dismissed L-1A Case: Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9687752 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 31, 2020 
The Petitioner, which intends to operate a convenience store, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as the "controller" of its new office1 under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(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 that: (1) the Petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer; 
(2) the Beneficiary's foreign employer continues to do business; (3) the Beneficiary had one continuous 
year of qualifying employment abroad during the three years preceding the filing of the petition; (4) the 
Beneficiary has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity; (5) the Petitioner has 
secured sufficient physical premises to house its new office; and (6) the new office would support a 
managerial or executive position within one year of approval of the petition. The matter is now before 
us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal. 
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 
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(I)(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. 
1 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(1)(1)(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. 
The petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new office will be able to support a 
managerial or executive position within one year. This evidence must establish that the petitioner 
secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation and disclose the proposed nature and scope 
of the entity, its organizational structure, its financial goals, and the size of the U.S. investment. See 
generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
II. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The first issue to be discussed is whether the Petitioner has established that it has a 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(1)(1)(ii) (providing 
definitions of the terms "parent," "branch," "subsidiary," and "affiliate"). 
As a preliminary matter, we note that there are inconsistencies in the record regarding the identity of 
the Beneficiary's claimed foreign employer. On the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, 
the Petitioner stated that he has been employed by~-------~ in India since January 
2016. However, the Petitioner also submitted the Beneficiary's resume, which identifies his employer 
during this same period as .___ _____ _. In response to the Director's request for evidence 
(RFE), the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "has served as the Controller of the foreign company 
I !which is also owned by the foreign business I 1-" 
However, the Petitioner did not submit supporting evidence to corroborate the claimed ownership of 
'.=======.---' and therefore has not established that company's relationship with I I I I On appeal, the Petitioner once again claims that the Beneficiary has been employed by 
I lsince 2016. The Petitioner has not resolved this inconsistency in the record 
with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 
591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Nevertheless, we will evaluate the evidence submitted to establish the claimed qualifying relationship 
between.___ ________ __. and the Petitioner. 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. See, e.g., Matter of Church Scientology 
lnt'I, 19 l&N Dec. 593 (Comm'r 1988); Matter of Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 362 (Comm'r 
1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 l&N Dec. 289 (Comm'r 1982). 
The Petitioner states that the Indian and U.S. companies have a parent-subsidiary relationship, but the 
claimed relationship, based on the facts described by the Petitioner, would fall within the definition of 
an affiliate relationship. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(L) defines "affiliate" as (1) one 
of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same parent or individual; or (2) 
one of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of individuals, each individual 
owning and controlling approximately the same share or proportion of each entity. 
Here the Petitioner indicates that both it and are owned in equal 50-50 
proportions by the same two individuals.I I and I I The Petitioner provided the 
foreign entity's partnership deed which supports the Petitioner's claim that these two individuals are 
2 
equal partners in the business. However, the Director determined that the record does not sufficiently 
document the ownership and control of the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner stated on the Form 1-129 that it was established in 2015 and submitted the following 
evidence related to its ownership and control: 
I Georgia Certificate of Incorporation for issued on June 22, ,__ _______ ~ 
2015. 
I Georgia Articles of Incorporation filed on June 22, 2015, which indicates that the 
company was incorporated by land authorized to issue 100,000 shares of 
stock. 
I A copy of ~------~s by-laws. 
I Stock Certificate No. 1 indicating that.-1 ......__ ______ __,I issued 5000 shares to 
I linl ITexasinApril2.-0_17_. _____ ~ 
I Stock Certific~ 2 indicating thaU I. issued 5000 shares to 
I I in L__J Texas in April 2017. 
I A partnership agreement dated June 3, 2017, which identifies I I as 
equal partners inl I. which is "incorporated under the laws of 
the State of Texas."2 
I A one page "Bill of Sale" indicatin that,__ ________ _., a Georgia 
c;::.:o:..:.r.c..o:::..:r-=a.:..:.ti o:::..:n...:........:..re::..c..:...re::..:s:..:::e.:...:..nt:.::e-=-d--=b::..L..,_====~u:..:...;rc::..:....:..:;hased "all of the assets & I iab i Ii ti es of 
" froml lfor the sum of ,__ ______________ ~ 
$80,000 in November 2018. 
The Petitioner also provided evidence that,__ _______ ~• was issued a federal employer 
identification number (FEIN) in 2015 (the same FEIN provided on the Form 1-129), copies of its 
Georgia Department of Revenue sales tax registration for 2016, and itsl I Georgia business 
license certificate issued in 2017. 
