dismissed L-1A Case: Transportation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 24062164 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 11, 2023 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a transportation company, seeks 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 Petitioner did 
provide sufficient evidence establishing that: 1) it has a qualifying relationship with the 
Beneficiary's employer abroad; 2) the foreign entity has been doing business; 3) the Beneficiary 
was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity ; and 4) the Beneficiary would be 
employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. We note that each ground stands 
as an independent basis for the denial of the petition . 
On appeal, the Petitioner only addresses the fourth ground regarding the Beneficiary's proposed 
employment, but it does not dispute or otherwise discuss the three remaining grounds concerning 
whether the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer , whether 
the Beneficiary's foreign employer has been doing business , and whether the Beneficiary's 
employment abroad was in a managerial or executive capacity. As the Petitioner does not address 
these issues on appeal, it has abandoned its claims. See Matter of R-A-M, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 
n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue addressed in an adverse 
decision, that issue is waived); see also Sepulveda v. U.S. Att 'y Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th 
Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 
2011) (the court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal 
to the AAO). When an appellant fails to properly challenge one or more of the independent grounds 
upon which the Director based the overall determination , the filing party has abandoned any 
challenge of that ground or grounds, and it follows that the Director's adverse determination will be 
affirmed . Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014); United States 
v. Cooper , No. 17-11548 , 2019 WL 2414405, at *3 (11th Cir. June 10, 2019) . For this reason, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
In light of the above, it is unnecessary to analyze the remaining independent ground, given that three 
other grounds are dispositive of the appeal. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (finding 
it unnecessary to analyze additional grounds when another independent issue is dispositive of the 
appeal); 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). Because the Petitioner has 
abandoned its claims regarding three issues that served as grounds for the denial, this petition cannot 
be approved. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2