dismissed L-1A Case: Exporter

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: WAC-04-007-50066 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1 IOl(a)(lS)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
dministrative Appeals Ofice 
WAC-04-007-50066 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Ofice (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to extend the employment of its President as an L-IA 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section I Ol(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 3 1 10 1 (a)(] 5)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of California 
exporter. The petitioner claims that it is the subsidiary of - 
located in Shanghai, China. The beneficiary was initially approved for 
open a new office. The beneficiary was subsequently approved for an 
extension of his L-IA status, and the petitioner now seeks to again extend the beneficiary's stay for an 
additional two-year period. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that: (1) the beneficiary will 
be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; and (2) the petitioner has a 
qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
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, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary 
will supervise subordinate employees that will relieve him from performing non-qualifying duties, including 
three new employees hired since the date of filing the petition. Counsel further asserts that the petitioner filed 
an amended IRS Form 1 120, U.S. Corporate Income Tax Return, showing that it has a qualifying relationship 
with the foreign entity. In support of these assertions, counsel submits a brief, additional evidence, and 
previously submitted documents. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Act. Specifically, 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 within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States. 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 sutisidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) 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. 
WAC-04-007-50066 
Page 3 
(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. 
The first issue in the present matter is whether the beneficiary will be employed by the United States entity in 
a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 10 1 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 1 01(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" as 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 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. 5 1101(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" as an 
assignment within 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 making; and 
WAC-04-007-50066 
Page 4 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
In a letter filed with the initial petition on October 3,2003, the petitioner described the beneficiary's job duties 
as follows: 
As the company's General Manager and CEO, [the beneficiary] is responsible for managing 
all aspects of the business operations in the U.S. He serves as a director on the board of [the 
petitioner], a position he has held since its incorporation. He has participated in the strategic 
planning that led to [the foreign entity's] decision to enter the American market through [the 
petitioner]. [The beneficiary] formulated the business planning that led to the establishment 
of the business and has played a key role in establishing important relationships with U.S. and 
Chinese importers and exporters. Over the last ten months, [the beneficiary] oversaw the 
establishment of [the petitioner's] office, the hiring of its staff, and the establishment of 
warehouse, distribution and retail operations in California. 
As General Manager and CEO, [the beneficiary] will continue to primarily manage [the 
petitioner] on all aspects of business operations. He will continue to be charged with final 
responsibility for the fiscal performance of [the petitioner], as well as the direction and 
implementation of organizational goals and corporate procedures. He will manage efforts to 
expand [the petitioner's] business operations in North America and increase both import and 
export activity with China. He will represent [the petitioner] before key American and 
Chinese suppliers and purchasers, with authority to negotiate and commit the corporation to 
contractual obligations without monetary limitation. [The beneficiary] will have authority to 
hire local staff, enter into agreements with American suppliers and distributors, and maintain 
relationships with key business partners, financial and legal advisors. [The beneficiary] will 
function at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy of [the petitioner]. 
The petitioner provided its IRS Forms 941, Employer's Quarterly Tax Return, for the first, second, and third 
quarters of 2003. The petitioner further submitted its California Forms DE-6, Quarterly Wage and 
Withholding Report, for the first and second quarters of 2003. 
On December 19, 2003, the director issued a Notice of Intent to Deny the petition. In part, the director stated 
that the petitioner's 2002 IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporate Income Tax Return, calls into question the 
petitioner's staffing and business operations, as the document shows no labor costs, no purchases, and an 
inventory valued at $18,617.00. The director further stated that "[tlhere is insufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that the beneficiary will supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional. or 
managerial employees who will relive himlher from performing non-qualifying duties." The director found 
that the petitioner failed to show that the beneficiary will function at a senior level within the organization, or 
that he will be relieved from performing day-to-day duties. 
WAC-04-007-50066 
Page 5 
In a response dated January 15, 2004, in part the petitioner submitted: (I) copies of 2003 Forms W-2 
showing funds paid to seven individuals; (2) an organizational chart; (3) position descriptions for the 
petitioner's employees; (4) and a letter further addressing the beneficiary's duties and subordinates as follows: 
When [the petitioner] filed the L-IA extension petition on [the beneficiary's] behalf in 
October 2003, the com 
(~ccountin~), Mr -hipping), 
e company has added three nd 
Sales Representatives), and Mr. 
the accounting and 
[The beneficiary] oversees his business but does not directly perform the functions managed. 
