dismissed L-1A Case: Business

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clear1 y unwarranted 
invasion of personal privac~ 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofpce ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
File: WAC 08 172 5 143 1 
 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: JUN 0 4 2009 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 l(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 l(a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. 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 $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
JUF. Grissorn 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 08 172 51431 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimrnigrant 
visa. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to extend the employment of the beneficiary 
as its general manager as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 
101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. tj 1101(a)(15)(L). The 
petitioner is a Washington corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary fiom June 1, 2008 until 
May 31,2011. 
The director denied the petition based on the determination that the petitioner failed to establish that 
it has been and is currently doing business in a regular, systematic, and continuous manner. 
On appeal, the beneficiary, on behalf of the petitioner, disputes the denial, claiming that the 
beneficiary has been employed in a qualifying capacity both abroad and in the United States and that 
the petitioner has been involved in the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods andlor 
services. The petitioner later submitted a brief in support of the appeal. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the 
criteria outlined in section 10 1 (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. tj 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 perfonned. 
(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. 
(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 
WAC 08 172 51431 
Page 3 
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. 
The primary issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has been and continues to do business, 
which 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(H) defines as "the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of 
goods and/or 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." 
In the present matter, the petitioner submitted minimal evidence in support of the Form 1-1 29, which 
was filed on May 30, 2008. No documentation was submitted to show the petitioner's most recent 
business activity. Accordingly, the director issued a request for additional evidence (WE) on June 
11, 2008, instructing the petitioner to submit, inter alia, its federal tax returns for 2005, 2006, and 
2007 and the last four quarterly wage reports that were accepted by the State of Washington. 
In response, the petitioner provided quarterly wage statements from 2004, 2005, and 2006, the most 
recent of which was for the second quarter of 2006. The petitioner also provided its 2004 and 2005 
tax returns and numerous sales invoices, the earliest of which was from December 2005. 
On July 22,2008, the director issued two adverse decisions--one denying the petition on the basis of 
a lack of evidence that the petitioner is currently doing business and the other denying the petition on 
the basis of the beneficiary's expired status as a non-immigrant at the time the Form 1-129 was filed. 
With regard to the latter decision, 8 C.F.R. tj 214.1(~)(5) expressly states that the denial of an 
application for an extension of stay that is filed on Form 1-129 or Form 1-539 may not be appealed. As 
such, any of the petitioner's arguments on appeal that address the issue of the beneficiary's expired 
status at the time of filing cannot be addressed by the AAO. 
Accordingly, this decision will focus on factors concerning the petitioner's eligibility to classify the 
beneficiary as a nonirnmigrant intracompany transferee. With regard to this issue, the director found 
that the record lacks evidence to establish that the petitioner has been and currently is doing business 
and is therefore ineligible for the classification sought herein. Specifically, the director noted that 
the petitioner failed to provide tax returns from 2006 and 2007, thereby suggesting that it is not 
maintaining a viable business. 
On appeal, the beneficiary generally repeated statutory provisions requiring that the beneficiary's 
proposed and past employment be within a qualifying capacity and that the petitioner continue to do 
business. However, the petitioner fails to address the director's specific findings regarding the U.S. 
entity's viability as a business, nor does the petitioner provide additional evidence showing current or 
recent business activity. Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that it is currently doing 
business pursuant to the regulatory definition. Based on this conclusion, the AAO finds that the 
instant petition does not warrant approval. 
WAC 08 172 51431 
Page 4 
Furthermore, the record does not support a finding of eligibility based on additional grounds that 
were not previously addressed in the director's decision. 
