dismissed L-1A Case: Mobile Phone Accessories Distribution

MATTER OF Y-OT- INC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEP. 27, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a mobile phone accessories distributor, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary 
employment as its managing director under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-1A classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its 
affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to work 
temporarily in an executive or managerial capadty. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petitiOn. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not established: (1) that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive 
c~.pacity for the U.S. entity; (2) a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's claimed foreign 
employer; (3) that the claimed foreign employer continued to do business; and ( 4) its financial status. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that the evidence of record demonstrates the Beneficiary's eligibility for this visa 
classification under the pertinent regulations. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the proposed beneficiary in a 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. Section 101 ( a)(l5)(L) of the Act. 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. !d. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form I-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, shall be accompanied by: 
Matter of Y-OT- Inc 
(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 him/her 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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii) also provides that a visa petition, which involved the 
opening of a new office, may be extended by filing a new Form I-129, accompanied by the 
following: ' 
(A) Evidence that the United States and foreign entities are still qualifying 
organizations as defined in paragraph (1)(1 )(ii)(G) of this section; 
(B) Evidence that the United States entity has been doing business as defined in 
paragraph (1)(1 )(ii)(H) of this section for the previous year; 
(C) A statement of the duties performed by the beneficiary for the previous year 
and the duties the beneficiary will perform under the extended petition; 
(D) A statement describing the staffing of the new operation, including the 
number of employees and types of positions held accompanied by evidence of 
wages paid to employees when the beneficiary will be employed in a 
management or executive capacity; and 
(E) Evidence ofthe financial status ofthe United States operation. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN A MANAGERIAL OR EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Director denied the petition, in part, finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. The 
2 
Matter of Y-OT- Inc 
Petitioner does not claim that the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity. Therefore, 
we restrict our analysis to whether the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity. 
Section 10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" 
as "an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily": 
(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 within 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. 
Further, "(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." · 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial 
or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must take into account 
the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of 
the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(C) ofthe Act. 
A. Evidence of Record 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-129 on January 2, 2015. On the Form I-129, the Petitioner indicated 
that it has four current employees in the United States and that it is a marketing company. The 
Petitioner indicated that it was submitting the same documentation it had submitted in support of its 
previous new office petition filed in 2013, including a list of the Beneficiary's proposed duties for 
the new office. 
The Director informed the Petitioner of the requirements to extend a new office petition, including 
information regarding the Beneficiary's duties for the past year at the new office and the 
Beneficiary's proposed duties under the extended petition. The Director provided a suggested list of 
evidence needed to make a determination on the issue of the Beneficiary's proposed employment 
capacity. 
3 
Matter of Y-OT- Inc 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner stated that it is a distributor 
of mobile phone accessories and has introduced a line of pro_ducts for the U.S. markets. The 
Petitioner stated further that the Beneficiary had established three departments, a sale and purchase 
department, a customer service and bill' department, and a delivery and marketing department. The 
Petitioner noted that the Beneficiary and the Petitioner's secretary handle the human resources 
department. 1 The Petitioner noted that it is a small company and that the Beneficiary "oversees 
operations in all departments" including the work of the clerical and support staff. The Petitioner 
further identified the Beneficiary's duties as (bullet points added and paraphrased): 
• Oversees the activities of workers, hires, trains, and evaluate employees and 
ensures that the company or the department is on track to meet its goals; 
• Develops and implements budgets, reports, and ensures the departments comply 
with company policies; 
• Ensures that workers have resources to complete their work; ' 
• Sometimes directs the Petitioner's secretary to oversee scheduling and output of 
workers, but sometimes performs these functions himself; 
• Assesses the performance of the departments or the entire company against the 
goals and plans of the business; 
• Performs human resources activities, such as performance evaluations, hiring, and 
discipline of the employees in their department, with the assistance of the 
Petitioner's secretary; 
• Sets goals and motivates workers through incentives and positive feedback, 
provides evaluations to hdp employees improve their work; and 
• Contacts financial institutions and banks in the United States and in Pakistan. 
