dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Export

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 02 058 549 16 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUH 1 0 IN5 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonirnrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been 
returned to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that 
office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 02 058 5491 6 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonirnmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. 
The petitioner, Green Irnpex Corporation, states that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Green 
Industrial Impex Private Limited, located in India. The petitioner plans to operate an import 
business dealing in garments and crafts. The U.S. entity was incorporated in the State of 
California on March 12, 2001 and has no employees. The petitioner seeks to hire the beneficiary 
as a new employee to open its U.S. office. Accordingly, in December 2001, the U.S. entity 
petitioned Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) to classify the beneficiary as a 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee (L- 1 A) pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(] 5)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L), as an executive or 
manager for two years. The petitioner endeavors to employ the beneficiary's services as the U.S. 
entity's vice president. 
On May 1, 2002, the director denied the petition. The director determined that the petitioner 
failed to establish that: 1) the U.S. entity had a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity; 2) 
the beneficiary has been and will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; 
and, 3) the beneficiary has been employed abroad for at least one continuous year within the three 
years preceding the filing of the petition. 
On appeal, the petitioner states that: 1) the "documents clearly establish the existence of [a] 
qualifying relationship;" 2) "the beneficiary has been employed in [a] [mlanagerial capacity with 
the foreign entity;" 3) the beneficiary's U.S. duties include "the ultimate right, authority and 
responsibility for each managerial and executive decision;" and, 3) "copies of the attendance cum 
payroll records" for the beneficiary were submitted to establish that the beneficiary has at least 
one continuous year at the foreign entity. 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, the petitioner must meet 
certain criteria. Specifically, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States, a qualifying organization must have employed the beneficiary in 
a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one 
continuous year. Furthermore, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States temporarily to 
continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a 
managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3), an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will 
employ the alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph 
(l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section; 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or 
specialized knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the 
services to be performed. 
WAC 02 058 5491 6 
Page 3 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time 
employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition. 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a 
position that was managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge 
and that the alien's prior education, training, and employment qualifies 
himher to perform the intended services in the United States; however, the 
work in the United States need not be the same work which the alien 
performed abroad. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(1)(3)(~), if the petition indicates the beneficiary is coming to the 
United States as a manager or executive to open or to be employed in a new office in the United 
States, the petitioner shall submit evidence that: 
(A) Sufficient physical premises to house the new office have been secured; 
(B) The beneficiary has been employed for one continuous year in the three 
year period preceding the filing of the petition in an executive or 
managerial capacity and that the proposed employment involved 
executive or managerial authority over the new operation; 
(C) The intended United States operation, within one year of the approval of 
the petition, will support an executive or managerial position as 
defined in paragraphs (l)(l)(ii)(B) or (C) of this section, supported by 
information regarding: 
(I) The proposed nature of the office describing the scope of the 
entity, its organizational structure, and its financial goals; 
(2) The size of the United States investment and the financial ability 
of the foreign entity to remunerate the beneficiary and to 
commence doing business in the United States; and 
(3) The organizational structure of the foreign entity. 
The first issue in this proceeding is whether a qualifylng relationship exists between the petitioner 
and foreign entity. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(l)(ii) provides in part: 
(G) Qualifying organization means a United States or foreign firm, corporation, or 
other legal entity which: 
(I) Meets exactly one of the qualifylng relationships specified in the 
definitions of a parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary specified in 
paragraph (I)(l)(ii) of this section; 
WAC 02 058 54916 
Page 4 
(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 1 Ol(a)(15)Q 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) Subsidia y means a fm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent owns, 
directly or indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, 
directly or indirectly, half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or 
indirectly, 50 percent of a 50-50 joint venture and has equal control and veto 
power over the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, less than half of the entity, 
but in fact controls the entity. 
(L) AfJiliate 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 ownershp 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 nonirnrnigrant visa proceedings); 
Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Cornrn. 1982) (in nonirnmigrant visa proceedings). In the 
context of thls visa proceeding, ownership refers to the 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. Control means the direct or indirect legal right and authority to direct the 
establishment, management, and operations of an organization. Id. 
Initially, the petitioner stated on Form 1-129 that 100 percent of the U.S. subsidiary's stock is wholly 
owned by the foreign entity. The petitioner also described the foreign stock ownership as being held 
by three individuals: S.S. Baweja, 20,800 shares; Randeep Singh, 10,000 shares; and,- 
WAC 02 058 54916 
Page 5 
10,000 shares. The petitioner submitted a copy of the stock ledger and stock certificate. 
