dismissed L-1A Case: Charcoal Import

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave , N W , Rm. A3042 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
= Fde: 
SRC 04 176 5 1345 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: NOV 2 t) 
Petition: Petition for a Nonirnrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Imm~gration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L) , 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administratwe 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, irector 
KJ 
dministrative Appeals Office 
SRC 04 176 51345 
Page 3 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. l'he matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will summarily dismiks the . 
appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1A nonimmigrant 
inkacompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
'U.S.C. $ 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of Texas that claims to be 
engaged in the import and sale of charcoal. The petitioner claims that it is a branch office of m 
located in Asuncion, Paraguay.' The petitioner seeks to open a new office in the United States and has 
requested that the beneficiary be granted a one-year period of stay to serve as its executive director. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish: (1) that the United States 
company has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office; or (2) that a financial Investment 
was established .for the new office. 
The petltloner 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, the petltloner indicates that it has rented a new 
warehouse space wlth an attached office "m order to fulfill the requirements for the visa." In support of the 
appeal, counsel submlts a copy of the new lease agreement and photographs of the premises. The petitioner 
does not object to the denial of the petition, nor does its representative spec~fy any erroneous conclusions of 
law or statements of fact on the part of the director. In addition, the petihoner does not address the director's 
finding that there was no evldence of a financial investment for establishment of a new office m the United 
States 
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 howledge 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. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. While the 
AAO acknowledges receipt of an adequate lease 'agreement on appeal, the petitioner must establish eligibility 
at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. A visa petition may not be.approved at a future date after 
the petitidner or beheficiary becomes eligible under a new,set of facts: Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N 
Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978). At the time of filing the petition on June 10,2004, the petitioner submitted a 
residential lease agreement for an apartment rbnted to the beneficiary. On June 28, 2004, the director 
. 'requested a copy of the business lease for the petitioner and an explanation as to where the company intended 
to store and sell charcoal. In response, the petitioner indicated that it would'rent a warehouse with an adjacent 
office in the future and confirmed that it would be operating out of the, apartment rented to the beneficiary. 
The petitioner also indicated that it rented "part of a warehouse" that would be used until a larger space was 
required. The petitioner submitted copies of two invoices for rent, purportedly issued to the petitioner by the 
owner of the warehouse, but failed to provide a lease agreement describing the type or amount of space. 
Going. on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
SRC04 17651345 
Page 3 
burden of proof m these proceedmgs. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (clting Matter 
of Treasure Crafi of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Based upon thls documentation, the AAO concurs wlth the director's finding that the petitioner dld not submlt 
sufficient evldence that it had acqu~red sufficrent physlcal premlses to operate the new office as requlred by 8 
C.F.R. @ 214.2(l)(v)(A). 
As noted above, the petitioner does not address the director's determination that there is insufficient evidence 
of a financial' investment in the United States company, as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1:)(v)(C)(2). 
Accordingly, the director's decision will be affirmed. The AAO notes that the petitioner submitted evidence 
that it hada ;heclung account with a balanceof $1,027.00, and did not appear to be adequately funded to 
commence operations in the United States. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. @ 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, in pertinent part: 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party 
, concerned fails to identi@ specifically any erroneous conclusron of law or statement of 
fact for the appeal. 
hasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of 
fact in this proceeding, the appeal will be summarily d~smissed. 
, Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner's description of the stock distribution of the companies does 
'not nieet the definitions constituting a qualifying relationship between the United States 
entitv ~ursuant to 8 C.F.R. S 214.2flMlMiiMGh. The record indicates that two individuals ., . \I\ I\ I\ I 
and own the forelgn ent~ty m equal shares. The ownershl of the Unlted States ent~ty 1s 
div~ded among three ind~viduals as follows: 25 shares; D 225 shares; and 
50 shares. Therefore, the pet~tloner has not established that the two companies are owned 
the same lndrvrdual or by the same group of rndlvlduals, wrth each lndlvldual ownlng and 
controlling approximately'the same share or proportion of each entity. 8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(l)(ii)(L). Based on the 
evidence submitted, the petitioner has not established that a qualifying relationship exists between the U.S. 
and foreign organizations. For this additional reason, the petition may not be approved. 
, . 
,An application or 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 A40 reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
The 'petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.