dismissed L-1A Case: Construction

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 23503753 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 22, 2023 
The Petitioner intends to provide construction and remodeling services in the residential home industry. 
It seeks to employ the Beneficiary as "President- General Manager" of its new office 1 under the L-lA 
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)(l 5)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation or that it would 
employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of the petition's 
approval. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 , 3 75-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo . Mattera/Christo 's, Inc ., 26 I&N Dec. 537 , 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of the petition's approval. Because 
the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the remaining issue of physical premises. 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. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonirnmigrant 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 
1 The term "newoffice"refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one year. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(F) . The regulation at 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation no more than 
one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive ormanage1ial position . 
application for admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1). 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 or executive capacity. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214 .2(1)(3 )(ii). 
In addition, regarding a new office petition, 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 must establish that the petitioner secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation 
and disclose 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. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The primary issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to establish 
that its operation would support the Beneficiary in an executive capacity within one year of the 
petition's approval. 2 
The statutory definition of the tem1 "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position. 
Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" and "establish the 
goals and policies" of an organization or major component or function thereof. Section 101 (a)(44)(B) 
of the Act. To show that a beneficiary will "direct the management" of an organization or a major 
component or function of that organization, a petitioner must show how the organization, major 
component, or function is managed and demonstrate that the beneficiary primarily focuses on its broad 
goals and policies, rather than the day-to-day operations of such. An individual will not be deemed 
an executive under the statute simply because they have an executive title or because they "direct" the 
organization, major component, or function as the owner or sole managerial employee. A beneficiary 
must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision making" and receive only "general 
supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the 
organization." Id. 
A. New Office Requirements 
In the case of a new office petition, we review the petitioner's business and hiring plans and evidence 
that the business will grow sufficiently to support a beneficiary in the intended managerial or executive 
capacity. The petitioner has the burden to establish that it would realistically develop to the point 
where it would require the beneficiary to perform duties that are primarily managerial or executive in 
nature within one year of the petition's approval. Accordingly, we consider the totality of the evidence 
in determining whether the proposed position is plausible based on a petitioner's anticipated staffmg 
levels and stage of development within a one-year period. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner provided a business plan which discusses the Petitioner's 
hiring and financial projections. In the "Executive Summary" section of the business plan, the 
Petitioner stated that it received a $175,000 shareholder investment which would cover start-up costs 
and "administrative facilities" and would be sufficient to immediately commence business operations. 
2 The Petitioner does not claim thatthe Beneficiary's position in the United States would be in a managerial capacity. 
2 
The business plan states that the Petitioner intends to fill eight positions "by the end of [its] first year 
of operation." However, the five-year personnel budget in the business plan accounts for full-year 
salaries for all eight positions for all five years, including the start-up year, thus indicating that all 
eight positions would be filled immediately upon commencing operations rather than gradually 
throughout the first year. Without a reliable hiring timeline, we are unable to determine whether the 
$175,000 the Petitioner received in start-up capital is sufficient to cover the Beneficiary's salary and 
initial operating costs so that it can commence doing business. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3 )(v)(C)(2). 
The Petitioner must resolve the ambiguity regarding its hiring plans with independent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Further, the business plan shows that the Petitioner's "initial administrative structure" would be 
comprised of the following: "President-General Manager," a general contractor, a construction 
supervisor, an administrative assistant, a secretary, a "general services" position, and three full time 
construction workers - a plumber, a carpenter, and an electrician. The Petitioner added that it will 
"complement the execution of its projects with subcontractors in the spectrum of construction." 
Although the executive summary states that employees would be "supported by a Legal and Financial 
- Accountant Consultants," these positions are not accounted elsewhere in the business plan as part of 
the Petitioner's hiring plan, nor does the business plan specify any subcontractors "in the spectrum of 
construction" or otherwise account for the subcontractors in its list of operating expenses. 
We also note that the business plan lists no sales or marketing staff among its anticipated hires, and it 
allocates "0%" of its budget to expenses associated with "commissions in sales." Likewise, the 
account of projected operating expenses shows that "0" dollars have been allocated to "commission 
in sales" and "publicity and marketing," thus leading us to believe that the Petitioner would operate 
with no staff or contractors dedicated to marketing and selling its services. Despite providing a 
financial outlook which shows projected annual revenue increases, the business plan contains no sales 
strategy explaining how the Petitioner plans to meet those projections, particularly given that it 
included no staff or contractors who would perform the sales and marketing functions. In other words, 
although the Petitioner offered revenue projections as part of its financial outlook, it provided no 
strategy for attracting clients and selling its services, thus leaving us to question how it plans to achieve 
those projections. See Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 (stating that relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence is necessary to support a petitioner's assertions). 
