dismissed L-1A Case: Construction Material Sales

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: SRC 04 2 19 50 18 1 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
lL6v 0 6 2006 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 l(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(15)(L) 
ON 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. 
L'" $2~- 
obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 04 219 50181 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimrnigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner, a Florida corporation, claims to be a subsidiary of Estacionamiento Parque Canaima C.A. 
located in Venezuela. The petitioner states that the United States entity is engaged in the sale of 
construction material. Accordingly, the United States entity petitioned Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (CIS) to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant intracompany transferee (L-1 A) pursuant to 
section 10 l(a)(15)(L) of the Act as an executive or manager for three years. The beneficiary was initially 
granted a one-year period of stay to open a new office in the United States and the petitioner now seeks to 
extend the beneficiary's stay in order to continue to fill the position of administrative manager. 
On June 8, 2005, the acting director denied the petition concluding that the record contains insufficient 
evidence to demonstrate: (1) that the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive 
capacity; or (2) that the United States company has been doing business for the previous year. 
On July 8, 2005, the petitioner's counsel timely submitted the instant appeal. On appeal, counsel for the 
petitioner repeats the job description previously submitted for the beneficiary and states that the position 
is in a managerial and executive capacity. In addition, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the U.S. 
entity was "working at its minimum capacity" since there were several hurricanes where the business was 
located. Counsel submits a brief and additional documentation in support of the appeal. 
To establish eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, the petitioner must meet certain criteria. 
Specifically, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States, a firm, corporation, or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof, must have employed 
the beneficiary for one continuous year. Furthermore, 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. tj 214.2(1)(3) further 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 qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(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 qualifLing 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 
SRC 04 219 50181 
Page 3 
prior education, training, and employment qualifies himher 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(1)(14)(ii) also provides that a visa petition, which involved the opening 
of a new office, may be extended by filing a new Form 1-129, accompanied by the following: 
(A) Evidence that the United States and foreign entities are still qualifying 
organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section; 
(B) 
 Evidence that the United States entity has been doing business as defined in 
paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(H) of this section for the previous year; 
(C) 
 A statement of the duties performed by the beneficiary for the previous year and 
the duties the beneficiary will perform under the extended petition; 
(D) 
 A statement describing the staffing of the new operation, including the number of 
employees and types of positions held accompanied by evidence of wages paid to 
employees when the beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity; and 
(E) 
 Evidence of the financial status of the United States operation. 
The first issue to be addressed in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has established that the 
beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means 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 
SRC 04 219 50181 
Page 4 
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. $ 1 10l(a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment withn 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-malung; and 
(iv) 
 receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the 
board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
The nonirnmigrant petition was filed on August 1 1, 2004. The Form 1-129 indicates that the beneficiary will 
continue to be employed in the position of administrative manager. In a support letter, the petitioner 
described the beneficiary's proposed duties in the United States as the following: 
Responsible of making marketing, financial and administrative decisions in general. 
Will develop sales and marketing strategies support with newspaper, radio and 
television advertising when necessary. 
Responsible for managing the marketing and budget yearly planning that will guarantee 
quality, value savings and total satisfaction to small and industrial consumer. 
Supervise the date-to-date sales numbers and assist in the projection of increasing sales 
targets by offering product packages to commercial businesses until deals are fully 
closed and serviced. 
Responsible for controlling the organizational side of the warehouse maintaining 
purchase order processing at the lowest cost possible. 
Manage and maintain the accounts receivables and accounts payable numbers. 
Offer support and work together with auditors when a situation auditing [sic] arises. 
Prepare monthly revenues and monthly office expenses. 
Responsible for inventory supply, purchasing and lease contracts of location and any 
other equipments [sic] that will be under leasing contracts as part of the store daily use. 
Supervise the office personnel in customer service support and clientele satisfaction. 
Responsible for assigning salaries, promotions, terminations, selection and hiring as well 
as manage vacation and over time under high standards slulls to the 2 customer 
assistants and future business personnel. 
Redirect and apply new standard policies within the Miami branch by providing the 
right tools of confidence, career advancement opportunities and appropriate training to 
the Miami personnel in charge. 
SRC 04 219 50181 
Page 5 
13. Establish the necessary parameters for the wholesale distribution and development of 
higher customer satisfaction. 
