sustained L-1A

sustained L-1A Case: Restaurant Management

📅 Date unknown 👤 Company 📂 Restaurant Management

Decision Summary

The Director initially denied the petition for failing to establish a qualifying relationship between the U.S. petitioner and the beneficiary's foreign employer. On appeal, the petitioner provided sufficient evidence, including ownership charts, demonstrating that the same individual owned a majority of both entities, thus proving the required relationship and leading the AAO to sustain the appeal.

Criteria Discussed

Qualifying Relationship New Office Common Ownership/Control

View Full Decision Text

.
U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
MATTER OF H-R-0-, INC.
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office
DATE: JAN. 23.2018
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION
PETITION: FORM I-129 , PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER
The Petitioner, planning to operate a restaurant as part of a group of similar restaurants . seeks to
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as the general manager of its new ot1ice
1
under the L-1 A
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the
Act)§ 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 aftiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to
the United States to work temporarily in an executive or managerial capacity.
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition . concluding that the Petitioner did
not establish, as required, that it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiar y's foreign
employer. The Director determined that the record lacked sufficient evidence to establi sh that the
same person or group of individuals have effective de jure or de facto control of the Petitioner and
the Beneficiary's foreign employer.
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner provides a brief containing two
charts, which outline the ownership schemes of the Beneficiary's employer abroad and his propo sed
employer in the United States . The Petitioner also resubmits evidence supporting the ownership
schemes depicted in these charts, which indicate that through direct and indirect ownership. the same
individual - - own s the majority of the shares of both entities.
Upon de novo review , we find that the Petitioner has provided sut1icient evidence to show that a denial
was not
warranted in this instance . Accordingly, we will withdraw the denial and sustain the appeal.
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.
Cite as Malter o/'1-f-R-G-. Inc., ID# 881298 (AAO Jan. 23, 20 18)
1 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)( I )(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.

Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Use this winning precedent in your petition

MeritDraft analyzes sustained AAO decisions like this one to generate petition arguments that mirror what actually gets approved.

Build Your Winning Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.