dismissed L-1A Case: Real Estate

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-J-R-E- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR.13,2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which intends to operate a real estate and property management business, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as director of its new office 1 under the L-1 A nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
IOI(a)(IS)(L), 8 U.S.C. § llOI(a)(IS)(L). TheL-IA 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that it has secured sut1icient physical premises to house the new office and 
that it would be able to support a managerial or executive position within one year of approval of the 
petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it provided evidence of sufficient physical premises to 
commence operations in the United States and a business plan which supports its claim that the 
Beneficiary would perform primarily managerial or executive duties within one year. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A 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. !d. 
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)(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. 
.
A'latter of A-J-R-E- l11c. 
The petitioner must submit e\.•idence to demonstrate that the new office will be able to support a 
manag erial or executive position within one year . This evidence must establish that the petitioner 
secured sufficien t 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. § 2!4 .2(1)(3)(v). · 
"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, protessional , or managerial employees , or 
manage s an essential function within the ·organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organizat ion; has authority over personnel ·actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organ izational 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 
10 l (a)( 44 )(A) of the Act. 
The tenn "executive capacity " is defined · as an assignment within an organization in. which the 
emp loyee 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; 
e:xercises 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 1 01 (a)( 44 )(B) of the Act. 
II. PHYSICAL PREMISES 
The Director denied the petit ion, in part , based on a finding that the Petitione r did not establish that it 
has su fficient physical premises to house the new offtce , as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(1)(3)(v)(A). 
The Petitioner sub mitted a Agreement for a «cowork ing office" for 
one person , with a monthly fee of $2 19. The Petitioner later submitted a letter from in 
resp onse to a request for evidence (RFE) which stated that it has a «shared co-working space," and 
" will have the flexibility to upgrad e at any given time to a bigger office space upon availability at the 
The Petitioner, which intends to operate a real estate and property management busines s, stated in its 
initial support letter that it would employ five to seven employees within one year. The Petitioner's 
busine ss plan indicates that it "has leased a small office for its operations for $219.00 per month to 
hous e two · employees" as well as the Beneticiary. The financ ial ass umption s included in the 
busin ess plan indicate that the Petitioner ' s rent would remain fixed at $219 .00 per month. However , 
the business plan also contains a three-year income projection showing that the Petitioner anticipates 
$90,000 in ann ual rent expenses. 
The Director determined that "an office space allocated for one person cannot accommodate 5-7 
people ." The Director acknowledged the letter from but emphasized that the Petitioner must 
establish that it met the physical premises require'ment as of the date of filing. 
2 
Maller of A-J-R-E-lnc. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it is unreasonable to expect the Petitioner to rent a space large 
enough for seven employees prior to securing approval of its new office petition. The Petitioner 
emphasizes that the Beneficiary is a successful business person who does not spend money when 
there is no need to do so. 
We agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner has not met the physical premises 
requirement for its new office. While we recognize that it likely does have the option to expand 
beyond a single shared office, the Petitioner did not show that the premises secured as of the date of 
tiling would be sufticient to accommodate the Beneficiary on a full-time basis upon approval of the 
petition. The Petitioner's "office service agreement" does not explain the terms and conditions of its 
shared "coworking" oftice or the extent to which the Petitioner would have access to the office. 
Without further explanation, it appears that the Petitioner has secured space that can be occupied by 
one person on a part-time basis. 
Further, notwithstanding the Petitioner's option to expand beyond a shared office arrangement, it is 
unclear that the company has any intention to do so. The information provided in the business plan 
suggests that the Petitioner assumes that its rent will remain fixed at $219 per month, or, 
alternatively, will remain tixed at $90,000 annually. Of these two figures, the lower figure appears 
more likely to be accurate. 
In sum, the Petitioner has not shown that the one-person office sharing arrangement in place at the 
time of filing was sufficient to allow the company to commence full-time business operations in the 
L'nited States. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not met the physical premises requirement. 
m. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director further determined 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. 
