dismissed L-1A Case: Holding Company

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
c'---:--.. 
FEE: SRC 02 213 51 142 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTE~. Date: 
PETITION: I Petition for a Nonimrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(l5)(~) of the Immigration 
I I and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(15)(L) 
of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the bffice tha! originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
I I 
SRC 02 213 $1142 
Page 2 1 
DISCUSS1 N: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The matter 0 is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
I 
The petitione filed this petition seeking to extend the employment of its presidentkhief executive officer as a 
L-1A noni .grant intracompany transferee pursuant to 5 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) f 8 U.S.C. 8 1 lOl(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of Florida as a 
holding comI)any for United States business ventures by the foreign entity. The petitioner claims that it is the 
subkidiary 04 the beneficiary's foreign employer, located in Medellin, Colombia. The beneficiary was 
initially granbd a one-year period of stay to open a new office in the United States. The petitioner now seeks 
to eatend the /beneficiary's stay for three years. 
Thg director benied the petition determining that the petitioner had failed to establish that: (1) the beneficiary 
had been embloyed and would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial and executive 
capacity; an4 (2) that the beneficiary's foreign employer and the United States entity are qualifying 
organization!. The director also concluded that the beneficiary failed to properly maintain his L-1 status as he 
pqicipated io employment not authorized under this classification. 
I 
On /appeal, cbunsel states that the petitioner satisfied the statutory criteria for the L-1 visa. Counsel claims 
thaq a qualifying relationship exists as a result of the foreign corporation's 100% ownership of the petitioning 
that the petitioner, a "holding company," is doing business in the United States 
of the company, VH Cleaning. Counsel states that there is no statute or regulation that 
from establishing itself as a holding company and subsequently attempting different 
businesses, first as an exporter and subsequently as owner of a cleaning company." Counsel further claims 
thaq the bene$ciary is employed by the United States entity in a primarily managerial and executive capacity. 
to an unpublished AAO decision, National Hand Tool v. Pasquarell, 889 F.2d 1472 (5& Cir, 
Jewelers, Znc. v. INS, 702 F. Supp. 1573 (N.D.Ga. 1988) as evidence that "[the petitioner] is 
of company that Congress had in mind when it drafted the statute." Counsel submits a brief 
in support of the appeal. 
I 
1 
To bstablish L-1 eligibility, the petitioner must meet the criteria outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Imr@gation ind Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(L). Specifically, within three years 
preqeding thi beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, a qualifying organization must 
have employpd the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized 
knopledge capacity, for one continuous year. In addition, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States 
temporarily t$ continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof 
in a managerib, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 
I 
at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the alien are 
as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 
SRCO2213 1142 
Page 3 
i 
(iii) E idence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a v qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of the petition. 
I I 
(iv) ~Cidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
manageri 1, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior education, 
training, nd employment qualifies himlher to perform the intended services in the United States; I however,the work in the United States need not be the same work which the alien performed abroad. 
I 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(14)(ii) provides that a visa petition, which involved the opening of a 
be extended by filing a new Form 1-129, accompanied by the following: 
1 (A) dvidence that the United States and foreign entities are still qualifying organizations as 
paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section; 
vidence that the United States entity has been doing business as defined in paragraph 
of this section for the previous year; 
statement of the duties performed by the beneficiary for the previous year and the duties 
ciary will perform under the extended petition; 
statement describing the staffing of the new operation, including the number of employees 
of positions held accompanied by evidence of wages paid to employees when the 
will be employed in a management or executive capacity; and 
(E) of the financial status of the United States operation. 
first address the issue of whether the beneficiary has been employed by the United States entity 
under the extended petition in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
101(aj(44)(~) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
I 
he temi"managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee 
Manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of 
and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
an essential function within the organization, or a department or 
(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 
supe ised; if no other employee is directly supervised, functions at a senior level within the 
organ zational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and 
I I 
SRC 02 213 $1142 
Page 4 
Exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which 
the (iv) e k ployee has authority. A first-line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a managerial 
capaqty merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees supervised 
are p?ofessional. 
