dismissed L-1A Case: Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11997236 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 25, 2021 
The Petitioner, a trucking company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary in the United States 
as a logistics manager in its new office 1 under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition on multiple grounds, concluding that 
the Petitioner did not establish, as required, that: (1) the Petitioner had a qualifying relationship with the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer; (2) the Petitioner secured sufficient physical premises to house its new 
office; (3) the Beneficiary was employed abroad for one continuous year in the three years preceding the 
date the petition was filed; ( 4) the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity 
abroad; and (5) the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United 
States within one year of the date the petition was filed. 
The Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen. The Director granted the motion, but following 
additional review, concluded that the petition would remain denied. The Petitioner then filed an appeal 
that we rejected as untimely. The Petitioner later filed a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider 
both of which we dismissed. The matter is now before us again on a motion to reconsider. 2 On motion, 
the Petitioner contends that it filed a timely appeal with us in May 2018 and asserts that we "reconsider 
the evidence filed in the initial filing." The Petitioner further asserts that the denial of the petition was 
based on an incorrect application of law and service policy. 
Although we do not agree that the Petitioner filed a timely appeal in May 2018, we will nonetheless 
reconsider the Director's decision to deny the petition. Upon review, we affirm the Director's prior 
decisions on the merits and conclude that the petition will remain denied. As the Petitioner would 
need to demonstrate the Beneficiary's eligibility for the benefit sought for us to grant either motion, 
1 The term "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one year. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation no more than 
one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
2 The Petitioner indicated in part 2, item I.e. of the Form 1-290, Notice of Appeal or Motion that it was filing a motion to 
reconsider. However, in a support letter provided with this motion, the Petitioner indicated it was submitting "this Motion 
to Reopen/Reconsider " and refers to new evidence provided on motion. As such, it appears that the Petitioner intended to 
file a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider. 
we will therefore dismiss the motions as it has not established said eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2); 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
I. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The sole issue we will discuss is whether the Petitioner established that it had a qualifying relationship 
with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's motions, 
we decline to reach and hereby reserve its arguments with respect to the other bases of the Director's 
denial. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make 
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of 
L-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). 
To establish a "qualifying relationship," 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 section 101 (a)( 15)(L) of the Act; 
see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii) (providing definitions of the terms "parent," "branch," "subsidiary," 
and "affiliate"). 
Beyond meeting the regulatory definition of qualifying relationship, we also look to regulation and 
case law which 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. See, 
e.g., Matter of Church Scientology Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (Comm'r 1988); Matter of Siemens Med. 
Sys., Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (Comm'r 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm'r 1982). 
Ownership refers to the direct or indirect legal right of possession of the assets of an entity with foll 
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 Int'!, 19 
I&N Dec. at 595. 
The Petitioner indicated in section 1, item 9 of the L classification supplement to the Form I-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker that it and the foreign employer were parent and subsidiary. In 
Section 1, item 10 of the supplement, the Petitioner stated that it was owned equally by four partners 
and that these same four individuals owned the foreign employer was follows: 
:===========-;owns 11,725.00 JOD [Jordanian Dinars]= $16,537.41, 1 % 
1-----------l owns 11,725.00 JOD = $16,537.41, 1 % 
---------,.--__.I owns 11,725.00 JOD = $16,537.41, 1 % 
,___ ______ __.I owns 914,550.00 JOD = $1,289,917.94, 97% 
In denying the pet1t10n, the Director emphasized that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient 
documentary evidence to substantiate its asserted ownership; specifically, documentation 
substantiating that its four claimed partners had each acquired 500 shares in the company in April 
2017. The Director pointed to its previous request for evidence (RFE) and the Petitioner's opportunity 
on motion to submit additional documentary evidence to substantiate the issuance of shares to its four 
asserted owners and the continued lack of this evidence on the record. Upon review, we agree with 
2 
the Director's conclusions, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentary evidence to 
establish its asserted ownership. 
