dismissed L-1A Case: Maintenance Services

-4 '$33 U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
r 7 pG.sd@w 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Rm. A3042 
' &.(r4* Washington, DC 20529 .'I- - 
* .&P @* *( - 
rllb l .w s ' U.S. Citizenship 
I*, * $"' -2 
. .p5\t3~ and Immigration 
S, .&66 
-**. % 
&fir+ %LIC i k~k 
* + 
+ 'b I L 
File: SRC-03-168-52076 Office: 
Petition: Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L) 
IN 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. 
i- 
L 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC-03-168-52076 
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 AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as its President as an L-IA 
nonimrnigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L), in order to open a new office in the United States. The petitioner is 
a corporation organized in the State of Florida that provides commercial and residential maintenance services. 
The petitioner claims that it is the subsidiary of Tradeline Comercio E Representacoes, LTDA, located in Sao 
Paulo, Brazil. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not show that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
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, the petitioner asserts that the director did not 
understand the corporate relationship between it and the foreign entity, and that the two companies do have a 
qualifying corporate relationship. In support of these assertions, the petitioner submits a brief letter and 
additional evidence. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section lOl(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying 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. 5 214.2(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 qualifying 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 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 hirnfher to perform the intended 
SRC-03-168-52076 
Page 3 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
(v) 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 submit 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 or 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 (l)(l)(ii)(B) or (C) of this 
section, supported by information regarding: 
(I) 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. 
The primary issue in the present matter is whether the petitioner and the beneficiary's foreign employer have a 
qualifying relationship. 
In the initial petition filed on June 5, 2003, on Form 1-129 Supplement En the petitioner stated that it is a 
wholly-owned subsidiary of the foreign entity. The petitioner further provided that the foreign entity is 
owned by three individuals in varying proportions. In support of these assertions, the petitioner submitted: 
(1) a translated document titled "Company Social Contract of Tradeline Comercio LTDA" that describes the 
ownership of the foreign entity; (2) a translated document titled "Instrument of Alteration and Consolidation 
of Social Contract" that describes changes in the ownership of the foreign entity; and (3) 1999, 2000, 2001, 
2002, and 2003 translated tax documents for the foreign entity. 
On or about July 11, 2003, the director requested additional evidence. Regarding the corporate relationship 
between the petitioner and the foreign entity, the director requested documentary evidence to establish the 
ownership and control of both companies. The director stated that such evidence may be in the form of stock 
certificates and a stock register, or copies of published annual reports which indicate affiliates andlor 
subsidiaries and the percent of ownership held by the parent corporation. 
SRC-03-168-52076 
Page 4 
In a response dated September 19, 2003, the petitioner submitted: (1) an incorporation document for the 
petitioner; (2) the petitioner's articles of incorporation; and (3) previously submitted documents regarding the 
foreign entity. 
On October 14, 2003, the director denied the petition. The director determined that the petitioner did not 
show that it has a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. The director noted that CIS 
requested evidence of the corporate relationship between the petitioner and foreign entity, yet the petitioner 
failed to establish that there is a qualifying relationship. The director further highlighted a discrepancy 
between the number of shares purportedly issued by the foreign entity, and the number of shares purportedly 
owned by the individual shareholders. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director did not understand the corporate relationship between it and 
the foreign entity, and that the two companies do have a qualifying corporate relationship. In support of these 
assertions, the petitioner submits: (1) a brief letter; (2) a stock certificate reflecting that the foreign entity 
owns 1,000 shares of the petitioner's stock; and (3) an amended Form 1-129 Supplement EL. 
Upon review, the petitioner's assertions are not persuasive. 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, 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 of relevant 
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. 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. 
Further, the regulations specifically allow the 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, the director may 
reasonably inquire beyond the issuance of paper stock certificates into the means by which stock ownership 
was acquired. As requested by the director, evidence of this nature should include stock certificates, the 
petitioner's stock register, or copies of published annual reports which indicate affiliates and/or subsidiaries 
and the percent of ownership held by the parent corporation. Additional supporting evidence would include 
monies, property, or other consideration furnished to the entity in exchange for stock ownership, stock 
SRC-03-168-52076 
Page 5 
purchase agreements, subscription agreements, minutes of relevant shareholder meetings, or other legal 
documents governing the acquisition of the ownership interest. 
