dismissed L-1A Case: Insurance

MATTER OF M-L-I-CO. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 22,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an insurance company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its executive 
vice president of operations under the L-1A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-1A 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 an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's employer abroad. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In support of its appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief 
disputing the Director's decision. The Petitioner asserts that the decision was arbitrary and 
capricious and that it was not in line with the supporting evidence. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the Beneficiary in a 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. 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, executive, or specialized knowledge 
capacity. !d. 
The regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form I -129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, shall be accompanied by: 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will 
employ the alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph 
(l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
Matter of M-L-1-Co. 
(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 involved specialized knowledge and that 
the alien's prior education, training, and employment qualifies him/her to 
perform the intended services in the United States; however, the work in the 
United States need not be the same work which the alien performed abroad. 
II. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
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) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1). 
The pertinent regulations at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii) define the term "qualifying organization" and 
related terms as follows: 
(G) QualifYing organization means a United States or foreign firm, corporation, or 
other legal entity which: 
(1) Meets exactly one of the qualifying relationships specified in the 
definitions of a parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary specified in 
paragraph (l)(l)(ii) ofthis section; 
(I) Parent means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity which has subsidiaries. 
(J) Branch means an operating division or office of the same organization housed 
in a different location. 
(K) Subsidiary means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent 
owns, directly or indirectly; more than half of the entity and controls the 
entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, half of the entity and controls the entity; 
or owns, directly or indirectly, 50 percent of a 50-50 joint venture and has 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-L-1-Co. 
equal control and veto power over the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, 
less than half of the entity, but in fact controls the entity. 
(L) 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. 
In the present matter, the Petitioner's Form I-129 states that the Beneficiary is currently employed 
abroad at a Venezuelan entity and claimed affiliate of the Petitioner. 
In one of two supporting statements, the Petitioner's counsel claimed that the Petitioner and the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer are two of seven companies that are part of 
More specifically, counsel stated that owns the Petitioner and 
that directly 
owns Counsel went on to 
state that ownership is split between whose sole 
owner 1s and of which owns 20%. 
Based on the claim that has ownership interest in the latter two entities, counsel 
concluded that he indirectly owns 60% of and therefore controls the Petitioner. 
Counsel stated that also indirectly owns the majority of the foreign entity by virtue of 
his direct ownership of the seven entities that serve as the corporate shareholders. The Petitioner 
reiterated the same ownership breakdown with regard to the foreign entity in a separate supporting 
statement, but did not provide its own ownership breakdown. Rather, the Petitioner referred to itself 
·as one of seven "affiliated companies." 
In addition to the above supporting statements, the Petitioner provided, in part, the following 
documents pertaining to its claimed affiliate relationship with the Beneficiary's employer abroad: 
I. Photocopy of an internet article, which refers to bid to 
purchase "the failed . . . [t]hrough a court-assisted 
transaction," which, according to the article was executed through "'its partner 
in Panama."' This statement indicates that the Petitioner, formerly called 
was ultimately purchased by a partner entity simply referred 
to as ' The Article does not clarify whether this abbreviated name was 
intended to reference or 
which counsel claimed as the direct owner of It is 
therefore unclear whether this article is consistent with counsel's claim. 
2. Photocopy of an article from which contained the following 
statement regarding the Petitioner's ownership: "[The Petitioner]'s parent company, 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-L-1-Co. 
a wholly owned subsidiary of 
an insurer domiciled in Panama that is ultimately owned by 
This description of ownership is inconsistent with counsel's 
statement, which depicts the Petitioner, rather than as 
subsidiary. The probative value of this article is diminished due to this inconsistency. 
3. Photocopy of an article from which referred to 
as a Venezuela-based entity that is "affiliated with" 
The article did not describe the specific nature of the affiliation 
and therefore has limited probative value in a case where the extent of the claimed 
affiliation is the basis of the qualifying relationship claim. 
4. Photocopy of a translated article excerpt, which references acquisition of 
and refers to the Petitioner as an affiliate of Again, the article does not describe 
the specific nature of the affiliation and therefore has limited probative value. 
5. A photocopied company ownership chart that depicts at the top and lists 
the various entities in which he is claimed to have an ownership interest along with 
the specific percentage of the interest he claims to hold. The chart indicates that 
is the sole owner of the Beneficiary's foreign employer and also attempts to 
illustrate indirect ownership of the Petitioner, which, according to the 
chart, derived through his claimed full or part ownership of 
and 
6. A company-generated diagram depicting the Petitioner as a wholly-owned subsidiary 
of which contains parentheses around the name 
The significance of the parentheses and the reference to 
are unclear given the two entities' distinct ownership breakdowns 
where, according to counsel, ownership is split 50/50 
between and This chart makes no mention of 
and is therefore inconsistent with the chart described in No. 5 
above. 
