dismissed L-1A Case: Food Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 1-A-A-D-S-J-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. I I, 2018 
PETITION: FORM I- I 29, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a food manulacturing company, seeks to continue the Benet1ciary's te~nporary 
employment as its director and chief executive officer under the L- I A nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees.' See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section I 0 I (a)(J S)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(IS)(L). The L-IA classit1cation 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity under the 
extended petition. The Director also determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that it is doing 
business as defined by the regulations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that its planned operations have been delayed due to unforeseen 
electrical capacity problems in Puerto Rico. The Petitioner contends that the record includes "ample 
evidence" that the Beneficiary will act in an executive capacity under the extended petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classit1cation tor a new oflice, a qualifying 
organization must have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or 
involves specialized knowledge," tor one continuous year within three years preceding the 
beneliciary's application for admission into the United States. Section lOI(a)(IS)(L) of the Act. In 
addition, the beneficiary must seck to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his 
1 
The Petitioner previously filed a ''new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
January 30, 2015, until January 29, 2016. A ·'new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United 
States through a parent. branch, affiliate, or subsidiary for Jess than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)( I )(ii)(F). The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(\)(J)(v)(C) allows a "new office"' operation one year within the date of approval of the 
petition to suppon an executive or managerial position. 
Mealer of 1-A-A-D-S-J-. LLC 
or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive 
capacity. Id. 
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(1)(14)(ii). 
ll. DOING BUSINESS 
The primary issue we will address is whether the Petitioner has established that it has been doing 
business for the previous year as required by the regulations. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B). _ 
The regulations define a qualilying organization as one doing business as an employer in the United 
States and at least one other country. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(G). "Doing business," is defined 
as the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods or services. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(H). The mere presence of an agent or office of the qualifYing organization will not 
suffice. Id. 
The Petitioner stated that it is "engaged in the business of food manufacturing, sales, and distribution," 
specifically Italian specialty products. The Petitioner indicated that it was in the process of 
establishing a manufacturing plant in Puerto Rico when it tiled this petition in February 2016. ln 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) in March 2017, the Petitioner acknowledged that 
it was not yet doing business in the United . States. The Petitioner explained that its leased 
manufacturing plant "did not have the sufficient electrical power to engage and maintain the 
Company's operations." The Petitioner stated that it is working with the Puerto Rican government 
ofticials to resolve this issue and projected that the required electrical work would be completed by 
"mid-April of 2017, which will immediately allow (the Petitioner] to begin production of pasta 
sauces. The Petitioner did not provide evidence that it was regularly selling goods, providing 
services, or earning revenue in Puerto Rico. 
In denying the petition, the Director emphasized that the electrical issues faced by the Petitioner 
were foreseeable. On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the· Director's conclusion, stating that the 
electrical issues were unanticipated and "completely beyond the Petitioner's control." However, the 
foreseeability of business problems, however unfortunate, is not relevant to assessing whether the 
Petitioner is doing business following its initial year as a new office. The Petitioner may not be 
granted a second "new office" L-1 A visa approval. A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee visa is 
not an entrepreneurial visa classification allowing a beneficiary a prolonged stay in the United States 
in a non-managerial or non-executive capacity to start up a new business. The regulations allow for 
a one-year period for the U.S. entity to commence doing business and develop to the point that it 
will support a beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive position. The only provision that 
2 
Mauer of 1-A-A-D-S-.1-. LLC 
allows for the extension of a "new office" visa petition requires a petitioner to demonstrate that it is 
staffed and has been "doing business" in a regular, systematic, and continuous manner for the 
previous year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii). 
As we have discussed, the Petitioner directly acknowledges that it was not doing business as of the 
date of the petition. It provides no assertions or evidence on appeal that it was doing business at the 
time of filing, or even at the time of this appeal in August 2017, approximately 18 months later. 
Regardless of the reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it was regularly, systematically, 
and continuously providing goods and services. 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). For this reason, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
Ill. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
As noted, the Director also denied the petition finding the Petitioner did not support its claim that the 
Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity under the extended petition. 
In denying the petition, the Director pointed to the Petitioner's lack of operations as of the date of the 
petition. As noted, the Petitioner does not dispute this lack of operations on appeal. Indeed, in response 
to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has no subordinates, noting that it will only rehire 
employees once the electrical issues laced by the company are resolved and it begins operations. 
In its appeal, the Petitioner does not fully address this basis for denial or provide any additional 
evidence related to the Beneficiary's employment in a managerial or executive capacity. Following a 
review of the evidence, we concur with the Director's decision that the Petitioner has not established 
that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. 
Since the other ground for dismissal discussed above is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we will 
not address this issue further. Nevertheless, we note that if the Petitioner seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary in this classification in the future, it will need to submit sufficient evidence to establish 
that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity as 
defined at section IOI(a)(44) ofthe Act. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal must be dismissed as the Petitioner did not establish that it was doing business as of the 
date of the petition or that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of!-A-A-D-S-.1-. LLC, ID# 1036512 (AAO Apr. II, 2018) 
3