dismissed L-1A Case: Electronics

identifying data ~~ b~ 
prevent dearly mnre# 
iflm4ilo ot wnoad iwlwq 
File: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: MAY i. s 2005 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
f 
P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonirnmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center, 
and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner, states that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of 
!d- 
., located in Venezuela. The petitioner plans to operate a business engaged in 
eslgn, manu acture, and commercialization of electronic equipments, products, parts, and 
accessories. The U.S. entity was incorporated in the State of Florida on June 14. 2001. The 
petitioner seeks to hire the beneficiary as a new employee to open its U.S. office. Accordingly, in 
September 2002, the U.S. entity petitioned Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) to classify 
the beneficiary as a nonirnmigrant intracompany transferee (L-LA) pursuant to section 
101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(15)(L), as an 
executive or manager for one year. The petitioner endeavors to employ the beneficiary's services 
as the U.S. entity's director of operations at an annual salary of $36,000. 
On December 31, 2002, the director denied the petition. The director determined that at the time 
of filing, the petitioner did not establish that it had secured sufficient physical premises to house 
the new office. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion, 
and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner's counsel asserts that 
the beneficiary has secured a commercial premise and submits a lease agreement. 
To establish L-1 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 qualifying organization must have employed the beneficiary in 
a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, 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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(3), 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 (I)(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 qualifying 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 prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies himlher 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. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(~), if the petition indicates the beneficiary is coming to the 
United States as a manager or executive to open or to be employed in a new office in the United 
States, the petitioner shall submit evidence that: 
(A) Sufficient physical premises to house the new office have been secured; 
(B) The beneficiary has been employed for one continuous year in the three 
year period preceding the filing of the petition in an executive or managerial 
capacity and that the proposed employment involved executive or managerial 
authority over the new operation; 
(C) The intended United States operation, within one year of the approval of 
the petition, will support an executive or managerial position as defined in 
paragraphs (l)(l)(ii)(B) or(C) of this section, supported by information regarding: 
(I) The proposed nature of the office describing the scope of the 
entity, its organizational structure, and its financial goals; 
(2) The size of the United States investment and the financial 
ability of the foreign entity to remunerate the beneficiary and to 
commence doing business in the United States; and 
(3) The organizational structure of the foreign entity. 
The issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has secured sufficient physical premises to 
house the new office. 
Initially, on September 13, 2002, the petitioner submitted a copy of a "virtual services" agreement 
with the Intelligent Office to establish that it had secured sufficient physical premises to house the 
new office. Consequently, on October 21, 2002, the director requested that the petitioner submit a 
copy of a lease agreement for the U.S. entity. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a November 18,2002 letter signed by counsel and another copy 
of the virtual services agreement with The Intelligent Office. The agreement is illegible and it is 
unclear if there is a legitimate agreement. In the November 18,2002 letter, counsel asserted: 
[The foreign entity] obtained a service agreement on behalf of [the beneficiary] with 
The Intelligent Office until such time as he is able to enter the United States and 
obtain adequate operational premises. 
On December 31, 2002, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had not 
secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a new lease agreement and supporting documents. The lease 
indicates that the agreement was made and entered into on January 15, 2003 for a term of one - 
year. The lease is for the office space at 
petitioner will pay $800 per month for 9 
On review, the petitioner has failed to establish that it has secured sufficient physical premises to 
house the office as required by the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). On appeal, the 
petitioner submits a new lease describing the premises to be secured for the U.S. entity's 
operations. Counsel states: 
At the time of filing the petition, [the beneficiary] was not present in the 
United States and unable to secure proper commercial premises. 
[The beneficiary] had the intention of waiting for the approval of L-1A in 
order to enter the U.S. in the proper status and commence operations. 
He arranged for a virtual office on a temporary basis until his proper 
entry as an L-1A intra-company transferee, to secure a proper business 
premise. 
Due to the existing situation in Venezuela, [the beneficiary] was unable, 
at the time of filing to be present in the United States. Because of the 
circumstances, [the beneficiary] decided to enter the United States and 
secure a proper commercial premise, as evidence by the enclosed Lease 
Agreement. 
However, 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 of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. 
Comm. 1978). Therefore, at the time of filing on September 13, 2002, the petitioner did not have 
sufficient physical premises to house the new office. 
In addition, the petitioner failed to establish sufficient physical premises to house the new office 
at the time of the director's request for additional information on October 21, 2002. The purpose 
of the request for evidence is to elicit further information that clarifies whether eligibility for the 
benefit sought has been established, as of the time the petition is filed. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(8) and 
(12). The 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)(14). As in the present matter, where the 
petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence, and has been given an 
opportunity to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 IBN Dee. 
533 (BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be considered, it should 
have submitted the documents in response to the director's request for evidence. Id. Under the 
circumstances, the AAO need not and does not consider the sufficiency of the evidence submitted 
on appeal. Consequently, the appeal will be dismissed. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the AAO finds that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary has been employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity abroad as defined 
at section IOl(a)(44) of the Act. As previously stated, to establish L-1 eligibility under section 
101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, the petitioner must submit evidence that within three years preceding 
the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, the foreign organization 
employed the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized 
knowledge capacity, for one continuous year. Id. On Form 1-129 and in an August 14,2002 letter, 
the petitioner stated that the beneficiary "works for the foreign entity as general manager from 
1976 until present." In addition, in the September 4, 2002 letter, the petitioner stated that the 
beneficiary "has been the president and general manager for the past twenty-five years of the 
foreign entity" and stated that Exhibit I described the beneficiary's position abroad. However, 
Exhibit I and several other Exhibits are written in Spanish. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.2(b)(3) requires, in pertinent part, that "any document containing foreign language submitted 
to the Service shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator 
has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English." Id. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Crnfr of Califonzia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornrn. 1972)). In sum, based on the 
minimal evidence provided, the AAO is not persuaded that the beneficiary has been employed in 
a primarily managerial or executive capacity abroad. For this additional reason, the petition will 
not be approved. 
In addition, the record contains insufficient evidence: describing the scope of the U.S. entity, its 
organizational structure and its financial goals; or showing the size of the United States 
investment, the financial ability of the foreign entity to remunerate the beneficiary and to 
commence doing business in the United States, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(~). As noted 
above, most of the documents describing the foreign entity were submitted without certified 
English translations and will have no evidentiary weight. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). The 
petitioner has therefore failed to establish that the U.S. entity will support a managerial or 
executive position within one year. For this additional reason, the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 
(E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 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 AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
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.