7. A separate diagram with a more detailed ownership breakdown of the Petitioner. 
Specifically, the diagram shows that the majority of the Petitioner's shares, or 
52.3 7%, are indirectly owned by who, together with his wife, is shown 
as owning 40% of the shares of which is one of the entities that is claimed to 
partly own one of the Petitioner's parent entities. The claim that owns 
jointly with his wife is in contrast with the above chart, which indicates that 
alone owns 20% of the latter entity. This diagram indicates that 
alone owns 100% of , which results in his indirect ownership of 
an additional 2.23% of the Petitioner, while his 100% ownership of results in 
his ownership of 30.94% of the Petitioner. In calculating the sum of 
claimed majority ownership of the Petitioner, this chart does not distinguish between 
his individual ownership ofthe various claimed affiliate entities and he and his wife's 
claimed joint ownership of This chart also lacks any reference to 
thereby indicating that it too is inconsistent with the chart 
described in No.5 above. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-L-1-Co. 
8. The Petitioner's Articles of Incorporation, including Article Eight, which states that 
the Petitioner is authorized to issue 800,000 shares of stock of which 300,000 shares 
are preferred nonvoting while the remaining 500,000 shares comprise the common 
voting stock. 
9. Printout of an excerpt from the Petitioner's website containing a discussion of the 
company's history, including a reference to as the Petitioner's affiliate by virtue 
of both entities becoming "part of 
10. Certified translation of certification stating that he is 100% owner of 
The certification was not accompanied by either a share certificate or a 
stock ledger corroborating statement. 
11. Four foreign language documents pertaining to 
and respectively, unaccompanied by certified 
English translations. Without certified translations ·of the documents, we cannot 
determine whether the evidence supports the Petitioner's claims. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, the evidence will not be accorded any weight in this 
proceeding. 
12. A court resolution document the grant of a motion to sell the assets of to 
13. Certified translation ofthe foreign entity's corporate bylaws in which Article 5 issued 
100% of the company's shares in equal amounts to and 
14. Certified English translation of certification (in his capacity as the 
foreign employer's board president) attesting to the contents of a minutes of a special 
shareholder meeting, held on March 25, 2008, regarding the foreign employer, whose 
shareholders were listed as 1, 2, 
3, 7, all represented by 
and and both represented by 
The minutes indicated that the purpose of the meeting was to change the 
articles of incorporation and bylaws of the foreign employer to ret1ect a new share 
allocation. The certification indicates that Chapter VIII, Article 1 contains the 
following allocation of 40,000 shares of the foreign entity: 4000 shares to 
1, , 8000 shares to 2, , 7000 shares to 
3, , 1000 shares to 7, 15,000 shares to 
and 5000 shares to 
15. A second certified English translation of another certification of in which 
he discussed the contents of a "Book of Records" containing a copy of the minutes of 
a special shareholder meeting, held on June 10, 2009, regarding the foreign employer 
and the addition as a seventh shareholder to whom a 
claimed 4000 shares were issued, thereby increasing the foreign employer's share 
capital from 40,000 to 44,000 shares. 
16. A third certified English translation of a certification of in which he 
discussed the contents of a "Book of Records" containing a copy of the minutes of the 
extraordinary general shareholder meeting, held on June 19, 2013, regarding the 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-L-1-Co. 
foreign employer. The document reiterates the above distribution 44,000 shares of 
the foreign employer and states that presided over the meeting. 
17. A translated certification of dated February 9, 2015, 
titled, "To Whom It May Concern," reiterating the above ownership breakdown of 
18. Six certifications signed by all dated December 31, 2014, listing the 
· shareholders of the following entities: 
and 
We note that the Petitioner did not provide share certificates, a stock ledger, or the actual corporate 
minutes of either the special meetings or the extraordinary general shareholder's meeting to 
corroborate any of the share distributions that and claimed in their 
respective certifications (as described in Nos. 12-18 above). Similarly, the Petitioner did not provide 
corroborating primary evidence in the form of corporate documents to support the internally­
generated ownership charts or articles that were described in Nos. 1-10. 
