dismissed L-1A Case: Computer Consulting

idenmng data dek(8d to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of ~Ronal pm 
mLIc COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W, Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: SRC-02-198-54437 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG 1 5 2005 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)( 15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Q: 1101(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. 
/J-* 
, Robert P. Wiemann, Dire or 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC-02- 198-54437 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant petition was initially approved by the Director, Texas Service Center. 
Upon further review of the record, the director determined that the petitioner was not eligible for the benefit 
sought. Accordingly, the director properly served the petitioner with a notice of intent to revoke the approval 
of the petition, and his reasons therefore. The petitioner submitted a response to the director, and the director 
subsequently revoked the approval of the petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as its President and CEO as 
an L-1A nonimmigant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigsation and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the state of 
New York that claims that it offers computer consulting services. The petitioner indicates that it is an affiliate 
of VTech, Inc., located in Ahmedabad, India. The director approved the nonimmigrant petition on June 26, 
2002. 
Based on further review of the record and communication with the U.S. Consulate in Mumbai, India, the 
director issued a notice of intent to revoke the approval on December 18, 2003. The director stated the 
following: 
Beneficiary appeared for an interview with only copies of his educational credentials stating 
they were lost in an earthquake, however the originals were contained in a packet he had filed 
to request a B 1lB2 visa in 200 1, said request was denied for materially misrepresenting facts. 
The proposed place of employment appeared to be a home residence. The beneficiary also 
presented what appeared to be an altered passport. At the interview the beneficiary showed 
absolutely no knowledge of the skills set required in the proposed position. 
In response, counsel for the petitioner submitted a letter dated January 16, 2004. Counsel asserted that the 
U.S. Consulate mischaracterized facts surrounding the beneficiary's visa application. Specifically, counsel 
stated that the beneficiary previously applied for an H-1B visa, not a B-1IB-2 visa as claimed Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS.) Counsel asserted that the beneficiary's H-1B visa was rescinded due to an 
anonymous letter that called into question the beneficiary's educational credentials. Counsel states that the 
beneficiary then submitted "a voluminous amount of evidence to support his degree, i.e. a letter from the 
College, fee receipts, [and an] ID card." Yet counsel indicates that the U.S. Consulate "never acted on this 
irrefutable evidence; therefore, the record wrongfully reflects that [the beneficiary] submitted fraudulent 
educational documents." 
Counsel further asserted that the beneficiary did not claim that his original documents were lost in an 
earthquake. Counsel stated that "[ilt is our belief that the Consular Officer has [the beneficiary's] case 
confused with that of another applicant's case, this being the only explanation that makes sense." Counsel 
confirmed that the beneficiary would be working out of a private residence, and stated that "[tlhere is nothing 
in the regulations that specifically states that an office cannot be located in a private residence." Counsel 
asserted that the beneficiary did not present an altered passport, and that such allegations are "completely 
false." Counsel stated that the U.S. Consular Officer did not ask the beneficiary questions relating to the 
skills required for his position in the United States, and thus the allegation that he showed no knowledge of 
the required skills is unfounded. 
SRC-02-198-54437 
Page 3 
On February 2, 2004, the director revoked the approval of the petition. The director stated that "[tlhe 
response to the intent to revoke contains a letter [from] the attorney of record stating it appears that the 
consulate has confused the beneficiary with another applicant because the facts stated are not true. No 
evidence was submitted to support this claim." 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief in which he restates, largely verbatim, the assertions made in response to 
the director's notice of intent to revoke. Counsel emphasizes that the director erroneously referenced a 
B-1 IB-2 visa application made by the beneficiary, and asserts that this "calls into question the accuracy of the 
entire investigation." Counsel confirms that he was not present at the beneficiary's interview at the U.S. 
Consulate in Mumbai. Counsel asserts that "the apparent contradictions between our client's account and the 
Consulate's account should not be disregarded. In all, we note that [CIS] has based their whole case on 
supposed statements made by the Beneficiary in a consular interview, not on actual documentary evidence." 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are not persuasive. Under CIS regulations, the approval of an L-1A 
petition may be revoked on notice under six specific circumstances. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A). To 
properly revoke the approval of a petition, the director must issue a notice of intent to revoke that contains a 
detailed statement of the grounds for the revocation and the time period allowed for rebuttal. 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(B). In the present matter, the director provided a statement of the grounds for the revocation 
but did not cite to the specific provision of the regulations as a basis for the revocation.' Upon review, the 
director revoked the approval on the basis of 8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(1)(9)(iii)(A)(4): "The statement of facts 
contained in the petition was not true and correct." 
As noted by counsel, the director stated that the beneficiary previously applied for a B-1/B-2 visa, which was 
rescinded due to a finding that the beneficiary materially misrepresented facts. Counsel asserts that the U.S. 
Consulate must have erroneously attributed the facts of a separate beneficiary and proceeding to the present 
matter, as the instant beneficiary has not applied for a B-1/B-2 visa. However, it is evident that the U.S. 
Consulate's and director's error was limited to referring to the petitioner's prior H-1B visa application as an 
application for a B-1/B-2 visa. The director correctly cited significant facts regarding the prior application, 
including the facts that the visa was rescinded due to misrepresentation, and that the beneficiary's original 
educational credentials were contained in the relevant file. Whether the prior application was for an H-1B 
visa or a B-11B-2 visa is not material to the present matter. The veracity of the beneficiary's statements 
regarding his education and documentation is the issue that prompted the director to reference the prior visa 
application, and facts related to this issue were recited correctly. Thus, the director's misnaming of the visa 
class in question did not prejudice the petitioner or the beneficiary. The U.S. Consulate's and director's error 
was clerical in nature, and, contrary to counsel's assertion, it does not "[call] into question the accuracy of the 
entire investigation." 
