remanded L-1A Case: Investment / Restaurant Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 13,2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an investment company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as the board 
chairman and general manager of its new office 1 under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(I5)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(I5)(L). The L-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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by failing to apply the regulations applicable 
to a new otlice to this petition. 
Upon de novo review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand this matter for further 
review and entry of a new decision. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for theL-IA nonimmigrant visa classification for 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 to enter the 
United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a 
subsidiary or atiiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Section 10l(a)(15)(L) of the 
Act. The petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and 
employment qualify him or her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3). 
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 ~vithin the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
.
Matter ofA-. LLC 
If the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, indicates that the beneficiary is coming to 
the United States in L-1 A status to open or to be employed in a new office, 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(l)(3)(v). 
IL WITHDRAWAL OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION 
The Director, emphasizing that the Petitioner did not establish that it qualified as a "new office," 
found that the Petitioner did not establish that it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or 
executive,capacity as of the date of filing. 
The Petitioner is a North Carolina limited liability company established tn March 2017. lt 
established a subsidiary company, in June 2017, and immediately 
purchased the assets of a restaurant business from an unrelated company, with 
the intent of assumjng operation of an existing restaurant. The Petitioner t\1en filed this petition on 
August 1, 2017, in which it indicated that the Beneficiary is coming to open or be employed in a 
"new office," and requested a one-year period of approval. 
In both a request for evidence (RFE) and the denial decision, the Director rejected the Petirioner's 
claim that it qualifies as a new office, noting that its subsidiary, "purchased the 
organization and its restaurant The Director acknowledged 
that the Petitioner itself had been established for less than one year at the time of filing. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in concluding that it does not qualify as a 
new office and appears to have incorrectly determined that the Petitioner has an ownership interest 
in The Petitioner emphasizes that it did not acquire any stock o,r ownership 
interests in this entity, which previously operated the restaurant, but merely 
purchased the restaurant assets. Therefore, since the Petitioner and have no 
shared ownership, the Petitioner maintains that'the record does not support the Director's finding 
that the Petitioner had been doing business in the United States through a parent, branch, affiliate, or 
subsidiary for at least one year at the time of filing. 
We agree with the Petitioner that it was eligible for treatment as a new oftice pursuant to 8 C.F.R . 
§ 2l4.2(1)(3)(v). The purchase ofthe assets of an existing business did not disqualif)' the Petitioner 
under the regulatory detinition of "new office." As the Director did not adjudicate this matter in 
accordance with the regulatory requirements applicable to new offices, her decision is withdrawn. 
However, there is insufficient evidence in the record to meet all requirements for a new office 
petition and the Petitioner has not sufficiently shown how the new office will support the 
Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity; within one year. 
2 
.
Matter ofA-, LLC 
First, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiarv' s \Vork location will be at m 
North Carolina, which appears to be a residential single family home. Therefore, although 
the Petitioner provided a lease of the restaurant, it did not fully satisfy the physical 
premises requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 2l4.2(1)(3)(v)(A). The Petitioner will need to provide additional 
evidence to show how the Beneficiaris intended worksite is sufficient for the operation of the 
company's business. 
In addition , the Petitioner indicates that it will not pay the Beneficiary any wages, but instead notes 
that he will take "profits of company as compensation." The Petitioner submitted a brief business 
plan, but the business plan does not include an estimate of the company's expected profits or address 
the company's financial objectives. To prevent a potential conflict with the Fair Labor Standards 
Act (FLSA), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services must ensure that a beneficiary will not be 
paid a wage that is less than the minimum required wage under state or Federal law, whichever is 
higher, before approving an employment-based visa petition. Matter of 1- Corp., Adopted Decision 
2017-02 (AAO Apr. 12, 201 7). Although the record contains evidence of the Beneficiary's 
considerable personal finances, the Petitioner is not exempt from meeting this requirement. 
Therefore, the Petitioner will need to provide additional evidence to demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
has been offered and will earn at least minimum wage under state or federal law. 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted only a general description of the Beneficiary's proposed duties and 
a very skeletal business plan in support of the petition. Additional evidence is necessary to show 
how the Beneficiary perform primarily to managerial or executive duties within one year, and to 
establish the proposed nature of the office, the scope of the entity, its intended organizational 
structure within one year, and its financial goals. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
Accordingly, we will remand the matter to the pirector, who should review this petition under the 
new office requirements, allow the Petitioner an opportunity to address the deficiencies addressed 
above, and issue a new decision. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
Based on the foregoing discussion, although the Director's decision will be withdrawn, the evidence 
of record as presently constituted does not establish the Beneficiary's eligibi fity for the benefit 
sought. 
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 J'faller Q( A-, LLC, JD# I 029719 (AAO Mar. 13, 2018)