dismissed L-1A Case: Ice Cream Store

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF N-C-F- LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 22,2017 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an ice cream store, 1 seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as general manager 
of its new office under the L-1 A 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-1 A 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 Vermont Service Center Director denied the petitiOn. concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that: (I) the Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity within one year of approval of the petition ; and (2) a qualifying relationship exists between the 
Petitioner and the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the record includes sufticient evidence to establish that it has a 
qualifying relationship with the foreign entity and that the Beneficiary' s duties are the qualifying 
activities that an L-1 A manager performs. 
The record on appeal includes sufficient evidence to establish that a qualifying relationship exists 
between the Petitioner and the foreign entity. The Director's decision will be withdrawn on this 
issue. 2 However . the reco rd does not establish that the Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity within one year as required by the ··new oflice" 
regulations . We also find an additional issue that precludes approval of the petition . 
Upon de novo review. we will dismiss the appeal. 
1 
An Internet search for the Petitioner's ice cream store revealed that the store had been reported "'closed." See 
https://www (last visited Dec. 20, 20 17). In any future proceedings. the Petitioner 
must establish that it is conducting business. 
2 
The record includes evidence that the foreign entity in this matter owns and controls a majority interest in the limited 
Iiabi I ity company. A !though the Petitioner 's 20 14 federal tax return identified a di ftercnt ownership arrangement. the 
Petitioner has offered an explanation for the discrepancy on appeal. The record is s ufficient to establish by a 
preponderance of the evidence that a qualifying relationship exists between the Petitioner and the foreign entity. 
Matter of N-C-F- LU' 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A 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 10l(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 atTiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. !d. 
The term "new office·· 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). If the Form I-129. Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker. indicates that the Beneficiary is coming to the United States in L-1 A status to open or to be 
employed in a new office. 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 includes 
information regarding the new office· s physical premises. 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. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Petitioner was organized in May 2014 3 to open an ice cream shop in the United States. The 
Petitioner noted that it intended to expand and eventually open additional shops and to franchise its 
brand. 
The Director determined that the record did not demonstrate a realistic expectation that the 
reasonable needs of the planned operation will justify an L-1 A executive or manager who primarily 
performs qualifying activities. The Director noted. for example, that the Petitioner planned to hire 
an accountant a market representative. four clerks, and two dishwashers. but found that the record 
did not indicate when the Petitioner expected to till these positions. The Director concluded that the 
record did not establish that the Petitioner would grO\v to a point in its first year where the 
Beneficiary will be involved in activities that are primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
The term ""managerial capacity'' is defined as an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily manages the organization or a department subdivision. function, or component: 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory. professional. or managerial employees. or 
manages an essential function; if the employee directly supervises other employees. has the authority 
to take personnel actions, or if no other employee is directly supervised. functions at a senior-level 
within the organization or with respect to the function managed: and exercises discretion over the 
3 Although the Petitioner was organized in May 2014 and took possession of leased premises for its initial shop in .I une 
2014, the Petitioner did not obtain licenses and open the ice cream store until the April-May 2015 time frame. It did not 
start doing business in the United States until April-May 2015. and thus qualifies as a new office under the regulations. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(F). 
2 
Matter ofN-C-F- LLC 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
101(a)(44)(A) ofthe Act. 
The Act defines the term '"executive capacity'. as an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily directs the management of the organization or a major component or function 
thereof: establishes the goals and policies of the organization. component or function: exercises 
wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction 
from higher-level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. Section 
10l(a)(44)(B) ofthe Act. 
We will address both the Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's intended duties as well as the 
Petitioner's business plan and proposed staffing to determine whether the Petitioner has established 
this eligibility requirement. 
A. Duties 
When a new business is first established and commences operations. the regulations recognize that a 
designated manager or executive responsible for setting up operations will be engaged in a variety of 
low-level activities not normally performed by employees at the executive or managerial level and 
that often the full range of managerial or executive responsibility cannot be performed in that first 
year. The ·'new office .. regulations allow a newly established petitioner one year to develop to a 
point that it can support the employment of a beneficiary in a primarily managerial or executive 
position. 