Subsequent to an initial review of the record, the Director determined, in part, that the Petitioner did 
not provide sufficient evidence to establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's 
employer abroad. Therefore, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), instructing the 
Petitioner to provide corroborating documents to support its claims regarding the qualifying 
relationship it purports to have with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. The Director summarized 
the Petitioner's claims and made a general reference to the Petitioner 's submission of internet 
articles to support those claims, finding that the articles did not constitute corroborating evidence 
sufficient to support the Petitioner 's claims regarding its qualifying relationship. The Director 
provided a detailed list of suggested documents that the Petitioner could submit as evidence of its 
claimed affiliate relationship, including a recent annual report, meeting minutes listing stockholders 
and their respective ownership interests, articles of incorporation and bylaws with all amendments, 
articles of organization or bylaws listing member names and their respective ownership interests, 
stock purchase agreements, stock certificates, and a stock ledger showing all certificates that have 
been issued. 
In response, the Petitioner provided a statement reiterating the claim that it and 
the Beneficiary 's employer abroad, are affiliates by virtue of both entities being majority 
owned by The Petitioner 's response also contains a number of documents, 
including a coversheet from the Petitioner's "Annual Statement" for the year ending December 31, 
2015 followed by an "Annual Statement" for the year ending December 31, 2014. Page 51 of the 
2014 statement included a replica of the company ownership chart that was described in No. 5 
above. As previously described, the chart depicts at the top and lists the various entities 
in which he is claimed to have an ownership interest and provides the specific percentage of the 
interest he claims to hold. In sum, this chart depicts as the sole owner of the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer and indicates that derives control of the Petitioner 
through his claimed full or part ownership of, and 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-L-1-Co . 
the latter of which was not mentioned in any of the charts or certified statements that 
were previously submitted. This inconsistency gives cause to doubt the accuracy of any information 
that is not corroborated by primary evidence, such as corporate documents or a stock ledger showing 
the original stock issue and any changes that took place thereafter. 
The "Annual Statement" also contains Schedule Y, Part 1A, which purports to list the parent, 
subsidiary, and affiliate entities of the Schedule Y lists a total of 17 entities -
including the four entities listed directly above as well as the Petitioner and the Beneficiary 's 
employer abroad - and indicates that ultimately owns and controls both entities. More 
specifically, Schedule Y shows that while owns and controls 100% of the foreign 
employer, he ultimately controls the Petitioner through his ownership of which is shown as 
owning and controlling 48.81% of the Petitioner. 
Other supporting evidence provided in response to the RFE includes an excerpt from the notes 
section ofthe foreign entity 's financial statements from 2012 and 2013. The notes contain a list of 
the seven entities that directly own the Beneficiary ' s foreign employer and their respective shares 
and percentage of ownership interests. Despite the Petitioner 's repeated claims that 
derives his majority ownership and control of the foreign entity through his ownership of the seven 
entities that are listed as the foreign entity's shareholders, the Petitioner did not provide primary 
evidence corroborating indirect ownership. 
Lastly, the Petitioner submitted two additional ownership charts - one chart mapping out the 
Petitioner's majority ownership and a second chart breaking down the ownership of the Petitioner's 
foreign affiliates. A note at the bottom of the page containing the Petitioner's ownership breakdown 
states, ' and his wife own and control 52.37% of [the Petitioner] and are 
therefore the majority owners of the U.S. [P]etitioner." (Emphasis added in original.) Aside from 
being unsupported by corroborating primary evidence, this ownership breakdown is inconsistent 
with evidence that the Petitioner initially submitted in support of the petition to the extent that it 
indicates that all 52.3 7% majority shares are owned jointly by and his wife. The 
initially submitted evidence described in No. 7, above, only shows as being jointly owned, 
which would indicate that only 19.2% of the overall 52.37% is jointly owned by the two spouses, 
while the remaining 33.17% of the shares are owned by alone. 
The second chart, titled "Overseas Affiliates: (Venezuela), 
(Panama) and 
indicates that owns 100% of and 40% of which are shown 
as owning 39.09% and 60.97% of respectively. Again, the information in this 
chart lacks supporting primary evidence and is inconsistent with evidence that the Petitioner initially 
submitted in support of the petition. Namely , the diagram previously described in No. 6 above, 
depicted the Petitioner as being wholly owned by and/or 
whose ownership is split 50/50 between and the latter of which 
is shown as being 20%, rather than 40%, owned by Further, in contrast with the 
initially submitted document, the chart submitted in response to the RFE distinguishes between 
.., 
(b)(6)
. Matter of M-L-1-Co. 
