dismissed L-1A Case: Wholesale

MATTER OF J-E- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 31, 2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, initially described as a wholesaler of sporting goods, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's 
temporary employment as its chief executive officer (CEO) under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification 
for intracompany transferees. 1 Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(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 initially approved the petition, but then revoked the 
approval, because the Director had not been able to verify the Petitioner's claims about the nature of 
its business. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner submits copies of previously 
submitted documents and asserts that changes to the business operation have not affected the 
Beneficiary's managerial capacity. The Petitioner also observes that the site inspection underlying 
the revocation occurred on a Sunday, when the Petitioner's business was closed. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, 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. 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. 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
September 22, 2015, until September 21, 2016. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the 
United States through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary for less than one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(F). The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation one year within the date of approval of the 
petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
.
Matter of J-E- Inc. 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-lA petition that involved a new office must submit a statement 
of the beneficiary's duties during the previous year and under the extended petition; a statement 
describing the staffing of the new operation and evidence of the numbers and types of positions held; 
evidence of its financial status; evidence that it has been doing business for the previous year; and 
evidence that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii). 
II. GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION 
Because the Petitioner's earlier petition was for a new office, the extension petition under review 
must include a description of the Beneficiary's duties during his first year in L-lA status. See 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(C). To satisfy this requirement, the Petitioner submitted a statement from 
the Beneficiary, who stated that the petitioning entity is "engaged in wholesale of sporting goods." 
The Petitioner filed the petition in August 2016, describing the company ' s business as "wholesale -
sporting goods" and claiming 10 employees in the United States. The initial filing included copies 
of six invoices for bicycle parts which the Petitioner sold to various purchasers between February 
and May 2016. All but one of the invoices indicated that the Beneficiary himself took the sales 
orders. The individual identified as a marketing associate took the remaining order in May 2016. 
The Director approved the petition nine days after it was filed, but later the case was randomly 
selected for post-adjudicative verification, including an on-site inspection of the workplace identified 
in the petition. The Petitioner received advance notice that an inspection would take place on 
November 28, 2016. Because the inspecting officer still had questions after the visit, the officer 
made an unannounced follow-up visit on December 4, 2016. At that time, the business was closed 
and no employees were present. 
Because the office was closed during the follow-up site visit, the Director issued a notice of intent to 
revoke the approval of the petition, questioning the extent of the Petitioner's business activity and 
the Beneficiary's role as an executive. 
In response, the Petitioner asserted that the business was closed during the second site visit because 
December 4, 2016, was a Sunday. The Petitioner further asserted that it "is shutting down its 
original sports goods distribution business," and "has adjusted its business direction and moved to 
two new locations around the end of 2016," specifically a dessert/snack bar in ___ and a 
restaurant in 
The Director revoked the approval of the petition, stating that, because of the significant change in 
the Petitioner's business activity, the Petitioner should have filed an amended petition as required by 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(7)(i)(C). The Director also concluded that the record cast doubt 
on some of the Petitioner's material claims. 
2 
Matter of J-E- Inc. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that there has not been a material change of the kind that would 
require an amended petition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(7)(i)(C). That regulation reads, in full: 
The petitioner must file an amended petition, with fee, at the USCIS office where the 
original petition was filed to reflect changes in approved relationships, additional 
qualifying organizations under a blanket petition, change in capacity of employment 
(i.e., from a specialized knowledge position to a managerial position), or any 
information which would affect the beneficiary's eligibility under section 
101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. 
The Petitioner asserts that none of the specified changes took place, and therefore the cited 
regulation does not apply. It is true that there is no evidence of a change in the qualifying 
relationship between the Petitioner and its foreign parent company, and that the Petitioner did not 
state that the Beneficiary's position would change from an executive capacity to one involving 
specialized knowledge. Also, there is no blanket petition in this proceeding. Nevertheless, there 
remains the clause concerning "any information which would affect the beneficiary's eligibility." 
