remanded L-1A Case: Web Design And It Development

MATTER OF E- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 15, 2018 
APPEAL-OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, which intends to operate as a web design and IT development business, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as "President/CEO" of its new office 1 under the L-IA 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality' Act (the 
Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1 IOl(a)(I S)(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, as required, that the new office would support the Beneficiary in a managerial or 
executive position within one year after approval of the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the Director's decision and cites to Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted 
Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016), in support of its contention that the Director should have 
considered the Beneficiary's proposed position with respect to the wider qualifying international 
organization. The Petitioner points to previously provided evidence, including job descriptions for a 
list of 13 subordinate employees who work for the Petitioner's foreign affiliate and would support 
the Beneficiary in his proposed position. The Petitioner asserts that in addition to the positions it 
seeks to fill during its first year of operation, the foreign entity's support staff will perform 
operational, client-driven tasks which will relieve the Beneficiary from having to primarily carry out 
non-qualifying job duties. The Petitioner also cites to its hiring plan and corresponding timeline, 
which describes the positions it seeks to fill during the one-year new office phase of its operation. 
Upon de nova review, we find that the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to establish that it 
would more likely than not have the ability to support the Beneficiary in an executive position within 
one year of the petition's approval. However, we find that the record as presently constituted does 
not establish that the Petitioner secured suflicient physical premises for its business operation as of 
the date this petition was filed. As the Petitioner has overcome the sole issue upon which the 
1 The tern, "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 within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
.
Matter of£- Inc. 
petition was denied, we will remand the matter to the Director for further consideration of the 
physical premises issue. 
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. 
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. BASIS FOR REMAND 
As previously noted, we find that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient e~idence to establish that 
· it had secured sufficient physical premises to house its business operation, as required by regulation . 
In the present matter, the Petitioner's initial supporting evidence included a photograph of the 
exterior fa9ade of an office buildi~g along with photographs of a conference room, a shared open 
space, an elevator lobby area, and a work station with the Petitioner's name affixed to the desk 
surface . In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a letter claiming that it 
had secured office space in which it described as "one of [s] top co­
working stai1-up accelerator places ." The Petitioner claimed that RocketSpace will provide "more 
work space and additional opportunities" to accommodate the Petitioner's growth in the future. The 
Petitioner resubmitted the above-described photographs and also offered an undated letter from 
in which the company was described as "a global ecosystem of people and ideas that 
provides the necessary velocity - both speed and direction - to help the world ' s top innovators bring 
the future to market." Although the letter mentioned the Petitioner, noting that the Petitioner's team 
"is working with other companies ," it did not state that _ was leasing office 
space to the Petitioner, nor did it provide specific terms that are common to an otlice lease, including 
the duration of the lease term, the_ price, or the square footage of the leased premises . The Petitioner 
must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Maller of Chawalhe, 
25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Neither the Petitioner's claims nor claims made in an undated 
letter from the Petitioner's alleged lessor constitute sufficient evidence of a . lease agreement. 
Without such an agreement, we cannot determine whether the Petitioner secur.ed sufficient space for 
its U.S. business as of the date the instant petition was filed. · 
2 
Matter 4 E- Inc. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we are remanding this matter for further consideration and entry of 
a new decision. The Director should request any additional evidence deemed necessary to determine 
-the Petitioner's eligibility 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 of£- Inc., ID# I 592250 (AAO Nov. I 5, 2018) 
3