and indicating that the latter owns the former entity. Also, 
the document previously described in No. 7 above indicates that is 100% owner of 
which results in his indirect ownership of 30.94% of the Petitioner. However, the more 
recently submitted chart indicates that owns jointly with his wife. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's submissions, the Director denied the petition, concluding that the 
Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that it has an affiliate relationship with the 
Beneficiary's employer abroad. The Director reviewed the Petitioner 's submissions with regard to 
both entities' respective share distributions and concluded that the evidence is no~ sufficient to 
establish that owns and controls the majority of the shares of the Petitioner and 
the Beneficiary's employer abroad~ Although the Director accepted evidence showing that seven 
companies, together, own the foreign entity, she determined that no evidence was provided to 
establish ownership of those entities such that would give him indirect majority 
ownership and control of the foreign entity. With regard to the Petitioner 's ownership, the Director 
rejected the Petitioner's reliance on self-generated documents as a means to support its claims and 
while the Director acknowledged the Petitioner 's submission of audited financial statements, which 
referenced the entity claimed to be the Petitioner's owner, she found that 
the financial statement did not establish the Petitioner's ownership and control. 
The regulation and case law confirm 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 International , 
19 I&N Dec. 593 (Comm'r 1988); see also Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 
362 (Comm 'r 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 International, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
As general evidence of a petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship, we look to a number of 
documents to determine whether a stockholder maintains ownership and control of a corporate 
entity. Such documents, including a company's stock certificates, corporate stock certificate ledger, 
stock certificate registry, corporate bylaws, and the minutes of relevant annual shareholder meetings 
must be examined to determine the total number of shares issued, the exact number issued to the 
shareholder, and the subsequent percentage ownership and its effect on corporate control. 
Additionally, a petitioning company must disclose all agreements relating to the voting of shares, the 
distribution of profit, the management and direction of the subsidiary, and any other factor affecting 
actual control of the entity. See Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 1632. 
Without full disclosure of all relevant documents, USCIS is unable to determine the elements of 
ownership and control. 
After reviewing the evidence submitted in support of the instant petition, we find that the Petitioner 
did not establish that it and the Beneficiary ' s employer abroad are commonly owned and controlled 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-L-1-Co. 
by the same individual pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(L)(l) of the definition for the term 
"affiliate." 
As a preliminary matter, we note that while the Director referred to the Petitioner's submission of 
"Minutes of Shareholder Meetings for further analysis of the 
submission indicates that rather than providing a translation of the foreign entity' s actual minutes of 
shareholder meeting, the Petitioner instead provided certification as to the contents of 
the minutes of two special shareholder meetings and one minutes of an extraordinary shareholder 
meeting. As previously noted, the Petitioner did not provide the actual minutes of any of the three 
meetings, thereby precluding us from being able to verify whether certified statements 
as to the contents of the minutes of meetings were accurate. This evidentiary deficiency has been 
noted and will be considered in determining the probative value of certified 
statements, which the Petitioner has used in lieu of the actual corporate documents and their certified 
English translations . The Petitioner has offered no explanation clarifying why it otiered a third party 
account from rather than the corporate minutes themselves, to establish what took place 
during the three shareholder meetings. We note that unsupported statements are of very limited 
weight and normally will be insufficient to carry its burden of proof, particularly when supporting 
documentary evidence would reasonably be available. See Matter ofSoffi ci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)); 
see also Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). The Petitioner must support its 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 
376. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the Director 's decision and states that the decision was erroneous 
and an abuse of discretion. Among its supporting arguments, the Petitioner contends that page 39 of 
the foreign entity's financial statement and the English translation of that portion of the document 
were previously submitted, along with other documents, as a means of establishing the foreign 
entity's ownership. A review of the referenced page from the foreign entity's financial statement 
includes a list of seven corporate shareholders that own the foreign entity, along with their respective 
ownership shares. However, this document does not support the Petitioner 's claim that 
ultimately holds the majority ownership of the foreign entity through his claimed ownership of the 
entities that directly own the foreign entity' s stock. As we previously pointed out, evidence that the 
Petitioner submitted in the form of diagrams and third party certifications , including those made by 
the individual claiming indirect ownership of the foreign entity through his claimed ownership of the 
foreign entity's corporate shareholders, was not sufficient, as there was no corroborating evidence in 
the form of actual corporate documents, such as stock certificates, stock ledgers, meeting minutes, or 
annual reports expressly identifying ownership interest in the corporate entities that 
comprise majority ownership of the Beneficiary's employer abroad. As previously stated, 
unsupported statements are of very limited weight and normally will be insufficient to carry the 
Petitioner's burden of proof. !d. 
