dismissed L-1A Case: Restaurant

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 12, 2024 In Re: 30415883 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner is a restaurant that seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as its president under 
the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(L). The L-lA classification allows a 
corporation or other legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign 
employee to work temporarily in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States 
in an executive capacity. 1 The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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 would employ the Beneficiary 
in the United States in an executive capacity pursuant to Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. Because 
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 ground 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 of L-A-C-, 26 l&N 
Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). 
Further, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision on the issue of the Beneficiary's U.S. 
employment. See Matter ofBurbano, 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 "individua lized consideration" to the case). 
1 The Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and would be employed in the United States in an 
executive capacity and did not claim that the definition of managerial capacity applies to either position . 
After considering the Beneficiary's job description and the Petitioner's staffing at the time of filing, 
the Director determined that the record lacked an adequate job description and did not establish that 
the Petitioner's staff2 at the time of filing was sufficient to elevate the Beneficiary to an executive 
position that would be primarily comprised of executive, rather than operational, job duties. 
On appeal, the Petitioner points out that the Beneficiary is its "founder, president and majority 
shareholder" and asserts that the Director's denial is "unreasonable and unfounded." We disagree. As 
noted above, prior to denying the petition the Director considered the Beneficiary's proposed job 
duties and properly questioned the Petitioner's ability to relieve the Beneficiary from having to 
primarily perform non-executive functions given its limited staffing at the time of filing. And despite 
acknowledging the Petitioner's submission of an organizational chart with a five-year staffing 
projection, the Director pointed to multiple vacant positions, thus indicating that those positions would 
be filled at a later time. We note, however, that the Petitioner has the burden of establishing eligibility 
for the requested benefit at the time of filing the benefit request and continuing until the final 
adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); see also Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971) 
(providing that "Congress did not intend that a petition that was properly denied because the 
beneficiary was not at that time qualified be subsequently approved at a future date when the 
beneficiary may become qualified under a new set of facts."). An organizational chart that offers a 
projected hiring plan over a five-year period is not sufficient to establish that the Petitioner's staffing 
at the time offiling was sufficient to support the Beneficiary in an executive position. Although the 
Petitioner also claims that the Director "did not evaluate all the evidence," it does not point to evidence 
that it claims was overlooked or explain how such evidence demonstrates the Petitioner's eligibility. 
Further, to show that the Beneficiary will "direct the management" of the organization, the Petitioner 
must show how is managed and demonstrate that the Beneficiary will primarily focus on its broad 
goals and policies, rather than the day-to-day operations of such. An individual will not be deemed 
an executive under the statute simply because they have an executive title or because they "direct" the 
organization as the owner or sole managerial employee. Here, the Petitioner focuses heavily on the 
Beneficiary's status as founding owner and occupier of a top-level position within the organization's 
hierarchy. While these factors are both relevant to a determination of the Beneficiary's employment 
capacity, we consider other relevant factors in determining eligibility. Such factors include the 
Petitioner's staffing and nature of the business. Here however, the Petitioner has not adequately 
explained how a restaurant with a four-person subordinate staff would support the Beneficiary in an 
executive position whose job duties are primarily to "direct the management" and "establish the goals 
and policies" of the organization. See section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
Because the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. position would be in an 
executive capacity, the Petitioner is not eligible for the immigration benefit sought in this matter. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 The Director stated that the Petitioner's fourth quarter payroll records for 2022 list four employees, but the record shows 
that five employees were listed, which suppmis the information provided in the petition. However, this error will not alter 
the outcome on appeal and therefore it need not be addressed further. 
2