dismissed L-1A Case: Real Estate Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF N-C-C-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 19, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, 1 a residential real estate developer, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
executive director of its new office 2 under the L- lA nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(15)(L). The L-lA 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 a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Beneficiary: (1) had at least one continuous year of full-time 
employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of the 
petition; (2) was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity; and (3) would be employed 
in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of approval of the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the three grounds for denial, contending that it met all eligibility 
requirements. The Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by disregarding evidence that demonstrates 
the Beneficiary's continued employment for the foreign entity. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal because the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary was employed for the requisite one-year period within the three years prior to filing this 
petition. As this is a fundamental element of eligibility and the Petitioner has not satisfied this element, 
we will reserve the two remaining issues. 
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 
1 The Petitioner incorrectly identified its name as~----------~ on the Form T-129, Petition for a 
Nonimmigrant Worker. The record shows that the Petitioner is registered in the state of Florida as~-----~ 
I 1, 
2 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(l)(l)(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. 
Matter of N-C-C-, Inc. 
capacity for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
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 his or her services to the same employer 
or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. The petitioner must also 
establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or her to perform 
the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
According to the regulations, a beneficiary must have "one continuous year of full-time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of the petition." 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
The term "intracompany transferee" is defined as: 
An alien who, within three years preceding the time of his or her application for 
admission into the United States, has been employed abroad continuously for one 
year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or parent, branch, affiliate or 
subsidiary thereof: and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to 
render his or her services to a branch of the same employer or a parent, affiliate, or 
subsidiary thereof in a capacity that is managerial, executive or involves specialized 
knowledge. Periods spent in the United States in lawful status for a branch of the 
same employer or a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary thereof and brief trips to the United 
States for business or pleasure shall not be interruptive of the one year of continuous 
employment abroad but such periods shall not be counted toward fulfillment of that 
requirement. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(A). 
II. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
The issue to be discussed in this decision is whether the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary 
had at least one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within 
the three years immediately preceding the filing of the petition. Based on our review of the record and 
for the reasons discussed below, we find that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
has one year of full-time continuous employment with the foreign entity during the relevant three-year 
period. 
A. Procedural History 
The Petitioner filed the instant Form I-129 on September 21, 2018. The Petitioner stated on the 
petition form that the Beneficiary has been employed with the foreign entity J I in the 
Republic of Belarus from December 1, 2016 to present. The Beneficiary's curriculum vitae indicated 
that he has been employed with the foreign entity in the Republic of Belarus from October 2016 to 
present. Records show that the Beneficiary entered the United States in B-2 nonimmigrant status on 
February 23, 2018, and remained in that status until his departure on August 22, 2018. The Beneficiary 
2 
Matter of N-C-C-, Inc. 
resided in the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor for approximately six months before the instant 
petition was filed. 
The initial evidence included: ( 1) the Beneficiary's translated work record card that was issµ.ed....h.Y. the 
Ministry of Finance of the USSR, State Tax Inspection of1 I District of City ofl__j on 
December 1, 2016; and (2) the foreign entity's translated reference letter identifying the Beneficiary's 
monthly gross salary, income tax and pension contribution deductions, and net salary from January 
201 7 to December 2017. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director observed that the Beneficiary filed DS-160, Online 
Nonimmigrant Visa Application, with the U.S. Department of State on May 2, 2017, where he claimed 
that from the date of the application, he was employed withl I inl I 
Cyprus, in the position of business owner. The Beneficiary also indicated that from January 1, 2012, 
to December 31, 2014, he was employed withl linD Estonia, in the 
position of consultant. The Petitioner was instructed to provide an explanation and evidence 
substantiating why the Beneficiary attested under penalty of perjury to the U.S. Department of State 
on May 2, 201 7, that he was employed byl I as a business owner and made no 
mention of the Beneficiary's employment with the foreign entity. Specifically, the Petitioner was 
instructed to submit copies of the Beneficiary's pay records and corresponding bank statements, 
personnel records, or training records. 
In response, the Petitioner's attorney stated: 
[A] s seen from the provided documents, at the time of submitting DS-160 to the U.S. 
Department of State, Beneficiary indeed was and he still is an owner and director of 
I I incorporated and operated in Cyprus. Being the owners of 
the business entity ( or even several business entities for this matter) does not preclude 
Beneficiary from being foll-time employed in an executive capacity byl I 
Thus, the Beneficiary provided accurate information on his DS-160 at the time of 
filing .... 
The Petitioner's response also included: 1 declaration of the Beneficiary, explaining the facts of the 
matter; (2) declaration of trust of evidencing that the Beneficiary is an owner 
of 1,000 shares of~------~ since July 4, 2014; and (3) certificate ofl I 
~ listing the Beneficiary as one of the directors of the company. The declaration of the Beneficiary 
stated: 
[IJ,~I ~------~I being duly sworn, under the penalty of perjury, state the 
followmg .... 
I hold the position of the director of development atl.___----.-~l~, =a~B=e~l=aru~s=ia=n--=b=as=e....,d 
entity, since December 1, 2016. I also have equity interest in l.__ _______ ~I 
a business entity incorporated and operated in Cyprus .... 
3 
Matter of N-C-C-, Inc. 
The reason I did not indicate my employment at I I at that time is that I did 
not notice additional space on DS-160, if such existed, to list several rofessional 
□agements that I mi~ht have. The reason I have chosen to put 
and not I J. j s that first of all, I was associated with 
longer than withl j second, in case the consular ~h_a_d_r_e_q_u-es_t_e_d_a_n_y~ 
documentation demonstrating my association with a company, it would be easier for 
me to provide such documentation of the company which I own, rather than request 
it form the human resources department of I ~ Providing documents of 
~-------~ would also be more expeditious .... 