I 
I 
Section 101(4)(44)(~) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(44)(B), provides: 
1 
 he tern1 "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee 
,primarily/ 
I 
(i) Directs the management of the organization or a major component or fmction of the 
orgdzation; 
~ ! 
1 (ii) Establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
I 
1 (iii) I Exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
! 
level executives, the board of 
June 28, 2002, noting that the beneficiary would be 
executive officer. In an attached letter, dated 
first business venture in the United States 
in Rhode Island, which employs five 
the petitioner provided a list of five employees of V.H. Cleaning 
the beneficiary, and submitted a payroll register, dated May 17, 2002, identifying the 
of request for evidence and intent to deny on September 11, 2002. In the notice, 
requirements for managerial and executive capacity, and noted that the 
not demonstrate that the beneficiary has been employed in a qualifying 
that the record demonstrates that the beneficiary was working as a 
was not managing the petitioning organization in Florida. The 
to oppose the intent to deny, the petitioner should submit the 
beneficiary's employment capacity in the United States: (1) a 
for the petitioning organization and VH Cleaning Corporation, 
the dates hired, and hours worked; (2) the petitioner's 2001 
state tax returns for the petitioning organization and VH 
Counsel resp nded in a letter dated November 22, 2002. Counsel challenged the director's claim that the 
bentficiary w s employed as a janitor in 2001, and stated that the beneficiary's "main duties during the year 
where [sic] to form policy for the parent company and study and make decisions regarding what investments 
to npke in th United States." Counsel further stated that it was the beneficiary's decision to invest in the 
Rhobe Island cleaning service. Counsel explained that the beneficiary's responsibilities in the United States 
I ! 
SRC 02 213 Q1142 
Page 5 
included me{ting with potential clients and the company's accountant, hiring and firing employees, and 
researching i4vestment opportunities.. 
Counsel sub+tted a list of the petitioner's employees identifying the beneficiary as the general manager, and 
three additio@al employees. Counsel also submitted the petitioner's 2001 corporate tax return. Counsel 
provided an i/ccompanying letter from the petitioner's accountant explaining that VH Cleaning Corporation 
handles the r@anagement payroll for the petitioning organization and therefore is responsible for paying the 
payroll taxes1 for the petitioner. The accountant explained that the petitioner reimburses VH Cleaning 
Corporation the payroll and taxes incurred by its employees. Counsel submitted VH Cleaning 
Corporation'$ income statement for January through August 2002, which identified payroll expenses in the 
amqunt of abproximately $6,000. VH Cleaning Corporation's quarterly tax returns, also submitted by 
counsel, idenhed five employees during the period ending June 2002 and one employee during the period 
ending septe+ber 2002. 
1 
In 4 decision idated April 25, 2003, the director determined that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that 
the beneficih has been employed in the United States and would be employed under the extended petition in 
a pamarily rnhagerial or executive capacity. The director stated that the record indicates that the beneficiary 
the maintenance services offered by VH Cleaning Corporation rather than working for 
The director referred to the lease agreement, which the director stated appears to 
that both VH Cleaning Corporation and the beneficiary are identified on the 
stated indicates that the beneficiary is self-employed. The director also 
do not support the petitioner's claim that either organization 
any cleaning was being performed [by VH Cleaning 
proprietor was available to perform it." The director 
concluded thqt the beneficiary was not and would not be employed by the United States entity in a primarily 
mariagerialoq executive capacity. Accordingly, the director denied the petition. 
I 
on May 27, 2003, counsel states that, as president of the organization, the beneficiary has 
a primarily managerial and executive capacity for over two years. Counsel indicates that 
few employees, much work is outsourced to U.S. companies," and notes that the daily 
"allows [sic] for an executive to oversee daily operations and coordinate supportive 
Counsel refers to an unpublished AAO decision and states "a person may be a 
if he is the sole employee of the company where he utilizes outside independent 
is complex, such as in this matter." Counsel refers to two additional cases 
determined that the statutory requirements for the L-1A category were not 
to only those persons who supervise a large number of people or a 
Pasquarell, 889 F.2d 1472 (5" Cir, 1989); Mars Jewelers, Inc. v. 
