remanded L-1A Case: Restaurant/Food Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25034015 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 06, 2023 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, a restaurant and food services business, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as the chief executive officer (CEO) of its new office under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner would employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity within 
one year. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA 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. 
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)(l)(ii)(F). A petitioner seeking approval of an L-lA new 
office petition 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). 
The record reflects that the petitioning company was established in Hawaii in I I 2020 and 
became a subsidiary of the Beneficiary's foreign employer in China in 2021, when the foreign 
entity made a $350,000 capital contribution to acquire 55% of its shares. The Petitioner filed this 
petition in September 2021 requesting that the Beneficiary, its proposed CEO, be granted one year in 
L- lA classification commencing from the date of approval. The Petitioner indicated that it would be 
operating a new Chinese hot pot restaurant in I I Hawaii under the trade name I I It provided evidence that its minority owner is the registered owner of this trade 
name and was already operating several successful restaurants in Hawaii under the same business 
model. 
The Director denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner's evidence did not establish that the 
intended U.S. operation, within one year of the approval of the petition, would support a managerial 
or executive position. In reaching this determination, the Director observed that: (1) the submitted 
duty descriptions for the Beneficiary and his direct subordinate were not sufficiently detailed and 
appeared to involve some similar or overlapping responsibilities; and (2) there were unexplained 
inconsistences in projected staffing levels when comparing the Petitioner's business plan submitted at 
the time of filing to the foreign entity's project investment plan for the new office, which was 
submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the evidence ofrecord is sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary's 
proposed employment will involve executive or managerial authority over the new operation, as 
required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). The Petitioner further contends that Director did not consider 
all relevant factors set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) in reviewing whether the intended U.S. 
operation, within one year of approval of the petition, would support an executive or managerial 
position. Finally, the Petitioner addresses the Director's concerns regarding perceived inconsistencies 
in its proposed staffing levels and submits new evidence documenting the employees it hired leading 
up to the opening of its restaurant. The Petitioner emphasizes that this evidence demonstrates its 
business was operating within one year of filing the new office petition and that it has already exceeded 
its projected staffing levels for the first year of operations. 
Upon review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter to the Director for 
issuance of a new decision. We note that the newly submitted evidence of the company's staffing 
levels was not previously available to the Petitioner at the time it responded to the Director's RFE. 
Given the prospective nature of an L-lA new office adjudication, the evidence is relevant to an 
analysis of the Petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought. Therefore, the Director is the appropriate 
party to review this new evidence and to consider its impact on the Petitioner's eligibility in the first 
instance. 
We also agree that the Director's stated reasons denial were based on a limited review of the record 
and did not consider all relevant evidence submitted in support of the new office requirements at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B) and (C). The Petitioner has consistently emphasized that the foreign entity 
made a significant investment in the U.S. operation and that its restaurant business will be relying on 
an established brand and business model that has already proven to be successful in the targeted 
market. While these factors alone are not determinative, evidence regarding the size of the investment 
and the nature of the business should be evaluated along with evidence of the Beneficiary's authority 
over the new operation, its financial ability to commence operations, and its proposed organizational 
2 
structure. As noted, the Director's decision was based primarily on a determination that the 
Beneficiary's job description lacked detail and perceived inconsistencies in the company's projected 
staffing levels. As the matter will be remanded for the Director to review the new evidence submitted 
on appeal, the Director should also consider all previously submitted evidence before issuing a new 
decision. 
One additional issue not previously raised relates to the ongoing role of the Petitioner's minority owner 
and president in the new company's day-to-day business operations. The record reflects that this 
individual founded and registered the trade name and developed the business model that will be used 
by the Petitioner's restaurant, and that he already owns and operates several similar restaurants in 
Hawaii. It appears that he has retained full ownership of these separate businesses. Despite indicating 
that its president owns and operates several other businesses which would reasonably require his 
involvement, the Petitioner claims that it will employ him on a full-time basis and rely on him to 
oversee operations at its restaurant location inl I The Director may request additional evidence 
to clarify the president's expected ongoing role in the operation of the I !restaurant, including 
whether he would continue in that role following the Beneficiary's transfer to the United States. 
The Petitioner has also referred to its own plans to expand the existing restaurant brand to include 
franchised restaurants and manufacture of packaged hot pot seasoning for retail distribution. However, 
the only documented partnership between the Petitioner's organization and the brand's registered 
owner relates to their shared ownership of a single restaurant. Further, the staffing and financial 
projections contained in the Petitioner's three-year business plan do not account for business activities 
beyond the operation of the I I restaurant location. Additional evidence would be required to 
support the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary's role would reasonably extend to the overall brand 
expansion activities within that timeframe. Therefore, the Director may request additional evidence 
to clarify the intended nature and scope of the petitioning company's operations for the first year of 
operations. 
For the reasons discussed, we are remanding the matter for further consideration by the Director. The 
Director may issue a new RFE and following the Petitioner's response thereto or the expiration of the 
time period for response, issue a new decision. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3