dismissed L-1A Case: Natural Stone Fabrication

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF N-S-V-B-1-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 11, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a fabricator of natural stone product, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as its chief 
financial officer (CFO) under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L). The L­
lA classification allows a business to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to 
temporarily work in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required: (1) that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity; or (2) that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the 
United States. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary served as a function manager 
abroad and that he will serve as a function manager in the United States. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonirnmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(15)(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 or executive capacity. Id. 
II. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD AS A FUNCTION MANGER 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary serves as a function manager abroad. Thus, the 
issue to be addressed on appeal is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary is employed 
abroad as a function manager. 
Matter ofN-S-V-B-I-
The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee 
primarily manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of the 
organization; 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; has authority over personnel actions or functions at a senior level within the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and exercises discretion over the 
day-to-day operations of the activity or function for which the employee has authority. Section 
10l(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
The statutory definition of"managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 10l(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 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 
10l(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. If a petitioner claims that a beneficiary will manage an essential function, 
it must clearly describe the duties to be performed in managing the essential function. In addition, the 
petitioner must demonstrate that "(l) the function is a clearly defined activity; (2) the function is 
'essential,' i.e., core to the organization; (3) the beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to 
perform, the function; (4) the beneficiary will act at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy 
or with respect to the function managed; and ( 5) the beneficiary will exercise discretion over the 
function's day-to-day operations." Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05 (AAO Nov. 8, 
2017). 
A. Duties 
When examining the managerial capacity of a given beneficiary, we will look to the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Based on the definitions of managerial 
capacity, the Petitioner must first show that the Beneficiary will perform certain high-level 
responsibilities. Champion World, Inc. v. 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 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 at 1533. 
The Petitioner indicated on the petition that the Beneficiary has "overseen the operations part of the 
company for as long as he has been employed with the company. His expertise in financial investment 
and product design are vital to the well-being of the company." In a supporting letter, the Petitioner 
stated that the Beneficiary: 
Has been serving as the Chief financial officer for the parent company and its 
subsidiaries in Indonesia and Lebanon since the early 2000. In this capacity he was 
primarily responsible for the day-to-day planning, implementing, managing and 
controlling all financial-related activities of the company. Over the years, [the 
Beneficiary] has overseen the financial planning, strategy, managing profitability, 
strategic planning, vision, quality management, promotion process improvement, 
2 
Matter ofN-S-V-B-I-
forecasting, corporate finance, developing budgets, financial skills, dealing with 
complexity. Further, he has developed organization prospects by studying economic 
trends and revenue opportunities; projection acquisition and expansion prospects; 
analyzing organization operations; identifying opportunities for improvement, cost 
reductions, and systems enhancement; accumulating capital to fond expansion. This 
will include direct responsibility for accounting, finance, forecasting, strategic 
planning, job costing, legal, property management, deal analysis and negotiations, 
investor relationships and partnership compliance and private and institutional 
financing. Most notably, he has developed financial well-being of the organization by 
providing financial projections and accounting services; preparing growth plans; and 
directing staff. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) requesting clarification of the Beneficiary's 
day-to-day duties, the Petitioner submitted a letter from the President of.__ ________ ___. 
describing the Beneficiary's duties as CFO. He asserted that the tasks include managerial and 
executive duties and specialized knowledge in accounting and finance. The Petitioner also submitted 
an employment offer letter detailing the Beneficiary's duties abroad, including: accounting; 
fondraising (managing and performing all revenue and expense forecasting for proposals/contracts); 
board and committee work (managing and performing all financial reporting for the Board); staff 
(training and managing staff assigned to support the CFO, enrolling new staff in benefit plans, and 
coordinating yearly renewals); research (performing financial analysis); business technical assistance 
(presenting at financial workshops, coordinating bookkeeping technical assistance with lenders); and 
information controls (managing input of accounting/portfolio information). Other duties listed 
included working with support staff on accounting reports; participating in staff group meetings; and 
reporting on financial irregularities. 
