dismissed L-1A Case: Led Light Importing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-1-S-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SER VICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 11, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an importer of LED lights, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as president ofits 
new office 1 under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(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 the new office would support a managerial or executive position within one 
year after approval of the petition. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits printouts of the Wikipedia 
pages for "Business plan" and "Freight forwarder," and asserts that the Director erred by relying on 
irrelevant information while disregarding material submissions. 
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. 
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 
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(l)(l)(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 ofG-1-S-, Inc. 
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). 
11. NEW OFFICE 
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 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 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 
In this case, the grounds for denial center around the issues of sufficient physical premises; the 
adequacy of the Petitioner's business plan; and the Petitioner's financial information. 
A Sufficient Physical Premises 
An organizational chart identified six planned employees. The Petitioner ordered six tables, six chairs, 
and six drawer units in December 2016. The document specified the delivery address as "[s]ame as 
billing address," but the billing address combined two different addresses, one of them residential. 
A December 2016 lease agreement showed that the Petitioner had secured "210 Square Feet" for 
"General Office Use" and two parking spaces. The agreement specified: "Tenant shall not have more 
than one person in each 250 square feet of leased space. Unless authorized by written permission of 
the Landlord, total number of people working in the total leased space, may not exceed five workers 
or staff" The landlord's property manager waived this restriction, authorizing the Petitioner "to have 
up to six (6) employees working in the Leased Premises." The letter did not indicate that the Petitioner 
had secured additional office space beyond the 210 square feet specified in the lease, or additional 
parking spaces. 
The Petitioner's business plan indicated that the company "will not keep inventory of the imported 
merchandise," but did not specify what arrangements had been made for storage of the imported goods. 
The business plan indicated that the company "will use freight forwarders to transport[] its products 
directly from its vendor's warehouse to the shipping dock of export port to be loaded for exportation," 
but that does not explain the arrangements for imported goods to be sold in the United States. 
2 
.
Matter ofG-1-S-, Inc. 
A June 2017 invoice indicated that the Petitioner had ordered 500 wall lights and 552 vapor lights 
from a supplier in China (rather than the Petitioner's affiliate in 1. The invoice 
showed the Petitioner's address from the lease, and did not specify any alternative delivery address. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director asked the Petitioner for additional information and 
evidence to confirm that the leased space is sufficient for the Petitioner's business operations, 
including storage space for over I 000 pieces of inventory. 
In response, the Petitioner stated: "in some cases the merchandise ... will be shipped directly from 
overseas to ultimate buyer's warehouse. Additionally, the petitioner will utilize a third-party 
fulfillment warehouse to keep its inventory and to outsource its fulfillment function for retail sales." 
The Petitioner submitted a revised business plan, with the added sentence: "In some special situations, 
where direct shipment is impossible, [the Petitioner] also prepare [sic] to utilize third-party fulfillment 
warehouse to keep inventory." Consistent with this new provision, the Petitioner submitted a copy of 
a service agreement between the Petitioner and a provider of "customs clearance, airport & terminal 
picking, warehouse cargo handling, warehousing, delivery, after-sales refunding or changing service, 
etc." The agreement specifically identified the invoiced order discussed above. Because this is the 
Petitioner's only documented order, it is not evident that it amounts to a "special situation" and thus 
an exception from standard practice. 
We note that the service agreement did not state the address of the warehouse. The only address shown 
for the service provider corresponds to an office building. The Petitioner submitted photographs of a 
warehouse, but these photographs do not show the address or any signage identifying the company 
that owns or operates the site. They also do not depict the office building. 
Even more significantly, the agreement was not in place when the Petitioner filed the petition. The 
Petitioner placed the invoiced order on June 7, 2017; the Petitioner filed the petition on June 12th; and 
the Director issued the RFE on June 26th. The agreement dates from July 3, 2017, after all those 
events had taken place. As such, this agreement cannot establish that the Petitioner had secured 
sufficient physical premises as of the filing date. The evidence indicates that no such arrangements 
were in place until after the Director issued the RFE. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that new arrangements that the Petitioner made after receiving 
the RFE, including changing its business plan and executing the warehousing and logistics cooperation 
agreement , cannot show that the Petitioner met eligibility requirements at the time of filing. 
