dismissed L-1A Case: Packing Supplies Distribution

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., PI.%'., Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
kh!mwng data deleted to 
Wvmt clearly unwm U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
"t ,\ 
1' 
4 
)'. " v 
s fl* t 
, r3 ,* %, .$ + 
5' 
I 
File: SRC 03 1 10 503 10 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: LRI O 
IN RE Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
IN STRUCTIONS : 
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. 
w Y' Robert P. Wiernann. Director 
b~dministrative Appeals O%ce 
SRC03 110 50310 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonirnmigrant visa. The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ its general sales manager as an L-1A 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 I lOl(a)(lS)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of Florida that 
is engaged in the distribution of packing supplies and machinery. The petitioner claims that it is a branch 
office of and . located in Venezuela. The beneficiary is seeking L-1A 
status for a period of two years to open the new office in the United States. 
The director denied the petition concluding that (1) the petitioner has not secured sufficient physical premises 
to house a new office; (2) the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's job duties for the foreign 
company are managerial or executive in nature; and (3) the petitioner has not established that the United 
States entity has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. In her decision, the director stated that the 
articles of incorporation for the foreign and U.S. companies were not included in the documentation, but 
noted these documents were referenced in the letter submitted by counsel for the petitioner. 
The petitioner subsequently fiIed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner provides a brief statement. The 
petitioner asserts that the agreement it signed with a company that provides mail service, telephone answering 
service, and fax and copy services, is "a good solution at the moment" and that the company will secure an 
office and warehouse when the L-l is approved. The petitioner also states that it believed the articles of 
incorporation for both companies had been submitted with the initial petition and submits these documents on 
appeal. 
To establish eligibility for the L-l nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. SpecificaIly, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one 
continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States. In addition, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his 
or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
The regulation at 3 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the 
alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a derailed description of the services to be performed. 
SRC 03 1 10 503 10 
Page 3 
(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 hirn/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. 
Further, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(1)(3)(v) also provides that if the petition indicates that the 
beneficiary is coming to the United States as a manager or executive to open or to be employed in new office 
in the United States, the petitioner shall submit evidence that: 
(A) Sufficient physical premises to house the new office have been secured; 
(B) The beneficiary has been employed for one continuous year in the three year period 
preceding the filing of the petition in an executive or managerial capacity and that the 
proposed employment involves executive or managerial authority over the new 
operation; and 
(C) The intended United States operation, within one year of the approval of the petition, 
will support an executive or managerial position as defined in paragraphs (l)(l)(ii)(B) 
or (C) of this section, supported by information regarding: 
(1) The proposed nature of the office describing the scope of the entity, its 
organizational structure, and its financial goals; 
(2) The size of the United States investment and the financial ability of te foreign 
entity to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business in the 
United States: and 
(3) The organizational structure of the foreign entity. 
The AAO notes that the petitioner has not disputed on appeal the director's finding that there was insufficient 
evidence to establish that the beneficiary was employed in qualifying capacity with the foreign entity for at 
least one year out of the three years preceding the filing of the petition. Accordingly, the AAO hereby affirms 
the decision of the director on this issue. 
The first issue in the present matter is whether the petitioner has secured sufficient physical premises to house 
the new office. 
SRC 03 110 50310 
Page 4 
The petitioner submitted no evidence that it had secured office space with the initial petition. Accordingly, on 
June 25, 2003, the director issued a request that the petitioner submit evidence of the leaselpurchase of 
facilities in which to conduct U.S. business. In response, the petitioner submitted an agreement with a 
company that provides such basic office services as telephone and voice mail, mailing services, copy and fax 
services. The company also rents out office space in half-hour increments. The director correctly noted that 
this agreement does not constitute evidence of sufficient physical premises to house the new office under 
8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). On appeal, the petitioner argues that the "intelligent office seems to be a good 
soIution at the moment" but states that a new lease for office and warehouse space will be submitted. The 
petitioner has submitted no additional documentation. Furthermore, the petitioner must establish eligibility at 
the time of filing the nonirnmigrant 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). Accordingly, the petitioner has not overcome the director's finding that it had not met the 
requirements for establishment of a new office under 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A), and the director's decision 
to deny the petition on these grounds is affinned. 
The final issue in this case is whether there is a qualifying relationship between the petitioner and the 
beneficiary's foreign employer. The director noted in her decision that "counsel's letter states that copies of 
the foreign company's Document of Incorporation and the U.S. company's Articles of Incorporation were 
submitted. However, this evidence could not be found in the documentation to prove that the companies are 
qualifying organizations." 
