dismissed L-1A Case: Event Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 21103705 
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 : JUL. 26, 2022 
The Petitioner, an event planning and management services business, seeks to continue the 
Beneficiary's temporary employment as its chief executive officer (CEO) under the L-lA 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 1 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner was doing business, as defined in the regulations , during the previous year. 
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. See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361, Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&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 dismiss the 
appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA 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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(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. 
1 The Beneficiary initially transferred to the Petitioner's U.S. operations based on an approved L-lA "new office" petition 
that was valid from December 2, 2019, until December 1, 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(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 managerial position . 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-lA 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(1)(14)(ii). 
II. DOING BUSINESS 
The sole issue addressed by the Director is whether the Petitioner established that it was doing business 
for the previous year, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B). For the purposes of this 
classification, "doing business" means the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods 
and/or services by a qualifying organization. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(H). 
The Petitioner, which was established as an events management and planning business, explained that 
the Beneficiary had to adjust some of the company's projects and goals upon his arrival to the United 
States in early March 2020, 2 due to restrictions necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. 
Specifically, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary developed two platforms to offer the company's 
clients with virtual event solutions I and hybrid event solutions L 
in addition to the in-person event planning services it initially intended to offer. The Petitioner 
indicated that it had nevertheless "progressed to be in a position to serve a clientele of U.S. and 
multinational companies in providing consultation, event planning, and management services for 
corporate events and marketing." 
The Petitioner initially submitted copies of its bank statements for the period January through 
September 2020 and an "account activity" history printed in late October 2020. It did not provide any 
additional evidence related to its business transactions or activities for the previous year, such as 
contracts or invoices. The company's August 2020 statement showed that the Petitioner received a 
wire transfer in the amount of $21,325 as "payment for invoice I 3 None of the other bank 
statements reflected the receipt of credits as payment for invoices or otherwise demonstrated that the 
company was engaged in the provision of services. The Petitioner also provided a copy of its original 
business plan from 2019, which indicated that the company had projected gross revenue of $560,000 
in 2020. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director noted the Petitioner's submission of bank statements, 
and acknowledged its statements that it had developed hybrid and virtual event solutions as new 
service offerings due to the pandemic. However, the Director determined that the evidence did not 
identify the Petitioner's clients or provide sufficient supporting evidence corroborating its business 
activities in the United States. The Director provided a list of additional evidence the Petitioner could 
submit, including, but not limited to, its tax returns, audited financial statements, major sales invoices, 
and contracts. 
2 As noted, the Petitioner's new office petition was approved for a one-year period beginning in December 2019. The 
record reflects that the Beneficiary obtained his L-1 visa at a U.S. Consulate in January 2020, but he did not make his 
initial entry in L-IA status until March 2020. 
3 The record contains a corresponding invoice for this amount, indicating that the Petitioner billed its affiliate in 
for "services for virtual event solutions, consulting & model development for clients in land [Asian] region." 
2 
The Petitioner's response included a copy of its 2019 IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax 
Return, showing no assets or income for the company's fiscal year ended on March 31, 2020. The 
Petitioner also submitted a profit and loss statement for the period April 1, 2020 through January 21, 
2021, which showed sales of $142,453. However, based on the accompanying evidence, and as 
discussed in the Director's decision, nearly all this income was generated subsequent to the filing of 
the petition and after the expiration of the new office petition. The Petitioner must establish that all 
eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and 
continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). After one year, USCIS will extend the 
validity of the new office petition only if the entity demonstrates that it has been doing business in a 
regular, systematic, and continuous manner "for the previous year." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B). 
Here, the Director concluded that the record, when viewed in its totality, did not establish the Petitioner 
was engaged in the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services for the 
previous year when it sought to extend its new office petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "it is admitted that Petitioner was not able to strictly comply with 
what the regulation provides" but emphasizes that the COVID-19 pandemic caused widespread 
disruption of commercial activity and such non-compliance was unintentional and the result of "an act 
of God or force majeure or natural disaster." The Petitioner maintains that, in light of the disruption 
caused by the pandemic, and the nature of its business, "it was not possible to strictly comply with the 
regulations." It argues that "substantial compliance should be sufficient to satisfy the requirement of 
doing business under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(ii)(H)." 