In the denial decision, the Director emphasized that the evidence submitted did not establish that 
there would be employees to relieve the Be~eficiary from performing the day-to-day, routine 
operational activities of the company within one year. The Director also observed that the 
Petitioner's explanation of the proposed business was lacking in detail. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not address its description of the Beneticiary's 
proposed duties and overlooked the fact that the company intends to hire a subordinate manager 
during the first year of operations, and tive to seven employees in total. 
In the case of a new oJlice petition, we review a beneficiary's proposed job duties as well as 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, 
3 
.
Malter ofA-J-R-E- Inc. 
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). 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner indicates that it will operate a real estate business. Specifica11y, the Petitioner states 
that it will invest in business and commercial real estate in the metropolitan area. subcontract 
out repairs and renovations, and then rent or sell the remodeled properties to entrepreneurs and 
business owners seeking commercial space. 
In a supporting letter, the Petitioner described the Beneficiary's proposed duties as "director" as 
follows·: 
(1). Approving the strategic plans and main objectives of the company and 
supervising their implementation .... 
(2) Determining the most appropriate capital structure of the company, its 
strategies and financial objectives and approving its annual budgets. 
(3) Supervising the main capital expenses of the company and acquisition from 
disposal of assets. 
(4) Deciding the performance objectives to be achieved .... 
(5) Reviewing and approving the organizational and functional structure of the 
company on a periodic basis. 
(6) Laying down rules for the internal control system and supervising them .... 
(7) Reviewing annually the effectiveness of the internal control system. 
(8) Drafting a Director's executive management . . . . Ensuring the integrity of 
financial account procedures including procedures related to the preparation of 
the financial reports. Ensuring Corporate Governance Code .... 
(9) Laying do,vn specitic and explicit policies, standards and procedures .... 
(I 0) Outlining a written policy that regulates the relationship with stakeholders with 
a view to protect their respective rights. 
( ll) Deciding policies and procedures to ensure the company's compliance with the 
laws and regulations and rhe company's obUgation to disclose material 
information to creditors and other stakeholders. 
However, the Petitioner's business plan included a substantially different description of the 
Beneficiary's proposed duties: 
[H]is responsibilities will include identifying new business properties to acquire, 
managing subcontractors, and negotiating leases and fljp property sales. [The 
Beneficiary] maintains the record-keeping of the company and will initially manage 
the day-to-day activities of the company. As the day-to-day manager, [the 
Beneficiary] will be responsible for client development and marketing, hiring and 
4 
Maller of A-1-R-£- Inc. 
oversight of company supervisors and office staff, taking bids from and hiring 
subcontractors, and negotiation of purchases, sales, leases and business contractors. 
Unlike the initial job description, this summary of the Beneficiary's proposed duties indicates that he 
would be signiticantly involved in the day-to-day operations of the business as a part of his daily 
routine, rather than performing primarily managerial or executive tasks. An employee who 
"primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not 
considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See, e.g., sections 
IOI(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial 
or executive duties); lv/atler (!{Church Scientology Int'/, 19 l&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm'r 1988). 
On appeal, the Petitioner attempts to reconcile these two descriptions by noting that the numbered 
list reflects the duties the Beneficiary will perform at the end of the first year of operations when 
additional statT have been hired, while the duties listed in the business plan reflects duties he will 
perform during the one-year start up period. 
The Petitioner's assertion is not persuasive. While the numbered list of duties identifies general 
executive responsibilities, it provides very little insight into what the Beneficiary would be expected 
to do on a day-to-day basis as the director/CEO of a company that intends to buy, renovate, and lease 
or re-sell real estate. In fact, the duties are so broad that they could describe any senior executive 
position in any company. The Petitioner did not describe the "strategic plans and objective" the 
Beneficiary would approve and implement, what specific tasks he would perform to "review and 
approve" the company's organizational structure, or what internal control systems he would 
implement, nor did it elaborate on its repeated references to the company's policies and procedures. 
