dismissed L-1A Case: Commerce

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw~ted 
invasion of personal pnvac> 
PUBLICCOPv 
File: •••••••• Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Date: FEB 25 2011 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section IOI(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(lS)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
infonnation that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.S. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Fonn 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days ofthe decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California 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 is an III inois corporation that previously filed a petition on behalf of the beneficiary in order to 
open a new office in the United States. The petitioner has now filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to 
continue the employment of its vice president for an additional three years as an L-IA nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section IOI(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.c. § llOl(a)(15)(L). 
The director denied the petition concluding that: 1) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary 
would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; and 2) the petitioner 
provided inconsistent evidence with regard to its ownership and thus failed to establish that it has a qualitying 
relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director erred in his conclusions and submits a brief 
along with additional documentation in an effort to overcome the adverse decision. 
To establish eligibility for the L-l nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualitying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualitying 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)(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 qualitying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(1)(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 qua Ii tying 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 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. 
Page 3 
The first issue in the present matter is whether the petitioner establ ished that the beneficiary would be 
employed by the United States entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § I I 01 (a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of 
the organization; 
(ii) supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees, or manages an essential function within the organization, or a department 
or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the authority to 
hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions (such as 
promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly supervised, 
functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the 
function managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function for 
which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is not considered to be 
acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory 
duties unless the employees supervised are professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § I 101 (a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the 
organization; 
(ii) establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
(iii) exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
In support of the Form 1-129, the petitioner submitted a letter dated June 21, 2010 from the foreign entity's 
general manager, who stated that at the time of filing, the beneficiary was supported by a team of four 
managers and four support employees. _ stated that the beneficiary's support staff includes a 
merchandising manager and a logistics manager, both located in the United States, and a finance manager, 
who is located in China and whose salary is claimed to be "charged back" to the U.S. petitioner. _ 
stated that other members of the support staff include an office manager who also performs the duties of an 
operations coordinator, a full-time operations coordinator, a sales manager, and a sales associate. The sales 
Page 4 
manager and sales associate are both located in China and are claimed to have their salaries "charged back" to 
the petitioning entity. The petitioner also provided the beneficiary's proposed job description and percentage 
breakdown, which has been included in the director's decision and therefore need not be repeated in this 
decision. 
The initial supporting evidence also includes the petitioner's organizational chart, which shows the president 
of the company at the top of the hierarchy followed by the beneficiary in the position of vice president. The 
chart shows that the beneficiary oversees four managerial positions including a merchandising, logistics, 
finance, and office managers. The remainder of the chart depicts a sales manager and a sales associate 
overseen by the merchandising manager and two operations coordinators overseen by the logistics manager. 
The chart indicates that the company's president, finance manager, sales manager, and sales associate are all 
working from China. 
On July 9, 2010, the director issued a request for evidence (RFE) instructing the petitioner to submit a more 
detailed description of the beneficiary's proposed day-to-day duties and the percentage of time the beneficiary 
would allocate to each task on the list. 
In response, the petitioner provided a letter dated August 16, 2010 from counsel who stated that the 
beneficiary manages all of the petitioning entity's operational functions, which include purchasing, logistics, 
and sales, and the administrative functions, which include personnel, administration, and finances. Counsel 
stated that the beneficiary directs and controls the work of the logistics manager, the merchandising manager, 
and finance manager. Counsel discussed the beneficiary's contributions in terms of furthering the company's 
business objectives. Additionally, the petitioner resubmitted the percentage breakdown and list of 
responsibilities that were provided initially in support of the petition. The petitioner did not, however, 
provide any more detailed information about the beneficiary'S specific job duties. 
The petitioner also provided the foreign entity's internal audit showing the foreign entity's salary expenses for 
employees of the U.S. entity and the petitioner's second quarterly income statement for April 1,2010 through 
June 30, 20 I 0, which showed payroll expenses for the three-month time period totaling $40,670.2 I. 
In a decision dated September I, 2010 the director denied the petition, finding that a number of the items 
listed in the beneficiary'S job description were not indicative of a manager or executive. The director also 
focused on the petitioner's organizational hierarchy, noting that four of the employees listed in the 
organizational chart were not included in the petitioner's payroll records for the 2010 second quarter, thus 
giving cause to question the reliability of the petitioner's organizational chart and its overall ability to relieve 
the beneficiary from having to primarily perform non-qualifying tasks given its staffing at the time of filing. 
