dismissed L-1A Case: Car Rental

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
t 1 
3 i i. 
C 
@:: 
8 -*,' '*- 
<. ?* 
i 
File: SRC-03-250-54347 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: FEB 1 8 2005 
Petition: Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 lOl(a)(lS)(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. 
%bert P. kiernann, Director 
' Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC-03-250-54347 
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 nonimmigrant petition seeking to extend the employment of its General Manager as 
an L-1A nonirnmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section IOl(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of 
Florida that o siness under a franchise agreement. The petitioner claims that it is the 
subsidiary of in Valenton, France. The beneficiary was initially granted a one-year 
period of sta ce 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 that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
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 evidence of 
record shows that the petitioner and the foreign entity possess a qualifying relationship. In support of this 
assertion, 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. 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 wilI 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. 
(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 himher to perform the intended 
SRC-03-250-54347 
Page 3 
services 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)(14)(ii) also provides that a visa petition, which involved the opening of a 
new office, may be extended by filing a new Form 1-129, accompanied by the following: 
(A) Evidence that the United States and foreign entities are still qualifying organizations 
as defined in paragraph (I)(l)(ii)(G) of this section; 
(B) Evidence that the United States entity has been doing business as defined in 
paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(H) of this section for the previous year; 
(C) A statement of the duties performed by the beneficiary for the previous year and the 
duties the beneficiary will perform under the extended petition; 
(D) A statement describing the staffing of the new operation, including the number of 
employees and types of positions held accompanied by evidence of wages paid to 
employees when the beneficiary will be employed in a management or executive 
capacity; and 
(E) Evidence of the financial status of the United States operation. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii) provides: 
(G) Qualifying 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 fm, corporation, or other legal entity which has subsidiaries. 
SRC-03-250-54347 
Page 4 
(J) Branch means an operating division or office of the same organization housed in a different 
location. 
(K) Subsidiary means a fum, 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) Afiliate means 
(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, or 
(3) In the case of a partnership that is organized in the United States to provide accounting 
services along with managerial and/or consulting services and that markets its 
accounting services under an internationally recognized name under an agreement with 
a worldwide coordinating organization that is owned and controlled by the member 
accounting firms, a partnership (or similar organization) that is organized outside the 
United States to provide accounting services shall be considered to be an affiliate of the 
United States partnership if it markets its accounting services under the same 
internationally recognized name under the agreement with the worldwide coordinating 
organization of which the United States partnership is also a member. 
In the initial petition filed on September 16, 2003, the petitioner indicated that it is the subsidiary of the 
beneficiary's foreign employer, as the foreign entity owns 100 percent of the petitioner's stock. In an attached 
support letter, the petitioner explained that it purchased a car rental franchise, which constitutes its sole 
business activity. 
On September 25, 2003, the director requested additional evidence. Specifically, the director requested 
information regarding the ownership and control of the petitioner and the foreign entity, including: (1) an 
indication of whether the petitioner is directly tied to the foreign entity, and whether the foreign entity 
exercises control over how the petitioner's business is conducted; (2) an indication of who is in control of the 
petitioner's car rental franchise; and (3) an explanation of the corporate relationship between the petitioner 
and the foreign entity. 
In a response dated September 26, 2003, in part the petitioner submitted: (1) two statements describing its 
operations, the foreign entity's business, and the corporate relationship between the two; and (2) previously 
SRC-03-250-54347 
Page 5 
submitted documents, including a purchase agreement that sets terms between the petitioner and its 
franchisor. In the first statement, the petitioner provided the following: 
[The petitioner] is tied directly to the parent business . . . . [Tlhe parent company owns 100% 
of the [petitioner's] stocks and controls and determine[s] the business conducted for [the 
petitioner] . . . . The [petitioner] and [the beneficiary] as General Manager are in control of 
the car rental franchise . . . . 
In the second statement, the petitioner stated: 
[The petitioner] was organized in 2002 under the laws of the State of Florida. [The 
petitioner] is a company dedicated to the investment business. [The petitioner] has recently 
established the purchase of e franchise new operation business under the name of- 
Both our foreign and U.S. companies continued to be "qualifying 
organizations" for intracompany transfers and will remain open and doing business during the 
full period of stay of [the beneficiary] in the United States. 
Further, the second statement provided information regarding the national objectives and activities of the U- 
Save car rental franchisor. 