14. Maintain direct control of the US business in order to send and prepare daily and 
monthly reports to the co-owner office in Caracas. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted an organizational chart of the U.S. entity. The organizational chart for 
the U.S. company indicates that the board of directors will supervise the president who in turn supervises the 
beneficiary in the position of administrative manager. The chart shows that the beneficiary will supervise the 
administrative supervisor, the customer services, a sales representative for Orlando and a sales representative 
for Miami. 
On February 22,2005, the director requested a definitive statement describing the beneficiary's employment 
including: the position title and a list of all duties; the percentage of time spent on each duty; the number of 
subordinate managers/supervisors or other employees who report directly to the beneficiary, including a 
description of their job duties, educational background, and dates of employment; the qualification required 
for the position offered to the beneficiary; a statement indicating whether the beneficiary functions at a 
senior-level witlun the corporation; information as to the beneficiary's position witlun the organizational 
hierarchy; and, a statement describing who provides the product sales/services or produces the product of the 
business. In addition, the director requested copies of the Employer's State Quarterly Tax Return for the past 
four quarters, and proof that payment has been made to the IRS for the U.S. company. 
In the response letter dated May 20, 2005, the petitioner reiterated the job duties submitted previously but 
included the percentage of time spent on each duty. The duties are as follows: 
- Responsible of malung marketing, financial and administrative decisions in general and for 
managing the marketing and budget yearly planning that will guarantee quality, value 
savings and total satisfaction to small and industrial consumer. (15%) 
- Supervise the date-to-date sales numbers and assist in the projection of increasing sales 
targets by offering product packages to commercial businesses until deals are fully closed 
and serviced. (15%) 
- Responsible for controlling the organizational side of the warehouse maintaining purchase 
order processing at the lowest cost possible. (1 5%) 
-Manage and maintain the accounts receivables and accounts payable numbers to offer 
support and work together with auditors when a situation auditing [sic] arises. (20%) 
-Responsible for inventory supply, purchasing and lease contracts of location and any other 
equipments [sic] that will be under leasing contracts as part of the store daily use. (1 5%) 
-Responsible for assigning salaries, promotions, terminations, selection and hiring as well as 
manage vacation and over time under high standards slulls to the 2 customer assistants and 
future business personnel. (1 0%) 
-Redirect and apply new standard policies withln the Miami branch by providing the right 
tools of confidence, career advancement opportunities and appropriate training to the Miami 
personnel in charge. (1 0%) 
In addition, the petitioner submitted Form UCT-6, Florida's Department of Revenue Employer's 
Quarterly Report for the quarters ending September 30, 2004, December 3 1, 2004, March 3 1, 2005 and 
, SRC 04 219 50181 
Page 6 
June 30,2004. The Employer's Quarterly Report for the period ending September 30,2004 indicated that 
the beneficiary was the only employee hired by the U.S. company. The Form UCT-6, Florida's 
Employer's Quarterly Report for the periods ending December 31, 2005 and March 31, 2005 indicated 
that the U.S. company did not have any employees. In August 2004, the date the instant petition was 
filed, the U.S. entity reported that the only employee working for the U.S. company was the beneficiary. 
In the response letter by the petitioner, dated May 20, 2005, the petitioner provided the following 
explanation regarding the U.S. company's staffing levels: 
There are no tax return for this period of time due [sic] to we are waiting for the approve 
[sic] of [the beneficiary's] Visa renewal so that we can bring [the beneficiary] to join us 
at our organization as our Administrative Manager as soon as possible. 
The director denied the petition on June 8, 2005 determining that the petitioner had not submitted sufficient 
evidence to establish that the beneficiary will be employed primarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The director went on to note that in light of the organization's configuration, it was apparent that the 
beneficiary would be performing the day-to-day non-managerial duties. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary will hold a position of managerial and 
executive capacity and repeats the job duties submitted previously. Counsel for the petitioner further clarifies 
that the beneficiary "has high percentage of Executive and Managerial responsibilities, but it does not mean 
that she will not be engaged in the day to day operations of the business." 
Upon review of the petition and evidence, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity. 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)(). The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly describe the duties to be 
performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are either in an executive or managerial 
capacity. Id. 
Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter oflaureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter 
of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
The definitions of executive and managerial capacity have two parts. First, the petitioner must show that 
the beneficiary perfonns the high-level responsibilities that are specified in the definitions. Second, the 
petitioner must prove that the beneficiary primarily performs these specified responsibilities and does not 
spend a majority of his or her time on day-to-day functions. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 
(Table), 199 1 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). 
The beneficiary's position description is too general and broad to establish that the preponderance of her 
duties is managerial or executive in nature. The beneficiary's job description includes vague duties such 
as the beneficiary will be "responsible of malung marketing, financial and administrative decisions in 
general," "offer support and work together with auditors when a situation auditing arises," "redirect and apply 
SRC 04 219 50181 
Page 7 
new standard policies within the Miami branch by providing the right tools of confidence, career 
advancement opportunities and appropnate training to the Miami personnel in charge," and "establish the 
necessary parameters for the wholesale distribution and development of higher customer satisfaction." 
Reciting the beneficiary's 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 petitioner has 
failed to provide any detail or explanation of the beneficiary's activities in the course of her daily routine. 
The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Suva, 
724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The petitioner's 
descriptions of the beneficiary's position do not identify the actual duties to be performed, such that they 
could be classified as managerial or executive in nature. 
In addition, the job duties required of the beneficiary include non-qualifjmg duties such as the beneficiary 
will be "responsible [for] making marketing, financial and administrative decisions in general," "will 
develop sales and marketing strategies support with newspaper, radio and television advertising when 
necessary," "responsible for managing the marketing and budget yearly planning that will guarantee 
quality, value savings and total satisfaction to small and industrial consumer," "manage and maintain the 
accounts receivables and accounts payable numbers," "prepare monthly revenues and monthly office 
expenses," and will be "responsible for inventory supply, purchasing and lease contracts of location and 
any other equipments that will be under leasing contracts as part of the store daily use." However, as 
discussed further below, there is no evidence that the U.S. company has hired employees to perform the 
marketing, promotion, purchasing, finances, and sales tasks that are necessary to produce or provide 
services. It appears that the beneficiary will be providing the services of the business rather then directing 
such activities through subordinate employees. An employee who "primarily" performs the tasks 
necessary to produce a product or provide a service 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). 
In the instant matter, the job description submitted by the petitioner provides little insight into the' true 
nature of the tasks the beneficiary will perform or the amount of time she will devote to her various 
duties. While the petitioner has provided a breakdown of the percentage of time the beneficiary will 
spend on various duties, the petitioner has not articulated whether each duty is managerial or executive. 
Thus, the AAO must attempt to glean the nature of the beneficiary's proposed duties from the vague 
descriptions submitted. 
The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary will spend 15 percent of her time "responsible of [sic] malung 
marketing, financial and administrative decisions in general and for managng the marketing and budget 
yearly planning that will guarantee quality, value savings and total satisfaction to small and industrial 
consumer." The record does not resolve whether the beneficiary will perform the day-to-day tasks to 
develop and implement the marketing programs and policies, or whether she will direct others to do so. 
The petitioner did not submit evidence that any employee is actually hired by the U.S. company and 
therefore the lack of employees for the beneficiary to direct and coordinate raises questions as to whether 
the beneficiary will be managing these activities or actually performing the petitioner's marketing duties 
and budget functions. 
, SRC 04 219 50181 
Page 8 
The petitioner further states that the beneficiary will spend 15 percent of her time to "supervise the date-to- 
date sales numbers and assist in the projection of increasing sales targets by offering product packages to 
commercial businesses until deals are fully closed and serviced." It does not appear that the U.S. company 
has hired any sales employees to sell the product, thus, it appears the beneficiary will be directly 
providing the sales operations for the company rather then supervising subordinate sales employee who 
would perform the services required to perform the sales functions. These duties have not been shown to 
be managerial or executive in nature. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sof$ci, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). 
