dismissed L-1A Case: Oil And Gas

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF N-G-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 20,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an oil and gas company, 1 seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as the chief 
executive officer of its new office under the L-1A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-1A 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 Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that: (1) the Petitioner has secured sufficient physical premises to house the 
new office; (2) the new office would be able to support a managerial or executive position within one 
year after approval of the petition; (3) the foreign entity will continue to do business as a qualifying 
organization abroad; and (4) the Beneficiary's services in the United States would be temporary. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and maintains that it has met all eligibility 
requirements for the requested classification. 
Upon de novo review, we will withdraw the Director's decision, in part. The record contains 
sufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary's services in the United States would be 
temporary and that the foreign/entity would continue doing business abroad during the Beneficiary's 
proposed temporary assignment to the United States. However, as the Petitioner has not overcome 
the remaining grounds for denial of the petition, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a position involving 
specialized knowledge, for one continuous year within three years preceding the Beneficiary's 
application for admission into the United States. In addition, the Beneficiary must seek to enter the 
1 The Petitioner's business plan indicates that it intends to rent oil drilling equipment to other U.S. companies, and export 
oil and gas equipment, as well as shoes, clothes, food items, and automobiles and related parts and accessories to 
Nigeria. 
.
Matter of N-G-, LLC 
United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a 
subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. Section 
IOI(a)(l5)(L) ofthe Act. 
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 opep 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. PHYSICAL PREMISES 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not submit evidence that it had secured sufficient physical 
premises to house the new office. The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted two 
different leases, one at the time of filing and one in response to a request for evidence (RFE), and 
determined that neither office location appeared to be sufficient to accommodate the Petitioner's 
projected staffing levels. 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-129 in December 2015. The Petitioner must establish that all 
eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing 
, and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )( 1 ). Evidence of sufficient physical 
premises is required initial evidence for an L-1 "new office" petition. See 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner submitted a sublease agreement indicating that it would rent 1 000 
square feet of space within a larger Texas, office suite from sublessor, 
The sublease, which was not signed by either party, specified a 12-month term 
commencing on January 1, 2016, and the agreed use was "for general office and for no other 
purpose." The terms of the agreement suggest that the master lessor's written consent for the 
sublease may be required. The Petitioner did not provide any additional description of the property 
or how it was sufficient for the Petitioner's proposed business activities, nor did it provide a copy of 
the master lease, evidence of the master lessor's consent to the sublease, pr evidence that it had paid 
the security deposit due on December 1, 2015. 
The Director advised the Petitioner that the unsigned sublease agreement alone did not establish that 
it had satisfied the physical premises requirement and requested additional evidence regarding the 
premises such as a signed and dated agreement, a statement describing the type of premises and how 
it is suitable for the business, a letter from the property owner confirming that the sublease was 
authorized, and color photographs. 
2 
.
Matter of N-G-, LLC 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a different, 26-month commercial lease agreement 
for a 1320 square foot office suite located in Texas. The Beneficiary signed the lease in 
June 2016 for a term beginning on August 1, 2016, more than eight months after the petition was 
filed. The Petitioner included photographs and a floorplan for the suite, which· includes a reception 
area, two offices, and approximately 725 square feet of warehouse space. The Petitioner did not 
submit any additional evidence related to its sublease agreement for the location. 
In denying the petition, the Director reviewed the newly submitted lease agreement, but determined 
that it would not accommodate more than four employees, while the Petitioner projected 12 . 
employees by the end of the first year of operations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Texas, office suite is suflicient for the 
company's initial business activities and emphasizes that it may make alterations to the office, with 
its landlord's consent, to accommodate additional employees. 
Upon review, the Petitioner has not established that it had secured sufficient physical premises to 
house its new office as of the date of filing. As noted, there were several problems with the sublease 
agreement submitted with the petition, as it was neither signed nor dated, there was no evidence that 
the master lessor had agreed to the sublease terms, and it was unclear whether the Petitioner had paid 
the security deposit and intended to occupy the office. Further, the subleased premises did 
not include warehouse space, 
which, based on the nature of the business and the type of space 
ultimately secured, will be needed for the Petitioner's business. 