' 'c,./ 
In a letter dated January 28, 2016, the Petitioner indicated that it employed four people, the 
Beneficiary as the full-time managing director, a full-time driver and merchandise transporter, a 
part-time secretary, and an individual in a part-time marketing and stocking position. The letter also 
listed the four individuals' annual salaries. 
The Petitioner further submitted its IRS Forms 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, and 
Forms NYS-45, Quarterly Combined Withholding, Wage Reporting, and Unemployment Insurance 
Return, for the 2014 and 2015 years. The Petitioner reported on the Form 941 filed in the first 
quarter of 2015, the quarter in which the petition was filed, that it employed two people. The Form 
NYS-45 listed five names but indicated that only the Beneficiary and the corporate secretary had 
been paid in the first quarter of2015. 2 The record al~o included a worker's compensation insurance 
1 The individual identified as the Petitioner's secretary also appears as the Petitioner's officer/corporate secretary on 
some of the Petitioner's corporate documents. 
2 On the Petitioner's 2014 fourth quarter Form 941, the Petitioner indicated it employed five individuals. The 
Petitioner's 2014 fourth quarter NYS-45 identified only four employees by name including the Beneficiary and the 
corporate secretary as well as the individual in the driver and merchandise transporter position. The record does not 
include information on the fourth-individual's position. The Petitioner's second quarter Form 941 for 2015, shows that 
the Petitioner employed three individuals. The Petitioner's 2015 second quarter NYS-45 listed six individuals by name 
4 
Matter of Y-OT- Inc 
policy beginning January 1, 2014, and extended through April 4, 2016. The policy noted that it 
covered three unnamed employees. 
Upon review of the record, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not provided a detailed 
description of the Beneficiary's proposed duties, and had not substantiated that the Beneficiary 
would be relieved from performing the non-managerial functions of the business. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary performs duties in a managerial capacity, that 
he "is responsible for managing the whole company" and that "[h]e takes all the decisions regarding 
the present endeavors and is also responsible for planning and implementing all the future ventures." 
The Petitioner continues by stating that the Beneficiary is mainly responsible for the functioning of 
the company and performs the following duties (bullet points added and paraphrased): 
• Has authority to hire new people and to create new positions ifrequired; 
• Distributes the work among the employees and supervises them; 
• Is in-charge of the payroll function including tallying work hours, calculating pay, 
processing checks, and tracking vacation days and time off; 
• · Interviews prospective employees; 
• Reviews the company's financial, budgetary, and production goals; 
• Describes the objectives of the company and the steps needed in order to achieve 
them; 
• Makes decisions regarding the day-to-day sales and purchases for the company; 
• Manages most of the activities of the company without any direct supervision of 
others; 
• · Holds staff meetings and directs the employees for the upcoming tasks; and 
• Discusses the functioning of the U.S. entity with foreign counterparts. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, including the Petitioner's assertions on 
appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be employed in a 
managerial capacity under.the extended petition. 
1 
When examining the managerial or executive capacity of the Beneficiary, we will look first to the 
Petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 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 in a managerial or executive capacity. ld. 
The definitions of managerial and executive capacity each have two parts. First, the Petitioner must 
show that the Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. Champion World. Inc. v. 
but indicated only three individuals had been paid in the quarter. The three paid employees include the Beneficiary, the 
part-time secretary, and the individual in the part-time marketing and stocking position. 
5 
Matter of Y-OT- Inc 
INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). Second, the Petitioner must prove 
that the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in managerial or executive duties, as opposed to 
ordinary operational activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees. See Family Inc. v. USCIS, 
469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, 940 F.2d 1533. 
