dismissed L-1A Case: Furniture Import

US. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
i6e~df-y; --*c ;' - * - ,? .jel@d U.S. Citizenship pratvtb.;:, . 8itk and Immigration 
Ek .3m%m s5k , .. 5s ~riv 86.4 
FILE: SRC 02 156 52196 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 I lOI(a)(lS)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
I 
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. 
I / 
4obert P. Wiemann, Director 
f Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 02 156 52196 
Page 2 - 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petitlon was denied by the Director, Texas Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. 
I 
The petitioner, Furniture4garden.com, Inc., endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a 
nonimrnigrant manager or executive pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1 lOl(a)(lS)(L). The petitioner claims to be a subsidiary of 
urniture Co., LTD, located in China. The petitioner is an importer and 
iture and garden decoration products. The initial petition was approved - 
for one year to allow the petitioner to open a new office. It seeks to extend the petition's validity 
and the beneficiary's stay for three years as the U.S. entity's vice president. The petitioner was 
incorporated in the State of Georgia on July 27,2000 and claims to have four employees. 
On October 28, 2002, the director denied the petition and determined that the petitioner failed to 
establish: 1) that the beneficiary has been or will be primarily performing duties in an executive 
or managerial capacity; 2) that a qualifying relationship exists between the petitioner and foreign 
entity; 3) that the petitioner had been doing business for the previous year; and, 4) that the foreign 
company is currently doing business. 
On appeal, the petitioner refutes the director's findings, submits an explanatioi for each issue, 
and provides additional evidence for review. 
Y 
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 
yontinuous 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. 
In relevant part, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(3) state 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 
thls 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. 
Eurther, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii) require that a visa petition under section 
10l(a)(15)(L) of the Act which involved the opening of a new office may be extended by filing a 
new Form 1-129, accompanied by the following: 
SRC 02 156 52196 
)Page 3 
(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; 
@) A statement describing the staffing of the new operation, including the 
I 
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 in this proceeding is whether the beneficiary has been and will be primarily 
performing managerial or executive duties for the United States entity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
I 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 
I 
department or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii.) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the 
I 
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 10 1 (a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 l(a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily- 
SRCO2 15652196 
Page 4 
(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-malang; and 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
On April 23,2002, the petitioner filed the Fonn 1-129. The petitioner described the beneficiary's 
proposed duties on the Form 1-129 as: 
She has established goals and policies for the company; direct the management of 
[the petitioner]; exercise day-to-day discretionary authority in making the 
decisions on the business activities of the company, receive general direction 
from the Board of Directors and implement the strategy and plan for the 
company; report to the parent company about the progress of the [U.S.] 
subsidiary. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted an April 9,2002 letter that reiterated the beneficiary's duties 
as described on the Form 1-129. 
On June 19, 2002, the director requested additional evidence. Specifically, the director requested 
a description of the current staffing of the U.S. entity including positions, position titles, position 
duties, and the qualifications required which accounts for all duties involved in running an import 
business. The director also requested state and quarterly tax filings for 2001 and 2002. 
The petitioner responded to the request for additional evidence and submitted a September 4, 
2002 letter describing the U.S. company's current staff comprised of four employees. The 
petitioner claimed the beneficiary, as the vice president of the company, organizes the company's 
operation and plans the new marketing and sales strategies. The petitioner also briefly described 
the job duties of the sales and marketing manager, a sales representative, and a bookkeeping and 
data entry person. The petitioner indicated that the company utilizes contractors for payroll 
services, purchasing, storage, and shippingldelivery. The petitioner's state and federal quarterly 
tax filings reported the beneficiary as the only employee throughout 2001 and 2002, although she 
did not receive wages in every quarter. 
On October 28, 2002, the director denied the petition and determined that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary has been or will be primarily performing duties in an executive or 
managerial capacity. The director found that: 1) no salaries and wages were paid during 2001 and 
$15,000 in officer compensation; 2) no evidence of an amended return to substantiate the 
petitioner's claim on the W-2c corrected wage and tax statement stating that the employees 
salaries had been miscoded to another expense account; 3) the state quarterly tax return reported 
SRC 02 156 52196 
Page 5 
employees worlang only during the second quarter during 2001, however, the petitioner claimed 
the beneficiary worked all three quarters thereby earning a low salary indicating that she did not 
work full-time; and, 4) the beneficiary is engaged in the day-to-day activities of the business. 