However, on January 9, 2002, the director requested further information. The director requested 
original wire transfers showing that the foreign entity actually paid for the U.S. entity's stock. The 
director also requested copies of the cancelled checks, deposit receipts, or other evidence detailing 
the monetary amounts for the stock purchase. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted copies of a 
bank check and a bank deposit receipt and resubmitted a copy of the stock regster and stock 
certificate. 
On May 1, 2002, the director denied the petition. The director determined that the petitioner 
failed to establish that the U.S. entity had a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. The 
director found that there was insufficient evidence that the foreign entity "actually provided the 
U.S. entity with $12,000 for the stock." 
On appeal, the petitioner states, "[The] documents clearly establish the existence of [a] qualifying 
relationship." The petitioner claims the following documentation previously submitted proves 
that the $12,000 was transferred from the foreign entity: 
a) Copy of Bank Draft from State Bank of India, Ludhiana, India for 
$12,000 payable at State Bank of India, New York Branch, 460 
Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022 no. MYS/2 556603 dated 4' 
Oct, 2001. . . [;I 
b) Copy of Bank of America's deposit receipt showing a deposit of 
check of $12,000 in the account no. 10983-03644 of [U.S.] 
entity . . . [;I 
c) Copy of bank statement of [the U.S. entity], USA Account no. 
10983-03644 with Bank of America for October 2001 showing a 
deposit of $12,000 on October 18,200 1. . . [.I 
In addition, the petitioner submitted two letters from the State Bank of India, a copy of the check 
for $12,000, and a copy of the deposit ticket received fkom the Bank of America. 
On review, the petitioner has failed to establish that a qualifying relationship exists between the 
petitioner and foreign entity. The petitioner submitted a stock certificate indicating that in March 
2001, the foreign entity was the registered holder of 12,000 of the authorized 10,000,000 shares 
of the U.S. entity's common stock. In addition, the stock ledger indicates that on March 15, 2001 
the foreign entity paid $12,000 for the U.S. entity's stock. However, the petitioner submitted a 
deposit slip indicating that the $12,000 was deposited in account number 001098303644 on 
October 18, 2001, more than seven months after the stock was transferred. The petitioner also 
claimed that the U.S. entity was a wholly owned subsidiary of the foreign entity and that the 
foreign entity paid for 12,000 shares of the U.S. entity. Nevertheless, the petitioner submitted a 
March 15, 200 1 Notice of Transaction Pursuant to Corporations Code Section 25 102(f), 
indicating that the petitioner sold $25,000 worth of common stock. However, it is unclear how 
WAC 02 058 549 16 
Page 6 
many shares were issued, when the shares were issued, and to whom the shares were issued. 
Therefore, if the foreign entity claims that it paid for only $12,000 worth of the U.S. entity's 
shares then this poses a question as to the remaining $13,000 worth of shares or 51% majority 
ownership of the U.S. entity. In addition, the AAO notes that the Notice of Transaction Pursuant 
to Corporations Code Section 25102(f) did not contain a validating stamp indicating that the 
transaction had been registered. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies 
in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
After careful consideration of the evidence, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has failed to 
establish that a qualifying relationship exists between the U.S. entity and foreign company. 
The second issue in this proceeding is whether the beneficiary has been employed abroad for at 
least one continuous year within the three years preceding the filing of this petition pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. fi 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
On January 9, 2002, the director requested additional evidence concerning the beneficiary's 
employment abroad. In particular, the director requested copies of the foreign entity's payroll 
records "pertaining to the beneficiary for the year preceding the filing for the first petition for L-1 
status." However, the petitioner responded to the director's request by submitting payroll records 
that did not include the beneficiary's name. 
On May 1, 2002, the director denied the petition. The director determined that the petitioner did 
not show that the beneficiary has been employed abroad for at least one continuous year. The 
director found that the beneficiary's name was not on the payroll records. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims that the "copies of the attendance cum payroll records" for the 
beneficiary were submitted to establish that the beneficiary has at least one continuous year at the 
foreign entity. The petitioner claims that CIS chose to "overlook these records and thereby deny 
the petition." The petitioner also claims that the employment certificate from the parent company, 
the beneficiary's personal tax returns for 1999 through 2000, and a bank statement show that the 
foreign company paid the beneficiary. 
On review, the AAO concurs with the director's conclusion. The petitioner has failed to establish 
that the beneficiary has been employed abroad for at least one continuous year within the three 
years preceding the filing of this petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(iii). The payroll records do not 
indicate that the beneficiary has been paid by the foreign entity. Although on appeal the petitioner 
claims it has highlighted the beneficiary's name on the payroll records, the highlighted name does 
not correspond to the name appearing on Form 1-129. 
