dismissed L-1A Case: Convenience Store

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 1989978 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 29, 2021 
The Petitioner seeks to operate as a convemence store. It intends to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as "President" of its new office I under the L-lA nonirnmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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 Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that: (1) it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's employer abroad; 
(2) the Beneficiary's employment abroad was in an executive capacity; and (3) the Petitioner would 
employ the Beneficiary in an executive capacity within one year of the petition's approval. 2 The 
matter is now before us on appeal. 3 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal because 
the Petitioner did not establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's employer 
abroad. Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding the remaining issues pertaining to the Beneficiary's 
foreign and proposed employment in an executive capacity. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 
(1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is 
unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
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(l)(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. 
2 The Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary 's employment abroad was, or that the proposed U.S. employment 
would be, in a managerial capacity. 
3 Although the Petitioner provided a letter frornl , I listing the Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance of 
Attorney or Accredited Representative, as among the Petitioner's submissions on appeal, a Form G-28 was not submitted. 
Therefore , we will treat the Petitioner as self-represented in this appeal proceeding . 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving a new 
office, a qualifying organization must have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). 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. Id. 
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 must establish that the petitioner 
secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation and disclose the proposed nature and scope 
of the entity, its organizational structure, its financial goals, and the size of the U.S. investment. See 
generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
II. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The primary issue to be addressed in this matter 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 101(a)(l5)(L) 
of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1). 
Regulation and case law confirm that ownership and control are the factors that must be examined in 
determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and foreign entities. See, 
e.g., Matter of Church Scientology Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (Comm'r 1988); Matter of Siemens Med. 
Sys., Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (Comm'r 1986); Matter o_f 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 foll 
power and authority to control; control means the direct or indirect legal right and authority to direct 
the establishment, management, and operations of an entity. Matter of Church Scientology Int'l, 19 
I&N Dec. at 595. 
In this matter, the Petitioner provided information in the L Classification Supplement to Form 1-129 
listing j I as the Beneficiary's foreign employer and stating that the Petitioner is related to 
the foreign entity as its subsidiary, thereby indicating that the foreign entity owns and controls the U.S. 
Petitioner. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(K). However, in a description of the stock ownership and 
managerial control in No. 10 of the L Classification Supplement, the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary owns "100%" of both entities, thereby indicating that the two entities are related as 
affiliates because they are both owned and controlled by the same individual. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(l)(L). As supporting evidence, the Petitioner provided its certificate of formation showing 
that it was authorized to issue one million shares and a stock certificate showing that all one million 
shares were issued to the Beneficiary. 
Because the Petitioner provided evidence showing that it is owned by the Beneficiary and not by the 
foreign entity, a parent-subsidiary relationship cannot be said to exist between the two entities. As 
2 
such, we will examine the foreign entity's ownership to determine whether it and the Petitioner share 
common ownership and control by as affiliates. See id. In this instance, the record includes the 
following documents: (1) the foreign entity's "Taxpayer Online Verification," dated August 2017, 
listing the Beneficiary's name and the foreign entity's name, business address, and business activities; 
(2) the foreign entity's business registration for the one-year period from June 2016 to July 2017, also 
listing the Beneficiary's name and the foreign entity's name, business addressj and business activities; 
(3) a "Renewal of Tenancy Agreement" signed by the managing director of I where the 
foreign entity's business was located, and the Beneficiary as "tenant" representing the business housed 
at a space at thel I and (4) the Beneficiary's 2016 tax return listing the Beneficiary as 
"individual deriving income under the head business except salary." Although the submitted 
documents include the Beneficiary's name and indicate that he is the foreign entity's point of contact, 
they do not establish that the Beneficiary owns the foreign entity. The Petitioner provided no 
documents specifically identifying the Beneficiary as the business owner. 
Accordingly, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) informing the Petitioner that it has not 
established that it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity because it has not provided 
sufficient evidence demonstrating the Beneficiary's ownership of the foreign entity. The Director 
requested that the Petitioner provide documents containing details about the foreign entity's formation, 
management, and ownership and any meeting minutes listing the shareholders of the foreign entity. 
In response, the Petitioner stated that I I is the company that is establishing the U.S. affiliate 
business" and submitted documents pertaining to the Petitioner's ownership and control. The 
Petitioner also provided the foreign entity's "interim" bank statement, which lists the Beneficiary's 
name and shows transactions between November 2016 and May 2017. Although this and the four 
originally submitted documents indicate that the Beneficiary was the foreign entity's point of contact, 
they do not adequately address the RFE's request for documents containing details about the foreign 
entity's formation, management, and ownership or any meeting minutes listing the shareholders of the 
foreign entity. document. Further, although the Petitioner also provided copies of fund transfer 
requests showing the Beneficiary as the account holder and recipient of various funds, the Petitioner 
did not explain how or if these documents are relevant to the issue of the foreign entity's ownership. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides a briefreiterating its claim regarding the Beneficiary's ownership 
of the foreign entity and again provides copies of the documents described above in Nos. 1-4 as a 
representation of the Beneficiary's ownership of the foreign entity. In light of the deficiencies listed 
above, we disagree with the Petitioner's assertions and question its reluctance to provide documents 
containing details about the foreign entity's formation, management, and ownership or the meeting 
minutes listing the foreign entity's shareholders, as requested in the RFE. Failure to submit requested 
evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l4). 
Because the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence establishing the Beneficiary's ownership of 
the foreign entity, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner and the foreign entity are affiliates and that 
they have the requisite qualifying relationship. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3