Counsel contends that the petitioning organization "is precisely the 
when it drafted the statute." 
petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary has been employed and would be 
the extended petition in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. When a new business 
commences operations, the regulations recognize that a designated manager or executive 
up operations will be engaged in a variety of activities not normally performed by 
or managerial level and that often the full range of managerial responsibility 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows the intended United States 
SRC 02 213 f1142 
Page 6 I 
operation on year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
In order to ualify for an extension of L-1 nonimmigrant classification under a petition involving a new 
office, the p I , itioner must demonstrate through evidence, such as a description of both the beneficiary's job 
duties and th& staffing of the organization, that the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or 
executive ca acity. There is no provision in Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) regulations that 4 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. 
Here, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary has been an employee of the petitioning 
organization hnd would be employed by the petitioner under the extended petition. Other than a list of 
emdloyees p+pared by the petitioner identifying the beneficiary as the general manager, there is no evidence 
such as payroll records or quarterly and annual tax returns, documenting the beneficiary's 
ith the petitioning organization at the time of filing the petition. Additionally, there is no 
the claim by the petitioner's accountant that the beneficiary would be paid through VH 
Cleaning coboration for employment in a managerial role at the petitioning organization. While the 
petibioner suqmitted VH Cleaning Corporation's income statement for January through August 2002, which 
idedtified pairoll expenses of approximately $6,000, there is no indication that this amount included the 
benkficiary's /salary as the petitioner's president. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence 
is ni>t suffici4t for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of 
~albornia, 1 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornm. 1972). 
I 4 I 
on appeal a transaction history report for the petitioning organization 
is identified as receiving salary payments during the months of January through April 
documents transactions that took place approximately five months after the date 
not be considered by the AAO. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the 
A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the 
under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N 
I 
I 
Corporation references the beneficiary as an 
for May 2002 also identify the beneficiary as an 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. f 214.2(1)(1) states that "the 
of an alien as an intracompany transferee is referred to as the 
the petitioner is AAA Business Corporation, not VH Cleaning Corporation. Therefore, the 
under the regulatory requirements to demonstrate that the beneficiary has been and 
or executive job duties for AAA Business Corporation. Again, there is no 
the beneficiary from VH Cleaning Corporation was compensation for the 
petitioner's president and chief executive officer. The petitioner has failed 
by the United States organization. 
petitioning organization, there is insufficient 
a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the 
Counsel did not clarify whether the 
as a manager or an executive. Id. (a 
and indicate whether such duties 
SRC 02 213 51142 
Page 7 1 
are either in an executive or managerial capacity). Also, the petitioner's vague list of job duties fails to 
identify the pecific role or job responsibilities the beneficiary has been and would be performing as the 
president. hl fact, in his November 22, 2002 letter, counsel provides a list of what were the beneficiary's 
"main duties,,' but does not identify the job responsibilities to be performed by the beneficiary as a manager 
or an executive under the extended petition. The actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the 
employment. ;Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. 
Cir. 1990). Although the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary is the company president, the AAO is not 
compelled to:deem the beneficiary to be a manager or executive simply because the beneficiary possesses a 
managerial or! executive title. 
Based on the/ foregoing discussion, the director correctly concluded that the beneficiary has not been and 
would not b employed by the United States organization in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 1 Thmefore, the appeal will be dismissed. 
Tha AAO will next consider whether the beneficiary's foreign employer and the United States entity are 
qualifying orbanizations as required in the Act at 5 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The/ pertinen; regulations at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(l)(ii) define the term "qualifying organization" and related 
ternis as follws: 
(G) ~uo~@in~ 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 
(l)(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 operating division or office of the same organization housed in a different 
hocation. 
means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent owns, directly or 
than half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or indireetly, half 
controls the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, 50 percent of a 50-50 joint 
control and veto power over the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, less 
but in fact controls the entity. 
SRC 02 213 51142 
Page 8 I 
(L) Afiliate means 
(I) One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the 
same parent or individual, or 
I 
(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. 