\ 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. &tva, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), 
a.ffd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
We acknowledge that the Beneticiary, as the Petitioner's senior employee, would have authority to 
establish plans, policies, and objectives for the petitioning company and make major decisions 
regarding its llnances and overall direction. However, the Petitioner has not established that these 
types of responsibilities would primarily occupy the Beneficiary's time within one year. The fact 
that the Beneficiary will manage or direct a business does not necessarily establish eligibility for 
classillcation as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity within the 
meaning of section 101 (a)(44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that 
the duties of a position be "primarily" executive or managerial in nature. Sections 10l(A)(44)(A) 
and (B) of the Act. Therefore, even though the Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the 
Petitioner's day-to-day operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to 
discretionary decision-making, a broad overview of his responsibilities is insufficient to establish 
that his actual duties would be primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
In addition, as discussed further below, the Petitioner has not credibly established the number or type 
of employees it would hire during the first year of operations. As such, the Petitioner's claim on 
5 
Matter of A-.1-R-E- Inc. 
appeal that the Beneficiary would be removed from any significant involvement in the business' 
day-to-day operations within one year is not supported in the record. 
B. Projected Staffing and Business Plan 
In its initial support letter, the Petitioner provided a broad overview of the Beneficiary's duties, as 
discussed above, and indicated that its new otlice would employ five to seven employees within one 
year. The Petitioner did not submit a business plan, proposed organizational chart, or other evidence 
of the projected nature, scope, and staffing of the new otlice. 
The Petitioner submitted its business plan in response to the RFE. According to the business plan, 
the company would hire personnel "once the company is operational," but it did not include a 
timeline for hiring. The Petitioner's business plan also did not support the Petitioner's assertion, 
made elsewhere in the record, that the Petitioner intends to hire at least five and up to seven 
employees during the first year. 
The business plan identifies one proposed employee as a "manager/shareholder," who would earn a 
salary of$30,000 in 2018-19. The Petitioner identified the Beneficiary as its sole shareholder in its 
business plan, so the identification of a future: subordinate "shareholder" was confusing and not 
adequately explained. For this reason, it is unclear whether a subordinate employee would hold this 
position, or if the duties attributed to the position are simply the Beneficiary's own duties. At the 
same time, the Petitioner seemed to indicate that it would fill the position in 2018 or 2019, and not 
necessarily during the first year of operations. Due to these ambiguities in the record, the Petitioner 
did not establish that it will fill a subordinate "manager" position within one year. 
Further, the duties attributed to the "manager/shareholder" position overlap with those the Petitioner 
indicates the Beneficiary will perform.2 These duties include establishing company policies, training 
employees, identifying and acquiring investment properties, negotiating contracts, approving plans 
for real estate improvements, resolving issues with tenants and contractors, reviewing and signing 
checks, maintaining schedules, ordering supplies, answering calls and taking messages, collecting 
data !rom customer surveys, and performing day-to-day bookkeeping. Apart from the responsibility 
for establishing policies, it appears that this position would be involved in all aspects of the 
company's day-to-day operations, rather than performing managerial duties. Therefore, even if the 
Petitioner had established that it will eventually hire a subordinate "manager/shareholder," the 
record does not establish that the position would be managerial or supervisory in nature. 
The Petitioner also indicates that it may hire two to three part-time employees at minimum wage, 
depending on the company's workload. These employees would be responsible for managing the 
office, taking calls from realtors, tenants and subcontractors, and operating equipment as assigned. 
2 The Petitioner also stated that, in addition to these duties, the manager/shareholder would initially perform all "day-to­
day bookkeeping." until an office manager is hired, but there are no additional references to an office manager in the 
business plan. 
6 
,-\faller of A-J-R-E- Inc. 
As with the "manager/shareholder" position the Petitioner did not provide a timeline for hiring any 
part-time hourly staff. 
Further, the business plan did not show how the company would grow during the first year of 
operations to the point where it would require the Beneficiary to perform primarily managerial or 
executive job duties. The Petitioner provided evidence that it has received $200,000 in funding and 
indicates that it would spend $100,000 on property acquisition, $7,500 on an architect, $30,000 on 
start-up costs (advertising, expenses, salary, and rent for six months), $2,500 on office equipment, 
and the balance of $60,000 on renovating the property acquired. The Petitioner did not provide 
evidence that it had begun the process of researching investment properties and there is little 
information to indicate what type of property the Petitioner is likely to acquire for $100,000. 
