dismissed L-1A Case: Internet Cafe

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-E-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG 5, 2019 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which seeks to open an Internet cafe, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as the 
manager of its new office 1 under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity; and (2) the new office will support a managerial or executive position within one year after 
approval of the petition. The Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider, which the Director granted. The 
Director affirmed the decision and denied the petition for a second time. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director relied on 
an erroneous reading of the regulations and did not fully consider the foreign company's ability to 
launch and support a new office in the United States. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA 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 "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). 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 or managerial position . 
Matter of M-E-, Inc. 
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. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director found the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in 
a managerial or executive capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary has been 
employed in an executive capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary has 
been employed in a managerial capacity. 
"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 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
Based on the statutory definition of managerial capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the 
Beneficiary performed certain high-level responsibilities. Cf Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 
1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, the Petitioner must prove that the 
Beneficiary was primarily engaged in managerial duties, as opposed to ordinary operational activities 
alongside other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469F.3d1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion 
World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
When examining the claimed managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly 
describe the duties performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in a managerial 
or executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). Beyond the required description of the job 
duties, we examine the company's organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate 
employees, the presence of other employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing operational 
duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a 
beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
Accordingly, we will discuss evidence regarding the Beneficiary's job duties along with evidence of 
the nature of the Petitioner's business and its staffing levels. 
The statutory definition of"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See sections 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to 
primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees. 
The statute plainly states that a "first line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial 
2 
Matter of M-E-, Inc. 
capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are 
professional." Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(B)(4). If a petitioner claims 
that a beneficiary directly supervises other employees, those subordinate employees must be 
supervisory, professional, or managerial, and the beneficiary must have the authority to hire and fire 
those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel actions. Sections 
10l(a)(44)(A)(ii)-(iii) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(2)-(3). 
The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary's managerial capacity derives not 
from supervising or controlling a subordinate staff: but instead from primarily managing an "essential 
function" within the organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a petitioner claims that 
a beneficiary will manage an essential function, it must clearly describe the duties to be performed in 
managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that: 
(1) the function is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is "essential," i.e., core to 
the organization; (3) the beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to perform, the 
function; ( 4) the beneficiary will act at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy 
or with respect to the function managed; and ( 5) the beneficiary will exercise discretion 
over the function's day-to-day operations. 
Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 2017). 
The president of~------~ Ltd., inl I Uganda, stated that the Beneficiary "began 
her career in 2010 as a Computer Support Technician ... [and] became our Sales and Marketing 
Manager within her first year." The Beneficiary's own resume, however, did not show the computer 
support technician position at all, and indicated that she became the sales and marketing manager in 
March 2010. 
The president of the foreign company described the Beneficiary's responsibilities there: 
30% of her time is spent: 
• Contacting our worldwide distributors and setting sales forecasting and sales 
targets. 
• Tracking leads progress with coordinators and distributors. 
• Assisting distributors in identifying sales opportunities or prospects or end 
customers in the market. 
• Processing, dispatching, and ordering invoice. 
20% of her time is spent 
• Organizing training to distributors. 
• Feeding customer and market applications, new product information to 
distributors. 
• Monitoring distributor provided technical support. 
• Sending marketing and sales action plan annually to distributor. 
3 
Matter of M-E-, Inc. 
20% of her time is spent 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Evaluating annually to review performance, activity and set up targets . 
Performing research to determine potential resellers or new distributors and 
recruiting new distributors. 
Finding link or key selling opportunities utilizing both old and new contacts . 
Sharing marketing research determinations with product development, research 
and development and marketing departments. 
Identifying new product and market opportunities . 
Establishing sales opportunities directly for merchandises outside distributers 
[sic] remit. 
Finding out or compiling customer applications for company products . 
Following up direct sales leads . 
10% of her time is spent 
• Seeking out new promotional opportunities for company products. 
• Assisting in creation, co-ordination and production of marketing collateral, 
press releases and exhibition graphics. 
• Generating intelligence of company competitors. 
10% of her time is spent 
• Coordinating and representing recruitment exhibitions, literature festivals, trade 
fairs, and other events, including follow [sic] of contacts. 
