dismissed L-1A Case: Restaurant

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 05, 2024 In Re: 31306944 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a "new office," 1 seeks to establish a restaurant chain in the United States and to employ 
the Beneficiary as its chief executive officer (CEO). The company requests his classification under 
the L-lA nonimmigrant visa category as an intracompany transferee who would temporarily work in 
an executive capacity. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that, 
contrary to L-lA regulations for new offices, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that: it secured 
sufficient physical premises for its business; the Beneficiary worked abroad in the claimed executive 
capacity; or, within one year of the petition's approval, it would support the proposed executive 
position. On appeal, the company contends that the Director misunderstood and disregarded evidence. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that the company has not established that it would support the proposed executive 
position. We will therefore dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
An intracompany transferee is a noncitizen who - for one continuous year in the three years before 
their U.S. admission - worked abroad and seeks to enter the country to temporarily work for a branch, 
parent, affiliate, or subsidiary of their foreign employer in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or 
involves "specialized knowledge." Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(A). A 
beneficiary of a new office petition must have worked abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). A new office petitioner must also intend to employ them in the United 
States in one of those capacities. Id. 
1 The term "new office" means an organization that has been doing business in the United States for less than one year. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(F). 
Because the Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an executive in a new office, the company 
must demonstrate that: 
• It has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office; 
• The Beneficiary worked abroad for one continuous year within the three years preceding the 
petition's filing in an executive or managerial capacity; 
• The proposed employment involves executive authority over the new operation; and 
• Within one year of the petition's approval, the U.S. operation would support an executive 
position. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A-C). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The record shows that the Beneficiary, a Chinese native and citizen, founded the Petitioner's parent 
company in China in 2014. Since then, the parent -
a provider of freight, construction engineering, 
and other services - has employed the Beneficiary as its general manager. 
The Beneficiary entered the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor in August 2022. He established 
the petitioning corporation in April 2023. The company filed this petition to change his nonimmigrant 
visa status to L-lA in August 2023. See section 248 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1258 (allowing noncitizens 
to change their nonimmigrant visa statuses under certain conditions). 
The Petitioner states that it eventually plans to operate multiple restaurants, import and export clothing 
and other goods, and provide restaurant consulting services. The company's business plan, however, 
indicates that, during the one-year period immediately after the petition's approval, the company 
would operate only one restaurant. 
A. Ability to Support an Executive Position 
The Petitioner must demonstrate that, within one year of the petition's approval, the U.S. business 
would support the claimed executive position. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). Evidence must include 
information regarding: 
• The Petitioner's scope, its organizational structure, and its financial goals; 
• The size of the U.S. investment and the parent company's financial ability to pay the 
Beneficiary and commence business in the United States; and 
• The parent's organizational structure. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(l-3). 
The Petitioner submitted evidence that its parent company has invested $400,000 in its business. 
Copies of audited financial statements for 2022 sufficiently show the parent's ability to pay the 
Beneficiary's offered annual wage of $60,000 and commence U.S. business. The income statement 
shows that, in 2022, the foreign company generated revenues of nearly $2 million and about $355,000 
in net profits. See XE Currency Converter, www.xe.com/currencyconverter. The Petitioner's business 
2 
plan projects that, during its first three operating years, its annual revenues would rise from $960,000 
to $3 million and its annual net profits would increase from -$22,939 to about $1 million. 
The Petitioner stated its intent to hire 10 employees within about six months of the petition's approval. 
But the company has not provided job duties for all of the initial proposed positions, and 
inconsistencies between its organizational chart and business plan cast doubt on its true staffing plans. 
The Petitioner's organizational chart shows the company's intent to hire seven employees for its 
restaurant business: a "general operations director;" "store manager;" assistant manager; two servers; 
and two kitchen staff. The Petitioner described the job duties of the general operations director but 
not those of the other proposed restaurant positions. The organizational chart also indicates the 
company's intent to hire seven additional employees for its administrative operations and proposed 
consulting business. The additional employees consist of: a "COO [Chief Operations Officer];" 
"administration and HR [human resources] manager;" "finance manager;" "consulting manager;" 
administration and HR specialist; finance specialist; and consulting specialist. 
The first version of the Petitioner's business plan - in its "milestones" section - identifies the 
company's first ten proposed employees as: the general operations director; restaurant manager; two 
servers and two kitchen staff; a "marketing and sales director;" consulting manager; "administration 
director;" and "restaurant assistant manager." The "milestones" section differs from the organizational 
chart, as the chart omits a "marketing and sales director," while the "milestones" section excludes a 
"COO." 
Also, the "personnel plan" section of the Petitioner's first business plan contains further 
inconsistencies. The "personnel plan" section states that, in the company's first operating year, it 
would employ: a "restaurant manager;" "restaurant staff;" "marketing director for chain boutique;" 
"administration director for chain restaurant;" and an "operations director." The "personnel plan" 
section differs from the organizational chart and the "milestones" section. For example, as the Director 
noted, the "personnel plan" section includes a "marketing director for chain boutique." The record 
does not indicate to what the term "chain boutique" refers or whether the company intends to operate 
a "chain boutique." 
