dismissed L-1A Case: Bakery

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts ~ve.. NW, Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
- - 
LlC COPY 
File: LIN-03-274-5 1672 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 0 8 2005 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10l(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
JN 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 P. Wiemann, Director 
edministrative Appeals Office 
LIN-03-274-5 1672 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employee the beneficiary as its President as an 
L- 1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L), in order to open a new office in the United States. The 
petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of Missouri that intends to operate a bakery. The petitioner 
claims that it is the subsidiary of Kim Duk-Won Bakery, located in Chungnam, Korea. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that: (1) the beneficiary has 
been employed abroad in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; (2) the beneficiary will be employed 
in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity within one year; and (3) the petitioner has 
a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the 
beneficiary's duties show that he has acted and will act in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Counsel further asserts that the petitioner has submitted sufficient documentation to show that it has a 
qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. In support of these assertions, counsel submits a brief and 
additional evidence. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one 
continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States. 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, executive, or 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the 
alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
LW-03-274-5 1672 
Page 3 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies himlher to perform the intended 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
(v) If the petition indicates that the beneficiary is coming to the United States as a manager 
or executive to open or to be employed in a new office in the United States, the 
petitioner shall submit evidence that: 
(A) Sufficient physical premises to house the new ofice have been secured; 
(B) The beneficiary has been employed for one continuous year in the three year 
period preceding the filing of the petition in an executive or managerial capacity 
and that the proposed employment involved executive or managerial authority 
over the new operation; and 
(C) The intended United States operation, within one year of the approval of the 
petition, will support an executive or managerial position as defined in 
paragraphs (l)(l)(ii)(B) or (C) of this section, supported by information 
regarding: 
(I) The proposed nature of the office describing the scope of the entity, its 
organizational structure, and its financial goals; 
(2) The size of the United States investment and the financial ability of the 
foreign entity to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business in 
the United States; and 
(3) The organizational structure of the foreign entity. 
The first issue in the present matter is whether the beneficiary has been employed abroad in a primarily 
managerial or executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. $ 2 14.2(1)(3)(iv). 
Section 10 l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 101(a)(44)(A), defines the tenn "managerial capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of 
the organization; 
(ii) supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees, or manages an essential function within the organization, or a department 
or subdivision of the organization; 
LIN-03-274-5 1672 
Page 4 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the authority to 
hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions (such as 
promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly supervised, 
functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the 
function managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day to day operations of the activity or function for 
which the employee has authority. A first line supervisor is not considered to be 
acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory 
duties unless the employees supervised are professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1101(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the 
organization; 
(ii) establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
(iii) exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision making; and 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
In a letter submitted with the initial petition on September 23, 2003, the foreign entity's managing director 
described the company's operations and the beneficiary's job duties abroad as follows: 
[W]e have been doing business for over Nine years and now employ 5 employees. 
[The beneficiary] has been working in this our [sic] organization as a founder and President 
for over nine years. [The beneficiary] has been employed with us since July 1994 and has 
held many different job positions, i.e. cashier, baker, manager, and President. He is still 
working for us in the U.S. setting up and managing [the petitioner] in the U.S. [The 
beneficiary] reports direct [sic] to [the managing director] and no one is above him. 
On October 24, 2003, the director requested additional evidence. In part, the director instructed the petitioner 
to provide evidence to establish that "[tlhe beneficiary's qualifying employment abroad was in an executive or 
managerial capacity." The director requested that the petitioner "state the duties of the beneficiary in that 
company" and "[slubmit evidence to establish the organizational structure of the foreign entity." (Emphasis 
in original). 
LIN-03-274-5 1672 
Page 5 
In a response dated January 15, 2004, the petitioner submitted a letter that discusses the beneficiary's foreign 
duties as follows: 
The beneficiary rose from cashier, to baker, to manager, to President. His duties for the 
foreign entity involved directing the company, establishing its goals, managing the business, 
overseeing quality control, hiring all employees, and supervising the staff. 