The Petitioner here has submitted a broad overview of the Beneficiary's duties. For example, the 
Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary "oversees operations in all departments," develops and 
implements budgets and reports and ensures compliance with company policies, assesses the 
performance of the departments and company against the goals and plans of the business, and 
contacts financial institutions and banks. The Petitioner claimed on appeal that the Beneficiary 
reviews the company's financial, budgetary, and production goals, describes the objectives of the 
company, implements the steps needed to achieve the goals, and manages most of the company 
activities without supervision from others. However, 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. These general responsibilities do not convey the 
Beneficiary's actual tasks 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), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
We understand that the Beneficiary will make decisions regarding the day-to-day sales and 
purchases for the company, will perform the budgetary and financial duties of the company, and will 
generally manage the activities ofthe company. However, there is insufficient detail and supporting 
documentation to establish that he will primarily perform managerial duties. Moreover, the fact that 
the Beneficiary will manage or direct a business does not necessarily establish eligibility for 
classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity within the 
meaning of section 101 (a)( 44) of the Act. By statute, eligibility for this classification requires that 
the duties 6f a position be "primarily" of an executive or managerial nature. Sections 1 01(A)( 44)(A) 
and (B) of the Act. While the Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the Petitioner's day-to-day 
operations and possess the requisite level of authority with respect to discretionary decision-making, 
the position descriptions alone are insufficient to establish that his actual duties would be primarily 
managerial in nature. 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, USC IS reviews the totality of the· record when 
examining the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, including the company's 
organizational structure, the duties of a beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other 
employees to relieve a beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the business, 
and any other factors that will contribute to understanding a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a 
business. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary will perform primarily in a managerial capacity. The 
statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel ·managers" and "function 
managers." See sections 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Personnel managers are required to 
primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
6 
' ( 
Matter of Y-OT- Inc 
employees. The statute plainly states that 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." 3 Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(4). If 
a petitioner claims that a beneficiary directly supervises other employees, those subordinate 
employees must be supervisory, professional, or managerial, and the beneficiary must have the 
authority to hire and fire those employees, or recommend those actions, and take other personnel 
actions. Sections 101(a)(44)(A)(ii)-(iii) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(2)-(3). 
Here, the Petitioner has submitted evidence that it employed two individuals when the petition was 
filed, the Beneficiary and the part-time corporate secretary. While the Petitioner has intermittently 
employed other workers, the Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the 
nonimmigrant visa petition and must continue to be eligible for the benefit through adjudication. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the Petitioner or 
Beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N 
Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm.?r 1978). Even if we considered that the Petitioner sometimes employs 
a driver and a marketing/stocking employee, in addition ,to the Beneficiary and the part-time 
corporate secretary, the Petitioner has not submitted an organizational chart and has not described 
the Beneficiary's subordinates' job duties. As the record does not further explain the Beneficiary's 
duties as they relate to overseeing and interacting with his subordinates, the record does not include 
sufficient probative evidence to establish the role these individuals play within the organization. 
Based on the submitted job descriptions, it is the Beneficiary who oversees, trains, and evaluates the 
workers, allocates work to staff, performs the duties associated with the payroll function, interviews 
prospective employees, and directs the employees in performing their tasks. However, first-line 
supervisory duties of non-professional employees are not managerial duties. The record does not 
establish that the Beneficiary would primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, 
professional, or managerial employees. 
The Petitioner has not established, in the alternative, that the Beneficiary will be employed primarily 
as a "function manager." The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does 
not supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible for 
managing an "essential function" within the organization. See section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) ofthe Act. 
The term "essential function" is not defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims that a 
beneficiary will manage an essential function, a petitioner must clearly describe the duties to be 
performed in managing the essential function, i.e., identify the function with specificity, articulate 
l_. ' 
the essential nature of the function, and establish the proportion of a beneficiary's daily duties 
3 In evaluating whether the Beneficiary manages professional employees, we must evaluate whether the subordinate 
positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. Cf 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) 
(defining "profession" to mean "any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent 
is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation"). Section IOI(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § IIOI(a)(32), 
states that "[t]he 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." Here, there is no evidence that the 
positions subordinate to the Beneficiary are professional positions. 
Matter of Y-OT- Inc 
dedicated to managing the essential function. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). In addition, a 
petitioner's description of a beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary will 
manage the function rather than perform the duties related to the function. 
