dismissed L-1A Case: Automobile Parts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Inunigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-Z-1-T- INC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 7, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an automobile parts trader, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as general 
manager of its new office 1 under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(L). The L-lA 
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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required: (1) that the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity; and (2) the foreign entity's financial ability to remunerate the beneficiary and to 
commence doing business in the United States. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by 
not giving enough weight to the statements submitted in support of the petition. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving a new 
office, a qualifying organization must have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). In 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. Id. 
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(l)(l)(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. 
.
Matter of B-Z-1-T- Inc 
The petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new office will be able to support a 
managerial or executive position within one year. This evidence must establish that the petitioner 
secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation and disclose the proposed nature and 
scope of the entity, its organizational structure, its financial goals, and the size of the U.S. 
investment. See generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
11. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
The Director found that the Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary had the required 
continuous year of employment abroad as a manager or executive. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
that it has presented credible evidence of the required employment. We agree with the Director that 
the information provided by the Petitioner is not credible. 
The Petitioner filed the petition in January 2018. At that time, the Beneficiary was in the United 
States as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor, having arrived in August 2017. Therefore, the qualifying 
employment must have occurred between January 2015 and August 2017. 
The Petitioner indicated that it is a subsidiary of 
A December 2017 letter and September 2017 certificate from 
attested to the Beneficiary's employment abroad, although the two documents provided different 
details. The letter stated that the Beneficiary became deputy general manager of in 
2012, remaining in that position "for the past five years." The certificate, however, provided a 
different timeline for the Beneficiary's employment: 
2012: Hired by in an unspecified capacity 
2013-2015: Deputy General Manager of 
2015-2017: General Manager of (an affiliate of 
The Director notified the Petitioner of information that contradicts the above claims. When the 
Beneficiary applied for her B-2 nonimmigrant visa in 2015, she stated that she was a science teacher 
at a school in China. She claimed no previous employment. As a result, the Director 
questioned the more recent claim that the Beneficiary had worked for ____ and 
since 2012. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a resume indicating that the Beneficiary was a teacher from 
1999 to 2013, and has since remained an "[i]nactive . . member of faculty." The resume also 
indicated that the Beneficiary worked part-time for from July 2012 to August 2013, 
"while still working as a teacher." The Petitioner ' s earlier narratives of the Beneficiary 's past 
experience did not include this information. 
2 
.
Matter of B-Z-1-T- Inc 
The Director denied the pet1t10n, stating that the Petitioner had not submitted independent 
documentary evidence, such as payroll records, to overcome the inconsistencies and support the 
explanation set forth in the resume. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states: "The Director unreasonably dismissed the employment certificate 
and support letter as 'insufficient."' The Petitioner acknowledges that "compensation records are 
proof of employment," but asserts that "other evidence [can] be considered as a whole that ... also 
proves the Beneficiary's past employment in Appellant's group companies." 
In the absence of contradictory evidence or information, a letter from the foreign entity can often 
suffice to meet the Petitioner's burden of proof Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l), which states, in the 
context of employment-based immigrant petitions, "Evidence relating to qualifying experience ... 
shall be in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s)." The claims in such a letter, 
however, are subject to verification, and in this instance, the Beneficiary herself provided conflicting 
information to the U.S. government during the period of the claimed employment. 
The Petitioner must resolve this discrepancy in the record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Here, the 
Petitioner has not submitted independent documentary evidence, or offered any explanation as to 
why a high-ranking official of an auto parts company, who had not taught for years, would write "I 
am a science teacher" on a visa application when asked to name her primary occupation. We agree 
that payroll records are not the only possible evidence of employment, but nevertheless it is 
significant that the Petitioner did not submit those records or explain their absence. The Petitioner 
likewise submitted no evidence from the school in to verify the Beneficiary's claimed 
inactive status on the faculty. 
In the end, it remains that, in 2015, the Beneficiary described herself as a school teacher. She 
revised her employment history when she sought immigration benefits based on the newly-claimed 
employment. Truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. 
Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 1989), quoted in Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
369, 376 (AAO 2010). Self-serving statements written after the fact do not carry the same weight as 
objectively verifiable, contemporaneous documentation. 
In this case, the Petitioner's essentially uncorroborated claims about the Beneficiary's employment 
conflict with the Beneficiary's own statements at the time of that claimed employment, and therefore 
we cannot find that the Petitioner has met its burden of proof with regard to the Beneficiary's 
claimed employment abroad. 
Based on the deficiencies and inconsistencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad. 
3 
Matter of B-Z-1-T- Inc 
III. NEW OFFICE 
The Director also found that the Petitioner had not established the foreign entity's financial ability to 
remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business in the United States. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(2). However, because the lack of corroboration of the Beneficiary's claimed 
foreign employment is dispositive in this case, we need not reach the issue of financial ability and 
therefore reserve it. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofB-Z-1-T-Inc, ID# 2355127 (AAO Mar. 7, 2019) 
4