remanded L-1A Case: Bakery

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-1-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG . 22, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a retailer and wholesaler of Mediterranean-style baked goods, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as "President/CEO" of its new office I 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 Beneficiary 
would not be employed in the United States in an executive capacity . The Director determined that 
the Petitioner submitted a revised business plan showing a modified salary structure, which constituted 
a "material change" to its business and financial structure, thereby precluding approval of the petition . 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will perform primarily executive job duties within 
one year of the petition's approval. The Petitioner disputes the denial decision, arguing that the 
Director misinterpreted previously submitted evidence and did not apply the new office regulations in 
the analysis of the Beneficiary's proposed employment. The Petitioner also asserts that it provided an 
updated business plan that clarified certain factors and was not materially inconsistent with the 
originally submitted business plan. 
Upon de nova review, we will remand the matter for further consideration . 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L- lA nonimmigrant visa classification in 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 for 
admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). In addition, the beneficiary must seek 
1 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation no more than 
one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position . 
Matter of G-I-, Inc. 
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 petitioner 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 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 U.S. investment. See 
generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
II. BASIS FOR REMAND 
We find that the Director's decision did not adequately explain the deficiencies in the evidence. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a 
decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful 
opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Despite the Petitioner having filed the instant 
petition as a "new office," the Director did not cite the "new office" regulations or apply those 
regulations to the submitted evidence. Although the Director discussed the Beneficiary's job 
description, there is no indication that the conclusion was based on the determination that the 
Beneficiary would not perform primarily executive job duties within the first year of the petition's 
approval. Rather, the Director sought to determine whether the Beneficiary "will be employed in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity" and made no mention of the fact that the new office 
regulations allow the Petitioner up to one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an 
executive or managerial position. 8. C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
Further, we disagree with the Director's finding that the Petitioner's revised business plan made 
material changes to its business and financial structure. Although the Petitioner did not adequately 
address an inconsistency pertaining to the Beneficiary's proffered wage, this inconsistency should be 
considered in tandem with other relevant evidence within the context of a totality of the evidence 
analysis. As discussed above, the Director must also conduct such an analysis based on applicable 
regulations. As the petition in this case indicates that the Petitioner filed this petition seeking status 
as a new office and because the evidence indicates that the Petitioner has been operating for less than 
one year, a determination of the Petitioner's eligibility must be made based on these considerations 
and within the scope of regulations that pertain to new office petitioners. As discussed above, the 
Director did not adequately consider the evidence within applicable regulatory provisions and appears 
to have made the conclusion based on a salary inconsistency. 
Notwithstanding the Director's decision, the Petitioner has not provided a detailed job description that 
accounts for the Beneficiary's daily tasks within the scope of a bakery seeking to function as a retail 
and wholesale operation. The definition of executive capacity has two parts. First, the Petitioner must 
show that the Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. 
INS, 940 F .2d 1533 (Table), 1991 WL 1444 70 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991 ). Second, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in executive duties, as opposed to ordinary 
operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See, e.g., Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 
F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d at 1533. Here, the Beneficiary's job 
duties are described in broad terms that only allow us to understand his level of discretionary authority 
2 
Matter of G-I-, Inc. 
and preclude a meaningful understanding of the actions the Beneficiary will regularly carry out in the 
course of meeting the responsibilities of his position. Thus, the record as presently constituted lacks 
the necessary information about the Beneficiary's proposed daily tasks during the Petitioner's first 
year of operation. Without this critical information, we are unable to gain a meaningful understanding 
of how the Beneficiary will ensure that the Petitioner progresses to its next operational phase in which 
it would have to demonstrate its ability to relieve the Beneficiary from having to primarily perform 
operational functions and assume an executive position that focuses primarily on the broad goals and 
policies of the organization rather than its day-to-day operational functions. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Director's decision did not adequately analyze the facts of the matter and applied the law 
incorrectly. As the Director did not satisfy this condition, we will remand the matter for entry of a 
new decision. The Director should request any additional evidence deemed warranted and allow the 
Petitioner to submit such evidence within a reasonable period of time. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter of G-I-, Inc., ID# 5037829 (AAO Aug. 22, 2019) 
3