dismissed L-1A Case: Real Estate Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 9, 2024 In Re: 31013867 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a real estate developer, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as managing 
director and chief executive officer (MD/CEO) of its new office under the L-lA nonirnrnigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(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 that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity, and 
that the new office will be able to support a managerial or executive capacity within one year after 
approval of the petition. The Director also noted a discrepancy relating to the Beneficiary's claimed 
salary. The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-IA nonirnrnigrant 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). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
"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. 
To show that a beneficiary is eligible for L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification as an executive, the 
petitioner must show that the beneficiary will perform all four of the high-level responsibilities set 
forth in the statutory definition at section 101 (a)( 44 )(B) of the Act. If a petitioner establishes that the 
offered position meets all four elements set forth in the statutory definition, the petitioner must then 
prove that the beneficiary will be primarily engaged in 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). In determining whether the beneficiary's duties will be primarily 
executive, we consider the description of the job duties, the company's organizational structure, the 
duties of the beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to relieve the 
beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other factors that 
will contribute to understanding the beneficiary's actual duties and role in the business. 
In the denial notice, the Director stated that the Petitioner had not established that its new office would 
support a managerial position within one year. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred 
because the Beneficiary's intended position is that of an executive rather than a manager. But this 
distinction does not change the fundamental underlying concerns. An organization that cannot support 
a managerial position cannot support an executive position. See BlueStar Cabinets, Inc. v. Jaddou, 
No. 21-10116, 2022 WL 4364734, at *7 (5th Cir. Sept. 21, 2022) (holding that "'[d]irect[ing] the 
management of the organization' necessarily includes directing managers of the organization.") 
The Petitioner described itself as "a real estate development and general contracting entity" that will 
purchase, refurbish, and resell houses. A job description signed by the secretary of the Petitioner's 
foreign parent company indicates that the Beneficiary "is empowered and authorized to manage the 
day-to-day business and affairs of the Company," with authority over "medium & long-term strategic 
development," "Strategies, Policies, Procedures, Budgets," negotiation of contracts, and 
communications. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner submitted inconsistent information regarding the company's then­
current staffing. The Petitioner claimed two U.S. employees on Form I-129, and a business plan 
submitted with the petition indicates that a "design and management team ... has already been 
recruited." But the Petitioner did not identify any existing employees other than the Beneficiary, and 
an organizational chart submitted with the petition indicated that every position was vacant except for 
the Beneficiary's position as CEO. 
2 
The Petitioner's business plan included a hiring plan showing anticipated hiring dates: 
Q l 2022: MD/CEO [the Beneficiary] 
Q2 2023: Senior Administrator, Lead- Projects 
Q3 2023: Senior Architect 
Q4 2023: Senior Engineer 
Q l 2024: Lead - Marketing 
Q2 2024: Lead - Brokerage 
Q3 2024: Marketing Executive 1, Broker l 
Q4 2024: Marketing Executive 2, Broker 2 
The plan indicated that recruitment efforts were "ongoing" for the three positions to be filled in 2023 
and "planned" for all other positions. 
The senior administrator's tasks, as described in the business plan, consist of clerical and operational 
support. The job description for the lead - projects enumerated general responsibilities such as 
"[m ]anage and coordinate multiple projects," "[m ]anage tasks," and"[ d]elegate work," but provided 
few details. 
In a request for evidence, the Director stated that the Petitioner had not provided enough information 
about the intended subordinate employees to show that the new office would support a managerial or 
executive position within one year after approval of the petition. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted an updated business plan, dated August 2023, including a revised 
hiring plan showing that the company would be staffed over the course of five years instead of the two 
years originally described: 
Year 1: CEO [the Beneficiary], Senior Administrator, Project Manager 
Year 2: [none] 
Year 3: Marketing Manager, Real Estate Managing Broker 
Year 4: Marketing Executive 1, Real Estate Broker 1 
Year 5: Marketing Executive 2, Real Estate Broker 2 
The revised business plan no longer indicated that the company would directly employ an architect 
and engineer. Instead, the plan stated: "In addition to in-house employees, the Company will use the 
services of independent contractors, including senior architects and senior engineers, construction 
workers, interior designers, landscapers, and other professionals whose involvement will depend on 
projects." 
