dismissed L-1A Case: Market Operator

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13355861 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 20, 2020 
The Petitioner, describing itself as an operator of a market, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as the president of its new office 1 in the United States 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 concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish that: 1) it had a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer, 2) the 
Beneficiary was employed abroad for one continuous year in the three years preceding the date the 
petition was filed, 3) the Beneficiary was employed by the foreign employer in a managerial or 
executive capacity, and 4) the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity 
within one year of an approval of the petition . On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director 
overlooked submitted evidence demonstrating the Beneficiary's eligibility . 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal as the 
submitted evidence does not establish that the Petitioner had a qualifying relationship with the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer. Since this identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's 
appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments related to the 
Director's other grounds for 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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving a new 
office, a qualifying organization must have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
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(1)(1)(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. 
admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). In addition, the beneficiary must seek 
to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering their services to the same employer or a 
subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
The petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new office will be able to support a 
managerial or executive position within one year. This evidence must establish that the petitioner 
secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation and disclose the proposed nature and scope 
of the entity, its organizational structure, its financial goals, and the size of the U.S. investment. See 
generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(3)(v). 
II. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The sole issue we will address is whether the Petitioner established that it had a qualifying relationship 
with the Beneficiary's former foreign employer. 
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(I)(1)(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 lnt'I, 19 l&N Dec. 593 (Comm'r 1988); Matter of Siemens Med. 
Sys., Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 362 (Comm'r 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 l&N Dec. 289 (Comm'r 1982). 
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 lnt'I, 19 
l&N Dec. at 595. 
The Petitioner indicated in section 1, item 10 of the L classification supplement to the Form 1-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker that it was wholly owned by the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
In support of the petition, the Petitioner provided no supporting documentation to support this 
assertion. In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director requested that the Petitioner submit supporting 
documentation to substantiate its ownership and control, such as share certificates, meeting minutes, 
a stock ledger, articles of incorporation, evidence of capital contributions in exchange for ownership, 
or other such relevant evidence. In response, the Petitioner provided documentation related to the 
purchase of a convenience store and market and its 2019 IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income 
Tax Return indicating in schedule G that 100% of its shares were owned by the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer. The Petitioner also provided its articles of incorporation; however, this document did not 
reflect the issuance of any shares or corroborate its claimed ownership. 
In denying the petition, the Director emphasized that the Petitioner's 2019 IRS Form 1120 was 
unsigned and dated after the date the petition was filed. The Director also noted that the Petitioner's 
provided articles of incorporation did not include any indication of who owned and controlled the 
2 
entity. On appeal, the Petitioner now submits a signed 2019 IRS Form 1120, again reflecting in 
schedule G that 100% of its shares are owned by the foreign employer. 
Upon review, we conclude that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish its 
ownership as required to demonstrate a qualifying relationship. As evidence of a petitioner's claimed 
qualifying relationship and to determine whether a stockholder maintains ownership and control of a 
corporate entity, we look to stock certificates, the corporate stock certificate ledger, stock certificate 
registry, corporate bylaws, and the minutes of relevant annual shareholder meetings to determine the 
total number of shares issued, the exact number issued to shareholders, 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 l&N Dec. at 365. 
The regulations also 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, the Petitioner has provided no documentation predating the date the petition was 
filed in September 2019 to establish that it is wholly owned by the foreign employer. Without full 
disclosure of all relevant documents, we are unable to determine the elements of ownership and 
control. 
As noted by the Director, the Petitioner has only submitted a 2019 IRS Form 1120 signed in March 
2020, after the date the petition was filed. In addition, the Petitioner provides no additional evidence 
dated prior to the date the petition was filed to establish its ownership nor any of the supporting 
documentation required by law to substantiate its ownership, discussed at length above. The Petitioner 
must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the 
time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). The Petitioner must 
resolve ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). In sum, the submitted evidence is insufficient to 
establish the Petitioner's ownership and that it is wholly owned by the foreign employer as asserted. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that it has a qualifying relationship with 
the Beneficiary's foreign employer. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3