dismissed L-1A Case: Construction

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-V-T-&G- CORP. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 28, 2018 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, identified as a construction and remodeling company, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as president of its new office 1 under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-lA 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 temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer; (2) the new office has secured sufficient physical premises; (3) the Beneficiary 
has been employed abroad in an executive capacity; and (4) the new office will be able to support an 
executive position within one year after approval of the petition. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
a brief that, for the most part, repeats assertions previously submitted in response to a request for 
evidence (RFE). 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant 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 101(a)(15)(L) ofthe Act. 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 or executive capacity. !d. The 
1 
The term "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one 
year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(F). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation no 
more than one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
.
Matter of G- V- T-&G- Corp. 
pet1t1oner must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, trammg, and employment 
qualify him or her to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
Also, if the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, indicates that the beneficiary is 
coming to the United States in L-1 A status to open or to be employed in a new office, the petitioner 
must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new office will be able to support a managerial or 
executive position within one year. This evidence includes information regarding the new office's 
physical premises, the proposed nature and scope of the entity, its organizational structure, its 
financial goals, and the size ofthe U.S. investment. See generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
II. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
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 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1). Ownership and control are the 
factors that must be examined in determining whether a qualifying relationship exists behveen 
United States and foreign entities for purposes of this visa classification. See Jovfatter of Church 
Scientology Int '1, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1988); see also A1atter of Siemens Med Sys., Inc., 19 I&N 
Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); A1atter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm'r 1982). 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's foreign employer, 
owns 90% of the petitioning entity. Meeting minutes from April 2017 indicated 
that held 90% of the Petitioner's shares while one mvned the other 10%. 
Information on a May 2017 printout from the Connecticut Secretary of the State is consistent with 
these figures. The Petitioner's July 2016 certificate of incorporation listed the "Total Number of 
Authorized Shares" at 100. 
Other initial evidence, however, is not consistent with the above information. Meeting minutes from 
July 2016 indicated that the Petitioner issued 1000 shares, all to The Petitioner's 2016 
federal tax return showed an incorporation date of January 2015 and indicated that no foreign person 
owned at least 25% ofthe company. 
In the RFE, the Director asked the Petitioner to explain these discrepancies, and to submit additional 
verifiable documentation to resolve the issue. In response, the Petitioner stated that the references to 
1000 shares, and to total ownership, were in error, and related to a company that the 
Beneficiary had previously, and unsuccessfully, attempted to launch in Florida in early 2015. The 
Petitioner submitted documentation relating to the now-inactive Florida company that shares the 
Petitioner's name. 
2 
.
Matter of G- V- T-&G- Corp. 
The Petitioner also submitted a new copy of the July 2016 meeting minutes to reflect the issuance of 
1 00 shares to and an amended 2016 tax return showing 90% interest in the 
company. (The amended return continued to show the January 2015 incorporation date, and to refer 
to the company's activity as landscaping.) 
In the denial notice, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not resolved the discrepancies 
regarding the company's ownership. Instead , the Director found that the Petitioner had simply 
altered and backdated key documents. The Director cited Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169 
(Comm'r 1998), which states that a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has 
already been filed in an effort to make an apparently deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. 
!d. at 175. 
Jzummi applies when a petitioner attempts to change the basic facts of the petition in order to create 
qualifying circumstances after the time of filing. In terms of the qualifying relationship, the 
Petitioner has not made changes of this kind, such as issuing new shares or selling or buying those 
shares in order to create a qualifying relationship that did not exist at the time of filing. Instead , the 
Petitioner has endeavored to provide corrected versions of documents which, in their original form, 
contained inaccurate information. 
A petitioner's reliance on altered and backdated documents, such as meeting minutes dated July 
2016 but clearly prepared more than a year later, can raise serious questions depending on the 
circumstances of their submission. In this instance, while the submission of these documents may 
have been misguided , we see no intent to deceive. The Petitioner identified the alterations and 
explained the purpose behind them. Documentation of the abandoned Florida corporation provided 
important background information to explain the misstatements in the earlier documents. 
On balance , we find that the Petitioner has established , by a preponderance of the evidence , that it is 
a subsidiary of and that a qualifying relationship therefore exists between the two 
entities. We withdraw the Director's finding to the contrary. 
