dismissed L-1A Case: Real Estate Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF CJG-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 25, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a real estate developer, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary employment as a 
manager under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees.1 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits new letters and asserts 
that the Director lacks understanding of real estate development, and erred by failing to consider the 
company's stage of development, making unwarranted assumptions about the Beneficiary's duties, 
and disregarding the work of "one of the key managers." 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity 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 Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
August 3, 2016 until August 2, 2017. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United States 
through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary 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 one year within the date of approval of the petition to support 
an executive or managerial position. 
Matter ofCJG-, LLC 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-lA petition that involved a new office must submit a statement of 
the beneficiary's duties during the previous year and under the extended petition; a statement 
describing the staffing of the new operation and evidence of the numbers and types of positions held; 
evidence of its financial status; evidence that it has been doing business for the previous year; and 
evidence that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(14)(ii). 
11. DEFINITIONS 
"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. 
"Executive capacity" means 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 10l(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. 
Based on the statutory definitions of managerial and executive capacity, the Petitioner must first show 
that the Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 
940 F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, the Petitioner must prove that 
the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial or executive duties, as opposed to ordinary 
operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 
1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
III. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
When examining the managerial or executive 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 to be 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)(ii). 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. 
2 
Matter ofCJG-, LLC 
The Petitioner purchased over 120,000 square feet of land in February 2016, and plans to build 21 
houses there. The Petitioner stated: "During the current developmental preparatory period, our 
company does not need full time salaried employees." Instead, the company had "spent over $325,000 
for external professional contractors." 
The Petitioner described "those functions/duties that [the Beneficiary] is performing and tasks that she 
has achieved": 
(1) Specific Real Estate Investment and Development Management: . . . [The 
Beneficiary] has researched, investigated, analyzed the feasibility of the first 
development project; and acquired ... real estate (land and an office) in the State 
of Hawaii. She continues ... to select, negotiate and retain a team of very 
experienced and capable external professionals ( engineer, architect, soil experts, 
environmental specialist and etc.) [sic] to support the company's real estate 
development. 
(2) General Administrative Management: ... [The Beneficiary has retained a] CPA, 
tax consultant, attorney, [and] real estate brokers, to assist the company in executing 
duties .... 
(3) Personnel Management: ... [The Beneficiary] will need to recruit, retain and train 
salaried employees to manage the Company's development and construction once 
permits are issued and construction begins .... 
(4) Financial Management: ... [The Beneficiary] has proven that she is very much 
capable of analyzing, planning, directing and coordinating all financial activities, 
including capital expenditure, controlling of investment and administrative 
expenses, tax estimation and payroll budgets and etc. [sic] ... 
(5) Long Term strategic and Administration: ... [The Beneficiary] must analyze and 
forecast the market trend in the long run. For this reason, she is required to study 
all pertinent journals, market reports and obtain opinions from various real estate 
investment experts to set the long germ goal of the company. In this connection, 
she has to prepare both feasible budget and retain sufficient support staff to support 
her managerial functions .... 
The above list of job responsibilities do not appear to accurately reflect the Beneficiary's current duties 
as of the time of filing. Most of the then-current, ongoing duties listed above relate to relying on 
outside contractors. Research of "the first development project" and acquisition of the land had 
already taken place at the time of filing. The Petitioner had no employees at the time of filing, and 
therefore the management of in-house personnel was not yet one of the Beneficiary's responsibilities. 
When asked to provide more details about the Beneficiary's current duties, the Petitioner listed six 
responsibilities of the "General Manager" and the approximate time that the Beneficiary devotes to 
each, summarized below: 
• Setting long-term goals "for the Company to become a major real estate developer/investor in 
the State of Hawaii." Time spent: 15% 
3 
Matter ofCJG-, LLC 
• Implementing investment and development policies by directing supporting staff and 
contractors. Time spent: 10% 
• Directing support staff, including "directing the Project Manager to . . . identify 
residential/commercial properties ... for investment opportunities." Other identified support 
staff included an accountant, marketing agent, attorneys, surveyor, landscaper, and engineering 
company. Time spent: 40% 
• Hiring and firing employees and engaging contractors; formulating the budget. Time spent: 
25% 
• Reporting to the foreign company's board of directors. Time spent: 5% 
• Making decisions regarding possible expansion of the company. Time spent: 5% 
The Petitioner did not state who handled the company's basic administrative tasks such as record­
keeping and handling correspondence. 