In her decision, the Director determined that the record does not reflect that the Beneficiary is primarily 
involved in managerial or executive duties abroad. She determined that the record does not establish 
that his two subordinates primarily perform inherently managerial or supervisor duties, or that they 
are professionals. She also determined that the record does not establish that the Beneficiary is 
relieved of performing the day-to-day duties required to operate the business; that he can be deemed 
a function manager; or that his position involves specialized knowledge, as he appears to perform the 
same or similar duties as other accountants employed in similar positions in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not contest the Director's findings that the Beneficiary does not serve 
in an executive or specialized knowledge capacity abroad. Instead, the Petitioner asserts that the 
Beneficiary serves as a function manager abroad. It states that the Beneficiary "manages a huge 
financial and marketing function" and that his duties are "primarily related to the management, 
financial wellbeing, marketing, and distribution of natural stone veneer." It states that his "overall 
management of the financial budgeting, outlook and brand marketing ... can be equated to managing 
a subdivision, function or component of the organization." It asserts that he does not perform the 
routine day-to-day functions carried out by the office, but "only exercises discretion over the day-to­
day operations." It highlights subordinate employees in Indonesia and Lebanon that the Beneficiary 
3 
Matter ofN-S-V-B-I-
supervises, and states that he has discretionary authority over personnel actions related to them. It 
does not provide any additional evidence in support of its assertions on appeal. 1 
The submitted position descriptions do not demonstrate that the Beneficiary primarily performs 
managerial duties. The position descriptions consists mainly of broad duties that could apply to any 
financial position, and do not provide insight into the nature of the Beneficiary's day-to-day duties as 
the CFO. General statements, such as "responsible for the day-to-day planning, implementing, 
managing and controlling all financial-related activities of the company;" overseeing "the financial 
planning, strategy, managing profitability, strategic planning, vision, quality management, promotion 
process improvement, forecasting, corporate finance, developing budgets, financial skills; "dealing 
with complexity;" "analyzing organization operations;" and "identifying opportunities for 
improvement, cost reductions, and systems enhancement;" do not describe the types of tasks the 
Beneficiary performs. Conclusory assertions regarding the Beneficiary's employment capacity are 
not sufficient. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the 
Petitioner's burden of proof 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). The Petitioner did not describe any specific financial-related 
activities that the Beneficiary implemented or provide examples of any strategies or budgets he 
developed, nor did it provide details on the financial activities he directs, or explain how his 
subordinates assist him with these activities. 
Further, the job descriptions include many duties that are clearly not managerial, including performing 
revenue and expense forecasting; studying economic trends and revenue opportunities; performing 
financial reporting for the Board; enrolling new staff in benefit plans and coordinating yearly renewals; 
performing financial analysis; coordinating bookkeeping technical assistance with lenders; working 
with support staff on accounting reports; participating in staff meetings; and reporting on financial 
irregularities. While performing non-qualifying tasks necessary to produce a product or service will 
not automatically disqualify a beneficiary as long as those tasks are not the majority of a beneficiary's 
duties, a petitioner still has the burden of establishing that a beneficiary will "primarily" perform 
managerial duties. See section 101(a)(44) of the Act. Whether a beneficiary is a "function" manager 
turns in part on whether the Petitioner has sustained its burden of proving that his duties are "primarily" 
managerial. See Matter of Z-A-, Inc., Adopted Decision 2016-02 (AAO Apr. 14, 2016). 
Despite the Director's request in the RFE, the job description provided in response did not provide 
time allocations for the Beneficiary's duties, so it is not clear what proportion of the Beneficiary's 
duties are managerial functions and what proportion are non-qualifying. 2 Here, as noted above, the 
Petitioner lists the Beneficiary's duties as including both claimed managerial tasks and administrative 
or operational tasks, but does not quantify the time the Beneficiary spends on these different duties. 
This lack of documentation is important because whether the Beneficiary is a managerial employee 
turns on whether the Petitioner has sustained its burden of proving that their duties are "primarily" 
managerial or executive. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. Without an accounting of 
1 A petitioner's unsupported statements are of limited weight and normally will be insufficient to carry its burden of 
proof The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe. 
25 l&N Dec. 369. 376 (AAO 2010). 
2 Any failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l4). 
4 
Matter ofN-S-V-B-I-
the time spent on the claimed duties, we cannot determine whether the Beneficiary is primarily 
performing the duties of a manager. See IKEA US, Inc. v. US. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 
(D.D.C. 1999). Moreover, the organizational chart for the foreign company shows that the President, 
who oversees the Beneficiary and the managing member, oversees budgets and staff: encourages 
investments, and meets with executives to assess the direction of the company. These duties overlap 
with the Beneficiary's duties. The chart also indicates that the managing member formulates and 
implements company policy and maintains the operational performance of the company. These duties, 
as they relate to the financial aspects of the company's operations, also overlap with the Beneficiary's 
duties. While the bookkeeper and accounting staff member appear to perform some of the daily duties 
of the financial operations of the company, the job description clearly states that the Beneficiary also 
performs some of those day-to-day accounting and bookkeeping duties. Based on the lack of 
information quantifying how the Beneficiary spends his time, coupled with the overlapping duties, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary's duties are primarily managerial in nature. 
