dismissed L-1A Case: Restaurant Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 26271576 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 21, 2023 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The petitioning company manages a restaurant and seeks to continue temporarily employing the 
Beneficiary as its chief executive officer (CEO) . The Petitioner requests his continued classification 
under the L-lA nonimmigrant visa category for intracompany transferees . See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Acting Director of the California Service Center denied the extension petition. The Director 
concluded that the Petitioner did not establish its proposed U.S. employment of the Beneficiary in the 
claimed executive capacity or that it was "doing business" the year before the petition 's filing. 
On appeal, the Petitioner acknowledges that the restaurant did not open to the public until after the 
extension petition's filing . But the company contends that it met the "doing business" requirement by 
providing management services to the restaurant's owner in preparation for the opening and that the 
Director overlooked evidence of the executive nature of the Beneficiary's proposed employment. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Exercising de novo appellate review , see Matter of Christa 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec . 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it was "doing business" 
the year before the petition's filing. We will therefore dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LAW 
A petitioner seeking to employ an L-lA manager or executive must demonstrate that - for at least one 
continuous year in the three years before a beneficiary's initial U.S. admission in nonimmigrant status 
- the petitioner or its parent, branch, subsidiary, or affiliate employed the noncitizen abroad in a 
capacity that was managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3 )(i), 
(iii), (iv). A petitioner must also establish that they would employ a beneficiary in the United States 
in a managerial or executive capacity and that the noncitizen's education, training, and employment 
qualify them for the proposed job . 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(1)(3)(ii), (iv). 
1 The Petitioner also filed a later appeal in this matter, which we will address in a separate decision. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record shows that the Petitioner's affiliate - a restaurant management company in China -
employed the Beneficiary as assistant general manager from 2003 to 2019. In 2020, he transferred to 
the Petitioner in L-lA nonimmigrant visa status to serve as CEO of the U.S. operations. 
The Petitioner's initial L- lA petition for the Beneficiary authorized him to work in a "new office," an 
organization that had been doing business in the United States for less than one year. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(l)(ii)(F) (defining the term "new office"). A new-office petition may not remain valid for 
more than a year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(7)(i)(A)(3). Accordingly, the Petitioner's initial L-lA petition 
for Beneficiary ran from June 2020 to June 2021. 
The Petitioner filed a second petition for the Beneficiary, extending his L-lA status for an additional 
year, from June 2021 to June 2022. The petition that we review seeks to extend his L- lA status for a 
third, consecutive year. 
A. "Doing Business" 
To be a "qualifying organization" for L visa purposes, the Petitioner must demonstrate that it "[i]s .. . 
doing business ( engaging in international trade is not required) as an employer in the United States .. . 
for the duration of the alien's stay in the United States as an intracompany transferee." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.1 (l)(ii)(G)(2). The term "doing business" means "the regular, systematic, and continuous 
provision of goods and/or services by a qualifying organization and does not include the mere presence 
of an agent or office of the qualifying organization in the United States and abroad." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(l)(ii)(H). 2 
The record shows that the restaurant the Petitioner manages did not open to the public until July 2022, 
two months after this petition's filing. Nevertheless, the company claimed that it "had regularly 
provided restaurant management services to the ... restaurant even before it launched" and submitted 
supporting evidence. The Director, however, discounted the Petitioner's pre-opening activities. The 
Director found that "maintaining records, entering data, ordering ingredients, hiring staff, [ and] paying 
rent and utilities are not considered to be 'doing business' in accordance with the regulations." 
2 The Director treated the Petitioner's most recent petition as a new office extension petition, requiring the company to 
establish that it had been "doing business" for the prior year. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B). The plain language of 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii), however, indicates its application only to an initial filing to extend an L-lA new office petition, 
not to a second extension request. As indicated above, under 8 C.F.R. § 214.l(l)(ii)(G)(2), the Petitioner must still 
demonstrate that it was "doing business" during the Beneficiary's L-1 A stay in the United States. Thus, although the 
Director did not cite 8 C.F.R. § 214.1 (l)(ii)(G)(2), the Director's findings that the Petitioner was not "doing business" the 
year before the petition's filing would allow us to affirm the petition's denial under that regulation. Sec S.E.C. v. Chcncry 
Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 88 ( 1943) ("[I]n reviewing the decision of a lower court, it must be affirmed if the result is correct 
'although the lower court relied upon the wrong ground or gave a wrong reason."'); sec also 5 U.S.C. § 557(b) (stating 
that, on appeal, a federal agency "has all the powers it would have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the 
issues on notice or by rule"). 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner notes that we have broadly interpreted the term "doing business" to include 
providing services to related companies within a multinational organization. See Leacheng Int 'l, Inc., 
26 I&N Dec. 532, 535 (AAO 2015) (interpreting nearly identical "doing business" provisions for 
immigrant visa petitions for multinational managers and executives at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2), 
(3)(i)(D)). The company contends that, like the petitioner in Leacheng, it was "doing business" when 
it provided services to the restaurant's owner before the eatery's public opening. 
