopted 
decision to only those cases that specifically concern violations oflabor law. Such reasoning is flawed 
because it places focus squarely on the nature of the law being violated, rather than on the fact of the 
violation itself. In other words, the Petitioner asks us to disregard the adopted decision's dete1mination 
that any visa petition that is based on employment that contravenes another federal law cannot be 
approved. Although USCIS's primary responsibility is to adjudicate immigration benefit requests 
available under applicable immigration law, we will also take into account other intersecting areas of 
law, including federal criminal law, in determining whether a petition warrants approval. As 
discussed, the Petitioner's business activities violate the CSA. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed as the Beneficiary's proposed employment is based on an 
offer of employment that contravenes federal law. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4