dismissed L-1A Case: Computers And Electronics

i 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration · 
Services 
MATTER OF PCS-T- CORP. 
· Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 12, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a wholesaler and exporter of computers and electronics,· seeks to continue the 
Beneficiary's temporary employment as its chief operating .officer under the L-1 A nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality _ Act (the Act) 
section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L). The L-IA classification allows a corporation or other 
-legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United 
States to work temporari!y in a managerial or executive capa9ity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that it had a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer at the time of filing. On the basis of this conclusion, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner does not meet the eligibility requirements that pertain to the Beneficiary's employment 
abroad and his proposed·U.S. employment in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, 1 the Petitioner disputes the denial, claiming that it and the Beneficiary's foreign employe~ 
have an affiliate relationship by virtue of the Beneficiary's majority ownership of both entities. . . 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner has not overcome the chief 
basis for denial regarding its claimed qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's former employer 
abroad. As the Petitioner has not satisfied this fundamental element of eligibility, we will reserve 
the remaining issues regarding the Beneficiary's employment abroad and his proposed U.S. 
employment in a managerial or executive capacity. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
. . 
To establish eligibility for the L-IAnonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial;· executive, or involves specialized 
· knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. In addition, the beneficiary 
1 Although the Petition_er's supplemental brief is titled "Motio~ to Reopen," the Form 1-2908 indicates th~t the Petitioner 
filed an appeal, rather than a motion. We will therefore consider the brief as part of the appeal. 
.
Matter of PCS-T- Corp. 
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 or executive capacity. Id. 
II. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The primary issue to be addressed in this decision is whether the Petitioner established that it has a 
qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's employer abroad. To establish a "qualifying 
relationship" under the Act and the regulations, a petitioner must 'show that the beneficiary's foreign 
employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (i.e., one entity with "branch" 
offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See generally section 
10l(a)(15)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1). 
In the petition form, the Petitioner stated that it and the Beneficiary's foreign employer are affiliates. 
In order to meet the criteria for an affiliate relationship, the Petitioner must demonstrate that: (1) it 
is one of two subsidiaries that are both owned and controlled by the same parent or individual, or 
(2) it and the foreign entity are owned by the same group of individuals with each individual owning 
and controlling approximately the same share or proportion of each entity. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(L) . 
The P~titioner stated that owns 56% of its shares and that 
owns the remaining 44% of its shares. The Petitioner 
initially accounted for only 79.48% of the foreign entity's ownership , stating that owns 
39.09% while owns 40.39% of that entity. In a supporting exhibit list, the Petitioner 
indicated that the Beneficiary indirectly owns 53.76% of-the foreign entity, i.e., the majority, by 
virtue of his claimed ownership of and 
which were claimed as the direct owners of 39.09% and 14.67% of the 
foreign entity, respectively. The Petitioner indicated that 
remainder of the foreign entity's shares through his ownership of 
and 
to directly own 40.39%, 4%, and 1.85% of the foreign entity, respectively. 
indirectly owns the 
, which are claimed 
In support of these claims, the Petitioner provided two translated letters dated March 8 and May 2, 
2017, respectively. Both letters are on the foreign entity's letterhead and are signed by its "legal 
representative," who described multiple ownership schemes for the foreign entity. Each letter 
contains different ownership breakdowns and there was no documentation determining the dates of 
these changes in ownership or specifying the terms of the shares' sales and purchases as reflected in 
these varying ownership schemes. The March 2017 letter delineates an ownership scheme that 
includes five corporate owners of the. foreign entity - and 
The ownership breakdown indicates that indirectly owns 46.24% 
of the foreign entity while owns the remaining 53.76% by virtue of their respective 
ownership interests in these five entities .. 
2 
.
Matter of PCS-T- Corp. 
