dismissed L-1A Case: Restaurant

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12757001 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 3, 2021 
The Petitioner, operating as a restaurant, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary employment as 
its general manager under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(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. 1 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a managerial capacity. We 
dismissed the Petitioner's appeal from the decision. The matter is now before us on a combined motion 
to reopen and reconsider. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the combined motion. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements (such as, 
for instance, submission of a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the 
correct fee), and show proper cause for granting the motion. 8 C.F.R . § 103.5(a)(l). 
A motion to reopen is based on factual grounds and must (1) state the new facts to be provided in the 
reopened proceeding; and (2) be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that we based our decision on an incorrect 
application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiaiy 's behalf which was approved for the period 
July 7, 2018, until July 6, 2019. 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. 
proceeding at the time of the decision. We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and 
demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Motion to Reopen 
On motion, the Petitioner does not directly address the requirements of a motion to reopen or identify 
any new facts that it seeks to introduce into the record. The Petitioner submits a motion brief and a 
copy of the summary data for Executive or Head Chefs from the Department of Labor's (DOL) 
Occupational Outlook Handbook. In the motion brief, the Petitioner farther explains how the duties 
submitted with the petition indicate that the Beneficiary will be working in a managerial capacity. 
Therefore, the brief and exhibits submitted on motion do not introduce new facts into the proceeding. 
The Petitioner does not state new facts supported by affidavits or documentary evidence sufficient to 
meet the requirements of a motion to reopen. As the record on motion does not include new, relevant 
evidence regarding these issues, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause to reopen this matter. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
The Petitioner is a restaurant that serves Beijing and Shandong cuisines, and has nine foll-time 
employees. The foll-time positions include a general manager, assistant general manager, hall 
manager, waitress, executive chef, chef, kitchen helper and dishwasher. 
To satisfy the requirements of a motion to reconsider, the Petitioner must show that our appellate 
decision contained errors of fact, law, or policy that affected the outcome of that decision. In 
dismissing the Petitioner's appeal, we agreed with the Director's assessment that the job description 
provided for the Beneficiary's position in the United States lacked sufficient details. On motion, the 
Petitioner repeats these job descriptions, but repeating information already in the record does not 
establish that we erred in our appellate decision. The Petitioner does not claim that we materially 
misquoted or omitted information from those job descriptions in our prior decision. 
The Petitioner's supporting statement included a job duty breakdown, which allocated time to five 
broadly described categories and listed various goals, directives, and activities comprising each 
category. On motion, the Petitioner reiterates that the Beneficiary "manages and directs a subordinate 
staff of supervisor personnel, namely the General Manager Assistant, Hall Manager and Executive 
Chef" The Petitioner farther states that the Beneficiary is the "highest-ranking employee in the 
organization hierarchy and is solely responsible for ensuring the Petitioner Restaurant as efficiently as 
possible." In addition, the motion contends that the Beneficiary is not directly involved in the day-to­
day routine tasks associated with the general marketing duties, serving customers, preparing and 
cooking dishes or other non-qualifying tasks related to Petitioner's primary business activities," and 
instead the assistant general manager, hall manger, and executive chef handle these operational tasks 
while the Beneficiary oversees the direction and guidance of these operational duties. 
However, the fact that the Beneficiary will manage a business does not necessarily establish eligibility 
for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial capacity within the meaning of section 
2 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a 
position be "primarily" managerial in nature. Section 101(A)(44)(A) of the Act. While 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, these factors alone are 
insufficient to establish that his actual duties would be primarily managerial in nature. 
Although the Petitioner repeats that the Beneficiary's three managers handle several of the non­
qualifying duties, the Petitioner does not provide sufficient evidence of the managerial work to be 
performed by the Beneficiary. As noted in our decision, the Petitioner did not clarify which activities 
constitute supervising safety management or setting prices on the menu items, nor did it explain what 
constitutes "enterprise management." Further, although the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
would improve dishes per customer preferences and improve the restaurant's "visibility" within the 
U.S. market, it did not establish that these activities are managerial, as opposed to operational, in 
nature. The Petitioner did not define what encompasses the "organizational management system," nor 
did it clarify the types of methods the Beneficiary would formulate with respect to "front hall service" 
and food safety storage or explain how these broadly stated duties translate into activities the 
Beneficiary would perform regularly in the course of running a restaurant. Lastly, the Petitioner stated 
that the Beneficiary would devote 20% of his time to "day-to-day management," which would include 
signing "important contracts" and participating in "important conferences in the industry and 
attend[ing] trade shows," and the remaining 15% of his time to approving "major payments" and 
determining the Petitioner's "financial flows." However, the Petitioner did not specify the types of 
contracts that are prioritized as "important" or establish that the Beneficiary would encounter such 
contracts in the normal course of daily or weekly business activity, nor did it show that attending trade 
shows is a managerial task. On motion, the Petitioner does not provide evidence to overcome the 
AAO's concerns outlined in the previous decision. 
In addition to providing an organizational chart, the business plan also described the steps the 
Petitioner planned to take to expand its operation, such as using specific marketing initiatives to 
"enhance brand influence" and "create a good reputation" among the Petitioner's targeted customer 
base, ensuring the Petitioner's business presence at various local events to promote its food products, 
and incorporating event catering services into its business model. On motion, the Petitioner stated that 
as a result of the expansion, it will grow and hire more employees. However, it is not clear how the 
current staff of three managers will perform the operational tasks involved in a business expansion 
such as marketing, while also handling the responsibilities of running a restaurant as required in the 
positions of assistant manager, hall manager, and executive chef 
Thus, although the Petitioner states that the Beneficiary oversees a supervisory staff comprised of an 
assistant general manager, a hall manager, and an executive chef, the lack of a detailed job description 
precludes us from gaining a meaningful understanding as to how the Beneficiary would manage these 
employees in the course of the Petitioner's daily operation and what managerial job duties he would 
carry out. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily 
executive or managerial in nature; otherwise, meeting the statutory 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), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
3 
The Petitioner has not shown that our appellate decision contained errors of law or policy, or that the 
decision was incorrect based on the record at the time of that decision. Therefore, the motion does not 
meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider and must be dismissed. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsidering 
the previous decision or otherwise established eligibility for the immigrant benefit sought. In visa 
petition proceedings, it is a 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 motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4