dismissed L-1A Case: Business Services

iden- data deleted to 
prevent elwrly unwarranted 
invasion of persod privm 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 03 103 50342 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 1 3 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Ofice 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. 
g , Robert P. Wiemann, Dir ctor 
\J' 
dministrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 1 03 50342 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
According to the documentary evidence contained in the record, the petitioner was established December 16, - 
2002, and claims to be a ces organization. The petitioner 
claims to be a subsidiary o Philippines. The petitioner seeks 
to employ the beneficiary t er of its new office for a period of 
three years, at a weekly salary of $460.00. The director determined that the petitioner had failed to submit 
sufficient evidence to establish that a qualifying relationship exists between the U.S. entity and a foreign 
entity. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that sufficient evidence has been submitted to establish the existence of a 
qualifying relationship between the U.S. and foreign entities. 
To establish L- 1 eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. $ 1101(a)(15)(L), the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary, within three years preceding 
the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving specialized knowledge, for one continuous year 
by a qualifying organization, and seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render 
his or her services to the same employer, or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof, in a capacity that is managerial, 
executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(1Xl)(ii) states, in part: 
Intracornpany trans+ree means an alien who, within three years preceding the time of his or her 
application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad continuously for one 
year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary 
thereof, and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to render his or her 
services to a branch of the same employer or a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary thereof in a capacity 
that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(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 (I)(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 with the three years preceding the filing of the 
petition. 
WAC 03 103 50342 
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 
serves in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(~) states that 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 office 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 (I)(l)(ii)(B) or 
(C) of this section, supported by information regarding: 
(1) 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 issue in this proceeding is whether a qualifying relationship exists between the U.S. and foreign entities. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(G) state: 
Qualifying organization means a United States or foreign firm, corporation, or other legal 
entity which: 
(1) Meets exactly one of the qualifying relationships specified in the 
definitions of a parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary specified in 
paragraph (I)(I)(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 
WAC 03 103 50342 
Page 4 
(3) Otherwise meets the requirements of section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Act. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. $5 2 14.2(1)(1 Xii) define, in pertinent part, "parent," "branch," "subsidiary," and 
"affiliate" as: 
(I) Parent means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity which has subsidiaries. 
(J) Branch means an operation division or office of the same organization housed in a 
different location. 
(K) Subsidiary 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. 
(L) AfJiliatemeans 
(1) One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same parent 
or individual, or 
(2) One of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of individuals, 
each individual owning and controlling approximately the same share or proportion 
of each entity. 
In the instant matter, the petitioner claims to be a subsidiary of the foreign entity. The petitioner submitted a 
letter of support in which the relationship between the U.S. and foreign entities was described as: 
[The foreign entity] and [the U.S. entity] is [sic] 100% owned by the undersigned. The 
branch in the U.S. is wholly owned by the undersigned per attached fictitious business name 
statement and the Federal Employer Identification Number is under process. Both the U.S. 
and Philippine entity [sic] are DBA's of the undersigned. 
The petitioner initially submitted as evidence copies of the U.S. entity's Articles of Incorporation, which 
indicated that the number of shares the U.S. entity was authorized to issue was 25,000. The petitioner also 
submitted copies of the U.S. entity's corporate charter and U.S. Bank Certification. The petitioner submitted 
copies of the foreign entity's Certification of Registration of foreign company, and audited financial 
statements for the years 1999 and 2000. 
The director determined that additional evidence would be needed to determine whether a qualifying 
relationship existed between the U.S. and foreign entities. The director requested in part: 
Proof of stock purchase: Submit evidence to show that the foreign parent company has, 
in fact, paid for the U.S. entity. The evidence should include copies of the original wire 
WAC 03 103 50342 
Page 5 
transfers from the parent company . . . canceled checks, deposit receipts, etc., detailing 
monetary amounts for the stock purchase. 
Minutes of the Meeting-Stock Ownership: Submit a copy of the minutes of the meeting 
for the U.S. company that lists the stock shareholders and the number and percentage of 
shares owned. 
Stock Certificates: Submit copies of all of the U.S. company's stock certificates issued 
to the present date clearly indicating the name of each shareholder. 
Stock Ledger: Submit copies of the U.S. company's stock ledger showing stock 
certificates issued to the present date including total shares of stock sold, names of 
shareholders, and purchase price. (Emphasis in original.) 
Detailed List of Owners: Submit a detailed list of the owners of the U.S. company and 
what percentage they own. List names, corporate and specific government affiliation, 
and percentages of ownership. 
