dismissed L-1A Case: Restaurant / Import-Export

MATTER OF W-1-G- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 12, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which intends to operate a restaurant and an import-export trade business, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as "CEO" of its new office1 under the L-lA nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(l5)(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. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did 
not, as required, (1) secure sufficient physical premises for its business operation; (2) establish that 
the new office would support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive position within one year 
after approval of the petition; and (3) demonstrate that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes all three grounds for denial. It refers to several of our previously 
issued non-precedent decisions 2 and points to previously submitted evidence in support of its claims. 
Upon de nova review, we find that the Petitioner has not overcome the three grounds for denial. 
Therefore, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving a new 
office, 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 
1 The tenn "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 While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that our precedent decisions are binding on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
Matter of W-1-G- Inc. 
seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
The petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new office will be able to support a 
managerial or executive position within one year. This evidence must establish that the petitioner 
secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation and disclose the proposed nature and 
scope of the entity, its organizational structure, its financial goals, and the size of the U.S. 
investment. See generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
II. SUFFICIENT PHYSICAL PREMISES 
The first issue we will address in this matter is whether the Petitioner submitted adequate evidence to 
show that it had secured sufficient physical premises to house its new office as of the date it filed 
this petition. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). In the denial decision, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner did not execute a legally binding sublease because it did not provide evidence to show that 
the tenant who was named in the original lease, i.e., the sublessor, obtained consent from the original 
lessor as required by the terms of the original lease. 
The Petitioner has argued, both in response to the request for evidence (RFE) and on appeal, that the 
sublessor obtained oral consent from the lessor allowing it to sublease the premises to the Petitioner. 
However, a petitioner's unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally will be 
insufficient to carry its burden of proof, particularly when supporting documentary evidence would 
reasonably be available. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Neither the 
Petitioner's claims nor those of the sublessor constitute sufficient evidence of the original lessor's 
consent to the sublease. Moreover, we note that the only copy of the original lease that the Petitioner 
provided shows a termination date of January 31, 2014. Thus, not only did the Petitioner provide 
insufficient evidence of the original lessor's consent to the sublease, the sublease itself stems from a 
master lease that expired in January 2014 and therefore was not valid in June 2017 when the instant 
petition was filed. Although the Petitioner provides evidence of cashed checks for rent payments, 
this evidence does not overcome the lack of evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner had a valid 
lease to house its business at the time of filing. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that it had sufficient physical premises to 
house its new office at the time this petition was filed. 
III. EMPLOYMENT IN MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAP A CITY 
Next, we will address the Beneficiary's proposed employment in the United States and her 
employment abroad with the Petitioner's foreign affiliate. In an initial cover letter, the Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive capacity.3 However, on appeal the 
3 Although the Petitioner repeatedly referred to the Beneficiary's position as "executive/managerial," it paraphrased the 
2 
Matter ofW-1-G- Inc. 
Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial and executive capacity 
within one year of approval of the petition. 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or 
manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
101 ( a)( 44 )(A) of the Act. 
"Executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization; 
establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; exercises wide 
latitude in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction from 
higher-level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. Section 
10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
A. U.S. Employment Within One Year of Approval 
As previously stated, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence 
to establish that its operation would support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity 
within one year of the petition's approval. 
1. New Office Operations 
In the case of a new office petition, we review the petitioner's business and hiring plans and 
evidence that the business will grow sufficiently to support a beneficiary in the intended managerial 
or executive capacity. A petitioner has the burden to establish that it would realistically develop to 
the point where it would require the beneficiary to perform duties that are primarily managerial or 
executive in nature within one year of the petition's approval. Accordingly, we consider the totality 
of the evidence in analyzing whether the proposed managerial or executive position is plausible 
based on a petitioner's anticipated staffing levels and stage of development within a one-year period. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
In the present matter, the petition shows that the Petitioner claimed no employees and no income at 
the time of filing. In a supporting cover letter, the Petitioner stated that its "operations will be 
developed in two steps," the first of which will involve starting an import-export whole sale business 
of "various American-made goods such as decor elements, dishes, food and beverages." It stated 
definition of executive capacity in describing proposed employment, stating that she would establish goals and policies 
and exercise wide latitude in discretionary decision-making. 