[The foreign entity] owns and operates a bakery in Korea and has five employees. Mr. Juntae 
Kim is the President of the foreign entity, who directs and manages the business. The other 
employees do the baking, sales, and various other administrative functions of the business. 
The petitioner provided an organizational chart for the foreign entity that reflects that the individual that acts 
as the president and managing director has supervisory authority over the company's subordinate employees, 
and that the beneficiary has authority over the petitioner's operations in the United States. 
On April 29, 2004, the director denied the petition. In part, the director determined that the petitioner did not 
establish that the beneficiary has been employed abroad in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The 
director stated that "[tlhe duties listed are too broad and nonspecific to convey an understanding of the 
beneficiary's job responsibilities abroad . . . ." 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary's duties show that he has acted in a primarily managerial or 
executive capacity with the foreign entity. In his brief, counsel states that "[a] detailed job description of the 
Beneficiary's duties as President for the foreign entity was: directed the company, established its goals, 
managed the business, oversaw quality control, hired all employees, and supervised the staff." 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are not persuasive. When examining the executive or managerial capacity 
of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 
9 242(1)(3)(iv). The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly describe the duties to be 
performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are either in an executive or managerial 
capacity. Id. 
In the instant case, counsel asserts that the beneficiary was primarily engaged in both managerial duties and 
executive duties. To sustain such an assertion, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary's foreign 
duties meet each of the four criteria set forth in the statutory definition for executive duties under section 
10 1(a)(44)(B) of the Act, and the statutory definition for managerial duties under section 10 1 (a)(44)(A) of the 
Act. At a minimum, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary was primarily employed in one or the 
other capacity. See 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(3)(iv). 
The foreign job descriptions submitted for the beneficiary are brief and vague, providing little insight into the 
true nature of the tasks he performed with the foreign entity. The petitioner stated that the beneficiary's 
LIN-03-274-5 1672 
Page 6 
foreign duties "involved directing the company, establishing its goals, managing the business, overseeing 
quality control, hiring all employees, and supervising the staff." Counsel repeats this statement on appeal. 
However, this broad list of duties fails to identify what the beneficiary did on a daily basis. Specifics are 
clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or managerial in 
nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. 
Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ard, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The actual duties 
themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Id. The provided job description does not allow the 
AAO to determine the actual tasks that the beneficiary performed, such that they can be classified as 
managerial or executive in nature. 
The petitioner stated that the beneficiary supervised the foreign entity's staff, yet the organizational chart 
submitted for the foreign entity shows all of its employees reporting to the president and managing director. 
The AAO understands that this chart likely refers to the foreign entity's staffing hierarchy after the beneficiary 
would assume his position in the United States. However, the petitioner failed to explain how the beneficiary 
and the president and managing director shared authority over the foreign entity's staff when both were 
employed simultaneously. 
Further, although the beneficiary is not required to have supervised personnel abroad, if it is claimed that his 
duties involved supervising employees, the petitioner must establish that the subordinate employees were 
supervisory, professional, or managerial. See 5 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. In evaluating whether the 
beneficiary managed professional employees, the AAO must evaluate whether the subordinate positions 
required a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. Section 101(a)(32) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(32), states that "[tlhe term profession shall include but not be limited to architects, 
engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, 
academies, or seminaries." The term "profession" contemplates knowledge or learning, not merely skill, of an 
advanced type in a given field gained by a prolonged course of specialized instruction and study of at least 
baccalaureate level, which is a realistic prerequisite to entry into the particular field of endeavor. Matter of 
Sea, 19 I&N Dec. 8 17 (Comm. 1988); Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (R.C. 1968); Matter of Shin, 1 1 I&N 
Dec. 686 (D.D. 1966). 
Therefore, the AAO must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree held 
by a subordinate employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee does not 
automatically lead to the conclusion that an employee is employed in a professional capacity as that term is 
defined above. 
