dismissed L-1A Case: Manufacturing

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
identt@og data deleted to 
prevent cbar11y llnwananted 
invasion of pasonal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: LIN 02 119 52599 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: OCT 1 7 2006 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 02 1 19 52599 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska 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 
dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1A 
nonimrnigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)( 15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a limited liability company 
organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and is engaged in the business of man 
and distribution of production systems. The petitioner claims that it is the subsidiary of 
located in Spain. The beneficiary was initially granted a nine-month period of stay to open a 
new office in the United States and the petitioner's subsequent request to extend the beneficiary's L-1A 
status was denied (LIN 02 035 55248). The petitioner now seeks to employ the beneficiary in the 
position of general manager for a three-year period. 
The director denied the petition concluding that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate: (1) that the 
beneficiary will serve in a primarily managerial or executive capacity in the United States; and (2) that the 
petitioner is doing business in the United States as required by the regulations. 
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, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the 
beneficiary will in fact hold an executive position in the United States and that the petitioner is doing 
business. In support of this assertion, the petitioner submits additional evidence. 
To establish eligibility under section 101(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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3) fiuther 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. 
LIN 02 119 52599 
' 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 first issue to be addressed in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has established that the 
beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity by the U.S. entity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment withn an organization in which the employee 
prirnarily- 
(i) 
 manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the 
organization; 
(ii) 
 supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees, or manages an essential function within the organization, or a department or 
subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the authority to 
hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions (such as promotion and 
leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly supervised, functions at a senior 
level withn the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and 
(iv) 
 exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function for 
which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a 
managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the 
employees supervised are professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1101(a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment withn an organization in which the employee 
prirnarily- 
(i) 
 directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the 
organization; 
(ii) 
 establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
(iii) 
 exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) 
 receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the 
board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
LIN 02 119 52599 
Page 4 
The nonimmigrant petition was filed on February 25, 2002. The Form 1-129 indicates that the beneficiary 
will be employed in the position of General Manager. In a letter of support dated February 18, 2002, the 
beneficiary's proposed duties in the United States are described as the following: 
[The beneficiary] will return to occupy the important position of General Manager of [the 
petitioner's] office, located in Bensenville, Illinois. The position is a key managerial and 
executive one within [the petitioner's group], because it is key to developing and expanding 
FAGOR in the U.S. and the Americas. The General Manager will also have all important 
managerial and executive responsibilities for the office in Illinois. 
As General Manager of North American operations, [the beneficiary] will be responsible for 
establishing the goals and policies concerning [the petitioner's] sales, service facilities, 
budget determination, and human resources, in the Automotive and Home Appliances 
sectors. [The beneficiary] will also oversee the goals and policies of the proposed new U.S. 
Division in the Steel sector. The proposed Vice-President of the new U.S. Steel Division 
will report directly to [the beneficiary]. The planned new U.S. Steel Division is evidence of 
continued growth and expansion of [the petitioner], which [the beneficiary] grew from 0 to 9 
employees in less then one year. The company is attempting to implement the 
organization's long-scheduled objectives, particularly objectives concerning Steel Mills and 
Steel Service, considering to eventually culminate in an investments in a U.S. steel 
company. . . . [the foreign entity] is planning to implement the com an 's 
"Plan to Purchase a Steel Company" in the U.S. This plan was authored by dm 
proposed Vice President of [the petitioner's] new U.S. Steel Division, who will report to the 
beneficiary as General Manager of North America Operations .... In that regard, the 
Beneficiary will oversee, direct and manage the proposed acquisition of a U.S. steel 
company, via purchase or merger, and will have 
 he proposed Vice President 
of [the petitioner's] new U.S. Steel Division, rep0 
The General Manager also has responsibility for firing and hring of personnel and will 
analyze and formulate corporate policy in the U.S. corporation. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted an organizational chart for the U.S. entity. The chart indicates the 
beneficiary as general manager who supervises the proposed position of Vice President for Steel Division and 
supervises the sales managers, stamping equipment, the sales manager, steel division, the sales manager, 
special equipment, one assembly technical and one after sales services. The sales manager for the steel 
division supervises one secretary. 