Ill. SUFFICIENT PHYSICAL PREMISES 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not meet the physical premises requirement at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A), for two reasons: (1) the lease agreement at the time of filing did not account for 
the planned subordinate employees or construction equipment, and subsequent changes to the lease 
cannot retroactively establish eligibilit y; and (2) perceived discrepancies in the evidence. We 
disagree about the discrepancies, but find that the Director was correct about the insufficiency of the 
premises secured. 
A. Lease Agreement 
The Petitioner leased an office in Connecticut. In the RFE, the Director asked the 
Petitioner to establish that the leased space is sufficient to house the new office. In response, the 
3 
Matter of G- V- T-&G- Corp. 
Petitioner stated that "the oral part of the agreement" gave the Petitioner the option to lease 
additional outdoor space. Contrary to the Petitioner's assertions, clause 25 of both versions of the 
lease specified that the "agreement cannot be changed orally." An updated lease gave the Petitioner 
the option to pay extra for outdoor space, but this provision was not in effect at the time of filing, 
and the rental rate for the exterior space would substantially exceed what the Petitioner had budgeted 
in its business plan. 
In the denial notice, the Director again cited Izummi, stating that the Petitioner could not establish 
eligibility by amending the lease after filing the petition. Here, we agree with the Director. The 
Petitioner was not correcting a previous error or clarifying an ambiguous point. Instead, the 
Petitioner submitted a materially different version of the office lease, showing provisions that were 
not yet in effect at the time of filing. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the 
petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after a 
petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire 
Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). 
Apart from the changes to the lease, the Petitioner has stated its intent to employ up to 18 people 
during its first year. The Petitioner did not explain how the office, containing identifiable work 
space for five people, could accommodate a staff of that size. 
For the above reasons, we agree with the Director's finding that the Petitioner has not established 
that, as of the petition's filing date, the Petitioner had secured sufficient physical premises to house 
the new office. 
We note that, on appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it remains at the site named in the lease, but on the 
appeal form and related forms, the Petitioner has listed a different mailing address, located in a 
residential area. The Petitioner does not explain why it no longer claims its office site as its mailing 
address. 
B. Discrepancies 
The Director found that the lease and related evidence lacked credibility because of several 
discrepancies. The lease agreement contained confusing wording about the property ownership. 
The Petitioner provided inconsistent information regarding the size of the office. Finally, the 
Director determined that photographs of the site "appear[] to be digitally altered." 
Upon review of the record, we withdraw the Director's findings. The record satisfactorily links the 
various companies named on the lease. Regarding the size of the office, the Petitioner stated 360 
square feet, while the revised lease specified 350 square feet. The cited discrepancy in the size of 
the office is minimal and may be a typographical error. 
An exterior photograph of the commercial site shows a sign holding individual panels, each 
identifying several tenants, including the Petitioner. The Director concluded that the sign "is 
4 
.
Matter ofG-V-T-&G- Corp. 
inconsistent with the photograph and appears to be digitally altered." The Director did not elaborate 
on this point. On the photographed sign, the panel with the Petitioner's name does not match the 
others , but this appears to be because a new panel was affixed to an older sign. There are no readily 
identifiable signs of digital alteration. 
For the reasons explained above, we withdraw the Director's finding that there are major 
discrepancies in the office lease and photographs. Nevertheless, the core finding remains that the 
Petitioner has not established that it secured adequate physical premises to house the new office as of 
the filing date. 
IV. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that the foreign entity employed the 
Beneficiary abroad in an executive capacity. The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary has 
been employed in a managerial capacity. On appeal , the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary 
was an executive for the foreign entity, but offers no new information or evidence to support the 
assertion. 
An executive capacity is an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization; 
establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; exercises wide 
latitude in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction from 
higher-level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. Section 
101(a)(44)(B) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B). 
A. Duties 
When examining the claimed executive capacity of the Beneficiary, we will review the Petitioner 's 
description of the Beneficiary's job duties. The Petitioner's description of the job duties must 
clearly describe the Beneficiary ' s duties and indicate whether such duties are in a managerial or 
executive capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
The definition of executive capacity has two parts. First, the Petitioner must show that the 
Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 
1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). Second , the Petitioner must prove that the 
Beneficiary was primarily engaged in executive duties , as opposed to ordinary operational activities 
alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 
2006) ; Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary had served as president and executive 
director (different materials show different titles). The Beneficiary listed his responsibilities at the 
foreign company: 
5 
.
Matter ofG-V-T-&G- Corp. 
