dismissed L-1A Case: Dog Breeding

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-A-S-C-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 28. 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner seeks to operate as a dog breeding and training business and employ the Beneficiary 
temporarily as the "President Director·· of its new office 1 under the L-1 A nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(L). The L-lA classification allows a corporation or other 
legal entity (including its afliliate 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 Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that: (1) it had secured sufficient physical premises to house the new 
office; and (2) it would employ the Beneficiary in the United States in an executive capacity within 
one year of approval of the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief disputing the denial. The Petitioner states that based on its 
current stage of development it does not require space beyond that of the Beneficiary's current 
residence. The Petitioner also states that the Beneficiary has experience working as the executive 
director of the two claimed affiliate companies in the Ukraine and Italy and would carry out similar 
job duties as part of her assignment in the United States. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification. 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. Section 
101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States 
1 
The term ''new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States 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 no 
more than one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
Matter qfC-A-S-C-, Inc. 
temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate 
thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. !d. 
If the Form I-129 indicates that the beneficiary is coming to the United States in L-1 A status to open 
or to be employed in a new office, 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. PHYSICAL PREMISES 
The first issue to be addressed in this decision is whether the Petitioner established that it secured 
sufficient physical premises from which to operate the new office pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). In its initial supporting statement, the Petitioner did not discuss where it would 
be doing business once it commences business operations. 
The Director subsequently issued a request for evidence (RFE) reviewing the tiling criteria that 
applies to a petitioner that files the Form 1-129. Petitioner for Nonimmigrant Worker. as a new 
office. The Director pointed out that the Petitioner is required to show that it has secured sufficient 
physical premises to house its operation. The RFE specified the missing evidence and provided a 
list of documents the Petitioner could provide to cure this evidentiary deficiency. The Petitioner 
responded to the RFE; however, it did not provide evidence to show that it secured sufficient 
business premises from which to operate its business. Rather. the Petitioner explained that the 
Beneficiary would not acquire a space in which she would house and train pets until the instant 
petition is adjudicated and approved such that the Beneficiary is authorized to work in the United 
States. 
The Director denied the petition based, in part, on the finding that the Petitioner did not meet this 
regulatory requirement. The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner provided a letter and 
photographs of dogs it intends to breed, but found that such evidence does not establish that the 
Petitioner secured sufficient physical premises to accommodate its dog breeding business. 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to its early stage of development and the lack of an approved visa 
petition as the reason for not securing business premises outside of the Beneficiary's residence. The 
Petitioner explained that it currently does not require "much space." asserting that the Beneficiary's 
home is currently being used for "doing initial administrative work." 
Based on the statements and evidence submitted thus far, we find that the record does not establish 
that the Petitioner meets the new office criteria because the record lacks evidence to establish that it 
secured sufficient physical premises from which to conduct its intended business operations. Even if 
the Beneficiary's residence were deemed sufficient to use as an otlice space. the Petitioner has not 
provided a lease to show that the Beneficiary has, in fact, secured a residential space or that such 
2 
Matter qfC-A-S-C-, Inc. 
space is adequate for the purpose of conducting "'administrative work." Further, given that the 
Petitioner plans to operate a dog breeding and training business, the Beneficiary's residence would 
not be deemed as sufficient physical premises to suit the Petitioner's business needs. The Petitioner 
must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter o{( 'hmmthe. 
25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that it has secured sut1icient physical 
premises where it can breed and train dogs. which is the Petitioner's stated business purpose. 
Therefore, we will at1irm the Director's decision and dismiss the appeal. 
IlL U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The next issue to be addressed in this decision is whether the Petitioner submitted sufticient 
evidence to establish that it would, within one year of approval of the instant petition. employ the 
Beneficiary in an executive capacity. 2 In denying the petition, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner did not provide evidence to demonstrate this ability. 
The term "executive capacity'' is defined as '·an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily'': 
(i) directs the management of the organization or a major component or function 
of the organization; 
(ii) establishes the goals and policies of the organization. component. or function; 
(iii) exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level executives. 
the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an 
individual is acting in a managerial or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services must take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall 
purpose and stage of development ofthe organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(C) ofthe Act. 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner provided a statement claiming that the nature of its business 
operation is to provide '"services of kennel, dog breeding, training, and care to its customers." The 
Petitioner attributed the success of the overseas businesses to the Beneficiary's knowledge and 
experience in breeding and caring for dogs and operating a kennel business. The Petitioner stated 
that the Beneficiary's duties would include the following: 
1 
As the Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity. we restrict our analysis 
to whether the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity. 
3 
Matter ofC-A-S-C'-, Inc. 