On March 8, 2002, the director requested additional evidence to establish that the beneficiary will be 
performing the duties of a manager or executive with the U.S. company. The director noted that 
the "description of the beneficiary's duties is vague and general and does not provide specifics of his day-to- 
day duties and how they are to be carried out." Specifically, the director requested that the petitioner submit 
evidence to establish that the beneficiary qualifies under all four criteria stated for either a manager or 
executive, such as a statement signed by an authorized officer of the prospective employer describing the 
alien's intended employment in the U.S. The statement should include information concerning the dates of 
LIN 02 119 52599 
Page 5 
employment; job titles; specific job duties; types of employees supervised, if any; level of authority; and title 
and level of authority of the alien's immediate supervisor. In addition, the director requested copies of the 
company's IRS Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, for each quarter of 2001 and the first 
quarter of 2002 with supplemental sheets showing employees' names, hours worked, earnings and social 
security numbers, and a description of the duties of the employees employed at the U.S. entity. 
In its response dated May 8, 2002, the petitioner submitted an affidavit from the Chief Executive Officer of 
the parent company abroad and the president of the U.S. entity. In the affidavit, the petitioner describes the 
duties to be performed by the beneficiary in the U.S. as the following: 
7. Currently, [the petitioner] seeks to hire [the beneficiary] for the position of General 
Manager of North America Operations. The position of General Manager is a key 
executive position within [the petitioner's group] since it is at the heart of developing 
and expanding [the petitioner] in the U.S. and the Americas. As General Manager, [the 
beneficiary] would report directly to the CEO of [the foreign entity]. 
The affidavit further repeats the duties described in the orignal job description. 
In a letter dated May 8, 2002, counsel for the petitioner submits the following duties to be performed by the 
beneficiary in the United States: 
In addition to the detailed description of the General Manager's duties contained in Mr. 
Azpiazu's (the CEO of Fagor-Spain) Affidavit, [the beneficiary] will also be responsible for 
planning, developing, and establishing the policies and objectives of [the petitioner], in 
accordance with the directives of the [the petitioner's] Board of Director's and the 
corporation's charter. In effect, as General Manager, [the beneficiary] will be the "CEO" for 
[the petitioner]. The General Manager will be responsible for conferring with FAGOR 
officials to plan business objectives between [the petitioner] and [the foreign entity]. [The 
beneficiary] will also review activity reports and financial statements to determine progress 
and status in attaining commercial objectives. The Transferee will direct and coordinate the 
formulation of financial programs to provide funding for the continued growth and 
development of [the petitioner], with the goal of maximizing returns on investments, and 
increasing productivity. In his capacity as General Manager, [the beneficiary] will plan and 
develop various industrial, labor, and public relations policies designed to improve [the 
petitioner's] image and relations with customers, employees, and the public. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted the requested IRS Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, 
for 2001 and the first quarter of 2002. The petitioner also submitted a table detailing the current employees 
of the U.S. entity, including their job duties, positions, job titles, level of education, and hiring and firing 
authority. The petitioner's Illinois Form UI-3/40, Employer's Contribution and Wage Report, for the first 
quarter of 2002 confirmed the employment of employees identified as "after sales services; sales manager, 
stamping equipment; sales manager; special equipment; sales manager, steel division; secretary, and 
assembly technical." 
LIN0211952599 
' Page 6 
In the director's decision dated May 21, 2002, the director stated "regarding the beneficiary's role in 
establishing goals and policies, the evidence does not demonstrate that there exists individuals who carry out 
the follow-up work of implementing and overseeing the carrying out of these policies and goals. It appears 
the beneficiary performs the duties, which are not considered to be executive in nature." In addition, the 
director noted that it appears that the beneficiary will be a first-line supervisor. Consequently, the director 
denied the petition. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner submitted "voluminous evidence in support of 
[the beneficiary's] executive capacity transfer to the position of General Manager at FAGOR-US." Counsel 
for the petitioner further explains how the position offered to the beneficiary is executive in nature and is not 
a first-line supervisor position. Specifically, counsel for the petitioner states the following: 
The evidence submitted by the Petitioner in support of [the beneficiary's] proposed 
transfer to [the petitioner] clearly establishes that [the beneficiary] will act as the General 
Manager or "CEO" of [the petitioner]. The evidence submitted by the Petitioner 
established that [the petitioner] currently employs three (3) Sales Managers, two 
technicians and one secretary. Thus, both managerial level employees (such as the Sales 
Managers) and lower level employees within [the petitioner] would implement the 
policies and goals established by [the beneficiary]. Thus, [the beneficiary] can in no way 
be considered a "first-line supervisor', as noted in the Decision. In addition, as the 
General Manager of [the petitioner], "[the beneficiary] will be res onsible for supervising 
and controlling all current and future employees o ...In addition, the 
General Manager also has the authority to first and hire any [the petitioner] [sic] 
employee.". . .Since the evidence clearly established the existence of both managerial and 
non-managerial level employees at [the petitioner], it is against the manifest weight of 
evidence to hold that [the beneficiary] acts like a first-line supervisor in his capacity as 
General Manager of [the petitioner]. In contrast, "the position of General Manager is a 
key executive position within the [the petitioner's group] since it is at the heart of 
developing and expanding [the petitioner] in the U.S. and the Americas." 
