sustained L-1A Case: Restaurant Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-, LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 16, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a restaurant owner and operator, seeks to continue the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment as its general manager under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. 1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 1 01(a)(15)(L). 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(l5)(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 initially approved the petition. After a site visit carried 
out under U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services· (USCIS) Administrative Site Visit and 
Verification Program (ASVVP), the Director issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) and 
ultimately revoked the approval of the petition. The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that it will employ the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity and 
found that she was no longer eligible for the benefit sought. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not consider the totality of the evidence 
submitted and did not have sufficient cause to revoke the approval of the petition. The Petitioner 
maintains that it submitted adequate evidence to establish that the Beneficiary will be employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification for a new otlice, 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 
1 The Petitioner previously filed a "new office'' petition on the Beneficiary's behalf which was approved for the period 
August 2014 through August 2015. A ''new office'' is an organization that has been doing business in the United States 
through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary 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 one year within the date of approval of the petition to support 
an executive or managerial position. 
Matter of H-, LLC 
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. !d. 
A petitioner seeking to extend an L-1 A petition that involved a new office must submit a statement 
of the beneficiary's duties during the previous year and under the extended petition: a statement 
describing the staffing of the new operation and evidence of the numbers and types of positions held; 
evidence of its financial status; evidence that it has been doing business for the previous year; and 
evidence that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii). 
Under USCIS regulations, the approval of an L-1 A 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. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(B). Here, the 
Director notified the Petitioner that the results of the ASVVP site visit revealed that the Beneficiary 
is no longer eligible under section 10l(a)(15)(L) ofthe Act. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A)(2). 
II. DISCUSSION 
The Director found that the evidence did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in an 
in a managerial or executive capacity as defined at section 101(a)(44) of the Act. 
In the NOIR, the Director advised the Petitioner that the site visit, conducted in November 2015, 
revealed the following information: 
The beneficiary is not receiving any pay for her employment in the petitioning 
organization. The beneficiary appears to have not worked full-time and the 
responsibilities are shared between the beneficiary and her husband, the CEO, who is 
also listed as the L-2 dependent applicant. 
As a result of these observations, the Director questioned whether the Beneficiary was primarily 
performing managerial or executive duties for the restaurant, rather than participating in its day-to­
day operations. The Director requested additional evidence, including a detailed organizational 
chart, evidence of wages paid to employees in 2016 (quarterly tax returns and IRS Form W-2s), and 
a more detailed description of the Beneficiary's duties. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's response to the NOIR, the Director determined that the Petitioner 
did not provide a sufficient position description for the Beneficiary or provide evidence that its 
organizational structure could support a managerial or executive position. 
The Petitioner's appeal includes a more detailed description of the Beneficiary's duties, evidence 
demonstrating the Petitioner's use of outsourced professionals. an updated organizational chart and 
employee list, additional evidence of the Petitioner's staffing levels at the time of the site visit, and 
2 
.
Matter of H-. LLC 
evidence showing its operation of two full-service restaurants and imminent opening of a third 
restaurant, among other evidence. 
Upon de novo review of the record, including the new evidence submitted on appeaL \Ve find that 
the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary v.rould be employed in a managerial capacity , and 
has overcome the sole grounds for revocation of the decision. 
In issuing the notice of intent to revoke, the Director did not find that the approval of the petition 
involved gross error or that the facts contained in the petition were not true and correct. See 
generally 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(9)(iii). Rather, the Director tound that the Beneficiary was ''no longer 
eligible" based on the observations made by the USCIS officer who conducted the site visit. 
The Petitioner has satisfactorily rebutted those observations by providing evidence that the 
Beneficiary was working for the Petitioner and receiving a salary in 2015 and by further explaining 
her spouse's role in the company as majority owner of its foreign parent company, noting that any 
activities he undertakes do not detract from the Beneficiary's role as general manager tor the U.S. 
subsidiary's chain of restaurants. Further, while the Petitioner did not have a large staff in place at 
the time of the site visit, the Petitioner points out that its first restaurant had been open tor only a 
short time and its staffing levels were consistent with w·hat the Petitioner had claimed on the 
petition. That staff included at least two subordinate supervisors who relieved the Beneficiary from 
the day-to-day operations and freed her to focus on higher-level duties related to the company's 
expansion activities. In addition, the evidence shows that the company carried out its stated plans to 
open additional restaurants and to increase both the size of its staff and the complexity of its 
management structure during the validity ofthe extended petition (August 2015 to August 2017). 2 
Further, we find that the Petitioner has sufficiently addressed the specific deficiencies discussed in 
the Director's decision. The Petitioner established that the company grew sufficiently to support the 
Beneficiary in a managerial capacity, and that she would more likely than not have adequate support 
from subordinate managers, supervisors and lower-level statl~ to allow her to allocate most of her 
time to qualifying managerial duties, rather than to performing operational duties alongside the 
restaurants' other employees. Whether the Beneficiary is a managerial or executive employee turns 
on whether the Petitioner has sustained its burden of proving that their duties are "primarily' ' 
managerial or executive. See sections 10 I (a)(44 )(A) and (B) of the Act. Here , the Petitioner has 
met that burden. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has established that it will employ the Beneficiary in an managerial capacity. 
2 
The Petitioner filed a new petition in August 2017 1 ·,which USCIS approved for a two-year period. 
3 
Matter of H-. LLC 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of H-. LLC, ID# 684678 (AAO Oct. 16, 20 17) 
4