Further, the AAO notes that there are several discrepancies in the record concerning the 
beneficiary's name. On Form 1-129, the petitioner named the beneficiary as Randeep S. Baweja. 
However, on the payroll records, the petitioner claims that the highlighted name, Randeep Sinrzh, - - -. 
refers to the beneficiary. In addition, in the director of the 
foreign company, the director refers to Also, a March 22, 
WAC 02 058 54916 
Page 7 
by the foreign entity's managing direct-efers to = 
is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the 
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. 
The AAO now turns to the thrd issue in this proceeding of whether the beneficiary has been 
employed in a qualifying managerial or executive position abroad and whether the petitioner will 
support an executive or managerial position within one year of operation. Section 101(a)(44)(A) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily- 
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component 
of the organization; 
(ii) supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the 
organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the 
authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions 
(such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly 
supervised, functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or 
with respect to the function managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function 
for which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is not considered 
to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's 
supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(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 
WAC 02 058 54916 
Page 8 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
The petitioner initially submitted some documentation on the issue of whether the beneficiary has 
been employed in a qualifying executive or managerial capacity or will be employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity within one year of operation. The petitioner described the 
beneficiary's foreign duties as: 
[The beneficiary] is the overall [sic] in charge of the new Business development, 
International operations and marketing of the organization. In these areas, he has 
the ultimate authority to hire and fire the staff, appraise the performance of staff 
for their increments and promotions, and take on lease, buy or otherwise acquire 
office space and other infrastructure, negotiate and sign contracts for buying and 
selling [the] company's raw material and finished products, and arrange finances, 
decide the structure of prices charged and other important matters. 
In addition, the petitioner described the beneficiary's proposed U.S duties as: 
With [the beneficiary's] knowledge and vast experience of the intricacies of the 
company's home products and exposure of dealing with clientele from all over 
the world his presence in the United States at this juncture to oversee the 
development and growth of the business from the new office, is considered very 
vital. [The beneficiary] has already entered into a few contracts on behalf of the 
[U.S.] Company for marketing the products of the Indian company. Functionally 
[the beneficiary] shall be head of the [U.S.] operations and to this end he shall 
have full authority for business development, secure contractual assignments for 
the corporation, oversee its execution, plan and arrange the infrastructure 
required, arrange the finances required, devise the pricing structure, hire staff as 
are required, and supervise and manage the day to day operations. 
On January 9, 2002, the director issued a request for additional evidence. In particular, the 
director requested a more detailed description of the beneficiary's duties abroad and proposed 
duties in the United States. The director requested a list of the beneficiary's subordinates and the 
percentages of time the beneficiary spends and will spend on his assigned duties abroad and in the 
United States. 
In response to the request for evidence, the petitioner submitted further information concerning 
the beneficiary's duties abroad and proposed duties in the United States. The petitioner stated that 
the beneficiary was manager of the foreign entity in 1999 and later promoted to executive director 
in April 2001. The petitioner described the beneficiary's foreign duties as being in charge of 
"[nlew [blusiness development, [elxports [and] [ilnternational operations, [plroduction of 
[glarments [and] [hlandicrafts, [plrocurement of raw material, [and] [mlarketing of both the 
[glarments [and] [hlandicrafts division as well as the [slteel [dlivision of the organization." The 
petitioner also reiterated the beneficiary's foreign duties submitted initially with the petition. 
WAC 02 05 8 549 16 
Page 9 
In addition, in reference to the beneficiary's proposed U.S. duties, the petitioner reiterated some 
of the beneficiary's proposed U.S. duties and submitted the time the beneficiary spends on his 
duties in the United States: 
Planning and developing policies, 25% 
Directing legal affairs, 5% 
Directing designing of garments, 15% 
Planning and supervising marketing, 25% 
Supervising financial matters, 15% 
Managing day-to-day operations, 15% 
The petitioner also claimed that the time the beneficiary spends in the above "managerial or 
executive functions could vary from time to time depending on the need and importance of each 
of the functions in various situations and at different times." 
On May 1, 2002, the director denied the petition. The director determined that the petitioner 
failed to establish that the beneficiary has been and will be employed in a primarily managerial or 
executive capacity. The director found that the petitioner described the beneficiary's foreign and 
proposed duties in general terms. 
