dismissed L-1A Case: Farming

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 02, 2024 In Re: 35228048 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a company owning and operating a free-range chicken farm, seeks to extend the 
temporary employment of the Beneficiary as its chief executive officer under the L-lA nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 101(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 the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity or that he 
would be employed in the United States in this same capacity. The Petitioner then filed an appeal that 
we dismissed. 1 The matter is now before us on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The 
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motions. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility 
for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
In our appeal decision, we determined the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish that the Beneficiary 
would be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity under an extended petition. We 
determined that the Beneficiary's duty description and provided supporting documentation indicated 
that he would likely have been primarily engaged in non-qualifying operational duties alongside the 
1 In dismissing the appeal, we concluded the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity under an extended petition, and since this issue was dispositive, we reserved the other 
ground for denial. 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 l&N Dec. 516, 
526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
farm's operational employees. We further indicated that the Petitioner provided little evidence to 
substantiate that he was primarily delegating non-qualifying operational tasks to his claimed 
subordinates. We also stated that the Petitioner submitted little supporting documentation to 
corroborate his primary performance of qualifying managerial level tasks, including supporting 
evidence to demonstrate its regular engagement of an asserted independent expert and contractors, or 
other employees, to relieve the Beneficiary from performing the non-qualifying tasks of operating the 
farm. Lastly, we reasoned that the Petitioner did not submit information or evidence reflecting its 
income, salaries, or financial status, such as tax documentation, audited financial statements, or any 
other similar supporting documentation to substantiate that it was sufficiently operating to support the 
Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial capacity as of the date the petition was filed on October 27, 
2023. 
In support of the motion to reopen, the Petitioner submits additional evidence it asserts reflects the 
Beneficiary working with a marketing company, communications he had with an "expert" related to 
the well-being of the Petitioner's livestock, and him formulating policies and procedures for the farm 
manager. The Petitioner further provided text messages between the Beneficiary and the farm 
manager regarding animal welfare techniques, as well as documentation showing his importation of 
materials and machines for future farming operations. 
The newly provided evidence from the Petitioner does not sufficiently demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary would have been primarily relieved from performing non-qualifying operational tasks 
when the petition was filed. As we indicated in our prior decision, 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 a managerial or executive position. There is no provision in the regulations 
allowing for an extension of this one-year period. 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. 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. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
On motion, the Petitioner provided few examples of his performance of qualifying managerial or 
executive-level duties, submitting one letter from a marketing specialist and text messages between 
the Beneficiary and the asserted farm manager. However, this evidence is insufficient to overcome 
the documentation we discussed in our prior decision reflecting the Beneficiary's engagement in 
nearly all the operational aspects of the business. First, the letter from the marketing contractor to the 
Beneficiary is dated in June 2024, more than eight months after the petition was filed in October 2023. 
Further, the text messages provided on appeal are undated and appear to reflect the Beneficiary's 
continued engagement in all the non-qualifying aspects of the business, rather than his primary 
performance of qualifying managerial or executive-level duties. The Petitioner also submitted a 
schedule C "profit and loss from business" included with his IRS Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income 
Tax Return indicating that the business only earned approximately $70,000 as of the end of that year. 
This leaves substantial question as to whether it was sufficiently operational to support the Beneficiary 
in a qualifying managerial or executive position at this time. 
