dismissed L-1A Case: Restaurant

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF D-B-H- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 10, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner operates a restaurant and seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary employment as 
its president under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 1 See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) Section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L). The L­
IA 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 Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that it had been doing business for one year as of the date it filed this petition or 
that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in a managerial 
or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner explains that its restaurant opening was delayed due to factors that were out 
of the Beneficiary's control and contends that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be 
employed in the United States in an executive capacity. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner has not established that it had 
been doing business for one year prior to filing this petition. As the Petitioner has not satisfied this 
fundamental element of eligibility, we will reserve the two remaining issues. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, 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 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
July 7, 2017, until July 1, 2018. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United States through 
a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary 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 one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an 
executive or manage1ial position. 
Matter of D-B-H- LLC 
continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a 
managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-lA petition that involved a new office must submit a statement of 
the beneficiary's duties during the previous year and under the extended petition; a statement 
describing the staffing of the new operation and evidence of the numbers and types of positions held; 
evidence of its financial status; evidence that it has been doing business for the previous year; and 
evidence that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(14)(ii). 
II. DOING BUSINESS 
The primary issue to be addressed in this decision is whether the Petitioner had been doing business 
for at least one year as of June 2018, when this petition was filed. The term doing business is defined 
as the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services and does not include the 
mere presence of an agent or office. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B). 
The record indicates that the Petitioner previously filed a new office petition seeking to operate a 
restaurant. The initial supporting evidence included a business lease, bank statements, photographs 
showing remodeling of the business premises, and a 201 7 tax return showing no gross income. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director observed that the Petitioner would not commence 
operation as a food service provider until renovations are completed at the facility out of which it seeks 
to operate its restaurant. In light of these observations, the Director instmcted the Petitioner to provide 
evidence showing that had been doing business over the course of the year that preceded the filing of 
the instant petition. 
Although the Petitioner's response included payroll documents and multiple order invoices, these 
submissions showed that the earliest business activity commenced in July 2018, one month after this 
petition was filed. Although the Petitioner provided invoices showing that it incurred business 
expenses during the relevant one-year period prior to the date this petition was filed, such evidence 
pertains to the Petitioner's remodeling expenses and purchases that were necessary to get the business 
premises operational so that the Petitioner could commence doing business at a future date. The 
submitted evidence did not indicate that the Petitioner was actually operational and providing food 
services during the one year that preceded this petition's filing date. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims to be a "start-up entity" that has been doing business "since its date 
of formation." Notwithstanding this claim, the Petitioner explains that the restaurant's opening was 
hindered as a result of a delay in obtaining "final permits allowing the remodeling to be conducted" 
and lists the various actions the Beneficiary completed to ensure that its restaurant would eventually 
become operational. However, the does not provide evidence showing that the restaurant was, in fact, 
operational prior to the date this petition was filed. Rather, it claims that circumstances beyond the 
Beneficiary's control were responsible for a delay in the restaurant's opening. It also cites to 
"C[.]F[.]R[.] § 212.19" to support the claim that it "has lawfully done business and was established to 
sustain a substantial potential or rapid growth and job creation." 
2 
Matter of D-B-H- LLC 
Although the Petitioner has described activities that are indicative of steps taken in preparation for 
doing business in the foreseeable future, these preliminary activities are not synonymous with 
providing food services in the course of doing business as a restaurant. The earliest evidence that the 
Petitioner was operating a restaurant consists of business invoices with issue dates showing that 
business expenses were incurred after this petition was filed. The Petitioner must support its assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 
2010). Here, despite claiming that it has been doing business since its inception, the Petitioner did not 
cite to an existing regulatory provision or offer evidence establishing that it was doing business for 
one year prior to filing this petition. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
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 appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of D-B-H-LLC, ID# 3409961 (AAO May 10, 2019) 
3