On appeal, the petitioner states that "the beneficiary has been employed in [a] [mlanagerial 
capacity with the foreign entity'' and that the beneficiary's U.S. duties include "the ultimate right, 
authority and responsibility for each managerial and executive decision." The petitioner also 
reiterated again the beneficiary's foreign and proposed U.S. duties. 
In examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to 
the petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3)(ii). On review, the AAO 
finds that the beneficiary has not been and will not be within one year of operation employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity as required by 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(b). The petitioner 
provided a vague and nonspecific description of the beneficiary's duties that fails to establish 
what the beneficiary has been performing or will be performing on a day-to-day basis. For 
instance, the petitioner's foreign duties were described as "overall in charge of the new Business 
development," "has the ultimate authority to hire and fire the staff,'' "negotiate and sign 
contracts," and "arrange finances." In addition, the beneficiary's proposed U.S. duties were 
described as "head of the W.S.] operations," "hav[ing] full authority for business development," 
and "supervise[ing] and manag[ing] the day to day operations." 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. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 
190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Further, the petitioner submitted a breakdown of the beneficiary's proposed U.S. duties. For 
example, the petitioner claimed that the beneficiary will be spending 25% of his time "planning 
and developing policies" and 15% of his time "directing designing of garments." However, the 
petitioner fails to explain what policies the beneficiary will plan and develop or how the 
beneficiary will direct the designing of garments. In addition, the petitioner claims that the 
WAC 02 058 549 16 
Page 10 
beneficiary's "knowledge and vast experience of the intricacies of the company's home products 
and exposure of dealing with clientele from all over the world" is considered very vital. However, 
the petitioner failed to explain how the beneficiary will draw upon this howledge for the benefit 
of the new operation. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's 
duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature; otherwise meeting the definitions would 
simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), af'd, 905 F.2d 4 1 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Moreover, when a new business is established and commences operations, the regulations 
recognize that a designated manager or executive responsible for setting up operations will be 
engaged in a variety of activities not normally performed by employees at the executive or 
managerial level and that often the full range of managerial responsibility cannot be performed. 
In order to qualify for L-l nonirnrnigrant classification during the first year of operations, the 
regulations require the petitioner to disclose the business plans and the size of the United States 
investment, and thereby establish that the proposed enterprise will support an executive or 
managerial position within one year of the approval of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. $ 
214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). This evidence should demonstrate a realistic expectation that the enterprise 
will succeed and rapidly expand as it moves away from the developmental stage to full 
operations, where there would be an actual need for a manager or executive who will primarily 
perform qualifying duties. 
The AAO notes that the petitioner's business plan lacks specificity and is also vague. In 
examining the business plan, the precedent decision, Matter of [name not provided], WAC-98- 
072-50493, 22 I&N Dec. 206, 213 (Cornm. 1998), lists possible criteria for establishing an 
acceptable business plan. "The plan should set forth the business's organizational structure and its 
personnel's experience. It should explain the business's staffing requirements and contain a 
timetable for hiring, as well as job descriptions for all positions." The decision concluded, "Most 
importantly, the business plan must be credible." Id. at 213. Although this case addresses the 
specific requirements for the immigrant investor visa classification, the discussion of the business 
plan requirements is instructive for the L-1A new office requirements. Id. In the instant matter, 
the December 3, 2001 letter describing the business lists undefined goals such as the petitioner 
proposes to "carry out the same line of business in concert with our parent organization" and 
"shall market the steel products of the parent organization, design and market all kinds of 
traditional and ethnic fashion garments, handicrafts, artificial jewelry and home furnishings. . . . " 
These goals are non-specific and broad. The petitioner also provides an explanation of market 
trends; however, the petitioner fails to explain how its business plan specifically relates to these 
trends. 
Further, the petitioner submitted organizational charts for the foreign and U.S. entity. However, it 
is unclear how the foreign organization will support the U.S. entity. Specifically, the charts show 
intricate arrows that fail to clearly identify the supervisors' and subordinate employees' roles. 
Thus, given the business plan's generalities, and lack of applicable information, the petitioner 
cannot demonstrate whether the new office will support a manager or executive within one year 
of filing this petition. 
WAC 02 058 54916 
Page 11 
In sum, the petitioner has not complied with the new office requirements because of the vague 
and nonspecific descriptions of the proposed office, the entity's projected scope, the new office's 
organizational structure, and organizational structure of the foreign entity. After careful 
consideration of the evidence, the AAO concludes the petitioner has failed to establish that the 
beneficiary has been and will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. For 
this 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. 3 1361. Here, that burden has not 
been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.