After reviewing the initial evidence, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), advising the 
Petitioner as follows: 
[A]ccordinq to documents posted at the State of Georgia website, ecorp.sos.gov, 
I I was administratively dissolved or had its certificate of authority 
revoked by the State of Georgia on September 7, 2018. Therefore, becausa I 
I I (Georgia) no longer exists as a legal entit , it cannot em lo the 
beneficiary in the United States. Further althou h . 's 
Partnership Agreement indicates that,__ _______ ~· is incorporated under 
the laws of the State of Texas, you have not submitted evidence that I 
I ~xists as a legal entity in Texas. ~----' 
2 The Partnership agreement indicates thatl Ii would contribute initial capital in the amount of $40,000 on June 3 
2017 and that his contribution would "made by " Similarly, the agreement states thatO 
,__ _ _.I would contribute $40,000 and his contribution would be "made by~------~" 
3 
The Director also advised the Petitioner that it did not provide evidence thatl I had 
each paid $45,000 (5000 shares with $9.00 par value) for their respective ownership interests in 
I I (Texas). The Director further advised that, in addition to lacking evidence 
of the existence of this Texas entity, the record also lacked sufficient evidence to establish its 
ownership. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner did not address the administrative dissolution of I I I ~ (Georgia) or respond to the Director's request that it submit additional evidence to 
establish the existence and ownership ofl I (Texas). The Petitioner referred 
the Director to the previously-submitted corporate by-laws and asserted that "for all intents and 
purposes, the bylaws clearly designate the Executive Partners, I I and I I 
These partners also ow[n] the foreign entity." 
Finally, noting the Director's request for evidence that its claimed owners had paid for their ownership 
interest in the company, the Petitioner stated that "[o]nly limited funds have been invested into this 
new business venture, which have been used to establish a bank account, lease a location, establish 
license and or permits, and order basic supplies." 
The Director, emphasizing that the Petitioner's response did not address the issues raised in the RFE, 
determined that the record did not establish the Petitioner's ownership and therefore did not 
demonstrate its qualifying relationship with ,__ ________ __, 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the partnership agreement for the U.S. company and the Deed 
of Partnership for,__ _______ ___,are sufficient to establish, by a preponderance of the 
evidence, that both entities are owned and controlled byOand I I 
Upon review, the Petitioner has not established that it has a qualifying relationship with I I ,__ ___ ~I As noted by the Director in the RFE, there are several unexplained discrepancies and 
deficiencies in the record with respect to the Petitioner's ownership. 
First, the Petitioner has not addressed the fact that,__ ________ _.was administratively 
dissolved by Georgia's secretary of state in 2018. In order to satisfy the definition of a "qualifying 
organization" at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(G), the Petitioner must not only establish the requisite 
relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer, but also demonstrate that it is or will be doing 
business as an employer in the United States. The fact that the Petitioner claims to be a "new office" 
does not exempt it from establishing that it was authorized to do business as of the date of filing the 
petition.3 
Regarding its ownership, the Petitioner provided evidence that,_____,,,.---,-----.-----,-,,-----,-,----' was 
incorporated in Georgia in 2015 and authorized to issue 100,000 shares of stock. However, the record 
does not contain evidence, such as stock certificates or a stock ledger, identifying the total number of 
3 The Petitioner claims that it is not yet operational, but also provides evidence that the company was establishe\i,in-2fil5, 
obtained all necessary licenses in 2016, and signed a lease for a~tation and convenience store located inl___J 
Georgia in 2016. The Petitioner also submitted photographs of al__J gas station and food mart operating at the address 
identified in the lease. Additional evidence would be needed to clarify the Petitioner's claim that the company has never 
been operational or otherwise qualifies as a "new office" as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(F). 
4 
shares issued since the company was incorporated. The Petitioner emphasizes thatDand .... l --~ 
are both identified as "executive partners" in the submitted by-laws, but this evidence alone does not 
establish the company's ownership and control. Neither the articles of incorporation nor the by-laws 
address the company's ownership. The by-laws indicate that the company would issue paper stock 
certificates and record stock issuances and transfers in a stock transfer book, but as noted, this evidence 
has not been provided. 
Although the Petitioner submitted copies of stock certificates issued tol I and .... l ___ __, 
these certificates, issued in Texas in 2017, cannot be accepted as evidence of the ownership of a 
Georgia corporation established in 2015. Rather, these certificates were ostensibly issued by a Texas 
corporation with the same name. The Petitioner submitted a partnership agreement for this Texas 
corporation, rather than articles of incorporation filed with and accepted by the Texas Secretary of 
State. While the partnership agreement and stock certificates indicate 50-50 ownership byl I 
andl I, the Petitioner did not establish that the Texas company is recognized as a legal entity 
in Texas, that it would serve as the Beneficiary's employer, or that it is authorized to do business in 
Georgia, where the Petitioner claims it will operate. 
