dismissed L-1A Case: Furniture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 6, 2024 In Re: 30150471 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, which sells furniture manufactured by its foreign parent company, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as executive director and head designer of its new office 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. § 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that: (1) the foreign parent company employed the Beneficiary for at least one continuous 
year during the three years preceding the filing of the petition; (2) the foreign parent company 
employed the Beneficiary outside the United States in a managerial or executive capacity; (3) the 
Beneficiary's intended position would qualify as a managerial or executive capacity within one year 
after approval of the petition; and (4) the new office would be able to support a managerial or executive 
capacity within one year after approval of the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal under 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&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 capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," 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 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. The petitioner 
must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or her 
to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A petition involving a new office must include evidence showing that the new office will, within one 
year of the approval of the petition, support an executive or managerial position. Supporting evidence 
must establish the size of the United States investment and the financial ability of the foreign entity to 
remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business in the United States. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(2). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence to meet the above 
requirements. We agree, as explained below. 
After the Beneficiary earned degrees in industrial design and graphic design, she and her spouse co­
founded the Petitioner's foreign parent company in Colombia in 2005. The petitioning U.S. company, 
established inc=]2022, intends to import and sell furniture manufactured by the parent company. 
The Beneficiary entered the United States in September 2022 as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor, and was 
still in the United States when the Petitioner filed the petition on June 8, 2023. 
The Petitioner's initial submission included a business plan, which indicated that the Beneficiary's 
salary would be $67,000 per year plus bonuses and other benefits. The business plan forecast first­
year expenses totaling $352,767, against expected first-year gross profit of $383,400. The business 
plan indicated that the foreign parent company "initially invested US$34,777.00 to establish the 
Company in the United States," and "will make an additional capital infusion of approximately 
US$110,000.00 ... around June of2023." 
The Petitioner submitted a translated copy of the foreign parent company's 2022 tax return; 
documentation indicating that she and her spouse were selling their apartment in I I and copies 
of three loan agreements. We will discuss details of these materials further below. 
In the RFE, the Director requested "specifics about what [the] proposed business will encompass; what 
steps will be required to get [the] business operational; and how much capital will be required for [the 
Petitioner] to enact [its] proposed plans." The Director also concluded that the Petitioner had 
submitted "no evidence to demonstrate that the foreign entity has ability to cover the estimated 
expenses for the U.S. business." 
The Petitioner's response to the RFE included documentation indicating that the Beneficiary's spouse 
had transferred the proceeds from the sale of the apartment to the Petitioner's bank account. The 
Petitioner also submitted copies of 27 invoices from the petitioning U.S. entity, dated between 
November 2022 and July 2023, and copies of the foreign entity's bank statements from March, April, 
and May 2023. 
The Director denied the petition based, in part, on the conclusion that the Petitioner had "not 
sufficiently demonstrated that the foreign entity has the financial ability to remunerate the beneficiary 
and to commence doing business in the U.S." The Director added that the business plan did "not 
sufficiently explain[] how much money will be required to commence doing business in the United 
States." 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director "overlooked ... an additional investment of over 
$80,000 made in July 2023," from "the sale of an apartment in Colombia owned by the [Beneficiary] 
and her spouse." The Petitioner also asserts that the Director did not consider the invoices from the 
petitioning U.S. company, which show "a total amount of $129,498.07." The Petitioner asserts that 
de novo review of these materials will overcome the stated grounds for denial. We will discuss these 
materials here. 
The Petitioner's business plan indicated that the foreign parent company "initially invested 
US$34, 777 .00 to establish the Company in the United States." Figures in that plan showed that the 
Petitioner had already spent about $21,000 of that initial sum on various startup costs, thereby reducing 
the amount available to pay the Beneficiary's salary and other expenses. 
The business plan added that the foreign parent company "will make an additional capital infosion of 
approximately US$110,000.00 ... around June of 2023." There was no indication that this infosion 
took place before the Petitioner filed the petition on June 8, 2023. 
The Petitioner indicated that this infosion would involve the proceeds from the sale of the 
Beneficiary's apartment inl IA copy of the sales agreement set the selling price at COL$535 
million. The Petitioner stated that this amount is roughly equal to US $120,000, indicating a 
conversion rate of about 4,458.33 Colombian pesos to one U.S. dollar, although the Petitioner did not 
submit evidence to corroborate this conversion rate. 
This sum, however, would arise from the sale of property personally owned by the Petitioner and her 
spouse, rather than assets owned by the foreign employer, which is a separate legal entity from its 
shareholders. The Petitioner must meet all eligibility requirements at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§ I 03 .2(b )(I). The expectation of future capital from the sale of shareholders' personal property does 
not show that the funds were available to the foreign entity at the time of filing to show that it could 
remunerate the Beneficiary. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner's response to the RFE indicated that the sale of the Beneficiary's apartment 
occurred after the petition's June 8, 2023 filing date. Bank statements show that the proceeds reached 
the Petitioner's bank account in July 2023, via four wire transfers from the Beneficiary's spouse. 