The 2023 business plan includes a new description of the Beneficiary's first-year responsibilities, 
which is different from the original description, lacks significant detail, and includes some apparently 
redundant items. For example, the new description stated that the Beneficiary would "oversee the 
negotiation ... [and] approval ... of all third-party agreements," and lists as a separate responsibility 
that he would "[n]egotiate or approve contracts or agreements." An entry indicating that he would 
"[ o ]rganize meetings with the board of directors at the Parent Company" appears to duplicate another 
entry indicating that he would "[s]erve as liaison[] between the Parent Company and the Company." 
3 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the revised job description "is still too general to 
demonstrate that [the Beneficiary] will primarily perform managerial duties after one year of doing 
business." The Director stated that the Petitioner had not "detailed [the Beneficiary's] actual tasks," 
and questioned the extent to which the Beneficiary would "establish short- and long-term strategies" 
on a continuing basis. The Director also concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that its personnel 
structure would support a primarily managerial position within one year. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that previously submitted materials, such as the 2023 business plan, 
"demonstrate that the U.S. company, within one year of the approval of the L-lA petition, will support 
the executive position of Managing Director/CEO and that the day-to-day functions will be sufficiently 
handled by the Senior Administrator, the Project Manager, and independent contractors." As noted 
above, the Petitioner also asserts that the Beneficiary would oversee these subordinates in an executive 
capacity. 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary would direct the management of the company 
by supervising managers. The 2023 job description for the project manager, formerly called "lead -
projects," is vague and repetitive. It indicates that the project manager would "[m]anage and 
coordinate multiple projects," with a separate entry indicating that they would "[ o ]rganize and plan 
project tasks and schedules and manage tasks." These general assertions of responsibility do not 
suffice to show that the project manager's position would constitute a managerial position under the 
Beneficiary's executive authority. 
The Petitioner must begin doing business during its first year of operations. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(7)(i)(A)(3). Doing business means the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of 
goods, services, or both and does not include the mere presence of an agent or office. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(H). Therefore, the Petitioner's new office must begin regularly, systematically, and 
continuously providing goods or services before the end of its first year of operations. 
A year 1 timetable in the 2023 business plan indicates that the Petitioner plans to "acquire its first 
property renovation project" and hire contractors to perform the renovations, but does not identify any 
goods or services that the Petitioner itself would provide during the first year. The activities described 
in the 2023 business plan do not appear to show that the new office would be doing business as the 
regulations define that term, or that the company would have sufficient staffing to do so, during the 
first year as required. 
A petitioner must establish the size of the United States investment and the financial ability of the 
foreign entity to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business in the United States. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(2). The Beneficiary's remuneration is therefore material to the petition. 
On Form I-129, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's salary would be $240,000 per year. The 
accompanying 2022 business plan, however, indicates that the Petitioner expected to spend $133,890 
on "Salaries" during its first year of operations. The revised 2023 business plan indicates $153,500 in 
first-year salary expenses, including $60,000 for the Beneficiary and partial-year salaries for two 
planned subordinates. 
4 
In the denial notice, the Director noted this significant reduction in the Beneficiary's intended salary. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. salary was the Beneficiary's 
"salary in Nigeria, which was converted to USD using the favorable conversion rate at the time" of 
300 Nigerian naira (N) to one U.S. dollar. The Petitioner asserts that the naira later dropped in value 
in relation to the dollar, to a ratio of NI, 150 to $1, resulting in the lower U.S. salary shown on the 
2023 business plan. 
Statements in a brief, motion, or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any 
evidentiary weight. Matter ofS-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998). The Petitioner does not cite to 
any record evidence to support its claims on appeal about currency exchange rates, the Beneficiary's 
foreign salary, or the assertion that the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. salary would match his salary in 
Nigeria, indexed to changes in the naira-to-dollar exchange rate. 
The Petitioner's initial submission did not specify the Beneficiary's salary abroad, but the Petitioner's 
response to the request for evidence included an undated "Personnel Report," indicating that the 
Beneficiary's annual salary was just over N100 million. Reported salaries for seven other named 
employees add up to over N226 million. 
