dismissed L-1A Case: Freight Forwarding

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
n ,n[f'7pp WTT&);$~,~ bd- , i kd id e U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
- @ n mr- 
2, L L6 
IU 
FILE: LTN 02 079 54024 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
I 
and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. 6 1101 (a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETTTIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision or'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. 
qobert P. Wiemann, Director 
%" QAdrninistrative Appeals Office 
LIN 02 079 54024 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimrnigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonirnmigrant petition seeking to extend the employment of its president as a 
nonirnrnigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to § 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of Illinois that is 
operating as a freight forwarding company. The petitioner claims that it is the subsidiary of the beneficiary's 
foreign employer, located in Seoul, Korea. The petitioner now seeks to extend the employment of the 
beneficiary for three years. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish: (1) that the beneficiary would 
be employed under the extended petition in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; and (2) that the 
petitioning organization is doing business in the United States. 
On appeal, counsel contends that the beneficiary is employed by the United States entity is a primarily 
executive capacity as he is serving as the president and chief executive officer of both the petitioning 
organization and the foreign entity. Counsel states that the "detailed" job description previously provided by 
the petitioner demonstrates ihat :he beneficiary "has wide discretionary decision making authority for the 
expansion and operating policies of both organizations " Counsel also claims that the record establishes that 
the petitioning organizatian is operating as a sales office of the roreign entity. and is "an integral part of 
providing quality service to ihe customers c.€ [thz loreign organization]." Counsel states that it is unl-ealistic 
:o expect 3 new office to reach its full deveiopment wiihin one year, and claims that rhe petitioner's "fairly in- 
depth business plan" reflects the business' development over the next three years. Counsel submits a brief and 
additional evidence ill ssllpport of the appeal. 
'ro establish L-1 eligibility, the petitioner must meet the criteria outlined in section lOl(a)(15)(L) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(I,). 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 
qualifj~ing managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, far one continuous year. 
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, executive, 9r specialized 
knowledge capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.K. 5 214.2(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. 
(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. 
LIN 02 079 54024 
Page 3 
(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 him/her 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 regulatiofl at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(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 
defiricd 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)(I-l) 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 stalemerit describing the staffing of thz new bperarion, including the number of employees 
and types of positio~ls held accornpanicd by evidence of wages paid to employees when the 
!.eueficiary will be employed in it management or executive capacity; and 
(E) Evidence of the financial status of the United States operation. 
'fhe AAC) will first address the issue of whether the beneficiary would be cmployeil by the United States 
?nrjty in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(M)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 lOl(a)(M)(A), provides: 
'The tern1 "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee 
primarily- 
(i) Manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, fl~ilnction, 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) Has the authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions 
(such as promotion and leave authorization) if another employee or other employees are directly 
supervised; 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 
LIN 02 079 54024 
Page 4 
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), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means 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 
(iv) Receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of 
directors. or st~kholders of the organization. 
The petitioner filed the 1109immigrant petition on January 7, 2002, noting that the beneiiciary would be . 
e~nployerl b-j the United States entity as its president. In a letter submitted with the petition, clated.December 
26.200 1, counsel provided the following description of the beneficiary's present and proposed job duties: 
As President, [the berieficiary] has been responsible for establishing the colnpanp, 
establishing the businzss objectives and methods of implementation, overseeing the busitless 
operations, establishing business operation goals and expansion plans, overseeing the 
financial condition of the company, establishing operating policies, hiringltiring personnel. 
[The petitioning organization] is submitting the instant petition for [the beneficiary] to 
continue to serve as Preside~~t of the company. As President, [the beneficiary] will be 
responsible for establishing operating objectives and time frames, establishing US market - 
yresence for the business, establishing company policies, forming operating divisions of'ihe 
company. overseeing the overall operations, reviewing financial condition[s] and regortil~g to 
the Korean parent corporation, and full discretion over hiring and firing cf personnel. 
Counsel submitted with the nonirnmigrant petition Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 941, Employer's 
Quarterly Federal Tax Return, for the quarters ending March, June and September 2001. Counsel also 
provided a statement from the petitioner, dated November 17, 2001, indicating that, other than the 
beneficiary, it presently employs a full-time ocean export operator who is responsible for the petitioner's 
"[elxport operation for Far-east development." 