On appeal, the petitioner does not challenge the director's finding on this issue. The petitioner merely states 
that it thought the articles of incorporation were previously submitted, and attaches copies of the documents 
to its brief. However, the record reflects that these documents were in fact included with the petitioner's 
initial submission, and that the director reviewed the U.S. company's Articles of Incorporation, which are 
specifically referenced in the request for evidence issued on June 25,2003. 
As the director erred in her statement that the articles of incorporation were not submitted, and as it is not 
clear that she ever reviewed the articles of incorporation for the foreign company, the AAO will review this 
issue on appeal. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. $ 2 t4.2(t)(I)(ii)(G) define a qualifying organization as a United States or foreign 
firm, corporation, or other legal entity which: 
(1) Meets exactly on of the qualifying relationships specified in the definitions of a 
parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary specified in paragraph (I)(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 directory or though 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. 
SRC 03 110 50310 
Page 5 
In pertinent part, 8 C.F.R. $5 214,2(1)(l)(ii)(I, (J), (K) and (L) define "parent," "branch," "subsidiary," and 
"affiliate" as: 
Parent means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity which has subddiaries. 
Branch means an operation or division or office of the same organization housed in a 
different location. 
Subsidialy 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 and controls the entity; or owns. directly or indirectiy, 50 percent of a 50-50 
joint venture and has equal control and veto power over the entity; or owns, directly or 
indirectly, less than half of the entity, but in fact controls the entity. 
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 controlIing approximately the same share or proportion of each 
entity. 
In its initial submission, the petitioner stated on the Supplement to Form I- ies have a 
as "40% ownershi 
a letter dated February 24, 
employer is the petitioner's parent company and that it: 
owns 75% of the U.S. company. The petitioner's articles of incorporation indicate the same owners and 
division of ownership stated on the company's articles of 
incorporation indicate that the beneficiary and ach own 1,000 shares of the 
company's 2,000 shares of issued stock. 
On June 25, 2003, the director issued a request for evidence and noted the ownership structure for the kited 
States entity as described in the articles of incorporation. Specifically, the director requested evidence that the 
foreign company is owned by the same group of individuals, each individual owning and controlling 
approximately the same share. 
SRC 03 110 503 10 
Page 6 
In response to the director's request, counsel for the petitioner stated that the foreign company owns 40% of 
the overall o 
n 
the U.S. company, the beneficiary owns 40%, and the beneficiary's son, 
owns the remaining 20%. Counsel refers to "enclosed documentation to 
representation ut t e record contains only the articles of incorporation for the two companies. The petitioner 
did not address the issue of the foreign company's ownership, as requested by the director. 
Upon review of the record, the AAO cannot determine that there is a qualifying relationship between the U.S. 
company and the beneficiary's foreign employer. As described above, the record contains inconsistent 
assertions regarding the claimed relationship between the two companies and their ownership structure. The 
petitioner is obligated to clarify the inconsistent and conflicting testimony by independent and objective 
evidence. Marier of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92. While it appears that the foreign company and the U.S. 
company share some common ownership, the petitioner does not appear to have a majority shareholder. 
Without documentation, the AAO cannot determine who in fact controls the U.S. 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 Matter of Church Scienrology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1988); see also 
Matter ofsiemens Medical Systems, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 
(Comm. 1982). In 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 I~zrernatio~zal, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
As general evidence of the petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship, stock certificates, the corporate stock 
certificate ledger, stock certificate registry, corporate bylaws and the minutes of relevant annual shareholder 
meetings must be examined to determine the total number of shares issued, the exact number issued to each 
shareholder, and the subsequent percentage ownership and its effect on corporate control. Additionatly, a 
petitioning company must disclose all agreements relating to the voting of shares, the distribution of profit, 
the management and direction of the companies, and any other factor affecting actual control of the entities. 
See Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., supm. Without full disclosure of all relevant documents, CIS is 
unable to determine the elements of ownership and control. 
In the request for evidence, the director requested that the petitioner submit evidence of the ownership of the 
foreign company. This evidence is critical, as it would have established whether a qualifying relationship 
exists between the two companies. The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further information that 
clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established. 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2@)(8). The failure to 
submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petitioner. 
8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(bj(14). For this additional reason, the petition will not be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the record does not contain evidence: describing the scope of the entity, 
its organizational structure and its financial goals; showing the size of the United States investment, the 
financial ability of the foreign entity to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business in the 
United States; and depicting the organizational structure of the foreign entity. as required by 8 C.F.R. 
SRC 03 110 503 10 
Page 7 
9 214.2(1)(3)(v). As the appeal will be dismissed on the grounds discussed, these issues need not be addressed 
further. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of providing eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with 
the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.