dismissed L-1A Case: Tour Bus Operation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-L-1-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 16,2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an operator of a tour bus company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as 
the general manager of its new office' under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) ~ IOI(a)(l5)(L), S U.S.C. 
~ IIOI(a)(l5)(L). TheL-IA classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its 
at1iliate 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 Petitioner did 
not establish, as required. that it would support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive position 
within one year of an approval of the instant petition. 
On appeaL the Petitioner submits a brief disputing the denial. The Petitioner contends that the 
Director did not properly consider the financial projections that were included in a previously 
provided business plan and further argues that the foreign entity made sufficient monetary 
contributions to fund the new U.S. operation. 
Upon de nom review, we \Viii dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification with a petition involving 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 tiJr 
admission into the United States. S C. F. R. ~ 214.2(1 )(3 )( v )( R ). 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 af1iliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. /d. 
1 
The term '"new otllce" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one 
year. 8 C.F.R. ~ 2142(l)(l)(ii)(F). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a '"nc\\ office·· operation no 
more than one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
Matter of CI-L-1- Inc. 
The petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new office will be able to support a 
managerial or executive position vvithin 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 lJ .S. 
investment. ,)'ee generally. 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
The term "managerial capacity" is detined as 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 fix which the employee has authority. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
The term "executive capacity" is dctined as 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 IOI(a)(44)(B) of the Act. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The primary issue to be addressed in this decision is whether the Petitioner has established that it 
would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of approval of 
the instant petition. 
In the case of a new office petition. beyond the description of a beneficiary's proposed job duties. we 
review the petitioner's business and hiring plans and evidence that the business will grow 
sufficiently to support a beneficiary in the intended managerial or executive capacity. A petitioner 
has the burden to establish that it would realistically develop to the point \vhcrc it would require the 
bcncliciary to pcrt(mn duties that arc primarily managerial or executive in nature within one year of 
the petition's approval. Accordingly. we consider the totality of the evidence in analyzing whether 
the proposed managerial or executive position is plausible based on 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). 
In the present matter. the Petitioner submitted a supporting statement indicating that its original 
business goal was to "explor[e] investment opportunities" and to assist the t(Jreign entity expand its 
commercial real estate business to the United States by developing and marketing its property 
management. appraisal. and investment consulting services in Caliti.Jrnia. The Petitioner explained 
that it would serve as the foreign entity's "direct marketing arm .. and projected that it would 
"eventually" buy and manage its own commercial properties in the hospitality industry. marketing its 
2 
Maller ofG-L-1- Inc. 
services to investors in the United States and China. The Petitioner provided a proposed 
organizational chart with projected hiring timelines for the positions listed therein. The chart 
indicated that the Beneficiary would serve as the head of the company and that a global investment 
manager and two purchasing coordinators would he hired as soon as the Beneficiary assumes his 
proposed position as general manager. while the remainder of the staff would be hired either within 
two months of the Beneficiary assuming his position or within two months of a department manager 
assuming theirs. For instance, the chart showed that the Petitioner planned to hire a facilities 
manager and an administration manager within two months of the Beneficiary. while the subordinate 
staff of these two managers would he hired within two months of their respective hiring dates. 
The Petitioner also addressed the foreign entity· s finances by providing a translation of its 2016 
balance sheet and corresponding income statement as well as a wire transfer document showing that 
the foreign entity contributed $42.000 towards the purchase of the Pctitioncr·s stock. The record 
also contains the foreign entity·s hank statements from 2016 and the Petitioner's own bank 
documents showing three counter deposits that resulted in a total balance of approximately $780.000 
asofApril12.2017. 
In a request for evidence. the Director observed that the Petitioner did not provide a business plan or 
a timetable for each of its proposed actions or establish the size of the investment it would need to 
fund its operations. In whole. the Director determined that the record did not. at that time. contain 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the foreign entity had the financial ability to support the U.S. 
operation or that the Petitioner would have the organizational structure needed to elevate the 
Beneficiary to a managerial or executive position within one year. 
The Petitioner·s response includes translations of the foreign entity·s audited balance sheet and 
income statement from May 2017 as well as a bank statement showing the foreign entity's 
transactions and balances from January through May 2017. In a separate statement. the foreign 
entity discussed its approval of the Pctitioner·s proposition to purchase an existing tour bus company 
and its assets. The foreign entity referred to a letter in which the Petitioner expressed its intent to 
purchase the said company for $1.58 million and claimed that the Petitioner issued a good l~tith 
deposit check in the amount of $100.000 and that it would assume a loan of $1 million. which vvould 
be ··provided by the seller." Although the Petitioner provided a translated resolution in which it 
listed the proposed financial breakdown. including the sale price. good faith deposit. and loan 
amount. it did not provide supporting evidence to show that the good faith deposit check was 
actually cashed by the receiving party or that a loan agreement was actually executed for the agreed 
upon amount. 