On October 17, 2003, the director denied the petition. The director determined that the petitioner did not 
establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. Specifically, the 
director found that the petitioner does not exercise control over its operations in the United States, as the 
national franchisor exerts actual control through a restrictive agreement and its placement of a trainer on the 
premises for six months. The director asserted that the petitioner is merely acting as an agent of the 
franchisor. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the evidence of record shows that the petitioner and the 
foreign entity possess a qualifying relationship. In support of this assertion, counsel submits: (1) a brief; (2) 
a letter from the national franchisor discussing the control of the petitioner; and (3) a document titled 
"Addendum of Training, Consulting and Management Agreement," dated November 3,2003, that amends the 
franchise agreement between the petitioner and the national franchisor. In the brief, counsel states: 
The French company has purchased a " franchise as the investment for growth 
into the United States market. The franchise, meets the control test because 
each Franchisee is free to run the day to day business as he sees fit. The franchisees are not 
agents of They are separate individuals or business entities and they 
maintain full ownership and control of their respective businesses. They are members of- 
of America and they pay a royalty to use the name and good will to rent 
cars. Pricing, local advertisement, inventory level, sell of inventory are all controlled by [the 
petitioner]. 
. SRC-03-250-54347 
Page 6 
Upon review, a portion of the director's analysis will be withdrawn, yet the decision will be affirmed. 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 
(Cornm. 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, CIS is unable to determine the elements of ownership and control. 
In the instant matter, the evidence of record shows that the petitioner purchased a U-Save Auto Rental 
franchise on September 9, 2003. The purchase agreement provides that the national franchisor will provide 
marketing efforts, on-sight training, and good will for the benefit of the petitioner's auto rental business. 
However, the petitioner retains ultimate decision-making authority and control over its operations.' As stated 
above, the director found that the national franchisor holds actual control of the petitioner due to the franchise 
agreement, and that the petitioner is merely acting as an agent of the franchisor. The director's analysis on 
this issue will be withdrawn. 
However, the submitted franchise agreement is problematic since it faiIs to demonstrate that the petitioner has 
been doing business for the previous year. See 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B). As stated above, the petitioner 
submitted evidence that it purchased a car rental franchise on September 9, 2003. Additionally, the petitioner 
provided copies of its bank statements from January to September 2003. The petitioner provided no further 
documentation to show its business activity during the one-year period prior to filing the petition. The 
petitioner's bank statements do not identify the sources of deposits, such that the AAO can determine whether 
' As evidence that the petitioner retains control of its operations, the petitioner submitted a document titled 
"Addendum of Training, Consulting and Management Agreement," dated November 3,2003, that amends the 
franchise agreement between the petitioner and the national franchisor. However, the petitioner must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonirnmigrant visa petition. A visa petition may not be approved 
at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of 
Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Cornrn. 1978). Thus, as this addendum was signed after 
September 16, 2003, the date of filing the petition, it is not probative of the petitioner's eligibility as of the 
filing date and it carries no weight in this proceeding. 
. SRC-03-250-54347 
Page 7 
the funds were derived from business activity. As the petitioner purchased the car rental franchise seven days 
before filing the present petition, any business conducted through the franchise does not serve as evidence of 
business conducted thouahout the one-year period prior to filing. The petitioner submitted a copy of the - 
2002 IRS Form 1120, U.S. Co orate 1n;ome'~ax ~eturn, for a company title'. that 
previously owned the franchise. Yet, as the Form 1120 covers business activity by the 
U-Save franchise at a time when the petitioner did not own or operate it, it does not serve as evidence of the 
petitioner's business activity during that period. Thus, the evidence of record is not sufficient to show that the 
petitioner engaged in the reguIar, systematic, and continuous provision of goods andlor services throughout the 
prior year. See 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(H). For this additional reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
Also beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be 
employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 
214.2(1)(3)(ii). 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. $ 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 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 matter, the beneficiary's job 
description submitted by the petitioner was vague, paraphrased portions of the statutory definitions of 
"executive capacity" and "managerial capacity," and thus provided little insight into the true nature of the 
tasks the beneficiary will perform in the United States. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. 
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), afSd, 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 will perform, such that 
they can be classified as managerial or executive in nature. Further, while the petitioner states that the 
beneficiary will supervise three individuals including a sales manager, and fleet person, and a service agent, 
the petitioner has not established that these subordinate employees are supervisory, professional, or 
managerial. See 8 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. Thus, the petitioner has failed to show that the beneficiary 
will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. For this additional reason, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
The AAO further notes that, as evidence of the ownership of the petitioner, the petitioner submitted its articles 
of incorporation and a stock certificate. The articles of incorporation reflect that the petitioner is authorized to 
issue 1000 shares of stock. The stock certificate shows that, on September 5, 2002, the foreign entity 
acquired 1000 shares of the petitioner's stock. Thus, this minimal evidence suggests that on September 5, 
2002 the petitioner was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the foreign entity. The director could have reasonably 
inquired beyond the issued stock certificates, but elected not to do so. 
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). 
SRC-03-250-54347 
Page 8 
The AAO further notes that the petitioner submitted numerous foreign language documents purportedly 
pertaining to the foreign entity, yet without full translations. Because the petitioner failed to submit complete 
certified translations of the documents, the AAO cannot determine whether the evidence supports the 
petitioner's claims. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and is not 
accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
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. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.