Nevertheless, while this breakdown of first year expenses seems reasonable based on the size of the 
investment, the Petitioner did not provide credible financial projections indicating its expected 
revenue for the first year of operations and beyo"nd. The Petitioner provided a 'Three- Year Income 
Projection" chart showing it anticipated $672,000 in "flip property income" and $75,000 in lease 
income in its initial year of operations. The expense breakdown identifies $465,781 in expenses and 
cannot be reconciled with the first year costs identified above, although both breakdowns appear on 
consecutive pages of the same business plan. For example, the Petitioner indicates that its expenses 
will include $143,000 for salaries, $30,000 for "chemicals," and $90,000 for rent. Notably, the 
projection does not include any costs associated with real estate commissions, architect fees, or 
subcontractor fees. The Petitioner has not explained these discrepancies and the record does not 
·support the Petitioner's apparent claim that it generate gross receipts of nearly $750,000 in its first 
year after acquiring a property for $100,000. 
The lack of credible financial projections raises further questions regarding the Petitioner's actual 
hiring and expansion plans for the first year of operations. Based on this limited stalling plan and 
lack of a timeline for hiring, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary will primarily 
supervise a subordinate staff of professional, managerial, or supervisory personnel within one year. 
See section IOI(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not established that it 
would employ sufficient stafT who would relieve the Beneficiary from performing non-qualifying 
duties. 
The Petitioner has consistently stated that the Beneficiary will occupy the senior position in the new 
office, but has not submitted a job description or supporting evidence sufficient to demonstrate that 
he would primarily engage in managerial or executive duties, or that the new office would support a 
managerial or executive position, after the initial year of operations. 
IV. QUALIFYING EMPLOY;v!ENT ABROAD 
Although not addressed in the Director's decision, we find the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary has at least one year of full-time continuous employment abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
.., 
.
Matter of A-J-R-E- Inc. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has been employed by in 
the Petitioner's claimed parent company , as a partner since 2011 and indicated on the Form 
1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, that his duties abroad are exactly the same as those he 
will perform in the United States. For the reasons discussed above, the numbered list of 11 duties 
was too vague to establish what the Beneficiary has been doing on a day-to-'day basis and is 
insufficient to support a tinding that he performs primarily managerial or executive duties for the 
foreign entity. Although the Petitioner provided an organizational chart for the company 
indicating that it has three employees in addition to its two partners, the Petitioner did not provide 
position descriptions for these employees or otherwise establish that they relieve the Beneficiary 
from involvement in the company's day-to-day operational activities. 
Further, the Director informed the Petitioner in the RFE that when the Beneficiary applied for a U.S. 
visitor visa in October 2015, he indicated on his visa application that he was employed at the time as 
a tailor for in Saudi Arabia, with no prior employment. In response, the 
Petitioner provided a letter from the Beneficiary, who stated that he started this men's tailoring 
company in 2009 and that he owns the company, even though his name does 
not appear as its owner. 
He explained that he divides his time between the Petitioner's parent company in and the 
tailoring company in Saudi Arabia and did not work for only one company. Based on this statement, 
the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary's full-time employment with 
Also, the record does not contain evidence of the Beneticiary's ownership of 
in support of his claim that it is an afJiliate of the company. Absem evidence that the 
two foreign entities are related companies, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
meets the full-time foreign employment requirement. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish the 
Beneficiary's full-time continuous employment abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at 
least one year in the three years preceding the fili,ng of the petition. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that it secured sufficient physical premises to house the new 
oftice, that it would cmplo)· the Beneficiary' in a managerial or executive capacity within one year, 
and that the Beneficiary has the required one year of full-time employment abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Maffer vf A-J-R-E- fnc.,'ID# 1032692 (AAO Mar. 13, 2018) 
8