In addition. the Petitioner provided a business plan, dated June I 0. 2017. which included a general 
overview of the company as well as its marketing plans. financial and economic analyses. and plans 
for its future operation. In the business overview portion of the business plan. the Petitioner did not 
discuss its original plan to provide real estate management services and instead focused e:xclusi\ clj 
on its plans to buy and operate an existing tour bus company. a decision that was made in May 2017. 
or one month after the instant petition was tiled. The Petitioner stated that its ""ultimate goal is to 
Maller of'CI-L-1- Inc. 
become one of the largest tour bus companies on the west coast . . . ... In the business plan section 
titled "General Company Description ... the Petitioner indicated that it would operate as a tour bus 
company while simultaneously working to promote the foreign entity's real estate business in the 
United States through direct contacts with local and international customers. Although the Petitioner 
stated that its strategy for growing its business would include assembling ··a strong sales force." it 
did not explain when it planned to hire the additional personnel or provide financial ligures to justify 
the added cost of additional personnel. 
The business plan also included a "Sales Forecast" section. which shows a projected increase in sales 
revenue of $500.000 per year over the course of three years. However. the plan did not disclose the 
factors responsible for the projected sales increase. In fact. in the section titled "Management and 
Organization Plan." the Petitioner stated that it intends to hire the tour bus company's existing 25 
full-time employees. including its managerial. sales. administrative. and transportation staff. 
However. it did not include a discussion of an added "sales f(Jrcc .. that might account f(ll' the 
projected sales increases. Likewise. in the "Personnel" section of the "Management and 
Organization Plan." the Petitioner only referenced its plan to retain the tour bus company's existing 
employees. stating that "[r]ecruitment and retention arc critical to the success of a business": it did 
not, however, discuss any plans tor expanding its personnel or specifically state that it intended to 
increase its "sales force." 
The business plan also includes a section titled "Financial Plan ... which shows a chart listing the 
Petitioner's projected revenue. operating costs. gross profit. operating expenses. and its net income 
over the course of a three-year period. The Petitioner did not. however. explain how it came up with 
any of the projections by. for instance. itemizing the elements that would comprise the operating 
costs and operating expenses: nor did it distinguish between these two categories such that it would 
convey a meaningful understanding of the items that account for the operating costs versus those that 
make up the operating expenses. Without this int<xmation. it is unclear how the Petitioner came up 
with the financial projections in the chart. The same is true of the projected I'C\·enues versus the 
gross profits: without knowing the Petitioner's specific considerations when coming up \vith the 
financial figures for these two categories. it is virtually impossible to understand why the two 
categories exist separately. 
In the denial. the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of a business plan. but found 
that it did not include a detailed description of the new entity's financial goals or a specific time line 
f()r each proposed action the Petitioner plans to take over the course of its lirst year of operation. 
The Director also questioned the source of the funds that were deposited to the Petitioner's hank 
account. finding that the said funds could not be directly linked to the foreign entity. as claimed. and 
that as a result. a conclusion could not be reached as to the likelihood that the foreign entity had the 
ability. at the time this petition was tiled. to compensate the Beneficiary and start doing business in 
the United States. 
On appeaL the Petitioner disputes the Director's findings and offers evidence to establish a direct 
link between the to reign entity and the funds that were deposited into the Petitioner's bank account. 
4 
Matter of'G-L-1- Inc. 
The Petitioner lists specific amounts of funds and the dates it claims those funds were debited from 
the foreign entity"s bank accounts into the Beneficiary"s foreign bank account from vvhich those 
funds were purportedly transferred into the Petitioner·s own bank account. We tind. however. that 
the Petitioner·s claims are not consistent with the supporting evidence it provided. First. we turn to 
the list of four fund transfers that the Petitioner claims took place on January 6 and February 9. 2017. 
According to the Petitioner. the foreign entity transferred RMB330.000 on January 6. 2017. and 
RMB 1.000.000. 800.000. and I 00.000 on February 9. 2017. However. the foreign entity· s bank 
statement. which accounts f(x transactions from January through May 2017. verifies only three of 
the four transfers. leaving the last transfer of RMB I 00.000 unaccounted for. The Petitioner also 
indicates that the foreign entity transferred RMB2.150.000 on November 28. 2016 and provides a 
translation of a banking transaction to support this claim. However. the foreign entity" s bank 
statement has no record of a transaction that matches the date and amount claimed by the Petitioner. 
In fact. the foreign entity"s bank statement shows that the only debit fi·mn its account that took place 
on November 28. 2016. was in the amount of RMB 1.250.000. which is RMB 1.000.000 less than the 
amount claimed. It is unclear why the foreign entity would employ such a circuitous method to 
transfer the remainder of the funds to finance the startup of the li.S. operation. when a direct fund 
transfer could have been used and previously was used when the foreign entity directly wired 
$42.000 for the purchase of the Pctitioner"s stock. 