In the present matter, while the record contains sufficient evidence of the foreign entity' s direct 
ownership in the form of an audited financial statement, which expressly lists that entity's corporate 
9 
(b)(6)
• ' · I 
Matter of M-L-1-Co. 
shareholders as well as their respective ownership interests, the Petitioner did not provide similar 
primary, evidence to corroborate claim that he has sufficient ownership interests in the 
individual corporate shareholders such that would constitute his indirect majority ownership and 
control of the Beneficiary's employer abroad. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner cannot satisfy the definition of "affiliate" at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(L)(l), which focuses on a single entity or individual as the common owner of the 
Petitioner and the Beneficiary's employer abroad, thereby requiring that we review the evidence 
within the scope of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(L)(2), which hinges on whether the Petitioner and the 
foreign entity are owned and controlled by the same group of shareholders with each shareholder 
owning and controlling approximately the same share or proportion of each entity. Based on 
repeated attempts to establish that ultimately owns a controlling interest in the 
Petitioner, it is apparent that the Petitioner neither claims nor seeks to establish that it is owned by 
the same seven corporate shareholders who directly own and control the foreign entity. 
The record also does not support the Petitioner 's claim that it is ultimately owned by 
Rather, the record shows that statements made by the Petitioner's counsel with regard to its specific 
ownership breakdown were inconsistent with the various ownership breakdown charts and other 
documents that the Petitioner submitted in an effort to illustrate its ownership. As stated above, 
counsel stated that the Petitioner is directly owned by whose direct owner 
1s whose ownership is split between two entities - and 
-of which purportedly owns 100% and 20%, respectively, thereby giving 
him indirect ownership of 60% of the Petitioner. While both counsel and the Petitioner claim that 
ultimately derives majority ownership of the Petitioner through his ownership in the 
entities that directly own the Petitioner 's stock, counsel's claim that owns 60% of the 
Petitioner is inconsistent with the evidence in No. 7 above, which consists of a diagram illustrating 
that 52.37% of the Petitioner's shares are indirectly owned by and that 19.2% of the 
overall 52.37% majority includes shares that owns jointly with his wife. Adding further 
confusion to the Petitioner's ownership breakdown is a chart that the Petitioner provided with the 
RFE response, which indicates that the entirety of the 52.37% majority shares are owned jointly by 
and his wife, rather than just a portion of the majority, as indicated in the initial 
supporting evidence. Despite being informed that th'e . submission of any number of corporate 
documents could have established who owns the majority of the Petitioner's voting stock, the 
Petitioner did not provide primary evidence of its stock ownership, thereby failing to establish its 
ownership or resolving the above inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth lies. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Again, the 
Petitioner's unsupported statements are insufficient to carry its burden of proof, particularly when 
supporting documentary evidence would reasonably be available. See Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N 
Dec. at 165. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
Further, while we acknowledge the Petitioner's submission of an "Annual Statement" to establish its 
ownership, this document also contains anomalies that diminish its probative and preclude us from 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-L-1-Co. 
affirmatively concluding that owns the majority of the Petitioner's voting stock. As 
noted above, while the coversheet from the "Annual Statement" states that the statement will 
account for the year ending December 31, 2015, the 
actual statement that follows the coversheet 
indicates that it applies to the Petitioner's finances for the year ending December 31, 2014. We 
further note that the RFE expressly listed an annual report as one of the documents the Petitioner 
could have submitted to support its claims. There is no evidence to suggest that an annual statement 
is the same as an annual report, nor does the submitted annual statement adequately support the 
claim that is ultimately the owner of a majority of the Petitioner ' s voting stock. If 
USCIS finds reason to believe that an assertion stated in the petition is not true, USCIS may reject 
that assertion. See, e.g., Section 204(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b); Anetekhai v. INS, 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). 
In sum, the Petitioner has provided little probative evidence to establish that it and the Beneficiary's 
employer abroad are commonly owned and controlled. As discussed above, while the RFE provided 
the Petitioner with a list of acceptable documents it could have submitted to support the claim that 
ultimately owns the majority of its voting shares as well as the shares of the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer, the Petitioner's supporting evidence is primarily comprised of self­
generated charts, diagrams, and certified statements from legal representatives and the claimed 
owner himself attesting to his claimed indirect majority ownership of the two entities in question. 
Such evidence is not sufficient to conclude that the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's employer abroad 
are similarly owned and controlled; nor is there evidence to support that the same seven entities that 
own the Beneficiary's foreign employer also own the Petitioner itself. Therefore, the Petitioner has 
not established that it meets the criteria of either subsection of the definition of the term "affiliate" 
and therefore lacks the requisite qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary 's foreign employer. 
The petition must be denied on the basis of this finding. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reason. 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. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende , 26 I&N 127, 128 (BIA 
2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-L-1-Co., ID# 55871 (AAO Nov. 22, 2016) 
11