remanded L-1B Case: Restaurant Business

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 02 223 50571 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: BAY 1 1 2005 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
obert . Wiemann, Dir tor 2.4 0 
dministrative ~~~ealsbffice 
WAC 02 223 50571 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The matter shall be remanded 
back to the director for consideration of the beneficiary's eligibility for specialized knowledge status. 
According to the documentary evidence contained in the record, the petitioner was incorporated in 1999 and 
claims to be in the international trade and restaurant business. The petitioner claims to be a subsidiary of 
located in Beijing, China. The petitioner claims six 
employees and $1,107,437 in gross annual income. It seeks to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the 
United States as its restaurant manager for three years, at a monthly salary of $1,800.00. The director 
determined that the petitioner had failed to establish that the beneficiary had been employed by the foreign 
entity and would be employed by the U.S. entity primarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner is petitioning for L-1B intracompany transferee (an employee 
with specialized knowledge) status rather than L-IA interacompany transferee (managerlexecutive) status, 
and therefore, the director's decision with respect to the proposed managerial or executive duties, is not 
applicable. Therefore, the matter will be remanded to the director for consideration of this issue. The 
director may request any additional evidence deemed necessary to assist him with the determination. As 
always in these proceedings, the burden of proof rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 9 1361. 
ORDER: the petition is remanded to the director for entry of a new decision.