dismissed L-1A Case: Health Food/Herbal Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 16226072 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for L-IA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 20, 2021 
The Petitioner states that it intends to do business as an importer and exporter of "health foods and 
traditional oriental herb medicine and products." It seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as 
"Director of Operations" of its new office 1 under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees who are coming to be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-IA classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its 
affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to worl<: 
temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the Texas 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; 
(2) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity; and (3) the new office 
would support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive position within one year of the petition's 
approval. The matter is before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving a new 
office, 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 term "newoffice"refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States 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 no more than 
one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive ormanage1ial position . 
Further, in the case of a new office petition, 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. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, the Director denied the petition because the Petitioner did not establish: (1) it had 
secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office; (2) the Beneficiary was employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity; and (3) the new office would support the Beneficiary in a managerial 
or executive position within one year of the petition's approval. Each ground stands as an independent 
basis for the denial of the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner only addresses the third ground regarding 
the Beneficiary's proposed employment, but it does not dispute or otherwise discuss the first or second 
grounds concerning the physical premises requirement or the Beneficiary's employment abroad. 
Although the Petitioner marked Box l .b in Part 2 of the Form I-290B, indicating that it intended to 
submit a brief and/or additional evidence within 30 days of filing the appeal, the record contains no 
such additional evidence. As the Petitioner does not address issues on appeal concerning the physical 
premises requirement or the Beneficiary's employment abroad, it has abandoned its claims. See 
Matter of R-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657,658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing party fails to 
appeal an issue addressed in an adverse decision, that issue is waived); see also Sepulveda v. U.S. Atty 
Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 
4 711885 at* 1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as 
he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). When an appellant fails to properly challenge one or 
more of the independent grounds upon which the Director based the overall determination, the filing 
party has abandoned any challenge of that ground or grounds, and it follows that the Director's adverse 
determination will be affirmed. Sapuppo v. Allstate Flor;d;an Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678,680 (11th Cir. 
2014); United States v. Cooper, No. 17-11548, 2019 WL2414405, at *3 (11th Cir. June 10, 2019). 
For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
In light of the above, it is unnecessary to analyze the remaining independent ground, given that two 
other grounds are dispositive of the appeal. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (finding 
it unnecessary to analyze additional grounds when another independent issue is dispositive of the 
appeal); see also Matter of L-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). Because the Petitioner has 
abandoned its claims regarding two issues that served as grounds for the denial, this petition cannot 
be approved. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2