In the denial, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not established that the Beneficiary had 
one year of continuous full-time employment abroad in the three years preceding the filing of the 
petition. Specifically, the Director noted that it is possible for an individual to own and work at several 
companies; however, the Beneficiary's declaration does not sufficiently establish that he is and has 
been employed by the foreign entity continuously for one year on a full-time basis. The Director also 
concluded that the Beneficiary's declaration does not sufficiently overcome the discrepancies provided 
on the Form 1-129 petition and the DS-160 application submitted by the Beneficiary to the U.S. 
Department of State. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the denial and asserts that "[t]he service center made a factual 
mistake and erroneously stated that no evidence of one-year employment abroad at a qualifying 
organization was provided besides the Beneficiary's 'declaration' and a Counsel's cover letter .... " 
The Petitioner points to the foreign entity's reference letter identifying the Beneficiary's monthly gross 
salary, income tax and pension contribution deductions, and net salary from January 2017 to December 
2017. 
B. Analysis 
The statute indicates that the relevant three-year period to be used as a reference point in determining 
whether the beneficiary had one year of continuous full-time employment with a qualifying entity 
abroad is the three years "preceding the time of his application for admission into the United 
States .... " Section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) clearly requires that the petition be accompanied by evidence 
that 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. When the definition of "intracompany 
transferee" is construed together with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) and section 
101(a)(l5)(L) of the Act, the statutory phrase "preceding the time of his application for admission into 
the United States" refers to a beneficiary whose admission or admissions were "for a branch of the 
same employer or a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary thereof' or for "brief trips to the United States for 
business or pleasure." 
The Beneficiary filed DS-160 with the U.S. Department of State on May 2, 2017, where he indicated 
that from the date of the application, he was employed with I I in I I 
4 
Matter of N-C-C-, Inc. 
Cyprus, in the position of business owner. The Beneficiary made no mention of his employment with 
the foreign entity on his DS-160 application. The Beneficiary claims in a declaration that he did not 
provide the name of the foreign entity as his current employer at the time of that application because 
the form did not provide space for listing additional, concurrent employers. The Beneficiary says that 
he only provided his employment with.__ _______ ___. on the application because he was 
associated witd 
I 
I for a longer period of time than with the foreign entity and it 
would have been easier for him to provide documentation from a company he owns rather than the 
foreign entity. 
Upon review of the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner has not established by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity since 
December 1, 2016 as claimed on the Form 1-129.3 Not only is this claim in conflict with the 
employment claim that the Beneficiary made to the U.S. State Department in the DS-160 application, 
there are other documents in the record that call into question the foreign employment claim. 
Specifically, the Beneficiary's own curriculum vitae has the Beneficiary commencing employment 
with the foreign entity in October 2016, rather than December 2016. Further, an "ORDER" appointing 
the Beneficiary to the position of Deputy Director for Development and signed by the Beneficiary and 
the "Director" of the foreign entity J I states that the Beneficiary started employment on 
September 1, 2015, more than one year before the other two claimed start dates, December 1, 2016 
and October 2016. Although we acknowledge other evidence such as the Beneficiary's work card 
which indicates the Beneficiary began employment on December 1, 2016, the work card does not 
provide any other work details or corroborating information. 
The foreign entity's reference letter indicated that in 2017, the Beneficiary received a monthly salary 
of$271.56 BYN, 4 had a monthly deducted income tax of$23.12 BYN, 5 had monthly deducted pension 
contributions of $2.72 BYN, 6 and was paid $245.63 BYN7 monthly. The reference letter does not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity in 201 7 and as a result, received 
a salary as remuneration for this year. The reference letter provides information, however, it is not 
corroborated by sufficient documentary evidence. 
Further, even i±: as claimed by the Petitioner on appeal, the Beneficiary was concurrently employed 
by the foreign entity andl O l it is not clear how the Beneficiary was able to 
perform duties as a business owner of.__ _______ ~ located at 
I I Cyprus, 8 while simultaneously worki~ng_fu_l-l--t1-_m_e_fo_r_t_h_e_fi_or-e-ig-n~ 
entity atl I Belarus,! 1- 9 
3 The Petitioner does not claim other dates of employment with the foreign entity on the Form 1-129. 
4 $271.56 Belarusian Ruble (BYN) converts to $131.49 US Dollar (USD). See https://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/ 
(last visited June 18, 2019). 
5 $23.12 BYN converts to $11.20 USD. See https://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/ (last visited June 18, 2019). 
6 $2.72 BYN converts to $1.32 USD. See https://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/ (last visited June 18, 2019). 
7 $245.63 BYN converts to $118.94 USD. See https://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/ (last visited June 18, 2019). 
8 The present work, education, and training section of the Beneficiary's DS-160 application that was submitted to the U.S. 
Department of State on May 2, 2017, identifie~-----~-~ address as I I Cyprus. .__ __________ __. 
9 The foreign entity's reference letter identified its business address as .__ ____________ ..... Belarus, 
1 1 
5 
Matter of N-C-C-, Inc. 
Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's evidence may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and 
sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. It is incumbent upon the 
petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by submitting independent objective evidence, 
and attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, absent competent objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582 (BIA 1988). 
The record does not contain sufficient, objective evidence that explains or reconciles the 
inconsistencies as it relates to the Beneficiary's employment abroad with the foreign entity. 
For these reasons, we conclude that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary had one year 
of foll-time continuous employment with a qualifying entity abroad in the three years preceding the 
filing of the petition. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 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 ofN-C-C-, Inc., ID# 3730029 (AAO June 19, 2019) 
6