dismissed L-1A Case: Design And Trading

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 23332499 
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. 13, 2022 
The Petitioner, a design and trading business, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment as its "CEO" 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. 1 See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The 
Director of the California Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States 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. See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
The L-1 A 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. To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrantvisa 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. § 214.2(1)(3)(i). In addition, a petitioner seeking to extend 
an L-1 A petition that involved a new office must submit a statement of the beneficiary's duties during 
the previous year and under the extended petition; a statement describing the staffing of the new 
operation and evidence of the numbers and types of positions held; evidence of its financial status; 
evidence that it has been doing business for the previous year; and evidence that it maintains a 
qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(l)(l 4)(ii). 
In the denial, the Director found that the Petitioner provided a deficient job description that did not 
include the amount of time the Beneficiary would dedicate to his assigned job duties, some of which 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for a one-year 
period from February 22, 2021, February 21 , 2022. 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(1)(1 )(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 manage1ial position. 
the Director found to be operational rather than managerial or executive in nature. The Director also 
discussed the Petitioner's current staffing and questioned the organization's ability relieve the 
Beneficiary from having to primarily perform non-qualifyingjob duties. 
On appeal, the Petitioner resubmits its organizational chart and provides a job duty breakdown with a 
percentage of time assigned to individual job duties. Although we acknowledge the Petitioner's 
submission of a new iteration of the Beneficiary's job description on appeal, the Petitioner neglected 
to provide this evidence when it was first requested in the RFE. Where, as here, a petitioner has been 
put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an opportunity to respond to that 
deficiency, we will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 
I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). If the 
Petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be considered, it should have submitted such evidence 
in response to the Director's request for evidence. Id. Under the circumstances, we need not and do 
not consider the sufficiency of the new iteration of the job duty breakdown. We further note that the 
Petitioner does not explain how the Director erred in the denial analysis and instead explains why it 
has not undergone the level of expansion it originally expected. 
The reason for filing an appeal is to provide an affected party with the means to remedy what it 
perceives to be an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact within a decision in a previous 
proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l )(v). Here, the Petitioner does not identify specific aspects of 
the denial that it considers to be incorrect; instead, the Petitioner focuses on employee job duties and 
explains why its organization did not adequately develop during its first year of operation. In sum, 
the arguments and evidence submitted on appeal, either standing alone or viewed in totality with the 
underlying record, are not sufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden of establishing that it would 
employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity under an approved petition. 
For the reasons discussed above, we have determined that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. Upon 
consideration of the record, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See, e.g., Matter of Burbano, 
20 I&N Dec. 872,874 (BIA 1994) (noting that the "independent review authority" of the Board of 
Immigration Appeals (Board) does not preclude adopting or affirming the decision below "in whole 
or in part, when [the Board is] in agreement with the reasoning and result of that decision"); see also 
Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996)(noting that, "[a]s a general proposition, if a reviewing 
tribunal decides that the facts and evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately 
confronted and correctly resolved by" the decision below, "then the tribunal is free to simply adopt 
those findings" provided the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case"). 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that burden here, and the petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2