3 
Matter of W-1-G- Inc. 
that it plans to export these types of goods to its foreign affiliate and to "other specialty restaurants 
and shops," claiming that there is a "latent demand" for various American-made goods in Russia, its 
target market. The Petitioner went on to discuss the second step in its plan, which involves opening 
a "burger joint" similar to the one the Beneficiary's foreign employer currently operates in Russia. 
The Petitioner stated that it will "attract financial backing of strategic investment partners" from 
whom it looks to secure $350,000 to cover initial expenses and operating costs until the restaurant 
reaches its "break-even point." Although the Petitioner stated that opening the restaurant is a top 
priority, it neither claimed nor provided evidence to show that it had secured funding or a restaurant 
location to commence operation of a restaurant as of the date this petition was filed. 
On the other hand, the Petitioner claimed that its "trade office" is already operational and is 
preparing for its first product shipment; it anticipated that the trade business will be able to take care 
of its own operational expenses until it executes the second part of its plan to open a restaurant. The 
Petitioner claimed, but did not provide supporting evidence to show that the foreign entity invested 
$20,000 in May 2017 towards its business endeavor; rather, the Petitioner provided its bank 
statement for May 2017, which shows three deposits totaling $13,180 - nearly $7000 below the 
amount the Petitioner claimed it needed to commence operations of its trade office. Despite 
claiming that the foreign entity "is prepared to finance ongoing operations of the trading office at 
$15-20,000 per month as needed," the Petitioner did not provide evidence to demonstrate the foreign 
entity's intention to indefinitely fund the U.S. operation. 
Although the Petitioner provided a business plan in which it acknowledged its two separate business 
endeavors, the plan focused primarily on the Petitioner's business objectives with respect to opening 
a restaurant. Despite the Petitioner's claim that it had already taken steps to execute its plan to 
operate a trade office, the business plan does not include even the most basic information explaining 
how this business will function. For instance, the Petitioner claimed that a $20,000 investment 
would be sufficient to start its operations, but it did not support this claim with an itemized list of 
projected weekly or monthly business expenses, such as the cost of inventory and hiring personnel to 
not only purchase and sell the inventory, but also to address the Petitioner's administrative and 
logistical needs, including issuing invoices, receiving the goods that are purchased, and ultimately 
delivering them to their final destination. Although the business plan includes graphs that project 
monthly revenues and expenses, it does not appear that these graphs pertain to the import-export 
operation, as the preceding section of the plan, which contains a financial forecast, pertains 
exclusively to the restaurant business and makes no mention of the Petitioner's purported plan to 
purchase and export goods. 
Further, the business plan includes a projected organizational chart indicating that the Petitioner 
plans to staff its trade office with an assistant and independent contractors. However, the plan does 
not state which functions the assistant and contractors would carry out within the scope of the 
import-export operation, nor does it provide revenue projections to explain how the Petitioner plans 
to fund this operation and advance beyond the start-up phase. In addition, the Petitioner claimed that 
the foreign entity will initially serve as its "main customer and distribution channel" and that it will 
eventually expand its customer base to include "other specialty restaurants and stores in Russia and 
4 
.
Matter ofW-1-G- Inc. 
neighboring countries." However, it did not provide a timeline for the said expansion or explain 
how it plans to generate revenue as an import-export operation if the foreign entity will comprise its 
main customer base indefinitely. The Petitioner also did not provide evidence to demonstrate that 
the foreign entity has access to distribution channels in "other specialty restaurants and stores in 
Russia and neighboring countries." Without further information as to how the Petitioner plans to 
operate and generate revenue during its first year of operation, it is unclear how it will progress 
beyond the "new office" phase and gain the ability to relieve the Beneficiary from having to allocate 
her time primarily to non-managerial and non-executive functions. 