Accordingly. if a petitioner indicates that a beneficiary is coming to the United States to open a '"new 
office,·· it must show that it is prepared to commence doing business immediately upon approval so 
that it will support a manager or executive within the one-year timeframe. 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 tor a 
manager or executive who will primarily perform qualifying duties. See generally 8 C.F.R. 
~ 214.2(1)(3 )( v ). The petitioner must describe the nature of its business. its proposed organizational 
structure, and financial goals. and submit evidence to show that it has the financial ability to 
remunerate the beneficiary and commence doing business in the United States. ld. 
When examining the managerial capacity of a beneficiary, we review a petitioner's description of 
the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 2l4.2(1)(3)(ii). The definitions of executive and managerial capacity 
have two parts. First. the petitioner must show that the beneficiary will perf(mn certain high-level 
responsibilities. Champion World. Inc. v. INS. 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. 
July 30, 1991 ). Second. the petitioner must prove that the beneficiary wi II be primarily engaged in 
executive or managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the 
petitioner's other employees. See. e.g .. Family Inc. 1'. US CIS. 469 F.3d 1313. 1316 (9th Cir. 2006 ); 
Champion World. 940 F.2d at 1533. 
Matter of N-C-F- LLC 
In a letter in support of the petition, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary will perform 
managerial and executive duties during the first year of operation. noting that those duties otten 
overlap during the initial year of operations. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary ""will be 
responsible for the overall launching, supervision and direction of [the Petitioner's] management and 
operations" and described her duties as including: 
[C]onducting general administration affairs of the company. acting as a liaison and 
representative for the company. engaging in long-range planning. identifying business 
oppm1unities, analyz[ing] the market conditions to set strategic planning goals. 
setting quotas. expenses. development of advet1ising and promoting the store and 
franchise opportunities as well as outlining how franchises opportunities should be 
offered. products and services to be presented to the public to attract potential clients 
and franchises. She will also be in charge of negotiating contracts on behalf of the 
company. 
The Petitioner also divided the Beneficiary's time into four areas including: management. 
administrative, and discretionary functions (40%): financial functions (20%): development functions 
(20% ), and marketing functions (20% ). The Petitioner submitted a lengthy narrative of the proposed 
duties under each of these functions re-stating portions of the statutory definitions of managerial and 
executive capacity. The Petitioner also stated generally that the Beneficiary would oversee financial 
functions with the accountant. develop the company's retail operations and franchising 
opportunities, and gather and analyze marketing data. 
The Petitioner repeated this job description in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). 
The Petitioner emphasized its plan to develop its ice cream concept into a franchise and stated that 
·'[ c ]onsidering this is the first store, [the Beneficiary] must ensure that she launches a solid brand to 
create an incentive for potential franchisees." 
The Petitioner describes the Beneficiary's position in general terms which indicates her senior level 
of authority within the company, but which offers little insight into what she will actually do on a 
day-to-day basis during the first year of operations and beyond. Merely repeating the language of 
the statute does not satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof Fedin Bros. Co .. Ltd r. Sava, 
724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N. Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990): A\yr Associates. Inc. 
v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at 5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not delineated how the Beneficiary will move beyond daily 
involvement in non-qualifying tasks related to financial review, marketing. and developing the 
Petitioner's franchise to primarily performing managerial or executive duties within the one-year 
time frame. The Petitioner's broad allocation of the Beneficiary's time to various functions which 
includes manageriaL executive, and non-qualifying duties does not provide a sufficient framework to 
analyze and evaluate what the Beneficiary will be doing within one-year of approval. 
