dismissed EB-3 Case: Computer Science

(b)(6)
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 0-A-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 4, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 
I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computer software company, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary in the 
United States as "senior software engineer (apps developer 3)" under the immigrant classification of 
professional. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(3)(A)(ii). The Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. 
The immigrant petition was filed on January 21, 2015. The petition was accompanied by a 
photocopied ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent 
Employment Certification, which was 
filed by with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) on October 25, 2013, and certified by 
the DOL (labor certification) on May 5, 2014. The original labor certification accompanied an 
earlier I-140 petition which was filed by on June 27, 2014, 
and denied by the Director on April 14, 2015. 
The instant petition was denied by the Director on March 10, 2015. The Director found that the 
petition was not supported by the required labor certification because the evidence of record did not 
establish that is the successor-in-interest of In his decision the 
Director referred to corporate documentation submitted by the instant Petitioner which establishes 
that was a subsidiary of and that with its subsidiaries 
was acquired in 2014 by the parent of However, the 
Director determined that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish a successor-in-interest 
relationship between and Therefore, the labor certification filed by 
could not be used in support of the petition filed by 
The Petitioner filed a timely appeal, accompanied by a brief from counsel. We conduct appellate 
review on a de novo basis. See Matter ofSoltane v. Department of Justice, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d 
Cir. 2004). 
A petitioner may establish a valid successor relationship for immigration purposes if it satisfies three 
conditions. First, the successor must fully describe and document the transaction transferring ownership 
of all, or a relevant patt of, the predecessor. Second, the successor must demonstrate that the job 
opportunity is the same as originally offered on the labor ce1tification. Third, the successor must prove 
by a preponderance of the evidence that it is eligible for the immigrant visa in all respects. See Matter 
(b)(6)
Matter of 0-A -, Inc. 
of Dial Auto Repair Shop, Inc. (Matter of Dial Auto), 19 I&N Dec. 481 (Comm'r 1986). Evidence of 
transfer of ownership must show that the successor not only purchased assets from the predecessor , 
but also the essential rights and obligations of the predecessor necessary to carry on the business. To 
ensure that the job opportunity remains the same as originally certified, the successor must continue 
to operate the same type of business as the predecessor , in the same metropolitan statistical area, and 
the essential business functions must remain substantially the same as before the ownership transfer. 
See Matter of Dial Auto, 19 I&N Dec. at 482. 
In its appeal brief, dated April 8, 2015, the Petitioner asserted that the Director misapplied Matter of 
Dial Auto because it did not follow the interpretive guidance in the Neufeld Memorandum 1 which 
stated that a valid successor relationship can be established even if the successor entity has not 
assumed all of the predecessor entity's rights, duties, and obligations. While acknowledging that a 
valid successor relationship could exist even where the successor entity has not assumed all of the 
predecessor entity's assets, rights, and obligations, the Neufeld Memorandum confirmed the 
requirement in Matter of Dial Auto that the petitioner must fully describe and document the transfer 
and assumption of the ownership of the predecessor entity by the successor entity. According to the 
Petitioner, the evidence of record established its successor relationship to 
On October 23, 2015, we issued a request for evidence (RFE). We noted that the only 
documentation in the record that contained detailed assertions about a successor-in-interest 
relationship between and were two letters submitted by 
the Petitioner 's immigration specialist- one with the petition and the other in response to 
the Director's earlier RFE. We proceeded to discuss these letters in detail. In his initial letter, dated 
December 30, 2014, asserted the following: 
For immigration purposes, is a successor in interest to 
and its subsidiaries, including because it has been assigned and 
assumed substantially all of the U.S. operating assets and liabilities, including all 
immigration related assets and liabilities, of 
In his second letter, dated February 5, 2015, 
On October 1, 2014, 
U.S. employees joined 
and 
employees of the acquired company, 
related rights, duties, obligations and assets of 
asserted the following: 
subsidiaries , including 
as employees. In accepting all 
assumed all immigration­
and became the successor-in -interest to 
(including all subsidiaries of 
(and 
subsidiaries including fpr immigration purposes. 
