dismissed L-1A Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 21956044 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 4, 2022 
The Petitioner intends to operate a comprehensive IT solutions business. It seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary temporarily as the "International Infrastructure Manager" of its new office I 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 10l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity 
and that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of 
the petition's approval. The matter is now 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 because 
the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity within one year of the petition's approval. Because the identified basis for denial is 
dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate 
regarding the Beneficiary's employment abroad. 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 alsoMatterofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7(BIA2015) (declining 
to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a position requiring 
specialized knowledge 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)( 1 ). In addition, the beneficiary 
must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
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 . 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3 )(ii). 
In addition, regarding 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. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY 
The primary issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to establish 
that its operation would support the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity within one year of the 
petition's approval. 2 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or 
manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
A. New Office Requirements 
In the case of a new office petition, we review the petitioner's business and hiring plans and evidence 
that the business will grow sufficiently to support a beneficiary in the intended managerial or executive 
capacity. The petitioner has the burden to establish that it would realistically develop to the point 
where it would require the beneficiary to perform duties that are primarily managerial or executive in 
nature within one year of the petition's approval. Accordingly, we consider the totality of the evidence 
in determining whether the proposed position is plausible based on a petitioner's anticipated staffing 
levels and stage of development within a one-year period. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
The Petitioner claimed no employees and no income at the time of filing and stated that the Beneficiary 
would be compensated $38,400 annually. As suppmiing evidence, the Petitioner provided a business 
plan, which includes an "actions" timetable itemizing steps the Petitioner plans to take in its first year 
of operation. The business plan tasks the Beneficiary with obtaining the "required permits and 
licenses," stating that the Beneficiary will complete this task upon approval of this petition. The 
Petitioner did not specify which permits and licenses are prerequisites for commencing business 
2 The Petitioner does not claim thatthe Beneficiary's position in the United States would be in an executive capacity. 
2 
activity, nor did it provide an approximate timeframe for completing this process. It is therefore 
unclear when the Petitioner would be ab le to commence business activity. 
The business plan also states that the Petitioner "will focus its efforts on consulting and software 
development" and that it will also sell "courses through digital platforms." However, the business 
plan does not establish that the Petitioner will have the necessary staffing to commence these 
endeavors during its first year of operation. The business plan contains a profit and loss statement 
which lists the Beneficiary, a sales supervisor, and two specialized business advisers as part of the 
Petitioner's first-year operating expenses. However, it is unclear when the Petitioner plans to hire 
employees or contractors who will carry out the consulting and software development services that it 
envisions as its main revenue source. Although the business plan makes broad references to a 
"partnership" with I I which is described as the Petitioner's "channel to start providing 
consulting services," the record contains no evidence of a fonnal business relationship between the 
Petitioner and I I or evidence establishing! I role, if any, in the Petitioner's business. 
The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter 
o/Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
Furthermore, the Petitioner's projected profit and loss statement does not indicate that the Petitioner 
plans to incur expenses for contracting! I or any other consulting or software development 
service providers during its first year of operation. The absence of evidence showing that the Petitioner 
plans to incur such expenditures is at odds with the Petitioner's first-year revenue projections, which 
show a gradual revenue increase from $8350 in the third month of operation to $21,100 in the twelfth 
month, totaling an estimated $150,250 in annual revenue. The source of this projected growth is 
unclear, given that the Petitioner's first year hiring plan and projected expenses include no provisions 
for IT consultants or software developers. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director sought evidence that would determine whether the 
Petitioner would have the organizational structure and staffing levels to support the Beneficiary in a 
primarily managerial capacity by the end of its first year of operation. More specifically, the Director 
questioned whether the Petitioner would be able to support the Beneficiary in a managerial or 
executive position by the end of its first year of operation and asked the Petitioner to describe the 
scope of its business and financial goals and to provide evidence of any capital contributions used to 
fund its operation. 
In response, the Petitioner resubmitted its original business plan, emphasizing the "actions" timetable 
and proposed staffing during its first year of operation. The Petitioner pointed to the staffing 
information in the business plan, which lists and includes job descriptions for six proposed positions: 
a chief executive officer, an international infrastructure manager, a system manager, an unspecified 
number of "programmers and developers," a sales supervisor, and a specialized business adviser. 
However, the Petitioner's first-year profit and loss statement indicates that in its "new office" phase 
of operation the Petitioner intended to hire four employees, filling only three of those positions - an 
international infrastructure manager, a sales supervisor, and two specialized business advisers. In 
addition, the Petitioner provided a projected organizational chart depicting a nine-person staff. 