Main duties and responsibilities . . . at include but are not limited to 
being the spokesman for the corporat[ion]; I have handled and continue to handle the 
majority of correspondence with business partners and third part[y] vendors in the 
name of the corporat[ion]; participate in developing and improving the strategic plan 
for the corporat[ion]; determine staffing recruitments and timelines of product 
deliveries; ensure that the operation of the corporat[ion] meets the expectations of our 
clients; oversee the planning, implementation, execution and evaluation of special 
projects; and, work with management and staff to prepare a comprehensive budget. 
Asked to provide more details, the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary has performed "full 
executive duties" for the foreign parent company and related foreign entities since 2010. The 
Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "has not supervised nor been hands on in the process of work," 
but rather "has run his business by hiring two main directors, who manage and supervise their side of 
the work; the Administrative Director and the Operational Director." We will discuss subordinate 
staffing below. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary has set up the foreign company in a way 
that allows him to run it without being physically present, but the Petitioner did not provide 
additional details regarding the Beneficiary ' s duties and responsibilities with Instead, 
the Petitioner provided a list of general responsibilities and the approximate time devoted to each: 
Managing the corporation- Approximately 15-25% 
Establishing company's goals and policies- Approximately 10-15% 
Exercising of discretionary decision-making- Approximately 10-20% 
Branding , Pricing , etc. - Approximately 5-10% 
Budgeting - Approximately 5% 
Personnel decision-making- Approximately 5% 
Goals and Objectives/Management Support- Approximately 5% 
Company representation -Approximately 20% 
Strategic planning - Approximately 20% 
The above list introduced no new details into the record. The Petitioner did not explain the 
difference between "[m]anaging the corporation" and "discretionary decision-making." 
The Petitioner submitted letters from two individuals who identified themselves as legal 
representatives for the Beneficiary and for One stated that the Beneficiary "exercises 
full discretion on his decision making" and "directs [the foreign entity] on almost all of its 
management needs. " The other provided the following list of duties and responsibilities: 
Leadership 
• Acts as a spokesperson for the [foreign entity]. 
• Conducts official correspondence on behalf of the Company. 
• Participates in developing a vision and strategic plan for the Company. 
.
Matter of G- V- T-&G- Corp. 
• Identifies, assesses , and informs the management of the internal and external 
issues that may affect the Company. 
• Acts as a professional 
advisor on all aspects of the Company's activities. 
• Fosters effective team work between management and the staff. 
• Represents the company at conventions or seminars to enhance the Company ' s 
profile. 
Human Resources 
• Determines staffing requirements for company management. 
• Oversees the implementation of the human resources policies and procedures, 
including development of job description for all staff. 
• Recruits , interviews, and selects staff that has the right technical and personal 
abilities to help further the Company's mission. 
• Coaches and mentors staff as appropriate to improve performance. 
Operational Planning and Management 
• Has developed an[] operational plan which incorporates all [the] business's goals 
and objectives. 
• Ensures that the operation of the Company meets the expectations of its clients. 
• Oversees the efficient and effective day-to-day operation of the Company. 
• Provides support to the management team by preparing meeting agenda and 
supporting materials . 
• Oversees the planning, implementation, execution and evaluation of special 
projects. 
Financial Planning and Management 
• Works with management and staff to prepare a comprehensive budget. 
• Works with managements to secure adequate funding for the operation of the 
Company . 
• Approves expenditures within the authority of the President of the Company. 
• Ensures that sound bookkeeping and accounting practices are followed. 
• Administers the funds of the Company according to the approved budget. 
• Monitors the monthly cash flow of the Company. 
The duties described appear to be vague and generic. Many of the listed items show responsibilities 
without explaining what the Beneficiary does to meet those responsibilities. Specific identified 
tasks, such as preparing meeting agendas and interviewing job applicants, do not appear to account 
for a large proportion of the Beneficiary's time at 
Matter ofG-V-T-&G- Cmp. 
The Director denied the petitiOn, stating that the Petitioner had not sufficiently described the 
Beneficiary's position abroad. On appeal, the Petitioner repeats the assertion that the Beneficiary 
"continues to maintain his executive position abroad," and resubmits the list of general 
responsibilities, with time percentages, reproduced above. 
We agree with the Director's finding. Reciting vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business 
objectives is not sufficient; the regulations require a detailed description of the Beneficiary's daily 
job duties. The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. 