4 
Matter olN-C-F- LLC' 
The Petitioner docs not provide any additional information regarding the Beneficiary"s actual 
proposed duties on appeaL but reiterates that the Beneficiary is the individual who will make all 
business decisions related to becoming a new franchisor, and that such decisions will impact 
long-term profitability. The Petitioner repeats that the Beneficiary ··will decide, supervise and 
implement all policy goals with regards to its franchises sales, organization, marketing. training. 
hiring and firing policies, operations, management, etc." However. the fact that the Beneficiary will 
manage or direct a business does not necessarily establish eligibility tor classification as an 
intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity within the meaning of section 
101(a)(44) of the Act. By statute. eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a 
position be ·'primarily'· executive or managerial in nature. Sections 101(A)(44)(A) and (B) of the 
Act. While the Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day operations and 
possess the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making, the position 
descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that her actual duties will advance to be primarily 
managerial or executive in nature within the one-year time frame. 
B. Business Plan and Staffing 
The Petitioner's business plan described four employees' positions, including the Benef~ciary as the 
general manager. an administrative manager. a clerk, and a dishwasher. The business plan also 
included yearly cost estimates and an organizational chart showing the Beneficiary as general 
manager, directly supervising an accountant, an administrative manager. and a market analyst. The 
chart also included four clerks and two dishwashers subordinate to the administrative manager's 
position. The Petitioner's business plan included a Revenue Expense Forecast for the years 2015 
through 2018. With respect to executive. administrative. and sales wages. the Petitioner indicated 
that it expects to pay $102,000 in salaries and wages in 2015-2016.$169.500 in 2016-2017. and 
$190.500 in 2017-2018. 
Specifically. the business plan forecast allocates $42.000 to executive wages, $30.000 to 
administrative wages. and $30.000 to sales wages in the 2015-2016 year,
4 
identified as the 
Petitioner's first year of operation. The executive wage figure is inconsistent with the Beneficiary's 
salary of $50.000 listed on the Form 1-129. The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency in the 
record with independent. objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. ,','ee Malter o( Ho. 
19 I&N Dec. 582. 591-92 (BIA 1988). The Petitioner also states that it has hired a full-time 
administrative manager. and plans to employ an accountant and a market analyst. in addition to four 
clerks and two dishwashers. It is unclear how the Petitioner intends to employ or contract with three 
full-time administrative professionals with $30.000 (plus an additional $1200 for accounting 
services) in total salary projected for all three positions. 
We have considered the Petitioner's assertions in response to the Director's RFE and on appeal that 
the Petitioner will outsource its accounting services and marketing functions. The Petitioner 
~ As separate lines of expense, the forecast allocates $1200 to accounting fees and $600 to legal fees during this same 
time period. 
Matter ofN-C-F- LLC 
submitted a contract with an accounting service to provide bookkeeping, payroll. and sales tax 
services, at a $325 per month rate with an option to pay an additional $500 to prepare annual tax 
returns. The Petitioner also provided June 2015 invoices for website development and a six-month 
social media package for a total cost of $7.000. The Petitioner claims that it plans to continue the 
accounting and advertising services. The Petitioner does not explain how the cost of these plans 
corresponds to its projected expenses as outlined in its business plan. further, the record docs not 
include sufficient evidence demonstrating that either of these outside services will perform sufficient 
work to relieve the Beneficiary from performing financial and marketing tasks or that the 
Beneficiary will supervise or direct the management of the accounting and advertising lirms. ~ The 
record is deficient in this regard. 
It is also unclear how the Petitioner plans to staff its business v,:ith the four clerks and two 
dishwashers necessary to actually sell the product to customers. thereby producing the revenue to 
support the business, with only $30,000 in wages allocated to these positions in the first year. The 
clerks and dishwashers are essential to the Petitioner's business model and are needed to support the 
retail establishment and generate revenue. It is not apparent how the Petitioner will staff its business 
with these positions given that it has allocated at most $5000 in wages for each in the first year. This 
wage level does not support the assertion that the Petitioner will be fully staffed and able to relieve 
the Beneficiary from performing the non-qualifying duties associated with running the ice cream 
store within one year of approval. 
