dismissed L-1A Case: Residential Cleaning Services

U.S. Department of Homcland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN U uK# 
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. tj 1 lOl(a)(lS)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
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. 
R bert P. Wiemann, Dir tor M 
dministrative Appeals Office 
b 
www. useis.gov 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant 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 extend the employment of its President 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. 9 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of Florida that 
o erates a residential maid service. The petitioner claims that it is the subsidiary of - h , located in Southwold, United Kingdom. The beneficiary was initially granted a one-year period of 
stay to open a new office in the United States and the petitioner now seeks to extend the beneficiary's stay. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that: (1) the beneficiary will 
be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; (2) the petitioner and the 
foreign entity possess a qualifying relationship; and (3) the petitioner has been doing business for the previous 
year. 
The petitioner subsequently filed 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 asserts that it has submitted sufficient 
evidence to establish eligibility for L-1A classification. In support of this assertion, the petitioner submits a 
brief, additional evidence, and previously submitted documents. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, 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 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(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 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 himher 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 Fonn 1-129, accompanied by the following: 
(A) Evidence that the United States and foreign entities are still qualifying organizations 
as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section; 
(B) Evidence that the United States entity has been doing business as defined in 
paragraph (l)(l)(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 of the financial status of the United States operation. 
The first issue in the present matter is whether the beneficiary will be employed by the United States entity in 
a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1101(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. 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. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1 101(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the 
organization; 
(ii) establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
(iii) exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision making; and 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
In a letter submitted with the initial petition on October 28, 2003, the petitioner described the beneficiary's job 
duties as follows: 
[The beneficiary's] continued duties as president and managing director of [the petitioner] 
will consist of day to day management and directing of all managers and staff members, 
establish [sic] all company policies, organize [sic] and implement all advertising campaigns, 
coordinate [sic], direct [sic], and implement [sic] all service programs associated with [the 
petitioner's] business. He will further develop relationships with community leaders to 
encourage the use of [the petitioner's] Residential Cleaning Company. He will also 
implement staff sales programs, cost effective advertising programs, manage and direct all 
customer contracts, [and] develop a cost effective and productive program for planned growth 
of [the petitioner.] 
The petitioner stated that it employed one manager and four cleaning technicians in addition to the 
beneficiary. 
On November 1, 2003, the director requested additional evidence. In part, the director instructed the 
petitioner as follows: 
[Submit a] definitive statement describing the U.S. employment of the beneficiary, including: 
Position Title 
List all duties 
Percentage of time spent on each duty. 
- Number of subordinate managers/supervisors or other employees who report directly 
to the beneficiary. 
A brief description of their job titles and duties; give their educational background; if 
the beneficiary does not supervise other employees, specify what essential function 
within the organization he manages. 
Specific dates his employment began and ended in each position with your company. 
Indicate the qualifications required for the position. 
- Indicate the level of authority held by the beneficiary 
Indicate whether or not the beneficiary functions at a senior level within the 
corporation. 
Specify his position within the organizational hierarchy. 
Indicates who provides the product sales/service or produces the product of the 
business. 
Submit copies of [the petitioner's] . . . State, Employer's Quarterly Tax Returns for the year of 
2002 and 2003. 
Submit copies of Quarterly Wage Reports for all employees from 2002 to present. 
In a response dated January 2, 2004, in part the petitioner submitted a letter discussing the beneficiary's duties 
as follows: 
[The beneficiary] has been the Managing director of [the petitioner] . . . since March of 2003. 
His duties have been managerial in nature and in direct relation to executive control of the 
company, including: Supervising all managers, making all executive decisions, establishing 
budgets, formulating contracts. 
1) Executive Director in charge of managers and overall authority of company 
decisions. 
2) Established Budgets, Company Policies, and operational procedures of company. 
3) In charge of day to day progress of company endeavors 
4) Created and Implemented company procedures for managers to follow 
5) Interviewing, recruiting and hiring of managers and staff members 
6) Creating and initiating company promotional strategies 
US Duties 
1) Management of Directors 60% 
2) Establishment Policies & Procedures 10% 
3) Day to Day operations 20% 
Page 6 
4) Contract & Development Negotiation 10% 
In a separate document, the petitioner hrther provided that the beneficiary's duties include 
"[elnsuring that all required permits and licenses are acquired and in place for legal business 
operations" and "[elnsuring that all health and safety regulations are implemented and adhered to." 