The May 2017 letter describes two additional ownership schemes, which also list the foreign entity's 
claimed owners and their respective ownership interests. The first ownership scheme' lists five 
corporate owners: and which are owned by thereby giving him a total 
of 21. 72% ownership of the foreign entity; and both showing the 
Beneficiary as owner, thereby giving him a total of 50.04% ownership interest; and 
showing as the owner , thereby giving her 28.24% ownership interest in 
the foreign entity. The letter indicates that sold her stock in the foreign entity resulting 
in a new ownership breakdown that includes five corporate shareholders and indicates that either the 
Beneficiary or owns each shareholder, thereby giving them. indirect ownership of the 
foreign employer. Specifically, is identified as the owner of and 
thereby indicating that he indirectly owns 46.24% of the foreign entity; and the 
Beneficiary is identified as owner of and thereby indicating that he 
indirectly owns 53.76% of that entity . As indicated above, the Petitioner did not provide 
corroborating evidence of these claimed changes in the foreign entity's ownership. We note that the 
Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant , probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369, 37_6 (AAO 2010). 
In a request for evidence (RFE) the Director advised the Petitioner that the ownership schemes 
depicted in its supporting documents did not establish that an affiliate relationship exists between it 
and the foreign entity. Specifically, the Director observed that although is shown as the 
majority owner of the Petitioner's stock, the same cannot be said of the foreign entity, which is 
shown to have five corporate shareholders with no one shareholder owning the majority of that 
entity's stock. The Petitioner was asked to provide further evidence of a qualifying- relationship 
between it and the Beneficiary 's foreign employer. 
In response, the Petitioner provided a letter dated May 30, ,2018, pointing out that the Berieficiary 
has continuously been in L-1 A status since 2003 and eight L-1 A petitions filed by the Petitioner on 
the Beneficiary's behalf ·have been approved. The Petitioner claims that the same relationship 
existed at the time of each approval. The record does not support this claim, as it contains 
documents indicating that ownership changes took place as recently as 2017, while several of the 
referenced petition approvals took place prior to 2017. Furthermore, there is no requirement to 
approve petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated , merely because of prior approvals that 
may have been erroneous. Maller of Church Scientology Int 'l, 19 l&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm ' r 
1988). 
The Petitioner also provided additional ownership documents pertaining to itself and the foreign 
entity. Regarding the Petitioner's ownership, evidence includes two stock c·ertificates issued on May 
5, 2017; stock certificate no. 11 names as the owner of 44% of the Petitioner's stock and 
stock certificate no. 12 names as the owner of the remaining 56%. The certificates were 
accompanied by and respective stock certificates and corresponding 
translated certifications, which identified the Beneficiary as the sole owner of and 
as the sole owner of These documents establish that when the instant petition 
was filed in 2018, the Beneficiary indirectly owned the majority of the Petitioner's stock. However, 
3 
.
Matter of PCS-T- Corp. 
the issue of the Beneficiary's control of is brought into question by the Petitioner's 
submission of a document titled "Shareholder Structure Certificate," dated May 8, 2017, which 
states that was "acting in his capacity of proxy" of that entity, thereby indicating that 
rather than the Beneficiary, had control of 
· With regard to the foreign · entity's ownership and control, the iFE response includes a statement 
. containing attestations from the Petitioner ' s and the foreign entity's respective legal representatives 
certifying each entity's ownership breakdown. The foreign entity's legal representative listed five 
owners and their respective shares as follows: with 40.39% of shares, with 1.85% of 
shares, with 4% of shares, with 39.09% of shares, and with 
14.67% of shares. The ownership breakdown also indicated that owns the first three 
listed entities and that the Beneficiary owns the other two entities. If correct, this ownership 
breakdown would indicate that the Beneficiary indirectly owns 53. 76% of the foreign entity's stock, 
thereby making him the' majority owner of that entity. However, the record contains insufficient 
evidence of the Beneficiary's ownership of and his control of 2 both 
of which are necessary to establish that the Beneficiary owns the majority of and controls the 
Petitioner and the foreign entity as affiliates. 