The director further noted that any employees who work at the foreign entity cannot be deemed employees of 
the U.S. entity. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director's findings are erroneous and that the director's refusal to 
acknowledge the foreign-based employees as employees of the petitioner is unlawful in light of the 
chargeback audits that were submitted in support of the petitioner's RFE response. Counsel further asserts 
that even if the beneficiary were to perform certain non-qualifying job duties including those specifically 
determined by the director to be non-managerial, such job duties would not consume the primary portion of 
Page 5 
the beneficiary's time and thus would not preclude approval of the instant petition. 
Upon review of the instant record, however, the AAO finds that the documentation presented does not support 
a withdrawal of the director's decision. 
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 AAO will then consider this 
information in light of the petitioner's organizational hierarchy, the beneficiary's position therein, and the 
petitioner's overall ability to relieve the beneficiary from having to primarily perform the daily operational 
tasks. Here, with regard to the first factor-the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's proposed 
employment-the AAO finds that the job description consists primarily of generalized statements rather than 
specific tasks and as such fails to establish the amount of time the beneficiary would allocate to individual job 
duties. For instance, the petitioner previously indicated that 32.5% of the beneficiary'S time would be 
allocated to managing "all functions, personnel and activities" that involve buying and selling agricultural 
commodities. The petitioner stated that this responsibility would include meeting with the merchandising 
manager multiple times on a daily basis to oversee the pricing and negotiation of the purchasing and sales 
activities. However, other than stating that the beneficiary would meet with the individual that would be in 
charge of the purchasing and sales activities, the petitioner did not clarifY the beneficiary's actual role in the 
merchandising activities. In other words, what does the beneficiary do beyond meeting with the person who 
handles the purchase and sale of agricultural commodities? Additionally, although the petitioner indicated 
that the beneficiary would oversee the activities of the sales manager who is based in China, there is 
insufficient information to clarifY how the beneficiary oversees the work of an employee who is based 
thousands of miles away from the U.S. entity and, more importantly, why the beneficiary directly oversees the 
work of an employee who depicted as the merchandising manager's subordinate. The petitioner did not 
indicate precisely how much time the beneficiary would spend overseeing the sales manager in China, and it 
is unclear what portion of the beneficiary's time would be spent managing the merchandising manager who is 
claimed to be employed in the U.S. office. 
Additionally, the AAO finds that the documentation regarding the petitioner's organizational structure is 
inconclusive and does not support the hierarchy that was depicted in the submitted organizational chart. 
While the AAO acknowledges the petitioner's submission of the foreign entity's internal audit, which shows 
salaries for the petitioner'S foreign-based employees, the record does not establish that the petitioner actually 
paid those salaries as claimed. In making this determination, the AAO converted into U.S. currency the 
salaries indicated for each employee in 2009, including the amount the petitioner was supposed to cover in 
employee salaries, bonuses, and traveling expenses. In total, after considering the note on the final page of 
the audit, which stated that the petitioner would cover 80% of the expenses o~, the sales associate, 
and 100% of the salaries and expenses for the sales and finance managers, it appears that the petitioner was 
supposed to pay approximately $43,800 for the services rendered by its foreign-based employees. This sum is 
in addition to the $74,000, which is the total amount of the IRS Form W-2s that the petitioner issued to three 
employees in 2009. In total, the petitioner's 2009 payroll expenses as claimed in the W-2s and the foreign 
entity's internal audit statements totaled approximately $117,800. However, when reviewing the petitioner's 
2009 tax returns, both the original and the amended Form 1120X, the petitioner showed that it paid only 
$60,182. Thus, even if the AAO were to consider only the W-2 statements that were issued in 2009, the 
figure indicated in the petitioner's tax returns is not consistent with the total of the three W-2 statements. It is 
Page 6 
incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. 
Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits 
competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). Furthermore, doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the 
reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Id. at 591. 
Therefore, while the AAO acknowledges that the inconsistencies pointed out concern documentation 
regarding salaries and wages paid in 2009 rather than 20 I 0 when the petition was filed, the very existence of 
the anomalies undermines the credibility of the petitioner's claim, thus causing the AAO to question whom 
the petitioner actually employed at the time of filing and whether the petitioner's staffing composition at that 
time was adequate to relieve the beneficiary from having to primarily perform non-qualifYing job duties. 