The director issued a request for additional evidence on February 7, 2002, asking that the petitioner submit a 
statement from an authorized official of the petitioning organization describing in detail the job duties 
presently performed by the beneficiary and the tasks that the beneficiary would perform under the extended 
petition. The director also requested that the petitioner submit a description of its staff, including the number 
of employees and position held by each. 
LIN 02 079 54024 
Page 5 
Counsel responded and submitted a letter from the petitioner, dated February 20, 2002. The petitioner 
explained in its letter that over the past year the beneficiary has served as the president of both the United 
States and foreign organizations, and in this position, is responsible for: 
[Tlhe overall supervision and management of the 2 organizations including developing 
company expansion plans (such as establishing a China branch and the US branch office), 
negotiating contracts with export agents, assigning employees for obtaining marketing data 
for establishment of addjtional branch locations, working with company executives for the 
marketing of expanded services and location of international export partners to provide their 
service, assignment of personnel for cngaging in marketing functions to expand client base, 
establishing operating divisions, delegating responsibilities, overseeing the financial 
operating conditions and making appropriate changes, promoting personnel. 
Counsel submitted an organizational chart of the petitioning company that identified the beneficiary as the 
president with a coordination director as his subordinate. The chart also reflected the petitioner's claimed 
relationship with a third United States company. United Transportation (UTS), which is responsible for the 
foreign entity's customs and shipping. The petitioner noted in its Febnlary 2002 letter that due to the nature of 
its busilless, which acts as a "service oriented" office support and coordination centel for orders being shipped 
to and received from the foreign entity, it is not necessary to employ rwmy workers. The petitimer explained 
that :he actual storage and shipment of merchandise is handled by UTS. 
In a decision dated March 22, 2002, the director detenilinzd that the petitioner did not demozlstrate that the 
beneficiary would be employed by the United States entity in a qualifying capacity. The tlirectnr stated that 
the beneficiary's job description does not provide an adequate or~tline of the specific tasks .the beneficixy :ias 
been performing in the Uriited States and would perform under the extended petition. The uirector noted that 
the job description also encapsulates the job duties of the beneficiary's position as president in the foreign 
organization. The director also noted a discrepancy in the record regarding the job title of the beneficiary's 
subordinate e~ployee, who was referred to as both an ocean export operator and a coordination director, and 
indicated that the petitioner failed to provide her job description. The director concluded that the petitioner's 
organizational structure would not support the beneficiary in a primarily executive position. Accordingly, the 
director denied the petition. 
In tm appeal filed on April 19,200'2. counsel provides the following similar job description for the beneFicjary 
as that przviously outlined above: 
Serving as President and CEO of both [the foreign entity] and [the petitioning organization]. 
Responsibility for the overall supervision and management of the 2 organizations including 
developing company expansion plans (such as establishing a China branch and a US branch 
company), negotiating contracts with export agents, assigning employees for obtaining 
marketing data for establishment of additional branch locations, working with company 
executives for the marketing of expanded services and location of international export 
partners to provide service, assignment of personnel for engaging in marketing functions to 
expand client base, establishing operating divisions, delegating responsibilities, overseeing 
the financial operating conditions and making appropriate changes, sole discretionary 
decision making regarding day to day operations of both companies. 
LIN 02 079 54024 
Page 6 
Counsel challenges the director's finding that the beneficiary's job description did not adequately outline the 
beneficiary's tasks and states: 
Contrary to [Citizenship and Immigration Services' (CIS)] contention, the job description 
provided is quite detailed and cannot be construed as being general in nature. The duties are 
well defined and are easily broken down into specific job duties necessary to expand and 
operate the organizations. It is clear that [the] Beneficiary's duties are executive in nature. 
