remanded L-1A Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19045961 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 7, 2021 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as the "Executive / Manager" of its new 
office I under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees . Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L) , 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, 
or involves specialized knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the 
beneficiary's application for admission into the United States and that the Beneficiary would be 
employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
On appeal , the Petitioner asserts that contrary to the Director's conclusion that it did not submit 
descriptions of the Beneficiary's foreign duties and the proposed duties in the United States, it 
submitted letters describing the Beneficiary's duties abroad and for the U.S. entity. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 2 The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in 
this matter de novo3 however, we conclude that a remand is warranted in this case for further 
proceedings consistent with the opinion below and for the entry of a new decision. Accordingly, the 
matter will be remanded to the Director for further review of the record and a new decision. 
I. ANALYSIS 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i) states that when denying a petition , the Director shall explain 
in writing the specific reasons for denial. Moreover, when denying a petition, the Director must fully 
explain the reasons in order to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and 
provide the AAO an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. Cf Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 
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(l)(l)(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 . 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofCha wathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369, 375 (AAO 2010) . 
3 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec . 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
786 (BIA 1994) (finding that the reasons for denying a motion must be clear to allow the affected 
party a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). In this matter, the Director 
overlooked evidence submitted and did not analyze the Petitioner's eligibility under the "new office" 4 
criteria. 
A. U.S. Employment in a Managerial or Executive Capacity within One Year 
When a petitioner indicates that a beneficiary is corning to the United States to open a "new office," 
it must show that it is prepared to commence doing business immediately upon approval so that it will 
support a manager or executive within the one-year tirnefrarne. In order to qualify for L-1 
nonirnrnigrant classification during the first year of operations, the regulations require a petitioner to 
disclose the proposed nature of the business and the size of the U.S. investment, and establish that the 
proposed enterprise will support an executive or managerial position within one year of the approval 
of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). This evidence should demonstrate a realistic 
expectation that the enterprise will succeed and rapidly expand as it moves away from the 
developmental stage to full operations, where there would be an actual need for a manager or executive 
who will primarily perform qualifying duties. 
The record here does not include a business plan, nor does the Petitioner reveal its hiring plan, its 
organizational chart ( current or proposed), a marketing analysis, or other probative evidence 
demonstrating how it expects to support a manager or an executive within one year of filing the 
petition. The record does not include a time line for hiring additional staff to relieve the Beneficiary 
from performing operational duties at the end of the first year of operations. Although the record 
includes evidence that the Petitioner employed two individuals, the Petitioner has not provided 
descriptions of their tasks, level of responsibility, or their positions within the Petitioner's business 
operations. The record lacks probative evidence of the nature of the business and its business 
operations, proposed or actual. The Director may wish to question the nature of the Petitioner's 
business and whether the business will support a position that is primarily a manager or an executive 
in one year from the date of filing the petition. 
Additionally, the Petitioner does not clarify whether the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in 
managerial duties under section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, or primarily executive duties under section 
10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. The Petitioner must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the 
Beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are either in an executive or managerial capacity. The 
Petitioner must demonstrate that the Beneficiary's responsibilities will meet the requirements of one 
or the other capacity. 
Here, the Petitioner submitted an undated one-page letter addressed to the Beneficiary and signed by 
the foreign entity's managing director/partner notifying the Beneficiary of his transfer to the "USA 
office as a Chief Executive Office [sic] I Manager." The letter vaguely outlined the Beneficiary's 
proposed duties in this position by paraphrasing the regulations. However, conclusory assertions 
regarding the Beneficiary's employment capacity are not sufficient. Merely repeating the language of 
the statute or regulations does not satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
4 The Petitioner was organized in Janumy 2020, filed the petition on August 25, 2020, and indicated on the Form 1-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, that the Beneficiary was coming to the United States to open a new office. 
2 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Assocs., Inc. 
v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). The actual duties themselves reveal the true nature 
of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1108. Without additional evidence the 
record is insufficient to ascertain the nature of the Beneficiary's proposed role within the Petitioner's 
new office operations. The Director should determine whether the Petitioner has sufficiently described 
the Beneficiary's proposed duties for the U.S. entity in the context of its "new office" claim. 
B. Employment Abroad in a Managerial or Executive Capacity 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," 5 for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. 
Regarding the Beneficiary's employment abroad, the Petitioner provided a statement on the letterhead 
of the foreign entity which indicated that the Beneficiary was a managing director/partner in the 
foreign entity and that he was an authorized signatory on several different accounts. The statement 
also included a generic overview of the Beneficiary's duties in the position which could be applicable 
to any executive or any manager acting in any business or industry. The description provided little 
insight into the actual nature of his role abroad. The Petitioner provided no examples and supporting 
documentation to demonstrate the Beneficiary's performance of qualifying duties abroad, such as 
financial oversight, strategic plans and company policies developed, or problematic developments 
managed and resolved. Reciting the Beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business 
objectives is not sufficient; the regulations require a detailed description of the Beneficiary's daily job 
duties. The Petitioner has not provided any detail or explanation of the Beneficiary's activities in the 
course of their daily routine. 
The Petitioner also does not allocate the Beneficiary's time to any of the job duties which further 
hinders an understanding of the focus of the position. Thus, not only is it unclear whether the duties 
are managerial or executive in nature, any duties that might fall into one or the other category cannot 
be characterized as constituting the majority of the Beneficiary's duties. The foreign entity's 
organizational chart shows the Beneficiary in a senior position within the foreign employer, however, 
even if he manages or directs the business the record does not establish eligibility for classification as 
an intracompany transferee in an executive or managerial capacity within the meaning of section 
101 (a)( 44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that the duties of a foreign 
position be "primarily" executive or primarily "managerial" in nature. Id. The record does not 
demonstrate whether the Beneficiary primarily performs managerial or executive duties or 
non-qualifying administrative or operational duties. 
The Director may wish to further question the deficiencies in the record regarding the Beneficiary's 
foreign employment. 
5 The Petitioner does not claim, and the evidence does not establish, that the Beneficiary's work for the foreign employer 
involved "specialized knowledge." 
3 
II. CONCLUSION 
As the Director did not review the descriptions of duties provided and did not discuss the eligibility 
requirements in conjunction with a new office claim, the Petitioner was not provided fair opportunity 
to challenge the decision. However, the numerous evidentiary deficiencies noted above precludes an 
approval of the petition. Accordingly, the matter will be remanded for further review and entry of a 
new decision. The Director may also notify the Petitioner of additional, potential grounds of denial if 
supported by the record. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4