remanded L-1A Case: Investments

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-USA LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 23, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SER VICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner identified itself as an "investments" operation and seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as its general manager under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. 1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(l5)(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 it would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity under 
an extended petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the Director's decision, arguing that the decision was not consistent 
with the statutory provision which states that an individual who oversees supervisory or managerial 
subordinates can merit classification under the definition of "managerial capacity." The Petitioner 
contends that this not limited to only those individuals who oversee professional employees. 
Upon de nova review, we find that the Director offered an incorrect analysis of the law and did not 
adequately discuss the evidence submitted so that the Petitioner was afforded a fair opportunity to 
contest the decision and to allow a meaningful appellate review. Therefore, we will remand the matter 
for further proceedings consistent with our discussion below. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, 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. 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office" petition on the Beneficiary's behalf was approved for the period May 1, 
2017, until April 30, 2018. A "new office" is an organization that has been doing business in the United States through a 
parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary 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 one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an 
executive or managerial position. 
Matter of M-USA LLC 
§ 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 affiliate thereof in a 
managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-lA petition that involved a new office must submit a statement of 
the beneficiary's duties during the previous year and under the extended petition; a statement 
describing the staffing of the new operation and evidence of the numbers and types of positions held; 
evidence of its financial status; evidence that it has been doing business for the previous year; and 
evidence that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(14)(ii). 
11. BASIS FOR REMAND 
As noted earlier, 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). The Director did not analyze the 
job description that corresponds to the Beneficiary's proposed position and based the denial on the 
sole finding that the Beneficiary would perform duties as a front-line manager because he would not 
be managing professional employees who possess college degrees "that are related to the functions 
they will perform." 
Notwithstanding the Director's lack of a complete analysis, the record is currently insufficient to 
establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity, as claimed. Namely, the 
record includes a broad job description that lacks sufficient detail about the specific tasks the 
Beneficiary would perform within the context of the Petitioner's "investments" operation, which 
includes a restaurant and a gas station/convenience store. The actual duties themselves reveal the true 
nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), 
aff'd, 905 F .2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Although the Petitioner indicates that there is a manager overseeing 
the operations of each business, it does not adequately explain the Beneficiary's role with respect to 
these purchased businesses. 
The definition of managerial 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 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). Second, the Petitioner must prove that the 
Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial 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. The record as presently constituted does 
not meet these criteria. 
In addition, the Petitioner is required to establish that it has been doing business for the previous year. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii). 2 Based on this petition's filing date of April 17, 2018, the Petitioner must 
2 The term "doing business" is defined in the regulations as "the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods 
and/or services by a qualifying organization and does not include the mere presence of an agent or office of the qualifying 
organization in the United States and abroad." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(H). 
2 
Matter of M-USA LLC 
establish that it had been doing business as of April 2017. Although the Petitioner states that it is an 
"investments" business, the first purchase it made towards its investment endeavor did not take place 
until September 2017, when it purchased a restaurant. It is unclear what type of business activity, if 
any, the Petitioner conducted prior to this purchase date. Therefore, we find that the Petitioner has not 
established that it has been doing business for the previous year. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Although the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to meet its burden of establishing that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity and that the U.S. operation had been doing 
business for the one year prior to filing this petition, the Director's decision did not adequately analyze 
the facts of the matter and apply the law. 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 ofM-USA LLC, ID# 2458183 (AAO Apr. 23, 2019) 
3