dismissed L-1A Case: Restaurant

U.S. Citizenship Non-Precedent Decision of the
and Immigration Administrative Appeals Office 
Services 
In Re: 27032727 Date : MAY 10, 2023 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner intends to operate as a coffee shop/restaurant. It seeks to employ the Beneficiary 
temporarily as general manager of its new office 1 under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees who are coming to be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
did not establish that: 1) it had a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's employer abroad at the 
time of filing; 2) the Beneficiary was employed abroad by a qualifying organization for at least one 
continuous year within the three years prior to filing the instant petition; 3) the Beneficiary's 
employment abroad was in a managerial or executive capacity; and 4) the Beneficiary's proposed 
employment would be in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of the petition's approval. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner did not establish that it had a qualifying relationship 
with the Beneficiary's employer abroad at the time this petition was filed. 2 The Director 
acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted evidence to show that it is a subsidiary in a parent­
subsidiary relationship with a joint venture between the Beneficiary's foreign employer and another 
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. 
2 To establish a "qualifying relationship ," the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary 's foreign employer and the 
proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (i.e. one entity with "branch" offices), or related as a "parent and 
subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See section I Ol(a)(l 5)(L) of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii) (providing definitions 
of the terms "parent," "branch," "subsidiary," and "affiliate"). 
foreign entity. 3 However, the Director pointed out that no capital contributions were made by the joint 
venture participates as of July 2022, when this petition was filed. Likewise, the Director noted that 
although the Petitioner provided its operating agreement in response to a request for evidence, the 
agreement was executed in November 2022, and thus it too came into existence only after this petition 
was filed. In sum, the Director concluded that because the Petitioner's operating agreement had not 
been executed nor any fund contributions made as of July 2022, the record lacked sufficient evidence 
showing that a qualifying relationship existed between the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer as of the date this petition was filed. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 
(BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230,234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of 
adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that 
has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit 
courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they 
give "individualized consideration" to the case). Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of 
the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments 
regarding the remaining 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 ofL-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). 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erred by focusing on the operating agreement's date 
of execution and further contends that wire transfer notices of fund contributions "only show that a 
previously agreed-upon arrangement was put in effect through them." The Petitioner instead focuses 
on its articles of organization, 4 arguing that this document names "the shareholders' owners/directors 
as [the Petitioner]'s main manager." However, the Petitioner's reliance on the articles of organization 
is incorrect, as this document establishes the Petitioner's formation and management rather than its 
ownership. Although Article IV of the articles of organization lists two individuals as the "person(s) 
authorized to manage" the Petitioner, it is silent on the issue of ownership. 5 As previously noted, 
evidence pertaining to the Petitioner's ownership did not exist at the time of filing. The Director 
3 A parent-subsidiary relationship can be formed through a 50-50 joint venture where the parent owns 50% of a joint 
venture and has equal control and veto power 
I 
over the subsidiary entity. 
I
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(K) (defining the 
term "subsidiary"). The Petitioner listed the Beneficiary's foreign employer, and I I 
as the two entities engaged in the joint venture whereby each entity owns 50% of the Petitioner. 
4 The Petitioner refers to the formation document as the ·'Articles of Incorporation." However, the record shows that the 
Petitioner, in fact, filed the Articles of Organization, which is consistent when the formed is a limited liability company, 
as in the instant matter. 
5 Regulation and case law confirm that ownership and control are the factors that must be examined in determining whether 
a qualifying relationship exists between United States and foreign entities. See, e.g., Matter of Church Scientology Int'l, 
19 T&N Dec. 593 (Comm'r 1988); Matter ofSiemens Med. Sys., Inc., 19 T&N Dec. 362 (Comm'r 1986); Matter ofHughes, 
18 T&N Dec. 289 (Comm'r 1982). Ownership refers to the direct or indirect legal right of possession of the assets of an 
entity with full power and authority to control; control means the direct or indirect legal right and authority to direct the 
establishment, management, and operations of an entity. Matter ofChurch Scientology Int'!, 19 T&N Dec. at 595. Further, 
the regulations specifically allow a director to request additional evidence in appropriate cases. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(1)(3)(viii). As ownership is a critical element of this visa classification, a director may reasonably inquire beyond 
the issuance of paper stock certificates into the means by which stock ownership was acquired. Evidence should include 
documentation of monies, property, or other consideration furnished to the entity in exchange for stock ownership. 
2 
correctly cited to regulatory provisions requiring the Petitioner to demonstrate that it satisfied all 
eligibility criteria at the time of filing based on the facts and circumstances that existed at that time. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l) and (12). 
In this matter, the evidence submitted shows that no money was provided in exchange for ownership 
of the Petitioner, nor had an operating agreement been executed as of the date this petition was filed. 
As such, the Petitioner did not establish that it met all eligibility requirements at the time offiling. Id. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner is not eligible for the immigration benefit sought in this matter. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3