dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Export

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 21125647 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 8, 2022 
The Petitioner , which intends to import and sell kitchen and bathroom cabinets and fixtures, seeks to 
temporarily employ the Beneficiary as chief executive officer of its new office 1 under the L-lA 
nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-lA classification allows a corporation or other 
legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United 
States to work temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 A nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving a new 
office, a qualifying organization must have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B) . In addition, the beneficiary must seek 
to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer 
or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
The petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new office will be able to support a 
managerial or executive position within one year. This evidence must establish that the petitioner 
secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation and disclose the proposed nature and scope 
of the entity, its organizational structure, its financial goals, and the size of the U.S. investment. See 
generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
1 The term "newoffice"refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one year. 
8 C.F.R . § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(F) . The regulation at 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation no more than 
one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive ormanage1ial position . 
II. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that it has a qualifying relationship with 
the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
To establish a "qualifying relationship" under the Act and the regulations, a petitioner must show that 
the beneficiary's foreign employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (i.e., one 
entity with "branch" offices), or related as a ''parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See generally 
section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1). 
The regulation and case law confinn that ownership and control are the factors that must be examined 
in determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and foreign entities for 
purposes of this visa classification. See Matter of Church Scientology Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 5 93 (BIA 
1988); see also Matter of Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of Hughes, 
18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm'r 1982). In the context of this visa petition, ownership refers to the direct 
or indirect legal right of possession of the assets of an entity with full power and authority to control; 
control means the direct or indirect legal right and authority to direct the establishment, management, 
and operations of an entity. Matter of Church Scientology Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
The Beneficiary is the vice general manager at which 
sells various components of electronic devices. The Petitioner asserted that it is "100% owned and 
controlled" byl I The Petitioner stated thatl I was unable to directly invest in the 
petitioning entity because of Chinese government restrictions on overseas investment, and therefore 
"the foreign parent company wired ¥8,000,000 to [the Beneficiary's] personal bank account at 
I _Bank. [The Beneficiary] then wired a total of $400,500 ... to the U.S. subsidiary's account 
... in six installments ... as the foreign parent company's initial capital injection." 
A receipt from I I Bank of China indicates that lwired ¥8 million (roughly US$ l. l 4 
million) to the Beneficiary's account at I Bank on August 12, 2020. Bank documents 
show that the Beneficiary transferred funds from two different U.S. bank accounts to the Petitioner: 
Date Amount Source bank 
September 10, 2020 $3000 Bank of America 
December 3, 2020 50,000 HSBC 
December 3, 2020 97,500 HSBC 
December 3, 2020 100,000 HSBC 
April 8, 2021 100,000 Bank of America 
April 21, 2021 50,000 Bank of America 
Total 400,500 
The Petitioner did not submit a bank statement for April 2021, instead submitting a "Balance 
Summary" showing a bank balance of $400,370 as of April 18, 2021. 
2 
The Petitioner's December 2020 bank statement also reflects two significant deposits from other 
sources: $99,975 froml I and $50,000 froml I 
I I 
A share certificate, numbered" l" and dated August 6, 2020, indicates that I owns 1,000,000 
shares of the petitioning entity. An accompanying stock transfer ledger indicates that I 
purchased the shares for $400,500; the ledger does not reflect any other transactions or the issuance 
of any other certificates. 2 
In a request for evidence, the Director stated that the initial evidence "does not establish that __ 
has invested any money into the U.S. business, or that it has any ownership or control rights in the 
U.S. business." The Director requested additional evidence to establish I ownership and 
control of the petitioning U.S. employer. The Director stated that such evidence ''may include, but is 
not limited to," documentation such as the Petitioner "current by laws and articles of incorporation ... 
listing the type and amount of stock authorized to be issued." 
The Director noted that the Petitioner had not submitted any evidence to support its claims that _ 
was unable to transfer funds directly to the Petitioner. The Director also observed that the Petitioner 
had received significant, and unexplained, sums from and in in December 2020. 
In response, the Petitioner stated: 
Since November 2016, the People's Republic of China (PRC) has been increasing its 
scrutiny of outbound direct investments (ODI) made by PRC companies. Consistent 
with that trend, the PRC formalized the regulatory pathway for ODI transaction 
approval on August 18, 2017, by issuing the Opinions on Further Guiding and 
Regulating Outboundjiquan [sic] Investment (the Guiding Opinions) . ... Under the 
Guiding Opinions, [t]he ODI transactions are required to be "approved" by PRC 
regulators, which involves a higher level of scrutiny and a longer review process than 
the that typically "registration" [sic] with PRC regulators. 
Furthermore ... , many "informal" scrutiny and restrictions are also imposed by state 
officials in order to discourage and create more hinders [sic] to ODI. ... 
Under such strong formal and "informal" scrutiny, it is extremely hard for private 
companies to get ODI "approval" from [the] Chinese government. 
In immigration proceedings, the law of a foreign country is a question of fact which must be proven if 
a petitioner relies on it to establish eligibility for an immigration benefit. Matter of Annang, 14 I&N 
Dec. 502 (BIA 1973). 
To support its assertions about Chinese currency controls, the Petitioner submitted copies of online 
articles and blog posts. These materials do not show thatl I $400,000 investment in the 
petitioning entity would have been subject to new restrictions. 
2 The Director stated. in the denial notice, that the share certificate and ledger "cannot be found in the initial filing," but 
both documents are present in the record. 
3 
All the articles are from 2016 and 201 7, several years before the establishment of the petitioning entity 
in the United States. A 2016 article from Allen & Overy's website states: "It is rumored that the 
restrictions on ODI will remain in place until September 201 7." The Petitioner does not submit 
evidence to show that the restrictions remained in place in 2020 and 2021. 