Co .. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
B. Staffing 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when 
examining a beneficiary's claimed executive capacity, including the company's organizational 
structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to 
relieve a beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, and any other 
factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
An organizational chart indicated that two individuals reported directly to the Beneficiary: an 
administrative manager, who supervised two administrative assistants and an occupational safety 
technician; and an operational supervisor, who supervised 41 employees: 
• Electrical Department - 3 employees 
• Cargo Ship Department- 3 employees 
• Grounding Department - 5 employees 
• 11 Tree Installers 
• 3 Drivers 
• 7 Tree Trimmers 
• 2 Gardeners 
• 4 Chainsaw Operators 
• I Machine Operator 
• 1 Maintenance Worker 
• 1 Bricklayer 
Payroll documents from November 2017 named 41 employees. Photographs depicted \Vork crews 
and the foreign entity's place of business, but apart from job titles, the Petitioner did not provide 
details about the subordinates' duties. 
The Director advised the Petitioner that it had not provided enough details about the claimed 
subordinate positions. In response, the Petitioner stated: 
[T]he administrative director manages tax filing; employees' benefits; employees' 
payroll and salary payments; handles invoices; labor cost and payments; government 
8 
.
Matter of G- V- T-&G- Corp. 
compliance requests , timely filing and responses. He handles all of the required 
inside the company management work .... [The operational director] supervises and 
handles all of the outside management of the work performed. As the operational 
manager , he works closely with the employees working in the streets and power lines ; 
with the implementation of all projects .... 
In the denial notice, the Director found that the Petitioner had not provided enough information 
about the subordinate positions to show that they relieved the Beneficiary from having to perform 
primarily non-executive tasks. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary "continues to run his foreign entity the same 
way he has directed it during the previous decade, through continuous contact , updates and advise 
[sic] to his immediate staff." The Petitioner has documented that has about 40 
employees, but has not addressed the Director's finding that the record lacks important information 
to show that those employees permitted the Beneficiary to perform primarily executive tasks while 
employed abroad. 
The record establishes that the Beneficiary held the top position at but the Petitioner has 
not provided enough details to establish that this position was primarily executive as the statute and 
regulations define that term. 
V. NEW OFFICE 
A petitioner seeking to employ a beneficiary as a manager or executive of a new office must 
establish that the new office will support an executive or managerial position within one year of 
approval of the petition. The Petitioner must establish the proposed nature of the office, describing 
its scope , organizational structure, and financial goals; the size of the United States investment and 
the foreign entity's financial ability to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business 
in the United States; and the foreign entity's organizational structure. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) . 
The Director found that the Petitioner had not established that the new office would support an 
executive position within one year after approval of the petition. (The Petitioner does not claim that 
it seeks to employ the Beneficiary in a managerial capacity.) The Director based this finding on the 
Petitioner's description of the Beneficiary's intended position, and on the financial information the 
Petitioner had provided. On appeal , the Petitioner repeats prior statements and provides additional 
financial documentation. The new materials , however , do not overcome the Director's conclusions . 
A. U.S. Employment in an Executive Capacity 
The Beneficiary listed his intended duties as president of the petitioning entity: 
[C]onducting official correspondence on behalf of [the Petitioner]; creating a vision 
and strategic plan for the company; leading and representing [the Petitioner] at 
9 
.
Matter of G- V- T-&G- Corp. 
conventions and seminars to enhance the company 's profile; acting as a professional 
advisor on all aspects of the company; determining staffing requirements for 
corporate management ; coaching and mentoring staff as appropriate to improve 
performance ; fostering effective team work between management and the staff; 
providing support to the management team by preparing meeting agenda and 
supporting materials; working with management to secure adequate funding for the 
operation of [the petitioning company]; and, approving expenditures within the 
authority of the President of the corporation. 
The Petitioner ' s business plan listed the following duties: 
• Expand plan for U.S. market ; 
• Branding plan for U.S. market; 
• Increases management's effectiveness by recruiting, selecting, orienting, training, 
coaching , counseling, and disciplining managers ; communicating values, 
strategies, and objectives; assigning accountabilities; planning, monitoring , and 
appraising job results; developing incentives; developing a climate for offering 
information and opinions ; providing educational opportunities ; 
• Develops strategic plan by studying technological and financial opportunities; 
presenting assumptions; recommending objectives; 
• Recommends company objectives by establishing plans, budgets , and results 
measurements; allocating resources; reviewing progress ; making mid-course 
corrections ; 
• Builds company image by collaborating with customers , government , community 
organizations, and employees; enforcing ethical business practices; 
• Maintains quality service by establishing and enforcing organization standards. 