Here, the Petitioner's general descriptions of the Beneficiary's duties, considered with the totality of 
the evidence, indicate that the Beneficiary will be performing many of the day-to-day operational 
and administrative duties of the organization. The Petitioner states that the company has a sales and 
purchase department, a customer service and billing department, and a delivery and marketing 
department, but it also provided evidence that it employed only the Beneficiary and a part-time 
secretary at the time the petition was filed. The Petitioner has not designated anyone who will 
market, sell, purchase, or deliver the company's inventory or who will perform the billing and 
customer service functions. The Beneficiary will also be required to perform the budgetary and 
financial duties of the company. The Petitioner also does not articulate any specific function the 
Beneficiary will manage and explain how it relates to the Petitioner's distribution of phone 
accessories. Of most significance, is the lack of evidence in the record regarding who will perform 
any duties necessary to implement the Petitioner's objectives other than the Beneficiary. Based on 
the current record, the Petitioner has not submitted a detailed description of the duties and the time 
the Beneficiary spends on those specific defined duties. Thus, we cannot ascertain what proportion 
of duties would be managerial and non-managerial. See Republic ofTranskei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 
177 (D.C. Cir. 1991 ). Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary would primarily 
manage an essential function. 
We note that a company's size alone, without taking into account the reasonable needs of the 
organization, may not be the determining factor in denying a visa petition for classification as a 
multinational manager or executive. See section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(44)(C). However, it is appropriate for USCIS to consider the size of the petitioning 
company in conjunction with other relevant factors, such as the absence of employees who would 
perform the non-managerial or non-executive operations of the company, or a "shell company" that 
does not conduct business in a regular and continuous manner. See, e.g., Family Inc., 469 F.3d 
1313; Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
Further the regulations require USCIS to examine the organizational structure and staffing levels of a 
petitioner seeking to extend a new office petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(D). The regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) only allows the ne'Y office operation one year within the date of 
approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. There is no provision in 
USCIS regulations that allows for an extension of this one-year period. Here, the Petitioner has not 
shown that it had the staffing in place after one year to sufficiently relieve the Beneficiary from 
performing operational and administrative tasks associated with its cell phone accessones 
distribution business. 
Based on the deficiencies discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
will be employed in a managerial capacity under the extended petition. 
8 
Matter of Y-OT- Inc 
III. PETITIONER'S FINANCIAL STATUS 
The Director also denied the petition, in part, finding that the Petitioner did not provide evidence of 
the financial status of the United States operation. As noted above, the Petitioner is seeking an 
extension of its new office petition. Accordingly, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B) 
requires the petitioner to submit evidence of its financial status in the United States. 
The Director ultimately concluded that based on the Petitioner's tax returns, it did not appear that the 
U.S. entity had grown sufficiently to support an L-IA manager. The Petitioner does not address the 
issue of its financial status directly on appeal. However, the Petitioner includes a number of wire 
transfers from its bank account transferring funds to two individuals in China. We have reviewed 
these transfers and the Petitioner's tax returns and the remainder of the record to attempt to 
understand the Petitioner's business model and its financial status. 
Upon review, however, the record is deficient in establishing the Petitioner's actual business 
operations and thus, its financial status. The record does not include photographs, promotional 
material, or information on the Petitioner's products. The record includes limited' information on 
how the Petitioner conducts its business. Accordingly, we are unable to place these wire transfers, 
the information on the Petitioner's tax returns, and the Petitioner's limited information regarding its 
staff and their roles within the Petitioner's operations, in context with the Petitioner's claim that it 
provides mobile phone accessories. The record does not include sufficient probative evidence 
regarding the financial status of the United States operation to overcome the Director's decision on 
this issue. 
IV. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The Director denied the petition, in part, finding that the Petitioner did not establish that it has a 
qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. To establish a "qualifying 
relationship" under the Act and the regulations, a petitioner must show that a 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 generally section 
101(a)(15)(L) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1). 
The pertinent regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii) define the term "qualifying organization" and 
related terms as follows: 
(G) Qualifying 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 
(1)(1 )(ii) of this section; 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y-OT- Inc 
(I) Parent means a firm, corporation , or other legal entity which has subsidiaries. 
' 
(J) Branch means an operating division or office of the same organization housed 
in a different location. 