Thq regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(H) defines "doing business" as: 
I 
[Tlhe. regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods andlor services by a qualifying 
I organization and does not include the mere presence of an agent or office of the qualifying 
orgaaization in the United States and abroad. 
Thq petitions noted in its June 2002 letter submitted with the petition that a parent-subsidiary relationship 
exiqts betweein the beneficiary's foreign employer and the United States organization, as the foreign entity 
owys 100% df the petitioner's stock. The petitioner provided its articles of incorporation indicating that the 
petikioner is quthorized to issue 1000 shares of common stock. The petitioner also submitted the following 
doc@entati+ related to VH Cleaning Corporation: (1) the articles of incorporation authorizing the issuance 
of 1100 shares1 of common stock; (2) a stock certificate identifying the petitioner as the owner of 100 shares of 
the corporatibn's common stock; (3) Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 2553, Election by a Small 
Bus'ness Corporation; (4) IRS Form 1120S, U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation; and (5) Schedule 
, K-1, Shareholder's Share of Income, Credits, Deductions, etc. 
In the directdr's September 2002 notice of request for evidence and intent to deny the director stated that, 
ite the sqbmitted stock certificate identifying the petitioner as the owner of 100 shares of stock in VH 
Co+oration, the record does not demonstrate the petitioner's ownership of the cleaning company. 
dequested that the petitioner submit: (1) its 2001 corporate tax return; (2) utilities bills from 2002 
for /he petitic/ner and VH Cleaning Corporation; (3) state and quarterly tax returns for the petitioner and VH 
cleaning Coiporation; (4) the petitioner's certificate of status; (5) sales invoices and evidence that the 
Cleaning Corporation have been doing business since August 2001; (6) a description of the 
involvement in the success of the petitioning organization and VH Cleaning Corporation; and 
as to who is running the foreign entity during the beneficiary's employment abroad. 
I 
November 2002 response, counsel stated that the petitioning organization is a wholly owned subsidiary 
benefidiary's foreign employer. Counsel stated that the foreign entity continues to provide services to 
corporations, and during the beneficiary's absence, is managed by one of the company's vice- 
also stated that evidence of the foreign entity's operations includes tax forms and 
"that millions of pesos were paid to the Colombian local state and [flederal 
also provided the foreign entity's existency and representation certificate, which 
Declaration Form and Complementaries, and invoices for services in August 
SRC 02 213 $1142 
Page 9 I 
In the Nove ber 20, 2002 letter from the petitioner's accountant, also submitted by counsel, the accountant 
stated that th "& petitioner is doing business in Florida as a subsidiary of the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
I 
The accountapt also stated that the petitioner owned 100% of the stock of VH Cleaning Corporation, which is 
doing busineds as a cleaning service company in Rhode Island. 
With regard to the petitioner and VH Cleaning Corporation, counsel provided; (1) the petitioner's 2001 
corporate and state tax returns; (2) VH Cleaning Corporation's lease agreement; (3) telephone and bank 
statements far the petitioner doing business as VH Cleaning Corporation; (4) June and September 2002 
quai-terly tax returns for VH Cleaning Corporation; (5) the petitioner's 2002 uniform business report; and (6) 
invoices for services performed by VH Cleaning Corporation; 
In her decisibn, the director determined that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary's foreign 
employer and the United States entity are qualifying organizations. The director noted the petitioner's 2001 
corporate taxi return reported the following inconsistencies regarding the petitioner's ownership: (1) that the 
petitioner wak not owned by any foreign individual or corporation; (2) that no individual or corporation 
owned more {hat 50% of the petitioner's voting stock; and (3) that the petitioner did not own 50% or more of 
a sthck interest in a domestic corporation. The director stated that this information conflicts with the claims 
that the petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of the beneficiary's foreign employer and that the petitioner 
owds VH Cleaning Corporation. The director also noted that the petitioner's certificate of use and occupancy, 
datqd May 7, 2001, which the petitioner submitted with the nonirnrnigrant petition, identifies the permitted 
business use as an office and storage warehouse for the export of computer equipment, while the petitioner 
indibated on the nonimrnigrant petition that it would be doing business as a holding company. The director 
further noted; discrepancies on the petitioner's bank account statements, which refer to the petitioner's 
loc4tion as bding in both Rhode Island and Florida. Lastly, counsel stated that invoices submitted for July 
thropgh Augast 2002 do not establish that VH Cleaning Corporation has been continuously and regularly 
prodiding cleining services. The director therefore denied the petition. 
