dismissed L-1A Case: Real Estate Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22717706 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV . 21, 2022 
The Petitioner, describing itself as a real estate development company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as the president and chief executive officer of its new office 1 under the L-lA nonimrnigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition on multiple grounds, concluding the 
record did not establish that: 1) it had secured sufficient premises to house the new office, 2) the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity, and 3) the Beneficiary would 
be employed in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of an approval of the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it secured a sufficient premises through a sublease to house its 
new office during the first year. Further, the Petitioner contends that submitted foreign employer 
corporate documentation demonstrates that the Beneficiary was employed as an executive abroad. The 
Petitioner also states that it provided documentation, including a business plan, establishing that it 
would be sufficiently operational within one year to support the Beneficiary in an executive capacity. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal, as the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 
would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of an approval of the 
petition. In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested 
benefit. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Since this issue is dispositive, we decline to reach 
and hereby reserve its arguments with respect to the Director's other grounds for denial. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues 
the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N 
Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). 
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. 
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 
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. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY WITHIN ONE YEAR 
The sole issue we will analyze is whether the Petitioner established that it would employ the 
Beneficiary in an executive capacity within one year of the petition's approval. The Petitioner does 
not claim that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity. Therefore, we restrict our 
analysis to whether the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity. 
"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 101 (a)( 44 )(B) of the 
Act. 
To determine whether the Petitioner established that its new office would support an executive position 
within one year, we will review the Beneficiary's proposed job duties, along with the Petitioner's 
business and hiring plans and evidence that the business will grow sufficiently to support the 
Beneficiary in the intended executive capacity. The totality of the evidence must be considered in 
analyzing whether the proposed 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 stated in support of the petition that the foreign employer "decided to make an 
investment in the United States to develop commercial and residential real estate projects." The 
Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary had been "managing the projects from Brazil, which has not 
been very effective." The Petitioner explained that the Beneficiary would be transferred to the United 
States to be its most senior employee and that he would direct the company, set policies, make 
executive decisions, develop new strategies and programs, contribute to the expansion of the business, 
develop and grow real estate deals, and evaluate and review new potential deals. The Petitioner 
submitted the following duties for the Beneficiary in support of the petition: 
2 
1) Supervising a team of project and technical support managers who provide services 
to projects of mining operations. 
2) Completely handling the responsibilities of all the operations who provide services 
in the United States: 
a) Supervising a team of top management personnel who run the day-to-day 
operations of our FL subsidiary in the United States. 
b) Providing key strategic technology and project management directives to stay 
ahead in the developing of business. 
c) Managing finance operations, personnel and human resources' development 
policies. 
d) Set guidelines for quality management and technical support management. 
3) Report back to the parent company in Brazil. 
4) Identify potential real estate and development deals. It is essential to point out that 
[the Beneficiary] has unique experience on handling operations for the last 3 years 
as Managing Partner in an executive capacity in the parent companies in Brazil. 
The Director later issued a request for evidence (RFE) indicating that the Beneficiary's submitted 
duties were insufficient, noting that they were too broad and general. Therefore, the Director requested 
that the Petitioner submit a more thorough description of the Beneficiary's proposed executive duties 
and the percentage of time he would devote on each task. In response, the Petitioner submitted the 
following duties for the Beneficiary in the United States: 
• Land building acquisition; 
• Leasing and site location; 
• Evaluates new property to ensure it meets the needs of the organization; 
• Authorize new property purchases or expansion; 
• Manage finance operations; 
• Supervise the team of project and technical support managers. 
The Petitioner submitted a duty description for the Beneficiary that does not credibly demonstrate he 
would primarily perform executive-level tasks within the first year. The Petitioner did not sufficiently 
detail the executive duties the Beneficiary would perform during the first year or the percentages of 
time he would devote to his various tasks. Although we acknowledge the Petitioner vaguely indicated 
that the Beneficiary would delegate tasks to claimed subordinate project and technical managers it 
asserts it will hire, it did not sufficiently explain the asserted executive-level tasks he would complete 
during the first year to successfully launch the new business operation. For instance, the Petitioner 
did not specify the "key strategic technology and project management directives" or "development 
policies" he would put in place. Further, it is not clear what tasks would be involved in setting 
"guidelines for quality management." Likewise, the Petitioner did not detail the day-to-day tasks 
inherent in directing the company, setting policies, making executive decisions, developing new 
strategies and programs, contributing to the expansion of the business, developing and growing real 
estate deals, and evaluating and reviewing new potential deals. 