The Petitioner repeated the assertion that it had no employees other than the Beneficiary. As such, 
internal personnel responsibilities were not yet making any demands on the Beneficiary's time. 
Therefore, the revised job description, like the earlier version, relied partly on future expectations 
rather than the Beneficiary's actual, current responsibilities. 
The revised job description called the Beneficiary a "general manager" with authority over a separate, 
subordinate "project manager." The Petitioner stated that an outside architect performed in this 
capacity. At the time of filing, however, the Petitioner specified that the Beneficiary herself would be 
the project manager; her own resume showed that title. This uncertainty about the Beneficiary's own 
title and role in the project raises questions that are not answered. Delegation of the project manager's 
role to an outside contractor does not demonstrate or imply that the Beneficiary has performed, and 
continues to perform, primarily managerial or executive tasks. 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart identifying 11 contractors providing support services. 
The Petitioner, however, did not submit documentary evidence showing that it had an ongoing 
relationship with each of the contractors at the time of filing and continuing from that point. The 
Petitioner submitted copies of its agreements with, or proposals from, five of the contractors, covering 
the following elements of the Petitioner's first and, so far, only development project: 
• An environmental services consultant "Prepare[ d] an Environmental Assessment and Special 
Management Area Use Permit Application," farming some elements out to subcontractors. 
• A historic preservation firm conducted "an Archaeological Inventory Survey and a Cultural 
Impact Assessment." 
• A surveyor performed a "Due Diligence Study," including a "Topographic survey" and 
"Subdivision Mapping." 
• A geotechnical engineering firm "determine[d] the subsurface conditions" of the property. 
• A fence rental company provided a perimeter fence around the undeveloped lot. 
The agreements and proposals described above date from 2015 and 2016, most of them more than a 
year before the filing date of the extension petition. Of the above entities, only the fencing company 
received continuous, documented payments from the Petitioner past the filing date, but this was 
apparently because the rented fences remained at the site rather than the result of significant ongoing 
4 
Matter ofCJG-, LLC 
activity by the rental company. The Petitioner wrote a check for more than $11,500 to the historic 
preservation firm in February 2018, but the record does not show that the company was actively 
performing work for the Petitioner at the time of filing in 2017. 
The Petitioner issued only four IRS Form 1099-MISC Miscellaneous Income statements (which report 
payments to contractors) for 2017, the year of filing: 
• $4448 to a law firm 
• $115,972 to the architect sometimes identified as the project manager 
• $4863 to the attorney who prepared the petition 
• $1500 to a landscape service 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the Petitioner had not accounted for "many of the day­
to-day, non-qualifying duties of the business," or established that the Beneficiary has managerial or 
executive control over the work of the various contractors. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director "mischaracterized the level duties" performed by "a 
Real Estate Project Manager." The Petitioner does not elaborate on this point except to refer back to 
the initial letter submitted with the petition, and to cite two new letters from individuals who "happen 
to have intimate knowledge of [the Petitioner's] business and development project [because] 
Beneficiary had [previously] consulted both of them." 
The two letters, both from consultants who have worked in various capacities in real estate, are broadly 
similar. One of the writers states that the Beneficiary "had informally consulted me about the project"; 
the other states that the Beneficiary "has ... consulted me informally in the past." Each letter includes 
a condensed rephrasing of the Beneficiary's five-part job description. One letter indicates that the 
Beneficiary "provides overall management and supervision of the supporting staff," while the other 
states that the Beneficiary is "[p ]roviding overall direction and guidance for the support staff to carry 
out their respective day to day duties." Neither of the letter writers explains how his informal 
consultation has given him significant knowledge of the Beneficiary's day-to-day tasks, and neither 
writer specifies who constituted "support staff' at a company with no subordinate employees. The 
Petitioner has documented activity with some of its claimed contractors, but has not established the 
extent of the Beneficiary's "overall management and supervision" of those contractors. The proposals 
from the various firms outlined what the contractors would do, with some degree of specificity; the 
proposals did not show that the Beneficiary would have managerial authority over the contractors' 
employees. 
The Petitioner states that, by emphasizing the lack of subordinate employees, the Director "ignored 
[the] regulatory mandate to recognize the [Petitioner's] stage of development." The Petitioner asserts 
that the "company was still at its infant stage of business development," and "it is just the nature of 
the real estate development business that it would not have full time employees to run the operation. 