In her request for evidence, the director specifically requested that the petitioner submit evidence of the 
corporate relationship between it and the foreign entity such as stock certificates and a stock register, or 
copies of published annual reports which indicate affiliates and/or subsidiaries and the percent of ownership 
held by the parent corporation. In the petitioner's response, the petitioner failed to provide stock certificates, a 
stock register, or an annual report. The only new documents the petitioner submitted on this point were an 
incorporation document and the petitioner's articles of incorporation. However, on appeal the petitioner now 
submits a stock certificate. 
The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further information that clarifies whether eligibility for the 
benefit sought has been established, as of the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(8) and (12). 
The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying 
the petition. 8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(b)(14). Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the 
evidence and has been given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence 
offered for the first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the stock certificate to be considered, 
it should have submitted the document in response to the director's request for evidence. Id. Under the 
circumstances, the AAO need not and does not consider the sufficiency of the stock certificate on appeal. The 
appeal will be adjudicated based on the record of proceeding before the director. 
The petitioner's articles of incorporation document indicates that it is authorized to issue 1,000 shares of 
common stock. The petitioner alleges that it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the foreign entity, thus the 
petitioner claims that the foreign entity owns all outstanding shares of the petitioner's stock. However, the 
petitioner failed to provide any evidence to show how many shares of stock have in fact been issued, and who 
owns the issued shares. The record contains no documentation to show who has an ownership interest in the 
petitioner, beyond the petitioner's own statements. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornrn. 1972). 
The evidence suggests that the foreign entity is owned in varying proportions by three individuals. However, 
as the record does not establish who has an ownership interest in the petitioner, the AAO is unable to assess 
whether the petitioner and the foreign entity possess a qualifying relationship as affiliates through common 
ownership and control. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(L). 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not established that it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign 
entity as defined in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(G). For this reason, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has not shown 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 as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(2). In her request for evidence, the director requested 
SRC-03- 168-52076 
Page 6 
evidence of the funding or capitalization of the petitioner, such as copies of wire transfers showing transfers 
of funds from the foreign entity, evidence of financial resources committed by the foreign company, copies of 
bank statements for the checking and savings accounts, profit and loss statements or other accountants' 
reports. In response, the petitioner submitted an internal document titled "Evidence of funding or 
capitalization of the United States Company," which appears to show a monthly breakdown of dollar amount 
attributed to "Rosely" and "Rosely & Antonio." The document does not clearly explain whether these figures 
represent funds transferred to the petitioner from these individuals. Further, as the document was created 
internally by the petitioner, it has little independent evidentiary value and does not serve as conclusive 
evidence of resources available to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted bank account statements for two 
individual accounts, one held under the name "Rosely Alcantara" and one jointly held under the names 
"Rosely Alcantara" and "Antonio Jose Nunes." As these accounts are held by individuals, and the statements 
in no way identify the petitioner as entitled to the funds therein, the bank statements do not serve as evidence 
of the foreign entity's capitalization of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has not established that it has been 
adequately funded. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(2). For this additional reason, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
Also beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a primarily managerial or executive capacity as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 
214.2(1)(3)(iv). In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a description of the 
beneficiary's duties with the foreign entity. The beneficiary's duties include numerous non-qualifying tasks, 
such as paying bills, preparing mailings and advertising, telemarketing, providing travel agency services to 
customers over the telephone, and booking travel arrangements with carriers. While the petitioner claims that 
the beneficiary spent 50 percent of her time as a manager and 50 percent of her time performing sales and 
marketing tasks, the job description suggests that the majority of her time was invested in providing the 
foreign entity's travel agency services. An employee who primarily performs the tasks necessary to produce a 
product or to provide services is not considered to be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. Matter 
of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Cornm. 1988). Further, despite the director's 
request, the petitioner failed to submit the foreign entity's payroll records for 2001 and 2002. Thus, the 
petitioner's claim that the beneficiary supervised two subordinates abroad has not been substantiated. Again, 
going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Crafi of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comrn. 
1972). Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary was employed with the foreign 
entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. For this additional reason, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
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), affd. 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). 
SRC-03-168-52076 
Page 7 
In visa 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. Accordingly, the 
director's decision will be affirmed and the petition will be denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.