dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Export

&M&hg data delea W 
mt clear!? unwa- 
Mon of -.qaJ D~V-7 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigratron 
FILE: SRC 03 105 53324 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG 3 0 2005 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Ij 1 lOl(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. 
f 
X 
Robert P. Wiernann, Direct 
Administrative Appeals 
SRC 03 105 53324 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
According to the documentary evidence contained in the record, the petitioner was incorporated in 1998, and 
claims to be an import and export business. The petitioner seeks to extend its authorization to employ the 
beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its managing director for a period of two years, at a weekly 
salary of $1,500.00. The director determined that the petitioneihad not submitted sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that the beneficiary had been or would continue to be employed by the U.S. entity primarily in a 
managerial or executive capacity. The beneficiary was initially granted a one-year period of stay in the 
United States and the petitioner now seeks to extend the beneficiary's stay. 
On appeal, the petitioner disagrees with the director's determination and requests oral argument. 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 4 1101(a)(15)(L), the petitioner must de'monstrate that the beneficiary, within three years preceding 
the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving specialized knowledge, for one continuous year 
by a qualifying organization, and seeks to enter  he United States temporarily in order to continue to render 
his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof, in a capacity that is managerial, 
executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(l)(ii) states, in part: 
Intracornpany transferee means an alien who, within three years preceding the time of his or 
her application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad continuously 
for one year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or parent, branch, affiliate, or 
subsidiary thereof, and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to render his 
or her services to a branch of the same employer or a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary thereof in 
a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by : 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and Ihe organization which employed or will employ the 
alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph ( I)( l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or invo1vi:d specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies himiher to perform the intended 
SRC 03 105 53324 
Page 3 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has established that the beneficiary's employment with 
the U.S. entity has been and will be primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means ;m assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily- 
(9 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 pr~.>motion 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-today 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 supt:rvisory duties unless the employees supervised are 
professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1101 (a)(44)(8), 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; 
(i i) Establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or 
function; 
(iii) Exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv> Receives only general supervision or direction from higher level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
SRC 03 105 53324 
Page 4 
The director requested the petitioner to submit: 
Evidence of the staffing level in the United States. Include copies of tax returns for the past 
year, which lists all employees by name. 
Provide a list of all employee positions, duiies and qualifications for each position. 
Describe the duties of the beneficiary for i.he past year. Indicate the percent of time hetshe has 
spent performing each duty. 
Evidence of the business conducted by the United States entity during the past year, such as 
copies of corporate income tax returns, accountant statements, invoices, bills of sale, bills of 
lading, shipping receipts, etc. 
Submit photos of the office space and copy of the current lease for office space for the 
beneficiary. Also submit photos of the business premises. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner stated in a letter dated August 9, 2003, that the 
beneficiary was responsible for identifying interesting markets, structuring operation plans, and coordinating 
and implementing contracts of exclusive distribution of the petitioner's products. The petitioner also stated 
that the beneficiary spends 80 percent of his time directing and coordinating business activities, and 20 
percent of his time traveling abroad to meet with future customers. The petitioner submitted photographs of 
the exterior and interior of a house in an envelope labeled "office photos," copies of the U.S. entity's corporate 
income tax return for 2002, company brochures, bank records, a wire transfer statement, and business invoices. 
The director subsequently denied the petition stating that the evidence contained in the record was insufficient to 
establish that the beneficiary is employed by the Lr.S. entity in a managerial or executive capacity. The director 
noted that the petitioner had failed to submit evidence to show that the U.S. entity employed the staff required to 
support the need for a manager. The director stated that based upon the evidence in the record, it appeared that 
the beneficiary was primarily engaged in the day-today operations of the business without professional staffing, 
rather than performing duties that are primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
On appeal, the petitioner disagrees with the director's decision, and requests oral argument on the subject. The 
petitioner resubmits a copy of its response letter, dated August 9,2003. 
On reviewing the petition and the evidence, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is employed 
in a managerial or executive capacity. The petitloner requests that the Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(CIS) allow for oral argument on appeal. The rt:gulations provide that the requesting party must explain in 
writing why oral argument is necessary. Furthelmore, CIS has the sole authority to grant or deny a request 
for oral argument and will grant oral argument only in cases involving unique facts or issues of law that 
cannot be adequately addressed in writing. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(b). The petitioner identified no unique fact 
or issues of law to be resolved. In fact, the petitioner set forth no specific reasons why oral argument is 
necessary. Moreover, the written record of proceedings fully represents the facts and issues in this matter. 
Consequently, the request for oral argument is denied. 
The petitioner has failed to submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary is employed by the 
U.S. entity in a primarily managerial or execulive capacity. The petitioner states that the beneficiary is 
SRC 03 105 53324 
Page 5 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity xn that he is responsible for identifying markets, structuring 
operation plans, and coordinating and implementing contracts for exclusive distribution of the petitioner's 
products. The petitioner also stated that the beneficiary spends 80 percent of his time directing and 
coordinating business activities. However, the petitioner has failed to submit any independent documentary 
evidence to substantiate this claim. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden oF proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Crafr of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). Furthermore, the petitioner failed to respond to the 
director's request for evidence regarding the issue of the beneficiary's job duties. The regulation states that 
the petitioner shall submit additional evidence as the director, in his or her discretion, may deem necessary. 
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. $5 103.2(b)(8) and (12). 
The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying 
the petition. 8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(b)(14). The non-existence or other unavailability of required evidence creates a 
presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(b)(2)(i). In addition, if CIS fails to believe that a fact stated in 
the petition is true, CIS may reject that fact. Section 204(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. Cj 1154(b); see also 
Anetekhai v. I. N.S., 876 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1989); Lu-Ann Bakery Shop, Inc. v. Nelson, 705 F. Supp. 7, 
10 (D.D.C. 1988); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
Based upon evidence submitted in the record, it appears that the beneficiary will be performing the day-to-day 
functions of the U.S. entity rather than managing the operation, professional subordinates, or a function of the 
organization. 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 (Comm. 1988). The petitioner has not demonstrated that 
the beneficiary will be functioning at a senior level within an organizational hierarchy other than in position 
title. There has been no evidence submitted to demonstrate that the organization requires a manager or 
executive to operate. Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary is employed 
primarily in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has not established that a qualifying relationship continues 
to exist between the U.S. and foreign entities as required by the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(1)(l)(ii)(G), in 
that there is nothing in the record to establish that the foreign entity has been doing business as defined by the 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(I-I). In fact the petitioner stated in its letter dated August 9, 2003, that 
"in the last year our Company had a hard time owing to Crisis at South America, especially at Argentine our 
big partner in some business. [sic]" For this addilional reason, the petition may not be approved. 
Another issue not directly addressed by the director is whether the petitioner has secured sufficient physical 
premises to house its business establishment. The petitioner submitted a copy of an office lease agreement, 
which appears to be an office time-share agreement in which the petitioner receives mail service, copier 
service, telephone answering services, and use of conference rooms, as needed. In addition, the address of the 
In contrast, the photographs submitted 
by the petitioner demonstrate the setup of an office in a private residence. Further, all correspondence with 
CIS, the corporate income tax return, and other business documents contain the address: - 
in Orlando, Florida. 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). For this addi[ional reason, the petition may not be approved. 
SRC 03 105 53324 
Page 6 
An application or petition that fails to comply wit11 the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the 
AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F.SU~~.~"~ 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9' Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 89 1 F.2d 907, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989) (noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
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. $ 136 1. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.