In addition, the petitioner states that the beneficiary will spend 15 percent of her time being "responsible 
for controlling the organizational side of the warehouse maintaining purchase order processing at the lowest 
cost possible", and 20 percent of her time being "responsible for inventory supply, purchasing and lease 
contracts of location and any other equipments that will be under leasing contracts as part of the store daily 
use," which is a total of 35 percent of the beneficiary's time. As noted above, since the beneficiary is the only 
employee and the U.S. company has not hired a subordinate to supervise the purchasing and inventory 
functions of the company, it appears that these responsibilities are principally composed of non-qualifying 
duties that preclude her from functioning in a primarily managerial or executive role. 
Finally, the petitioner states that the beneficiary will spend 20 percent of her time managing and 
maintaining the "accounts receivables and accounts payable numbers to offer support and work together with 
auditors when a situation auditing arises." As noted above, it does not appear that the U.S. company has 
hired a finance employee to prepare the budget and manage financial growth, thus, the petitioner is 
preparing the financial documents rather then reviewing the work prepared by a subordinate employee. In 
addition, without additional clarification fiom the petitioner regarding the managerial or executive duties 
involved, the AAO cannot distinguish this vague responsibility from routine administrative tasks. These 
duties have not been shown to be managerial or executive in nature. 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. 
As the United States company has not hired any employees, it is reasonable to assume, and has not been 
proven otherwise, that the beneficiary will be performing all sales, acquisition and marketing functions 
and financial development, and all of the various operational tasks inherent in operating a company on a 
daily basis, such as acquiring new businesses, negotiating contracts, paying bills, and performing 
marketing functions. 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 Int 'l., 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 
(Comm. 1988). Based on the record of proceeding, the beneficiary's job duties are principally composed 
of non-qualifying duties that preclude her fiom functioning in a primarily managerial or executive role. 
Since the record as presently constituted is not persuasive in demonstrating that the beneficiary has been 
or will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity, the appeal will be dismissed. 
SRC 04 219 50181 
Page 9 
Furthermore, the petitioner indicated in its response to the director that there were no tax returns for the 
last four quarters as requested by the director since the petitioner is "waiting for the approve [sic] of [the 
beneficiary's] Visa renewal so that we can bring [the beneficiary] to join us at our organization.. ." The 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. A visa petition 
may not be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set 
of facts. Matter ofMichelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978). 
The second issue in this proceeding is whether the United States entity is doing business as defined in the 
regulations. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(G) state: 
QualiJSiing organization means a United States or foreign firm, corporation, or other legal 
entity which: 
(1) 
 Meets exactly one of the qualifying relationships specified in the 
definitions of a parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary specified in 
paragraph (l)(l)(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 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the 
Act. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(H) state: 
Doing business means the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or 
services by a qualifying organization and does not include the mere presence of an agent 
or office of the qualifying organization in the United States and abroad. 
The nonimmigrant petition was filed on August 11, 2004. In support of its initial claim that the United 
States entity has been doing business in 2004, the petitioner submitted bank statements in the U.S. 
company's name from January 2004 through June 2004; a copy of the U.S. entity's occupational license; 
seven invoices in total from March 2004, June 2004 and July 2004; and photographs of the business 
premises of the U.S. entity. 
On February 22, 2005, the director requested additional evidence to demonstrate that the U.S. company 
was doing business during the past year. In particular, the director requested copies of bank statements, 
payroll records, invoices, sales records, bills of sale, shipping receipts and orders for goods and services. 
SRC 04 219 50181 
Page 10 
In the petitioner's response, dated May 20, 2005, the petitioner submitted bank statements in the U.S. 
company's name from January 2004 through July 2004 and from September 2004 through April 2005. 
The account's balances ranged from approximately $1337.00 to approximately $10,000. In addition, the 
~etitioner submitted co~ies of the Florida Sales and Use Tax Return for 2004: a lease ameement.   hone 
- , . 
bills issued to a 
 bills issued to the company from May 2004 through May 2005; and 
invoices from March 2004 through April 2005. 