The beneficiary's subordinates abroad apparently included a cashier, a baker, an assistant baker, a manager, 
and a salesperson. The petitioner has not established that these employees possessed or required a bachelor's 
degree, such that they could be classified as professionals. Nor has the petitioner shown that any of the 
employees supervised subordinate staff members. While the organizational chart shows that the salesperson, 
baker, and assistant baker are under the manager, the manager's duties as described in counsel's brief do not 
include supervisory tasks. While the organizational chart shows that the assistant baker is subordinate to the 
baker, the baker's duties as described in counsel's brief do not include supervisory tasks. Further, while the 
manager possesses a managerial title, this employee's duties appear to be primarily clerical tasks. The 
LIN-03-274-5 1672 
Page 7 
petitioner has not shown that the manager manages a clearly defined department or function of the petitioner. 
Thus, the petitioner has not shown that the beneficiary's possible foreign subordinate employees were 
supervisory, professional, or managerial, as contemplated by section 10 1 (a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary was acting as more than a first-line 
supervisor with the foreign entity. A managerial or executive employee must have authority over day-to-day 
operations beyond the level normally vested in a first-line supervisor, unless the supervised employees are 
professionals. See Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity, as required by 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3)(iv). For this reason, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The second issue in the present matter is whether the beneficiary will be employed by the United States entity 
in a primarily managerial or executive capacity within one year. 
In the initial petition, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary will serve in the position of president, yet it 
did not provide a detailed description of the beneficiary's prospective duties. In the director's request for 
evidence, the director instructed the petitioner as follows: 
[Pllease state the proposed duties of the beneficiary in the United States entity. Please 
be specific. 
[Slubmit evidence to establish that . . . [tlhe intended United States operation, within one year 
of approval of the petition, will support an executive or managerial position, supported by 
information regarding: 
(I) The proposed nature of the office describing the scope of the entity, its 
organizational structure, and its financial goals; (including the proposed 
number of employees, their job titles and duties, etc.). 
(2) The size of the United States investment and the financial ability of the 
foreign entity to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business 
in the United States . . . . 
(Emphasis in original). 
In response, the petitioner provided a letter that discusses the beneficiary's duties and the petitioner's proposed 
staffing as follows: 
[The beneficiary] will be performing the following duties, to-wit: 
LIN-03-274-5 1672 
Page 8 
a) Manage and direct the business of the company (50%); 
b) Hire all employees and design their compensation program (20%); 
c) Handles customer service and quality assurance (5%); 
d) Reviews accounts payables/receivables (5%); 
e) Ensures corporate business compliances, i.e. taxes, reporting, etc. (1 0%); 
f) Reviews employee payroll (5%); and 
g) Oversee staff (5%). 
[The beneficiary's] subordinates include: 
A. A manager who will be responsible for keeping detailed records of all 
transactions, answering and returned telephone calls, managing files, opening and reviewing 
the mail and e-mail, updating price lists, and scheduling appointments/deliveries. 
B. One full-time baker and one baker's assistant, who will be mainly responsible 
for preparing and baking all products, including compiling and delivering orders, managing 
supplies, keeping account of the supplies, and determining when to order more supplies. 
C. Salesperson to handle all sales to customers, potential customers, and 
vendors, and setting prices with customers. 
In denying the petition, the director found that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity within one year. The director 
stated that "[tlhe given responsibilities of conduct[ing] meetings, negotiat[ing] lease contracts, order[ing] 
equipment and establish[ing] bank accounts and transfers of funds from overseas, are not in depth or complex 
enough to establish that they are executive or managerial in nature." The director further stated that "[nlo 
business plan was provided to establish that the U.S. entity would be viable and support [an] executive or 
managerial position within one year of approval. It was not established when employees would be employed, 
what their wages would be, and their positions and job responsibilities were vague." 