On appeal, the petitioner refutes the director's findings. The petitioner claims that the AAO can 
contact the IRS to request a transcript of the amended return and it has attached checks that were 
deposited by the IRs.' The petitioner also explains that the beneficiary was paid $18,000 in 2001 
from April 2001 for six months of full time work and took a three month leave of absence. The 
petitioner also claims that employees were hired from September 2002 and that in the first year of 
the business, the petitioner hired independent contractors and "co-orporated [sic] with other 
companies."' 
In examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first ,to 
the description of the beneficiary's U.S. job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(ii). On review, the 
petitioner has provided a vague and nonspecific description of the beneficiary's duties that fails to 
establish what the beneficiary does on a day-to-day basis. For example, the petitioner stated that 
the beneficiary's proposed U.S. duties will include "establish[ing] goals and policies for the 
company" and "direct[ing] the management of [the petitioner]." The petitioner did not, however, 
define or clarify these duties. 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. 
\ 
In addition, the petitioner generally paraphrased the statutory definition of executivecapacity. See 
section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 101(a)(44)(B). For instance, the petitioner depicted 
the beneficiary as "exercise day-to-day discretionary authority in making the decisions on the 
business activities of the company." However, conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's 
employment capacity are not sufficient. Merely repeating the language of the statute or 
regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. 
Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates Inc. v. 
Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). , 
The AAO notes that on appeal, the petitioner claimed that the petitioner's employees were hired 
from September 2002 and that it utilized independent contractors. The petitioner filed the 
Form 1-129 on April 23, 2002. There is no evidence that the petitioner employs the claimed 
' It is the petitioner's burden to provide supporting documentation. 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 (Cornm. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornrn. 1972)). 
2 
The AAO notes that although the petitioner claimed that in its first year it hired independent 
contactors, there is no evidence to indicate that these claimed contractors were actually hired. The 
2001 U.S. Corporate Income Tax Form 1120 indicated that no salaries and wages were paid for 
2001 and under Schedule A, there was no cost of labor reported. Again, going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Id. 
SRC 02 156 52196 
Page 6 
independent contractors and the petitioner hired its claimed employees more than four months 
after filing its petition. Therefore, at the time of filing the nonirnrnigrant petition, it appears the 
beneficiary as the petitioner's only employee was primarily performing the daily operations of the 
business. An employee who primarily performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to 
provide services is not considered to be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. Matter 
of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Cornrn. 1988). Furthermore, the 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimrnigrant 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. Cornm. 1978). 
Further, the description of the beneficiary's duties does not persuasively demonstrate that the 
beneficiary will have managerial control and authority over a function, department, subdivision, 
or component of the company. The term "function manager" applies generally when a 
beneficiary does not supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but, instead, is primarily 
responsible for managing an "essential function" within the organization. See section 
101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(44)(A)(ii). If a petitioner claims that the 
beneficiary is managing an essential function, the petitioner must identify the function with 
specificity, articulate the essential nature of the function, and establish the proportion of the 
beneficiary's daily duties attributed to managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner 
must provide a comprehensive and detailed description of the beneficiary's daily duties 
demonstrating that the beneficiary manages the function rather than performs the duties relating 
to the function. 
As pointed out earlier, the petitioner failed to provide a sufficiently comprehensive and detailed 
description of the beneficiary's proposed responsibilities. Thus, the petitioner did not provide 
evidence sufficient to meet the burden of proof. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. In sum, the 
petitioner has not provided evidence that the beneficiary manages an essential function. 
On review, 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 
petitioner indicates that it plans to hire additional managers and employees in the future. 
However, 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows the intended United States operation one year 
with the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 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. , 
After careful consideration of the evidence, the AAO concludes that the beneficiary will not be 
employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. For this reason, the petition may not be 
approved. 
The second issue in this proceeding is whether a qualifying relationship exists between the petitioner 
and the foreign entity. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(l)(ii) provides: 
SRC 02 156 52196 
Page 7 
(G) Qualifjmg 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 
(I)(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 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Act. 
(I) Parent means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity which has 
subsidiaries. 
(J) Branch means an operation division or office of the same organization 
, housed in a different location. 
(K) Subsidialy means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent 
I 
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. 
