remanded L-1A Case: Restaurant / Educational Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OFT-I-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 9, 2019 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which operates a restaurant and an educational consulting business, seeks to continue 
the Beneficiary's employment as its president under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act ( the Act) section 101 (a)( l S)(L ), 8 U.S. C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-lA classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its affiliate 
or subsidiaiy) 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 revoked the approval of the petition, concluding that the 
Petitioner did not establish, as required, that the Beneficiary would be employed in an executive 
capacity under the extended petition. On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the Director's findings, 
claiming that the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity. 
Upon de novo review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a 
new decision. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 10l(a)(15)(L) of the Act. 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. 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). 
Under U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services regulations, the approval of an L-lA petition may 
be revoked on notice under six specific circumstances. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A). To properly 
revoke the approval of a petition, a director must issue a notice of intent to revoke that contains a 
detailed statement of the grounds for the revocation and the time period allowed for rebuttal. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(1)(9)(iii)(B). 
Matter of T-1-, Inc. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director initially approved the petition and granted the Beneficiary a two-year extension of L- lA 
status from December 18, 2017, until December 17, 2019. Following approval of the extension 
petition, administrative site visits were conducted at the address listed on the petition and at the 
Petitioner's restaurant location in February and March 2018. According to the Director, the evidence 
obtained during the site visits failed to show that the Petitioner has been and will continue to do 
business, and that the Beneficiary is employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity in the 
United States. The Director issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) to the Petitioner requesting 
evidence of the Petitioner's operations and the Beneficiary's employment. 
Following receipt of the Petitioner's response to the NOIR, the Director issued a notice ofrevocation 
and determined that the record does not establish that the Beneficiary is employed in a qualifying 
executive capacity in the United States as claimed. Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A), the approval was revoked because the Beneficiary is no longer eligible under 
section 101 (a)( 15)(L) of the Act. 
In the revocation decision, the Director noted that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's 
two direct reports - a restaurant manager and an educational consulting manager - "have bachelor's 
degrees in fields that are related to their positions." As a result the Director concluded that the 
Beneficiary is not suppmied by supervismy, professional or managerial employees and does not "have 
a subordinate level of managerial employees" to direct. The Director did not further address the 
Petitioner's structure or staffing levels other than noting that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that, 
in an office of its "size and nature," that the beneficiary would be engaged in primarily executive 
duties, and stating that "it is presumed that she is engaged primarily in the non-executive operations 
and tasks required in a company such as yours." 
With respect to the Petitioner's two-page description of the Beneficiary's duties, the Director noted 
without further discussion that the duties are "vague and generalized." In addition, the Director found 
that one of the beneficiary's duties "demonstrates the beneficiary is involved in day-to-day 
operations." Specifically, the Director noted that she is expected to "decide which marketing activities 
to engage in and the appropriate time and way to do so." The Director determined that, since the 
petitioning company does not have any "marketing" employees on its organizational chart, the 
Beneficiary must be directly performing the marketing duties. The Director cited to Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec 582 (BIA 1988), noting that "[d]oubt cast upon any aspect of the petitioner's evidence may 
lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of 
the visa petition." Finally, the director referred to "email correspondence" submitted in response to 
the NOIR and concluded that "the emails demonstrate the beneficiary is performing routine tasks that 
are necessary to the daily operation of the business." The Director revoked the approval of the petition 
concluding that the Beneficiary "does not satisfy all four parts of the definition of executive" because 
the Petitioner did not establish that she supervises "a subordinate level of managerial employees," a 
requirement that is not stated in the definition of executive capacity. 
While we agree with that the job description submitted for the Beneficiary may be lacking in detail, 
the Beneficiary's duties were not analyzed in any meaningful way to support the conclusions reached. 
2 
Matter of T-1-, Inc. 
The decision does not reflect that the Director considered the evidence in its totality, nor does the 
decision adequately explain how that evidence led the Director to conclude that the Beneficiary does 
not primarily perform executive duties. An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa 
petition in order to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an 
opportunity for meaningful appellate review. 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). 
Here, the Director characterized the Beneficiary's job description as "vague" in a conclusory manner, 
pointed to one potentially non-qualifying task involving marketing activities, and found that the lack 
of a dedicated marketing employee cast doubt on the credibility of the Beneficiary's job description 
and the evidence as a whole. 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, the Director is required to review the company's 
organizational structure, the duties of the Beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other 
employees to relieve her from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other 
evidence submitted to support the Petitioner's claims. The Director correctly concluded that the record 
does not establish that the Beneficiary supervises professionals, but the supervision of professionals 
is not an element of the statutory definition of executive capacity. See section 101(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. The Director did not provide any suppmi for her conclusion that the Beneficiary's direct reports 
are not managers. Further, the Director based the determination, in part, on the "nature and size" of 
the business without including an analysis of the Petitioner's reasonable needs. The Director must 
articulate some rational basis for finding a petitioner's staff or structure to be umeasonable. See 
section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. The fact that a petitioner is a small business or engaged in a particular 
industry will not preclude the Beneficiary from qualifying. 
While the revocation decision states that the Director reviewed "the totality of evidence," there is 
insufficient discussion of the organizational chart, staffing levels, employee job descriptions and 
resumes, and other evidence the Petitioner submitted to establish that it employs sufficient staff to 
relieve the Beneficiary from involvement in its day-to-day operations. 
However, we find that the record as presently constituted does not establish eligibility for the benefit 
sought. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have 
been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
At the time of filing in September 2017, the Petitioner had at least 18 employees, including a staff of 
13 employees working in its restaurant. When it submitted its response to the NOIR in June 2018, the 
Petitioner had only seven employees working in its restaurant, including a restaurant manager, kitchen 
manager, cashier manager, two chefs, and two cashiers. Based on the Petitioner's payroll earnings 
report for May 2018, one of the chefs and both cashiers were working limited part-time hours. Given 
that there is evidence in the record showing that the restaurant is open for breakfast, lunch, and dinner 
six days per week, the Petitioner has not established how the Beneficiary, who is claimed to work at 
the restaurant location as well as at an office suite, would be relieved from involvement in its day-to­
day operations. 
Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for issuance of a new 
decision on this issue, which should take into account and fully discuss the totality of the evidence 
3 
Matter of T-1-, Inc. 
submitted in support of the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive 
capacity. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Director's decision will be withdrawn for the foregoing reasons, and the matter will be remanded. 
The Director should review the totality of the evidence and the issues addressed above, and, if 
warranted, issue a new NO IR prior to entering a new decision. 
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 ofT-1-, Inc., ID# 3361994 (AAO May 9, 2019) 
4