Not every business requires primarily executive leadership, which is why petitioners are expected to 
describe the business that seeks to employ the Beneficiary. A beneficiary cannot qualify for L-IA 
status simply by declaring an intention to serve as an executive of an unspecified business, to be 
determined and identified later. In this case, the Director approved the petition based on the claim 
that the Beneficiary would be running a company that sells bicycle parts wholesale, with the 
organizational structure described in the petition. The Petitioner now states that the wholesale 
business is winding down, and the company will focus its efforts on two restaurants. We disagree 
with the Petitioner's contention that this fundamental change in the nature of the business is 
immaterial to the proceeding. 
One of the considerations when determining if a given position qualifies as an executive capacity is 
the employer's personnel structure. When it filed the petition, the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary's subordinate employees held the following titles: 
• Operation Manager 
• Marketing Associate 
• Two Sales Associates 
• Administrative Manager 
• Administrative Assistant 
• Accountant (part-time) 
• Warehouse Manager 
• Warehouse Worker 
None of the specified positions relate to the operation of a restaurant. Payroll tax records from the 
third quarter of 2016, which includes the filing date, do not corroborate the employment of the 
individual identified as a warehouse worker. 
3 
.
Matter of J-E- Inc. 
Later, the Petitioner submitted a 2017 organizational chart, showing a subordinate personnel 
structure entirely different from the one that the Director relied on when approving the petition: 
Snack Bar 
I 
Store Manager 
I 
2 Waiters/Waitresses 
Cashier 
CEO [ the Beneficiary] 
Restaurant 
I 
Restaurant Manager 
I 
3 Kitchen Staff 
2 Waiters/Waitresses 
Cashier/Purchaser 
Wholesaler 
I 
(Closing down) 
Some individuals appeared on both lists, with significantly different titles. One of the two sales 
associates named initially became the manager of the restaurant; the other became the 
cashier/purchaser there. 
Because the nature of the business and the structure of the staffing are material to the petition , a 
petitioner must be truthful when describing those aspects of the company, and a petitioner's 
signature on the petition form is an attestation, under penalty of perjury, that the assertions in the 
petition are true to the best of the petitioner's knowledge. 
The Petitioner claims that "it decided to expand its business scope to include restaurant and cafeteria 
business around the end of 2016." There is, however, reason to believe that the Petitioner was 
already anticipating and acting upon this change before it filed the petition to extend the 
Beneficiary's status. 
The liquor license for the Petitioner's restaurant in was issued August 9, 2016, nearly three 
weeks before the Petitioner filed its petition. A "Sellers Permit" issued to the Petitioner's snack bar 
in is dated December 1, 2015, nearly nine months before the petition's filing date and a 
year before "the end of 2016." Both of these documents show the name of the petitioning company, 
and therefore are clearly not holdovers from previous owners of the two establishments. 
The Petitioner's 2015 income tax return, submitted with the petition in August 2016, points to the 
Petitioner having operated one or more restaurants, rather than a wholesale sporting goods business, 
in 2015: 
• In at least three places, the tax return described the petitioning entity as a "Restaurant." 
• The list of the Petitioner's assets did not include any inventory. 
• The return indicated that the Petitioner had paid $54,306 in rents for the year. As of June 
2016, the Petitioner paid only $1101 per month to rent its stated place of business on 
in , California, which accounts for less than a quarter of what the 
Petitioner paid in rent in 2015. The Petitioner's initial submission did not account for the 
4 
Matter of J-E- Inc. 
discrepancy by identifying the other property or properties that the Petitioner rented during 
2015. The preponderance of the available evidence strongly suggests that the Petitioner 
rented at least one restaurant space during 2015. 
The Petitioner has submitted copies of 10 invoices showing its sale of bicycle parts, but these 
invoices all date from February-May 2016 and February-April 2017. These documents do not show 
that the Petitioner sold bicycle parts in 2015 or at the time of filing in August 2016. 
Because the record contains multiple lines of evidence leading toward the conclusion that the 
Petitioner was already running one or more restaurants in 2015, there is significant doubt that the job 
titles and descriptions submitted with the petition were accurate at the time of filing. The Petitioner 
did employ most of the named individuals, but at least some, and possibly all, of these individuals 
must have been working in the Petitioner's restaurant(s) rather than in the warehouse of a bicycle 
parts wholesaler. If the Petitioner misrepresented the titles and duties of these individuals, then the 
petition should not have been approved and the Director acted properly by revoking that approval. 