On appeal, aounsel states that a parent-subsidiary relationship exists between the beneficiary's foreign 
emdloyer and the petitioning organization, and further notes that the petitioning organization owns 100% of 
Counsel claims that "[tlhis is sufficient to establish a significant nexus among the 
purposes of the LlA." Counsel refers to the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
in support of his claim that less than 50% ownership in an organization is 
sufftcient for ki parent-subsidiary relationship if the owners can demonstrate control. Counsel also addresses 
the inconsistdncies on the petitioner's federal tax return. and states that "[the petitioner's] accountant 
appyently dde these clerical errors and they will be corrected with the IRS." Although counsel states that 
follcpwing the ifiling the revised tax return counsel would forward the amended copies to the AAO, the record 
is ddvoid of tde revised return. 
Counsel further addresses the permitted use of the petitioner's Florida premises as an office and warehouse 
that Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) fails to clarify why a holding company 
as an exporter or as a cleaning service. Counsel states that there is no statute or 
the petitioner from trying different businesses. Counsel submits the following as 
business in the United States: (1) a transaction history report; (2) a commercial 
Florida; (3) a residential lease in Rhode Island; (4) a workman's compensation 
gas bills; (6) cellular telephone bills; and (7) bank statements. 
SRC 02 213 91142 
Page 10 , 
On review, td,e petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's foreign employer and the petitioning entity 
are qualifyin~ organizations. As outlined above, the regulatory defmition of "qualifying organization" 
requires that ;the petitioner satisfy the following three elements: (I) that the two organizations meet exactly 
one of the quialifying relationships specified in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. $5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(I) - (L); (2) that 
each organizdtion is or will be doing business in the United States and one other country; and (3) that the 
organizations/othenvise meet the requirements in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. 
The AAO will first address whether a qualifying relationship exists between the beneficiary's foreign 
employer and the petitioning organization. The regulations and case law confm that the key factors for 
establishing q qualifying relationship between the U.S. and foreign entities are ownership and control. Matter 
Systems, Znc. 19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm. 
of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1988) (in immigrant visa 
of this visa petition, ownership refers to the direct and indirect legal right of 
pos$ession og the assets of an entity with full power and authority to control; control means the direct or 
ind4ect legal right and authority to direct the establishment, management, and operations of an entity. Matter 
of dhurch Scipntology 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 
stogk certificate ledger, stock certificate registry, corporate bylaws, and the minutes of relevant 
meetings must also be examined to determine the total number of shares issued, the exact 
the shareholder, and the subsequent percentage ownership and its effect on corporate 
conthol. Additionally, a petitioning company must disclose all agreements relating to the voting of shares, the 
distqibution ok profit, the management and direction of the subsidiary, and any other factor affecting actual 
con@l of thelentity. See Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Znc., at 364-365. Without full disclosure of all 
rele ant docubents, CIS is unable to determine the elements of ownership and control. v I 
~he~etitioned's claim that the beneficiary's foreign employer is the parent of the United States corporation is 
not Supported by the record. Other than statements by the petitioner and counsel, the record is devoid of any 
refelence to the foreign entity's ownership interest in the petitioning organization. The petitioner's failure to 
subhit docu entation such as a corporate stock certificate, the corporate stock ledger, or the stock certificate 
regibtry, proh "; bits a finding of a qualifying relationship between the two organizations. Going on record 
witqout suppqrting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
thesk Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). 