In the RFE, the Director focused on the Petitioner's plans to operate a trade office, explaining that 
the Petitioner did not have an actionable plan to start operating as a restaurant as of the date this 
petition was filed. The Petitioner was instructed to provide a statement explaining how its proposed 
business venture would support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity within one 
year. The Petitioner was also asked to submit a timetable for actions it plans to take during its first 
year of operation and to include an organizational chart listing the proposed positions it plans to fill, 
along with the job duties that will be assigned to those positions and their expected educational 
levels. The Director also asked for evidence establishing the size of the U.S. investment and the 
foreign entity's financial ability to pay the Beneficiary's salary and commence doing business in the 
United States. 
The Petitioner's response included a loan agreement, dated October 17, 2017, in which the lender 
agreed to loan the Petitioner $300,000. We note that this agreement was executed more than four 
months after the instant petition's filing date. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility 
requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and 
continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). As the loan agreement in question was not 
in effect in June 2017 when this petition was filed, it is not relevant to the issue of the Petitioner's 
eligibility at the time of filing. Likewise, although we acknowledge the Petitioner's submission of 
its bank statements for August, September, and October 2017, as well as evidence of various bank 
transactions that took place during that time period, these documents also pertain to activities that 
took place after this petition was filed and are therefore similarly irrelevant for the purpose of 
demonstrating the Petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing. 
The Petitioner also provided receipts for purchases of various kitchen items; with the exception of 
one receipt showing the foreign entity's purchase from all other receipts named 
either the Beneficiary or her husband as the purchasing party and listed their residential address -
California - as the destination of the goods purchased. 
Although the Petitioner provided a letter clarifying its intent to open its first restaurant "by the end of 
2017 - beginning of 2018," this plan is overly broad which further indicates that the Petitioner may 
not be ready to support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity role within one year. 
In an updated executive summary and timetable, the Petitioner reiterated its plan to open a restaurant 
in the near future and restated the same vague information it provided previously with regard to the 
trade office, claiming that it plans to supply the foreign entity's restaurant along with "other 
specialty restaurants and shops" with various U.S.-made household goods and food products. 
5 
Matter of W-1-G- Inc. 
Although the Petitioner claimed that it is currently in the "final stages" of negotiating an exclusive 
distributorship agreement with a U.S. supplier, it did not explain how this business arrangement 
would result in the progression of its business beyond the start-up phase. Likewise, the Petitioner's 
claim that it conducted its first "gastro-tour of California" in August 2017 does not help establish 
that the Petitioner would have the ability to progress to a level of development that would support 
the Beneficiary in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. Moreover, aside from the single 
claim made in the RFE response, the Petitioner provided no evidence to demonstrate its intent to 
operate a tour business. 
In the denial decision, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not adequately describe its 
proposed business or establish that it would be able to support the Beneficiary in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the foreign entity has the ability to support the U.S. operation, 
pointing to translated documents that pertain to the foreign entity's earnings. We find, however, that 
these documents are deficient because they do not meet the regulatory criteria requiring that all 
foreign language documents be accompanied by a full English language translation along with a 
certification from the translator confirming that the English language translation is complete and 
accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The translated documents in the record were not properly certified; as such, 
we cannot meaningfully determine whether the translated material is accurate and thus supports the 
Petitioner's claims. Moreover, as previously noted, the Petitioner did not provide evidence to 
support the claim that the foreign entity invested $20,000 to fund its start-up operation.4 Therefore, 
even if the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence of the foreign entity's financial ability, such 
evidence would not be sufficient to establish the foreign entity's commitment to provide necessary 
capital to fund the U.S. operation and ensure that the Petitioner advances beyond the start-up phase 
so that it can support the Beneficiary in a primarily managerial or executive position. 
The Petitioner also contends that the Director overlooked relevant evidence, which shows that it is 
now "in the process of choosing a location" for the restaurant it plans to open. We find that this 
evidence does not establish that the Petitioner was able to commence doing business upon approval 
of the petition such that it could progress to the next developmental phase of its operation within one 
year from the date of the petition's approval. As noted earlier, although the Petitioner indicated that 
its initial plan for generating revenue would rely exclusively on an import-export operation, it did 
not provide sufficient evidence to show that it had the funds to commence doing business or that it 
had a set plan for staffing this operation to ensure that it would support the Beneficiary in a 
managerial or executive capacity within one year of the petition's approval. 