In addition, the business plan offers inconsistent sales growth projections. Namely, the business plan 
contains two pages titled "Financial Projections." The first "financial projections" page provides a 
broad overview of projected "administrative expenses," "depreciation-amortization expenses," 
"estimated balance in cash," "sales," and "another [sic] operating expenses" within the context of the 
Petitioner's shareholder investment. The other "financial projections" page offers a more detailed 
breakdown of the types of services the Petitioner plans to sell, the prices customers will be charged 
for each type of service, and the Petitioner's cost for providing the service. Based on the sales and 
cost figures projected on the latter chart, the Petitioner anticipates a sales increase of over 30%, going 
from approximately $402,000 in net sales in the first year, to approximately $535,000 the following 
year. In sum, the Petitioner offered two different revenue projections with no sales plan to support or 
explain how it came up with either one. The inconsistency in these sales projections further highlights 
the deficiencies in the business plan and undermines the reliability of the information provided therein. 
The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to 
3 
where the truth lies. Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to 
reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested 
immigration benefit. Id. 
In the denial, the Director questioned whether the Petitioner is adequately funded, noting that the 
Petitioner's bank account contains a balance of $175,985, which is significantly below its first-year 
payroll expenses totaling $259,974. On appeal, the Petitioner offers financial figures pertaining to the 
residential construction market, indicating that it will benefit from increased sales within that market. 
The Petitioner also points to its own sales projections to support the claim that it is adequately fonded. 
However, given the deficiencies described above, we disagree with the Petitioner's argument. 
Although the Petitioner was offered an opportunity to explain how the U.S. investment would be 
sufficient to support the U.S. operation, the Petitioner reiterated its broadly stated plans and 
projections, which do not adequately explainhowthe Petitioner plans to meet its sales objectives. The 
inconsistency in the business plan's sales projections further highlights the plan's deficiencies and 
undermines the reliability of the information provided therein. 
B. Job Duties 
We also reviewed the Beneficiary's job description and find the evidence to be insufficient to establish 
that the Beneficiary would perform primarily executive job duties within one year of the petition's 
approval. 
When a new business is 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 
activities not normally performed by employees at the executive or managerial level and that often the 
full range of managerial or executive responsibility cannot be performed. In order to qualify for L-1 
nonimmigrant classification during the first year of operations, the regulations require a petitioner to 
disclose the proposed nature of the business and the size of the U.S. investment and to establish that 
the proposed enterprise will support an executive or managerial position within one year of the 
approval of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). This evidence should demonstrate a realistic 
expectation that the enterprise will succeed 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. 
Here, the Petitioner's initial supporting statement contains a job duty breakdown that lists broadly 
stated business objectives and offers little to no insight about the Beneficiary's actual activities within 
the scope of a residential construction business. For instance, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiaty 
would spend 20% of his time "adopt[ing] the strategic and administrative decisions that lead to 
achievement of goals and ... planning, developing[,] and inplementing [sic] that company strategy"; 
15% ensuring the operation's funding by "[d]irect[ing] and coordinat[ing] formulation of financial 
programs"; 15% working towards greater efficiency and cost reduction by "[p]]Ian[ ning] and 
direct[ing] the implementation of commercial, operational[,] and compliance policies"; and 18% 
coordinating and developing public relations policies, "[f]ormulating pricing policies," and 
determining prices for the services to be sold. 
4 
Although the business plan contains another job description for the Beneficiary's proposed position, 
it too offers only general information that does not explain what actions the Beneficiary plans to take 
to ensure the Petitioner's progression into a more advanced phase of development that would support 
the Beneficiary in a primarily executive position. More specifically, the business plan states that the 
Beneficiary will plan and implement "the strategy of the company in the market" and "supervise 1he 
sales and administrative financial areas." However, the Petitioner provides no insight about a specific 
sales strategy or the means for staying competitive in the relevant market. The job description lists 
other generalities about the Beneficiary's executive role, including planning for business expansion, 
approving contracts with clients and service providers, revising financial statements, and outlining 
hiring policies. Again, these duties focus on the Beneficiary's discretion over the Petitioner's day-to­
day operations and indicate that the Beneficiary would possess the requisite level of authority with 
respect to discretionary decision-making. However, the Petitioner does not provide a job description 
that offers insight about the Beneficiary's actual tasks within the scope of a residential construction 
business during its developmental phase. Reciting a beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or 
broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the regulations require a detailed description of 1he 
beneficiary's daily job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3 )(ii). As indicated earlier, it is the Petitioner's 
burden to establish that it will support an executive position within one year of the petition's approval. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary's job duties "have been clearly defined" and 
restates the job descriptions provided in the initial supporting letter and in the business plan. We 
disagree with the Petitioner's argument. Despite maintaining the claim that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in an executive capacity within one year of this petition's approval, the Petitioner has not 
adequately described the Beneficiary's job duties or explained what specific actions the Beneficiary 
will take during the company's first year of operation to ensure that the company progresses beyond 
the new office phase of development. Furthermore, because the Petitioner does not establish that it 
will have personnel or contractors who will market and sell the Petitioner's services, we cannot 
eliminate the possibility that the Beneficiary will directly perform these operational tasks beyond 1he 
Petitioner's new office phase. 
In sum, the Petitioner has not adequately described the Beneficiary's job duties and we therefore 
cannot conclude that the Beneficiary will primarily perform executive job duties within one year of 
the petition's approval. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity within one year of the petition's approval. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5