The Petitioner must establish that it met all eligibility requirements at the time of filing in December 
2015. While the Director nevertheless reviewed the sufficiency of the lease agreement signed in 
June 2016, that lease agreement did not cure the deficiencies of the initial sublease agreement or 
establish that the Petitioner had met this requirement when the petition was filed. 
We agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not meet the physical premises 
requirement; however, our finding is based on the insufficiency of the initial sublease agreement. As 
the Petitioner did not establish that it had secured sufficient physical premises prior to filing the 
petition, we need not make a determination regarding the sufficiency of the premises secured several 
months later. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director also denied the petition finding that the Petitioner did not establish that its new office 
would be able to support a managerial or executive position within one year of approval of the 
petition. 
The Act defines "managerial capacity" as 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 
3 
Matter of N-G-, LLC 
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) 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 of 
the organization; 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 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
In determining that the Petitioner did not establish that the new office would support a managerial or 
executive position within one year, the Director focused on the Petitioner's business plan, projected 
revenue and expenses, and the size of the U.S. investment, and found that the record did not show 
how the company would be able to cover its first year operating expenses, including paying the 
Beneficiary's salary and commencing operations in the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not consider its anticipated revenue or 
additional funds it had secured beyond the initial investment from its foreign affiliate company. 
A. New Office Requirements 
In the case of a new office petition, beyond the description of a beneficiary's proposed job duties, 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. A 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. 
Accordingly, the totality of the evidence must be considered in analyzing whether the proposed 
managerial or executive position is plausible considering 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). 
1. Size ofthe U.S. Investment 
As noted above, the Petitioner's business plan indicates that it intends to rent oil drilling equipment 
to other U.S. companies, and export oil and gas equipment, as well as shoes, clothes, food items, and 
automobiles and related parts and accessories to Nigeria. The business plan indicated that the 
foreign entity has already invested $160,000 and would invest an additional $300,000 during the first 
year, but it did not state how the additional funds would be spent or further explain its start-up costs. 
The business plan further indicated that the Petitioner anticipated first year sales of $871,660. 
The Petitioner also signed a participation agreement with a U.S. company that owns an oil and gas 
tract, and will earn 5% of the net oil and gas revenue generated through the development of three 
4 
Matter of N-G-, LLC 
wells located on that tract. The Petitioner's foreign affiliate financed the $100,000 investment in the 
oil well development project and the purchase of a $60,000 pulling unit. 
In the RFE, the Director requested additional evidence showing that the foreign entity had the ability 
to provide an additional $300,000 in funding as indicated in the business plan. In response, the 
Petitioner provided evidence of an additional $40,500 bank transfer and resubmitted a foreign entity 
company resolution that explained that it would make a $400,000 investment to finance the 
establishment and development of the Petitioner which would "include office space, drilling 
equipment, oil prospect etc." The resolution further stated that the $400,000 would be derived from 
payments of contracts it executed with two clients in Nigeria. The Petitioner submitted additional 
supporting evidence including bank statements for both entities. 
The Director acknowledged the additional evidence, but found that the Petitioner had "not submitted 
any evidence of potential revenue in the next year." The Director appears to have overlooked a sales 
forecast found at page 50 of the Petitioner's business plan, where it provides an itemized list of 
anticipated revenue for drilling equipment rental, oil and gas production, and sales of drilling 
equipment, shoes, clothes, food items, automobiles, and accessories. 
However, the record contains insufficient evidence regarding the company's actual start-up costs. It 
appears the Petitioner had secured additional funding to purchase equipment, but without an 
explanation of the amount and type of equipment to be purchased, and the anticipated costs, we 
cannot determine whether the sales forecasts are credible. For example, the Petitioner anticipates 
that the drilling equipment rental segment of its business would generate $300,000 in revenue in the 
first year. The Petitioner had purchased one piece of equipment at a cost of $60,000 and also 
appears to have its own equipment needs outside of the rental business, as it intends to hire six oil 
and gas laborers to engage in oil production. The business plan does not account for initial funding 
needed to begin purchasing and exporting automobiles and other goods. Therefore, the Petitioner 
did not provide sufficient information to establish that the $300,000 in funding from the foreign 
entity is sufficient to meet the company's initial equipment purchasing and other start-up costs. 
2. Projected Staffing and Business Plan 
During its first year, the Petitioner states it intends to hire the Beneficiary as CEO, a production 
manager, a purchasing manager, six part-time oil and gas production laborers, three sales 
representatives, and a part-time bookkeeper, with anticipated payroll expenses of $349,000. 