The Petitioner also provided the minutes from the foreign entity's "Extraordinary Shareholders' 
Assembly" meetings with the latest minutes reflecting the results of a meeting that took place on 
September 23, 2017. Although all five of the above-named corporations were consistently listed as 
the foreign entity's shareholders,· the Beneficiary's name did not appear anywhere in the document 
to identify him as the owner of or Rather each ownership 
breakdown identified the corporate shareholder by name, listed the shareholder's shares and 
respective percentage owned, and named the individual who "repres~nted" those shares. We note 
that rather than the. Beneficiary, was identified as the representative of 
and despite the account of the foreign entity's legal representative, who claimed 
that the Beneficiary owns these entities. Although the Petitioner provided other evidence, which 
adequately establishes the Beneficiary's ownership of it did not provide similar 
evidence with regard to nor did it provide evidence establishing that the 
Beneficiary, rather than the named proxy ____ , controls 
The Director found that the record lacked sufficient evidence of an affiliate relationship between the 
Petitioner and the Beneficiary's foreign employer. The Director made this determination based on 
an analysis of the direct ownership of the Petitioner and the foreign entity, finding that while 
owns the majority of the Petitioner's stock, it is only one of five minority shareholders of the 
foreign entity and therefore does not own the majority of that entity. Although :Ye agree with the 
Director's conclusion, the underlying analysis was incomplete because it did not address the element 
of control or take into account the Beneficiary's indirect majority ownership of the Petitioner's stock 
and his claimed indirect majority ~wnership of the foreign entity. 
2 As indicated earlier, ownership of was established through the sub1_nission of a stock certificate and 
corresponding certification naming the Beneficiary as the owner of that entity. 
4 
.
Matter of PCS-T- Corp . 
) 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates its prior argument , contending that the Beneficiary is the majority 
· owner .of and and that as a result of these ownership interests, an 
affiliate relationship exists wherein the same individual, i.e., the Beneficiary , effectively owns the 
Petitioner and the foreign entity. In support of the appeal, the Petitioner provides an incomplete 
copy · consisting of only two pages of the previousl y submitted May 2017 letter. The portion of the I 
letter that the Petitioner submits on appeal contains an account of the foreign entity 's legal 
representative claiming that and , together , own the majority of the 
foreign entity ' s stock and that by virtue of the Beneficiary's ownership of these two entities, he is the 
foreign entity's majority owner. 
We disagree with the Petitioner's reliance on a third party claim and find that it has not provided 
sufficient evidence establishing that the Beneficiary actually owns as claimed. 
Although the Petitioner provided a stock certificate and correspondin g certification corroborating the 
Beneficiary's ownership of it did not provide comparable evidence of the Beneficiary 's 
ownership of and instead based its claim entirely on the statements of the foreign 
entity ' s "legal representative " without providin g evidence to show how that individual determined 
that the Beneficiary _owns As noted earlier, assertions such as these must be 
supported with relevant , probative, and credible evidence. See Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. 
Moreover, even if the Petitioner were to provide corroborating evidence of the Beneficiary's 
ownership of === the record still indicates that rather than the 
Beneficiary , controls Therefore , <::ven if the Petitioner were to provide sufficient 
evidence of the Beneficiary 's majority ownership of its and the foreign entity's shares, the record 
still lacks sufficient evidence showing that he also controls both entities. 
Regulation and case law confirm that ownership anµ control are the factors that must be examined in 
determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and foreign eritities. See, 
e.g., Church Scientolo gy Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 593; Matter of Siemens Med Sys .. Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 
362 (Comm'r 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm'r 1982). 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 authorit x to direct the establishment , 
management , and operations of an entity. Church Scientology Int 'I, 19 I&N Dec, at 595. 
In light of the above analysis, we find that the record lacks sufficient evidence corroborating the 
Petitioner ' s claim that the Beneficiary owns the majority of the foreign entity and controls it and the 
Petitioner. · ' 
III. CONCLUSION 
Accordingly , the Petitioner did not establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the 
Beneficiary ' s former emplo yer abroad. 
5 
Matter of PCS-T- Corp. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of PCS:.T- Corp., ID# 2001089 (AAO Feb. 12, 2019) 
,. 
6