dismissed L-1A Case: Investments And Construction

identieing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Imigration 
Services 
FILE: SRC 04 244 5 1859 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: SEp 2 6 2006 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1101(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 further inquiry must be made to that office. 
1. / 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 04 244 5 1859 
Page 2 
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 appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner, a Florida corporation, claims to be a subsidiary of Ametiszt Tropi, Ltd. located in 
Hungary. The petitioner states that the United States entity is engaged in the business of investments and 
construction. Accordingly, the United States entity petitioned CIS to classify the beneficiary as a 
nonimrnigrant intracompany transferee (L-1 A) pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Act as an 
executive or manager for three years. The beneficiary was initially granted a one-year period of stay to 
open a new office in the United States and the petitioner now seeks to extend the beneficiary's L-1A 
status in order to continue to fill the position of chief executive officer. 
The director denied the petition on January 12, 2005, due to the petitioner's failure to respond to a request 
for evidence issued on October 8,2004. The petition was considered abandoned and was denied pursuant 
to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(13). The director subsequently granted the petitioner's motion to 
re-open and afforded the petitioner another opportunity to respond to the request for evidence, which was 
not previously physically received by the petitioner. 
The director denied the petition on June 1, 2005 concluding that the record contains insufficient evidence 
to demonstrate that the beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. The director 
also determined that the record contained insufficient evidence to establish that the new office is viable 
and can remunerate the beneficiary after the initial one-year period granted to open a new office. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal on June 27, 2005. On the Form I-1290B Notice of Appeal, 
the petitioner asserts: "The beneficiary is fulfilling an executive position. Please find the supporting 
evidence. The U.S. company generated enough revenue to remunerate the position of the beneficiary." 
The petitioner indicated that it did not intend to submit a separate brief or evidence in support of the 
appeal. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete. 
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 
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. fj 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 general objections to the denial of the petition, without specifically identifying any errors on 
the part of the director or providing new evidence to support that the beneficiary will be employed in a 
SRC 04 244 5 1859 
Page 3 
managerial or executive capacity, are simply insufficient to overcome the well-founded and logical 
conclusions the director reached based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I & N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998)(citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
The petitioner has not established that it is eligible for an extension of the initial one-year "new office" 
validity period. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(14)(ii) provides strict evidentiary requirements that 
the petitioner must satisfy prior to the approval of this extension petition. Upon review, the petitioner has 
not satisfied any of the enumerated evidentiary requirements. The petitioner has not submitted evidence 
that the United States and foreign entities are still qualifying organizations as defined in 8 C.F.R. 9 
214.2(1)(l)(ii)(G). The petitioner has not submitted evidence that the United States entity has been doing 
business for the previous year as defined in 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(H). The petitioner has not 
submitted a detailed statement of the duties performed by the beneficiary for the previous year and the 
duties the beneficiary will perform under the extended petition so that the AAO can determine whether 
the beneficiary is employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner has not 
submitted a statement describing the staffing of the new operation. Finally, the petitioner has not 
submitted sufficient evidence of the financial status of the United States operation. For all of these 
reasons, the petition may not be approved and the appeal will be dismissed 
On review, the petitioner provided a vague and nonspecific description of the beneficiary's duties that 
fails to demonstrate what the beneficiary does on a day-to-day basis. For example, the petitioner stated 
on the Form 1-129 that the beneficiary's duties include "CEO duties and responsibilities including major 
decision-making, leading the management, hiring, firing and instructing managers, employees and 
contractors." The petitioner did not, however, define the beneficiary's goals and policies, or clarify the 
role of the subordinates that the beneficiary will supervise. Reciting the beneficiary's vague job 
responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the regulations require a detailed 
description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. The petitioner has failed to provide any detail or 
explanation of the beneficiary's activities in the course of his daily routine. The actual duties themselves 
will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
The director specifically requested additional evidence to establish that the beneficiary is acting primarily 
in an executive position. In response, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary "is acting solely in an 
Executive position, supervising, evaluating, directing and overseeing the Operations Manager's tasks." 
This vague statement does not assist in clarifying the beneficiary's actual duties in the United States. 
Conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's employment capacity are not sufficient. This vague 
statement does not assist in clarifying the beneficiary's actual duties in the United States. Merely 
repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin 
Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); 
Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
The petitioner emphasized that the beneficiary "was physically present in the United States only about 
10% of the year 2004 to execute his Executive Tasks." However, the petitioner must still provide detailed 
descriptions of the beneficiary's duties, evidence that the beneficiary performs primarily managerial or 
SRC 04 244 5 1859 
Page 4 
executive duties, and evidence that the U.S. company has sufficient lower-level staff to perform the 
routine, non-qualifying tasks associated with operating the business. Furthermore, the petitioner indicated 
on Form 1-129 that the beneficiary would be employed on a full-time basis by the U.S. company under the 
extended petition, therefore the petitioner's argument that the beneficiary spent little time in the United 
States in 2004 is not persuasive. 