Based on the foregoing, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary's actual day-to-day duties 
abroad are primarily managerial in nature. 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Beneficiary serves as a function manager abroad. As 
previously noted, if a petitioner claims that a beneficiary manages an essential function, it must clearly 
describe the duties performed in managing the essential function. In addition, the petitioner must 
demonstrate that the function is a clearly defined activity; the function is essential to the organization; 
the beneficiary primarily manages, as opposed to performs, the function; the beneficiary act at a senior 
level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and the beneficiary 
exercises discretion over the function's day-to-day operations. Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 
2017-05 at 4. 
As set forth above, the Petitioner has not clearly described the Beneficiary's duties. The Petitioner 
also has not described or provided evidence that the Beneficiary manages an essential function. It 
states that the Beneficiary manages the "financial and marketing function" abroad, but it has not clearly 
defined these activities. We note that the foreign entity sources raw materials which are then fabricated 
into natural stone product. A letter submitted with the petition indicates that the Beneficiary "does the 
sourcing and bidding for the raw materials needed for production," and another related company does 
the production, fabrication, and finishing of the raw materials into natural stone. There are no other 
individuals tasked with sourcing raw materials in the foreign entity, and the record contains no 
evidence of the staff available at the related company to produce, fabricate, and finish the raw materials 
into natural stone. If he is solely responsible for sourcing and bidding raw materials, it is unclear how 
he can also manage the financial and marketing functions of the business. Doubt cast on any aspect 
of the petitioner's proof may undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence 
offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591 (BIA 1988). 
It is also not clear that the Beneficiary would act at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy 
or with respect to the function managed, or that he would exercise discretion over the function's day­
to-day operations. The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart for the foreign entity which 
5 
Matter ofN-S-V-B-I-
identifies the Beneficiary as CFO and also includes a President, managing member, bookkeeper, and 
accounting staff member. The President oversees the Beneficiary and the managing member, and the 
Beneficiary oversees the bookkeeper and accounting staff member. In her decision, the Director noted 
the deficiencies in the record with respect to the submitted job description and the lack of evidence 
that the Beneficiary's subordinates relieved him from performing operational activities associated with 
his area of responsibility. The Petitioner has submitted no additional evidence on appeal. In light of 
the Beneficiary's broad position description and overlapping job duties, the Petitioner has not met its 
burden to show that the Beneficiary acts at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with 
respect to any function managed, or that he exercises discretion over the function's day-to-day 
operations. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that the Beneficiary is employed abroad 
as a function manager. 
III. U.S. EMPLOYMENT AS A FUNCTION MANAGER 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Beneficiary will serve as a function manager in the United 
States. Thus, the issue to be addressed on appeal is whether the Petitioner established that the 
Beneficiary would be employed as a function manager in the United States. 
A. Duties 
The Petitioner is a fabricator of natural stone product. The petition indicated that the Beneficiary is 
needed in the United States for expansion and development purposes. It indicated that it hoped to 
"enlarge the revenue and customer processing capacity of the company." In a letter supporting the 
petition, it stated that the Beneficiary's duties as CFO would be essentially the same as his duties 
abroad, and that he: 
would continue to ... plan organize and control all the projects/programs embarked 
upon, in a way to satisfying the interests of all the stakeholders. He would see to the 
day-to-day planning, implementing, managing and controlling all financial-related 
activities of the company. His hands-on expertise and years of ample knowledge would 
be invaluable to the overall growth of the parent company and its subsidiaries. He 
would help train and bring along the young workers within the organization. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner stated that it intends to employ the Beneficiary in 
both a managerial and executive position in the United States. It asserted that his "prior education, 
training and years of experience" qualifies him for the offered job of CFO. 3 It stated that the 
Beneficiary's primary responsibilities 
would consist of overseeing financial activities of the company, including preparation 
of current financial reports as well as summaries and forecast for future business growth 
3 In a 2018 nonimmigrant visa application, the Beneficiary indicated that he attended the I I Institute ofc=] in 
Lebanon from September 1981 to May 1983. The record contains no evidence that he took any accounting or finance 
courses, so it is unclear how his education qualified him to perform accounting and finance functions. 