(K) Subsidiary means 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 arid controls the entity ; 
or owns, directly or indirectly , 50 percent of a so.:so joint venture and has 
equal control and veto power over the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, 
less than half ofthe entity, but in fact controls the entity. 
(L) Affiliate means 
(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 . 
A. Evidence of Record 
On the L Classification Supplement to Form I-129, the Petitioner identified its relationship with the 
foreign entity, as a 'joint venture. " The Petitioner stated that the percentage of 
stock ownership and managerial .control of each company is: - 40 percent 
ownership and the Petitioner- 60 percent ownership . The Petitioner checked the box on Form I-129 
indicating that the companies had the same qualifying relationship as they did during the 
Beneficiary's one-year of employment with the company abroad. The initial record did not include 
further information regarding the Petitioner's qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's claimed 
foreign employer. 
In response to the Director 's RFE on this issue, the Petitioner asserted that it "operates as a joint 
venture with the Pakistani branch of the company by the name of and that the 
Beneficiary controls both companies in his capacity as managing director. The Petitioner submitted 
its Articles of Incorporation showing its organization in New York on February 5, 2013, and its 
authority to issue 200 shares. The record includes a stock certificate issued to the Beneficiary 
indicating that he owns all 200 shares. The Petitioner, in a letter dated January 26, 2016, and signed 
by the Beneficiary, confirmed that the Beneficiary has been the Petitioner's president and sole 
shareholder since February 5, 2013. 
The record also contained a National Tax Number Certificate issued by the Pakistani government in 
July 2006 which named the Beneficiary and indicated that the nature or status of the foreign entity is 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y-OT- Inc 
"Business Individual." In a letter, dated December 15, 2015, signed by the authorized representative 
of located in the representative noted that the foreign entity has been 
maintaining a bank account with them since February of 2009 and that the Beneficiary is the 
proprietor of the account. 
The Director determined that the record included insufficient information to establish a qualifying 
relationship between the Petitioner and the Beneficiary's foreign employer. Further, the Director 
noted that the Petitioner's submitted tax returns for 2014 and 2015 did not appear to indicate 
ownership by a foreign individual or company. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary controls both it and the foreign entity and that 
there have been continuous wire 
transfers between it and the foreign entity. The Petitioner attaches a 
number of wire transfer receipts showing the transfer of money from the Petitioner's bank account to 
two different individuals in China. The Petitioner also submitted a statement from its accountant 
noting that the accounting firm did not know that the Petitioner was affiliated with a foreign entity 
and that the firm would correctly prepare the tax returns in the future to show this affiliation. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, including materials submitted in support of 
the appeal, we find that the Petitioner has not established that it has a qualifying relationship with the 
foreign entity. 
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. See Matter of Church Scientology Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 
593 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of 
Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm'r. 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 Int '!, 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 Med. Sys., Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362. Without full disclosure of all relevant documents, 
USCIS is unable to determine the elements of ownership and control. 
II 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y-OT- Inc 
Here, the Petitioner identifies itself as a joint venture and provides conflicting and unsubstantiated 
information regarding its ownership. On the Form I-129, the Petitioner claimed that it is part of a 
joint venture but does not identify the owners of a stated 40 percent interest in the foreign company 
and a 60 percent interest in the petitioning company. Moreover, the record does not include any 
evidence of a contractual agreement detailing the responsibilities, goals, rights, and duties of each 
party in the claimed joint venture. The Petitioner does not explain why or how it should be 
identified as a joint venture. 
! 
Further, the record does not include sufficient consistent eviden~-e establishing the ownership of 
either the Petitioner or the foreign entity. While the record includes a letter, a stock certificate, and 
the Petitioner's Articles of Incorporation showing the Beneficiary is the Petitioner's 1 00 percent 
owner, the Petitioner does not offer an explanation as to its statementon the Form I-129 that some 
unidentified party owns a 60 percent interest in the company. 