Review of the record, including materials submitted with the petition and in response to the notice of 
intent to revoke, supports the conclusion that the Petitioner did not accurately or correctly describe 
the nature of its business operation at the time it filed the petition. The Director approved the 
petition so that the Beneficiary could run a wholesale bicycle parts operation, and once the Petitioner 
ceased top operate that business (to whatever extent it operated previously), the Beneficiary ceased 
to be eligible for immigration benefits predicated on claims about that business. 
The Petitioner asserts that the timing of the revocation decision exposes the Beneficiary to 
"unusually severe and unfair" immigration consequences for factors "beyond [his] control." As an 
officer of the petitioning company, the manner in which the Petitioner represented itself before 
immigration authorities was not beyond the Beneficiary's control. The law permits revocation of a 
petition approval "at any time." Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155. The purpose of this 
proceeding is to determine whether the Director erred in revoking the approval of the petition, not to 
provide relief from the potential consequences of that decision. Those consequences are beyond the 
scope of this proceeding. 
III. ADDITIONAL ISSUE 
We will dismiss the appeal based on the issues discussed above. Apart from those grounds, review 
of the record reveals an additional issue which the Petitioner must resolve if it seeks to pursue this 
matter further. 
Although not addressed by the Director in the revocation notice, we note that it does not appear that 
the Beneficiary has the required year of continuous experience abroad. The beneficiary of an L-1 A 
petition must have been employed abroad by a qualifying employer continuously for one year within 
5 
.
Matter of J-E- Inc. 
three years preceding the time of the filing of the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(A). Here, the 
Beneficiary's L-IA status derived from a new office petition filed on September 15, 2015.2 
Time spent in the United States interrupts the continuity of foreign employment, except for brief 
trips for business or pleasure and periods spent in lawful status for a qualifying U.S. employer. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(ii)(A). On the petition form, the Petitioner indicated that the foreign parent 
company had employed the Beneficiary as a Vice President from May 1, 2012, to August 31, 2013. 
This employment ended more than two years before the Petitioner filed its initial new office petition 
on September 15, 2015. The Beneficiary entered the United States as an F-1 nonimmigrant student 
on September 1, 2013, and remained in the United States after that apart from a one-month departure 
in August and September 2014. As an F-1 student, the Beneficiary was in the United States to study, 
not to work for the Petitioner or any related entity. Also, the time he spent in the United States was 
neither brief nor for business or pleasure (which would be covered by a B-1 or B-2 visa, rather than 
an F-1 student visa). 
The Beneficiary's studies interrupted his qualifying employment abroad. The approved petition was 
filed more than two years after the Beneficiary stopped working abroad, and therefore the petition 
should not have been approved. An interruption in employment lasting more than two years, 
whether that interruption occurred in the United States or abroad, is inherently disqualifying. Cf 
Matter ofS-P-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2018-01 4 (AAO Mar. 19, 2018).3 The Beneficiary, who has 
not worked abroad since August 2013, cannot qualify for L-lA status until he accrues at least one 
more continuous year of continuous employment abroad in a capacity that is managerial, executive, 
or involves specialized knowledge. 
Therefore, even if the Petitioner had overcome the ground of revocation discussed above on appeal, 
we would have been required to remand this matter to the Director for the issuance of a new NOIR 
to address this additional ground of eligibility. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner mischaracterized the nature of its business, and therefore the petition should not have 
been approved. The Director properly revoked the erroneous approval of the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of J-E-, Inc., ID# 1558620 (AAO July 31, 2018) 
2 The Petitioner filed a prior petition on the Beneficiary's behalf, with receipt number on August 7, 
2015, but that petition was denied and therefore the Beneficiary never derived any qualifying status from it. That filing 
did not stop or reset the clock for eligibility deriving from foreign employment. 
3 Matter of S-P- concerns an immigrant petition for a multinational manager or executive, but the reasoning is the same 
because the immigrant classification, like the nonimmigrant classification, requires one year of qualifying experience in 
the three years preceding either the filing of the petition or the beneficiary's relevant entry into the United States. 
6