remanded L-1A Case: General Merchandise

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-D- INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 29, 2018 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a distributor of general merchandise, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
the president of its new office 1 under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section I 0 I (a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ IIOI(a)(l5)(L). TheL-IA 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity 
within one year of approval of the instant petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director mischaracterized its executive capacity claim and 
incorrectly applied elements of the definition of managerial capacity in the course of the analysis. 
The Petitioner also points to its existing 8-person staff and submits a copy of its business plan, which 
includes employee job descriptions and hiring projections over a five-year period and shows plans to 
hire three additional employees during the Petitioner's second year of operation. The Petitioner 
correctly focuses on the reasonable needs of its organization based on its current and projected 
developmental stages and asks that the Director refrain from applying the statutory definition of 
managerial capacity to the management positions that are subordinate to the Beneficiary. 
Upon de novo review, we find that the Petitioner submitted sutlicient evidence to establish that it 
would more likely than not have the ability to support the Beneficiary in an executive position within 
one year of the petition's approval. Notwithstanding our withdrawal of the Director's decision, we 
lind that the record as presently constituted does not establish that the Petitioner and the 
Beneficiary's employer abroad have a qualifying relationship, as claimed. As such, we will remand 
the matter to the service center. 
1 The tenn "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)(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. 
Malter of A-D- Inc. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving a new 
otlice, 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 atnliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. !d. 
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 sutlicient 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 
As previously noted, we find that the Petitioner has not provided sutlicient evidence to establish that 
it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
To establish a "qualifying relationship" under the Act and the regulations, a petitioner must show 
that the beneficiary's foreign employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (i.e., 
one entity with "branch" offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See 
generally section IOI(a)(l5)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1). The Petitioner must support its 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Maller of Chawathe,· 25 l&N Dec. 
369,376 (AAO 2010). 
The Petitioner claims that it and the foreign entity are affiliates. The term "affiliate" is defined, in 
relevant part, as (I) one of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same 
parent or individual, or (2) one of two legal entities owned by the same group of individuals, each 
individual owning and controlling approximately the same share or proportion of each 
entity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(K). 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner provided three stock certificates. Certificate no. I indicates 
that the Beneficiary owns I ,000 shares of the Petitioner's stock. Certificate nos. 2 and 3 were left 
blank with no explanation as to their significance with regard to the Petitioner's claimed affiliate 
relationship. Although the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is its sole owner, it has not 
provided corroborating corporate documents stating how many shares it was authorized to issue. 
Therefore, we are unable to conclude that the Beneficiary is the Petitioner's sole owner, as claimed. 
Likewise, the record does not include any evidence to support the Form l-129 L Classification 
Supplement, where the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary owns 51% of the foreign entity. 
2 
Mauer of A-D- Inc. 
Accordingly, we are remanding this matter for further consideration and entry of a new decision. 
The Director should request any additional evidence deemed necessary to determine the Petitioner's 
eligibility 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 A-D- Inc., ID# I 185699 (AAO May 29, 20! 8) 
3