• Assisting in preparing comparisons with contenders. 
10% of her time is spent 
• Meeting with his [sic] sales team to review staffing needs, discuss inventory 
control, product defects, returns, establish and schedule training on new 
equipment, delays in processing orders, customer complaints, etc. 
There is no apparent logic to the grouping of the above tasks. For example, activities regarding 
distributors are scattered throughout the job description, and organizing technical support and 
monitoring technical support are not similar enough to justify combining them under one time listing. 
As a result, the list does not usefully show how much time the Beneficiary devoted to any particular 
task. 
Also, many of the tasks listed are operational tasks below the level of a manager. Examples of these 
non-managerial tasks include processing invoices, preparing marketing materials, and pursuing sales 
leads. Many of these tasks appear to be better suited to a front-line sales position than to a manager. 
The Beneficiary's resume included most of the above tasks, plus others such as: 
• Ensure timely invoicing to all customers. 
• Oversee company-wide revenue reporting process and assists Accounting Manager 
in the revenue reporting process. 
4 
Matter of M-E-, Inc. 
• Work with Accounting Manager and IT to ensure that all billing related changes 
are completed to ensure accurate invoicing. 
Although the job description in the Beneficiary's resume repeatedly mentioned the "Accounting 
Manager," the foreign company's organizational chart did not show that title. That organizational 
chart indicated that the Beneficiary reported to the Internet sales manager, and it showed the following 
structure below the Beneficiary: 
Marketing Manager (the Beneficiary) 
Wholesale Sales Manager 
Delivery 
Manager 
I 
2 Drivers 
2 Salesmen 3 Field 
Technicians 
Lead Technician 
I 
5 In-House Technicians 
I 
Lead Sales 
We note that the chart separated the lead technician from the field technicians, and the lead sales from 
the sales staff. 
The Director requested more information and evidence about the Beneficiary's claimed position 
abroad. The Director advised the Petitioner that the Beneficiary's duties, as described, appeared to 
consist primarily of non-managerial activities. The Director also indicated that the Petitioner had not 
provided job descriptions for the Beneficiary's claimed subordinates, or evidence that the foreign 
entity actually employed those individuals. 
In response, the foreign entity discussed "[ t ]he types of decisions [ the Beneficiary] makes 
independently as part of her core responsibilities," such as decisions regarding packaging, pricing and 
promotion; traveling "extensively to meet with ... elite clients"; and discretion to change the language 
in sales contracts. 
The Petitioner also provided briefjob descriptions for the lead IT technician, wholesale sales manager, 
and delivery manager, but this information does not show to what extent the positions are supervisory 
and managerial as claimed, rather than providing front-line services. The lead IT technician, for 
instance, "troubleshoots problem areas." 
The nature of the Beneficiary's claimed foreign employment is not well corroborated. The foreign 
entity claimed that the Beneficiary "travels extensively to meet with ... clients," but the record does 
not document extensive travel. The Petitioner submitted a partial copy of the Beneficiary's passport, 
but the submitted portions do not include visas or entry and exit stamps, even to show that the 
Beneficiary, a citizen of Pakistan, ever entered Uganda or was authorized to work there. 
The Director denied the petition, citing "the limited detail regarding the duties of [ the claimed foreign] 
petition" and the Beneficiary's claimed subordinate employees, as well as an apparent discrepancy in 
5 
Matter of M-E-, Inc. 
the Beneficiary's pay receipts. The Director found that the Petitioner had not shown the Beneficiary's 
employment abroad to be primarily managerial in nature. 
The Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider, contesting the Director's conclusions and offering an 
explanation for the payroll discrepancy. The Director accepted the Petitioner's explanation for the 
payroll discrepancy, and issued a new denial decision that omitted that issue. Nevertheless, the 
Director affirmed the finding that the Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary's duties 
abroad were primarily managerial. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not discuss the Director's specific findings regarding the Beneficiary's 
claimed employment abroad. Instead, the Petitioner asserts that the Director relied on obsolete 
regulations. Specifically, the definition of"managerial capacity" used to include this provision: "The 
term manager does not include ... an employee who primarily performs the tasks necessary to produce 
the product and/or to provide the service(s) of the organization." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(B) (1987). 