The director denied the petition asserting that the petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence 
demonstrating that the U.S. entity has been or is engaged in the regular, systematic, and continuous 
provision of goods and/or services as a qualifying organization. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the U.S. entity was "working at its minimum capacity" 
since there were "four heavy hurricanes, the three of them passed over Vero Beach and West Palm Beach, 
which is it considered [sic] as an excellent work area." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows the intended United States operation one year within 
the date of approval of the petition to establish the new office. Furthermore, at the time the petitioner 
seeks an extension of the new office petition, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B) requires the 
petitioner to demonstrate that it has been doing business for the previous year. The term "doing business" 
is defined in the regulations as "the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services 
by a qualifying organization and does not include the mere presence of an agent or office of the qualifying 
organization in the United States and abroad." 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(l)(ii). There is no provision in CIS 
regulations that allows for an extension of this one-year period. If the business is not sufficiently 
operational after one year, the petitioner is ineligible by regulation for an extension. In the instant matter, 
the petitioner has not reached the point that it can employ the beneficiary in a predominantly managerial 
or executive position. 
On review, the evidence submitted is insufficient to establish that the U.S. entity has been or is engaged in 
the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services as a qualifying organization. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
The petitioner submitted copies of sales and use tax returns which show minimal retail sales for 2004. 
The company does not demonstrate that it has any assets, inventory or salaried employees, thus it is 
unclear how the U.S. entity accomplished selling the merchandise indicated in the sales and the use tax 
return. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a business plan for the U.S. company that stated that an investment of 
$80,000 and a loan of $1 15,000 will be secured in order to start the new office in the United States. In 
reviewing the bank statements submitted by the petitioner, there is no indication that an amount of 
$80,000 was deposited into the bank account, and there is no documentation evidencing that a loan was 
secured. It is 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 
. SRC 04 219 50181 
Page 11 
petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582,591-92 (BIA 1988). 
The petitioner did not submit documentation regarding the gross sales of the U.S. company such as the 
company's IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return for 2004, the company's financial 
statements or any other evidence of the financial status of the company. Again, 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. 
Finally, as noted above, the petitioner submitted Form UCT-6, Florida's Department of Revenue 
Employer's Quarterly Report for the quarters ending September 30, 2004, December 3 1, 2004, March 3 1, 
2005 and June 30, 2004. The Employer's Quarterly Report for the period ending September 30, 2004, 
indicated that the beneficiary was the only employee hired by the U.S. company. Thus, in August 2004, 
the date the instant petition was filed, the U.S. entity reported the beneficiary as the only employee 
working for the U.S. company. It is implausible that a company is doing business if it has not hired any 
additional individuals to run the business operations. The petitioner does not explain how the U.S. 
company was doing business with only one employee. It is 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). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows the intended United States operation one year within 
the date of approval of the petition to establish the new office. Furthermore, at the time the petitioner 
seeks an extension of the new office petition, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B) requires the 
petitioner to demonstrate that it has been doing business for the previous year. There is no provision in 
CIS regulations that allows for an extension of this one-year period. If the business is not sufficiently 
operational after one year, the petitioner is ineligible by regulation for an extension. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish the 
existence of a continuing qualifying relationship between the United States and foreign entities as 
required by 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(A). As general evidence of a petitioner's claimed qualifying 
relationship, the articles of incorporation alone are not sufficient evidence to determine whether a 
stockholder maintains ownership and control of a corporate entity. The stock certificates, corporate stock 
certificate ledger, stock certificate registry, corporate bylaws, and the minutes of relevant annual 
shareholder meetings must also be examined to determine the total number of shares issued, the exact 
number issued to the shareholder, and the subsequent percentage ownership and its effect on corporate 
control. Additionally, a petitioning company must disclose all agreements relating to the voting of shares, 
the distribution of profit, the management and direction of the subsidiary, and any other factor affecting 
actual control of the entity. See Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., supra. Without full disclosure 
of all relevant documents, CIS is unable to determine the elements of ownership and control. 
In the instant matter, the petitioner submitted the articles of incorporation of the U.S. company. The 
director specifically requested documentary evidence to establish the ownership and control of the foreign 
entity and the U.S. entity such as stock certificates and copies of annual reports which indicate affiliates 
SRC 04 219 50181 
Page 12 
andlor subsidiaries and the percent of ownership held by the parent company. 
 In the petitioner's 
response, the petitioner failed to submit the requested documentation to establish ownership or control by 
the foreign entity. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be 
grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(b)(14). For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner has 
not established that a qualifying relationship exists between the U.S. company and the beneficiary's 
foreign employer. For this additional reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied 
by the MO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial 
decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), 
aff. 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting 
that the MO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as 
an independent and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving 
eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 
1361. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.