dismissed L-1A Case: Art Retail

PUBLIC COP1t 
DATE: DEC 1 3 2011 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiaries: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (MO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(lS)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1l01(a)(lS)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.S. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of$630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
erry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director of the Vermont Service Center revoked the previously approved 
nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed and the petition will be revoked. 
The petitioner claims that it is an "art gallery retailing Russian art." The petitioner states that it 
is a subsidiary of located in Russia. Accordingly, the United States entity 
petitioned United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to classify the 
beneficiary as a nonimmigrant intracompany transferee (L-IA) pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The beneficiary 
was initially granted a one-year period of stay to fill the position of President and CEO. 
On September 28, 2009, the director revoked the petition concluding that the petitioner did not 
respond to any of the issues raised in the USCIS Notice of Intent to Revoke ("NOIR") and has 
not overcome the grounds for revocation. 
The record of proceeding before the AAO contains: (1) the Form 1-129 and supporting 
documentation, dated July 2, 2008; (2) the director's NOIR, dated July 30, 2009; (3) the 
petitioner's response to the NOIR; (4) the director's September 28, 2009 notice of revocation; 
and, (5) the Form I-1290B, filed on November 5, 2009. The AAO reviewed the record in its 
entirety before issuing its decision. 
On July 2, 2008, the petitioner filed the Form 1-129 (Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker) to 
employ the beneficiary in L-IA classification for the period of one year to open a new office. 
The director approved the petition. On July 30, 2009, the director notified the petitioner of his 
intent to revoke approval of the L-IA petition. In the notice of intent to revoke, the director 
stated the reason for revocation as follows: 
It has now corne to the attention of USCIS that you had misrepresented the scope 
of the beneficiary's management duties. Information reveal during the consulate 
processing of the beneficiary's visa requests it became apparent that even though 
you have claimed that the beneficiary's management duties, as a production 
development manager, from December 2003 until July 2006. In fact, the 
beneficiary only worked as an assistant production development manager from 
January 2006 until March 2006. From December 2003 until January 2006 the 
beneficiary was employed as an office assistant. 
The director also sent a copy of an "Unclassified Memorandum" from the consulate office in St. 
Petersburg, Russia. The memorandum stated that it did a site visit to the beneficiary's foreign 
employer and they "found an empty shop in a large business center," and that "neighbors told us 
the shop had not been in business for at least the past six months." In addition, the memorandum 
stated that during a "follow-up interview" with the beneficiary, she stated that the "salon has 
been closed since March 2008," and that she has worked in an executive capacity since January 
2007 and not January 2006 as listed on the petition documents. The memorandum further stated 
that the beneficiary explained that the foreign company was "closed for 'reconstruction' from 
Page 3 
January to October 2007," and thus, the "Russian company was in business for three months." 
In addition, at the time the 1-129 was filed, the foreign company was no longer doing business. 
The memorandum also stated that during the beneficiary's visa interview, the beneficiary 
"asserted that the current business telephone number given on her petition was that of the salon; 
however, it is in fact listed in the St. Petersburg directory as a home telephone number." The 
beneficiary also could not tell the visa officer in which business center the foreign company is 
located. 
Furthermore, the memorandum stated that the beneficiary was "unable to describe her duties, the 
number or names of staff," and provided inconsistent information of the number of employees at 
the foreign company. Finally, the beneficiary stated that she worked as a secretary from January 
2006 until January 2007. 
On September 1, 2009, counsel for the petitioner responded to the NOIR and stated that it "did 
not receive copies of the listed above attachments that were supposed to be enclosed with the 
Consular letter which led to USCIS's intent to revoke the petition." 
On September 28,2009, the director revoked the petitioner and stated the following: 
The attachments referenced in the unclassified memorandum were for USCIS 
only. Furthermore, the only documents not readily available to you as the 
petitioner were the photographs taken by the Consulate's Fraud Prevention Unit. 
Lastly, the purpose of providing the unclassified memorandum was to give you a 
detailed synopsis of the consulate's officer's interview findings. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner contends that the beneficiary was employed in an 
"executive capacity as a full-time General Director (with duties and responsibilities equivalent to 
those of a Chief Executive Officer) for more than one continuous year (since January 25,2006 to 
present time) with the qualifying Russian organization within the three years preceding the filing 
of the L-IA petition." The petitioner submitted documents to support the claim that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad in the position of General Director from January 25, 2006. For 
example, the petitioner submits an affidavit from the beneficiary, dated January 25,2006, stating 
that she will start her duties as General Director on that date. The petitioner also submits an 
employment contract that stated the beneficiary was hired by the foreign company in the position 
of General Director on January 25,2006. 
In addition, the petitioner submits a payroll summary for the beneficiary for each month of 2007 
but the document does not list the foreign company. Furthermore, the petitioner did not submit 
copies of paystubs or tax receipts or bank statements evidencing that that the beneficiary actually 
received a salary from the foreign company. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the 
assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of 
counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of 
Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
Page 4 
The petitioner also submits seven invoices for the claimed foreign company from August 2006 
until December 2007. In addition, the petitioner submits photographs of the claimed foreign 
company. 
On appeal, the petitIOner fails to provide any evidence to overcome the numerous issues 
discussed in the unclassified memorandum that was sent to the petitioner with the NOIR based 
on the beneficiary's visa interview. The petitioner failed to discuss the issue that the foreign 
company is no longer doing business and that the beneficiary could not corroborate the claim 
that she was the general director for the foreign company. Furthermore, the petitioner did not 
provide any evidence to overcome the claim that the beneficiary was employed as a secretary 
rather than a General Director. 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. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). 
The petitioner presented insufficient evidence to overcome the grounds for revocation. For the 
reasons discussed above, the appeal will be dismissed and the petition revoked. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 
U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The petition is revoked.