dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Export Of Diesel Engines

a id%fffying h daleted to 
prevent deasly unwarranted" 
invmi011 ofpersonal privacy' 
pm,rc COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 07 096 50282 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
MY 3 0 2000 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 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 fiu-ther inquiry must be made to that office. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
17 
EAC 07 096 50282 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to the beneficiary as an L-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a Florida corporation established in September 2006, states that it 
intends to engage in the import and export of diesel engines. It claims to be a subsidiary of Contratos, 
Ingenieria y Maquinaria Pesada Ltda ("Coninmaq Ltda"), located in Medellin, Colombia. The petitioner 
seeks to employ the beneficiary as the president and general manager of its new office in the United States for 
a one-year period. 
The director denied the petition on September 4, 2007, concluding that the petitioner had not established that 
the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity within 
one year of approval of the petition, or that the petitioning entity would support such a position within one 
year. The director observed that the petitioner had failed to provide a comprehensive description of the 
beneficiary's proposed duties sufficient to establish that the position would be primarily managerial or 
executive in nature. The director further noted that the petitioner had failed to provide requested information 
regarding specific duties to be performed by the beneficiary's proposed subordinates, and found the record 
insufficient to establish that the beneficiary would primarily supervise and control a subordinate staff of 
managerial, professional or supervisory personnel. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal on October 4, 2007. The director declined to treat the appeal as a 
motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. The petitioner submits the following statement on 
Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion: 
We are appealing the decision based on the fact that the officer is not taking into 
consideration that this is a new entity, we were in the process of hiring people and invest in 
office space, etc., once the visa was apporved [sic], it seems the officer held us in a higher 
standard. He presumes that the workers "apparent" lack of college degree and in general 
presumes almost evrything [sic] since we have not start doing business and actually started 
the hiring process since we were waiting for the approval of the visa. We took evry [sic] step 
in order to have the visa approve [sic], secure premisses [sic] for the entity, set up the 
corporation, fund the company with enough money to start-up operations, etc. 
The petitioner indicated that it would not be submitting a supplemental brief and/or evidence in support of its 
appeal. 
To establish eligibility under section 10 1 (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 
firm, corporation, or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof, must have employed the 
beneficiary for one continuous year. Furthermore, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States 
EAC 07 096 50282 
Page 3 
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. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, in pertinent part: 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party 
concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact for the appeal. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. The 
petitioner's only objection to the denial of the petition is that the director failed to consider that the petitioning 
company is a "new office" as defined at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(F). A review of the director's decision 
reveals that the director clearly cited to the regulatory definition of "new office," stated that the petitioner is 
considered a "new office" pursuant to this definition, and referenced the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 9 
214.2(1)(3)(~), which set forth specific evidentiary requirements for new office petitions. 
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. If a petitioner indicates that a beneficiary is coming to the 
United States to open a "new office," it must show that it is prepared to commence doing business 
immediately upon approval so that it will support a manager or executive within the one-year timeframe. See 
generally, 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(~). At the time of filing the petition to open a "new office," a petitioner must 
affirmatively demonstrate that it has acquired sufficient physical premises to house the new office and that it 
will support the beneficiary in a managerial or executive position within one year of approval. Specifically, 
the petitioner must describe the nature of its business, its proposed organizational structure and financial 
goals, and submit evidence to show that it has the financial ability to remunerate the beneficiary and 
commence doing business in the United States. Id. 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 director correctly determined that the petitioner had failed to provide a comprehensive description of the 
beneficiary's proposed duties as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Although the petitioner indicated that 
the company would employ a marketing manager, a secretary, an administrative assistant, and three sales 
personnel, there was no evidence in the record to support a conclusion that such employees would be hired 
within one year of the approval of the petition. The record contains no detailed description of the beneficiary's 
proposed duties as president and general manager of the company, no business plan, hiring plan, or other 
evidence of the proposed nature of the office, the scope of the entity, its organizational structure, and its 
financial goals, and no evidence of the size of the U.S. investment or the financial ability to commence doing 
business in the United States. See generally, 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3)(~). 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 
EAC 07 096 50282 
Page 4 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). It is impossible to conclude, based on the limited evidence submitted, 
that the beneficiary would be performing primarily managerial or executive duties within one year of the 
petition approval, or that the U.S. company would support a qualifying managerial or executive position. 
The petitioner has not submitted any evidence on appeal to overcome the director's grounds for denial of the 
petition. 
Beyond the decision of the director, a related issue is whether the petitioner has established that it has secured 
sufficient physical premises to house the new office as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). At the time 
the petition was filed on February 12, 2007, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary would be working at 
1435 Longarzo Place in West Palm Beach, Florida. The director subsequently requested, in a notice dated 
March 22, 2007, that the petitioner submit a complete copy of its commercial lease, complete with floor plan 
and photographs of the interior and exterior of the leased premises. In response, the petitioner submitted a 
commercial lease executed on February 20, 2007, with a commencement date of March 1, 2007. There is no 
evidence that the petitioner had a valid lease agreement in place or had secured physical premises to house its 
office at the time the petition was filed. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the 
nonimmigrant visa petition. A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the petitioner or 
beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. 
Comm. 1978). For this additional reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with 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. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only 
if she shows that the AAO abused it discretion with respect to all of the AAO's enumerated grounds. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003). 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternative basis for the decision. 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. 
Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of 
fact in support of the appeal, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.