The petitioner stated that the beneficiary will be responsible for "[ejxpanding the size and scope of 
the [petitioner's] existing markets and product lines" and "[rlepresenting the [petitioner] at trade fairs 
and exhibitions." The petitioner provided that the beneficiary will "[position] the [petitioner's] 
products in the local market" and "[research] and [implement) all future business opportunities." 
The petitioner described its staffing as follows: 
[Tlhere is 1 operations manager and 4 supervisors who report directly to the beneficiary . . . 
Operation Manager - Reviews all contracts, advises on all matters of 
s all potential problems with customers and staff members, directs staff in 
order to carry out all tasks relating to operation of business. 
- Cleaning Supervisor - in charge of geographical cleaning region. 
Quality Control Supervisor - In charge of managing and reviewing all 
by employees to insure [sic] quality service. 
Cleaning Supervisor - In charge of geographical cleaning region. 
On January 26, 2004, the director denied the petition. The director determined that the petitioner did not 
establish that the beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive 
capacity. Specifically, the director observed that, though the petitioner lists four of its employees as full-time 
supervisors, the petitioner's payroll documentation reflects that they work part-time and do not supervise any 
other employees. The director stated that the beneficiary is a first-line supervisor and does not supervise 
professionals. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial capacity. 
The petitioner submits a job description for the beneficiary that repeats previously submitted information. 
The petitioner also provides additional explanation of the beneficiary's subordinate employees. 
Upon review, the petitioner's assertions are not persuasive. When examining the executive or managerial 
capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the petitioner's description of the job duties. See 
8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(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 either in an executive or managerial 
capacity. Id. The petitioner must specifically state whether the beneficiary is primarily employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
In the instant case, in the initial petition the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary will be primarily engaged 
with executive duties. In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner stated that the 
beneficiary will be managerial with executive control over the petitioner's operations. On appeal the 
petitioner again provides that the beneficiary will be a managerial employee. To sustain an assertion that the 
beneficiary will be employed in both a managerial and executive capacity, the petitioner must establish that 
the beneficiary meets each of the four criteria set forth in the statutory definition for executive duties under 
section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, and the statutory definition for managerial duties under section 
101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. At a minimum, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary is primarily 
employed in one or the other capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
The beneficiary's job description does not establish that he will be employed in a primarily managerial or 
executive capacity. Many of the beneficiary's duties are non-qualifying administrative tasks. For example, 
the petitioner states that the beneficiary will "organize and implement all advertising campaigns." As none of 
the beneficiary's claimed subordinates are charged with the non-qualifying duties associated with advertising 
such as creating advertisements and contacting advertising sources, it is assumed that the beneficiary 
performs these tasks. The petitioner provides that the beneficiary will "manage and direct all customer 
contracts," and he will be responsible for "[elxpanding the size and scope of the [petitioner's] existing 
markets." However, as none of the beneficiary's subordinates are responsible for sales activities, these appear 
to be a non-qualifying sales functions directly performed by the beneficiary. The petitioner indicated that the 
beneficiary will represent the company at trade fairs and exhibitions, yet this is a non-qualifying sales task. 
The petitioner submitted a breakdown of the percentage of time that the beneficiary will devote to four 
categories of duties. However, the categories are broadly defined, providing little insight into the true nature 
of the tasks the beneficiary will perform in the United States. Specifics are clearly an important indication of 
whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the 
definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. 
Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). The actual duties themselves reveal the true 
nature of the employment. Id. 
The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary will spend 60 percent of his time on the "[mlanagement of 
Directors." The petitioner claims that it employs five individuals who report to the beneficiary, including an 
operations manager, a quality control supervisor, and three cleaning supervisors. However, the petitioner has 
failed to establish that any of the beneficiary's subordinates are in fact managers or supervisors, such that he 
manages "[d]irectors." 
The petitioner operates a residential maid service. Thus, it is evident that the reasonable needs of the 
petitioner require its employees to provide cleaning in customers' homes. Yet, all of the petitioner's 
employees have managerial or supervisory titles. The petitioner describes the duties of its cleaning 
supervisors as "[iln charge of geographical cleaning region." However, the petitioner's business needs reflect 
Page 8 
that these employees are actually functioning as residential maids with no supervisory responsibility. The 
petitioner's organizational chart confirms that no employees report to these individuals. The fact that the 
petitioner represents that its maids are supervisors calls into question the veracity of the job descriptions for 
the remaining employees, including the beneficiary. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, 
of course, lead to a reevaluation of 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). 