Revised regulations, published in 1991 and in use ever since, do not include that phrase. The newer 
regulations do, however, provide for "function managers" who do not primarily supervise managers, 
supervisors, or professionals. The Petitioner asserts that "exercising responsibility for a critical 
function of the organization (which may involve 'primarily performing the tasks necessary to produce 
the product and/or providing the service(s) of the organization') is nevertheless deserving of L-lA 
classification." 
The rewording of the regulation, however, did not mean that a manager can primarily perform 
operational tasks. Rather, the wording of the regulation was changed in order to match the statutory 
definition of the term. See Fed. Reg. 31533, 31554 (July 11, 1991). The statutory and regulatory 
definitions require that a manager must primarily perform managerial, rather than operational, tasks. 
Adopting the label of "function manager" does not allow a beneficiary to primarily perform low-level 
tasks instead of delegating those tasks to non-managers. The specific reference to "the tasks necessary 
to produce the product" was removed because it is redundant, not because a function manager may 
now primarily perform such tasks. 
The description of the Beneficiary's claimed position abroad included many non-qualifying tasks and 
did not show that the Beneficiary's duties were primarily managerial - either as a personnel manager 
or as a function manager. The lack of detail and corroboration further contributes to a finding that the 
Petitioner has not met its burden of proof with regard to the Beneficiary's claimed employment abroad 
in a managerial capacity, either as a personnel manager or as a function manager. 
Based on the deficiencies and inconsistencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial capacity abroad. 
III. NEW OFFICE 
A petitioner seeking to employ a beneficiary as a manager or executive of a new office must establish 
that the new office will support an executive or managerial position within one year of approval of the 
petition. The Petitioner must establish the proposed nature of the office, describing its scope, 
organizational structure, and financial goals; the size of the United States investment and the foreign 
6 
Matter of M-E-, Inc. 
entity's financial ability to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business in the United 
States; and the foreign entity's organizational structure. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
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 foll range of managerial 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 foll operations, where there would be an actual need for 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. Id. 
A. Staffing 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "will . . . prepare the daily sales reports, oversee the 
employees, maintain the inventory and equipment and provide excellent customer service." The 
organizational chart, however, showed no employees subordinate to the Beneficiary in the company's 
planned personnel structure during the first year of operations: 
Director/General Manager 
Manager 
[The Beneficiary] 
Technician 
I 
2 Part-Time Assistants 
A third part-time assistant would be hired during the second year, with no farther hires planned during 
the third year. 
The Petitioner's business plan indicated that the company "will ... provide customers with a unique 
and innovative environment for enjoying great coffee, specialty beverages, and bakery items." The 
Petitioner did not identify any planned employees who would be responsible for preparing and serving 
food and beverages, ordering food and related supplies, maintaining the food service equipment, or 
cleaning the premises. 
The Director advised the Petitioner that the business plan did not account for food service staffing, 
and therefore it appeared that the Beneficiary would be responsible for performing duties related to 
food service. 
7 
Matter of M-E-, Inc. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a new organizational chart that replaced the two part-time 
assistants with five part-time "Sales Assistants," also called "Sales/Wait Staff' in an unsigned letter. 
The Petitioner did not explain why the earlier personnel plan did not include these employees. The 
Petitioner also submitted a revised business plan but the staffing plans were unchanged from the earlier 
version. 
In the first denial notice, the Director noted "the staffing levels have changed from the initial 
submission," but found that this late revision cannot establish eligibility at the time of filing as required 
by 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). The Petitioner did not address this issue in its motion to reconsider. 
In the second denial decision, the Director repeated the finding that the Petitioner's initial staffing plan 
was deficient, and that the Petitioner could not remedy this issue simply by modifying its 
organizational chart. The Director also found that the Petitioner's assertions on motion "provide 
limited insight to explain how the beneficiary's role will be in a qualifying managerial capacity within 
one year's time." On appeal, the Petitioner states that petitions have been approved for businesses 
with fewer employees, even for beneficiaries with no subordinate employees at all. 