I 
Morpover, ~dhedule K of the petitioner's 2001 corporate tax return fails to identify ownership of the 
by a foreign individual or corporation. While counsel claims on appeal that this was 
by the accountant, counsel did not supply a revised Schedule K or documentation, such as an 
the accountant, amending the error. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any 
in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where 
of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591-92 (BIA 1988). 
evidence to demonstrate that the petitioning organization is doing business in the 
stated that it began its operations as a holding company in the United States 
Corporation. As noted by the director, the record does not support the 
SRC 02 213 51142 
Page 11 
petitioner's &aim that it owns VH Cleaning Corporation. This information is relevant in supporting the 
petitioner's claim that it is doing business as a cleaning service company. Rather, the record contains 
inconsistent documentation regarding the ownership of VH Cleaning Corporation. Such documentation 
includes a stock certificate for VH Cleaning Corporation identifying the petitioner as the owner of 100 shares 
of common speck, the 2001 corporate tax return for VH Cleaning Corporation noting the existence of two 
shareholders in the corporation at the end of 2001, and the accompanying Schedule K-1 which identifies the 
beneficiary, r~lther than the petitioning organization, as the sole owner of VH Cleaning Corporation. Again, 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. at 591-92. 
As the petitioner has failed to establish ownership of VH Cleaning Corporation, the petitioner cannot be 
deebed to be' doing business in the United States as a cleaning company. There is no evidence in the record 
that the petitioner is the owner of any additional United States businesses. 
I 
Corjtrary to $ounselYs claim on appeal, the petitioning organization may not identify itself as a holding 
cordpany andsubsequently sample various business ventures until one proves to be profitable. The petitioner 
is obligated to clearly establish that it is operating in its claimed area of business, in other words, as a holding 
co Ipany for we foreign entity's business ventures. A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation m of future eligibility or after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin 
~ird Corp., l? 1&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Corn 1971). A 
peti@oner ma$ not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to CIS 
req$irements. see Matter of Zzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm. 1998). 
~dditionall~, /counsel does not explain the disparity in the petitioner's Florida office location and the location 
of $H Cleaning Corporation in Rhode Island. It is acceptable for the petitioning organization to own a 
bus4hess in different geographic location than the petitioner's state of incorporation. However, the 
petitioner doeb not establish that it is doing business in Florida, which is where it maintains its office. The use 
of the Florida office is unclear, particularly because the beneficiary appears to be residing in Rhode 1sland.l 
~he~etitioneli has failed to clarify the inconsistencies in the record. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591- 
92. 
I 
Modeover, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary's foreign employer is doing business 
the beneficiary's absence. The petitioner stated in its June 2002 letter that the foreign 
ill be operating under the leadership and guidance of the transferee who will run the day to day 
Colombian parent company from it's [sic] US office." Counsel subsequently states in his 
letter that a vice-president of the company is managing the foreign corporation while the 
bendficiary id employed in the United States. Counsel did not address the inconsistent claims in the 
the foreign corporation during the beneficiary's absence. The petitioner is obligated to clarify 
and conflicting testimony by independent and objective evidence. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 
at 591-92. 
durihg the 
not dontinue to 
I 
I 
A:.so, the lack of evidence explaining the foreign company's business activities and management 
bereficiary's employment in the United States creates an assumption that the foreign company will 
do business in Colombia. 
~olnsel submits on appeal a lease agreement signed by the beneficiary for a residential unit in Rhode Island. 
SRC02213 1142 
P Page 12 , 
~dditionall~l of the many invoices submitted by counsel as evidence of the foreign company's business, only 
three are traqslated. Because the petitioner failed to submit certified translations of the documents, the AAO 
cannot deterpine whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). 
Accordingly,the evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
Based on th% foregoing discussion, the AAO cannot conclude that the beneficiary's foreign employer and I United States entity possess the requisite qualifying relationship. Additionally, the petitioner has not 
established tdat either organization is doing business in the United States or abroad. Therefore, the petitioner 
failed to dempnstrate that the two entities are qualifying organizations. The appeal will be dismissed for this 
additional redson. 
In visa petitiqn proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
I petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the 
director's deaision will be affirmed and the petition will be denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.