The Director's RFE asked the Petitioner to explain some of these inconsistencies and provide further 
staffing information. The company's RFE response, however, included a second version of its 
business plan creating further discrepancies. The "personnel plan" section of the second business plan 
identifies the "restaurant staff" that the company would employ in its first operating year as a "chef' 
and "assistants." The section, however, does not specify how many assistants would be employed. 
Also, the updated "personnel plan" section deletes the "marketing director for chain boutique" position 
as a first operating year employee and adds four new positions to the section: "administration and HR 
manager;" "finance manager;" "consulting manager;" and "COO." 
As indicated above, the record contains several unexplained inconsistencies in the Petitioner's staffing 
plans. The discrepancies cast doubt on the accuracy of the information in the company's 
organizational chart and the two versions of its business plan. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 
591 (BIA 1988) (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies). 
3 
To work in the claimed executive capacity within one year of the petition's approval, the Beneficiary 
at that time would need to "primarily" perform such duties as directing management and establishing 
goals and policies. See section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(44)(B)(i-iv) (defining the 
term "executive capacity"). "An employee who primarily performs the tasks necessary to produce a 
product or to provide services is not considered to be employed in a[n] ... executive capacity." Matter 
of Church Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593,604 (BIA 1988). Because of the unresolved staffing 
inconsistencies and missing job duties, the Petitioner has not reliably demonstrated the number of its 
proposed employees, their positions, or all of their duties one year after the petition's approval. Thus, 
the company has not demonstrated that it would have sufficient support staff at that time to allow the 
Beneficiary to primarily focus on executive duties, as opposed to daily operating tasks. See, e.g., Q 
Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25, 25 (D.D.C. 2003) (holding that a beneficiary's former 
and proposed job duties were not primarily managerial for purposes of an immigrant visa petition 
based, in part, on an "absence of evidence that a sufficient 'subordinate staff' will 'relieve her from 
performing managerial nonqualifying duties"'). 
Further, the Petitioner submitted a copy of a lease for its initial restaurant site, indicating that it rented 
only 475 square feet of space in a shopping center food court. The site's small size would appear to 
limit the number of restaurant employees the company would hire and the ability of a purported "chef' 
and "assistants" to prepare food at the site. Thus, the restaurant lease casts further doubt on the 
company's staffing plans. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591 (requiring a petitioner to resolve 
inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred in finding inconsistencies in the company's 
initial proposed positions. The company asserts that, except for changes to its proposed hiring dates 
because of the delay in the petition's approval, its organizational chart and the "milestone" section of 
its business plan "are the SAME." (emphasis in original). 
Contrary to the Petitioner's contention, however, its organizational chart and the "milestone" section 
of the company's business plan are not the "same." As mentioned above, the organizational chart, 
unlike the "milestones" section in the company's first business plan, omits a "marketing and sales 
director." Similarly, the "milestones" section, unlike the organizational chart, excludes a "COO." 
Also, the Petitioner disregards other staffing inconsistencies. The "personnel plan" section of the 
company's first business plan differs from the organizational chart and the "milestones" section. 
Further, the Petitioner's RFE response included a second version of the company's business plan, 
amending the "personal plan" section and creating additional discrepancies. The company has neither 
resolved the inconsistencies in its staffing plans nor provided job duties for all its initial proposed 
positions. Thus, it has not demonstrated that it would have sufficient staffing to allow the Beneficiary 
to primarily perform executive duties. The record therefore does not support the company's 
contention. 
The Petitioner has not established that, within one year of the petition's approval, it would support the 
claimed executive position.2 We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
2 When determining the executive nature of an offered U.S. job, USCIS may not base its decision solely on the number of 
employees that a beneficiary would direct. Section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. Here, in dete1mining the nature of the 
Petitioner's offered U.S. job, we considered the company's number of employees. But we also considered other factors, 
4 
B. The Remaining Issues 
Our conclusion regarding the Petitioner's ability to support the claimed executive position resolves 
this appeal. We therefore decline to reach and hereby reserve the company's appellate arguments 
regarding its purported securement of sufficient physical premises and the nature of the Beneficiary's 
work abroad. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies need not make 
"purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions); see also Matter ofL-A­
C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an 
applicant did not otherwise merit relief). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that, within one year of the petition's approval, it would support 
the proposed executive position. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
including: the nature of the Petitioner's proposed business; the existence of subordinate employees to relieve the 
Beneficiary from having to perform operational tasks; and the duties of subordinate employees. Thus, we have complied 
with the Act's requirement. See Family, Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006) (in the context of an immigrant 
visa petition for a multinational manager under section 203(b )( l )(C) of the Act, holding that "USCIS may properly consider 
an organization's small size as one factor in assessing whether its operations are substantial enough to support a manager"). 
5