We acknowledge that the COVID-19 pandemic posed challenges for both new and established 
businesses. But, on appeal, 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). Although 
the Petitioner emphasizes that the company responded to this challenging operating environment by 
creating alternative virtual and hybrid solutions to offer to its clients, the record does not establish that 
the company had been engaged in the regular and systematic provision of those alternative services at 
the time it sought to extend the new office petition. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not overcome the 
basis for denial and the appeal will be dismissed. 
III. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAP A CITY 
Because we conclude that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that it has been doing business as defined 
in the regulations, we need not fully address other issues evident in the record. Nevertheless, we will 
briefly identify an additional ground of ineligibility to inform the Petitioner that this issue should be 
addressed in future proceedings. 
The evidence in the record does not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial 
or executive capacity, as defined at section 10l(a)(44)(A) or (B) of the Act, at the time it filed the 
petition to extend his status. To be eligible for L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a manager 
or executive, the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary will perform the high-level responsibilities 
set forth in the statutory definition at section 10l(a)(44)(A)(i)-(iv) or section 10l(a)(44)(B)(i)-(iv) of 
the Act. 
3 
If the Petitioner establishes that the offered position meets all elements set forth in one of the statutory 
definitions, it must prove that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial or 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). In determining whether a given 
beneficiary's duties will be primarily managerial or executive, we consider the petitioner's description 
of the job duties, the company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate 
employees, the presence of other employees to relieve the beneficiary from performing operational 
duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a 
beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. Here, while, the record establishes that the 
Beneficiary has the requisite level of authority over the Petitioner's operations as a CEO and indirectly 
co-owns the company, it does not establish that he was primarily engaged in managerial or executive 
duties at the time of filing. 
As noted, the Petitioner submitted its initial 2019 business plan for its new office, which indicated that 
the Beneficiary would initially be required to perform many operational and administrative tasks upon 
arriving to the United States that do not fall within the statutory definitions of managerial or executive 
capacity. However, the business plan indicated that he was expected to delegate those non-managerial 
tasks to three newly hired staff by the end of the first year of operations. 4 The Petitioner indicates that 
it hired a "general manager, marketing and operations" in March 2020, immediately after the 
Beneficiary's arrival to the United States. The person hired for that position is the co-owner of the 
Petitioner's parent company, and other organizational charts for the company show him in the position 
of "managing director" for the entire corporate group, with the Beneficiary (who owns the other 50% 
of the parent company) in a lateral or subordinate position. Therefore, the evidence does not clearly 
demonstrate that the general manager reports to the Beneficiary and relieves him from involvement in 
the non-managerial, day-to-day activities of the company. Rather, it indicates that both owners, as the 
company's only employees, would more likely than not be significantly involved in operational and 
administrative tasks necessary to develop, market, sell and provide the company's services as of the 
date of filing and moving forward, as the Petitioner's latest personnel plan indicated that only one 
additional staff member would be hired in 2021. Although the Petitioner indicates that it receives some 
support services from the staff of a related foreign entity, such services are not sufficiently explained 
or documented in the record. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) only allows the intended U.S. operation one year within 
the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. If the business 
does not have the necessary staffing after one year to sufficiently relieve the Beneficiary from 
performing operational and administrative tasks, the Petitioner is ineligible for an extension. The fact 
that the Beneficiary will manage or direct a business does not necessarily establish eligibility for 
classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity within the meaning 
of section 101 (a)( 44) of the Act. 
We must also take into account the reasonable needs of the organization and acknowledge that a 
company's size alone may not be the only factor in determining whether a beneficiary is or would be 
4 The Petitioner indicated that it would be hiring a ·'manager, marketing and operations," a ·'senior associate, production 
and logistics," and an "associate, marketing & client service" in 2020. 
4 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act. However, it is 
appropriate for USCIS to consider the size of the petitioning company in conjunction with other 
relevant factors, such as the absence of employees who would perform the non-managerial or non­
executive operations of the company or a company that does not conduct business in a regular and 
continuous manner. Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 2006); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 
153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). Here, the record does not establish that the company's staffing 
or business operations have developed to the point where the Petitioner requires the Beneficiary to 
perform primarily managerial or executive duties. For this additional reason, the petition cannot be 
approved. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish that it has been doing business as defined the regulations and therefore, 
the appeal must be dismissed. Further, the record as presently constituted does not establish that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity as of the 
date of filing. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5