Real estate development projects only need most[ly] short term professional workers." 
Previously, and on more than one occasion, the Petitioner had indicated that it would employ a full­
time staff at an unspecified later time, and that the Beneficiary would dedicate time to personnel-
5 
Matter ofCJG-, LLC 
related matters such as hiring, firing, and setting salaries. Apart from this apparent inconsistency, the 
company's stage of development does not relieve the Petitioner from meeting basic requirements. As 
we will discuss further below, the Petitioner had previously filed a "new office" petition in order to 
advance from "its infant stage" to a functioning business. If the Petitioner has not yet made that 
progress, this is a disqualifying factor rather than grounds to overlook other deficiencies in the record. 
The Petitioner states that, in the absence of evidence as to who performs day-to-day tasks for the 
company, the Director made the unwarranted assumption that the Beneficiary must be the one 
performing them. Because the burden of proof rests with the Petitioner, it is the Petitioner's 
responsibility to show who performs non-qualifying day-to-day functions. The Petitioner asserts that 
"it is very common for development companies, to retain external services and contracted 
professionals." In the denial notice, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of 
evidence regarding outside contractors. The Director also pointed out the limitations of that evidence. 
For instance, several contractors appear to have performed narrowly defined services for the 
petitioning entity, which did not account for the full range of non-qualifying tasks that the Petitioner's 
business would entail. The Petitioner disputes this finding without directly rebutting it. The Petitioner 
cites the company's organizational chart, which named 11 contractors, but most of those contractors 
did not receive IRS Forms 1099-MISC for the year of filing. The documentation relating to contractors 
is not sufficient to show that these contractors relieved the Beneficiary from primarily performing day­
to-day business tasks, such as office duties that cannot realistically be delegated to off site third parties. 
The Petitioner asserts: "one of the key managers, an experienced and knowledgeable architect ... has 
been performing day-to-day duties." Prior submissions show that the architect received copies of 
several of the 2016 service agreements, corroborating his involvement. Some of these documents 
referred to the architect as the project manager. 
In a new letter, the architect states: 
I am retained as a Consultant by [the Beneficiary] to carry out all the day to day 
development coordination and administrative functions of the Project. ... I am fully 
responsible for carrying out the day to day functions under the supervision and direction 
of [the Beneficiary] to meet the requirements of what every real estate development 
project requires, which include: coordinating architectural design and revision, 
working with outside professional consultants ... , applying for various zoning and 
construction permits meeting regulatory requirements, and now moving toward 
overseeing the Project construction by engaging construction companies, 
subcontractors and overseeing scheduling. Research of costs and building materials 
will be another function involved. 
I have controlled the logistics and administrate essential affairs evolving on the 
planning, design and construction of the Project site on [a] daily basis working closely 
with [the Beneficiary]. . . . Generally I have been spending between 4 to 8 hours 
(sometimes more) daily on this project. 
Matter ofCJG-, LLC 
[The Beneficiary] hosts meeting[s] with myself and the supporting staff of generally 
draftsmen, engineering consultants on a weekly basis either in person or via telephone 
conferences. I am generally in contact with [the Beneficiary] on a daily basis to help 
resolve issues and conflicts. [The Beneficiary] usually takes on the tasks on long term 
planning, making decisions upon receipt of reports by our support team; and selecting 
and retaining other needed professional support on [an as] needed basis. 
The architect's letter fills in a few missing details, but the record still does not show that the 
Beneficiary devotes most of her time to qualifying managerial or executive tasks. The letter addresses 
the Beneficiary's tasks only briefly and with few specifics. 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 ofreiterating 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). Reciting a 
beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the 
regulations require a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. The actual duties 
themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Id 
The letter indicates that the architect spends a variable amount of time each day on the Petitioner's 
project. The architect's resume, submitted with the letter, mentions the Petitioner twice, stating that 
the architect performed a "Due Diligence Study ... Coordinat[ing] Architectural, Archaeological, 
Planning and Cost Feasibility Studies and Recommendations," and "Preparation of Environmental 
Assessment/Preliminary Design." The resume also indicated that the architect was an "Architectural 
Project Manager/Consultant" with another architectural firm from 2007 to 2018, indicating that he 
divided his time between multiple projects between 2016 and 2018. 
Furthermore, the record does not contain enough details to establish that coordinating the activities of 
the various contractors presents day-to-day demands on the Beneficiary's time, or that of the architect 
contracted as the project manager. 