However, it offered no information as to when it plans to fill positions beyond the three listed in its 
first-year profit and loss statement. As such, it is unclear whether the Petitioner will have adequate 
staffing to relieve the Beneficiary from necessary operational tasks, such as marketing and selling the 
3 
Petitioner's services to clients, building and maintaining the Petitioner's website, and performing 
administrative tasks, such as, for instance, answeringphones, schedulingmeetings, or issuing invoices 
and collecting payments from clients. 
Likewise, it remains unclear how the Petitioner plans to provide IT services to its clients. Because the 
RFE response contains only a resubmitted copy of the original profit and loss statement, which does 
not include IT professional services among the operating expenses, it remains unclear how and when 
the Petitioner will have an IT staff to work on client projects. This ambiguity is particularly 
problematic given that the Petitioner's business plan makes repeated references to a "development 
team" and indicates that in months 10-12 ofits first year of operation the Petitioner plans to "[g]enerate 
new IT tools to off er[] clients." The Petitioner did not explain how it plans to meet this business 
objective without allocating funds to staff its organization with IT service providers. Although the  
Petitioner provided several of its bank account statements showing that payments were made to 
there there is no corresponding invoices or other documentation specifying what those funds were for. 
Because the record lacks evidence establishing the nature of the Petitioner's relationship with I 
we cannot conclude that a "partnership" was formed between the two entities or that the latter serves 
as a vehicle for providing IT services to the Petitioner's clients. See id. 
As stated earlier, the Petitioner must demonstrate that the proposed position is plausible based on its 
anticipated staffing levels and stage of development within a one-year period. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3 )(v )(C). In the matter at hand, it is unclear whether the Petitioner will be adequately staffed 
and funded to reach this objective. The business plan includes a projected balance sheet that contains 
a breakdown of the Petitioner's assets and liabilities, showing no "paid-in capital" but rather $26,720 
in "total owner's equity"; the same amount was shown under "net profit" and "net cash flow from 
operations," which were incorporated into the "projected cash flow statement" for fiscal year 2022. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that its foreign owners have contributed $95,450 between 
December 2020 andDecember 2021. Although the Petitioner provided its bank statements accounting 
for that time period, it is unclear that any of the deposited funds, many of which originated from 
I I represented funds from the company's owners. The deposits from I I represented a 
large number of the deposits into the Petitioner's bank account between December 2020 and December 
2021, ranging in amounts from below $20 to over $3000. However, no information was provided 
about I I explaining who or what that is or their significance within the context of the 
Petitioner's intended business operation. The Petitioner did not establish that the deposits from 
I !represented funds contributed by its owners. Further, according to the business plan, "total 
owner's equity" amounted to $26,720; this amount is inconsistent with the claim that owners 
contributed over $95,000 towards the start-up operation. The Petitioner must resolve this incongruity 
in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&NDec. 582, 591-92(BIA 1988). 
In addition, according to the Petitioner's profit and loss projections, total expenses during its first year 
of operation are estimated to be $123,530. This amount far exceeds the $26,720 in owner equity and 
it also exceeds the $95,450 in claimed owner contributions. Fmihermore, the Petitioner provided no 
evidence of a formal agreement with the Petitioner's owners agreeing to pay a specified amount 
towards the U.S. endeavor, nor is there any discussion explaining when and how owners would 
contribute owner equity, and whether a contribution would be paid in increments or in one lump sum. 
4 
The Petitioner also argues that the Director neglected to factor in its projected revenue, claiming that 
it plans to generate $150,250 during its first year of operation, which would be "more than enough to 
cover the expenses and to generate a profit." However, the record lacks sufficient evidence to support 
this revenue projection. As discussed earlier, the Petitioner did not factor any IT employees or 
contractors into its first year hiring plan and operating expenses. As such, it does not appear that the 
Petitioner would have the IT staff necessary to provide services to clients, thereby leading us to 
question how revenue would be generated. Although the Petitioner contends that the "[f]oreign 
[e]ntity's organizational structure will play a part in" its U.S. operation, it did not elaborate on what 
that "part" would be or explain how the foreign entity would promote the Petitioner's growth beyond 
a nascent developmental phase and ensure that the Petitioner would be able to support the Beneficiary 
in a managerial position within one year of the petition's approval. 