Fmihermore, the articles rep01ied stricter government scrutiny over only certain types of outbound 
investments, such as investments valued at US$10 billion or more, and investments in a foreign 
subsidiary that is substantially larger than the Chinese company making the investment. The Petitioner 
did not address these categories or explain how the Petitioner falls into any of them. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had "not demonstrated that the foreign 
entity was restricted or prohibited from directly investing in the U.S. entity," and had "not provided 
evidence that the foreign company deposited funds into the beneficiary's bank account for the sole 
purpose of investing in the U.S. entity." The Director added that the bank documents show incoming 
wire transfers from other companies in China. 
On appeal, the Petitioner repeats prior assertions about investment restrictions. The Director addressed 
those claims in the denial notice, concluding that the submitted supporting evidence did not show that 
I I was prohibited or prevented from directly investing in the petitioning entity. The Petitioner, 
on appeal, does not address the Director's concerns. Instead, the Petitioner cites the same third-party 
articles and blog posts from 2016 and 2017. 
Also on appeal, the Petitioner submits copies of its bylaws and a shareholder agreement. The 
Petitioner does not explain why it did not submit these documents in response to the RFE, when the 
Director specifically requested copies of corporate governance documents relating to ownership and 
control of the company. The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further information that 
clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of the time the petition is 
filed. See 8 C.F.R. § § 103 .2(b )(8) and (12). Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a 
deficiency in the evidence and has been given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO 
will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 
766 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533,537 (BIA 1988). If the petitioner 
had wanted the submitted evidence to be considered, it should have submitted the documents in 
response to the director's request for evidence. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO need not and 
does not consider the sufficiency of the evidence submitted on appeal. 3 
Furthermore, review of the bank documents previously submitted by the Petitioner reveals a serious 
and unexplained issue. As noted above, the Petitioner initially submitted a "Balance Summary" dated 
April 18, 2021, showing the Petitioner's account held $400,370 on that date. The Petitioner's response 
to the RFE included the April202 l statement from the Petitioner's accountwithl I Bank. That 
statement shows that the account received two transfers from the Beneficiary, but returned the funds 
within days. The account received $100,000 on April 13, which it then sent out by international wire 
transfer in the Beneficiary's name on April 20; and it received $50,000 on April 22, which it 
3 The Petitioner cites Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2000) to argue that evidence submitted on 
appealmustbereviewed as part of the record ofproceeding, butthatcase involved a deportation proceeding. The Petitioner 
has not shown that the case applies more broadly to administrative proceedings involving benefit requests. 
4 
transferred back out, again in the Beneficiary's name, on April 28. The beginning balance shown on 
the statement, $300,370 as of April 1, is the same as the ending balance as of April 30. The Petitioner 
highlighted the two outgoing transactions in yellow ink, adding the handwritten annotation 
"Installment of Capital Injection," but the Petitioner did not explain how outgoing wire transfers -
clearly labeled as "Debits" and "Subtractions" on the statement- amount to "Capital Injection" into 
the company. The Petitioner did not show what became of the $150,000 after the Petitioner sent the 
wire transfers in late April 2021. This is a significant material issue because the purpmied stock 
transfer ledger indicates that paid $400,500 for its shares in the petitioning entity, but the 
Petitioner returned almost half that amount about a week after receiving it. 
The appeal includes a chronology of the various bank transactions which, the Petitioner asserts, 
illustrate I transfer of funds to the Petitioner. This chronology omits the two outgoing transfers 
in April 2021. This substantial, unexplained, and initially undisclosed outflow of nearly half of the 
Petitioner's startup capital raises serious questions that the record does not answer. Any documents 
or evidence that do not take this outflow into account, and rely on the assumption that all the incoming 
funds remained with the Petitioner, are 
Further questions arise from two third-party deposits into the Petitioner's account- $99,975 from 
I land $50,000 froml I There is no indication that the Petitioner has reached a stage of 
being able to provide goods or services in the United States, and therefore there is no reason to believe 
that these deposits represent payments for such goods or services. We cannot rule out that these 
payments - made several months after the date on the stock transfer ledger- were made to purchase 
shares in the company. The burden is on the Petitioner to establish that these entities sent nearly 
$150,000 to the Petitioner for reasons unrelated to purchasing shares or equity in the company. 
Apart from the unexplained purpose of these incoming transfers, the bank documentation shows that 
the Petitioner's bank account in the United States was able to accept transfers of nearly $100,000 from 
businesses - not private individuals - in China. The Petitioner has not explained why I and 
I I were able to send money directly to the Petitioner but _ was not able to send sums of 
comparable size. 
Upon review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met its burden of proof to establish 
that it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. For this reason, we will dismiss the appeal. 
III. ADDITIONAL ISSUE 
Beyond the Director's decision, review of the record shows another issue of concern. A petitioner 
filing a new office petition must submit evidence to show that is has secured sufficient physical 
premises to house the new office. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). 
The Petitioner submitted copies of lease agreements, indicating that the Petitioner leased office space 
inl I California, for $1400 per month beginning in May 2021, and warehouse space i 
I I California, for $2200 per month beginning in December 2020. The Petitioner submitted 
photographs purporting to show the office space and warehouse space. But the Petitioner's bank 
statements from December 2020 through August 2021 do not show a continuing pattern of outgoing 
checks or payments corresponding to the stated monthly rental rates. 
5 
In the absence of evidence of monthly rent payments, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish 
that it had secured sufficient physical premises for its new office, including warehouse space to store 
$90,000 worth of inventory that the Petitioner claims to have purchased. For this additional reason, 
the record as it now stands does not support approval of the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6