Notice of Transaction Pursuant to Corporations: Submit a copy of the U.S. company's 
Notice of Transaction Pursuant to Corporations Code Section 25 102(f) showing the total 
offering amounts. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence on the subject, the petitioner submitted copies of 
the foreign entity's financial statements for the years 1999 and 2000, Domestic Trade License, Sole 
Proprietor's license, bank statements, and canceled checks. The petitioner submitted copies of the U.S. 
entity's By-Laws, a company stock ledger, a certification of list of owners, bank statements, canceled checks, 
IRS Tax Number certification, and current business licenses. The "certified" list of owners read in part: 
dividual andlor entity is the share holder of 
is the share holder of the U.S. entity affiliates and 
branch in the United States. (Emphasis in original.) 
I. (Phil.) . . . Owns 55% FIFTY-FIVE PERCENT of shares of 
stocks 
2. .. Owns 45% FORTY-FIVE PERCENT of shares of 
stocks 
3. .. Owns 25% TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT of shares of stocks 
The petitioner did not explain how or why its certified list of owners accounted for the ownership of 125% of 
the petitioning company. 
The U.S. entity stock ledger indicated that was issued 
reflecting the purchase of 55 shares of stock for $4,700.00 on February 19, 2003 
was issued stock certificate number 101 reflecting the purchase of 45 
February 21, 2003; and was issued stock certificate number 103 reflecting the purchase of 
WAC 03 103 50342 
Page 6 
25 shares of stock for $5,000.00 on January 10, 2003. In response to the director's request for evidence, the 
petitioner stated that the foreign entity was a sole proprietorship. 
Despite the director's specific request, the petitioner did not submit copies of stock certificates to substantiate 
the information contained in the stock ledger. Although the petitioner referenced stock certificates in the 
letter submitted in response to the request for evidence, a thorough review of the record reveals that the 
petitioner did not submit this evidence until the appeal was filed. The petitioner's failure to submit this 
evidence is suficient grounds for the petition's denial. As provided in the applicable regulations, the 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). 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Mufler of Obaigbenu, 19 I&N Dec. 533 
(BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be considered. it should have submitted 
the documents in response to the director's request for evidence. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO need 
not and does not consider the sufficiency of the evidence submitted on appeal. Consequently, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
The record demonstrates that three indi 
entity is a sole proprietorship owned 
company and the overseas company 
lneollalf stock in the U.S. entity, and that the foreign 
.]though counsel claims that the petitioning 
olled companies, this familial relationship 
does not constitute a qualifying relationship under the regulations. There has been no evidence submitted to 
show that one person owned a majority of the U.S. entity, therefore, a qualifying relationship between the U.S. 
and a foreign entity did not exist at the time the petition was filed. Evidence of record fails to demonstrate that 
voting proxies or other agreements had been made a part of the record demonstrating that any one 
shareholder, in favor of a mutual shareholder, had relinquished a degree of control over both entities. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the record is not persuasive in demonstrating that the beneficiary has 
been or will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity as defined in section 101(a)(44) of the Act. 
In this matter, the petitioner described the beneficiary's past duties as general manager as: "[o]verall and 
general management of company; executes & emplements [sic] orate policies & business strategies; organizes 
stafc hires & fires employees. Rather than providing a specific description of the beneficiary's duties, the 
petitioner generally paraphrased the statutory definition of executive capacity. See section 101(a)(44)(A) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(44)(A). However, conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's employment 
capacity are not sufficient to meet the petitioner's burden of proof. Merely repeating the language of the 
statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Suva, 
724 F. Supp. 1 103, 1 108 (E.D.N.Y. I989), afd, 905 F. 2d 4 1 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associures Inc. v. 
Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). The petitioner further stated that the beneficiary's proposed 
duties would primarily consist of: setting goals and objectives, reviewing and approving the company's 
operational and capital budgets, hiring, training, and firing employees, and representing the company in all 
contract negotiations. In this matter, there has been no evidence submitted to quantify the time the 
beneficiary will spend performing his job duties. In addition, there has been no evidence submitted to 
demonstrate that the beneficiary will be supervising a subordinate staff composed of supervisory. 
professional, or managerial employees who could relieve the beneficiary from performing non-qualifying 
duties. Set. section lOl(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence contained in the 
WAC 03 103 50342 
Page 7 
record to demonstrate that the U.S. entity will be able to support a managerial or executive position within 
one year of operation. For these additional reasons, the petition may not be approved. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought rests solely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.