Upon review of the petition and evidence, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity. When examining the executive or managerial capacity of 
the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 9 
214.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly describe the duties to be performed 
by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are either in an executive or managerial capacity. Id. 
The definitions of executive and managerial capacity have two parts. First, the petitioner must show that 
the beneficiary performs the high-level responsibilities that are specified in the definitions. Second, the 
petitioner must prove that the beneficiary primarily performs these specified responsibilities and does not 
spend a majority of his or her time on day-to-day functions. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 
(Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). 
The beneficiary's position description is too general and broad to establish that the preponderance of his 
duties is managerial or executive in nature. The beneficiary's job description includes vague duties such 
as the beneficiary will be "responsible for establishing the goals and policies concerning [the petitioner's] 
LIN 02 119 52599 
Page 7 
sales, service facilities, budget determination, and human resources," "oversee the goals and policies of 
the proposed new U.S. Division in the Steel sector," and "responsible for conferring with [the petitioner's] 
officials to plan business objectives and to develop operational policies for the coordination of functions 
and operations between [the petitioner] and [the foreign entity]." 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), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
The description also includes several non-qualifying duties such as the beneficiary will "direct and 
coordinate the formulation of financial programs to provide funding for the continued growth and 
development of [the petitioner], with the goal of maximizing returns on investments, and increasing 
productivity," and "analyze marketing potential of new and existing products and determine our 
marketing strategies and goals." Without further explanation, these duties suggest that the beneficiary 
would be directly involved in the company's finance functions, marketing, sales and promotion activities 
rather than supervising others who perform non-managerial duties related to these hnctions. 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 Int 'l., 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). 
Furthermore, the director specifically requested that the petitioner provide a detailed job description, 
including the beneficiary's specific duties to be performed in the United States. The petitioner did not 
submit the requested job description as requested by the director. Instead, the petitioner reiterated the job 
 . 
duties described in the orignal job description. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a 
material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(14). The petitioner 
was put on notice of required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record 
before the visa petition was adjudicated. For this reason alone, the appeal will be dismissed. 
The definitions of executive and managerial capacity have two parts. First, the petitioner must show that 
the beneficiary performs the high level responsibilities that are specified in the definitions. Second, the 
petitioner must prove that the beneficiary primarily performs these specified responsibilities and does not 
spend a majority of his or her time on day-to-day functions. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 
(Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). The petitioner's description of the beneficiary's 
position provides no information regarding his day-to-day duties, such that they could be classified as 
managerial in nature. The AAO will not accept an overly broad and ambiguous job description and 
speculate as to the related duties. 
In addition, the support letter submitted by the petitioner dated February 18, 2002 indicates that an important 
aspect of the beneficiary's resuonsibilities include "oversee, direct and manage the vrouosed acauisition of a 
.., . . 
U.S. steel company, via purchase or merger, and will have 
 the proposed Vice President of 
Division, report to him directly." However, the petitioner did not submit evidence 
that th 
 successfully obtained a visa to enter the United States and fill the position of Vice 
President for the petitioner. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records show that the 
LIN 02 1 19 52599 
a Page 8 
petitioner filed two 1-129 petitions on behalf of-, in November 2001 and Febmary 2002, both of 
which were denied. Since it is unclear if the company has employed or will employ a vice president in order 
to commence the process of acquiring the new Steel Division, several of the beneficiary's responsibilities may 
be merely speculative. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimrnigrant 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 of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978). 
The record shows that as of the date of filing, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary will control and 
direct subordinate managerial staff. The U.S. entity employed three sales managers, one after sales 
services employee, one assembly technician supervisor and one secretary. Although the beneficiary is not 
required to supervise personnel, if it is claimed that his duties involve supervising employees, the 
petitioner must establish that the subordinate employees are supervisory, professional, or managerial. See 
9 1 0 1 (a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
In evaluating whether the beneficiary manages professional employees, the AAO must evaluate whether 
the subordinate positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of 
endeavor. Section 101 (a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 101(a)(32), states that "[tlhe term profession shall 
include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." The term "profession" 
contemplates knowledge or learning, not merely skill, of an advanced type in a given field gained by a 
prolonged course of specialized instruction and study of at least baccalaureate level, which is a realistic 
prerequisite to entry into the particular field of endeavor. Matter of Sea, 19 I&N Dec. 8 17 (Comm. 1988); 
Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (R.C. 1968); Matter of Shin, 11 I&N Dec. 686 (D.D. 1966). 