[The] Beneficiary's duties also include presiding over the Korean parent corporation as its 
President. [The] Beneficiary has a proven record of success jn developing a freight 
forwarding business as shown through the success of the foreign parent corporation. [The] 
Beneficiary's duties cannot be stated as clerical or auxiliary in nature nor is he engaged in the 
performance of the day to day tasks necessary to run the operation. [The] Beneficiary also 
has the specialized expertise in the freight forwarding business and must make the essential 
decisions necessary for the expansion of the business. He has exclusive discretionary 
decision making authority over both entities and receives little direction from the board[s] of 
directors. Additionally, as the President, he is operating at the most senior level in both 
organizations. 
i'ouns:i also cjtes four unpublished AAO dtcisions as evidence lhat CIS shouli not rely solely on the size of 
rhe petitiorter's staffing levels when deterlnini~ig managerial or ~xec~ltive capacity. Counsel states that the 
1 beneficiary rrray qualify as an executive even if he is thc  petitioner'^ sole employee. Counsel funher notes 
that che petitioner's ilse of independent contractors would satisfy the requirement that the beneficiary works 
ihrol~gll ather einployees rather than performing the businsss' functions himself. 
3n revizw, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary worild be enlployed by the United States 
entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. When a new business is established and comliences 
operations, the regulations recognize that a designated manager or executive responsible for setting up 
aperations will be engaged in a variety of activities not normally performed by employees at the executive or 
~nanagerjsl ievcl and that often the full range of managerial responsibility cannot be performed. Thc 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows the intended United States operation one year within the date 
approval of the petition to support an executive or managzrial position. In order to qualify for &I, extension 
sf L-l tionimmigrant classification under a petition involving s new office, the petitioner must demonstrate 
through evidence, such as a description of both the beneficiarj's job duties and the staffing qf the 
~rganization, that the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 'There is 
yo 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. 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the 
~~etitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(3)(ii). As required in the regulations, the 
oetitjoner must submit a detailed description of the executive or managerial services to be performed by the 
beneficiary. Id. Additionally, as the definitions of executive and managerial capacity have two parts the 
petitioner must tirst show that the beneficiary performs the high level responsibilities that are specified in the 
definitions. Second, the petitioner must prove that the beneficiary primarily performs these specified 
responsibi!ities 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), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). 
LIN 02 079 54024 
Page 7 
Based on the current record, the AAO is unable to determine whether the claimed executive duties constitute 
the majority of the beneficiary's duties, or whether the beneficiary primarily performs non-executive 
administrative or operational duties. The petitioner's job description of the tasks to be performed by the 
beneficiary indicates that a portion of the beneficiary's time would be spent performing non-executive 
functions of the organizations. Specifically, the petitioner noted that the beneficiary would be responsible for 
negotiating contracts, marketing the petitioner's services, and locating companies to provide export services. 
As the petitioner did not provide an allocation of the amount of time the beneficiary would spend on the non- 
qualifying functions of the business, the AAO cannot determine whether the majority of his time would be 
dedicated exclusively to executive tasks as claimed by counsel. An employee who primarily performs the 
tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be enlployed in a managerial 
or executive capacity. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593,604 (Cornrn. 1988). 
Additionally, while the petitioner's job description provides an outline of the job dutizs to be performed by the 
beneficiary, it does not seem plausible that the United States corporation can sufficiently operate with the 
beneficiary and a subordinate employee. Counsel correctly observes that a company's size alone, without 
taking into acccqint the reasonable needs of the organization, may not be the determining factor in denying a 
visa to a multinational manager or executive. See section 101(a)(44)(@), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101 (aj(44)(C). 
However, it is appropriate for CIS to consider the size of the petitioning company in conjuiiction with other 
~elevant factors, SIIZ~ as a co~npany's small personnel size, the a'ssencz of e~nployzes wbo would periorm the 
non-nlanageiial or non-executive operations of the company, or a "shell company" tliat does not conduct 
I Sus;r,ess iik :t regular and continuous nlanner. See, e.g. Systronzcs Curp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 
2001). The size of a company pay be especially relevant when CIS notes discrepancies in the record and 
fails to believe rhat the facts asserted are true. Id. 
At the tilne of filing, the peti~ioiiei employed the beneficiary as president and a second employee as an ocea11 
export operator. The AAO notes that in the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence the 
petitioner identified the subordinate employee as a coordination director. Although requested by the director, 
the petitioner tiid not submit a description of the job duties to 5e yerfomed by the ocean export 
operatorlccordination director. Counsel submits on appeal the petitioner's business plan, which includes a job 
description for the coordination director. As the petitioner was previously put on notice of required evidence 
and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the rccord before the visa petition was adjudicated the 
AAO will not consider this evidence for my purpose. iMatter of Sonuno, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (3W 1988). The 
appeal will be a.ljudicatecl based on the record of proceeding before the director. At the time of the director's 
yeview, tllc recard did not contain sufficient evidence to determine who is responsible for the "service 
oriented" functions of the business, which the petitioner stated include coordi~iating and confirming 
reservations and shipments. It does not appear therefore that the reasonable needs of the petitioning company 
might plausibly he met by the services of the beneficiary as president and one subordinate employee. 