These duties are performed by the professionals under [the beneficiary's] supel-vision. [The 
beneficiary] is not trained in and does not cany out specialized duties in finance, shipping 
and sales. These duties have been delegated to his professional staff who meet with [the 
beneficiary] on a regular basis to ensure that sales, finance and shipping operations are 
proceeding smoothly, and [the beneficiary] gives each of his subordinates guidance and 
authorization to proceed in their respective areas. . 
On January 30, 2004, the director denied the petition. In part, the director determined that the petitioner did 
not establish that the beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive 
capacity. The director reiterated the grounds for denial as stated in the Notice of Intent to Deny, and indicated 
that the petitioner failed to overcome those grounds. The director noted that the petitioner provided evidence 
that was already entered into the record, and thus did not document its claim to have hired three new 
employees. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary will supervise subordinate employees that will relieve him 
from performing non-qualifying duties. Counsel again states that the petitioner hired three additional 
employees. In support of this assertion, counsel provides copies of the petitioner's California Form DE-6, 
Quarterly Wage and Withholding Report, and IRS Form 940, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, for 
the fourth quarter of 2003. Counsel submits a brief in which he discusses the petitioner's operations and the 
beneficiary's duties as follows: 
Petitioner's Business Nature Did Not Require it To Hire More Employees Than it Did. 
As an importer of goods, petitioner does not have any direct contact with the general public. 
Rather, it relies exclusively on its networking capability with mass merchandisers. 
Sometimes, goods went from petitioner's factory in China to petitioner's U.S. customers. 
Also, sometimes, petitioner's U.S. customers are referred to the Chines [sic] factory directly. 
As such, petitioner does not always have to stock [a] large volume of merchandises [sic]. 
Contrary to the Service's belief that [the beneficiary] performs day-to-day functions, 
[the beneficiary] seldom performs such functions. [The beneficiary] relies manages [sic] and 
WAC-04-007-50066 
Page 6 
relies [on] . . . [the] petitioner's sales manager, to manage the company's sales representatives 
and dealing with large buyers. 
[The beneficiary] also relies on its finance manager . . . to manage the company's 
accountant . . . on all financial related matters, such as accounts payable, receivables, etc. 
Finally, petitioner's manager is solely responsible in managing ~r.- [sic] 
ith respect to local deliveries shipping, and international shipping. 
As stated above, [the beneficiary] needs not and does not to [sic] perform any daily 
functions. 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are not persuasive. 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(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. The petitioner must specifically state whether the beneficiary is primarily employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity. A beneficiary may not claim to be employed as a hybrid 
"executive/manager" and rely on partial sections of the two statutory definitions. 
The petitioner does not clarify whether it is claiming that the beneficiary will be primarily engaged in 
managerial duties or executive duties. The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary will act as the general 
manager and chief executive officer, thus it appears that the petitioner intends to represent that the beneficiary 
will be employed in both capacities. To sustain such an assertion, the petitioner must establish that the 
beneficiary meets each of the four criteria set forth in the statutory definition for executive capacity under 
section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, and the statutory definition for managerial capacity under section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. At a minimum, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary is primarily 
employed in one or the other capacity. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
The beneficiary's job descriptions submitted by the petitioner are brief and vague, providing little insight into 
the true nature of the tasks the beneficiary will perform in the United States. For example, the statement that 
the beneficiary "is responsible for managing all aspects of the business operations in the U.S." does not 
indicate what tasks the beneficiary will perform on a daily basis. The petitioner makes the broad indication 
that the beneficiary "will continue to be charged with final responsibility for the fiscal performance of [the 
petitioner], as well as the direction and implementation of organizational goals and corporate procedures." 
Yet, this statement does not describe what activities the beneficiary will perform to assess and manage the 
petitioner's financial performance, or what daily measures he will take to oversee goals and procedures. The 
petitioner states that the beneficiary will "represent [the petitioner] before key American and Chinese 
suppliers and purchasers," yet the petitioner has not sufficiently described this duty such that the AAO can 
determine whether it is a managerial or executive function, or a non-qualifying sales activity. 