As noted by the Director, the duty description the Petitioner provided for the Beneficiary in response 
to the Director's RFE is too generic, vaguely referring to land acquisition, leasing and site location, 
evaluating new properties, authorizing new purchases, and managing finances. The duty description 
3 
does not sufficiently articulate his daily tasks both during and at the end of the first year. In fact, the 
general tasks listed for the Beneficiary include several apparent non-qualifying operational tasks 
related to evaluating and acquiring real estate; and leasing and developing new properties. However, 
the Petitioner did not sufficiently indicate how the Beneficiary would be primarily relieved from 
performing non-qualifying operational tasks within one year. Although we do not expect to the 
Petitioner to detail every executive-level task of the Beneficiary during the first year, the lack of these 
detail leaves substantial uncertainty as to whether he would primarily perform executive-level duties 
within the first year. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties 
would be primarily executive 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.2d41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
B. Business Plan and Projected Staffing 
In the case of a new office petition, we review the petitioner's business and hiring plans and evidence 
that the business will grow sufficiently to support a beneficiary in the intended 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 executive in nature within one year of the 
petition's approval. Accordingly, we consider the totality of the evidence in analyzing whether the 
proposed executive position is plausible based on 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). 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart in response to the Director's RFE reflecting that the 
Beneficiary would oversee a vice president and general, marketing, legal, and sales managers. The 
chart also showed that the general manager would supervise an accountant, a project manager, and a 
secretary. 
The Petitioner also provided a business plan indicating that the goal of the foreign employer was to 
"develop the basis for new startup real estate companies" in the United States. The Petitioner 
explained that the foreign employer had established the Petitioner, and a wholly owned subsidiary of 
the Petitioner for this purpose. The Petitioner stated that its "business model will 
be modest for now" and that its development goals would be "accomplished over the next 1-15 years." 
The Petitioner indicated that the objective of its U.S. operation was to purchase plots ofland in Central 
Florida and develop commercial and residential real estate projects; and then "sell the commercial and 
residential properties to third parties" or "rent parcels of the commercial properties and hold them to 
provide a monthly long-term income." More specifically, the Petitioner stated that it planned to 
develop and build "street malls at three different locations in central Florida," as well as "a 
condominium with 80-103 residential units (gated community) to be sold/leased" near one of its 
proposed commercial developments. The Petitioner explained that this would require around $8.5 
million investment in December 2021 and a projected investment ofup to approximately $37 million 
when all projected development was completed. The Petitioner submitted photographs of plots ofland 
it claimed to have acquired in the region and detailed its development plans, noting that "all the initial 
studies are finished (survey, technical traffic, soil and vegetation study)" and that it "is just waiting 
[on] one last permit from the state of Florida." 
4 
The Petitioner further indicated that it required "directors" in the United States to run the business and 
to "accomplish the 1,5 years schedule of construction, making the project successful and done." The 
Petitioner stated that its construction plans would be accomplished without the "directors," presumably 
including the Beneficiary, "to negotiate with tenants, contractors, suppliers, financial institutions, 
clients or business partners." 
On appeal, the Petitioner explains that the Beneficiary would be responsible for managing the "main 
strategic aspects of the operation," including selecting properties for purchase and/or sale, lessees, 
senior managers, business partners and associates, marketing strategies, and investment and financing 
portfolios." The Petitioner emphasizes that "the real estate projects idealized by [it] are all large, with 
the purpose ofleasing to large corporations and national brands." The Petitioner indicates that it would 
acquire and sell "one to two real estate projects over the next 3 years" and that one to two additional 
deals could be carried out every three years. The Petitioner set out projections reflecting that from 
identifying a commercial lot to selling a fully developed property it would take approximately 32 
months. The Petitioner emphasizes that it has already invested over $5.4 million in the development 
of commercial properties through it and its affiliate and points to evidence demonstrating that it has 
already acquired plots of land in Florida for this purpose. The Petitioner states on appeal that "the 
idea is to start and complete one project at a time" sell them and use the capital from these sales to 
"start a second one, a third one as so on." 