The A40 ac!nowledges the petitioner's claim that additional personnel are not necessary due to the nature of 
;he petitioner's business. The petitioner bases this claim on its supposed relationship with CTTS, a United 
States storage and shipping company, which the petitioner stated is responsible for clearing shipments 
through customs and receiving and inspecting shipments. The petitioner. however, offers no documentary 
1 evidence establishing its relationship with UTS or confirming the terms of the relations hi^. Going on recoid 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of CaEijomia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). 
LIN 02 079 54024 
Page 8 
Regardless, the reasonable needs of the petitioner serve only as.a factor in evaluating the lack of staff in the 
context of reviewing the claimed managerial or executive duties. The petitioner must still establish that the 
beneficiary is to be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity, pursuant to 
sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) or the Act. As discussed above, the petitioner has not established this 
essential element of eligibility. 
The AAO also acknowledges counsel's claim on appeal that the petitioner has hired an additional two 
employees since the filing of the nonimmigrant petition. This information however will not be considered. 
The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonirnmigrant visa petition. A visa petition 
may ~iot be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of 
facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Colp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Cornrn. 1978). 
Furthermore, the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary is continuing his role as president of the foreign entity 
while employed in the United States has no relevance on the beneficiary's employment in the United States as 
a manager or an executive. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act and the regulation at § 214.2(1)(1) require that 
the beneficiary render services in a managerial or executive capacity to a parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary 
of the beneficiary's foreign employer. In other words, the beneficiary's employment in a managerial or 
executive capacity is determined by the functions performed by the beneficiary during his employment with 
the United States entity. 
1 lastly, counsel references on appeal several unpublished LAO decisions as evidence of the beneficiary's 
.;n~ployment in a primarily executive capacity. Counsel. however, failed to specifically establish that the Facts 
~f the instant petition are analogous to those in the referenced decisions. Counsel's summary of the decisiolls 
and subsequent statement that '.[t]he instant case falls squarely within the parameters of the [AAO] decisions" 
is not sufficient. The assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. &latter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Furthermore, while 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions are binding on all CIS employees in the 
administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary would be 
employed u lider the extended petition in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. For this reason. the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The AAO .xi11 next addr:ss the issue of whether the petitioning organization is doing business in the United 
States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(H) defines "doing business" as: 
[Tlhe regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods andlor services by a qualifying 
organization and does not include the mere presence of an agent or offiice of the qualifying 
organization in the United States and abroad. 
1 Counsel stated in her December 25, 2001 letter submitted with the nonirnmigra~t petition that the petitioning 
organization has been operating in the United States since April 2001 as an import, export and freight 
forwarding company, which sells the services provided by the beneficiary's foreign employer. As evidence of 
the petitioner's business in the United States, counsel provided: (I) the petitioner's articles of incorporation 
LIN 02 079 54024 
Page 9 
and corporate certificate; (2) a lease agreement entered into on January 15,2001; (3) three photographs of the 
petitioner's office door and inside office space; (4) June through October 2001 statements for inventory; (5) a 
letter from the petitioner's financial institution confirming the existence of a checking account balance of 
$60,827.28 on November 20, 2001; (6) bank statements for August through October 2001; and (7) a financial 
statement for the period ending October 31,2001 reflecting a gross profit of $68,500. 
In his February 7, 2002 request for evidence, the director asked that the petitioner submit documentary 
evidence demonstrating that it has conducted the regular, systematic and continuous provision of goods or 
services in the United States for the previous year. 
In its February 20, 2002 letter in response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner stated it was 
established to provide sales and office coordination support services in the United States to the foreign entity. 
