dismissed L-1A Case: Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 5, 2024 In Re: 30908184 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner intends to operate a retail cellphone and accessories business. It filed this petition as a 
new office 1 seeking to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as its president under the L-lA 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees who are coming to be employed in the 
United States in a managerial or executive capacity. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that: 1) the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer; 
2) the Beneficiary had been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one 
year in the three years prior to filing the instant petition; and 3) the Petitioner would employ the 
Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of the petition's approval. 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary had been 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years prior to 
filing the instant petition. Since 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 
grounds 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 ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
1 The term "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(1)(1)(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. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a position requiring 
specialized knowledge 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)(1). The beneficiary must also be 
seeking 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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(1)(3)(ii). 
In addition, regarding a new office petition, 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. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD FOR ONE YEAR 
The issue to be addressed is whether 
the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence establishing that the 
Beneficiary met the foreign employment requirement. Considerations in addressing this issue are two­
fold, as the Petitioner must not only establish that the Beneficiary worked for the foreign employer for 
at least one continuous year in the three years prior to filing this petition, but it must also establish that 
the employment abroad was full-time. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
In this matter, the petition form identifies the Beneficiary's foreign employer as
I land lists his dates of employment with that organization as June 2017 through the date the 
petition was filed in May 2021. Although the supporting statement lists the June 201 7 employment 
date, it also states that supporting evidence would demonstrate "the beneficiary's Executive position 
with the foreign entity since 2010," thus resulting in an inconsistency in the Petitioner's claim 
regarding the Beneficiary's foreign employment. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988) (requiring that inconsistencies be resolved with independent, objective evidence). 
The Petitioner also provided the Beneficiary's foreign job duty breakdown and the foreign entity's 
2021 organizational chart listing the Beneficiary in the CEO position. However, information in the 
petition form states that the Beneficiary entered the United States in October 2020 and remained in 
the United States at least through the date this petition was filed in May 2021. 2 In addition, the 
Petitioner provided a list of the foreign entity's claimed employees as well as their respective job titles, 
hiring dates, and salaries. 
The Director subsequently issued a request for evidence (RFE) notifying the Petitioner that it did not 
provide sufficient evidence establishing that the Beneficiary has at least one year of continuous full­
time employment abroad during the relevant period. The Director also informed the Petitioner that 
2 The petition form states that the Beneficiary arrived in the United States as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor in October 2020 
and that such status was not due to expire until October 2021, thus indicating that the Beneficiary was still in the United 
States in May 2021, when this petition was filed. 
2 
pay, personnel, or training records would be acceptable forms of evidence in meeting the noted 
requirement. In response, the Petitioner submitted copies of the previously submitted foreign 
organizational chart and employee list, referring to the latter as a "payroll report." The Petitioner also 
offered new evidence in the form of an employment verification letter from the foreign entity's 
president. The letter includes the Beneficiary's job duty breakdown and states that the Beneficiary 
had "served as our Chief Executive Officers [sic] since 12 June, [sic] 2017." 
In the denial, the Director pointed out that the employment verification letter does not state whether 
the Beneficiary's employment was in full-time status. The Director further noted that the Petitioner 
did not provide pay, personnel, or training records, which the RFE suggested as acceptable forms of 
evidence for the purpose of addressing concerns about the Beneficiary's period of foreign 
employment. The Director also added that according to USCIS records, the Beneficiary last entered 
the United States in February 2008 and has not departed since then. 3 In light of the facts presented, 
the Director determined that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the 
Beneficiary has been working outside the United States for one continuous year of full-time 
employment prior to filing the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the "standard evidence used as proof of employment is a letter of 
employment, [sic] or pay records," arguing that these documents had been previously submitted. We 
disagree that the evidence submitted in this matter is sufficient. While we recognize that the Petitioner 
previously submitted an employment verification letter, the letter made no mention of the 
Beneficiary's foreign employment being full-time as required by the regulation. Nor did the Petitioner 
provide "pay records" as claimed. 
In fact, the Petitioner provided an internally generated employee list containing the names, position 
titles, and "rate of pay" and hire date of each of __________ claimed employees. 
Unlike a pay record, this document does not constitute evidence of ongoing compensation to the listed 
individuals over a specific time period. And no information was provided as to the date this document 
was produced or whether the listed "rate of pay" represented weekly, monthly, or annual 
compensation; nor does the record contain documentation clarifying whether the compensation is 
claimed to be in exchange for full- or part-time employment relevant to the Beneficiary's employment. 
Furthermore, according to this document, the Beneficiary was hired on June 3, 2017. However, the 
previously submitted employment verification letter states that the Beneficiary's employment 
commenced on June 12, 2017, thus resulting in another inconsistency concerning the Beneficiary's 
claimed period of employment with __________ And, as noted above, the initial 
supporting statement suggests his employment began in 2010. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-
92. Additionally, on appeal, the Petitioner does not address the Director's notation that the Beneficiary 
entered the U.S. in 2008 and has not left. 
In sum, the Petitioner did not adequately address the evidentiary deficiencies in the record or provide 
evidence that the Beneficiary was a full-time employee of abroad for at 
least one continuous year during the relevant period. Because the Petitioner has not established that 
3 USCIS has clarified that "[t]he one-year foreign employment requirement is only satisfied by the time a beneficiary 
spends physically outside the United States .... " USCIS Policy Memorandum, PM-602-0167, Satisfying the L-1 I-Year 
Foreign Employment Requirement; Revisions to Chapter 32.3 of the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) (Nov. 15, 2018). 
3 
the Beneficiary met these requirements, the petition cannot be approved. As noted above, as the basis 
for dismissal of this appeal is dis positive, we reserve our decision on the remaining grounds that were 
cited in the denial. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4