As discussed, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary would act in an executive capacity in the 
United States within one year. The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a 
person's elevated position within an organizational hierarchy, including major components or 
functions of the organization, and that person's authority to direct the organization. Section 
101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the 
management" and "establish the goals and policies" of that organization. Inherent to the definition, 
the beneficiary must primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than 
the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. An individual will not be deemed an executive under the 
statute simply because they have an executive title or because they "direct" the enterprise as the owner 
or sole managerial employee. A beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision 
making" and receive only "general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of 
directors, or stockholders of the organization." Id. 
When a new business is established and commences operations, the regulations recognize that a 
designated executive responsible for setting up operations will be engaged in a variety of activities not 
normally performed by employees at the executive-level and that often the full range of executive 
responsibility cannot be performed. To qualify for the L-1 nonimmigrant classification during the first 
year of operations, the regulations require a petitioner to disclose the proposed nature of the business 
and the size of the U.S. investment and establish that the proposed enterprise will support an executive 
position within one year of the approval of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 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 an executive who will primarily perform qualifying duties. 
The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that it would develop sufficiently within one year to 
support the Beneficiary in an executive capacity. The Petitioner submitted an extensive organizational 
5 
structure including several subordinate managers and a total of eight pos1t10ns. However, the 
Petitioner provides no hiring timeline as to when these subordinates would be hired, nor did it submit 
duty descriptions and required educations for these positions to credibly demonstrate that they would 
be required during the first year. The Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary would be tasked with 
overseeing "project and technical support managers" and other "top management personnel," 
however, there is little indication as to when these subordinates would be hired to support the 
Beneficiary in his asserted executive-level role. The Petitioner's assertions in its business plan reflect 
that the Beneficiary would be responsible for all aspects of its proposed real estate projects, and it does 
not specifically articulate when he would be relieved from performing these non-qualifying 
operational tasks related to identifying, purchasing, and developing properties. 
The Petitioner's business plans also leave substantial uncertainty as to whether it would be sufficiently 
operational within one year to support the Beneficiary's executive level position. The Petitioner states 
on appeal that the large development projects it is planning would take approximately three years to 
complete, where it would lead to actual revenue from selling or leasing these properties. Although we 
acknowledge that the Petitioner submits some evidence to indicate that it has acquired plots of land 
and that it has begun the process of gaining permits and evaluating the land for development, there is 
little evidence to support a conclusion that the Petitioner would generate revenue during the first year 
and commence doing business sufficient to develop an organizational structure to support the 
Beneficiary in an executive role. 
For instance, the Petitioner stated in support of the petition that the foreign employer first decided to 
invest in real estate development projects in the United States in March 2019, well over two years 
prior to the date the petition was filed. 2 The Petitioner stated that this "proved not effective," leaving 
question as to how it would be effectuated in within year after the petition was filed. Further, the 
Petitioner vaguely mentioned a "1,5 years schedule of construction," appearing to indicate that the 
construction of its projects could potentially take up to five years. It also expressed plans to develop 
its real estate projects over a 15-year period. Therefore, in sum, the Petitioner has not credibly 
demonstrated that it would commence doing business within its first year of operations and develop 
sufficiently to support the Beneficiary in an executive capacity where he would be primarily relieved 
from performing non-qualifying operational tasks. 3 The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies and 
ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter 
of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would act in an 
executive capacity within one year of an approval of the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 The petition was filed on November 23, 2021. 
3 In addition to demonstrating that the Petitioner would support the Beneficiary in an executive capacity within one year, 
it is further required to establish that it would "commence doing business." See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(2). The tenn 
"doing business" is defined in the regulations as "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(l)(l)(ii)(H). 
6