(L) Afiliate means 
(I) One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled 
by the same parent or individual, or 
(2) One of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same 
group of individuals, each individual' owning and controlling 
approximately the same share or proportion of each entity. 
The regulation and case law confirm that ownership and control are factors that must be 
examined in determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between the petitioner and 
foreign organization. See Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I &N Dec. 593 (BIA 
1988); see also Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986) (in 
nonimmigrant visa proceedings); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Cornrn. 1982) (in 
nonimmigrant visa proceedings). In the context of this visa proceeding, ownership refers to the 
SRC 02 156 52 196 
Page 8 
direct or indirect legal right of possession of the assets of an organization with full power and 
authority to control. Matter of Church Scientology International at 595. Coritrol means the direct 
or indirect legal right and authority to direct the establishment, management, and operations of an 
organization. Id. 
d 
certificates, its 2001 Federal Tax Return, and the foreign entity's business license, articles, and 
bylaws. 
On June 19, 2002, the director issued a request for additional evidence. Specifically, the director 
requested that the petitioner clearly document the current ownership of the foreign company. 
In response to the request for additional evidence, the petitioner resubmitted the five copies of 
stock certificates and an investment letter indicating that the foreign company purchased 4,000 
shares of the petitioner's stock on March 5,2001. 
On October 28, 2002, the director denied the petition and determined that the petitioner failed to 
establish that a qualifying relationship exists between the petitioner and foreign entity. The 
director found inconsistent evidence in the record. Specifically, the director noted that the foreign 
entity claimed to be a direct 25% forei shareholder of the U.S. entity and had purchased $8,000 
worth of stock in trade (inventory) an -he CEO of the petitioner, reportedly held 
50 percent of the foreign entity's stock. Contrary to these claims, the director found that the 
amended 200 1 annual tax return stated that 1000 shares of stock were held by shareholders at the 
beginning and end of the year and that the foreign entity owned 80 percent of the shares or 800 
rather than 4000. The director concluded that it appeared that only 1000 shares were issued, not 
5000. 
In addition, a March 5,200 1 memo indicated that 4000 shares were "purchased for investment for 
the undersigned's [the beneficiary's] own account." The director also noted other discrepancies 
On appeal, the petitioner claims that the $1000 reported on the U.S. company's Form 1120 was 
paid by the first four investors before the foreign entity purchased the U.S. entity and that the 
additional paid-in capital is $55,040 paid by the foreign entity- to purchase the 4000 shares of 
stock. The petitioner claims that in its Articles of Incorporation, it states that the U.S. company 
shall have the authority to issue not more than 10,000 shares with no par value and that since the 
foreign entity paid the $55,040 to purchase the 4000 shares without par value, the 2001 annual 
return indicates only 1000 instead of 5000. Finally, the petitioner explains the beneficiary's 
signature on the March 5,2001 memo and the discrepancies concerning the foreign entity's name. 
On review, the petitioner submitted insufficient evidence to establish that a qualifying 
relationship exists between the petitioner and the foreign entity. To establish eli~bility in thls 
SRC 02 156 52196 
Page 9 
matter, it must be shown that the foreign employer and the petitioning entity share common 
ownership and control. Control may be "de jure" by reason of ownership of 51 percent of 
outstanding stocks of the other entity or it may be "de facto" by reason of control of voting shares 
khrough partial ownership and possession of proxy votes. Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 
(Cornm. 1982). 
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 light of 
the many discrepancies in the record, the petitioner's evidence, which includes only stock 
certificates, articles of incorporation, and minutes of one shareholder's meeting, is insufficient to 
meet the petitioner's burden of proof. 
The AAO notes that although the petitioner on appeal submitted a letter explaining several 
discrepancies in the record, the AAO is unclear how the petitioner's assertions are substantiated. 
For example, the petitioner attempts to explain why the 2001 U.S. Corporate Income Tax Return 
Form 1120 shows $1000 worth of stock at the beginning and end of the year. However, going on 
I 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Softici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. in addition, doubt 
cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability 
and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 
19 I&N Dec, 582,591 (BIA 1988). 
After careful consideration of the evidence, the A-AO concludes that the petitioner has not 
established that a qualifying relationship exists between the U.S. and foreign entities. Therefore, 
for this additional reason, the petition may not be approved. 
