dismissed L-1A Case: Retail And Wholesale

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUNE 29, 2023 In Re: 27292501 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner intends to engage in "retail and wholesale activities." It seeks to employ the Beneficiary 
temporarily as the "Deputy CEO" of its new office I under the L-lA nonirnmigrant 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 10l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, citing two grounds as bases for 
denial. First, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity, pointing out that the Petitioner provided an 
illegible organizational chart of the foreign entity and offered a deficient job description that lacked 
specific information about the Beneficiary's job duties and frequency at which those duties were 
performed. Second, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence 
establishing that it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. The Director 
noted that the Petitioner did not specify the type ofrelationship it claims to have with the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer and further stated that despite providing a "Limited Liability Company Agreement" 
showing that ____________ has a 51 % ownership interest in the petitioning entity, 
the Petitioner did not establish that it shares common ownership with I Ithe 
Beneficiary's foreign employer. Although the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of 
a letter claiming that __..,......-......,.,.....,...-...,....--,-------.,------.- ..............,...-...,....-...,..........are related entities, 
such evidence was deemed insufficient for the purpose of establishing the existence of a qualifying 
relationship between the Beneficiary's foreign and U.S. employers. The matter is now before us on 
appeal. 2 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 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
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(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 We decline the Petitioner ' s request for oral argument. 8 C.F .R. § 103.3(b) . 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's position abroad was at "the highest level of 
management" and states that it was the same as his proposed U.S. position in which the Beneficiary 
will assume responsibility for "strategy, execution, budget, [and] hiring [and] firing" and "will be 
charge [sic] of all suppliers." Although the Petitioner also stated that a letter signed by the company's 
president was previously submitted, it did not specify which contents in that letter, if any, addressed 
the Director's concerns regarding a detailed listing of the Beneficiary's job duties in his position with 
the foreign entity. Nor does the Petitioner offer any further information about the Beneficiary's foreign 
employment or the job duties he performed. Regarding the issue of a qualifying relationship, the 
Petitioner merely states that"[ a]11 legal documents regarding Atlas [ and the Petitioner] were submitted 
to prove the relationship," but it offers no further evidence to demonstrate the existence of a qualifying 
relationship despite the Director's finding that the evidence previously submitted was insufficient. 
Although the Petitioner states that additional evidence will be submitted within 30 days of filing the 
appeal, the record does not show any further submissions. 
Accordingly, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision. 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 "individualized consideration" to the case). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2