Although the Petitioner initially estimated that this sale would result in a "capital infusion of 
approximately US$110,000.00," the funds transferred to the Petitioner after the sale totaled less than 
$90,000. The Petitioner did not explain why this amount was about $20,000 lower than the estimate. 
Instead, on appeal, the Petitioner combines the lower amount with the Petitioner's previous investment 
for a total of about $110,000, which is not how the Petitioner originally described the financial plans. 
The proceeds from a sale that had not yet happened, involving property that the foreign parent 
company did not own, cannot establish the financial ability of the foreign entity to remunerate the 
beneficiary and to commence doing business in the United States at the time of filing. 
The foreign parent company's 2022 tax return shows a net profit of about COL$8 million, and net 
current assets of about COL$29 million. Using the exchange rate cited by the Petitioner, the net profit 
is about US $1,800, and the net current assets amount to less than US $6,000. These sums are 
3 
considerably lower than the $110,000 that the Petitioner claimed were imminently forthcoming at the 
time of filing in June 2023. 
Copies of the foreign entity's bank statements show that the foreign entity had a balance below US 
$3,000 as of May 31, 2023, about a week before the filing date. This is broadly consistent with the 
info1mation on the 2022 tax return, indicating that the foreign entity's available liquid assets were 
substantially below the amount said to be earmarked for investment in the petitioning U.S. company. 
Three loan agreements indicate that the parent company had borrowed a total of US $25,000 in 2022. 
The Petitioner did not show that these borrowed funds remained available for investment in the 
petitioning U.S. entity at the time of filing. If the borrowed funds were already part of the existing 
investment of $34,777, then they are no longer available to the foreign entity. Furthennore, the te1ms 
of the agreements show that the loans had to be repaid in full in July and August 2023, within two 
months of the petition's filing date, after which the funds in those loans would not have been available 
to either the Petitioner or its parent company. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director requested "specifics about what [the] proposed business 
will encompass; what steps will be required to get [the] business operational; and how much capital 
will be required for [the Petitioner] to enact [its] proposed plans." The Director also concluded that 
the Petitioner had submitted "no evidence to demonstrate that the foreign entity has ability to cover 
the estimated expenses for the U.S. business." The Petitioner's response to the RFE did not directly 
address the request for more details about the steps, and capital, necessary to bring the Petitioner to 
full operation. 
The response included a list of 28 invoices from the petitioning U.S. entity. The Petitioner asserts on 
appeal that these invoices show "a total amount of $129,498.07 ." The record does not show that the 
Petitioner received that full amount. Rather, the cited figure is the total amount billed by the Petitioner. 
The record does not show that the Petitioner received the full amount. 
The Petitioner submitted copies of 2 7 of the 28 listed invoices, showing a total of $81,040 paid to the 
Petitioner and an additional $31,437 owed to the Petitioner. Bank statements from the Petitioner's 
account corroborate the payments shown on 15 of the invoices, totaling $59,741, less than half the 
unsubstantiated total asserted on appeal. 
Even then, the bank statements do not show that this income accumulated at the U.S. company. The 
bank statements from the first half of 2023 show end-of-month balances ranging from $358 to $1,404. 
The bank charged seven overdraft fees in March 2023, a month when the Petitioner's account was 
overdrawn by over $435. The checking account balance as of April 20, 2023 was 49 cents. At the 
time of these bank statements, the Petitioner was not yet paying salaries to the Beneficiary or to any 
other employees. Therefore, although the Petitioner was earning income through sales in the first half 
of 2023, that income would not have been sufficient to meet the Petitioner's projected payroll expenses 
or other operating costs. 
The bank statements from before the filing date show two incoming transfers clearly attributed to the 
foreign parent entity: $4,133 in February 2023 and $20,000 in May 2023. But the statements also 
show that the Petitioner sent almost double that amount back to the foreign company. Eight outgoing 
4 
transfers between January and May 2023 totaled $44,284. Taking all these transfers into account, they 
show a net outflow of $20,151 from the Petitioner to its foreign parent company. 
The Petitioner has not met its burden of proof to establish that the foreign parent company was 
financially able to remunerate the Beneficiary and commence operations in the United States at the 
time of filing. We will therefore dismiss the appeal. 
Because the above issue is sufficient by itself to dete1mine the outcome of the proceeding, we reserve 
argument on the remaining issues concerning the Beneficiary's claimed employment abroad and 
whether the Beneficiary's intended position qualifies as a primarily executive or managerial capacity. 1 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 ( 1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter olL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5