The petitioner's description of the beneficiary's duties cannot be read or considered in the abstract, rather 
the AAO must determine based on the totality of the record whether the description of the beneficiary's 
duties represents a credible account of the beneficiary's role within the organizational hierarchy. As noted 
by the director, the record does not demonstrate that the petitioner has any subordinate professional 
employees to perform the routine non-executive and non-managerial functions of the business. 
The evidence of record establishes that the U.S. company employed the beneficiary as chief executive 
officer and one operations manager as of the date the petitioner was filed. However, the petitioner has not 
explained how the services of the operations manager obviate the need for the beneficiary to primarily 
conduct the petitioner's business. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sof)ci, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Cornm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). Although the record shows that another employee was hired in January 2005, 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 ofMichelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978). 
In addition, the petitioner did not submit a quarterly tax return for the third quarter of 2004, the quarter in 
which the petition was filed. Thus, the petitioner did not submit documentation evidencing the employees 
of the U.S. company at the time of filing. The petitioner submitted a W-2 form for 2004 issued to the 
individual who is in the position of operations manager for the amount of $6000.00. In addition, the 
company's IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, for 2004 indicates a total amount of 
salaries and wages paid as $6000.00. It is implausible that the amount paid in wages is a salary for a full- 
time operations manager. In addition, the petitioner did not submit any documentation evidencing that 
the beneficiary has been employed by the petitioner for the year prior to filing the instant petition. 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 Iies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 
591-92 (BIA 1988). 
A critical analysis of the nature of the petitioner's business undermines the petitioner's assertion that the 
beneficiary supervises subordinate employees who would relieve him from performing non-qualifying 
duties. Rather, it appears from the record that the only individual performing any marketing and sales 
functions, finance operations and business development activities is the beneficiary himself. As the 
petitioner can only establish that the company employed an operations manager, it is reasonable to 
assume, and has not been proven otherwise, that the beneficiary would be performing all other sales and 
marketing functions and financial development, and all of the various operational tasks inherent in 
operating a business on a daily basis, such as purchasing products, maintaining inventory, negotiating 
contracts, researching the investment market, paying bills, and handling routine customer transactions. 
SRC 04 244 5 1 859 
Page 5 
Based on the record of proceeding, the beneficiary's job duties are principally composed of non- 
qualifying duties that preclude him from functioning in a primarily managerial or executive role. 
The record as presently constituted is not persuasive in demonstrating that the beneficiary has been or will 
be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner has not demonstrated that 
the U.S. company has hired additional employees who would relieve the beneficiary from performing 
primarily non-qualifying duties associated with operating a salon and retail business. An employee who 
"primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to 
be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the 
Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); see also 
Matter of Church Scientology Intn 'I., 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Cornrn. 1988). 
Beyond the decision of the director, the record does not contain sufficient evidence that the petitioner has 
been engaged in the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods andlor services in the United 
States for the entire year prior to filing the petition to extend the beneficiary's status. The petitioner 
submitted evidence of two real estate transactions involving the petitioner in April 2004 and July 2004. 
The petitioner did not submit any invoices, receipts, or contracts suggesting that it has been providing a 
service or selling its goods on a regular basis. Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B), 
the petitioner is expected to submit evidence that it has been doing business since the date of the approval 
of the initial petition. In the instant case, there is no evidence that the petitioner was doing business 
during the year prior to September 16, 2004, the date the instant petition was filed. For this additional 
reason the petition may not be approved. 
In addition, beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to 
establish that a qualifying relationship exists between the foreign company and the petitioner. 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 is 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). In the instant petition, the petitioner claims that the U.S. 
entity is 100% owned and controlled by the foreign parent company. 
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. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 
1988); see also Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of 
Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm. 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, the stock certificates, the 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. 
SRC 04 244 5 1859 
Page 6 
The petitioner did not submit any off the above-mentioned documents and thus it is impossible for the 
AAO to determine if the two companies have the required qualifying relationship. 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., supra. Without full disclosure of all relevant 
documents, CIS is unable to determine the elements of ownership and control. 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 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
The director specifically requested that the petitioner submit copies of the articles of incorporation, and 
documentation that clearly denoted ownership and the percent owned by each entity, including copies of 
stock certificates, stock ledgers or company registration that clearly establishes ownership. In its 
response, the petitioner failed to submit any of the requested documentation. Failure to submit requested 
evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 9 
103.2(b)(14). 
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), 
afyd. 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). 
The petitioner 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. 9 1361. Inasmuch as 
counsel has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this 
proceeding, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Therefore, the appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.