The evidence in the record does not establish that the company will be able to support a qualifying 
managerial or executive position within a twelve-month period. The regulations require the 
Petitioner to present a credible picture of where the company will stand in one year, and to provide 
sufficient evidence in support of its claim that the company will grow to a point where it can support 
a managerial or executive position within that time. In this case, the stafting projections and 
contracts noted above, along with the business plan and the financial projections do not support a 
finding that the Beneficiary will have a sufficient staff to relieve her from performing the daily tasks 
of running an ice cream store. It appears more likely that she will perform many of the tasks that she 
purports to manage. 
Based on these deficiencies. we find that the Petitioner has not established that it will be able to 
support the Beneficiary in a primarily managerial or executive capacity by the end of the iirst year of 
operations. 
5 
When discussing the use of outside vendors. the Petitioner refers to an unpublished decision in which we determined 
that a beneficiary met the requirements of serving in a managerial and executive capacity for L-1 classification even 
though he was the sole employee. The Petitioner has not established that the facts of this petition are analogous to those 
in the unpublished decision. Moreover. while 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that our precedent decisions are binding on 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
.
Matter qj"N-C-F- LLC 
III. ONE YEAR OF CONTINUOUS FULL- TIME EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
Although the Director did not address the issue ofthe Beneficiary's one-year of continuous full-time 
employment \Vith the foreign entity, we find that the Petitioner has also not established this essential 
element of eligibility for this visa classification. In order to qualify for the classification requested, 
the Petitioner must establish that the Beneficiary has at least one continuous year or full-time 
employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the tiling of the 
petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(iii). In this case , the petition was tiled on October 8. 2015: 
therefore, three years preceding the filing of the petition would be October 8, 2012. This is the date 
from which the one year of full-time continuous employment with the qualifying organization must 
be measured. 
The Petitioner initially stated on the Form I-129 L Classification Supplement that the Beneticiary 
was employed by in Venezuela from March 1, 2012, until September 2. 2015. The 
Petitioner stated in a letter in support of the petition, that the Beneficiary '·exercised her duties as a 
general manager in a full-time basis from March 1. 2012 through .June 23, 2013. and then from .I une 
23. 2013 through the present on a part-time /reduced basis.'' The Petitioner acknowledged that the 
Beneficiary entered the United States on June 24, 2013. and then remained in the Lnited States until 
the time of tiling. The record does not include the Beneficiary's employment records. pay 
statements, or other objective evidence of her actual employment with the f()reign entity. 
Notwithstanding the lack of evidence to corroborate the Beneticim-y's claimed employment, even if 
we were persuaded that the Beneficiary was employed abroad for the time periods claimed. the 
record does not indicate that the Beneficiary would have the required one year of continuous 
employment abroad , as the Beneficiary spent a significant period of time in the United States during 
her claimed foreign employment. The one year of continuous employment must take place outside 
of the United States. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). \Vhile periods of time spent in the United 
States tor business or pleasure \vill not interrupt the one year of continuous employment abroad. 
such time cannot be counted toward fultillment of the one-year requirement. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(A). Even if the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary was employed by the 
foreign entity on a full-time basis from October 8. 2012 (the beginning of the three-year period) . 
until June 23. 2013. the Beneficiary would have been employed by the i()reign entity for 
approximately 258 days, or less than one year, in the three years preceding the tiling of the petition .6 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary had one continuous year of full-time 
employment abroad with the foreign entity within the three years preceding the tiling of the petition. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(iii). For this additional reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
r, Furthermore. although not disclosed by the Petitioner, govemment records indicate that the Beneficiary was in the 
United States from October I I. 2012, until October 25, 2012, and ti·om December 21, 2012, until April I I. 2013, in 132 
status. This evidence raises further questions regarding how much time the Beneficiary spent in the United States during 
the time period that the Petitioner claims she was employed by the foreign entity. 
Matter of N-C-F- LLC 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be 
employed in a managerial or executive position for the Petitioner within one year, and that she had 
been employed for one continuous year of full-time employment with the foreign entity within the 
three years preceding the filing of the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofN-C-F- LLC ID# 839636 (AAO Dec. 22, 2017)