dismissed L-1A Case: Restaurant

iden- data deleted LO 
prevent. clearly unwar canted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: SRC 03 008 5 1018 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 1 0 2m5 
IN RE. 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Punuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
R bert P. Wiemann, Dir ctor e 9. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 03 008 51018 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
According to the documentary evidence contained in the record, the petitioner was incorporated May 8,2002, 
and claims to be in the restaurant business. The petitioner claims that the U.S. entity is a subsidiary of 
Realnext, KFT, located in Budapest, Hungary. The petitioner declares two employees and an estimated 
$302,000 in gross annual income. It seeks to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as the 
president of its new office for one year, at a weekly salary of $750.00. 
The director determined that the evidence was not sufficient to establish that: (1) the petitioner had secured 
sufficient physical premises to house the new office; and (2) the beneficiary had been employed abroad in a 
managerial or executive capacity for one continuous year within three years preceding the filing of the 
petition. 
On appeal, the petitioner disagrees with the director's determination and asserts that it has secured sufficient 
physical premises to house the new office. 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(L), the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary, within three years preceding 
the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving specialized knowledge, for one continuous year 
by a qualifying organization, and seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render 
his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary, or affiliate thereof, in a capacity that is managerial, 
executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii) state's, in part: 
Inrracompany transferee means an alien who, within three years preceding the time of his or her 
application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad continuously for one 
year by a fm or corporation or other legal entity or parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary 
thereof, and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to render his or her 
services to a branch of the same employer or a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary thereof in a capacity 
that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the 
alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (I)(l)(ii)(G) of this 
section. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
SRC 03 008 51018 
Page 3 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies hidher to perform the intended 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(~) states that if the petition indicates that the beneficiary is coming to 
the United States as a manager or executive to open or to be employed in a new office in the United States, the 
petitioner shall submit evidence that: 
(A) Sufficient physical premises to house the new office have been secured; 
(B) The beneficiary has been employed for one continuous year in the three year period 
preceding the filing of the petition in an executive or managerial capacity and that the 
proposed employment involved executive or managerial authority over the new 
operation; and 
(C) The intended United States operation, within one year of the approval of the petition, 
will support an executive or managerial position as defined in paragraphs (I)(l)(ii)(B) 
or (C) of this section, supported by information regarding: 
(1) The proposed nature of the office describing the scope of the entity, its 
organizational structure, and its financial goals; 
(2) 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; and 
(3) The organizational structure of the foreign entity. 
I 
The first issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to establish that it has 
secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office. 
In a letter of support, dated October 4, 2002, the petitioner stated that the U.S. entity was established in May of 
2002 and is wholly owned and managed by the beneficiary. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not submitted sufficient documentary evidence to allow her to 
reach a final decision with respect to the U.S. entity's business premises. The director thereafter specifically 
requested that the petitioner submit "evidence of the leaselpurchase of facilities in which to conduct business in 
the United States." 
The petitioner failed to submit any documentation attesting to the existence of a lease agreement in response to 
the director's request for additional evidence. 
The director subsequently denied the petition, noting that the petitioner had failed to submit evidence of the U.S. 
entity's lease. 

SRC 03 008 5 1018 
Page, 5 
an assignment abroad upon completion of his services in the United States. For this additional reason, the 
petition may not be approved. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the act, 8 U.S.C. 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.