The petitioner claims that it employees a quality control supervisor who is "[iln charge of managing and 
reviewing all aspects of work performed by employees to insure [sic] quality service." Yet, the petitioner's 
organizational chart shows that no employees report to this individual. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to 
resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or 
reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). The petitioner fails to 
explain how this individual exercises supervisory authority when no employees report to her. 
The petitioner claims that it employs an operations manager with supervisory authority over the three 
cleaning supervisors and quality control supervisor. However, a close examination of the compensation paid 
to the beneficiary's five subordinates, including the alleged operations manager, reveals that they are all part- 
time employees earning $5.15 per hour plus a small commission. The fact that all of the subordinates are 
compensated at the same rate suggests that they are all performing the same or similar duties. In addition, the 
petitioner's payroll records classify all five employees as "laborer-unskilled" and identify their job titles as 
"residential cleaning." While the petitioner claims that the duties of the operations manager require "over 10 
years of experience directing and supervising staff members," it is unlikely that the petitioner would 
compensate such an experienced supervisor at the same rate as maids working under her control. Thus, the 
petitioner's documentation suggests that, rather than performing the duties of a supervisor or manager, the 
operations manager is in fact providing cleaning services as a residential maid. If CIS fails to believe that a 
fact stated in the petition is true, CIS may reject that fact. Section 204(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1154(b); see 
also Anetekhai v. LNS., 876 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir.1989); Lu-Ann Bakery Shop, Inc. v. Nelson, 705 F. 
Supp. 7, 10 (D.D.C.1988); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). The fact that the 
petitioner has misrepresented the duties of its maids further supports that the job description of the operational 
manager is not a true account of her duties. 
Further, it is noted that the petitioner initially described its four "supervisors" as "cleaning technicians" in the 
letter submitted with the initial petition. Therefore, it appears the petitioner exaggerated the employees' job 
titles and duties in response to the director's request for evidence. Yet, a petitioner may not make material 
changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to CIS requirements. See Matter of 
Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm. 1998). The evidence must substantiate that the duties of the 
beneficiary and his or her subordinates correspond to their placement in an organization's structural hierarchy; 
artificial tiers of subordinate employees and inflated job titles are not probative and will not establish that an 
organization is sufficiently complex to support an executive or managerial position. 
The evidence of record reflects that the beneficiary is actually serving as a first-line supervisor over five 
residentla1 maids. A managerial or executive employee must have authority over day-to-day operations 
beyond the level normally vested in a first-line supervisor, unless the supervised employees are professionals. 
See Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). As the petitioner's 
residential maids have not been shown to be supervisory, professional, or managerial employees, the time the 
beneficiary invests in supervising them is not deemed time acting in a managerial or executive capacity. See 
3 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The petitioner indicates that the beneficiary invests 60 percent of his time 
supervising his subordinates, thus the majority of his time is devoted to nonqualifying tasks. 
The record is not persuasive in demonstrating that the beneficiary has been or will be employed in a primarily 
managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner indicates that it plans to hire additional employees in the 
future. However, the petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. 
A 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). Furthermore, 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows the intended United States operation one year within the date of approval 
of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. There is no provision in CIS regulations that 
allows for an extension of this one-year period. If the business is not sufficiently operational after one year, 
the petitioner is ineligible by regulation for an extension. In the instant matter, the petitioner has not 
established that it has reached the point that it can employ the beneficiary in a predominantly managerial or 
executive position. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial 
or executive capacity, as required by 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)(3)(ii). For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
The second issue in the present proceeding is whether the petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to show 
that it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(A). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(1)(l)(ii) provides: 
(G) Qualifiing organization means a United States or foreign firm, corporation, or other legal 
entity which: 
(I) Meets exactly one 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 directly or through 
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. 
(H) Doing businas means 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. 
(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 and controls the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, 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. 
(L) Afiliate means 
(I) One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same 
parent or individual . . . . 
In the initial petition, the petitioner indicated that it is the subsidiary of the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
The petitioner reported that it and the foreign entity are both owned by the same individual. In the request for 
evidence, the director instructed the petitioner to submit additional documentary evidence of the current 
ownership and control of the petitioner and foreign entity, such as stock certificates, copies of corporate 
bylaws or constitutions that clearly indicate stock ownership, or copies of published annual reports that reveal 
affiliates and subsidiaries. The director further requested a copy of the petitioner's franchise agreement for its 
maid service. The petitioner provided additional evidence as requested. 