Therefore, the AAO must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree 
held by subordinate employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee does not 
automatically lead to the conclusion that an employee is employed in a professional capacity as that term 
is defined above. In the instant case, the petitioner has not, in fact, established that a bachelor's degree is 
actually necessary, for example, to perform the administrative, technical support work and sales functions 
of the employees of the U.S. entity, who will be among the beneficiary's subordinates. Nor has the 
petitioner shown that any of its "sales managers" actually supervise subordinate staff members or manage 
a clearly defined department or function of the petitioner, such that they could be classified as managers 
or supervisors. Thus, the petitioner has not shown that the beneficiary's subordinate employees are 
supervisory, professional, or managerial, as required by section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position within a 
complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the organization, and that 
person's authority to direct the organization. Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 
1101(a)(44)(B). Under the statute, a beneficiary must have the ability to "direct the management" and 
"establish the goals and policies" of that organization. Inherent to the definition, the organization must 
have a subordinate level of managerial employees for the beneficiary to direct and the beneficiary must 
primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than the day-to-operations of the 
enterprise. An individual will not be deemed an executive under the statute simply because they have an 
executive title or because they "direct" the enterprise as the owner or sole managerial employee. The 
beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision making" and receive only "general 
LIN 02 1 19 52599 
Page 9 
supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the 
organization." Id. 
Although the United States company has employed three sales managers, an after sales services 
employee, an assembly technician supervisor and a secretary, it appears that the beneficiary is performing 
the market research, financial development, and several operational tasks inherent in operating a company 
on a daily basis, such as acquiring new business, acquiring products, maintaining inventory, paying bills, 
handling export and import of products, negotiating contracts, and human resources functions. 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 10 1(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 Int 1, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). Based on the 
foregoing discussion, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary would be employed by 
the petitioner in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. For this reason, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The second issue to be addressed in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has been doing business for 
the previous year as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B). 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(G) state: 
QualiJLing 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) of this 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; and 
(3) 
 Otherwise meets the requirements of section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Act. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(H) state: 
Doing business means the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods andfor 
services by a qualifying organization and does not include the mere presence of an agent 
or office of the qualifying organization in the United States and abroad. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows the intended United States operation one year within 
the date of approval of the petition to establish the new office. Furthermore, at the time the petitioner 
' 
 LIN 02 1 19 52599 
' ' Page 10 
seeks an extension of the new office petition, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(1)(14)(ii)(B) requires the 
petitioner to demonstrate that it has been doing business for the previous year. The term "doing business" 
is defined in the regulations as "the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods andlor services 
by a qualifying organization and does not include the mere presence of an agent or office of the qualifjrlng 
organization in the United States and abroad." 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(H). 
The director in the decision stated the following: 
[Tlhe petitioner claims the U.S. entity has had revenue of nearly one million dollars. 
However, in reviewing the invoices of the amount reported as revenue by the petitioner it 
is noted that all but a little more than $24,000 was received from the foreign entity in 
2001.. .Therefore, the documentation does not demonstrate that the U.S. entity is more 
than a mere presence for the foreign entity. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner states that "the relatively larger volume of trade between [the foreign 
entity] and [the petitioner] reflects the pattern of trade that is not unique to this organization." Counsel for 
the petitioner also states that since the U.S. entity is establishing itself in the U.S., it relies on many of the 
operational capabilities of the foreign company. In addition, counsel for the petitioner asserts that as the 
U.S. entity further establishes its operations in the United States, it will need to rely less on the trade and 
sales with the foreign parent company. 
Upon review of the documents submitted on appeal, the petitioner has established that the United States 
entity is doing business. 
In addition, the director erred in basing his decision on the fact that the majority of the revenue derives 
from the parent company. The regulations do not limit a corporation from doing business with its parent 
company. Therefore, the fact that a petitioner is engaged in business transactions with a related foreign 
entity should not be the determinative factor in deciding whether the company is doing business. A 
representative office is not specifically excluded by the definition of "doing business," provided that it 
shows that it is engaged in the provision of goods and services, albeit on behalf of a related foreign entity. 
Therefore, the petitioner has established that it is doing business as defined by 8 C.F.R. 
$ 2 14.2(1)(1)(ii)(H). 
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. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.