On appeal, counsel repeats the breakdown of the beneficiary's duties as quoted above. Counsel lists activities 
that the beneficiary has already performed, including meeting with vendors, signing a lease for the petitioner's 
bakery, ordering equipment, and establishing bank accounts. Counsel provides more detail regarding the 
beneficiary's proposed tasks in the United States, such as making decisions regarding hiring staff, managing 
vendor relationships, monitoring accounts receivable, ensuring corporate business filings are made, reviewing 
payroll, and supervising the staff. Counsel indicates that the beneficiary will eventually hire a store manager 
to handle day-to-day functions, which will allow him to focus on "other business concerns." Counsel 
describes the duties of the petitioner's proposed cashier, baker, assistant baker, manager, and salesperson. 
Counsel cites the Occupational Outlook Handbook, and asserts that the beneficiary's duties will be in accord 
with the jobs of "general managers and top executives." Counsel states that "the Beneficiary herein performs 
managerial and executive duties." (Emphasis in original). 
LIN-03-274-5 1672 
Page 9 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are not persuasive. The beneficiary's proposed duties are not described 
with sufficient detail to establish that he will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity 
within one year. The petitioner stated that the beneficiary will devote 50 percent of his time to "Manag[ing] 
and direct[ing] the business of the company." Yet, this broad statement does not explain what the beneficiary 
will do on a daily basis. Again, specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties 
are primarily executive or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter 
of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1 103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 
F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary will devote five percent of his time to 
"Handl[ing] customer service and quality assurance," yet without further explanation these appear to be non- 
qualifying tasks. The petitioner stated that the beneficiary will devote five percent of his time to 
"Review[ing] employee payroll." However, none of the beneficiary's proposed subordinates are charged with 
the task of preparing the company's payroll, thus it is assumed that the beneficiary will actually perform this 
non-qualifying duty. 
The petitioner indicated that the beneficiary will spend five percent of his time overseeing staff. The 
proposed staff members are identical to those working for the foreign entity. As discussed above, none of the 
beneficiary's possible subordinates abroad have been shown to be supervisory, professional, or managerial, as 
contemplated by section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. Thus, it appears that the beneficiary's time spent 
supervising his U.S. subordinates will be time spent acting as a first-line supervisor. As noted above, a 
managerial or executive employee must have authority over day-to-day operations beyond the level normally 
vested in a first-line supervisor, unless the supervised employees are professionals. See Matter of Church 
Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593,604 (Comm. 1988). 
Further, the petitioner has not specified when it intends to hire the beneficiary's proposed subordinates, such 
that the AAO can determine if the beneficiary will be relieved from performing the day-to-day tasks of 
running the petitioner's bakery within one year. Nor has the petitioner clearly stated its financial goals as 
required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(I). Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Counsel cites the Occupational Outlook Handbook, and asserts that the beneficiary's duties will be in accord 
with the jobs of "general managers and top executives." While the Occupational Outlook Handbook is 
generally instructive, the Act provides clear definitions for managerial and executive capacity. Sections 
101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. At a minimum, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary meets each of 
the four criteria set forth in the statutory definition for executive duties under section 101(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act, or the statutory definition for managerial duties under section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. In the present 
matter, the petitioner has failed to meet this burden. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily 
or managerial capacity within one year, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). For this additional 
reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
LIN-03-274-5 1672 
Page 10 
The third issue in the present matter is whether the petitioner has established that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the foreign entity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $214.2(1)(l)(ii) provides: 
(G) Qualzfiing organization means a United States or foreign firm, corporation, or other 
legal entity which: 
(I) Meets exactly one of the qualifying relationships specified in the definitions of a 
parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary specified in paragraph (l)(l)(ii) of this 
section; 
(2) Is or will be doing business (engaging in international trade is not required) as 
an employer in the United States and in at least one other country directly or 
through a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary for the duration of the alien's 
stay in the United States as an intracompany transferee; and 
(3) Otherwise meets the requirements of section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. 