The third issue in this proceeding is whether the U.S. eitity has been doing business for the 
previous year. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted insufficient evidence to establish that the petitioner had been doing 
business for the previous year. Therefore, on June 19, 2002, the director requested additional 
evidence such as state and quarterly tax filings for 2001 and 2002, a current insurance policy and 
occupational license, an explanation of the restrictions upon business activity included in its 
previously submitted lease agreement. 
In response, the petitioner submitted its state and federal quarterly tax filings for 2001 and 2002, an 
invoice from the parent company to the U.S. company, a copy of its lease and an explanation of the 
business restrictions. In its September 4,2002 letter, the petitioner claimed, "[WJhen our company is 
SRC 02 156 52196 
Page 10 
strong enough to fully implement our business plan, we will have our consulting senices operational 
and we will work out with the landlord about the restrictive language of the lease." 
On October 28, 2002, the director denied the petition and determined that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the company had been doing business for the previous year. The director found that 
there were inconsistent addresses for the business. In addition, the lease indicated that it was for 
the Chian couple rather than for the U.S. entity. Finally, the director noted that no sales invoices, 
cash register tapes, or other evidence of furniture sales was submitted and the federal and state tax 
returns indicated that at most the company was staffed part-time for the first quarter in 2002 and 
one quarter in 200 1. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims that the petitioner was unable to place its name on the lease because 
of its lack of credit so the Chian couple signed the lease. The petitioner submits a letter fiom the 
landlord and the copy of checks paid for the lease term. The petitioner also explains the address 
discrepancies and claims that due to delivery problems an alternative address was necessary. Finally, 
the petitioner submits register tapes, customer checks, and purchase invoices. 
On review, the petitioner has failed to establish that it has been doing business for the previous 
year pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 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 
I 
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. The term "doing business" is 
defined in the regulations as "the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods andlor 
s'ervices 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. tj 214.2(1)(l)(ii). Here, 
the petitioner submitted several checks fiom customers who purchased merchandise, however 
checks 5766 and 1077 are dated for March 2002 and checks 1379,4193, and 1316 are dated for 
May 2002. In addition, the deposit ticket submitted is dated March 2002. Although the petitioner 
submitted this as evidence of doing business, at the time of filing on April 23, 2002, the petitioner 
failed to provide sufficient evidence of doing business for the previous year since the new office 
petition was approved in May 2001. For this further reason, the petition may not be approved. 
The AAO now turns to the fourth issue in this proceeding of whether the foreign entity continues 
to do business abroad. 
In the request for additional evidence, the director requested evidence that the foreign entity was 
engaged in business operations. Specifically, the director requested such evidence as financial 
re'cords, employee rosters, and invoices, bills of sale, product brochures of goods sold at or 
produced by the company, check regster, statement of cash flows, insurance policies, and 
customs records, current lease, and the name of who is currently running the business. 
In response to this request, in a September 4, 2002 letter, the petitioner submitted profit and loss 
statements, assets and liabilities statement, local value added tax records. exDort tax recei~ts. 
banlung activities, payroll records, lease agreement, and evidence that Mr. 
controlling and running the foreign business. 
SRC 02 156 52196 
Page 11 
I 
On October 28, 2002, the director denied the petition and determined that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the foreign company is currently doing business. The director found that although 
"documents said to be payroll rosters, tax returns, and leases were submitted," there was no 
evidence of sales or tha 
shareholder-directors, was currently running the business. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims that the foreign entity has been manufacturing seats and selling 
them to the United States through the U.S. entity. The petitioner stated that it made payments to 
the state-owned import and export companies in China and submits the wire transfer application 
form and confirmation. In addition, the petitioner claims that it submitted several tax payment 
receipts for the merchandise provided by the foreign entity and ivoices showing purchases made 
The petitioner also explains that "Mr.- has been constantly visiting the states after 
[the foreign entity] purchased the U.S. entity" and that ~r-as been running the 
foreign entity. 
On review, the record does not establish that the parent company is still doing business abroad 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $214.2(1)(l)(ii)(G). Although the petitioner submitted some evidence of tax 
payment receipts and invoices showing the foreign entity's purchase of raw material for 
producing seats, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the foreign entity is regularly 
operating abroad. As previously stated, going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. For this final reason, the petition may not be approved. 
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. tj 1361. Here, that burden has not 
been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.