dismissed L-1A Case: Business

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
;dentif* data &let& to 
wveut dearly unwarramorj 
'n* etac-1  rim$% 
PUBLIC COPY 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: SRC-03-168-52'721 
 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 1 6 2006 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 101 (a)(15)(L) 
IN 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. 
a/----.-? 
R 
 ert P. Wiemann, Ch' f 
6 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC-03-168-52721 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director, Texas 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 nonirnmigrant petition seeking to extend the employment of its general manager as an 
L- 1 A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 1 0 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws 
usiness. The petitioner claims that it is the 
, a Limited Partnership in Colombia. The 
a two-year extension, in the United States 
and the petitioner now seeks to extend the beneficiary's stay. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish a qualifying relationship or 
that the foreign organization was doing business in Colombia. 
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 Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (CIS) erred in its denial, but did not specifically state that the denial was in error as 
a matter of law. In support of this assertion, the petitioner submits an appeal brief and some additional 
evidence for the petitioner. 
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. § 214.2(1)(14) states that an petitioner seeking to extend the employment of an 
intracompany transferee is not required to submit supporting documentation unless requested by the director. 
In this case the director issued a request for evidence (RFE). In the RFE the director requested evidence 
concerning the qualifying relationship and employment in a managerial or executive capacity. 
An intracompany transferee must have been employed by a qualifying organization. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1). A 
qualifying relationship must exist for the duration of an aliens stay under this classification. 8 C.F.R. 
9 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(G). A qualifying organization means a United States or foreign firm, corporation or other 
legal entity that: 
(1) 
 Meets exactly one of the qualifying relationships specified in the definitions of a 
parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary specified in (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 at least one other country directly or through a 
SRC-03-168-52721 
Page 3 
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 10 1 (a)(15)(L). 
The term "doing business" is defined in the regulations 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." 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii). 
The first issue in this matter is the existence of a qualifying relationship. The petitioner initially asserted that 
it was a division of the foreign organization. The director requested further evidence that the foreign 
organization was doing business. Specifically the director requested current financial records, annual reports, 
profit and loss statements, other accountant reports, banking records, employee rosters, evidence of business 
conducted, such as invoices, bills of sale and product brochures. Much of this was submitted for the 
petitioner, however, the only evidence submitted as proof that the foreign organization was doing business 
was a certificate of existence from a chamber of commerce in Colombia. 
On January 26, 2004, the director denied the petition. The director determined that the petitioner did not 
establish a qualifying relationship, reasoning that the foreign organization was not doing business and that 
petitioner had not established ownership or control of the petitioner. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director's conclusions are erroneous. 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are not persuasive and the decision of the director will be upheld. In the 
brief, counsel restates portions of the Act and various sections of Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
repeatedly claiming that the petitioner is eligible for the benefit sought. However, the director did a thorough 
analysis and specifically discussed inconsistencies among a number of the submitted documents. Counsel's 
general objections to the denial of the petition, without specifically identifying any errors on the part of the 
director, are simply insufficient to overcome the well-founded and logical conclusions the director reached 
based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner. The 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 (BJA 1980). 
 Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). 
In this case there is no probative evidence that the foreign organization is doing business. 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 (Cornrn. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Despite the director's specific request for such evidence, 
the only documentation submitted was a certificate of existence. This evidence, standing alone, is not 
sufficiently probative to demonstrate a systematic and continuous provision of goods and services. Further, 
the non-existence or other unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(2)(i). The AAO must conclude that the foreign organization is not doing business. 
SRC-03-168-52721 
Page 4 
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. 
In the RFE the director asked petitioner to provide documentary support of ownership and control. The 
regulations specifically allow the director to request additional evidence in appropriate cases. See 8 C.F.R. 4 
214.2(1)(3)(viii). As control is a critical element of this visa classification, the director may reasonably 
inquire beyond the issuance of paper stock certificates into the means by which stock ownership was 
acquired. In this case, the petitioner has asserted that each of the two entities are owned by the same four 
persons and submitted a certificate of registration from Colombia. Counsel then states in the appeal brief that 
"by definition, as the Connecticut branch of that foreign entity, the Petitioner was identically owned and 
controlled." This evidence is not sufficiently probative to demonstrate ownership and control. Further, 
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 (BLA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 
17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). In this case the majority owners are limited partners. A limited partner 
does not exercise control, and merely has an ownership interest. In the context of this petition the petitioner 
has not submitted sufficiently probative evidence to demonstrate actual ownership or control. 
Petitioner has submitted no other probative evidence of a qualifying relationship with a foreign affiliate. 
Without evidence supporting counsel's assertion that the president of the foreign parent owns the foreign 
affiliate, and no credible evidence that the foreign parent is still doing business as defined by statute, the AAO 
does not have enough information to make a determination that a qualifying relationship exists. Without 
documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of 
proof as the 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). Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg. Comm. 1972). Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be 
grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 4 103.2(b)(14). Thus, the petitioner has failed to prove a qualifying 
relationship exists on two grounds, ownership and doing business. For these reasons the petition will be 
denied. 
The petitioner noted that CIS approved other petitions that had been previously filed on behalf of petitioner. 
The director's decision does not indicate whether he reviewed the prior approvals of the other nonimmigrant 
petitions. If the previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same unsupported and 
contradictory assertions that are contained in the current record, the approval would constitute material and 
SRC-03-168-52721 
Page 5 
gross error on the part of the director. The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where 
eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, 
e.g. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to 
suggest that CIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. 
Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court 
of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonirnrnigrant petitions on 
behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service 
center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), afd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 
2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
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), affd. 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). 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. See 
Matter of Brantigan, 1 1 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). In the instant matter petitioner has not met the burden of 
proving that the beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity, nor has petitioner proven 
that a qualifying relationship with a qualifying organization exists. Subsequently, the appeal will be 
dismissed and the petition is hereby denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.