dismissed L-1A Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 10928704 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 16, 2021 
The Petitioner installs Internet services and develops software. It seeks to employ the Beneficiary as 
its president inL-lAnonimmigrant status as a manager or executive. See Iimnigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 101 (a)(l 5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(l 5)(L). 
After initially granting the filing, the Director of the Texas Service Center revoked the petition's 
approval. The Director concluded that , contrary to facts alleged in the petition, the Petitioner did not 
acquire sufficient U.S. business premises. 
In revocation proceedings, the Petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested 
benefit by a preponderance of evidence. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361 (discussing the 
burden of proof); see also Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010) (discussing the 
standard of proof) . Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. L-1 A MANAGERS AND EXECUTIVES AT NEW OFFICES 
The Petitioner described itself as a "new office." The term means an entity that, at the time of the 
petition's filing, had done business in the United States for less than one year. 8 C.F.R . 
§ 214 .2(1)(1)(ii)(F). 
If a "new office," an L-1 A petitioner must demonstrate that, during the three years before the petition's 
filing, the beneficiary worked at least one full-time continuous year abroad for a parent, branch, 
affiliate, or subsidiary of the petitioner in a position that was managerial, executive, or involved 
specialized knowledge. Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(1)(3)(v)(B). The petitioner 
must also establish that: (1) the proposed U.S. employment will primarily involve performance of 
managerial or executive duties; (2) the business will be able to support the managerial or executive 
position within one year of the petition's approval; and (3) "[s]ufficient physical premises to house 
the new office have been secured." Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A)(B), 
(C). 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may revoke the approval of an L-1 petition under 
certain circumstances, including when "[t]he statement of facts contained in the petition was not true 
and correct." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(i), (iii)(A)(4). Before revoking an L-1 approval, USCIS must 
generally send a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) to the petitioner, detailing the proposed revocation 
grounds and allowing the business a reasonable opportunity to rebut the allegations. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214 .2(1)(9)(iii). 
II. THE NEW OFFICE 
On the Form I-12 9, the Petitioner listed its address as "Suite 2" in a building i~~---~IN ew York, 
and claimed to have two employees. 
The Director's NOIR noted that USCIS officers visited the Petitioner's office in April 2019, about 
nine months after the petition's approval. The officersreportedfindingthe Beneficiary in an apartment 
where he lived. They said a room in the apartment contained an "office" consisting of a laptop 
computer on a coffee table. The officers observed that the room lacked workstations or office 
equipment. The officers found no evidence of another employee, and the Beneficiary told them that 
he was the company's only worker. The officers found that the office space in the apartment could 
not accommodate two employees. Thus, the Director concluded that the petition incorrectly stated the 
Petitioner's acquisition of sufficient business premises. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A) (requiring a 
petitioner to demonstrate that "[s]ufficient physical premises to house the new office have been 
secured"). 
In the Petitioner's NOIR response, the company contended that it has regularly conducted business 
since the Beneficiary's U.S. admission in L-lA status in November 2018. The Petitioner stated that 
the Beneficiary told the USCIS officers that the office in the apartment was "temporary." The 
company said it moved its office to another part of1 I in July 2019, a few months after 
the USCIS site visit. As proof of the company's business operations, it submitted copies of purported 
client contracts, paystubs, and a bank account statement. 
The Director concluded that the evidence in the NOIR response did not establish the Petitioner's 
acquisition of sufficient business premises. The Petitioner did not submit copies of leases or deeds to 
itJ • I orl I offices. The two pay~ch are dated about two months after the 
company's purported move tol I list itsl____J address. The two contracts identify the 
Petitioner's clients as Ukrainian and U.S. companies. But the record indicates that these companies 
have close ties to the Beneficiary. His resume states that he founded the Ukrainian company and 
served as its chief technology officer. Similarly, the website of the U.S. company identifies the 
Beneficiary as the firm's founder and chief executive officer. 1 The Beneficiary's ties to the 
Petitioner's purported clients cast doubt on the authenticity of the contracts. The Petitioner's 
description of the I I office as "temporary" also appears to acknowledge the space's 
insufficiency. 
Moreover, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary entered the United States in L-lA status in 
November 2018, in part, to "[ f]ind an office space." But a petitioner must demonstrate eligibility "at 
the time of filing the benefit request." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Thus, the company had to secure 
1 Presumably because of translation differences, the website spells the Beneficiary's name differently than listed in the 
petition. 
2 
sufficient U.S. business premises as of the petition's filing in March 2018. The Beneficiary's search 
for office space upon his admission in November 2018 indicates that the Petitioner did not acquire 
sufficient business premises by the petition's filing. 
The Petitioner asserted that USCIS "unreasonably" required the company to have "a spanking new 
expensive office in the first year of its existence." USCIS, however, placed no requirements on the 
cost of the company's business premises. Rather, consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A), the 
Director required the Petitioner's site to be "sufficient." The Petitioner indicated that two employees 
would work at thd I address. At the site visit, however, USCIS officers found the Beneficiary 
alone in the apartment's office and reported that the room could not accommodate another worker. 
Thus, the Director's NOIR reasonably requested evidence of the Petitioner's acquisition of sufficient 
business premises. 
The Petitioner further asserted the sufficiency of the office in thel l apartment. The company 
claimed to submit photographs of the office showing a room with '"a desktop, 2 computers, a printer, 
a scanner, fax, and Internet access." The record, however, lacks office photos and does not otherwise 
support the Petitioner's assertions. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits more evidence, including copies of: additional paystubs; a certificate 
of workers' compensation insurance; and letters from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to the 
company. The NOIR, however, afforded the Petitioner a reasonable opportunity to document the 
company's acquisition of sufficient business premises. We therefore decline to consider the additional 
evidence on appeal. See, e.g., MatterofM-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). 
Even if we considered the appellate evidence, it would not establish the Petitioner's acquisition of 
sufficient business premises by the petition's filing as required by regulation. The additional paystubs 
continue to list the company's address inl • I The insurance certificate does not bear the name 
of the Petitioner, but rather its U.S. client that the Beneficiary purportedly founded. In addition, the 
IRS sent its December 2019 letters to the Petitioner at an address in Delaware. 2 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the record does not establish the Petitioner's acquisition of sufficient 
business premises at the time of the petition's filing. Because the petition stated incorrect facts, we 
will affirm the revocation of its approval. 3 
2 Although not alleged as anadditionalpotentialgroundof revocation, the record does not establish the Petitioner's legal 
operation of its business from the! . I apartment. SeeMatterofJ-C01p., Adopted Decision2017-02 (AAOApr. 12, 
2017) (barring USCTS from approving an L-1 petition basedonanofferofillegalemployment).I I residents 
can of erate certain types of businesses from their homes. But offices can't exceed 500 square feet or 25% of a home's 
area. IN.Y.ZoningResolution § 12-10(5),https:,l,J , a 5 6 !l(definingtheterm "home occupation") 
(last visited Jul. 15, 2021). The record doesn't establish that the Petitioner's office in thq I apartment complied 
with local zoning rules. 
3 The record also does not demonstrate the Petitioner's qualifyingrelationship with the Beneficiaty's foreign employer or 
the qualifying nature of his work abroad. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3 )(v)(B). The NOTR, however, did not notify the 
Petitioneroftheseadditionaldeficiencies. Theythereforedon'tjustify revocationofthe petition's approval. See8 C.F R. 
§ 214.2(1)(9)(iii) (requiring USCIS, before revoking the approvalofanL-1 petition, to notify a petitioner of the revocation 
grounds and afford it an opportunity to submit rebuttal evidence). 
3 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4