In denying the petition, the director found that the petitioner did not establish that it and the foreign entity 
possess a qualifying relationship. The director stated that the petitioner is operating its maid service under a 
franchise agreement which cedes ultimate control over its business activity to the franshisor, and thus the 
petitioner's claimed stock holder does not have full control over the entity. As such, the director determined 
that the petitioner "does not and cannot meet the definition in the regulations as a qualifying relationship." 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the franchise agreement does not limit its control over its operations, and 
that the single stockholder owns and controls the petitioner and the foreign entity. 
Upon review, the petitioner has shown that it possesses a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. The 
regulation and case law confirm that ownership and controt 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 ofchurch Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1988); see also 
Matter 0fSiernen.s 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 
Page 1 I 
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 International, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
In the instant matter. the evidence of record shows that the petitioner purchased a - 
franchise on March 17, 2003. The purchase agreement provides that the national hanchisor will provide 
training and good will for the benefit of the petitioner's residential cleaning business. However, the 
agreement does not limit the petitioner's ultimate decision-making authority and control over its operations. 
As stated above, the director found that the national franchisor holds actual control of the petitioner due to the 
franchise agreement, and that the petitioner is merely acting as an agent of the franchisor. The director's 
analysis on this issue wiIl be withdrawn. 
The petitioner has otherwise submitted sufficient evidence to establish that it has a qualifjrlng relationship 
with the foreign entity due to common ownership and control by the same individual. It is noted that, on 
Form 1-129, the petitioner indicated that it is a subsidiary of the foreign entity. Yet, the petitioner submitted 
evidence to support that a single individual owns and controls the petitioner due to owning a majority of the 
petitioner's stock. Accordingly, the petitioner is not a subsidiary of the foreign entity. Yet, as the same 
individual owns and controls the foreign entity, the petitioner and the foreign entity are affiliates due to being 
"owned and controlled by the same . . . individual." 8 C.F.R. 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(L)(I). As the petitioner has shown 
that it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity, the director's finding in this issue will be withdrawn. 
The third issue in the present proceeding is whether the petitioner has established that it has been doing 
business for the previous year, as required by 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B). 
The reguIation at 8 C.F.R. 5 2 I4.2(l)(ii)(H) defines the term "doing business" as: 
[TJhe regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods andlor 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. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of its business activity with the initial petition, including bank statements 
and invoices issued to it for the purchase of supplies and services. 
In his request for evidence, the director instructed the petitioner to "[slubmit evidence of the business 
conducted by the petitioner during the past year, such as sales contracts, invoices, bills of lading, shipping 
receipts, [and] orders." In response, the petitioner resubmitted the documents that it provided with the initial 
filing. 
In denying the petition, the director found that the petitioner failed to show that it has been doing business for 
the previous year. The director noted that the petitioner failed to submit additional evidence of its business 
activity as requested. 
Page 12 
On appeal, the petitioner now submits invoices that it issued to its customers for services rendered. The 
regulation states that the petitioner shall submit additional evidence as the director, in his or her discretion, 
may deem necessary. The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further information that clarifies 
whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. 
$5 103.2(b)(8) and (12). The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry 
shall be grounds for denylng the petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(14). 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 
(BLA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted its invoices to customers to be considered, it should have submitted 
them in response to the director's request for evidence. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO need not and 
does not consider the sufficiency of the invoices submitted on appeal. 
While the petitioner has provided evidence that it maintains employees and has purchased a franchise and 
supplies, it has failed to provide sufficient documentation that it is in fact engaged in "the regular, systematic, 
and continuous provision of goods and/or services." 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(l)(ii)(H)(Emphasis added). The 
petitioner has provided no clear documentation of the sources of its income, or direct evidence to show that it 
has been providing services to clients. Furthermore, the petitioner is expected to submit evidence that it has 
been doing business since the date of approval of the initial petition in November 2002. On appeal, the 
petitioner claims that it has been conducting business only since April 1, 2003. Thus, the petitioner failed to 
respond to the director's request for evidence, and failed to show that it has been doing business for the 
previous year. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14); 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B). For these additional reasons, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligrbility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. The director's 
decision will be withdrawn in part, and the petition will be denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.