We have also reviewed the record to determine the ownership of the foreign entity. It appears that 
the Beneficiary established the foreign entity as a sole proprietorship in 2006. However, as the 
Director noted, the Petitioner does not submit probative evidence of the foreign entity's current 
status. The foreign entity's banker's statement that the Beneficiary is the proprietor of the account is 
insufficient to establish that the Beneficiary owns a majority interest in the foreign entity or that he 
continues to control the foreign entity. In fact, the submitted monthly bank statements issued by 
state that the "Title of Account" is Additionally, the Petitioner does not 
clarify its initial statement on the Form I-129 attributing a 40 percent interest in the foreign entity to 
an unknown party. We have also reviewed the wire transfers initiated by the Petitioner to two 
individuals in China, but these transfers are not indicative of the ownership of the Petitioner or the 
foreign entity. The record does not include probative evidence of the current ownership and control 
of the foreign entity. 
For these reasons, th~ record does not include sufficient include consistent, probative documentary 
evidence establishing the current ownership of either entity. "[G]oing 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'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
CraftofCal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Based on the deficiencies in the record, the Petitioner has not established a qualifying relationship 
with the Beneficiary's foreign employer as required by the statute and regulations. 
V. FOREIGN ENTITY DOING BUSINESS 
The Director further denied the petition, in part, finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
foreign entity continues to do business. The term "doing business" is defined in the regulations as 
"the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or 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." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(H). 
12 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y-OT- Inc 
The Director reviewed the Petitioner's submissions regarding this issue, including the membership 
certificate issued to the foreign entity by the a lease, 
the foreign entity's bank statements for the 2015 year, copies of invoices, and a No':'ember 2015 
phone bill. The record also included a January 12, 2016, letter signed by the foreign 
entity's director, who stated that he will step down as the acting Managing Director when the 
Beneficiary returns from his position with the Petitioner. The Director found that the membership 
certificate and maintenance of a telephone number did not demonstrate that the foreign entity is 
currently doing business. The Director also noted that the lease for the foreign entity was for a 
residential apartment and not a business location. The Director further found that the invoices and 
the bank statements, without supporting documentation such as tax returns or financial statements, 
were insufficient to establish that the foreign entity was doing business. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the foreign entity is functioning in Pakistan and in China. The 
Petitioner avers that there are no restrictions in Pakistan on using a residential apartment to conduct 
business and that the Beneficiary had been using this location to do business in Pakistan. The 
Petitioner also refers to the wire transfers transferring funds from the Petitioner's bank account to 
China and asserts that the continuous financial transactions between these entities show they are 
continuing to do business. The Petitioner submits copies of Forms 114(1) (Return of Income Filed 
Voluntarily For Complete Year), filed with the Federal Board of Revenue in Pakistan. The 
documents name the Beneficiary and cover the time period between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2015. 
The documents do not indicate that any revenue was earned, expenses paid, or tax owed. 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence in the record, we do not find sufficient probative 
evidence demonstrating that the foreign entity, apparently a sole proprietorship, is engaged in the 
regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services. We have reviewed the wire 
transfers submitted on appeal and the Forms 114(1). The wire trap.sfers do not show a transfer of 
funds to any entity, rather the funds are sent to two different individuals located in China. It is 
unclear how these wire transfers support a claim that the foreign entity in Pakistan is currently 
engaged in business: The Forms 114(1) appear to be a voluntarily filing by the Beneficiary and do 
not reflect that the foreign entity is doing business. The record includes copies of five invoices, 
dated in April, June, September, and December of 2015, and January of 2016, for products sold. 
This limited number of invoices establishes at best that the foreign entity operates on an intermittent 
and ad hoc basis, and all of these invoices post-date the filing of the petition. Moreover, we point 
out that other than the acting managing director who signed a letter on behalf of the foreign entity in 
January 2016, the record includes no information on the employees of the foreign entity. Upon 
review of the totality of the record, the Petitioner has not established that the foreign entity is doing 
business in a regular, systematic, and continuous manner. 
VI. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied 
and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. The burden is on the Petitioner 
13 
Matter of Y-OT- Inc 
to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofY-OT- Inc, ID# 10643 (AAO Sept. 27, 2016) 
) 
14