The above list of intended duties appears to be a general template rather than a considered account of 
duties specific to the particular position. As explained earlier in this decision, the Petitioner cannot 
meet its burden of proof without providing sufficient specific details about the nature of the position . 
The Director requested additional information to show that the Beneficiary would serve in an 
executive capacity in the United States. In response , the Petitioner stated that, although he is now in 
the United States, the Beneficiary "continues to maintain his executive position abroad." The 
Petitioner described the Beneficiary's duties as a claimed executive of the foreign company . 
The Director denied the petition, in part because the Petitioner had not provided enough specific 
details about the Beneficiary's intended executive position in the United States. On appeal, the 
Petitioner provides no new information about the Beneficiary 's intended role with the U.S. company. 
Instead, the Petitioner repeats the assertion that the Beneficiary remains an executive of · 
in Brazil. 
10 
.
Matter ofG-V-T-&G- Corp. 
If workers abroad actively provide operational support to the petitiOning U.S. entity, then a 
beneficiary's continued authority over those workers can be a factor in the Petitioner's favor. See 
Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 6 (AAO Apr. 14, 20 16). Here, however , the 
Petitioner has not established any connection between ongoing activities in Brazil and 
the Petitioner's intended activities in the United States. The record does not show that the two 
companies are parts of a unified business operation, despite doing business in two different 
countries; neither performs support functions for the other. Instead, each appears to be a self­
contained enterprise, linked to the other company only by shared ownership. The Beneficiary may 
intend to continue to oversee the foreign company while he is in the United States, but remotely 
running a company in Brazil does not amount to setting up a new office in the United States, and is 
not a valid basis for L-1 A nonimmigrant status. 
B. Nature of the Business 
Beyond the issues with the job description, the Director found that the Petitioner had not established 
that its business would be sufficiently developed to support an executive position within one year 
after approval ofthe petition. 
We note that, although the Petitioner's business plan repeatedly and consistently identifies the 
company as a construction firm, the Petitioner's income tax returns (including an amended return 
filed after the Director noted discrepancies) refer to the Petitioner as a landscaping company. A 
certificate of trade name filed with the Town Clerk identified the "[t]ype of business" 
as "construction & tree services." The Petitioner's business plan anticipated the hiring of two 
gardeners , but no other workers whose job titles readily relate to tree services. In contrast , the 
foreign entity, identified as a landscaping service, employs 11 "tree installers ," 7 tree trimmers, 
2 gardeners, and 4 chainsaw operators. 
The Petitioner stated: "As of May 9, 2017 we were approved for 'New Home Constructor 
Contractor' license from the State of Connecticut." The Petitioner submitted an invoice dated May 
9, 2017, from State of Connecticut Online Enterprise Licensing Site. This invoice, however , showed 
only that the Petitioner had applied for a contractor's license. A disclaimer on the invoice advised: 
"This receipt is not a license or an authorization to do business." The Petitioner did not establish 
that the application was approved, or that, if approved , the license remains active. 
The Petitioner copied several pages of its business plan, with attribution, from various websites, 
including sites operated by local competitors and business news sites. Other information came from 
no identified source, such as the assertion that "[t]he area is booming at this moment, 
with overall business growth for the past seven years averaging approximately 9.5%. This growth 
level is expected to continue for at least the next four years." If the Petitioner 's optimistic revenue 
forecasts rely on these figures, then it is important that the Petitioner identify their source. If this 
information came from a generic template or other source not specific to "[t]he area," 
then its accuracy and applicability are questionable. 
1 I 
.
Matter ofG-V-T-&G- Corp. 
With this in mind, we note that the business plan contains several passages that state or imply that 
the company has been doing business for some time, even though the company had not yet begun 
operations as of the date on the business plan (April 20 17). Language in the business plan indicated 
that the Petitioner "will change its focus," and that the "business plan ... renews our vision and 
strategic focus." The business plan also referred to the company's "continued success." It appears 
that the Petitioner copied parts of its business plan from one or more sources, and inserted or 
substituted specific references to the petitioning company and to the area. 
The business plan stated that the Petitioner "is focusing on both the commercial and residential 
markets of the state of Connecticut and surrounding areas," and that its "business model will expand 
to include other types of real estate investing activities ... within 12 months of starting the business. 