The job descriptions submitted by the Petitioner are not entirely consistent with one another; lack 
sufficient details; and include both functions that the Beneficiary no longer performs, and others that 
have not yet begun. 
Based on the deficiencies and inconsistencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. 
IV. NEW OFFICE EXTENSION 
Beyond the Director's decision, review of the record does not indicate that the Petitioner has met all 
the requirements to extend a previously-approved new office petition. To extend the validity of a new 
office petition, the regulations require: (A) evidence that a qualifying relationship (defined by 
common ownership and control) still exists between the United States and foreign entities are still 
qualifying organizations; (B) evidence that the United States entity has been doing business for the 
previous year; (C) a statement of the duties performed by the beneficiary for the previous year and the 
Matter ofCJG-, LLC 
duties the beneficiary will perform under the extended petition; (D) a statement describing the staffing 
of the new operation, including the number of employees and types of positions held, accompanied by 
evidence of wages paid to employees; and (E) evidence of the financial status of the United States 
operation. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii). 
A Doing Business 
The Petitioner has not shown that it was doing business for the previous year preceding the filing of 
the extension petition, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B). Doing business means the regular, 
systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services by a qualifying organization and does 
not include the mere presence of an agent or office of the qualifying organization in the United States 
and abroad. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(H). 
The Petitioner did not identify any goods or services that it was regularly, systematically, and 
continuously providing at the time it filed the extension petition in July 2017. The Petitioner had 
negligible income at the time of filing, instead drawing from startup capital from its parent company. 
The only income that the Petitioner reported on its 2016 tax return consisted of two rent payments 
three months apart, totaling less than $2500. The Petitioner has not established that this level of 
income is consistent with continuous business activity. 
When it filed the extension petition in July 2017, the Petitioner stated that it "has well prepared to 
develop its first real estate project in Hawaii by purchasing land and contracting various professionals 
to meaningfully commence its operation." The Petitioner stated that, after final plans are approved, 
the company "will begin the construction phase of the project, which is estimated to be in early to mid-
2018," nearly a year after the filing date. The Petitioner did not show that construction permits had 
been issued at the time of filing. Instead, the Petitioner referred to future activities that would take 
place "once permits are issued." 
The Petitioner has not shown that the company engaged in the regular, systematic, and continuous 
provision of goods or services in the year preceding the filing of the extension petition. Therefore, we 
cannot find that the Petitioner meets the "doing business" requirement. 
B. Financial Status 
A petition to extend the validity of a new office petition must include evidence of the financial status 
of the United States operation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(E). The evidence submitted does not 
establish that the Petitioner is capable of supporting itself through business activity. 
As noted above, the Petitioner reported minimal income on its 2016 tax return. The Petitioner asserted: 
"Income of the company will follow once the construction phase of the project is completed, and 
developed units are sold in the market." At the time of filing, construction was not yet underway, and 
the Petitioner had not yet received permits to begin. The architect whom the Petitioner employs as a 
project manager estimated, in late 2018, that "the total process of completion of infrastructure to work 
and construction will take another 2-1/2 to 3 years," which is longer than the two year period that an 
extension of status would cover. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(15)(ii). 
Matter ofCJG-, LLC 
The tax return indicated that the company had just over $46,000 in current assets at the end of 2016. 
This amount is less than the Beneficiary's annual salary of $48,000, and does not take into account 
any other expenses. All of the Petitioner's end-of-year current assets were in the form of cash in the 
Petitioner's bank account. The most recent bank statement, from March 2017, showed that the balance 
had dropped below $39,000. The Petitioner still owned the undeveloped land, but did not appear to 
have sufficient assets to cover construction and development costs or continued payments to outside 
contractors. The Petitioner claimed to have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to contractors after 
March 2017, but did not show that it obtained these funds through its own business activity. 
The regulations permit a petitioner to rely on funds from the related foreign entity during its one-year 
new office period, but do not indicate that this can be an ongoing arrangement for a U.S. entity that is 
still not self-sufficient after that first year. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, we find that the Petitioner was not doing business, and did not have 
sufficient finances to do business, at the end of the one-year new office period. These deficiencies 
amount to additional grounds for denial of the extension petition. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 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 asMatter ofCJG-, LLC, ID# 3028173 (AAO Apr. 25, 2019) 
9