In light of the discrepancies between the foreign entity's internal salary audits and the petitioner's 2009 tax 
return and Form W-2s, the AAO finds that the evidentiary value of the internal audits is limited at best. Thus, 
the AAO will focus its attention on the petitioner's 20 to second quarterly wage report, which indicates that 
the petitioner paid wages to five employees at the time the Form 1-129 was filed. Based on the information 
provided in the petitioner's organizational chart, it appears that the petitioner paid wages to the beneficiary, 
the merchandising manager, the logistics manager, one operations manager, and one operations 
coordinator/office manager. Although the chart also identifies a president, a sales manager, a sales associate, 
and a finance manager, none of the individuals named in those positions were identified in the petitioner's 
20 to second quarterly wage report, nor has any credible documentation been provided to establish that the 
petitioner paid salaries or wages to any of these individuals. See id. This lack of adequate documentation 
gives rise to doubt as to the beneficiary's personnel management duties, as only one of his direct subordinates, 
i.e., the logistics manager, can actually be deemed a managerial employee. Without adequate proof that the 
merchandising manager actually has subordinate employees, the AAO cannot rely on position title to 
determine that the merchandising manager is a managerial or supervisory employee. Additionally, without 
adequate supporting documentation, the AAO also cannot conclude that either the office manager or the 
merchandising manager is a professional employee. 
Accordingly, not only does the record lack evidence to establish that the beneficiary would oversee the work 
of managerial, supervisory, or professional employees, but the AAO must also question whether the five 
employees the petitioner had in place at the time of filing were sufficient to enable the beneficiary to allocate 
the primary portion of his time to performing tasks within a qualifYing managerial or executive capacity. 
While the AAO acknowledges that no beneficiary is required to allocate 100% of his time to managerial- or 
executive-level tasks, the petitioner must establish that the non-qualifying tasks the beneficiary would 
perform are only incidental to his/her proposed position. 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 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one 
"primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); see also Matter of Church Scientology 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). The AAO further notes that, while a detailed job 
description is admittedly one of the key factors that help to determine whether a proffered position is within a 
managerial or executive capacity, merely providing a job description that describes a set of primarily 
qualifYing tasks is meaningless if the organization that seeks to hire the beneficiary does not have the human 
resources to relieve the beneficiary from having to primarily perform non-qualifYing operational job duties. 
Page 7 
In the present matter, the petitioner has neither provided a detailed job description specifically listing the 
beneficiary's day-to-day tasks, nor has the petitioner provided sufficient evidence to establish that the staffing 
structure that was in place at the time of filing the petition was adequate to support the beneficiary in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity. Therefore, in light of these considerable deficiencies, the AAO 
cannot approve the instant petition. 
The other issue in this proceeding is whether the pelItIOner has submitted sufficient and credible 
documentation to establish that it has a qualifYing relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. To 
establish a "qualifYing relationship" under the Act and the regulations, the petitioner must show that the 
beneficiary's foreign employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (i.e. a U.S. entity with 
a foreign branch office) or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See generally 
§ IOJ(a)(l5)(L) of the Act, 8 U.s.c. § J IO I (a)(I 5)(L). 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(I)(ii)(G) state: 
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 (1)(1 )(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 IO I (a)(J5)(L) of the Act. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(I)(ii)(I) state: 
Parent means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity which has subsidiaries. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(I)(ii)(J) state: 
Branch means an operation division or office of the same organization housed in a different 
location. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(K) state: 
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. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)( I )(ii)(L) state, in pertinent part: 
Affiliate 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. 
In support of the Form 1-129, _ the individual who is named president of the U.S. petItIOner, 
provided a letter dated June 21, 2010 on the petitioner's behalf claiming that the U.S. entity was fully 
capitalized by the beneficiary's foreign employer, thus indicating that the latter is the parent entity in a parent­
subsidiary relationship. In support of this claim, the petitioner submitted the following documents: 
I. An undated stock certificate (No.1) showing the foreign entity as owner of 10,000 shares of 
the petitioner's stock. 
2. A photocopied information sheet showing that the stock transfer shown in certificate No. 
took place on July 25, 2008. 
3. A photocopy of the ~rporate resolution of 
[the petitioner] by _ dated June 10, 2008 identifying the three individuals 
that were selected to act as the directors of the petitioning entity. 