On appeal , the Petitioner asserts that "an invoice is just a commercial document ... relating to a sale 
transaction ," and so "it is not necessary to provide the shipment information in an invoice. " The 
Petitioner contends that it "plac[ed] the order before securing a freight forwarder agreement " because 
the Petitioner knew that it could readily make such arrangements later. 
This explanation does not resolve the issue. The Petitioner has not shown that its June 2017 purchase 
was destined for an already-known buyer , in which case the Petitioner would have no need to store 
3 
.
Matter ofG-1-S-, Inc. 
the items pending their resale. In July 2017, the Petitioner did not simply make arrangements for a 
"freight forwarder." The July 2017 service agreement indicated that the Petitioner would arrange "for 
the goods to be sent to [the provider's] warehouse," and specifically identified the June 2017 invoice. 
It is evident that the Petitioner arranged for the indefinite storage of the shipment, and did so after the 
petition's filing date. 
The Petitioner must meet eligibility requirements at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The 
new office regulations require the Petitioner to show that "sufficient physical premises to house the 
new office have been secured." It cannot suffice to claim awareness "that a freight forwarder can be 
easily obtained," any more than a petitioner could assert that ample office, retail, or industrial space is 
available. At the time of filing, the Petitioner had already placed an order for over I 000 pieces of 
inventory with no waiting buyer identified. The disposition of that inventory is integral to the 
Petitioner's business, rather than a minor detail to resolve while the shipment is en route. If the 
Petitioner is to maintain inventory as part of its business model, then storage space for that inventory 
is a core business requirement; and if no such space was arranged at the time of filing, then the 
Petitioner had not yet secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office. 
The Petitioner has not established that it had secured sufficient physical premises to house the new 
office at the time it filed the petition. 
We note that, in the RFE response, the Petitioner stated: "We appreciate the [Director's] 
acknowledgement that the leased office space ... is sufficiently large in size to house the workers as 
stated in the petition." The Director, however, made no explicit acknowledgment in the RFE. The 
Director acknowledged only that the lessor had waived the occupancy limits. 
The Petitioner submitted photographs of the leased office space, but those photographs showed the 
office nearly empty, with only a desk in the room. The available evidence does not establish that six 
employees could realistically share 210 square feet of office space. We need not explore the space 
issue in depth, however, because the issues specified by the Director suffice to determine the outcome 
of this proceeding. 
B. Business Plan 
The Petitioner initially submitted an I I-page business plan. (The table of contents identified the 
document as the "Business Plan for ," a company that appears to have 
no relation to the Petitioner.) The plan indicated that the company would be able to charge lower 
prices through its "unique business model of sourcing exclusively with manufacturers of lighting 
products ," not only from China "but also ... exports from a third country" which the plan did not 
identify. The plan also indicated that the Petitioner "will engage in the exports of certain electrical 
products originated from U.S. to China," but did not specify further. 
Under the heading "Product Selection," the plan indicated that the company "will focus on 
approximately four product categories ," all LED lights manufactured by the foreign affiliate. Under 
"Order Process & Fulfillment ," however , the plan described a purchase process in which "the best 
supplier can be selected to supply the merchandise. " The business plan also indicated , without 
4 
Matter ofG-1-S-, Inc. 
elaboration, that the Petitioner "may also engage in agency buying business for third party importer or 
exporters in unrelated industries such as mining machinery and others." 
The business plan contained contradictory assertions regarding advertising. Under" Advertising," the 
Petitioner stated that it "will not publicly advertise its services but will rely on business referrals from 
its existing business contacts," and, later, "will be listed in major US business directories." Under 
"Web Presence," however, the Petitioner stated that the company "attempts to advertise its website 
through ... online search engines." 
There are other discrepancies in the business plan. The plan indicated that the company would obtain 
"HACCP certification," which pertains to food safety rather than lighting products. There are also 
significant inconsistencies regarding financial projections, to be discussed further below. 
In the RFE, the Director stated that the "plan is vague and consists mainly of broad statements" rather 
than "a realistic, detailed strategy" citing "market research or industry data." The Director also stated 
that the Petitioner did not show that its "limited organizational structure[] will develop to a point that 
will support and require an executive position within one year of petition approval." 
As noted above, the Petitioner's response included a revised business plan. The Petitioner removed 
the passage that indicated the company "will not publicly advertise its services," and added a new 
section about marketing, citing average industrial return rates for marketing expenditures. Further 
below, we will discuss differences in the financial figures between the two business plans. 