• Direct and coordinate activities of the organization; 
• Develop, train, mentor and recruit kennel, dog breeding and training statl 
includes [sic] interviewing and hiring of staff; 
• Prepare boarding, breeding and training records and invoices; 
• Train and supervise all staff~ includes [sic] overseeing staff in charge of all 
boarders' (animals) welfare and ensure they are properly cared for. scheduling 
boarding appointments, staff scheduling, and maintaining inventory; 
• Analyze sales and demand, oversee advertising, and promotional events; 
• Generate business plans to build the business and services and to better the 
services already provided; 
• Build and establish relationships with clients. 
• Enforce and represent company policies and mission. 
The Petitioner also provided a business plan, which included a comprehensive discussion of the 
operational components involved in running a dog breeding and training business and providing 
kennel services. Section 6.3 of the business plan includes a discussion of the Petitioner's sales 
strategy, which will require "communicating [the Petitioner's] competitive edge to the prospective 
customers" and offering prospective customers tours of the facility and references from past 
customers. Section 7.0 discusses the Petitioner's personnel plan, which includes hiring a total of 
four employees- a CEO, a manager, a dog trainer, and a dog care specialist- during the company's 
first year of operation. The Petitioner indicated that it would hire two additional employees - an 
additional dog trainer and an additional dog care specialist - during the second year of operation. 
increasing its total staff two six employees. The personnel plan does not indicate that the Petitioner 
intends to hire any stafT to carry out administrative functions. such as answering phones, issuing 
invoices, and other office-related tasks, or that it would hire sales personnel within its first year of 
operation. The business plan does not indicate that someone other than the Beneficiary would carry 
out the Petitioner's sales strategy beyond that initial one-year time period. despite including sales 
projections at section 6.4.1 of the business plan, forecasting $283,981 in sales after the first year and 
$640,000 after the second year of operation. The Petitioner also did not indicate who. if not the 
Beneficiary, would carry out the marketing strategy included in section 6.3 of the business plan. 
which states that the Petitioner will initially focus on "networking and advertising campaigns"' as its 
key marketing strategies. hoping to eventually rely on "word-of-mouth referrals'' to advertise its 
dogs and dog-related services. 
In the RFE, the Petitioner was reminded that it must provide evidence to show that it will support the 
Beneficiary in an executive position within one year of the petition's approvaL including evidence of 
the foreign entity's financial ability to pay the Petitioner's start-up costs and a statement describing 
the staffing of its new operation. 
In response, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in an executive 
capacity and stated that the Beneficiary "is currently devising plans doing necessary work to acquire 
place and hire stafT for operation, once the petition is approved ... With respect to projected statling. 
the Petitioner stated that it "is likely to hire office, training. breading [sic] and transportation staff 
4 
Matter qfC-A-S-C-, Inc. 
according to the needs." The Petitioner also provided a statement from the Beneficiary. who also 
referred to her foreign employment as that of an executive and stated that her employment abroad 
included: directing and coordinating activities of the organization: reviewing invoices and breeding 
and training records: training and supervising personnel engaged in training, breeding. and 
maintaining inventory: analyzing the company's sales and demand and overseeing marketing efforts: 
generating plans to increase business; establishing and building client relationships: and devising 
and enforcing company policies. This job description does not establish that the Beneficiary would 
primarily perform tasks of an executive nature. Further, section 7.0 of the business plan, where the 
Petitioner provided a list of its projected hires, made no mention of an office or transportation stan: 
both of which the Petitioner referenced in its response statement. It therefore appears that the 
personnel projections outlined in the business plan are at odds with the information the Petitioner 
offered in its RFE response statement. 
When examining the executive capacity of the Beneficiary. we will look first to the Petitioner's 
description of the job duties. The Petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly describe the 
duties to be performed by the Beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in an executive 
capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
Based on the statutory definition of executive capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the 
Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World. Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 
1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). Second. the Petitioner must prove that the 
Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in executive duties, as opposed to ordinary operational 
activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 
1316 (9th Cir. 2006); C'hampion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
Further, we consider the applicable new office regulations. which take into account that when a new 
business is established and commences operations, a designated manager or executive responsible 
for setting up operations will be engaged in a variety of activities not normally performed hy 
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 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. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the 
likelihood that it would be able to support the Beneficiary in an executive position within one year 
of approval of the instant petition. Although the Petitioner disputes the denial on appeal, it does not 
provide independent, objective evidence to resolve the above described incongruity regarding its 
projected personnel plan. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988 ). Rather. the 
5 
Matter o_fC-A-S-C-, Inc. 
Petitioner restates the Beneficiary's previously submitted job description without fully describing 
how, after its first year of operation, it plans to relieve the Beneficiary from having to allocate her 
time primarily to performing non-executive operational tasks, such as marketing and selling the 
breeding, training, and kennel services it plans to offer. Further, while the personnel plan indicates 
that the Petitioner plans to hire three subordinate employees and provides their respective position 
titles, there is no information as to the duties they will perform. As such. the record lacks evidence 
to show that the Beneficiary will be relieved from having to carry out basic administrative office 
functions, such as invoicing and payroll. 