These salary figures are not consistent with information in the Petitioner's initial evidence. Payroll 
ledgers and annual reports in the record in the record indicate that the foreign entity's total salary 
payments to all employees were N7,254,450 in the year ending September 30, 2021 and N9,817, 720 
in the year ending September 30, 2022. The foreign entity's total gross revenues, as reported on the 
annual reports, were N65,965,242 in 2020-21 and N124,800,115 in 2021-22. The revenue figure for 
2021-22 also appears in the Petitioner's 2023 business plan. The newly claimed salaries exceed the 
company's total revenues for 2020-21 and 2021-22 combined. 
Also, the Beneficiary's claimed salary ofNl00,554,001 would equal about $335,180 with a 300-to-1 
exchange rate, and about $87,438 with a 1,150-to-l exchange rate. When we apply these claimed 
exchange rates to the salary figures of$240,000 shown on Form I-129 and $60,000 shown in the 2023 
business plan, the results imply a foreign salary of about N72 million per year, a figure that does not 
appear to be present in the record and which is not consistent with the financial data in the payroll 
ledgers and annual reports. 
Given these discrepancies, it is significant that the Petitioner did not submit first-hand documentary 
evidence of the newly claimed salary amounts. The Petitioner has not satisfactorily accounted for the 
substantial reduction of the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. salary. 
Even with the reduced salary amount, the Petitioner has not met its burden of proof to establish the 
financial ability of the foreign entity to remunerate the Beneficiary. The Petitioner's submission of 
conflicting financial information raises broader questions of credibility. Unresolved material 
inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted 
in support of the requested immigration benefit. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). 
The Petitioner's 2022 business plan indicates that the company "is seeking a total funding of 
$1,000,000 of debt capital." The record does not appear to contain further information about this 
5 
intended financing. The 2023 business plan indicates that the foreign parent company "will invest a 
total of $400,000 from its corporate funds into the establishment of' the Petitioner's new office. 
The foreign entity's financial statement for the year ending September 30, 2022, indicated that the 
Petitioner's foreign parent company had total assets ofNS0,534,616. Identifying an online source for 
the conversion rate, the 2023 business plan indicated that this sum is worth US$65,846.90, a little 
more than one-quarter of the Beneficiary's initially proposed annual U.S. salary, and the company's 
total assets were not all liquid and immediately available to finance the Petitioner's new office. The 
foreign company's current liabilities ofN37,899,970 exceeded its current assets ofNlS,819,125. 
Bank documents show $200,000 in wire transfers from Nigeria to the Beneficiary or the Petitioner 
between August and October 2022. The transfer documents appear to identify the Beneficiary as the 
sender. The documents do not show the name of the Petitioner's parent company. 
A bank statement for the foreign parent entity's account, covering the period from November 9, 2020 
through November 8, 2022, does not show outgoing transfers in amounts matching the amounts and 
dates of the transfers the Beneficiary received, and the bank statement is not from the same bank 
identified as the source of the transfers. The only transaction shown during the August-October 2022 
period of the transfers is the payment of a N53.75 "Master Card Maintenance Fee" on September 25th. 
After late June 2022, the foreign entity's bank balance was consistently below N3,000. Given the 
roughly 767-1 exchange rate cited in the 2023 business plan, N3,000 is about $3.91. 
The transfer of funds from the Beneficiary's overseas bank account is not evidence that the Petitioner 
has received funds from its overseas parent company, and the documents in the record do not establish 
that the foreign entity is able to pay the Beneficiary's salary while the new office is establishing its 
operations. Funds already in the Petitioner's account do not establish this ability, because the 
Petitioner did not establish that those funds came from the foreign entity. 
As explained above, the Petitioner has provided changing and conflicting information regarding the 
Beneficiary's intended duties during the first year, the new office's staffing and activities during the 
first year, and the foreign entity's finances. We therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not met its 
burden of proof to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the new office will support a 
managerial or executive position during its first year of operations. 
Because the above issue determines the outcome of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding whether the Beneficiary served in a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity overseas. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
(stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are 
unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
We will dismiss the appeal for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6