In the denial notice, the Director stated that the Petitioner had revised its business plan based on 
"general e-commerce data available through open source web searches," and that the Petitioner's 
"RFE response did not provide a basis for how [the Petitioner] arrived at [its] initial financial 
projections." The Director noted that the new business plan relied on a marketing and advertising plan 
that did not exist at the time of filing. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the business plan is simply "a formal statement of business goals," 
and therefore "there is no need to provide a specific plan for [future] expansion." Nevertheless, the 
regulations require the Petitioner to show that it will support a managerial or executive position within 
one year after approval of the petition. In order to do this, the Petitioner must explain the nature of its 
plans for the business. In this instance, the Director called on the Petitioner to explain key elements 
of its business plan. The Petitioner responded not by defending and explaining its initial plan, but by 
submitting a new plan with major revisions. This new plan cannot show that the Petitioner's initial 
plan was viable. 
As noted above, the Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. The nature of starting a 
business is such that plans may change and evolve as the business develops. This does not mean, 
however, that the business plan filed with the petition can be a mere placeholder, with no significant 
correlation to the company's actual business operations. 
The initial business plan included several highly questionable elements, including naming the wrong 
company on its table of contents, and referring to a type of certification that only applies to food 
5 
.
Matter ofG-1-S-, Inc. 
products. These issues raise legitimate and unanswered questions about the true source of the business 
plan and the degree of care invested in its creation. The record does not reliably establish that the 
business plan was created by and for the petitioning entity, rather than superficially adapted from 
existing plan relating to a different entity that may be in a different line of business. The later 
submission of a second plan that contradicted the first one does not resolve these questions. 
In the absence of a credible and substantiated business plan, the Petitioner has not shown that the new 
office would support a managerial or executive position within one year after approval of the petition. 
C. Finances 
A new office petition 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). 
Notwithstanding the previously discussed questionable information in the Petitioner's business plan, 
the initial version of that plan included conflicting financial information. On page 9, the plan 
indicated: "It is estimated that [the Petitioner] will have annual revenue of $2.5 million and a net 
income of approximately $150,000 during its first fiscal year. The "Projected Income Statement" on 
the same page, however, forecast first-year sales of $1 million, increasing to $1.2 million in the fifth 
year. For net income, the "Projected Income Statement" estimated less than $54,000 during the first 
year, rising to just over $62,000 in the fifth year. 
Page 6 indicated that the Petitioner "will obtain its initial funding through equity infusion by its parent 
company and sole shareholder is the Petitioner's affiliate, not its 
parent; does not own any shares in the petitioning entity. Instead, the Beneficiary, 
as an individual, owns all shares in the U.S. entity, and a plurality of shares in 
The business plan also indicated that the Petitioner would begin fiscal year 2016 with a $50,000 
"Equity Infusion from Investor." Beyond this initial investment, the Petitioner projected the following 
gross profit and expenses (including taxes): 
Year Gross Profit Expenses Year-End Cash 
2016 $110,000 $56,010 $103,991 
2017 115,500 59,647 55,853 
2018 121,275 63,467 57,808 
2019 127,339 67,648 59,861 
2020 133,706 71,690 62,016 
On December 5, 2016, the Beneficiary transferred $30,000 from her personal account into the 
Petitioner 's bank account. This deposit represented the Petitioner 's total bank balance on that date. 
In the RFE, the Director stated that the Petitioner provided "no basis . .. for the financial projections 
contained in [its] business plan." The Director noted that, while the business plan indicated that the 
.
Matter ofG-1-S-, Inc. 
company would require $50,000 in startup funds, the Petitioner had documented only $30,000, which 
was not sufficient to cover the $32,987.60 price of the June 2017 order from 
As noted above, the Petitioner's response to the RFE included a revised business plan. This plan 
stated: "The Company is initially financed by equity infusions from its sole shareholder, [the 
Beneficiary]," instead of from the foreign affiliate as initially claimed. A bank statement showed that 
the Beneficiary transferred another $20,000 from her personal account to the Petitioner's account on 
June 27, 2017, two weeks after the filing date. 