2 
In fact, the Petitioner provided internal 2024 payroll documentation showing that it employed only the 
Beneficiary and the asserted farm manager up until June 2024, well after the petition was filed in 
October 2023. This evidence is contrary to the Petitioner's prior assertions that it was employing the 
farm manager and subordinate farm workers when the petition was filed. Therefore, the new evidence 
provided on appeal only further supports a conclusion that the Petitioner was not sufficiently 
operational to support the Beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity when the 
petition was filed in October 2023, rather than overcoming the prior conclusions set forth in our 
previous decision. The Petitioner must resolve discrepancies and ambiguities in the record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-
92 (BIA 1988). Here, the Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing 
the prior appeal. Because the Petitioner has not established new facts that would warrant reopening 
of the proceeding, we have no basis to reopen our prior decision. We will not re-adjudicate the petition 
anew and, therefore, the underlying petition remains denied. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
On motion, the Petitioner contends that we were incorrect to conclude that the Beneficiary's duties 
were primarily operational in nature, asserting that he would devote 50% of his time to "managing the 
company," handling matters related to policy formation and "critical components" for its operational 
employees to carry out. The Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary would be primarily tasked 
with developing livestock management plans, proper recordkeeping procedures, reviewing financial 
reports, hiring a marketing firm for marketing and social media, and developing human resources 
policies and practices. The Petitioner asserts that we incorrectly concluded that he would be 100% 
focused on non-qualifying tasks and reminds us they need only demonstrate that he was primarily 
performing managerial or executive-level tasks to qualify. The Petitioner also states that we erred in 
not considering that the Beneficiary arrived in the United States in November 2022, giving him just 
over six months to launch the new venture, rather than the one year reflected in the new office petition 
approval from June 6, 2022, to June 5, 2023. The Petitioner asserts the Beneficiary was "unnecessarily 
shortchanged," and that the petition should have been approved from November 2022 to November 
2023. The Petitioner also asserts that the Beneficiary would qualify as a function manager and an 
executive under an extended petition. 
Upon review, we conclude that we did not err in determining that the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity when the petition was filed. As we 
noted in prior decision, we acknowledge that the Beneficiary's delay entering the United States was 
likely difficult. However, the supporting documentation reflected that the Beneficiary was more likely 
than not directly involved in nearly all the operational aspects of the business when the petition was 
filed, and at minimum, this evidence showed him working alongside operational employees within the 
business to perform ordinary non-qualifying operational tasks, such as caring for and moving livestock 
and handling all the operational aspects of the farm. In contrast, the Petitioner provided little 
supporting evidence to corroborate his primary focus on managerial or executive level tasks, including 
his claimed development livestock management plans, hiring of a marketing firm for marketing and 
3 
social media, and development of human resources policies and practices. In fact, as we have 
discussed in this decision, the evidence the Petitioner submitted on motion leaves only further question 
as to whether it was sufficiently operational to support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity. For instance, the documentation provided on motion shows that it only earned $70,000 by 
the end of the 2023 and that it did not employ subordinate farm workers to relieve the Beneficiary and 
his asserted farm manager from non-qualifying tasks until June 2024, approximately eight months 
after the date the petition was filed. 
The Petitioner also asserts for the first time on motion that we should now consider that the Beneficiary 
would qualify as an executive under an extended petition. However, when dismissing an appeal, we 
did not address issues that were not raised with specificity on appeal, and those not raised are deemed 
to be waived. See, e.g., Matter ofM-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). The courts' view 
of issue waiver varies from circuit to circuit. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d I 083, I091 n.3 (9th Cir. 
2011) (finding that issues not raised in a brief are deemed waived); Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 
1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (finding that an issue referred to in an affected party's statement of the case 
but not discussed in the body of the brief is deemed waived); but see Hoxha v. Holder, 559 F.3d 157, 
163 (3d Cir. 2009) (issue raised in notice of appeal form is not waived, despite failure to address in 
the brief). 
Regardless, for reasons similar to those previously discussed, the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary would have been employed in an executive capacity under an extended petition. The 
statutory definition of the term "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. 
As we have indicated here, and our prior decision, the Petitioner submitted substantial supporting 
evidence reflecting his likely engagement in nearly all the operational aspects of the farm when the 
petition was filed in October 2023. The Petitioner provides little on motion to overcome this 
conclusion. Indeed, it provides supporting documentation only leaving further question as to whether 
its operations were sufficient to support the Beneficiary in an executive capacity where he must be 
primarily relieved from performing non-qualifying operational tasks and mainly focused on directing 
the management and setting the goals and policies of the Petitioner. However, the Petitioner submitted 
little supporting documentation to substantiate the Beneficiary's performance of executive-level tasks 
either when the petition was filed or thereafter. As such, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary would have been employed in an executive capacity under an extended petition. For the 
foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, the motion to 
reconsider will also be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(4). 
4 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
5