(H) Doing business means the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods andlor 
services by a qualifying organization and does not include the mere presence of an agent 
or office of the qualifying organization in the United States and abroad. 
(I) Parent means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity which has subsidiaries. 
(K) Subsidiavy means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent owns, 
directly or indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, 
directly or indirectly, half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or 
indirectly, 50 percent of a 50-50 joint venture and has equal control and veto power over 
the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, less than half of the entity, but in fact controls 
the entity. 
In the initial petition, on Form 1-129 the petitioner indicated that it is the subsidiary of the foreign entity, as 
the foreign entity owns 60 percent of the petitioner's stock. The petitioner submitted its articles of 
incorporation that reflect that it is authorized to issue 3,000 shares of common stock. 
The director did not request additional evidence regarding the petitioner's relationship to the foreign entity. In 
denying the petition, the director found that the petitioner did not establish that it has a qualifying relationship 
with the foreign entity. The director stated: 
LIN-03-274-5 1672 
Page 11 
[N]o supporting evidence was presented to establish that the US entity is a subsidiary of the 
[foreign entity]. The petition states the foreign entity owns 60% of the U.S. entity. A letter 
from the attorney of record states that Juntae Kim and [the beneficiary] are cousins and own 
the foreign entity as partners. A letter from Juntae Kim states that he owns 85% of [the 
foreign entity]. No notorials or other forms of official documentation of ownership were 
presented. 
On appeal, counsel states that "a qualifying relationship does exist between the foreign and U.S. entities, as 
[the foreign entity] owns 60% of [the petitioner]." The petitioner provides two stocks certificates that reflect 
that the foreign entity owns 600 shares of the petitioner, and the beneficiary owns 400 shares of the petitioner. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient documentation to show that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the foreign entity. The regulation and case law confirm that ownership and control are the 
factors that must be examined in determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States 
and foreign entities for purposes of this visa classification. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 
I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); 
Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm. 1982). In context of this visa petition, ownership refers to the 
direct or indirect legal right of possession of the assets of an entity with full power and authority to control; 
control means the direct or indirect legal right and authority to direct the establishment, management, and 
operations of an entity. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
As general evidence of a petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship, stock certificates alone are not sufficient 
evidence to determine whether a stockholder maintains ownership and control of a corporate entity. The 
corporate stock certificate ledger, stock certificate registry, corporate bylaws, and the minutes of relevant 
annual shareholder meetings must also be examined to determine the total number of shares issued, the exact 
number issued to the shareholder, and the subsequent percentage ownership and its effect on corporate 
control. Additionally, a petitioning company must disclose all agreements relating to the voting of shares, the 
distribution of profit, the management and direction of the subsidiary, and any other factor affecting actual 
control of the entity. See Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., supra. Without full disclosure of all 
relevant documents, Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) is unable to determine the elements of 
ownership and control. 
The petitioner's stock certificates, by themselves, are not sufficient evidence to establish a qualifying 
relationship. The petitioner's articles of incorporation reflect that it is authorized to issues 3,000 shares of 
common stock, yet the petitioner has failed to provide documentation of how many shares have in fact been 
issued. Though the petitioner provides stock certificates reflecting that the foreign entity owns 60 percent of 
1,000 issued shares, the AAO is unable to determine whether the remaining possible 2,000 shares have been 
issued, and if so, who owns those shares. The foreign entity's documented 600 shares is only 20 percent of all 
possible outstanding shares. Again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. at 
165. Though counsel claims that the foreign entity owns a majority interest in the petitioner, without 
documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of 
proof. The assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 
LIN-03-274-5 1672 
Page 12 
(BIA 1988); Matter Of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 
506 (BIA 1980). 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that it was owned and 
controlled by the foreign entity as of the date of filing the petition. Thus, the petitioner has not established 
that it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(1)(3)(i). For this 
additional reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the 
director's decision will be affirmed and the petition will be denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.