' The director referenced the regulations at 8 C.F.R. # 214,2(h)(11) in both the notice of intent to revoke and 
the notice of revocation. The regulations at 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(h)(11) pertain to the revocation of H-1B 
petitions. As discussed above, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(1)(9)(iii) govern the revocatio~i of L-1A 
petitions. 
SRC-02- 198-54437 
Page 4 
The veracity of the petitioner's representations regarding the beneficiary's prior education and experience has 
been called into question. Specifically, when asked for original documentation of his educational credentials, 
the beneficiary reported to the U.S. Consulate that his documents were destroyed in an earthquake. In fact, 
the original documents were contained in a file of documents in connection with the beneficiary's denied 
H-1B visa application, and thus the U.S. Consulate determined that the beneficiary provided false 
information. The only documentation that the petitioner submits to rebut this finding consists of a brief from 
counsel in which counsel merely asserts that the beneficiary did not claim his documents were lost in an 
earthquake. Counsel's own brief confirms that he was not present at the beneficiary's L-1A visa interview. 
Counsel fails to specify on what he bases his claim that the beneficiary did not make such a statement, and 
thus it is assumed that he relies solely on the beneficiary's verbal account of the visa interview. As the 
beneficiary's credibility is at issue, the repetition of statements made by the beneficiary does not serve as 
reliable evidence in these proceedings. The petitioner offers no independent evidence to support ,the appeal. 
Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's 
burden of proof. The assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Mutter of Ohuighenu, 19 I&N Dec. 
533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter Of Luureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Rumirez-Sanchtz, 17 I&N 
Dec. 503,506 (BlA 1980). 
The purpose of this proceeding is not to evaluate whether prior findings that the beneficiary engaged in 
misrepresentation are sound. Yet, comments that counsel makes regarding the beneficiary's prior H-1B visa 
application suggest that documentary evidence is available to support the present appeal. For example, 
counsel refutes the U.S. Consulate's prior finding that the beneficiary misrepresented information regarding 
his educational credentials in connection with an H-IB visa application. Counsel states that the beneficiary 
rebutted the Consulate's finding with "a voluminous amount of evidence to support his degree, i.e, a letter 
from the College, fee receipts, [and an] ID card." However, the petitioner fails to submit any such 
documentation that would support that the beneficiary's education has been accurately represented in the 
present petition. It is noted that the director's revocation rested primarily on the fact that the petitioner failed 
to submit evidence in response to the notice of intent to revoke. On appeal, again the petitioner fails to 
provide evidence. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Mutter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Cornm. 1998) 
(citing Mutter of Treasure Crafi of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Counsel asserts that the beneficiary did not present an altered passport, and that such allegations are 
"completely false." Counsel fails to indicate whether he personally examined the beneficiary's passport in 
order to form his conclusion, or whether he relied on verbal representations made by the beneficiary. The 
petitioner fails to submit a copy of the beneficiary's passport or any documentary evidence to support that the 
passport has not been altered. Again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soifici, 22 I&N Dec. at 
165. 
Counsel confirms that the beneficiary would be working out of a private residence, and correctly states that 
"[tlhere is nothing in the regulations that specifically states that an office cannot be located in a private 
residence." The fact that the beneficiary would work out of a private residence does not, by itself, render him 
ineligible for L-1A status. However, the petitioner's physical premises are a relevant consideration, as the 
petitioner must initially establish that it has acquired sufficientphysical premises in order to house its 
SRC-02-198-54437 
Page 5 
operations and employ the beneficiary in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. Set. 8 C.F.R. 
$ 214.2(1)(3)(~). The fact that the beneficiary would work out of his home, considered together with other 
evidence of the petitioner's business activity, would reasonably raise questions regarding the adequacy of the 
petitioner's physical premises and whether the petitioner is sufficiently operational. On the nor~immigrant 
petition, the petitioner claims 12 employees. CIS records further reveal that the petitioner has filed a total of 
71 nonimmigrant petitions in the previous five years. On appeal, the petitioner claims that it maintains an 
office in New Rochelle, New York, thereby raising questions as to how the beneficiary, as president and 
CEO, will manage the operations from his home in Atlanta, Georgia. Despite the claim of the New Rochelle 
office, no evidence was submitted in support of the claim. The failure of the petitioner to submit evidence on 
appeal does not overcome the findings of the director. 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. at 165. The director's finding in this regard will be affirmed. 
Counsel states that the U.S. Consulate did not ask the beneficiary questions relating to the skills required for 
his position in the United States, and thus the allegation that he showed no knowledge of therequired skills is 
unfounded. In examining the evidence of record, it is apparent that the director misread a comment made by 
the U.S. Consulate. The U.S. Consulate did not assert that the beneficiary exhibited no knowledge of the 
skills required for the prospective position. Accordingly, the director's comment in this regard will be 
withdrawn. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner fails to overcome the director's and U.S. Consulate's findings that the 
beneficiary altered his passport and engaged in misrepresentation. It is noted that doubt cast on any aspect of 
the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining 
evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Mutter ~f Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). The fact 
that the beneficiary made misrepresentations regarding his educational documentation calls into question the 
veracity of representations made in the present petition regarding his qualifications and past experience. The 
beneficiary's past education and experience are necessary considerations in determining whether he is eligible 
for L-IA classification. See 8 C.F.R. 6 214.2(1)(3)(iii) and (iv). The petitioner has failed to establish that the 
documentation and explanation contained in the record of proceeding are reliable. For this reason, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof in these proceedings. Section 29 1 of the Act, 8 U. S.C. 5 I 36 1. The 
petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.