4. A photocopy ~ty's corporate resolution titled [the 
petitioner] by _" dated June 10, 2008 instructing the petitioner's corporate 
secretary to include the petitioner's "Certificate of Incorporation filed with the Secretary of 
State of the State of Illinois on July 1 I, 2010" into the petitioner's minute book. Another 
resolution that is part of the same document indicated that the petitioner resolved to sell 
1 0,000 shares of its stock to Xiamen C&D, Inc. in exchange for $100,000, which would 
constitute all of the petitioner's issued and outstanding stock. 
5. A foreign document accompanied by an English translation of the foreign entity's application 
for an overseas fund transfers, dated September 26, 2008, indicating that the foreign entity 
intended to transfer $100,000 as investment capital for a foreign enterprise. The petitioner is 
identified as the beneficiary of the fund transfer. 
6. A photocopy of the first page of the petitioner's bank account summary for September 2008 
showing that $99,985 was deposited into the petitioner's account sometime in September. 
The specific date and description of the transfer appear to have been redacted and in place of 
this information the foreign entity's name has been handwritten in a blank space adjacent to 
Page 9 
the specific details of the transaction. 
7. A foreign document accompanied by an English translation of the foreign government's 
approval of the foreign entity's application for an overseas fund transfer. The document is 
dated September 2, 2008, and shows that the fund transfer is scheduled to take place on 
September 26, 2008. 
8. The petitioner's lease dated September 5,2008 showing the lease term as September 19, 2008 
through September I 8, 2009. 
9. The petitioner's 2009 federal income tax return, including Schedule L, which shows at item 
22(b) that the petitioner started the year with $100,000 in capital stock and ended the year' 
with $112,976 in capital stock. 
After reviewing the petitioner's initial submissions, the director determined that additional evidence was 
required to establish that the beneficiary'S foreign and U.S. employers have a qualifYing relationship. The 
director addressed various deficiencies in the July 9, 20 I 0 RFE, pointing out that while the petitioner's prior 
submissions included a copy of the overseas wire transfer, the submitted documents were illegible and thus 
failed to determine the identity of the sender and the amount of funds transferred. Accordingly, the petitioner 
was asked to provide proof of the foreign entity's stock purchase, including bank certified copies of the 
original wire transfers from the parent company, and copies of canceled checks and/or deposit slips showing 
the monetary amounts received in exchange for the sale of stock. The petitioner was also instructed to 
provide copies of the foreign entity's bank statement and the corresponding bank statement for the U.S. entity 
showing the fund transfer. The director also pointed out that the petitioner's account summary, which was 
listed at NO.6 above, was altered and therefore instructed the petitioner to provide the original, unaltered bank 
statement. 
[n response, the petitioner provided the following documents: 
I. The petitioner's certificate of incorporation showing that the petitioner was incorporated on 
July II, 2008. 
2. The petitioner's articles of incorporation filed on July II, 2008 showing that the petitioner 
received a total of $1 00,000 in exchange for 10,000 of issued stock. 
3. Copies of the documents described in Nos. 1-4 of the petitioner's original submissions. 
4. The foreign entity's account summary showing that $100,000 was debited from the foreign 
entity's bank account ending in 6014 on September 26, 2008. 
5. The requested original account summary showing the petitioner's receipt of $99,985 on 
September 26, 2008 via incoming wire transfer. 
Despite the various documents that the petitioner submitted in response to the RFE, the director determined 
Page 10 
that the petltloner failed to establish that it has a qualifYing relationship with the beneficiary's foreign 
employer and therefore concluded that the petitioner was ineligible for the immigration benefit sought herein. 
The director's discussion focused on Schedule L, item 22(b) of the petitioner's 2009 federal tax return, which 
showed that the petitioner received additional funds in excess of $12,000 in exchange for issuance of stock. 
The director determined that the evidence submitted by the petitioner thus far did not account for an 
additional issuance of stock, as no additional stock certificates were submitted. The director further noted that 
this lack of documentation and apparent inconsistency gave rise to questions as to the ownership of the U.S. 
petitioner. 
On appeal, the petitioner addresses the director's conclusion through counsel who states that the additional 
funds shown in Schedule L of the petitioner's 2009 tax return were the result of an accountant's error. 
