dismissed L-1A Case: International Trade

identifYinp, 13ta deleted to 
prevent clt,Wy ,lllwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBUCCOpy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and llTU1ligration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .. N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: 
JUL 1 3 2011 
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § I 101 (a)(lS)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.S. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the aecision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-IA nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(lS)(L). The petitioner, a California corporation established in February 2008, states that it 
intends to engage in international trade. The petitioner claims to be a subsidiary of Zhao Feng Internacional 
de Negocios Cia. Ltda, located in Ecuador. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as the general 
manager of its new office in the United States for a period of one year. 
The director denied the petition based on two independent and alternative grounds, concluding that the 
petitioner failed to establish: (l) that it has a qualitying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer; 
and (2) that it secured sufficient physical premises to house 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, new counsel for the petitioner asserts that the 
petitioner's previous attorney negligently failed to provide "enough detail, information and facts" to support 
the petition. Counsel submits an updated Form 1-129, noting that the previous petition contained "more than 
26 errors." Counsel also alleges that "someone signed in the petition at least IS times without their consent." 
Counsel asserts that the evidence submitted on appeal clarifies any discrepancies or questions and clearly 
establishes the beneficiary's and petitioner's eligibility for L-l A classification. 
I. The Law 
To establish eligibility for the L-l nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 10 1 (a)(lS)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualitying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualitying 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the 
alien are qualitying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(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 qualitying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 

Page 3 
(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 himlher 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v) further provides that if the petition indicates that the beneficiary is 
coming to the United States as a manager or executive to open or to be employed in a new office in the United 
States, the petitioner shall subm it evidence that: 
(A) Sufficient physical premises to house the new office have been secured; 
(B) The beneficiary has been employed for one continuous year in the three year period 
preceding the filing of the petition in an executive or managerial capacity and that the 
proposed employment involved executive of managerial authority over the new 
operation; and 
(C) The intended United States operation, within one year of the approval of the petition, 
will support an executive or managerial position as defined in paragraphs (1)( I )(ii)(B) 
or (C) of this section, supported by information regarding: 
(1) The proposed nature of the office describing the scope of the entity, its 
organizational structure, and its financial goals; 
(2) The size of the United States investment and the financial ability of the 
foreign entity to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business 
in the United States; and 
(3) The organizational structure of the foreign entity. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(F), "new office" means an organization which has been doing business 
in the United States through a branch, affiliate or subsidiary for less than one year. 
II. The Issues on Appeal 
As a preliminary matter, the AAO will address the petitioner's submission of a new Form 1-129 Petition and 
other amended documentation on appeal. Counsel alleges that the petitioner's prior attorney made more than 
26 errors in completing the Form 1-129, signed documents without the petitioner's authorization, and 
otherwise failed to properly present the petitioner's evidence to uscrs. 
The AAO notes that any appeal or motion based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires: (I) 
that the claim be supported by an affidavit of the allegedly aggrieved respondent setting forth in detail the 
agreement that was entered into with counsel with respect to the actions to be taken and what representations 
counsel did or did not make to the respondent in this regard, (2) that counsel whose integrity or competence is 
being impugned be informed of the allegations leveled against him and be given an opportunity to respond, 
Page 4 
and (3) that the appeal or motion reflect whether a complaint has been filed with appropriate disciplinary 
authorities with respect to any violation of counsel's ethical or legal responsibilities, and if not, why not. 
Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), afj'd, 857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988). The petitioner has not 
provided evidence that its former counsel has been informed of the allegations leveled against him and been 
given an opportunity to respond, nor does the appeal reflect whether a complaint has been filed with 
appropriate disciplinary authorities. Counsel indicates that "the company is preparing to file the complaint to 
against the previous attorney in misguided, misrepresentation of the petition," but submits nothing further. 
Thus, the petitioner has not adequately supported a claim that it received ineffective assistance from former 
counsel. 
Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the new Form 1-129 submitted on appeal. The petitioner claims that 
the evidence filed prior to the adjudication of the petition was rife with errors, unauthorized signatures and 
other serious deficiencies, but fails to identifY specifically what information was initially omitted or 
misrepresented. Nevertheless, if significant changes are made to the initial request for approval, the petitioner 
must file a new petition rather than seek approval of a petition that is not supported by the facts in the record. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(7)(i)(C). Despite the previous denial, there is no bar to the petitioner's filing of a new 
petition supported by new evidence of eligibility. 
A. QualifYing Relationship 
The first issue addressed by the director is whether the pelltlOner established that it has a qualifYing 
relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. To establish a "qualifYing relationship" under the Act 
and the regulations, the 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 IOI(a)(15)(L) of the 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: 
(I) Meets exactly one of the qualifYing relationships specified in the 
definitions of a parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary specified in 
paragraph (1)(1 )(ii) ofthis section; 
(2) Is or will be doing business (engaging in international trade is not 
required) as an employer in the United States and in at least one other 
country directly or through a parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary for the 
duration of the alien's stay in the United States as an intracompany 
transferee[ .J 
* * * 
(I) Parent means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity which has subsidiaries. 
Page 5 
* * * 
(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 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. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, on October 23, 2008. The 
petitioner stated on Form 1-129 that the U.S. company is a subsidiary of 
The petitioner indicated that the foreiQ'n 
the petitioner's common stock, resulting in 100% ownership ofthe U.S. company. 
In support of the claimed parent-subsidiary relationship between the U.S. and foreign entities, the petitioner 
submitted: 
1. The U.S. company's Articles of Organization filed with the California Secretary of State 
on February 1, 2008, which indicate that the company is authorized to issue one million 
shares of stock. 
2. A copy of the company's stock certificate number one indicating that it issued 92,000 
shares of stock September 20, 2008. 
The stock cp,";]''''''''' 
President. 
3. A copy of the U.S. company's stock transfer 
referenced stock certificate 
in exchange for $92,000. 
Secretary and 
above­
of the 
4. The minutes of the U.S. company's organizational meeting dated September 20, 2008, 
which indicates that the company's directors resolved to issue 92,000 shares to 
for $92,000 in cash already received by wire transfer as capital 
investment in exchange for 100% ownership of the company. The meeting minutes were 
signed by the beneficiary in his capacity as secretary and chairman. 
5. A Notice of Transaction Pursuant to Corporations Code Section 25102(1) dated 
September 20,2008, indicating that the U.S. company issued stock valued at $92,000 on 
that date. 
Page 6 
6. Copies of four wire transfers advices showing transfer of the following amounts from the 
foreign entity to the petitioner's business checking account designated "expenses 
account": $15,000 on September 8, 2008; $42,000 on July 24, 2008; $15,000 on July 21, 
2008; and $20,000 on June 23, 2008. 
7. Copies of the petitioner' which confirm 
the wire transfer credits to the petitioner's account. The petitioner also submitted copies 
of statements for a separate checking account designated" operating account" which had a 
balance of $42,000 as of September 30,2008. 
The AAO notes that the petitioner's bank statement for the month of 
of wire transfers in the amounts of$15,000 and $42,000 from 
2008 reflects the company's receipt 
on July 21 and July 24, 
The statement shows that the petitioner wire transferred $32,000 from the same account 
account on July 21, 2008 and transferred 2 
I I Ion July 25, 2008. In addition, the petitioner transferred $10,000 to (China) and 
$20,000 to_ (China) on July 25, 2008. The total outgoing wires exceeded the amount transferred 
by the foreign entity by $10,000. 
