dismissed L-1A Case: Sports Bar

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 05, 2023 In Re: 28569411 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, which intends to operate a sports bar, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
the controller of its new office under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that ( 1) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity and 
(2) the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity within one year. The matter is now before us on appeal. 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. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification as a new office, a qualifying 
organization must have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity for one 
continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the 
United States. Section 10l(a)(15)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). In addition, the 
beneficiary must seek 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. Id. 
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). A petitioner seeking approval of an L-IA new 
office petition 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 company 
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. ANALYSIS 
The Director denied the petition, in part, based on a determination that the Petitioner did not establish 
that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity within one year. 
"Executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization; 
establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; exercises wide latitude 
in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. Section 101 (a)( 44 )(B) of the 
Act. 
"Managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the organization; 
supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, or 
manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision of the 
organization; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
To establish a beneficiary's eligibility for L-lA classification, a pet1t10ner must show that the 
beneficiary will perform the high-level responsibilities set forth in the statutory definition of 
managerial capacity or executive capacity at section 101(a)(44)(A) or (B) of the Act. If a petitioner 
establishes that the offered position meets all elements set forth in one of the statutory definitions, it 
must prove that the beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial or executive duties within one 
year, as opposed to performing operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See 
Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006). 
In the case of a new office petition, we review a beneficiary's proposed job duties as well as the 
petitioner's business and hiring plans and evidence demonstrating how the business intends to grow 
and expand during the first year of operations. A petitioner has the burden to establish that it would 
realistically develop to the point where it would require the beneficiary to perform duties that are 
primarily managerial or executive in nature. Accordingly, the totality of the evidence must be 
considered in analyzing whether the proposed managerial or executive position is plausible 
considering a petitioner's anticipated staffing levels and stage of development within a one-year 
period. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
A. Nature of Business and Proposed Duties 
The Petitioner indicates that it intends to operate a sports bar and provided a lease agreement for 
premises to be used as a bar and restaurant. The Petitioner explained that the bar is "an established 
2 
business we plan to revitalize." It indicates that the Beneficiary will be employed as its controller and 
summarized his duties as follows: 
• In charge of making policies that will affect the overall direction of the sports bar; 
• Ensures that policies are effectively communicated and implemented to all the 
members of the staff; 
• Liaises with business partners on behalf of the company; 
• Responsible for ensuring that all the financial information and statements of the sports 
bar are prepared accurately; 
• Ensures that the budget for use by the sports bar is effectively implemented; 
• Prepares tax reports and submits same to relevant tax authorities[.] 
The Petitioner's initial letter in support of the petition attributed additional responsibilities to the 
controller position, including: 
• Discretionary authority to hire, promote, dismiss, or demote any employee of the U.S. 
entity; 
• Oversee the management staff and support and direct the new office in the first year of 
business; 
• Develop the policies and procedures as well as the culture of this new business; 
• Hire and train management staff in customer service and cash handling procedures; 
• Establish safety and theft prevention programs as well as financial rewards or other 
benefits for meeting sales goals; 
• Monitor and report the business' finances and make decisions regarding the company's 
spending, debt service, investment strategies, and profits. 
In denying the petition, the Director observed that the description was insufficient to establish that the 
Beneficiary's duties would be primarily managerial or executive in nature. In this regard, the Director 
emphasized that the Beneficiary's stated responsibilities for preparing and submitting tax reports and 
ensuring the accurate preparation of financial information and reports are not duties typically 
performed by a manager or executive. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director "neglects to comprehend that the beneficiary will be 
serving as the Controller" and "is responsible for filing the appropriate financial reports with their 
respective authorities," such as the IRS, the Social Security Administration and various Texas state 
agencies. The Petitioner further states that the Director "fails to comprehend that any successful 
business must prepare financial reports such as financial statements," and notes that the Beneficiary, 
as controller, will be responsible for maintaining these reports. The Petitioner emphasizes that "these 
tasks are far beyond the duties of a manager or supervisor." 
We agree that the Petitioner did not meet its burden to establish that the Beneficiary would be engaged 
primarily in managerial or executive duties within one year. Some of the duties attributed to the 
offered position, such as responsibility for developing policies and procedures affecting the "overall 
direction" of the business, paraphrase the definition of executive capacity at section 10l(a)(44)(B) of 
the Act, while his authority to hire staff would fall under the definition of managerial capacity at 
section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. However, many of the remaining duties, such as training staff in 
3 
customer service and cash handling, monitoring finances, and preparing and submitting tax filings, do 
not clearly fall within the definitions of managerial capacity or executive capacity. While the 
Petitioner emphasizes the critical nature of the Beneficiary's finance-related responsibilities, the 
record does not indicate that the Petitioner intends to hire or contract any staff: such as an accountant, 
bookkeeper or administrative staff, to assist him with routine tasks associated with these 
responsibilities. Therefore, while we do not doubt his authority to make decisions affecting the 
company's finances, the record does not demonstrate how much time he would allocate to these 
higher-level duties, as opposed to performing operational or administrative tasks necessary for the 
day-to-day operations of the business. 