First, 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(ii) requires evidence establishing that the beneficiary's prospective 
employment would be in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. In the present matter, the 
petitioner provided an undated letter in support of its Form 1-129, claiming that the beneficiary 
functions at the highest level within the petitioner's organizational hierarchy and is charged with 
establishing the company's goals and objectives, as well as the means by which the petitioner would 
meet those goals and objectives. In fact, the supporting job description described the beneficiary's 
role as one requiring constant interaction and collaboration with subordinate employees. However, 
the AAO does not only focus on the job description offered in support of the petition when assessing 
the beneficiary's employment capacity. While the job description is admittedly a key indicator of 
whether or not the beneficiary's duties meet the definition of managerial or executive capacity, the 
AAO cannot analyze a job description without also considering the petitioner's staffing, i.e., the 
manpower a petitioner has available to relieve the beneficiary from having to primarily perform non- 
qualifying operational tasks. In reviewing the relevance of the number of employees a petitioner 
has, federal courts have generally agreed that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
"may properly consider an organization's small size as one factor in assessing whether its operations 
are substantial enough to support a manager." Family, Inc. v. US. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services, 469 F.3d 13 13, 13 16 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing with approval Republic of Transkei v. INS, 923 
F.2d 175, 178 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Fedin Bros. Co. v. Sava, 905 F.2d 41, 42 (2d Cir. 1990) (per 
curiam); Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25, 29 (D.D.C. 2003). Furthermore, it is 
appropriate for USCIS to consider the size of the petitioning company in conjunction with other 
relevant factors, such as a company's small personnel size, the absence of employees who would 
perform the non-managerial or non-executive operations of the company, or a "shell company" that 
does not conduct business in a regular and continuous manner. See, e.g. Systronics Corp. v. INS, 
153 F. Supp. 2d 7,15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
In the present matter, the petitioner has failed to provide any documentation to establish whom it 
employed at the time the petition was filed. Therefore, even though the petitioner provided an 
organizational chart in an attempt to disclose information regarding its corporate hierarchy, the 
record lacks documentary evidence to corroborate this information. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). As previously noted, the 
petitioner failed to comply with the director's request for recent quarterly wage reports, which would 
identify the petitioner's employees at the time of filing and allow the AAO to compare this 
information with the information provided in the petitioner's organizational chart. Failure to submit 
requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(14). Moreover, an employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to 
produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be "primarily" employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity. See sections 1 Ol(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one 
"primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); see also Matter of Church 
WAC 08 172 51431 
Page 5 
Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). As the petitioner has failed to 
submit relevant requested evidence to establish that it was capable of relieving the beneficiary fkom 
having to primarily focus on daily operational tasks at the time of filing, the AAO cannot conclude 
that the petitioner met the requirement specified in 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
Second, 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(1)(3)(iii) requires evidence establishing that the beneficiary's employment 
abroad during the relevant time period was in a managerial or executive capacity. Accordingly, 
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. tj 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Case law has established 
that the actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). In the undated 
support letter, the petitioner generally stated that the beneficiary was employed abroad "primarily as 
[a] manager in [an] executive capacity in both companies." In support of this claim, the petitioner 
provided a list of the following nine job responsibilities and their respective allotments of time: 1) 
marketing department strategies on new promotions; 2) supervising the export operations; 3) 
negotiating and signing corporate contracts; 4) making contracts with national and international 
suppliers; 5) coordinating the hiring of new services; 6) generating expansion plans; 7) creating and 
planning productivity strategies; 8) meeting with department managers; and 9) performing other 
functions. The petitioner provided no description of specific daily job duties, nor is there any 
indication that the petitioner was able to make a distinction between managerial capacity, as defined 
in section 10 1 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, and executive capacity, as defined in section 10 1 (a)(44)(B) of 
the Act. Rather, the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's foreign employment included 
generalities and broadly cast business objectives that preclude the AAO from understanding what 
exactly the beneficiary did on a daily basis and the means by which he actually achieved the broadly 
cast objectives. 
Furthermore, although the petitioner referred to its previously filed petition seeking to continue 
employment of the beneficiary in its new office, the AAO notes that each nonimmigrant and 
immigrant petition is a separate record of proceeding with a separate burden of proof; each petition 
must stand on its own individual merits. USCIS is not required to assume the burden of searching 
through previously provided evidence submitted in support of other petitions to determine the 
approvability of the petition at hand in the present matter. Prior nonimmigrant approvals do not 
preclude USCIS from denying an extension petition. See e.g. Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 
Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004). In the present matter, the petitioner failed to 
submit sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity. As such, the AAO cannot conclude that the beneficiary's 
employment abroad was in a qualifying capacity. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. 
Cal. 2001), afd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 
1989) (noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
WAC 08 172 51431 
Page 6 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a 
plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only if it is shown that the AAO abused its discretion with 
respect to all of the AAO1s enumerated grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc., 229 F. Supp. 2d at 
1043. 
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. $ 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.