Counsel explains that the extra funds were supposed to be claimed as additional paid-in capital, which is 
shown at Schedule L, item 23 of the tax return. Counsel further points out that even if, arguendo, the 
petitioner were to have issued additional stock to another party in the amount claimed in the tax return, the 
foreign entity that was originally claimed as the petitioner's sole owner would nevertheless remain as the 
petitioner's parent entity in that it would own the majority of the petitioner's issued stock. 
While counsel's argument is theoretically correct, the AAO must point out that the discrepancy, in and of 
itself, would be a sufficient basis for questioning the credibility of the petitioner's claim. As noted previously 
in the director's decision, whenever the petitioner submits evidence that causes U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) to doubt any aspect of the petitioner's proof, such doubt may result in a 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. 
Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Here, the director was clearly justified in pointing out that the information 
that was provided in Schedule L of the petitioner's 2009 tax return was not consistent with the petitioner's 
original claim, i.e., that the foreign entity was the petitioner's parent entity by virtue of being the sole owner 
of all 10,000 authorized shares of stock. 
On appeal, the petitioner provides a letter dated September 21, 20 10 fro~, the certified account who 
claimed that he/she was responsible for the error made in the petitioner's 2009 tax return. The accountant 
explained the nature of the error and provided the petitioner's amended tax return for that year in an effort to 
correct that error. The AAO notes, however, that the amended tax return that has been submitted on appeal to 
cure a deficiency is itself deficient, as it was neither a certified copy nor was it signed by an officer of the 
petitioning entity, thus causing the AAO to question whether the amended tax return was in fact filed with the 
Internal Revenue Service and whether the information contained therein was accurate and reliable. As noted 
previously, the petitioner must resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. 
Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits 
competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Jd .at 591-92. 
Additionally, in conducting its own independent review of the petitioner's submissions, the AAO finds that 
the record contains additional anomalies that give USC IS further cause to question the petitioner's credibility. 
Specifically, the AAO points out that while the petitioner provided evidence to show that the foreign entity, 
which has been claimed as the parent in its parent-subsidiary relationship with the petitioner, did not transfer 
funds to the petitioner's bank account until over two months after the U.S. petitioner purportedly issued stock 
to the foreign entity. Thus, it is clear that the fund transfer and the issuance of stock were not 
Page II 
contemporaneous and that in fact, the foreign entity claims to have received stock for which it did not pay 
compensation at the time of issuance. The order of these transactions and the fact that the two events-the 
issuance of stock and the payment of consideration-were not contemporaneous makes it impossible to 
confirm that the $100,000 fund transfer by the foreign entity into the petitioner's account was actually 
intended as consideration for the issuance of stock. Moreover, the fact that the petitioner claimed in the 
articles of incorporation that it had already received consideration in the amount of $100,000 further 
undermines the claim that the fund transfer that took place in late September 2008 was intended as 
consideration for stock that was issued in July ofthe same year. 
Next, the AAO points to considerable anomalies in the written consent documents that were described in Nos. 
3 and 4 of the original submissions. First, the AAO notes that the written consent of the sole shareholder 
establishes the foreign entity as the sole shareholder of an entity that did not come into existence until July II, 
2008, which is one month after the date that appears on the consent document. It is factually impossible and 
legally erroneous for the foreign entity to declare itself as the sole shareholder of an entity that did not exist at 
the time ofthe declaration. The document in No.4 of the original submissions is plagued with a similar legal 
and factual impossibility in that it purports to represent the actions of the petitioner's directors effective as of 
June 10, 2008, which, as with the prior consent document, is one month prior to the date that the petitioner's 
corporate existence came into being. 
In summary, the evidence of record is insufficient in light of the anomalies and inconsistencies that were 
pointed out in the above discussion. The AAO cannot focus primarily on the petitioner's claims while 
ignoring the documentation that gives the AAO ample reason to doubt those claims. It is noted that going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof 
in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft 
afCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). In the present matter, the reliability of a number of the 
petitioner's supporting documents is severely undermined as a result of the factual and legal inconsistencies 
created by the contents of these documents. As there is no evidence in the record that effectively explains the 
reason(s) for or resolves these considerable discrepancies, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has failed to 
provide probative and credible evidence to establish that the petitioner is solely owned by the beneficiary's 
foreign employer as claimed. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to establish that it has the qualifying 
relationship that is necessary to meet eligibility requirements and for this additional reason, the instant 
petition cannot be approved. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.