In responding to the director's request for evidence and addressing the grounds for denial on appeal, the 
petitioner explained that the beneficiary "is not trained in and does not cany out specialized duties in finance, 
shipping and sales." The petitioner provides that the beneficiary's subordinates perform the daily duties 
associated with these functions. While petitioner has discussed what the beneficiary does not do, it has failed 
to sufficiently explain what actual daily duties consume the beneficiary's time. Going on record without 
WAC-04-007-50066 
Page 7 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Treasure Crafr of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). Specifics are 
clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive oy managerial in 
nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. 
Co., Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1 103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The actual duties 
themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Id. Thus, the provided job descriptions do not allow the 
AAO to determine the actual tasks that the beneficiary will perform, such that they can be classified as 
managerial or executive in nature. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
The petitioner provides that that beneficiary will have supervisory authority over six subordinate employees, 
including a sales manager, financial manager, shipping manager, two sales representatives, and shipping 
assistant. The petitioner further states that the beneficiary will supervise a contract accountant. However, the 
petitioner indicated that it hired three of these employees after the date of filing, including the two sales 
representatives and shipping assistant. 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). As three of the beneficiary's subordinates were hired after the date of filing the petition, they 
are not probative of the petitioner's and beneficiary's eligibility as of the filing date, and they will not be 
considered in this proceeding. 
Although the beneficiary is not required to supervise personnel, if it is claimed that his duties involve 
supervising employees, the petitioner must establish that the subordinate employees are supervisory, 
professional, or managerial. See tj 101 (a)(44XA)(ii) of the Act. 
In evaluating whether the beneficiary manages professional employees, the AAO must evaluate whether the 
subordinate positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. 
Section 101(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 110l(a)(32), states that "[tlhe term profession shall include but not 
be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary 
schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." The term "profession" contemplates knowledge or learning, not 
merely skill, of an advanced type in a given field gained by a prolonged course of specialized instruction and 
study of at least baccalaureate level, which is a realistic prerequisite to entry into the particular field of 
endeavor. Matter of Sea, 19 I&N Dec. 8 17 (Comm. 1988); Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (R.C. 1968); 
Malter of Shin, I 1 I&N Dec. 686 (D.D. 1966). 
Therefore, the AAO must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree held 
by a subordinate employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee does not 
automatically lead to the conclusion that an employee is employed in a professional capacity as that term is 
defined above. In the instant case, while the petitioner has indicated that the sales manager, financial 
manager. shipping manager, and accountant earned university degrees, it has not provided the subjects they 
studied. Thus, the petitioner has not established that their degrees are actually required to successfully 
perform their duties, and they cannot be deemed professional employees. 
WAC-04-007-50066 
Page 8 
Nor has the petitioner shown that any of the beneficiary's subordinates supervise other staff members or 
manage a clearly defined department or function of the petitioner, such that they could be classified as 
managers or supervisors. Thus, the petitioner has not shown that the beneficiary's subordinate employees are 
supervisory, professional, or managerial, as required by section 1 Ol(aX44)(AXii) of the Act. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily 
managerial or executive capacity, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(ii). For this reason, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The second issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has established that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(i). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(1Xii) provides: 
(G) Qual~&ing organization means a United States or foreign firm, corporation, or other legal entity 
which: 
(I) Meets exactly one of the qualifying relationships specified in the definitions of a parent, 
branch, affiliate or subsidiary specified in paragraph (1x1 Xii) 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 101 (a)(] 5XL) of the Act. 
(H) Doing business means the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of gods andlor 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. 
(I) Parent means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity which has subsidiaries. 
(K) Subsidiary means a firrn, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent owns, directly or 
indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, half 
of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, 50 percent of a 50-50 joint 
venture and has equal control and veto power over the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, less 
than half of the entity, but in fact controls the entity. 