The fact that the Beneficiary is a minority partner of the business and will perform some qualifying 
duties based on his senior position within the company does not necessarily establish his eligibility for 
classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity within the meaning 
of section 101 (a)( 44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties 
of a position be "primarily" executive or managerial in nature. Sections 10l(A)(44)(A) and (B) of the 
Act. The Petitioner bears the burden of documenting what portion of the Beneficiary's duties will be 
managerial or executive and what proportion will be non-managerial or non-executive. See Republic 
of Transkei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 178 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Here, the Petitioner submitted a general 
description that does not sufficiently delineate how the Beneficiary will allocate his time among 
qualifying and non-qualifying duties. 
Further, the position description alone is insufficient to establish that a beneficiary's duties would be 
primarily in a managerial or executive capacity, particularly in the case of a new office petition where 
much is dependent on factors such as a petitioner's business and hiring plans and evidence that the 
business will grow sufficiently to support a beneficiary in the proposed position. As noted above, the 
totality of the evidence must be considered in analyzing whether the proposed duties are plausible 
considering a petitioner's anticipated staffing levels and stage of development within a one-year 
period. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). For the additional reasons discussed below, the Petitioner 
has not met its burden to show that it would realistically develop to the point where it would require 
the Beneficiary to perform primarily managerial or executive duties within one year. 
B. Projected Staffing, Finances and Business Plan 
A new office petition must include evidence of the proposed nature of the office, describing the scope 
of the entity, its organizational structure, and its financial goals. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(C)(v)(]). 
The Petitioner submitted a 13-page business plan that includes an industry overview, an executive 
summary, a description of the company's proposed product and service offerings, general staffing 
plans, a market analysis, a sales forecast, a summary of start-up expenditures, and a list of milestones 
the business expects to meet ahead of its grand opening. The business plan indicates that the company 
expects to achieve sales of $350,000 in its first year of operations. The Petitioner's initial proposed 
organizational chart indicated that employees reporting directly or indirectly to the Beneficiary would 
include a security guard, a general manager, an assistant manager, bartender(s), bar back(s) and a 
delivery driver, but the business plan did not include a timeline for hiring staff, their anticipated 
salaries, or indicate the total number of staff to be hired during the first year of operations. 
4 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) advising the Petitioner that additional information 
would be required to establish that the company would, more likely than not, support a managerial or 
executive position within one year. The Director requested a detailed timeline reflecting the 
Petitioner's anticipated hiring plans and other actions it anticipates taking during its first year of 
operations, as well as a letter from the foreign entity indicating the proposed number of employees 
and types of positions, and an explanation of how the company will develop to support the claimed 
Beneficiary's claimed managerial or executive position. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner asserted that, at the time it filed the petition in April 2022, it had 
planned to commence its business operations within six months but emphasized that "we are 
absolutely uncertain how long it may take USCIS to approve our petition which will allow the 
beneficiary to serve as the Controller and begin operations of the U.S. business." The Petitioner re­
submitted the same business plan along with a revised organizational chart and a media report 
regarding the booming market for sports bars in the United States, which the Petitioner claimed is 
"evidence of the potential financial growth of the U.S. business." 
The Petitioner's revised organizational chart indicated that the Beneficiary would directly supervise a 
general manager, who, in turn would supervise bartender(s), bar back(s) and wait staff The chart did 
not include the security guard, assistant manager or driver positions that appeared on the initial 
organizational chart and the Petitioner did not explain why it had revised the company's proposed 
staffing and structure. The Petitioner stated on the chart that new employees would commence 
working two weeks before opening to allow for training and orientation, but provided no additional 
information regarding the company's hiring plans for the first year. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's response was insufficient to overcome the evidentiary 
deficiencies addressed in the RFE, and determined the company's explanation of its proposed business 
lacked sufficient detail to support its claim that it would be able to support a managerial or executive 
position within one year. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts "[i]t has been over a year since this petition 
was filed and we have no means of predicting our opening date." The Petitioner indicates that it will 
expeditiously hire staff if the petition is approved but does not otherwise address the Director's 
conclusions. 
