remanded L-1A Case: Import/Export

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22686131 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 18, 2022 
The Petitioner describes its enterprise as "trading, import , export, sale of convenience products" and 
indicates that it is a new office 1 that seeks to employ the Beneficiary temporarily as "executive -
manager" under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees who are coming 
to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 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 Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity. The Director determined that the Petitioner did not offer a sufficient description 
of the Beneficiary's proposed job duties and questioned whether the Petitioner's two-person staff is 
sufficient to support the Beneficiary in a position that is primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
The Director also questioned who would oversee the Petitioner's operations , which he found to have 
commenced in 2020 , noting that the Beneficiary departed the United States in January 2020. 
On appeal , the Petitioner asserts that, contrary to the Director's determination that the Beneficiary 
departed the United States in January 2020, the Beneficiary "first arrived on January 9, 2020" and 
continues to remain in the United States to this date without having departed . The Petitioner also 
argues that it was unable to undergo "real business expansion" because of the COVID pandemic and 
on that basis asserts that "the company is new." 
The Petitioner filed this petition in August 2021; it responded "yes" to item 12 in section I of the L 
Classification Supplement when asked whether the beneficiary was coming to the United States to 
open a new office and later reiterated that claim in supporting documents, thereby indicating that it 
had been doing business in the United States for less than one year. See 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(1)( 1 )(ii)(F). 
In general, when a petitioner indicates that it is a new office and requests consideration as a new office 
on the fonn, we apply the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v) to make a determination about 
1 The term "newoffice"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 regula tionat 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 ormanage1ial position . 
the petitioner's eligibility under that specific provision as it has slightly different requirements. In the 
matter at hand, however, the Director did not acknowledge the Petitioner's new office claim or apply 
the new office regulations in concluding that the Petitioner is not eligible for the benefit sought herein. 
When denying a petition, a director has an affirmative duty to explain the specific reasons for the 
denial; this duty includes informing a petitioner why the evidence did not to satisfy its burden of proof 
pursuant to section 291 of the Act. 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). In this matter, the 
Director denied the petition without applying the new office regulations even though the Petitioner 
marked the "new office" box in the L Classification Supplement and claimed that the Beneficiary was 
coming to the United States to open a new office. Because the Director did not explain why this 
petition was not adjudicated pursuantto the regulatory criteria that pertains in the filing of a new office 
petition, we will remand for the Director to consider the Petitioner's eligibility under this criteria. 
Notwithstanding the Director's error, the record as currented constituted appears to lack sufficient 
evidence that the Petitioner fits the definition of a "new office" and thus warrants an eligibility 
determination on remand pursuant to the provisions of 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(1)(3 )(v), which apply to new 
office petitioners. 
The record shows that this petition was filed in August 2021. Therefore, in order to meet the definition 
of a new office, the record must show that the Petitioner's business activity did not commence prior 
to August 2020, which is one year prior to this petition's filing. However, the evidence shows that the 
Petitioner was issued a federal employer identification number and opened a bank account in March 
2020 and in April, May, and June 2020 the Petitioner initiated and received wire fund transactions, 
several of which list "import of goods" as the "payment detail." In addition, the Petitioner provided 
notices dated May 1 and 6, 2020, respectively, showing that it was granted licenses for food service 
and nicotine delivery and shipping invoices from May 2020 containing lists of retail goods ( one of 
which was 19 pages long) itemizing inventory that the Petitioner received at its business address. The 
Petitioner also requested that the Beneficiary be granted a two-year period of stay, which is not 
consistent with the standard one-year period that applies to petitioners filing as a new office. See 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(7)(i)(A)(3) (stating that a petition for a beneficiary coming to the United States to 
open or be employed in a new office may be approved for a period not to exceed one year). 
In sum, we find that the record lacks sufficient evidence to show that the Beneficiary is coming to the 
United States to open or be employed in a new office. However, because the Petitioner claimed that 
the Beneficiary is coming to open or be employed in a new office and the Director adjudicated this 
matter without having applied the new office regulations or having provided notice to the Petitioner 
explaining why those regulations were not applied, we will withdraw the Director's decision and 
remand the matter for further proceedings. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further proceedings 
consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision. 
2