dismissed L-1A Case: Restaurant/Property Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Q-B-T- INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 27,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which owns rental property and claims to operate a restaurant, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as president and director of its new office under the L-1 A nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act section 
101(a)(15)(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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
evidence of record did not establish that: (1) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a 
managerial or executive capacity; and (2) the new office will be able to support a managerial or 
executive position within a year of approval of the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
Uponreview, we will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned 
fails to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). The Petitioner did not provide a statement in support of the appeal that 
specifically identifies an erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed. The 
Petitioner submitted several documents, some of them new, others copies of previous submissions. 
The Petitioner provided no statement to provide context to these documents, or to identify any 
specific, erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement of fact in the Director's decision; thus, the appeal 
is summarily dismissed. 
Even though the appeal is summarily dismissed, we will briefly discuss the evidence submitted on 
appeal. The documents submitted on appeal, without explanation, do not overcome the Director's 
finding regarding the Beneficiary's foreign employment. The documents include copies of an 
amended stockholders agreement for the petitioning company; foreign and U.S. job descriptions for 
the Beneficiary; the Beneficiary's employment contract, dated October 1, 2015, but also dated 
August 1, 2013; letters verifying the Beneficiary's past employment with the Petitioner's foreign 
parent company; a partial ·Jist of the foreign parent company's employees; and financial 
documentation from the foreign parent company. The Petitioner has submitted conflicting accounts 
of the Beneficiary's duties overseas, first indicating that almost all of the Beneficiary's 
responsibilities concerned the company's finances, and later stating that he controlled the company's 
.
Matter of Q-B- T- Inc. 
manufacturing, marketing, and sales operations. The Petitioner listed the Beneficiary's general areas 
of responsibility, but did not show the specific duties he performed to fulfill those responsibilities. 
The appeal includes a copy of a previously submitted job description which the Director had already 
found to be deficient. 
The new documents also do not address or sho\V error in the Director's finding concerning the new 
office's ability to support a managerial or executive position within a year. The Petitioner stated that 
it intends to sell kitchen supplies manufactured by its foreign parent company , but the record does 
not show that it has engaged in this activity. Instead, the Petitioner has purchased commercial rental 
properties in Florida, including a restaurant called the at 
The staff of the accounted for almost all of the Petitioner's 
reported employees. 1 
The Petitioner stated that it had 33 employees and predicted that it would pay $100,000 in salaries 
the first year. The Director questioned the accuracy of the salary figure, but the Petitioner stated that 
the figure was accurate because most of the restaurant jobs were part-time. The record shows that 
the Petitioner paid $10,831.76 in salaries and wages to 26 employees during a single two-week pay 
period. At that rate, the Petitioner would pay over $280,000 in salaries over a full year. 
Other financial figures are also unsupported or questionable. The Petitioner anticipated over $1 
million in first-year sales, but when asked to substantiate that figure, the Petitioner repeated the 
number and called it "evidence that Petitioner is on a path to success [and] profitability." The 
Petitioner stated that the foreign parent company would provide $938,925 in "startup funding, " but 
acknowledged that the company had, so far, provided only about $52,000. A bank statement from 
July 2016 showed that the Petitioner received $31,980 on June30 , 2016, and $20,980 the next day. 
The same statement, however, shows two outgoing wire transfers to the parent company: $32,000 
on July 8, 2016, and $21,000 on July 25, 2016. Again, the Petitioner , on appeal, has not explained 
how the Director's findings were in error. 
Because the Petitioner has not identified a specific, erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact 
in the Director's decision below, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
1 We note that public records show that the no longer operates at The 
Petitioner held food and beverage licenses for that property , but those same licenses are now held by a different company 
with no documented affiliation to the Petitioner or its foreign parent company. The restaurant was already operating 
under a different name in August 2016, the month the Petitioner filed the petition . As late as November 2016 , the 
Petitioner claimed that it was still operating the and the January 2017 appeal includes an employee 
list consisting almost entirely of restaurant workers (the exceptions being the Beneficiary and a bookkeeper /office 
manager) . The documented closure and replacement of the undermine s the credibility of these 
documents and the Petitioner ' s related claims. 
2 
Matter ofQ-B-T- Inc. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Cite as Matter ofQ-B-T- Inc., ID# 522263 (AAO July 27, 2017) 
3