The business plan includes position descriptions for the subordinates. The production manager 
would mainly be concerned with oil and gas production, a small segment of the Petitioner's intended 
business. The position description for the purchasing manager generally states that this employee 
would negotiate contracts with suppliers; oversee personnel engaged in buying, selling and 
distributing goods; process requisitions and purchase orders; direct distribution operations; and 
negotiate transportation rates and services. 
5 
Matter of N-G-, LLC 
While it appears that the Petitioner anticipates hiring sufficient staff for its oil and gas production 
segment (with more than half of its projected staff working in this area), it is unclear who would be 
responsible for handling the rental of heavy equipment in this segment. Jn addition, the Petitioner 
has not established how one employee, the purchasing manager, would reasonably be able to handle 
all purchasing, logistics, and distribution requirements for a company that anticipates engaging in 
several lines of business. The Petitioner indicates that it would be engaged in the purchase and 
export of various types of drilling equipment, as well as automobiles, food, shoes, and clothing. We 
cannot determine that one purchasing employee would sufficiently relieve the Beneficiary from 
performing administrative and operational duties associated with these areas of the business by the 
end of the first year of operations. 
3. Duties 
As noted, the Director denied the petition primarily based on evidentiary deficiencies relating to the 
Petitioner's business plan and the size of the U.S. investment. We have also reviewed the 
Petitioner's descriptions of the Beneficiary's proposed duties as chief executive officer. 
The Petitioner included a breakdown of the Beneficiary's proposed duties for the first year in its 
business plan. The description includes a mix of qualifying and non-qualifying duties. For example, 
the Beneficiary's duties include helping customers to choose the best products for their needs, 
staying alert on new trends, preparing customs documents and financial statements, performing 
financial forecasts and analyses, managing all orders made, seeking out and communicating with 
suppliers' representatives to secure desirable procurement deals, and performing procurement 
analysis to lower the cost of goods. The Petitioner indicated that these duties would require 35% of 
her time. However, as noted above, the Petitioner would have only one employee responsible for the 
entirety of the company's purchasing and distribution operations, so it is reasonable to believe that 
the Beneficiary's achml time allocations to purchasing, distribution and administrative duties will be 
more significant than stated. 
In addition, in a separate description, the Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary "will devote 
considerable time to the development of the client base, represent the Company, and develop 
relationships with clients through meetings and phone calls," suggesting that the amount of time she 
would spend on non-managerial sales and marketing functions may also exceed the small time 
allocation provided in the position breakdown. 
Further, many of the managerial and executive duties attributed to the Beneficiary are stated in very 
general terms and provide little insight into the expected nature of her day-to-day duties. For 
example, the Petitioner states that she will "establish and communicate goals and objectives," "work 
on the setting up of a strategy for being time efficient," "direct, design and implement strategic plans 
in a cost-effective and time-efficient manner," and "direct and approve service and products' 
strategies." Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are 
primarily executive or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a 
matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros./Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
6 
Matter of N-G-, LLC 
The Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities found 
in the definitions of managerial or executive capacity. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 
(Table), 1991 WL 1444 70 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991 ). Second, the Petitioner must prove that the 
Beneficiary would be primarily engaged in managerial or executive duties, as opposed to ordinary 
operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees, by the end of the first year of 
operations. See, e.g., Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 
940 F.2d at 1533 
Here, the Petitioner has consistently stated tha:t the Beneficiary will occupy the senior position in the 
company, but has not submitted a job description or supporting evidence sufficient to demonstrate 
that she would primarily engage in managerial or executive duties, or that the new office would 
support a managerial or executive position, within one year.2 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that it had secured sufficient physical premises to house the new 
office at the time of filing the petition, or that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or 
executive capacity within one year of approval of the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofN,G-, LLC, ID# 357486 (AAO June 20, 2017) 
2 
Finally, we note that during routine verification checks, we found that Texas public records show the Petitioner's 
corporate entity status has been "involuntarily ended." See https://mycpa.cpa.state.tx.us/coa (last visited June 7, 20 17). 
If the Petitioner seeks to pursue this petition, it would need to provide U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services with 
evidence of its continued legal existence and authorization to conduct business in the United States.