The director issued a request for evidence ("RFE") on October 29, 2008, in which the director instructed the 
petitioner to submit, inter alia, the following evidence to establish that the U.S. and foreign entities have a 
qualitying relationship: (I) evidence to show that the foreign company has paid for its ownership interest in 
the U.S. entity, including bank-certified copies of the original wire transfers from the parent company, 
canceled checks, deposit receipts and other evidence detailing monetary amounts for the stock purchase; (2) 
minutes of the meeting of the U.S. company that list the stock shareholders and the number and percentage of 
stocks owned; (3) copies of all of the U.S. company's stock certificates (both front and back); (4) a copy of the 
U.S. company's stock ledger showing all stock certificates issued to date; (5) a copy of the U.S. company's 
Notice of Transaction Pursuant to Corporations Code Section 251 02(f); and (6) a detailed list of owners of the 
U.S. company. 
The petitioner re-submitted the above-referenced documents #1 through 7, along with the minutes of meetings 
held by the foreign entity relating to the establishment of a U.S. subsidiary, in which the company's directors 
indicate the intention to make a $90,000 capital investment in the U.S. company. 
The director denied the petition on December 17, 2008, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that 
the U.S. and foreign entities have a qualifying relationship. Specifically, the petitioner found that the 
petitioner failed to provided "documentation of monies, property or other consideration furnished to the entity 
in exchange for stock ownership." 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the evidence submitted clearly demonstrates a direct investment from the 
foreign entity to the U.S. subsidiary, and thus clearly shows that "the parent company in Ecuador owns US 
subsidiary and has 100% direct control of its right and interest such as establishment, management and 
operation of its entity." Counsel further asserts that all costs and expenses of the U.S. company to date have 
been funded and wire transferred from the parent company in Ecuador. 
Upon review, the AAO notes that the director erred in tinding that the petitioner did not submit any evidence 
of the foreign entity's payment for its claimed ownership interest in the U.S. company. The petitioner 
Page 7 
submitted copies of wire transfers from the foreign entity and the petitioner's bank statements at the time of 
filing and again in response to the RFE. Therefore, the director's finding that such documents were never 
submitted will be withdrawn. 
However, the AAO finds several inconsistencies in the record which raise doubts regarding the credibility of 
the petitioner's claims. Therefore, the AAO will uphold the director's ultimate conclusion that the petitioner 
failed to establish the existence of the claimed qualifying relationship. 
The petitioner submits evidence in support of the appeal which, at first glance, appears to be identical to that 
previously submitted to establish the claimed parent-subsidiary relationship. However, two key documents 
submitted on appeal are inconsistent with those previously provided. 
First, the petitioner submits a copy of the U.S. company's organizational meeting dated September 20,2008, 
which was also submitted at the time of filing and in response to the RFE. The minutes of the meeting as 
originally submitted identified the beneficiary as the sole director at the meeting and indicated that he acted as 
the "Temporary Chairman and Secretary of the meeting." The document was signed by the beneficiary twice 
in his as Secretary and Chairman. The version of this document submitted on appeal indicates that 
was present and acted as temporary secretary of the meeting, and bears his signature along 
with that of the beneficiary. The petitioner has provided no explanation for the existence of two different 
versions of the minutes of the same meeting. While the petitioner's current counsel alleges that documents 
previously submitted were signed without the beneficiary's knowledge or authorization, neither counsel nor 
the petitioner has specifically claimed that former counsel created and signed this particular corporate 
document, nor have they acknowledged that the petitioner is submitting a different or corrected version on 
appeal. 
The petitioner also submits on appeal a copy of its stock certificate number one which is identical to that 
previously submitted, except that it has been signed by as Secretary. The previously 
submitted stock certificate was signed by the beneficiary in his capacity as both secretary and president of the 
U.S. company. Again, the petitioner offers no explanation for the existence of two different versions of the 
same stock certificate. 