6 
Matter ofN-S-V-B-I-
and general economic outlook. Further will provide direct administrative and 
managerial support to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and indirect support to the 
managing member, and as required, its Committees, while managing very confidential 
materials and information. The secondary functions consist of providing support and 
oversight to administrative aspects of the organization such as purchasing raw materials 
needed for production, train and manage staff assigned to support the beneficiary in his 
position as [CFO] ... This training includes having the staff be familiarized with 
financial accounting systems, and performing bookkeeping functions. Furthermore, 
the beneficiary ... will direct a major function of the organization by identifying critical 
financial issues that require the attention of the CEO, making recommendations for 
addressing and/or resolving these issues. In partnership with the CEO, he will help 
establish goals, policies and advance mission-driven, value-based, corporate culture. 
Finally, support the CEO in achieving the organization's mission through fiscal 
forecast, fiscal education, and the timely preparation and communication of financial 
reports ... The beneficiary will exercise wide latitude in discretionary decision-making. 
Also in response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a transfer request letter stating the Beneficiary's 
primary function is to oversee the financial activities of the company. It lists several "functional areas 
of accountability" including accounting and payroll; billing; facility maintenance; purchasing; 
training; and credentialing a privileging. It also lists 30 "essential duties and responsibilities." Several 
of these duties include duties that were not listed initially, including functioning as information 
systems administrator; ensuring credentialing and privileging is completed in a timely and quality 
manner; facility maintenance and other building related needs; maintaining a program for procuring, 
monitoring, and managing all forms of business insurance. 
In her decision, the Director determined that the Beneficiary will primarily perform the day-to-day 
functions of the Petitioner's business, and that the job descriptions fail to establish that the Beneficiary 
will be employed in the United States is a primarily managerial capacity. On appeal, the Petitioner 
states that the Beneficiary will serve as a function manager of "financial budgeting, outlook and brand 
marketing." It states that the Beneficiary manages a huge financial and marketing function 
representing close to a million USD of the Petitioner's business." It states that the Beneficiary is "part 
of the senior management team which includes the President and Director and [CEO] of the 
[Petitioner]" and that he "is on the 2nd tier of the corporate hierarchy together with company managing 
members." It asserts that he "exercises discretion over the day-to-day operation associated with the 
nearly $1 million Natural stone veneer import business and has complete discretionary authority over 
a budget in excess of half a million USD." It states that we must take into account the reasonable 
needs of the organization in light of its overall purpose and stage of development. It asserts that its 
reasonable needs 'justify a beneficiary who allocates 51 percent of his duties to managerial tasks as 
opposed to 90 percent." It states that the Beneficiary primarily manages an essential function of the 
Petitioner "in addition to some employees in Indonesia, Lebanon and the United States." 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed 
primarily in a managerial capacity in the United States. The Petitioner initially provided broad 
statements that do not meaningfully describe what the Beneficiary will be doing on a daily basis. The 
duties focus primarily on marketing and advertising, but the Petitioner has not established that these 
7 
Matter ofN-S-V-B-I-
are managerial duties. The duties also include business and product development, but no development 
plans were submitted and the Petitioner provided no additional insight into what business or product 
development would entail within the scope of its operations. Further, in response to the RFE, the 
Petitioner described primarily financial duties that are non-managerial, such as preparing financial 
reports, summaries, and forecasts for future business growth. 
Further, despite the Director's request in the RFE, the Petitioner did not provide time allocations for 
the duties, so it is not clear how the Beneficiary would allocate his time primarily to managerial tasks. 
See 8 C .F .R. § 103 .2(b )( 14 ). This lack of documentation is important because, as noted above, several 
of the Beneficiary's daily tasks, such as marketing and advertising, do not fall directly under 
managerial duties as defined in the statute. For this reason, we cannot determine whether the 
Beneficiary would be primarily performing the duties of a manager. See IKEA US, Inc. v. US. Dept. 
of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d at 24. 
Additionally, although the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary will exercise discretion over the day­
to-day operations associated with the nearly $1,000,000 natural stone veneer import business, the 
Petitioner's 2016 and 2017 tax returns do not show that the Petitioner's business grossed $1,000,000. 
Instead, in 2016, its gross receipts totaled $430,556, and in 2017, its gross receipts totaled $304,173. 
See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. 
