dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Sales

rdentiMng data ddu to 
prev~ dearly onw- 
~~~~alwrswelprhrecv 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: SRC 04 176 5 1345 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: NOV 2 8 2005 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immtgration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
IN 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. 
dministrative Appeals Office 
SRC 04 176 51345 
Page 3 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The MO will summarily dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1A nonimmigrant 
inkacompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of Texas that claims to be 
engaged in the import and sale of charcoal. The petitioner claims that it is a branch office of Agronic S.A., 
located in Asuncion, Paraguay. The petitioner seeks to open a new office in the United States and has 
requested that the beneficiary be granted a one-year period of stay to serve as its executive director. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish: (1) that the United States 
company has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office; or (2) that a financial lnvestrnent 
was established for the new office. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner indicates that it has rented a new 
warehouse space with an attached office "in order to fulfill the requirements for the visa." In support of the 
appeal, counsel submits a copy of the new lease agreement and photographs of the premises. The petitioner 
does not object to the denial of the petition, nor does its representative specify any erroneous conclusions of 
law or statements of fact on the part of the director. In addition, the petitioner does not address the director's 
finding that there was no evidence of a financial investment for establishment of a new office in the United 
States. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, 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 within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States. 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, executive, or 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
Upon review, the MO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. While the 
AAO acknowledges receipt of an adequate lease agreement on appeal, 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). At the time of filing the petition on June 10, 2004, the petitioner submitted a 
residential lease agreement for an apartment rented to the beneficiary. On June 28, 2004, the director 
requested a copy of the business lease for the petitioner and an explanation as to where the company intended 
to store and sell charcoal. In response, the petitioner indicated that it would rent a warehouse with an adjacent 
office in the future and confirmed that it would be operating out of the apartment rented to the beneficiary. 
The petitioner also indicated that it rented "part of a warehouse" that would be used until a larger space was 
required. The petitioner submitted copies of two invoices for rent, purportedly issued to the petitioner by the 
owner of the warehouse, but failed to provide a lease agreement describing the type or amount of space. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of rneeting the 
SRC0417651345 
Page 3 
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)). 
Based upon this documentation, the AAO concurs with the director's finding that the petitioner did not submit 
sufficient evidence that it had acquired sufficient physical premises to operate the new office as required by 8 
C.F.R. Q; 214.2(l)(v)(A). 
As noted above, the petitioner does not address the director's determination that there is insufficient evidence 
of a financial investment in the United States company, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1:)(v)(C)(2). 
Accordingly, the director's decision will be affirmed. The AAO notes that the petitioner submitted evidence 
that it had a checking account with a balance of $1,027.00, and did not appear to be adequately funded to 
commence operations in the United States. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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. 
Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of 
fact in this proceeding, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner's description of the stock distribution of the comj>anies does 
not meet the definitions constituting a qualifying relationship between the United States 
entity pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(G). The record indicates that two individuals 
and owh the foreign entity in equal shares. The 
divid~ndividuals as follows: 225 shares; and 
50 shares. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
the same individual or by the same group of individuals, with each individual owning and 
controlling approximately the same share or proportion of each entity. 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(l)(ii)(L). Based on the 
evidence submitted, the petitioner has not established that a qualifying relationship exists between the U.S. 
and foreign organizations. For this additional reason, the petition may not be approved. 
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 A40 reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.