4 The Director determined that the Petitioner provided evidence of a $50,000 deposit into its account. However, we note 
for the record that this finding was incorrect, as the Petitioner neither claimed nor provided evidence confirming a 
deposit of $50,000 into its account. As this error is not critical to our discussion and does not alter our finding, it need 
not be addressed further. 
6 
Matter of W-1-G-Jnc. 
2. Duties 
We also reviewed the Beneficiary's proposed job description and find that the Petitioner provided 
insufficient evidence to establish that the Beneficiary would perform primarily managerial or 
executive duties within one year of the petition's approval. 
As noted earlier, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial and an 
executive capacity. It provided a job duty breakdown indicating that the Beneficiary will allocate 
her time as follows: 
• 20% will be allocated to developing and ensuring implementation of strategies, goals, 
policies, and procedures and defining performance indicators and objectives; 
• 20% will be allocated to supervising and directing employees and independent contractors in 
the United States and abroad and making personnel decisions, including hiring, firing, 
promoting employees and taking disciplinary actions; 
• 20% will be allocated to directing market research to expand into international markets, 
creating advertising campaigns to attract more clients, and negotiating a lease and overseeing 
the development of the burger restaurant location; 
• 10% will be allocated to coordinating subordinates with affiliate companies and ensuring 
"worldwide legal compliance and licensing" with zoning, construction, health department, 
and other government regulations; 
• 15% will be allocated to overseeing "major acquisitions" and projects, conduct meetings with 
"potential key team players," investors, and various business partners; and 
• 15% will be allocated to overseeing the trade operation and financial and budgeting 
activities, "engag[ing] IT and other professionals," and ensuring worldwide tax compliance. 
The above job description does not acknowledge the Petitioner's early stage of development or 
explain how the broadly stated job duties would enable the Petitioner to advance to a phase of 
operation that would support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive position. 
When a new business is established and commences operations, the regulations recognize that a 
designated manager or executive responsible for setting up operations will be engaged in a variety of 
activities not normally performed by employees at the managerial or executive level and that often 
the full range of managerial or executive responsibility cannot be performed. However, the record 
must demonstrate a realistic expectation that the enterprise will succeed and rapidly expand as it 
moves away from the developmental stage to full operations, where there would be an actual need 
for a manager or executive who will primarily perform managerial or executive job duties. 
Although the Petitioner in this matter stated that the Beneficiary would engage in lease negotiations 
for the restaurant operation it seeks to open "by the end of 2018," it provided little information about 
the job duties the Beneficiary would undertake with respect to the trade operation, which it claims is 
currently operational and would be its main source of revenue during this initial stage of operation. 
Thus, the initial job description did not clarify the Beneficiary's job duties or explain how she would 
,.., 
Matter of W-1-G-Inc. 
help the Petitioner to transition to a stage of development that would support her in a position where 
she would primarily perform managerial- and executive-level job duties. 
In the RFE, the Petitioner was asked to provide a letter explaining how the proposed business will, 
within one year, support a managerial or executive position. In response, the Petitioner again 
reiterated prior claims that the import-export business is currently operational and provided two 
letters from its vice president; both letters discussed the Petitioner's plan to open its first restaurant 
in the United States. Neither the letters, nor any other evidence submitted in response to the RFE, 
specifically addressed the Beneficiary's job duties with respect to the existing import-export 
business. 
In the denial decision, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that within one 
year of operation it would have the ability to elevate the Beneficiary to a managerial or executive 
position. We agree with the Director's conclusion. 
Although not expressly stated, it is understood that the Beneficiary, in her leadership role, will 
perform duties that are critical to the Petitioner's development, despite their non-managerial or non­
executive nature. However, the Petitioner is allowed only one year from the date of approval of the 
petition to support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive position. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). Without a meaningful description of the tasks the Beneficiary will perform 
during the Petitioner's initial stage of operation, it is unclear how the Petitioner will advance to the 
next phase of its development. 