Therefore, based on the foregoing, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary's actual day-to­
day duties in the United States would be managerial in nature. 
B. Staffing and Organizational Structure 
The Petitioner claimed to have five employees at the time of filing the petition in November 2018. 
The Petitioner submitted an organizational chart showinf a Director of Operations overseeing four 
separate companies, including I 11 I ,I and the Petitioner. With 
respect to the Petitioner, the only employee shown on the chart is the CEO/ managing member.I I 
I O I The Beneficiary is shown as an owner/investor of I land as the financial officer of 
I ~, but the nexus between these companies and the Beneficiary's duties with the Petitioner has 
not been established. 
The Petitioner submitted no IRS Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statements, for any U.S. employees or 
any other evidence of employment of workers. Its 2016 and 201 7 tax returns show no salaries or 
wages were paid; instead, it made officer compensation payments to its CEO. 
In her decision, the Director indicated the Petitioner had submitted insufficient evidence concerning 
the size and nature of its workforce and therefore, the record did not establish that the U.S. entity has 
an organizational structure that is sufficient to support a managerial or executive position as defined 
in the regulations. The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Beneficiary will serve as a function 
manager in the United States. However, like the position abroad, the Petitioner has not clearly 
described the duties to be performed in managing an essential function. It has not established that the 
function is a clearly defined activity; that the Beneficiary will primarily manage, as opposed to 
perform, the function; that the Beneficiary will act at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy 
8 
Matter ofN-S-V-B-I-
or with respect to the function managed; or that the Beneficiary will exercise discretion over the 
function's day-to-day operations. See Matter of G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-05. Based on the 
discrepancies in the Petitioner's organizational chart, the Petitioner has not identified who actually 
provides its stone fabrication services, and it has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary will actually 
work for the Petitioner or that, even if employed, he would be relieved from performing the operational 
tasks of the business. The organizational chart does not support the Petitioner's claims in this matter. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that the Beneficiary would be employed 
in the United States as a function manager. 
IV. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
Although not addressed in the Director's decision, we further find that the Petitioner has not submitted 
evidence of its qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's 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(l)(l)(ii) (providing definitions of the terms "parent," "branch," "subsidiary," and "affiliate"). 
As noted, on the petlition, le Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary was employed abroad byl I 
.__ _____ ____. in and it indicated that the Petitioner and I have a 
subsidiary relationship. In a suprorting letter, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary was employed 
abroad byl land L I and that both companies are subsidiaries 
of a parent company,.__ _________ ~ However, in the same letter, the Petitioner refers to 
itself as the "parent company." 
The record contains no information about I Thus, the record does not 
establish that.__ ________ ~ is the parent company of,_I -----------ii nor does 
the record demonstrate the existence of any relationship between the Petitioner and I I 
I I 
In regards to the ownership of the Petitioner, a 201 7 federal income tax return in the record shows that 
the Petitioner, a limited liability company, is solely owned by~-----~ We note that the 
Petitioner's tax return indicates that the Petitioner does not own directly 20% or more, or own, directly 
or indirectly, 50% or more of the total stock issued and outstanding of any foreign or domestic 
cororation. Thus, as further detailed below, the Petitioner does not appear to be the parent company 
of lnor do they have the same owners. 
Pursuant to shareholder minutes in the reFUJ....LL.>.<.LLL.r...t.1.1....__ ........ ........,.L..L.1....,_ _________ -1 as three 
shareholders,.__--------~~---~-----... and the Beneficiary. It states "that 
they represent the entire shares of the company," wit t e Beneficiary owning 9800 shares and the 
other two shareholders each owning 100 shares. The record does not contain any stock certificates, a 
corporate stock certificate ledger, a stock certificate registry, or corporate bylaws to determine the total 
number of shares issued, the exact number issued to the shareholder, and the subsequent percentage 
ownership and its effect on corporate control. In addition, a company must disclose all agreements 
9 
Matter ofN-S-V-B-I-
relating to the voting of shares, the distribution of profit, the management and direction of the 
subsidiary, and any other factor affecting control of the entity. See Matter of Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 
19 I&N Dec. 362, 365 (Comm'r 1986). Without foll disclosure of all relevant documents, we are 
unable to determine the elements of ownership and control. 
Based on the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not established that it has a qualifying relationship 
with the Beneficiary's foreign employer. For this additional reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner 
has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o/N-S-V-B-I-, ID# 5846130 (AAO Sept. 11, 2019) 
10