A company's size alone, without taking into account the reasonable needs of the organization, may 
not be the determining factor in denying a visa petition for classification as a multinational manager 
or executive. See section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act. However, it is appropriate for us to consider the 
size of the petitioning company in conjunction with other relevant factors, such as the absence of 
employees who would perform the non-managerial or non-executive operations of the company. See 
e.g., Family Inc., 469 F.3d 1313; Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). The 
size of a company may be especially relevant when discrepancies in the record raise doubts as to 
whether the facts asserted are true. See Systronics, 153 F. Supp. 2d at 15. 
We must consider the nature of the proposed business and the staff that would be required to run that 
business. A shop that sells coffee, other beverages, and baked goods requires staff to prepare and 
serve those goods, clean and maintain equipment, take orders, and handle payments. The Petitioner's 
business plan does not account for any of these needs, and its ad hoc addition of wait staff to an 
unsigned letter does not establish that the Petitioner has made bona fide plans to operate the business 
described in that business plan. We will address other defects in the business plan below. 
The Petitioner has not established that, at the time of filing, arrangements were in place that would 
permit the company to begin business operations, and thereby warrant a managerial position for the 
Beneficiary within one year after approval of the petition. 
B. Discrepancies in Business Plan 
In the request for evidence, the Director noted that all the dates in the business plan's "Milestones" 
timetable were in 1998, 1 7 years before the Petitioner filed the petition. The Director stated: "Due to 
the discrepancies in the documentation provided it cannot be determined what information in the 
business plan is accurate." The Director also asked for evidence to show that the Petitioner would be 
8 
Matter of M-E-, Inc. 
ready to begin doing business upon approval of the petition. The business plan showed over $60,000 
in start-up costs, but the Petitioner did not show that it possessed the necessary fonds. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a new business plan, with the "Milestones" dates changed from 
1998 to 2016. The Petitioner also submitted copies of "reference materials [ used] to produce the 
business plan." One of these reference materials is a partial printout of a "sample marketing plan" for 
an "Internet Coffee Shop" in Oregon. Parts of the Petitioner's business plan appear to have been 
copied directly from this plan. For instance, the "sample marketing plan" included this passage: 
"We've gone to great lengths atl Ito find people with a passion for teaching and sharing their 
Internet experiences. Our staff is both knowledgeable and eager to please." The Petitioner used this 
same language in its own business plan, substituting its name for the apparently fictitious I I 
The Petitioner, however, had not yet hired any staff and was therefore not in a position to attest to their 
qualifications. 
Significantly, the reference materials that the Petitioner acknowledged using for its business plan did 
not include any documented research into local market conditions. The business plan purported to 
cite such research, with assertions such as: "The retail coffee industry inl !experienced rapid 
growth at the beginning of the decade and is now moving into the mature stage of its life cycle," and 
"[t]here are a total of three cyber-cafes in the state of Tennessee." But the Petitioner cited no source 
for this information. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's business plan relied heavily on uncorroborated claims, 
and did not show that the Petitioner was actually prepared to open the business described in that plan. 
On motion from that decision, the Petitioner stated that the owners of the foreign company: 
intend to apply the same business culture and structure to their U.S. investment which 
has made them successful. They will also serve as the supplier to the U.S. company. 
The foreign entity has established low contracted rates from their vendors, and 
shipments can be directed to the U.S. location which will help the store maintain a large 
inventory with far less overhead cost. 
This assertion does not answer the Director's concerns. The foreign entity sells computer equipment, 
whereas the planned U.S. business is an Internet cafe that would use computers but have no need to 
"maintain a large inventory" of such equipment. The Petitioner referred to itself as a "store," but the 
only goods to be sold would be beverages and baked goods, which the Petitioner would not obtain 
through a computer store in Uganda. 
The Director found the Petitioner's statement on motion to be "brief in detail and broad in scope." 
The Director affirmed the conclusion that the Petitioner had not provided "sufficient evidence to 
establish how the entity plans to begin business." 
On appeal, the Petitioner repeats the claim that the foreign company "plans to apply the same business 
culture and structure to the U.S. investment." The Petitioner does not address the discrepancies that 
raise serious questions about the origins of the information in the business plan, and therefore about 
how prepared the Petitioner actually is to open an Internet cafe. 