The new office regulations are premised on the understanding that a new company will progress to a 
stage of development where it will be able to support a beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity. Here, the Petitioner provided a deficient business plan that lacks adequate information about 
how its projected staff and funding during its first year of operation will enable the Petitioner to meet 
its financial burdens and revenue projections. 
B. Duties 
We also reviewed the job descriptions of the Beneficiary and his projected subordinates and find the 
evidence to be insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary would perform primarily managerial job 
duties within one year of the petition's approval. 
Although the Petitioner's business plan states that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial 
capacity within one year of this petition's approval, it has not provided sufficient evidence to support 
this claim. The Petitioner provided job descriptions for the Beneficiary in the business plan, which 
states that the Beneficiary would be responsible for "finding the best technological solutions" for the 
Petitioner's clients and serving as "the first contact with the client and demonstrating the experience 
of the Company and the capacity offered in terms of computer solutions." These responsibilities 
indicate that the Beneficiary's position would include operational elements requiring the provision of 
IT solutions and direct client interaction. The Petitioner did not, however, incorporate these 
responsibilities into the Beneficiary's job duty breakdown, which is included in the business plan, nor 
did it indicate how much of the Beneficiary's time would be devoted to working on IT solutions and 
meeting with clients. The Petitioner must demonstrate that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged 
in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other 
employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). 
Further, the job duty breakdown states that the Beneficiary will"[ s ]upervise the job performance of 
the system manager, manages [sic] the programmers and developers, and directs [sic] the work of the 
sales supervisor and specialized commercial advisor." However, it is unclear when the Beneficiaty 
would be fully able to execute this job duty, given that the Petitioner's personnel plan only provides 
staffing projections for the first year of operations and does not state when the Petitioner plans to fill 
the positions of the programmers and developers or the sales supervisor. In addition, according to the 
organizational chart provided in response to the RFE, the Beneficiary's only subordinates would be 
5 
the system manager and a sales supervisor; the three "programmer & developer" positions are depicted 
as subordinates of the system manager while the two specialized business advisors are depicted as 
subordinates of the sales supervisor. These discrepancies also lead us to question the accuracy of other 
aspects of the Beneficiary's job duty breakdown, which states that the Beneficiary would"[ a ]chieve 
growth and reach of [sic] sales objectives by successfully managing the work of specialized 
commercial advisers." As noted above, the projected organizational chart is at odds with this claim as 
it shows that the specialized commercial advisers would be subject to direct supervision by the sales 
supervisor rather than the Beneficiary. SeeMatter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 5 91-92 (requiring a petitioner 
to resolve evidentiary discrepancies with independent, objective evidence). 
The job duty breakdown also states that the Beneficiary will be responsible for maintaining "a safe 
and healthy work environment" through "rules and procedures." However, it is unclear what types of 
rules and procedures will promote "a safe and healthy work environment," nor does this convey a 
sense of what underlying actions would be required of the Beneficiary in the normal course of the 
Petitioner's daily operations. Likewise, the Petitioner broadly stated that the Beneficiary would be 
responsible for ensuring "safe and efficient operations," but it did not elaborate as to the specific tasks 
the Beneficiary would be required to perform to meet this objective. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that in addition to the duties and responsibilities listed in the 
business plan, the Beneficiary would also "continue to manage his department in the [f]oreign 
[e]ntity." However, the Petitioner does not further elaborate on the tasks the Beneficiary would 
perform for its U.S. organization, either in its initial phase of operation or in the future. Further, 
although the Petitioner claims that the foreign affiliate' s organizational structure "will play a part in 
the new U[.] S[.] operation," it does not explain how the foreign entity will impact the Beneficia1y's 
role and job duties. 
As previously noted, we review the totality of the evidence when examining the Beneficiary's claimed 
managerial capacity, including his job description, the company's proposed organizational structure, 
the presence of other employees to relieve the Beneficiary from performing operational duties, the 
nature of the business, and any other factors that may contribute to an understanding of the 
Beneficiary's actual duties and role in the business. Here, the Petitioner provided a vague job 
description that does not adequately describe the Beneficiary's job duties or establish that the 
Beneficiary would allocate his time primarily to managerial functions within one year of the petition's 
approval. Furthermore, the Petitioner's supporting evidence includes a deficient business plan that 
contains unexplained irregularities and precludes a finding that the projected support staff will relieve 
the Beneficiary from having to allocate his time primarily to performing non-managerial job duties 
beyond the Petitioner's first year of operation. 
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity within one year of the petition's approval. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6