. . . As of now, our plan is to continue to focus on remodeling as our primary area of expertise and 
source of revenue for at least 24 months. " Evidence in the record is not consistent with these claims. 
After a request for evidence , and again on appeal, the Petitioner has submitted documentation 
showing that the company has purchased several houses and commercial properties in Connecticut , 
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan, and had begun doing so before the filing date. The Petitioner 
stated that it purchased the properties "with the intent to renovate and re-sell them for a higher 
value." Nevertheless, the Petitioner's financial projections did not 
include these purchases. 
Documentation in the record shows that the Petitioner purchased a house in Ohio, on 
May 19, 2017 (the same day it filed the petition), and leased the house to a tenant a week later. 
There is no evidence that the Petitioner renovated the house during that week, or had time to do so. 
The Petitioner does not explain how these purchases fit into the Petitioner 's stated intention to 
remodel homes "in the area" and "focus[] on . . . the state of Connecticut and 
surrounding areas" and thus become "the area's experts in remodeling and construction properties" 
as stated in the business plan; 10 of the 13 purchased properties are 500 or more miles west of 
The Petitioner did not submit any evidence that it holds, or has applied for, licenses to 
perform renovations in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan, and the financial projections in the 
business plan do not show allocations to pay for those renovations. 
The Petitioner's documented activities are substantially different from those described in the 
business plan, which is itself of indeterminate origin. Therefore , the Petitioner has provided 
inconsistent evidence concerning what the intended business actually is. The business plan lists 
several milestones for April and May, before or near the time of filing, but no evidence that it has 
achieved those milestones. The inconsistencies in the record raise further obstacles to a finding that 
the Petitioner will support an executive position within one year of approval of the petition. 
C. Financial Infonnation 
The Petitioner anticipated $888,600 in first-year operating expenses, with net losses projected for the 
first seven months of operations. The Petitioner did not claim any assets on its 2016 income tax 
12 
.
Maller of G- V-T-&G- Corp. 
return. The Director advised the Petitioner that the initial evidence did not establish sufficient 
financial support for the ne\v office. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted bank documents showing that the Petitioner received $1 84,844 
in wire transfers from between April and June 2017. The Petitioner also made several 
round-number withdrawals during this period. As a result, the Petitioner's business investment 
account balance was $215 on May 31, 2017. In May and June 2017, the Petitioner transferred nearly 
$80,000 into an account with 
We add that the Petitioner's projections of its operating expenses for the first five years do not 
appear to include the cost of construction equipment, and the Petitioner has not shown that it already 
owns that equipment. 
The Director found that the Petitioner had not corroborated the financial projections found in the 
business plan or provided sufficient evidence to show that the foreign company provides sufficient 
support for the company. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that it "has been financially supported by the foreign entity, 
' The Petitioner documents one further wire transfer from in the 
amount of $84 72. The Petitioner also submits bank statements from The largest debits 
from the bank account appear to be the wire transfers to the Petitioner, meaning that 
existing support of the Petitioner has been a significant drain on its assets. The documents show a 
balance of R$17.59 (US$5.45) as of the petition's filing date. The most recent balance, from July 
27, 2017, was R$50,213.20 (US$15 ,557.44). 
As noted above, the Petitioner has been purchasing real estate in several states. On appeal, the 
Petitioner documents two additional purchases. The down payments documented in the record add 
up to $112,900, consuming most of the documented capital infusions from The 
Petitioner has not shown that what remains is sufficient to meet its operational expenses until the 
company becomes profitable in its own right. Furthermore, the total value of the purchased 
properties exceeds $2 million; the Petitioner remains liable for the balance not already paid. The 
resulting debt is a major additional expense that the business plan did not take into account. 
has been providing some capital to the petitioning entity, but the record does not show 
that the provided amount is enough to meet the Petitioner's claimed needs plus its documented real 
estate expenses. 
For the above reasons, we find that the Petitioner has not provided credible and consistent 
information and evidence to show that the new office will support an executive position within one 
year after approval of the petition. 
\3 
Matter ofG-V-T-&G- Corp. 
VI. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that it has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new 
office, that the :Beneficiary has been employed abroad in an executive capacity, or that its new office 
will support the Beneficiary in an executive capacity within one year after approval of the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofG-V-T-&G- Corp., ID# 1017303 (AAO Feb. 28, 2018) 
14