The petitioner explained that the its pi-imary function is to receive sales for the foreign entity from the United 
States, while UTS handles the foreign entity's customs procedures and shipping. The petitioner further 
explained: 
Thc US subsidiary ls responsible for receiving orders from US cuslomers shipping LO the 
Pacific: Rim and for tracking inconling shipments from Giant Ex~ress Co., Ltd., the Koreail 
2arGnt corporation. The US subsidiary is responsible for working closely with UTS For the, 
purpose of clearing shipments through custcms and performing inspecting functions and 
receiving the shipment which are stored at their storase facility. 
The IJS subsidiary receives a coordination and origination fee from the Korean pacent 
corporation for sales orders initiated front its oftire and also for providjng coordination 
service and support to incoming shipments originated by  he Korean parent corporatior. 
Counsel submitted numerous statements titled tax payment invoices, inventory statements from June through 
Nov~nlber 2001, and partially translated applications for remittance. Counsel also provided several 
:intranslated documents. 
The direl-tor dctemined in his March 22, 2002, decision that the petitioner had not established that it has been 
doing busirless in the United States. The director noted that all invoices submitted in support af the 
2etitionerts business were issued by the foreign entity, and stated that although the petitioner provided 
prepared invoices, the renlittance was paid by UTS in care of the petiticner. The director stated that "the 
United States entity appears to have little function, with most major functions being performed by a third 
party agent of the foreign entity." The director concluded that the petitioner's functions of providing office 
coordination and support, receiving orders from United States customers and tracking incoming shipments 
were similar to those of an agent of the foreign company. The director determined that the petitioning 
organization was not doing biisiness in the United States, and consequently, denied the petition. 
On appeal, counsel states that the petitioning organization has been doing business continuously in the United 
States. Counsel references the petitioner's business plan submitted with the appeal as evidence of the 
petitioner's expansion over the next three years, and states that the petitioner will reach its full business 
potential if given the opportunity. Counsel claims that it is unrealistic for CIS to expect that the business will 
have reached its full development within one year, and states "[ilt takes time and investment to operate a 
business, acquire new clients, [and] develop a well-staffed company." 
LIN 02 079 54024 
Page 10 
Counsel also submits letter from the petitioner, in which the petitioner explains its business operations. In its 
April 17, 2002 letter, the petitioner states that it is not an agent of the foreign entity, but rather provides 
freight-forwarding services to customers in the United States on behalf of the foreign entity. The petitioner 
provides: 
Our function is to facilitate the transport and clearance of the freight from one location to 
another. We get orders, we make the reservation on the transportation medium, we assist 
with filling out customs and other shipping documentation, we ensure receipt on the receiving 
side, we confm reservations with the shippers, we utilize the services of a customs 
brokeriige to help the client get the merchandise out of the customs and to make sure that the 
freight is ultimately delivered to the recipient. The greatest thing that we sell is our excellent 
service. If we do not provide good service and we do not follow through with the orders, etc. 
and freight does not get delivered in [a] timely manner, we would be out of business 
tomorrow. 
The petitioner explains that due to licensing restrictions in the United States, which require that a company 
operate for three years in the United States prior to receiving federal licensing for freight shipping and 
custon~s. the foreigrl entity contracts with U-TS as its customs brokerage house. 
911 review, the petitionei- has 30t demonstrated that it is doing business in the United States. As correctly 
noted b;  he director, the record supports a finding thst the pztitioning organizatiorl is acting as xi1 agent or 
~fficz of tlie foreign entity as the services provide.1 by the petitioner are dependerlt on the operations c>f the 
foreign corporation. h other words, the services offered by the petitioner are merely au extension of the 
Coreign entity's business. This is further supported by both the petitloner's statement in its February 2002 
letter that it receives orders from customers in the United States for products offered by the foreign company 
and counsel's statement on appeal that the petitioner makes reservations for the shipment of the foreign 
entity's products, assists with the completion of customs and shipping documentation, and confms delivery. 
Based on the petitioner's representations, it is reasonable to conclude that the petitioning organization is 
functioning as a sales or customer service division of the foreign entity. Moreover, the fact that the 
petitioning organization is not paid directly by its United States customers but is instead compensated by the 
Coreig~~ entity further supports a conclusion that the petitioner is merely an agent or office of the foreign 
corporation. 'While the petitionei may maintain an office in the TJnited States, this alone is not sufficient to 
establish that the petitioning organization is performing the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of 
goods and services. For this additional reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
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. 5 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the 
director's decision will be affirmed and the petition wiil be denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.