For instance, the Petitioner provided four share certificates reflecting the issuance of 500 shares to 
each of its claimed owners in April 201 7. However, in apparent conflict, it provided asserted bylaws 
for the Petitioner specific to an unrelated entity, i ~ as well as a 
claimed "Partnership Agreement" between its owners indicating that each would make an initial 
capital contribution to the entity in the amount of $5000. This documentation leaves question as to 
the Petitioner's formation and claimed ownership, considering that the issued shares appear to indicate 
that it is a corporation with shares issued, while the provided partnership agreement appears to reflect 
that it was an entity with membership interests (of 25% held by each owner). 3 
Regardless, beyond these discrepancies, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient supporting 
documentation to substantiate its ownership, as correctly noted by the Director. As general evidence 
of a petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship, stock certificates alone are not sufficient evidence to 
determine whether a stockholder maintains ownership and control of a corporate entity. The corporate 
stock certificate ledger, stock certificate registry, corporate bylaws, and the minutes ofrelevant annual 
shareholder meetings must also 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. In addition, 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 control of the entity. See Matter of Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 365. Without 
full disclosure of all relevant documents, we cannot sufficiently determine the elements of ownership 
and control. 
Further, the regulations specifically allow a director to request additional evidence in appropriate 
cases. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(viii). As ownership is a critical element of this visa classification, a 
director may reasonably inquire beyond the issuance of paper stock certificates into the means by 
which stock ownership was acquired. Evidence should include documentation of monies, property, 
or other consideration furnished to the entity in exchange for stock ownership. Additional supporting 
evidence could include stock purchase agreements, subscription agreements, corporate by-laws, 
minutes of relevant shareholder meetings, or other legal documents governing the acquisition of the 
ownership interest. 
However, in this matter, the Petitioner has not provided the supporting documentation required to 
demonstrate its ownership, despite the direct request of the Director and two subsequent denial 
decisions discussing these very evidentiary deficiencies. For instance, the Petitioner did not provide 
a stock certificate ledger or registry, corporate bylaws applicable to the Petitioner, minutes of relevant 
annual shareholder meetings reflecting the issuance of shares, documentation of monies, property, or 
other consideration furnished to the entity in exchange for stock ownership, stock purchase 
agreements, minutes of relevant shareholder meetings, or other such relevant documentation 
demonstrating actual ownership. In fact, as we have discussed, the Petitioner submitted a partnership 
agreement granting a 25% ownership interest in the company to each asserted owner, a document in 
apparent conflict with the claimed issuance of 500 shares to each owner. Further, it provided bylaws 
3 We note that the Petitioner's corporate entity name indicates that it is a stock-based corporation. 
3 
applicable to another entity. The Petitioner must resolve ambiguities in the record with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). As such, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient documentary evidence to establish its claimed 
ownership. 
In addition, even if we accept the asserted ownership of the Petitioner and the foreign employer, this 
claimed ownership does not establish that they qualify as parent and subsidiary, or as affiliates, 
consistent with the regulatory definition. For instance, in the Form 1-129, the Petitioner indicated that 
it and the foreign employer qualified as parent and subsidiary. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(K) defines a subsidiary as 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. However, here, neither entity owns more 
than half of the other, nor does this matter involve a joint venture. Further, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that one entity exacts control over the other, particularly since it is owned equally by 
four owners, and the foreign employer appears to be 97% owned and controlled by one of these 
owners. Therefore, the Petitioner did not establish that it and the foreign employer meet the regulatory 
definition of parent and subsidiary. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that it and the foreign employer meet the regulatory 
definition of affiliates. The applicable portion of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(L) defines affiliates as (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. Again, even ifwe 
accept the asserted ownership of the Petitioner and foreign employer, neither is owned by a parent 
company or by one individual. In fact, as we have discussed, the foreign employer appears to be 97% 
owned by one individual, while this same individual is asserted to have a non-controlling 25% 
ownership interest in the Petitioner. Likewise, although the Petitioner and the foreign employer are 
owned by the same four individuals, one of these owners is shown to own 97% of the foreign employer, 
while each other owner only had a 1 % ownership interest. Meanwhile, the Petitioner's shares are 
asserted as being held evenly by these same four individuals. As such, clearly, the entities are not 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. Therefore, the Petitioner 
and foreign employer do not qualify as affiliates. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that there is common ownership and 
control between it and the foreign employer; and therefore, it has not demonstrated that there is a 
required qualifying relationship between the entities. 
In conclusion, as the Petitioner is required to demonstrate the Beneficiary's eligibility for the benefit 
sought for us to grant either motion. As we have discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
the Beneficiary's eligibility; as such, we will dismiss the motions. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
4 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
5