In the present matter, despite claiming that one segment of its business - the import-export trade 
office - was operational at the time of filing, the Petitioner has primarily focused on its goal to open 
a restaurant at the end of 2018; it has not adequately discussed its import-export business or 
explained the Beneficiary's role in that business at any stage of its operation. Beyond claiming that 
the Beneficiary would assume the top role within its organization, the Petitioner did not provide a 
detailed job description delineating the Beneficiary's actions during its first year of operation, nor 
has it distinguished her initial job duties from those she would perform after the Petitioner's "new 
office" phase of operation expires. In other words, the Petitioner has not provided a meaningful 
discussion explaining what activities the Beneficiary would undertake during its "new office" phase 
or how those activities would advance the Petitioner into the next phase of its development where 
the Beneficiary would be relieved from having to primarily perform the organization's operational 
and administrative tasks. We note that an employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to 
produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be "primarily" employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity. See, e.g., sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that 
one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); Matter of Church 
Scientology Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm'r 1988). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that, within one year of approval of the petition, the Beneficiary 
will manage an essential function and be employed in an executive capacity. It cites to non­
precedent decisions to support these claims, stating that the Beneficiary will be its "'public face,'" 
8 
Matter of W-1-G- Inc. 
perform its "major function," and hold the "highest executive office" within a complex organization, 
which will be comprised of 15-20 full-time employees, including five "professional/managerial 
employees" in the United States and a "dedicated staff of 15 employees in the foreign office." 
Although the Petitioner focused on the Beneficiary's top placement within its organizational 
hierarchy and her use of discretionary authority to develop the business and set its goals and policies, 
it did not provide further information about the Beneficiary's job duties to explain how the Petitioner 
would progress from a rudimentary phase of development to a more advanced phase during which it 
would be able to relieve the Beneficiary from having to primarily perform non-executive and non­
managerial functions. The Petitioner also did not clarify how the foreign employees will support the 
Beneficiary's role in the United States during any phase of its operation, nor did it specify whether 
the foreign employees would assume a supporting role with regard to the trade operation, the 
restaurant business, or both. That said, we note again that the Petitioner has consistently focused 
almost entirely on its business objectives regarding the opening of a restaurant, which was not an 
objective it predicted reaching within one year of filing this petition; the Petitioner has provided 
almost no information about the Beneficiary's current or future role in its trade operation, nor has it 
provided any information that would establish the realistic likelihood that the trade operation would 
advance the Petitioner to the next phase of its development. 
In sum, the Petitioner has not clarified the Beneficiary's job duties during its initial phase of 
operation or adequately explained how she would ensure that the company progresses to the next 
phase of development. As such, the Petitioner has not established that within one year of the 
petition's approval it would have the ability to employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity where she will be relieved from having to spend her time primarily performing operational 
and administrative tasks of the organization. 
B. Employment Abroad 
Because of the dispositive effect of the above findings of ineligibility based on factors that pertain to 
the proposed employment - namely, the Petitioner's physical premises at the time of filing and the 
Beneficiary's employment in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of this petition's 
approval - we will briefly address the remaining issue pertaining to the Beneficiary's employment 
abroad. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. Based on our review of the Petitioner's supporting 
evidence, including the Beneficiary's job descriptions and the foreign entity's organizational and 
management structures within the scope of a restaurant business, we find that the Petitioner has not 
adequately demonstrated that the Beneficiary assumed a position where the primary portion of her 
time was devoted to performing duties that primarily involved managing a staff of supervisory or 
professional employees or primarily directing the management of the organization and establish its 
goals and policies. Therefore, we agree with the Director's finding and need not further address this 
issue in the instant decision. 
9 
Matter ofW-1-G- Inc. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we find that the Petitioner has not established that: (1) it had 
secured sufficient physical premises for its U.S. operation at the time of filing; (2) it would be able to 
employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of 
an approval of this petition; and (3) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofW-1-G-lnc., ID# 1619687 (AAO Sept. 12, 2018) 
10