We recognize that the Petitioner agreed to provide the restaurant's owner with some services that did 
not require the restaurant to be publicly open. A copy of the May 2020 agreement between the 
Petitioner and the restaurant's owner, for example, requires the Petitioner to: procure the restaurant's 
inventories and supplies; hire all its workers 3; maintain and repair it at the owner's expense; and obtain 
and maintain all required government licenses and permits. Thus, before the restaurant opened, the 
Petitioner could have been "doing business" by providing contracted services to the restaurant's 
owner. 
But, contrary to the regulatory definition of "doing business," the Petitioner has not demonstrated that, 
during the year before the petition's filing in May 2022, the company provided services to the 
restaurant's owner on a "regular, systematic, and continuous" basis. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(ii)(H). 
The Petitioner submitted copies of federal and state tax returns and payroll records for the second 
quarter of 2021 through April 2022. The documents indicate that, including the Beneficiary, the 
Petitioner employed three people in the second and third quarters of 2021, four in the first quarter of 
2022, and six in April 2022. The documents, however, do not show the company's "continuous" 
employment of the workers. The materials indicate that the Petitioner did not pay any of them during 
the final four months of 2021. 
The Petitioner also submitted copies of an invoice and email messages showing that it contacted 
vendors in preparation for buying a software system to digitize customers' orders and facilitate the 
restaurant's processing of electronic payments. The evidence, however, documents the Petitioner's 
contact of only three vendors in April and May of 2021. These documents therefore do not establish 
that, from May 2021 to May 2022, the company provided services to the restaurant's owner on a 
"regular, systematic, and continuous" basis. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(ii)(H). 
The Petitioner also claims that it received payments in exchange for its services. The requirement in 
the May 2020 management agreement that the restaurant's owner pay the Petitioner an annual fee of 
up to 3% of the restaurant's gross revenues did not appear to apply before the eatery's public opening. 
But the Petitioner demonstrated that the restaurant's owner later agreed to pay the Petitioner an 
additional monthly fee of $20,000. The Petitioner submitted copies of its monthly invoices to the 
owner for that amount, beginning in September 2021. But the invoices do not demonstrate the 
Petitioner's continuous receipt of the monthly fees for the entire, one-year period before the petition's 
filing. The materials also do not prove the company's receipt of the fees since September 2021, as the 
record lacks evidence that the restaurant's owner paid the invoices. 
3 The agreement requires the Petitioner to employ the restaurant's workers and to "observe all state and federal laws 
regarding the hiring. compensation. and working conditions of all employees." 
3 
The Petitioner submitted additional evidence of purchases it made for the restaurant - including 
furniture in October 2021 and soup ingredients in March 2022. The record also indicates that the 
company hired additional restaurant workers both before and after its public opening in July 2022. 
But, even in the aggregate, the Petitioner's evidence does not establish its provision of services to the 
restaurant's owner from May 2021 to May 2022 on a "regular, systematic, and continuous" basis. See 
8 e.F.R. § 214.2(l)(ii)(H). 
Attributing the restaurant's delayed public opening to the eovrD-19 pandemic and related 
restrictions, the Petitioner requests a discretionary grant of an additional, one-year L-lA period. The 
Petitioner submits evidence that, since the restaurant opened to the public, the company employs about 
60 people and the restaurant generated more than $200,000 in its first month of operation. Noting 
users' policy of providing "flexibilities" to petitioners and applicants during the pandemic, the 
company urges the Agency to exercise similar leniency with it because of the difficulties of 
establishing a restaurant during the epidemic. 
We acknowledge that eovrD-19 and restrictions designed to contain the virus's spread caused 
hardships to many petitioners and applicants. From March 2020 to March 2023, users eased these 
burdens by accepting responses to certain requests and notices after their due dates and granting 
additional time for filings of appeals, motions, and certain hearing requests. See, e.g., "USCIS 
Announces End of eovrD-Related Flexibilities," Mar. 23, 2023, www.uscis.gov/newsroom. The 
Agency's measures, however, did not include multiple, new office periods or extensions of those 
periods for L-lA petitioners. Thus, we lack authorization to deviate from applicable regulations and 
cannot grant the Petitioner's request for leniency. 
Even if we could, the record lacks sufficient, supporting evidence of how the eovrD-19 pandemic 
delayed the restaurant's opening. The Petitioner claims that, in response to the epidemic, the 
government of its home state ordered restaurants to close and later imposed on-site dining restrictions 
on the industry. The company also states that global, supply-chain disruptions delayed its ability to 
obtain food ingredients for the restaurant. But the Petitioner did not support its claims with sufficient 
documentation showing the pandemic' s impact on its business. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that, for the year before the petition's 
filing, the company provided services to the restaurant's owner on a "regular, systematic, and 
continuous" basis. See 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(l)(ii)(H). Thus, the company has not established that it was 
"doing business" for the duration of the Beneficiary's L-lA stay in the United States. See 8 e.F.R. 
§ 214.l(l)(ii)(G)(2). We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
B. The Nature of the Proposed Position 
The Director also found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate its proposed U.S. employment of the 
Beneficiary in the claimed executive capacity. But our conclusion above that the company did not 
establish that it was "doing business" for the year before the petition's filing resolves this appeal. We 
will therefore reserve consideration of whether the Petitioner demonstrated the claimed executive 
nature of the Beneficiary's proposed employment. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 
("As a general rule, courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of 
which is unnecessary to the results they reach.") ( citations omitted). 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that it was "doing business" for the year before the petition's filing. 
We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5