1 Successor-in-Interest Determinations in Adjudication of Form 1-140 Petitions, HQ 70/6.2, AD 09-37, dated August 6, 
2009. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofO-A- , Inc. 
We also noted that the two letters from 
dated April 10, 2015, from 
who likewise asserted that: 
had been supplemented on appeal by a letter 
Vice President and Assistant Secretary of 
is a successor in interest to and its subsidiaries, 
including because it has been assigned and assumed substantially all of the 
U.S. operating assets and liabilities, including all immigration related assets and 
liabilities, of and its subsidiaries, including 
Looking at the three letters collectively, we stated that their common assertion is that 
-the purchaser of and its subsidiaries, including - assigned the U.S. 
assets of these companies to its subsidiary, the Petitioner in this proceeding. 
We also pointed out, however, that no transactional documents recording the alleged assignment had 
been submitted. Accordingly, we requested that the Petitioner submit a copy or copies of the 
corporate document(s) by which the immigration-related assets and liabilities of 
were assigned by to its subsidiary, 
The Petitioner responded to the RFE on December 24, 2015, with a brief from counsel and additional 
documentation. The new evidentiary materials document in detail the merger of into 
on September 30, 2014, and the merger of into on October 1, 2014. 
(As previously documented had become a wholly-owned subsidiary of on 
September 8, 2014.) According to in a new document entitled "Certificate of Assistant 
Secretary of '' dated October 26, 2015, "[o]n October 1, 2014, 
transferred substantially all of the assets and liabilities, including its customer contracts, to _ 
I pursuant to an Asset Transfer Agreement." No such Asset Transfer Agreement has been 
submitted for the record, however, nor any other documentary evidence that the immigration-related 
assets and liabilities of (including those of the former ' were assigned by 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Moreover, 
the "[f]ailure to submit requested evidence which precludes a material line of inquiry shall be 
grounds for denying the benefit request." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l4). 
Thus, the Petitioner has not submitted documentary evidence that it is a valid successor-in-interest to 
for the purpose of this immigration proceeding. It has not met the first condition in Matter ol 
Dial Auto to establish a valid successor relationship because it has not fully described and documented 
any transaction whereby the ownership of the immigration-related assets and liabilities originally owned 
by and subsequently acquired by through were transferred to 
This requirement to fully describe and document the transaction transferring 
ownership was expressly confirmed in the Neufeld Memorandum. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of 0-A -, Inc. 
In its response to our RFE the Petitioner states that it was granted an amended Blanket L petition 
approval on April 10, 2015, which specifically acknowledged the parent -subsidiary relationship 
between and According to the Petitioner, the Blanket L 
approval vests it with "primary petitioner" status for immigration purposes. The Blanket L approval, 
however, did not describe and/or document any transfer of assets, rights, and obligations, immigration-
related or otherwise, from to 
In its RFE response the Petitioner indicated that it did not submit all of the business documents in its 
possession because "doing so may subject the petitioner to litigation and business harm" (Appeal 
Brief, page 5). Claiming that requested documentation contains confidential information, however, 
does not provide a blanket excuse for a petitioner to withhold such documentation if it is material to 
the requested benefit. While a petitioner may refuse to submit confidential commercial information 
if it is deemed too sensitive, the petitioner must also satisfy the burden of proof to obtain the 
immigration benefit it seeks. Cf Matter of Marques, 16 I&N Dec. 314 (BIA 1977) (holding that the 
"respondent had every right to assert his claim under the Fifth Amendment[; however], in so doing 
he runs the risk that he may fail to carry his burden of persuasion with respect to his application.") 
Despite our specific request in the RFE of October 23, 2015, the Petitioner did not submit copies of 
any transactional documents by which the immigration-related assets and liabilities of and 
were assigned by to its subsidiary, As previously 
noted, the failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be 
grounds for denying the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigrant benefit 
sought. See section 291 ofthe Act 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 
2013). The Petitioner has not met that burden in this case. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofO-A-, Inc., ID# 14781 (AAO Feb. 4, 2016) 
4