dismissed L-1A Case: Clothing Distribution

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22652176 
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: SEP. 13, 2022 
The Petitioner, a clothing importer and distributor, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment in the position of vice president and manager under the L-lA nonimrnigrant classification 
for intracompany transferees.1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-lA 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, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; MatterofChawathe, 25 l&N 
Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's 
Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we will summarily dismiss the 
appeal. 
As noted, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity, as defined at section 
10l(a)(44)(A) or (B) of the Act. In reaching this conclusion, the Director considered the Beneficiary's 
proposed job duties, the nature of the Petitioner's clothing import and distribution business, and the 
staffing of the entity at the end of its first year of operations. The Director emphasized that the record 
did not show that the company had employed anyone other than the Beneficiary to date or that the 
operations had developed to the point where it would have a reasonable need for the Beneficiary to 
perform primarily managerial or executive duties, rather than the day-to-day operational activities of 
the company. The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's statement, made in response to a request 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
May 24, 2019, until May 23, 2020. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United States 
through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F). The regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation one year within the date of approval of the petition to support 
an executive or managerial position. 
for evidence (RFE), that it had deferred hiring staff until 2021-2022 because of the impact of COVID-
19. However, the Director emphasized that the record must establish the Petitioner's and Beneficiary's 
eligibility at the time of filing. 
The Petitioner timely filed the appeal on November 1 7, 2021. The Petitioner indicated on the Form I-
290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, that it would submit a brief and/or evidence to the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) within 30 days of filing the appeal. As of this date, the record reflects that the 
Petitioner did not submit a brief On the Form I-290B, the Petitioner included the following statement 
as the basis for its appeal: 
Substantial evidence was submitted (and overlooked in the decision) showing that, due 
to both consular delays in initial L-lA visa issuance as well as the unprecedented 
difficulties in shipping and distribution resulting from the COVID pandemic, it was 
impossible for the beneficiary to implement the company's first year business plan. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact 
regarding the Director's conclusion that the record did not establish, as of the date of filing, that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. In fact, the Petitioner concedes 
that it did not carry out the business plan that formed the basis of the prior "new office" petition 
approval. While it appears that the Petitioner intended to further articulate the basis for the appeal by 
submitting a brief to this office, we have not received a brief Accordingly, we will summarily dismiss 
the appeal. 
We will nevertheless briefly address the Petitioner's statement on the Form I-290B. The Petitioner 
appears to suggest that it should be exempt from meeting the requirements for extending its new office 
petition due to external factors that delayed the implementation of its business plan. Specifically, the 
Petitioner asserts that it documented the impact of consular delays and COVID-19 on its operations. 
As noted above, the Director did in fact acknowledge the Petitioner's contention that its operations 
had been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and explained why the claim was not persuasive. 
Further, the Petitioner made no previous contention that a delay in the processing of the Beneficiary's 
L-1 visa substantially disrupted its plans for its first year of operations. Therefore, the record does not 
support the Petitioner's assertion that the Director overlooked or ignored such claims. 
The Petitioner's new office petition was approved for a one-year period beginning at the end of May 
2019. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) only allows the "new office" operation one year 
within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. Therefore, 
the Petitioner was expected to implement its first-year business plan during this 2019 to 2020 period 
and to demonstrate at the time of filing its request for an extension that it had made sufficient progress 
to support the Beneficiary in a role that satisfies the statutory definition of managerial or executive 
2 
capacity. The record reflects that the Beneficiary received his L-1 visa approximately two months 
after the new office petition was approved and was admitted to the United States in August 2019. The 
Petitioner's business plan indicated that the company intended to fill approximately 10 positions 
during its initial year of operations. The Petitioner indicated on the Form I-129 that it had two 
employees as of April 2020 but did not document that it had paid anyone other than the Beneficiary 
in 2019 or 2020 or document its efforts to carry out its hiring plan during its first year of operations, 
most of which pre-dated the pandemic-related restrictions. 
We acknowledge that the COVID-19 pandemic posed challenges for both new and established 
businesses and that it reasonably could have impacted the company's growth in the last three quarters 
of 2020; however, it does not explain why the Petitioner could not implement its business or hiring 
plan as intended in 2019 or the first quarter of 2020. Further the Petitioner cites no USCIS policies or 
announcements that would suspend, prolong, or renew the one-year new office period mandated by 
the regulations, or remove the requirements applicable to new office extensions pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(14)(ii). 
We will summarily dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner did not specifically identify any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision as a basis for the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
3