While no beneficiary is required to allocate 100% of his or her time to managerial- or executive­
level tasks, the petitioner must establish that the non-qualifying tasks the beneficiary would perform 
are only incidental to the proposed position. An employee who '"primarily'" performs the tasks 
necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be ""primarily'' employed 
in a managerial or executive capacity. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that 
one "primarily'' perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); see also Malter o{Church 
Scientology Jnt 'l, 19 l&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm 'r 1988). Here, the Petitioner has not provided 
sufficient evidence to show that it would likely employ a staff capable of relieving the Beneficiary 
from having to primarily carry out its operational and administrative tasks after its first year of 
operation. 
In addition, the statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated 
position within a complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the 
organization, and that person's authority to direct the organization. Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to ""direct the management" and 
'"establish the goals and policies'' of that organization. Inherent to the definition, the organization 
must have a subordinate level of managerial employees for a beneficiary to direct and they must 
primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than the day-to-day 
operations of the enterprise. An individual will not be deemed an executive under the statute simply 
because they have an executive title or because they "direct'' the enterprise 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.'' !d. 
In the present matter, the staffing projections that were included in the Petitioner"s personnel plan do 
not indicate that the Beneficiary would primarily direct the management of the organization. Rather, 
the information provided indicates that the Beneficiary would likely be tasked with the non­
executive tasks associated with overseeing a non-supervisory and non-professional staff involved in 
breeding and training dogs. Although the Petitioner's projected staff lists one manager during its 
first two years of operation, the record lacks sut1icient evidence to establish that this position would 
actually oversee and have managerial authority over the company's non-professional staff of dog 
breeders and dog trainers. As previously stated, the Petitioner must support its assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
.
Matter of C-A-S-C-. Inc. 
The evidence, which includes the Petitioner's business plan, its projected statling, and the 
Beneficiary's proposed job duties, precludes a finding that the Beneficiary would be employed in an 
executive capacity within one year of this petition's approval. The instant petition cannot be 
approved for this additional reason. 
IV. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
Finally, while not addressed in the Director's decision, we find that the Petitioner did not establish. 
as required, that it has a qualifying relationship with a foreign entity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(i). To 
establish a "qualifying relationship" under the Act and the regulations, a petitioner must show that 
the beneficiary's foreign employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (i.e. one 
entity with "branch" offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary'' or as ''affiliates.'' See generally 
section 101(a)(l5)(L) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1). 
In the present matter, the initial supporting statement referred to the Beneficiary's foreign employer 
as ''the parent organization, in Ukraine and Italy.'' Section 2.1 of the Petitioner's 
business plan also states that the Petitioner "is a subsidiary of a parent company located in 
Italy." However, a parent-subsidiary relationship necessarily rests on the parent entity's direct or 
indirect ownership of more than half of the subsidiary, which in this case would be the Petitioner. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(2)(K). Here, the Petitioner provided a copy of its shareholder agreement, which 
names the Beneficiary and as 50/50 owners of the U.S. entity. Therefore. the 
Petitioner cannot be said to be a subsidiary of a foreign entity. 
The record also does not contain sufficient evidence to establish that the Petitioner and the foreign 
entity have an affiliate relationship. The term "atliliate" is defined in relevant part, as ( 1) one of two 
subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same parent or individuaL or (2) one of 
two legal entities owned by the same group of individuals, each individual owning and controlling 
approximately the same share or proportion of each entity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(K). 
Accordingly, in order to establish that the ownership schemes of the Petitioner and the foreign entity 
are consistent with an affiliate relationship, the Petitioner would have to provide evidence to show 
that the foreign entity has the same ownership scheme, i.e .. a 50/50 ownership split between the 
Beneficiary and . as the Petitioner itself. 
In the present matter, rather than providing evidence of the foreign entity's ownership. the Petitioner 
provided an RFE response statement claiming that businesses that raise, train, and sell pets in Europe 
do not require a license or any type of business registration. The Petitioner claimed that it was only 
required to register the foreign business "with related associations" and further noted that there was 
no need for an articles of incorporation. Therefore, while the Petitioner maintained the claim that the 
Beneficiary owns 50% of the foreign entity, it did not provide any evidence to support this claim. 
As stated above, the Petitioner cannot meet its burden of proof without providing relevant, probative, 
and credible evidence to support its assertions. See Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 3 76. As the 
Petitioner has not provided such evidence to show that it and the foreign entity are similarly owned. 
we cannot conclude that the two entities have a qualifying relationship. 
Matter (?fC-A-S-C-, Inc. 
V. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that: (I) it 
secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation; (2) its new office would develop beyond 
the initial phase of its operation within one year of filing the petition such that it would have the 
ability to employ the Beneficiary in an executive capacity; and (3) the Petitioner and the 
Beneficiary's employer abroad formed a qualifying relationship. Based on these three conclusions. 
we will dismiss this appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Maller o.lC-A-S-C-, Inc., ID# 791592 (AAO Sept. 28, 2017)