dismissed L-1A Case: Convenience Store

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 23, 2024 In Re: 28494549 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a convenience store, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as controller of its 
new office under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U .S.C. § l 10l(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 that: (1) the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer; 
(2) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad for at least one continuous year during the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition; (3) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity; and (4) the new office will be able to support a managerial or executive capacity 
within one year after approval of the petition. 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, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving a new 
office, a qualifying organization must have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(1)(3)(v)(B). 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. Id. 
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. ANALYSIS 
If a petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as a manager or executive of a new office, the petitioner 
must submit evidence that the beneficiaiy has been employed in an executive or managerial capacity 
for one continuous year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). This employment must have occuned outside the United States. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
On the petition, filed in February 2018, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary "has served as the 
Controller for the foreign parrt comrny since March 1, 2012." The Beneficiary's claimed foreign 
employer is a grocery store in Pakistan. On the petition form, the Petitioner did not indicate 
that the Beneficiaty was in the United States at the time of filing. Also on that f01m, the Petitioner 
claimed that the Beneficiaty is a citizen of Canada. 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart and job description relating to the Beneficiary's 
claimed position abroad, but the Petitioner did not submit contemporaneous documentation showing 
that the Beneficiary was in Pakistan, working for the foreign company, during the time claimed. 
The Director issued a request for evidence, stating that the Petitioner "did not submit conoborating 
evidence of the beneficiary's one continuous year of full-time employment [abroad]." The Director 
also stated: "According to USCIS records, the beneficiary entered the U.S. on January 30, 2008, as a 
J-1 nonimmigrant and has not departed the U.S." This information is material to the petition because 
if the Beneficiary has been in the United States since 2008, then he could not have been employed 
continuously outside the United States for at least one year between February 2015 and February 2018. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted purported payroll records from the company in Pakistan, showing 
claimed salary payments to the Beneficiary throughout 201 7. But the Petitioner also submitted 
documents indicating that the Beneficiary was in the United States in 2017 and 2018. The Petitioner's 
"Company Agreement," dated September 15, 2017, and its lease agreement for the store location, 
dated February 1, 2018, both bear the Beneficiary's signature, indicating he was in Texas in September 
2017 and February 2018. The purported payroll records list travel allowances, but the Petitioner did 
not submit any evidence such as airline itineraries to document, or provide any details about, the 
Beneficiaiy's claimed travel in 2017. 
The Petitioner's certificate of formation, filed September 15, 2017, names the Beneficiary as the 
company's registered agent. By signing the document, the Beneficiary attested under penalty of 
perjury that he was qualified to serve as the registered agent. The certificate specifies that the 
registered agent must be a "resident of the state" of Texas, and the certificate shows a Texas address 
for the Beneficiary. 
The Director denied the petition, in part because the Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary 
was employed abroad for at least one continuous year during the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's response to the request for evidence, but 
2 
concluded that the evidence in that response did not overcome the evidence that the Beneficiary has 
been in the United States since 2008. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states: 
The beneficiary was in Canada before he entered the U.S .... 
When the beneficiary entered the U.S. via the Canadian/U.S. border, the Customs 
Border Patrol [sic] looked at his passport, however they did not stamp his passport or 
issue an 1-94. Presumably because the beneficiary is a Canadian National. To date, 
the beneficiary is still employed with the foreign company. 
Statements in a briet: motion, or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any 
evidentiary weight. Matter of S-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998). Even then, the Petitioner 
provides no details about the dates of the Beneficiary's claimed crossings of the U.S./Canadian border, 
and the Petitioner does not say when the Beneficiary left the United States after his documented entry 
in 2008. Although the Petitioner asserts that "the beneficiary is still employed with the foreign 
company," time spent in the United States does not count toward the requirement of continuous 
employment abroad. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(A). 
The Petitioner does not cite any verifiable record evidence placing the Beneficiary outside the United 
States during the period claimed. But several of the documents submitted by the Petitioner place the 
Beneficiary in the United States after he purportedly began working in Pakistan in 2012: 
• The Indian consulate general in I I, Texas, issued an identification document to the 
Beneficiary in March 2014; 
• The Beneficiary, claiming a I I address, is named on the Petitioner's certificate of 
formation, filed with the State of Texas in September 201 7; 
• Also in September 201 7, the Beneficiary and two other company officials signed the 
Petitioner's "Company Agreement," showing al Iaddress; and 
• The Beneficiary, claiming al !address, signed the lease agreement for the Petitioner's 
business location in February 2018. 
The Petitioner did not submit any evidence of comparable weight placing the Beneficiary in Pakistan 
during the time of his purported employment there from 2012 to 2018. 
With respect to the claim that "the beneficiary is a Canadian National," the Petitioner had previously 
claimed on the Form 1-129 petition that the Beneficiary is a citizen of Canada, but the Petitioner 
submitted no evidence to support that claim. The identification document that the Beneficiary 
obtained in 2014 was issued by an Indian, not Canadian, consulate in the United States. That document 
specifies the Beneficiary's "Nationality" as "Indian." 
When considering the Petitioner's unsubstantiated claim that the Beneficiary is a Canadian citizen 
whose border crossings were not recorded and reported, we bear in mind that the record contains 
several other discrepancies that raise general questions about the reliability of the Petitioner's claims 
and some of the documents in the record. For example, the lease agreement for the convenience store 
3 
is dated February 2018, but state filings show that the Beneficiary and the Petitioner were both already 
claiming that address in 2017. Also, the lease agreement specifies that the rent for the property is 
$3,000 per month, totaling $36,000 for the first year, rising to $3,500 per month, totaling $42,000 for 
the second year. But the financial projections in the Petitioner's business plan show a much lower 
rental rate of $13,000 per year with no annual increase. Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead 
us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested 
immigration benefit. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not overcome evidence showing that the Beneficiary 
has been in the United States since 2008, and therefore was not working in Pakistan from 2012 to 2018 
as claimed. The Petitioner has not met its burden of proof to establish that the Beneficiary worked 
abroad in a qualifying capacity for at least one continuous year during the three years preceding the 
petition's 2018 filing date. 
The above conclusion, by itself, is sufficient to determine the outcome of the appeal. Therefore, we 
will reserve argument on the remaining issues, concerning the Petitioner's ownership, the 
Beneficiary's claimed managerial or executive capacity abroad, and the Petitioner's ability to support 
a managerial or executive position within one year ofapproval of the petition. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 
429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on 
issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 
n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where the appellant did not otherwise 
meet their burden of proof). 
III. CONCLUSION 
We will dismiss the appeal for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4