dismissed L-1A Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 22, 2023 In Re: 27519074 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lA Manager or Executive) 
The Petitioner, an information technology (IT) company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as its director of strategy and IT under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S .C. 
§ l 101(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 that: (1) the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer; 
(2) the Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity; and 
(3) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity . The matter is 
now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review , 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial , executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. 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 also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or her 
to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that it has a qualifying relationship with 
the Beneficiary's foreign employer. We agree, as explained below. 
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). 
Parent means a legal entity that has subsidiaries. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(I). 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(J). Subsidimy means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent has 
an ownership interest and controls the entity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(K). Affiliate means (1) 
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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(L). 
Ownership and control are the factors that determine whether a qualifying relationship exists between 
United States and foreign entities for purposes of this visa classification. See Matter of Church 
Scientology Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1988); see also Matter o_fSiemens Med. Sys., Inc., 19 I&N 
Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter ofHughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm'r 1982). Ownership refers to the 
direct or indirect legal right of possession of an entity's assets 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 ofChurch Scientology Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
Materials in the record refer to the Petitioner's employer in Colombia as a subsidiary of the petitioning 
U.S. employer. Documents in the record, including the Petitioner's tax returns and letters from the 
foreign entity's auditor and the Petitioner's accountant, indicate the following proportions of share 
ownership, with shareholders identified by their initials: 
Foreign entity: 
A.A.J. 51.98% 
A.H.G. 48.02% 
The petitioning U.S. entity: 
S.X.D.H. 36% 
S.L.V.C. 32% 
C.D.H. 32% 
These figures do not show any shared ownership between the two companies. 
Because the stated ownership percentages do not establish any shared ownership between the two 
companies, the Director requested additional evidence to establish the ownership and control of each. 
In response, the Petitioner asse1ied that it is "owned by individuals or affiliates of the foreign 
company," because its plurality owner, S.X.D.H., is the daughter of A.H.G. and the spouse of A.A.J., 
2 
who own the foreign company. These facts establish a relationship between S.X.D.H. and the owners 
of the foreign company, but they do not establish a relationship between the companies themselves. 
The Director denied the petition, in part because the Petitioner had not shown that the same individuals 
own and control both the foreign entity and the petitioning U.S. entity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states: "We have taken swift action and amended our Florida Profit 
Corporation Annual Rep01ito reflect that [A.H.G.] holds 25% ofthe company and serves as our Senior 
VP [ vice president] for Sales. We believe this satisfies the necessary relationship requirement." 
The Petitioner submits copies of new share certificates and the minutes of a shareholder meeting, 
indicating that A.H.G. has been added as a shareholder of the U.S. company, which is now held by 
four individuals, each with a 25% share. The minutes also refer to the foreign company as "an 
investor" in the U.S. company, but the document provides no further details. As noted, the Petitioner 
previously claimed that the foreign company was the Petitioner's "subsidiary." The minutes are 
undated, but the share certificates are dated March 1, 2023, several weeks after the Director denied the 
petition on February 10, 2023. 
A petitioner must meet all eligibility requirements at the time of filing the petition. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )(1 ). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in 
an effort to make an apparently deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of 
Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). The new ownership structure did not exist at the time 
of filing, or even at the time of denial. The Petitioner's existing shareholders transferred some of their 
shares after the denial date in an attempt to overcome an already-decided ground of ineligibility. This 
late change to the Petitioner's ownership structure does not show that the Director's decision was in 
error at the time of that decision. 
Even then, the new ownership structure does not establish a qualifying relationship between the two 
companies, because A.H.G. is a minority shareholder of both entities and the Petitioner has not 
established that A.H.G. controls both entities. A.H.G.'s 48% share of the foreign company and 25% 
share of the U.S. company does not facially establish the shared ownership and control necessary to 
demonstrate a qualifying relationship between the two companies. 
At the time the Petitioner filed the petition, certain shareholders of the two companies were related 
either by blood or by marriage, but these relationships between shareholders did not establish a 
qualifying relationship between the two companies, which are legal entities separate from their 
shareholders. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that it is a parent, subsidiary, 
affiliate, or branch of the foreign entity that has employed the Beneficiary. Because the Petitioner has 
not established that a qualifying relationship existed between the two companies at the time of filing, 
and continues to exist, the petition cannot be approved. 
3 
The above conclusion, by itself, determines the outcome of the appeal. Detailed discussion of the 
remaining grounds for denial, concerning the nature of the Beneficiary's positions both abroad and in 
the United States, cannot change that outcome. Therefore, we reserve argument on those issues. 1 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established a qualifying relationship between the petitioning U.S. entity and the 
Beneficiaiy's employer abroad. We 
will therefore dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 ( 1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter olL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
4