Further. the Petitioner did not provide evidence to support the claim that it was the recipient of the 
funds that the Beneficiary received ti·om the foreign entity: with the exception of the foreign entity" s 
transfer of $42.000 to purchase the Petitioner·s stock. all other incoming funds in the Pctitioncr·s 
statements were simply identified as counter deposits with no known origin(s). We also note that the 
Petitioner maintains inconsistent claims as to the amount of the foreign entity's claimed investment. 
indicating on the one hand that the foreign entity invested a total of RMB4.350.000. which is 
equivalent to $685.337.46. 2 while on the other hand claiming that the foreign entity invested 
$758.000 beyond the funds transferred to purchase the Petitioner's stock. The Petitioner must 
resolve these and the above discrepancies in the record with independent. objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Malter ol Ho. 19 I&N Dec. 582. 591-92 ( BIA 1988 ). The 
unresolved inconsistencies in this matter lead us to question who actually supplied the funds to 
finance the Petitioner·s start-up operation and whether the fi1reign entity has the financial ability to 
compensate the Beneficiary and commence doing business in the United States. 
We also find that the Petitioner's business plan docs not adequately support the claim that the new 
operation would reach a stage of development where it could support the Bcncliciary in a managerial 
or executive position. Although the initial supporting evidence includes a projected organizational 
chart showing hmv the Petitioner intended to stall a real estate-based business. the Petitioner did not 
provide a business plan or explain how it planned to operate such a business at the time of 1iling. 
Instead. the Petitioner provided a business plan in response to the RFE. which focused almost 
exclusively on the Petitioner·s intent to operate a bus tour company: the Petitioner did not explain 
2 S~e http://www.xe.com'currencyconverterlconvert! 0 Amount 4350000&From CNY &To USD (last visited on Feh. 14. 
20 IS). 
Maller olG-L-1- Inc. 
how or if it plans to pursue its original goal of operating a real estate investment. consulting, and 
management business. Also, the business plan includes financial projections that forecast the 
Petitioner's costs and revenues over the course of a three-year period: the plan does not however, 
point to the factors that might account f()r its projected revenue increase of $500.000 annually. As 
previously noted. the Petitioner did not explain why it generated separate calculations for operating 
costs and operating expenses or clarify the difference between revenues and gross profits. Without 
identifying the factors that comprise each of these four categories. the Petitioner cannot com c; a 
meaningful understanding of its financial plan or justify its financial projections. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to justify its projected income 
increases. Although it previously indicated that expanding its sales force would he critical to its 
business, the Petitioner did not account for such an expansion in its business plan or otherwise 
clarify which factors justify its expectation of a growing income. In fact the Petitioner did not 
indicate that it would actually undergo an expansion of its sales Ioree. a factor that the Petitioner had 
previously deemed as being critical to the success of its business. The Petitioner must support its 
assertions with relevant. probative. and credible evidence. See Matter of Chmrathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
369. 376 (AAO 20 I 0). Without sufficient evidence. we cannot determine that the Petitioner will 
have either the need or the ability to employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity 
within one year of approval of the petition. 
Lastly, the Petitioner provided inconsistent evidence pertaining to the terms of its purchase of the 
tour bus company it intends as its primary source of revenue. Namely, the Petitioner provided a 
document titled .. Letter of Intent - Acquisition of Business Assets:· which addressed the financing 
of the purchase prior to the execution of a final purchase agreement. The letter stated that the 
purchase price of the business would be $1.58 million. that the seller would extend the Petitioner a 
loan of $1,000.000 to be repaid within 60 months. and that the huyer. i.e .. the Petitioner. would pay 
the seller a good faith deposit of $100.000 .. upon signing the letter of intent... The letter was 
accompanied hy a copy of check for $100.000 made out to the seller as a .. l d Jeposit for business 
sale:· This evidence is inconsistent with the final purchase agreement which lists a di fterent final 
purchase price and includes payment conditions that arc inconsistent with those in the initial letter of 
intent. Namely. the new agreement shows a final purchase price that was $150.000 below the 
original purchase price and references an initial deposit of $500,()00: it docs not acknowledge that 
the Petitioner made a good faith deposit as previously claimed. It also refers to an .. additional 
payment of $197.000.'. a hus purchase loan of $303.000. and a remaining amount of $430.000 to he 
financed hy the seller. none of which were referenced in the initial letter of intent. The Petitioner did 
not explain or resolve these inconsistencies or in any way account l(n the $100,000 good !~lith 
deposit it claims to have made when the initial intent letter was executed. .c.;ee f-!o. 19 l&N Dec. at 
591-92. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
In light of the Petitioner's submission of a deficient business plan and the above described 
inconsistencies surrounding the Petitioner's purchase of an existing travel business. we tind that the 
Maller of G-L-1- Inc. 
Petitioner has not established that it would likely employ the Beneficiary m a managerial or 
executive capacity within one year of the petition's approval. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Mafler ofG-L-1-. lnc .. ID# 915960 (AAO Feb. 16. 2018)