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 (B1A 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the 
reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
In addition, the AAO notes that the petitioner indicated on its stock transfer ledger that its stock was issued to 
but identified that company's country of origin as the_ 
. . does not claim to have a Chinese shareholder, so it is 
Finally, as briefly addressed above, the AAO has noted an apparent irregularity in the petitioner's treatment of 
its claimed monetary investment from the foreign entity. Specifically, the record shows that $37,000 of the 
Page 8 
$57,000 transferred to the petitioner by the foreign entity in July 2008 as capital investment in the company 
was immediately transferred back to the foreign entity, Therefore, the net transfer of funds from the foreign 
entity appears to have been $55,000, not $92,000 as claimed. The remainder of the $57,000 received by the 
U.S. company in July 2008, plus a portion of funds previously provided, was immediately transferred to two 
individuals in China for purposes that have not been explained. 
Further, the petitioner indicates on appeal that the company has already paid startup and operations expenses 
in the amount of $75,079.68 as of January 5, 2009, using the funds provided by the foreign entity. However, 
according to the petitioner's IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return for 20.08, for the tax year 
ending on January 31, 2009, the company reported total deductions of only $19,112 and assets of $4,830. 
Schedule L of the Form 1120 is not completed and thus does not corroborate the petitioner's claim that it has 
either common stock or paid in capital valued at $92,000. Again, 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). 
Overall, the petitioner's submission of different versions of the same stock certificates and meeting minutes, 
the unexplained immediate transfer of investment funds back to the foreign entity, and the petitioner's 
inability to provide a consistent account of the purpose of the claimed investment raise doubts regarding the 
legitimacy of the documentation submitted in support of the claimed qualifYing relationship. In this case, the 
discrepancies and omissions catalogued above lead the AAO to conclude that the evidence of such 
relationship is not credible. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
B. Physical Premises to House the New Office 
The remaining issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner submitted evidence that it has secured 
sufficient physical premises to house the new office, required by 8 C.F.R. § 21 . The 
petitioner indicated that the beneficiary will work at 
The petitioner stated in its letter dated October 20, U.S. company "is currently engaging in 
import and export of daily commodities including clothes, shoes, bags, toys and crafts in the United States." 
The petitioner submitted a copy of a commercial lease dated 25, 2008 between the U.S. company 
and Hector Luevanos for the premises at . According to the terms 
of the agreement, the lease was valid for one year commencing on February 25, 2008, with a monthly rent of 
$750. The petitioner is authorized to occupy the premises as its "corporate office headquarters." The terms of 
the lease give the company the option to renew the lease for one additional year at a monthly rent of $850. 
The petitioner submitted six photographs depicting the premises, including an exterior view of the petitioner's 
sign, an interior view of an office with a desk, and photographs of what appears to be a fully stocked and 
functioning warehouse. The exterior photograph shows a car parked inside an open garage or warehouse door 
and a stack of car tires immediately outside the building. 
As noted above, the petitioner submitted copies of bank statements for its expense and operating accounts at 
the time of filing. None of these statements reflect any checks or monetary transfers in the amount of$750. 
Page 9 
In the RFE issued on October 29, 2008, the director requested: (I) a copy of the U.S. company's floor plan 
for all spaces including office, warehouse and production spaces; (2) color photographs of the interior and 
exterior of the U.S. premises; (3) a complete copy of the U.S. company's lease agreement that indicates the 
total square footage of the premises; (4) a letter from the owner or property manager of the leased premises 
which confinns that the U.S. company is occupying the premises and maintaining the lease agreement; and 
(5) if the premises are sub-leased, a letter from the owner or property management company confirming that 
the property owner has granted permission to the lessee to sublease to the U.S. company and that the U.S. 
company is actually occupying and maintaining the sub-lease agreement. 
The director also requested that the petitioner identify the type of business to be conducted, identify the nature 
of the worksite, and explain the type of building occupied. Finally, the director requested that the petitioner 
provide a copy of the company's business insurance policy. 