Upon review, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not adequately support 
its claims regarding the proposed nature and scope of the new office, its projected staffing, and its 
financial goals. 
The Petitioner's business plan is lacking in detail and does not include a description of how the 
company intends to operate the intended business based on its proposed staffing for the first year of 
operations. Notably, there is a lack of correlation between the company's proposed staffing and its 
proposed business activities, which precludes a determination that the projected staff would 
sufficiently relieve the Beneficiary from significant involvement in the company's day-to-day 
operational and administrative activities. For example, although the business plan and other evidence 
in the record (including the lease agreement and photographs of the leased premises) indicate the 
Petitioner's business is a restaurant and bar, the company does not indicate that it would be hiring any 
cooks or other kitchen staff The business plan also states that the company will offer catering services, 
sports book betting, and other services including "training" and "consultancy," but did not elaborate 
5 
on what those services would entail or who would be responsible for providing them. Absent evidence 
that the Petitioner intends to hire staff to, for example, work in its kitchen, it is unclear how the 
Beneficiary would be relieved from having to engage in these duties. While we acknowledge that the 
day-to-day supervision of the bar staff will be delegated to the general manager, the record does not 
support a determination that the company would have sufficient personnel to perform other routine 
duties associated with the operation of a bar and restaurant, such that the Beneficiary could reasonably 
allocate his time primarily to managerial or executive tasks. 
There are similar deficiencies with respect to the level of detail provided in the company's financial 
projections. Because the Petitioner's projected revenue, cost and expense figures are not adequately 
detailed and supported in the record, it did not establish how its projected staffing levels and 
organizational structure would realistically be achieved. The business plan includes a projected gross 
sales figure for the first year and a breakdown of start-up expenses, but otherwise lacks any financial 
projections. The included breakdown of expected start-up expenditures amounts to $103,000; 
however, it is unclear how those figures were derived. For example, the Petitioner indicates that the 
"cost of leasing a facility for a year and carrying out renovations" would be $40,000. According to 
the terms of the submitted lease agreement, the Petitioner's rent alone for the first year of operations 
would be $210,000, more than five times the amount projected for rent and renovations. This 
discrepancy raises questions as to whether the provided start-up expenditures are realistic and whether 
the company will have sufficient fonds to commence operations as planned. 
Although the Petitioner asserts that sports bars are currently enjoying significant financial success in 
the U.S. market, it cannot meet its evidentiary burden as a new office petitioner under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) by submitting media reports about the industry in which it tends to operate. A 
petitioner has the burden to establish that its specific business would, more likely than not, realistically 
develop to the point where it would require the beneficiary to perform duties that are primarily 
managerial or executive in nature within one year by submitting the evidence required by the 
regulations. 
Those regulations require the Petitioner to disclose the size of the U.S. investment and its financial 
ability to commence doing business. Here, the record lacks information and supporting evidence 
regarding the anticipated size of the U.S. investment and therefore does not show that the new office 
would have the fonding to cover its start-up expenditures. The business plan contains one sentence 
addressing the source of the company's start-up capital, noting that the business is "owned equally by 
a group of investors." The record does not contain sufficient evidence that the investing partners had 
already invested or committed to investing capital to cover the new office's start-up expenses and any 
other first-year operating expenses that would not be covered by cash flow, particularly given the 
Petitioner's assertion that it expected to open for business six months into the first year. The 
Petitioner's partnership agreement indicates that its seven partners made a combined capital 
contribution in the amount of $50,000 on February 11, 2022, but the record does not include evidence 
of this contribution or indicate that additional contributions would be made to cover the start-up and 
initial operating costs. Although the Petitioner submitted a 2021 audit report for the foreign entity in 
support of its claims that fonds are available, the figures provided are in Indian rupees and it remains 
unclear what amount each partner is willing and able to invest in the U.S. company. 
6 
For all the foregoing reasons, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the record contains 
insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the new office would support a managerial or executive 
position within one year. The Petitioner has consistently stated that the Beneficiary will occupy a 
senior position in its new office but has not submitted a job description or supporting evidence 
sufficient to demonstrate that he would primarily engage in managerial or executive duties, or that the 
new office would develop to the point where it could support a managerial or executive position, after 
the initial year of operations. 
III. RESERVED ISSUE 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve its appellate arguments regarding the Director's separate determination that it did not 
establish that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. 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 of L-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). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the 
reasons discussed, the record does not establish that the Petitioner's new office would employ 
the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity within one year. Accordingly, we will dismiss 
the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7