In the initial petition, the petitioner indicated that it is the subsidiary of the beneficiary's foreign employer, as 
the foreign entity owns 100 percent of the petitioner's stock. In support of this assertion, the petitioner 
WAC-04-007-50066 
Page 9 
submitted a stock certificate that reflects that the foreign entity acquired 100 shares of the petitioner's stock in 
April 2000. The petitioner provided its articles of incorporation that show that it is authorized to issue 10,000 
shares of stock. The petitioner provided a copy of its 2001 and 2002 IRS Forms 1120, U.S. Corporate Income 
Tax Return. Schedules K of the returns indicate that the petitioner: (1) is not a subsidiary in an affiliated 
group or a parent-subsidiary controlled group; (2) does not have any shareholders that own 50 percent or 
more of the petitioner's voting stock; and (3) does not have any foreign shareholders who own at least 25 
percent of the petitioner's stock. 
In the director's Notice of Intent to Deny, in part the director pointed out that the petitioner's 2002 IRS Form 
1120 is incongruent with its claim to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the foreign entity. 
In response, counsel stated that: 
[The petitioner's] 2002 Form 1120 "was inadvertently prepared without indicating that the 
U.S. corporation is the subsidiary of a foreign corporation (Schedule K, Part 4 and Part 7) and 
the company also inadvertently omitted Form 5472 Information Return of a 25% Foreign- 
Owned U.S. Corporation. Unfortunately, the company's new accountant . . . was not familiar 
with these reporting requirements. These errors have been corrected. 
The petitioner submitted a revised 2002 Form 1120 that reflects that the petitioner is a wholly-owned 
subsidiary of the foreign entity. The revised Form 1120 is not signed by an authorized represented of the 
petitioner, and the petitioner did not provide evidence to show that it was filed with the Internal Revenue 
Service. 
In the director's denial, in part he found that the petitioner did not establish that it has a qualifying relationship 
with the beneficiary's foreign employer. The director reiterated his observations regarding the 2002 Form 
1 120 as stated in the Notice of Intent to Deny. The director noted that the revised Form 1 120 was not signed, 
and was not accompanied by evidence that it was filed with the appropriate government office. The director 
stated that the petitioner tried to make a material change in the petition in an effort to conform to service 
requirements. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner did file an amended IRS Form 1 120, U.S. Corporate Income Tax 
Return, showing that it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. The petitioner provided no new 
evidence to support that it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are not persuasive on this point, and the petitioner has failed to establish 
that it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. The 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 for purposes of this visa classification. Matter of Church 
Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA !988); see also Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 
19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Mutter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm. 1982). In context of this visa 
petition, ownership refers to the direct or indirect legal right of possession of the assets of an entity with full 
power and authority to control; control means the direct or indirect legsll right and authority to direct the 
WAC-04-007-50066 
Page 10 
establishment, management, and operations of an entity. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N 
Dec. at 595. 
As general evidence of a petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship, stock certificates alone are not sufficient 
evidence to determine whether a stockholder maintains ownership and control of a corporate entity. The 
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 initially submitted a 2002 Form 1120, U.S. Corporate Income Tax Return, 
that contradicts its claim to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the foreign entity, as discussed above. Though 
the petitioner provided a revised version in response to the director's Notice of Intent to Deny, the revised 
copy is not signed by an authorized representative of the petitioner. In his denial, the director called into 
question whether the revised Form 1 120 was actually filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Yet, on appeal 
the petitioner fails to submit evidence of filing the amended return beyond a brief statement from counsel. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treusure Craft ofCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972). Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. The assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 
I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter Of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez- 
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Thus, the petitioner has failed to establish that the amended 
return was filed, and it is given no weight in this proceeding. 
With the initial petition, the petitioner further provided its 2001 Form 1120, U.S. Corporate Income Tax 
Return. This return is also inconsistent with the petitioner's claim to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the 
foreign entity, as the accompanying Schedule K indicates that the petitioner: (I) is not a subsidiary in an 
affiliated group or a parent-subsidiary controlled group; (2) does not have any shareholders that own 50 
percent or more of the petitioner's voting stock; and (3) does not have any foreign shareholders who own at 
least 25 percent of the petitioner's stock. The petitioner has not addressed this discrepancy. 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). 
In the Notice of Intent to Deny, the director put the petitioner on notice that its relationship to the foreign 
entity is in question. Yet, the petitioner has failed to supplement the record with additional evidence to prove 
the alleged parent-subsidiary relationship. Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has failed to establish that it 
has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity, as required by 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(1)(3)(i). For this 
additional reason,,the appeal will be dismissed. 
WAC-04-007-50066 
Page 11 
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. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.