remanded L-1A Case: Real Estate Investment

' 1 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-1-(USA) INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 5, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a real estate investment business, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
deputy general manager of its new office 1 under the L-1 A 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 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, contluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that it would be able to support an executive or managerial position within one 
year of the approval of the petition. 
· On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by ,basing the decision on the company's 
staffing levels at the time of filing and failed to. consider the totality of the evidence submitted, 
including the Petitioner's business and hiring plans for its first year of operations. 
Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for further 
proceedings consistent with our discussion b~low. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving 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 affiliate thereof in a managerial ,or executive capacity. Id. 
, , I . 
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)(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, 
Matter of H-1-(USA) Inc. 
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(1)(3)(v). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner contends that the Director did not consider the totality of the evidence in determining 
whether the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity within one year. 
We agree with the Petitioner's assertion, as the Director's analysis of this issue was limited to a 
discussion of the Petitioner's staffing levels at the time of filing. 
When a new business is established and commences operations, the regulations recognize that a 
designated manager or executive responsible for setting up operations will be engaged in a variety of 
activities not normally performed by employees at the executive or managerial level and that often 
the· full range of managerial responsibility cannot be performed. In order to qualify for L-1 
nonimmigrant classification during the first year of operations, the regulations require a petitioner to 
disclose the proposed nature of the business arid 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. 
Here, the Petitioner's evidence included: letters describing the Beneficiary's proposed duties; a 
proposed organizational chart depicting its current employees and proposed staff to be hired within 
one year; an employee list that included job duties for each current and proposed employee; a 
feasibility study and business plan which included staffing and financial projections; evidence of the 
financial investment made by its foreign parent company; evidence of its parent company's 
organizational structure, staffing, and finances; and evidence that it had leased two premises and 
purchased a parcel of land prior to filing the petition. 
The Director did not acknowledge most of evidence submitted to satisfy the new office 
requirements, and the denial decision's narrow focus on the Petitioner's current staffing levels raises 
questions as to whether the Director properly reviewed the record in its entirety. 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)(I)(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). 
2 
.
Matter of H-1-(USA) Inc. 
As the Director's decision was based solely on the Petitioner's staffing levels at the time of filing, 
without consideration to its business plans and supporting evidence, it did not adequately inform the 
Petitioner of the deficiencies in the record. Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision. 
However, we find that the record as presently constituted contains insufficient evidence to show that 
the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in managerial or executive capacity within one year. 
Although the Petitioner has submitted a business and hiring plan, there are ambiguities in the record 
with respect to the anticipated nature and scope of the business. 
The Petitioner is self-described as a real estate investment business that will explore investment 
opportunities for its parent company's Chinese clients. The Petitioner filed the petition in June 2018 
and had five employees at that time. It also provided a personnel plan indicating that it expected to 
employ 12 staff by the end of 2018, including a general manager, deputy general manager, 
administrative manager, administrative assistant, property management manager, three property 
leasing/managing coordinators, a bookkeeper, a property investment manager, and two property 
investment coordinators. According to its business plan, the Petitioner anticipates $300,000 in 
income from "real property investment and management services" in 2018, and income of over $ I 
million for its first full year of operations in 2019. 
The Petitioner submitted two lease agreements at the time of filing. One lease is for an office suite 
that the Petitioner refers to as its "marketing office." The Petitioner also submitted its business tax 
certificate for this location which describes the nature of the business as "Misc. Educational 
Services." In addition, the Petitioner submitted a copy of its five-year "shopping center lease" 
indicating that the agreed use for the premises is "the operation of a full service 
restaurant, including an on-site full liquor license." The Petitioner's business plan makes no 
reference to "educational services" and does not indicate that the Petitioner intends to staff, operate, 
or manage a restaurant. 
The Petitioner also submitted evidence that it purchased a plot of vacant land for $360,000 and 
stated that it would develop residential properties on the land, but did not provide any documentation 
related to its construction or development plans. Further, the company's business plan and financial 
projections do not clearly account for expenses related to the development of this land. 
Based on this evidence, it is unclear how the company intends to support the proposed staff of 
property and investment managers and leasing coordinators within one year, as it is unclear what 
specific properties the Petitioner would actually be leasing and managing in that timeframe or how it 
would generate revenue from provision of property investment and management services during its 
initial year of operations. For example ,· the Petitioner indicates that the property management 
manager , who was already on its payroll at the time of filing is "responsible for maintaining the 
company properties, " and the property leasing/managing coordinator, who was to be hire_d within 
three months of filing , would be advertising and filling vacancies, processing applications, 
promoting and showing properties, negotiating leases, and enforcing rental agreements . These 
proposed duties are not credible absent evidence supporting the Petitioner ' s claim that it 1s 
positioned to immediately commence operations as a property management and leasing company. 
3 
Matter of H-1-(USA) Inc. 
Further, the Petitioner has not explained the "educational services" it is licensed to provide, or its 
plans for the restaurant that it leases, other than noting that it is currently renovating the leased retail 
property. Due to the uncertainties regarding the type of business it intends to operate and its actual 
staffing needs, the Petitioner did not meet its burden to establishing the intended nature and scope of 
the business, its anticipated organizational structure, oi" its financial goals. As such, additional 
information would be needed to establish that the Petitioner will employ the Beneficiary in a 
managerial capacity within one year as claimed. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We are remanding this matter so that the Director can properly make the initial determination on the 
issue of the Beneficiary's proposed employment in a inanagerial or executive capacity after a 
thorough review and analysis of all of the Petitioner's e.vidence under the regulatory requirements at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). The Director should request any additional evidence deemed warranted in 
light of our discussion 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 the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
Cite as Matter of H-I-(USA) Inc., ID# 2433584 (AAO Mar. 5, 2019) 
4