9 
Matter of M-E-, Inc. 
Review of the business plan reveals several other issues of concern. These unresolved issues lead us 
to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence the Petitioner has submitted. See Matter 
of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
The Petitioner's business plan included this passage: 
~itioner] looked at how cyber-cafes in other markets such as I I and 
L___J went about pricing Internet access. Third, [the Petitioner] used the market 
survey conducted in the fall of 2014. 
The record does not include any market survey from 2014. The "sample marketing plan" included a 
nearly identical passage: 
.__ _ ____.I looked at how cyber-cafes in other markets such asl land I lwent 
about pricing Internet access. Third,I lused the market survey conducted in the 
Fall of 1998. 
Without evidence of any market survey from 2014, it appears that the Petitioner copied the sample 
language and changed the year of the survey. This would be consistent with the 1998 "Milestones" 
dates. Further suggesting the use of an outdated template, the Petitioner's business plan also referred 
to "[l]arger Internet servers such as America Online (AOL), Prodigy, and CompuServe," which were 
dominant Internet service providers in 1998, but not in 2015, and it referred to "a Pentium PC" as 
"state of the art equipment." 
Because the Petitioner copied at least part of its business plan from an online source, it is significant 
that the plan contains several specific but unsupported assertions. For instance, the business plan 
referred to "the 'retail profit analysis' we obtained froml ]" and indicated that 
the Petitioner "is currently negotiating with I land the I ' to purchase baked 
goods. The Petitioner did not submit the profit analysis, copies of communications with potential 
suppliers, or documentation to support these assertions. 
These significant discrepancies raise questions about how much original research, if any, the Petitioner 
actually performed or commissioned for its planned Internet cafe in Tennessee, rather than copied 
from a 17-year-old plan for an unrelated establishment in Oregon. It is significant that the Petitioner's 
own business plan referred to plans to advertise in the Register Guard and the Emerald, which are the 
names of newspapers published in Eugene, Oregon. 
The business plan also indicated that the company planned to purchase computer equipment, coffee 
machines, and furniture. The Petitioner estimated $62,290 in start-up expenses. Elsewhere, the plan 
described "a glass pastry case" and "high-backed mahogany booths with flat-screen monitors," but the 
itemized start-up budget did not include these items. A bank statement in the record showed a balance 
of $15,500 as of July 1, 2017, less than two months prior to filing. The Petitioner did not show that it 
had already paid for any of the items in the start-up budget. A commercial property lease took effect 
on May 1, 2017, but the bank statement did not show outgoing rent payments. 
10 
Matter of M-E-, Inc. 
In sum, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner's business plan is credible evidence of bona fide plans 
to open the business described therein. The Petitioner has not shown that preparations are actually in 
place to open an Internet cafe that will support a managerial position within one year. 
C. Sufficient Physical Premises 
The record shows an additional ground for denial beyond the issues cited by the Director. A petition 
for a new office must include evidence that the petitioning employer has secured sufficient physical 
premises to house the new office. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). 
The Petitioner's business plan specified an address in I Tennessee. A commercial lease 
agreement indicated that the Petitioner would pay $1200 per month in rent during the first year, 
effective May 1, 2015. But a list of bank transactions in June and early July of 2015 does not show 
any rent payments. Also, the lease agreement identifies the property owner as a realtor inl I 
Georgia. The record does not substantiate the realtor's ownership of the property in Tennessee. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner appears to have left Tennessee and relocated I I Texas; the 
Petitioner's motion and appeal statements show the address of a rented mailbox in I I This 
apparent move is no small matter; the Petitioner's business plan contains several specific references 
tol lwhich would no longer apply if the Petitioner has relocated to Texas. The Petitioner has 
not identified a new address that it has secured for its Internet cafe, and because the Petitioner has 
evidently relocated to Texas, the previous address in Tennessee does not appear to remain valid. 
The Petitioner has not established that it has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new 
office; therefore, the petition is not approvable for this additional reason. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner 
has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofM-E-, Inc., ID# 1988534 (AAO Aug. 5, 2019) 
11