In response, the petitioner re-submitted the commercial lease provided at the time of filing. The petitioner 
submitted new of the exterior of the premises which show a second, larger company sign for a 
business known as apparently located in the same building. The interior 
photographs show a sign for the petitioning company in a small reception area, and the same small office with 
one desk. Finally, the petitioner submitted a photograph of the warehouse area of the U.S. company, which 
depicts an entirely different space compared to the photographs submitted at the time of filing. The space is 
largely empty, save for a few empty boxes and some shelves holding unidentifiable items. 
pe1:itilJo(or submitted a commercial lease as landlord and 
as tenant, for the premises located The lease has a ten-year tenn 
that commenced on April 4, 2003. The petitioner provided a letter from indicating that ' ••• 
_ has full pennission to rent out the location at ' and confinning that the 
petitioner is "currently subleasin~ft. of the Warehouse building for business purposes." The 
~ evidence that _ is the owner of the 4,400 square foot property located at_ 
Finally, the petitioner submitted evidence that it obtained property insurance for the premises with a policy 
effective date of November 18,2008. 
The director detennined that the petitioner failed to submit evidence that the petitioner had secured sufficient 
physical premises to house the new office. In denying the petition, the director noted that the submitted lease 
agreement would expire just three months after the beginning of the beneficiary's requested period of 
employment, and therefore would not support the petitioner's request to employ the beneficiary for one full 
year. The director further stated that "the photographs showing the claimed premises are inconsistent with the 
commercial lease agreement. I! 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the U.S. company secured the location at 
_ in February 2008 and has paid $750.00 per month to the sub-lease holder. In response to the 
director's finding that the lease would expire in February 2009, counsel notes that the agreement contains an 
option to renew clause. The petitioner submits a new commercial lease for the same premises which was 
signed on January 12,2009, for a five-year tenn commencing on February 26, 2009. 
Page 10 
The petitioner also provides a hand-drawn office floor plan depicting a front desk, two offices, a bathroom 
and a warehouse space occupying 2,500 square feet. In addition, the petitioner submits some additional 
photographs of the leased premises. The exterior photograph depicts the petitioner's sign on the building that 
appears to also house ' and shows two cars parked inside the area that is designated 
on the floor plan as the petitioner's warehouse space. 
Upon review, while the petitioner has submitted a lease agreement, photographs and proof of insurance, the 
AAO notes that the record contains inconsistencies that raise doubts regarding the petitioner's occupancy of 
the claimed 2,500 square feet premises. 
First, the record does not corroborate the petitioner's claims that it has been making the $750 monthly rent 
payments to the lessor named on the lease agreement. As noted above, there is no deduction in this amount 
on any of the submitted bank statements. On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement summarizing its start­
up and operating expenses for the period February 2008 to January 2009. According to this statement, the 
company has paid a total of $9,000 in rent. The petitioner's IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax 
Return, for the period February 1, 2008 to January 31, 2009 reflects rent expenses in the amount of $4,982. 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). 
Second, the petitioner has submitted two different sets of photographs of its warehouse space which depict 
two completely different spaces. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support ofthe visa petition. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). Further, while the petitioner has submitted some 
photographs of an empty warehouse space apparently reserved for the company's use, other photographs 
appear to show cars parked in the same area, raising questions as to whether the space is actually leased by 
one of the many auto repair related companies located in the same building. 
We acknowledge that the petitioner has been consistently utilizing the address . as 
its business address, has obtained a seller's permit, business license and insurance for this location, and 
appears to be paying some rent, although not the amount stated in the lease agreement submitted. However, 
in light of the inconsistencies catalogued above, there are unresolved questions regarding the amount and type 
of space secured, and thus we cannot determine whether the petitioner has secured sufficient premises for the 
operation of an import/export and wholesale distribution business. In addition, we noted that the petitioner has 
submitted receipts for business expenses which include the company's purchase of a stove and refrigerator for 
installation at the address listed on the petition as the beneficiary's private residence. These purchases are 
listed as "office equipment" and "office furniture" on the tax return, which raises questions as to 
whether the petitioner had actually set up its office at 
Based on the foregoing, we concur with the director's conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that it 
has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office. For this additional reason, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
Page 11 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dism issed 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. § 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.