The revised plan also included very different financial projections: 
Year Gross Profit Expenses Year-End Cash 
2017 $250,000 $194,375 $105,625 
2018 262,500 212,473 155,653 
2019 275,625 213,480 217,798 
2020 289,406 224,991 282,213 
2021 303,877 237,078 349,012 
The Petitioner did not explain why these figures were so different from the original projections, 
although the revised plan included an aggressive marketing plan absent from the earlier version. The 
Petitioner provided a detailed explanation for some of the figures relating to the marketing plan, but 
did not explain what calculations went into the very different initial figures. 
In the denial notice, the Director listed several major differences between the two sets of financial 
figures, in terms of both costs and income. The Director stated that "the reason(s) for the changes 
were not evident in the record," and that these discrepancies raised questions of credibility. The 
Director also noted that the Petitioner's existing expenses (such as purchase of inventory and furniture) 
have used up most of the Petitioner's $50,000 startup capital, and that the Petitioner has not yet 
accounted for other significant expenses such as salaries and office equipment. 
As a result of these deficiencies and discrepancies, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not 
shown that it would support a managerial or executive position within a year after approval of the 
petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that there is no requirement "that a business plan ... must be unchanged 
in its entirety. In fact, the regulation does not even require ... a business plan." There is, however, a 
requirement that the Petitioner's evidence must be credible. By signing the petition form, the 
Petitioner attested to the truth of the assertions and evidence in the record. In this instance, the 
Petitioner did choose to submit a business plan, which provided most of the substantive details about 
the planned business activity. The changes here are not minor adjustments; the Petitioner has offered 
two largely unsubstantiated and incompatible projections of its future earnings, based on the same 
initial conditions. The Petitioner states that it has the right to "update the business plan in an effort to 
more accurate[ly] describe the business reality," but the Petitioner has not shown that the updated 
figures are more accurate, or that it previously had reason to believe the initial figures were accurate. 
.
Matter ofG-1-S-, Inc. 
Financial information is required initial evidence, and the Petitioner has not established that the 
information provided at the time of filing was credible or reliable. As noted above, the Petitioner must 
show that it will support a managerial or executive position within one year after approval of the 
petition. When discussing future plans, a certain amount of estimation and approximation is 
inevitable, because those plans rely on future events that cannot be determined with certainty. 
Nevertheless, when the Petitioner's plans rely on figures such as sales estimates, the Petitioner must 
be able to explain and substantiate those figures. 
In this instance, the Petitioner has not substantiated the initial figures at all, and has relied on highly 
generalized information for the revised figures. For example, the Petitioner's foreign affiliate cited 
"the average conversion rate ... for [a] Google AdWords campaign," and stated: "According to E­
commerce statistics, the average order value is $491 for business to business respondents." The 
Director found that the Petitioner did not show that these broad statistics hold within the Petitioner's 
specific industry, and the Petitioner has not overcome this finding. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner acknowledges on appeal that "the foreign entity ... has no intention to 
provide financial support to the Petitioner." The Petitioner asserts that, because the foreign entity is 
an affiliate rather than a parent, there is no requirement to provide such support. The regulations, 
however, require evidence of "the financial ability of the foreign entity to remunerate the beneficiary 
and to commence doing business in the United States." This requirement is not limited to foreign 
parent companies. Cash infusions from the Beneficiary's own bank account do not satisfy this 
requirement. If the Beneficiary's salary derives from her own personal funds, then it is not 
remuneration; it is simply moving the Beneficiary's own money back and forth. 
Due to the discrepancies and deficiencies discusses above, the Petitioner has not established the 
financial ability of the foreign entity to remunerate the Beneficiary and to commence doing business 
in the United States. The Petitioner also has not shown that the $50,000 initial investment is sufficient 
for the new office to commence business operations. 
III. CORPORATE STATUS 
Beyond the Director's decision, we note that the petitioning entity is not in good standing with the 
State of Maryland. The database lists the Petitioner's status as "Forfeited" 
as of 2018, because the company did not file a required property return for 2017. This 
information indicates that the Petitioner is not authorized to do business in Maryland, and calls into 
question the Petitioner's intent to do business in the future. Any future submissions, whether relating 
to this case or another filing, must account for this information and demonstrate that it has been 
resolved. 
We note this additional issue for informational purposes; even without considering the company ' s 
status, the other issues discussed above warrant dismissal of the appeal. 
Matter ofG-1-S-, Inc. 
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 ofG-1-S-, Inc., ID# 2898666 (AAO Apr. 11, 2019) 
9