~the Petitioner has not consistently identified which foreign entity I I orl I 
L___J has served as the Beneficiary's employer abroad, and it has documented the ownership of 
only one of these entities. The Petitioner describes an affiliate relationship with I I 
I ~ but has not adequately documented who owns and controls the U.S. entity, nor has it 
addressed adverse information indicating that the U.S. company has been administratively dissolved 
in Georgia and likely must take additional action before it can be authorized as a U.S. employer in the 
United States. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that it has a qualifying relationship 
with the Beneficiary's foreign employer and the appeal will be dismissed. 
Ill. DOING BUSINESS ABROAD 
The Director also denied the petition, in part, because the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary's claimed foreign employer.I I was doing business as defined in 
the regulations at the time the petition was filed. As noted, in order to satisfy the definition of a 
qualifying organization, the Petitioner must show that it is or will be doing business in the United 
States and in at least one other country for the duration of the Beneficiary's stay in the United States. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(1)(ii)(G). 
At the time of filing in January 2019, the Petitioner submitted copies of~--------~ 
tax returns, bank statements, billing invoices and what appeared to be screenshots from the company's 
website; however, the most recent evidence provided was dated April 2017. In the RFE, the Director 
instructed the Petitioner to submit more recent evidence of the foreign entity's business activities. The 
Petitioner did not directly address this request in the cover letter accompanying its RFE response but 
did note that it has "provided copies of the Indian Income taxes for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19." 
Tax returns for these years were neither provided at the time of filing nor attached to the RFE response. 
Accordingly, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not met its burden to establish that the 
foreign entity is doing business as a qualifying organization abroad. 
5 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it submitted foreign tax returns for the tax years 2014-15 and 
2016-17 which serve "as evidence of the company's systematic and continuous provision of services" 
and demonstrate that the company has been doing business as defined at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(1)(ii)(H). 
However, the evidence referenced by the Petitioner does not establish that the foreign entity was doing 
business when the petition was filed in January 2019 and continues to do business. The Petitioner 
must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the 
time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed for this additional reason. 
IV. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
The third issue addressed by the Director is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary has 
at least one continuous year of full-time employment with a qualifying organization abroad within the 
three years preceding the filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(3)(ii). 
As noted, the Petitioner stated on the Form 1-129 that the Beneficiary has been employed byD 
I I since January 2016. In support of this claim, the Petitioner submitted a letter 
froml I who confirmed the Beneficiary's employment with his company since 2016, 
and a corporate organizational chart from 2018 which identifies him as I l's 
controller. However, the Petitioner also provided the Beneficiary's resume, in which he states that he 
has been employed b~ I since January 2016. 
In the RFE, the Director observed this apparent discrepancy and requested an explanation and 
additional evidence, such as personnel or payroll records, to establish that the Beneficiary was 
employed byl I for at least one continuous year in the three years preceding 
the filing of the petition. In res~onse the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary "has served as the 
Controller of the foreign company~----~which is also owned by the foreign business" and 
re-submitted his resume. The Petitioner did not provide the requested payroll or personnel records to 
document the Beneficiary's full year of employment with either company, nor did it provide evidence 
of~----~ ownership in support of its claim that this entity is a qualifying organization. 
Accordingly, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet its burden to demonstrate that 
the Beneficiary had been employed by a qualifying foreign entity for at least one year during the 
relevant three-year period. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that it previously provided an "employment verification letter" 
froml I which demonstrates the Beneficiary's employment with that company. The 
Petitioner does not mention I I 
The "preponderance of the evidence" standard requires that the evidence demonstrate that the claim is 
"probably true," where the determination of "truth" is made based on the factual circumstances of each 
individual case. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (quoting Matter of E-M-, 
20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989)). The truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence 
alone but by its quality. Thus, in adjudicating the petition pursuant to the preponderance of the 
evidence standard, a director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and 
credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine 
whether the fact to be proven is probably true. Id. Here, the Director noted inconsistencies in the 
6 
evidence submitted to document the Beneficiary's foreign employment, which diminished the 
probative value of the statement fro ml I 
Consistent with determining whether a petitioner has established a beneficiary's eligibility by a 
preponderance of the evidence, a director may request additional evidence. The regulation states that 
a petitioner shall submit additional evidence as the director, in his or her discretion, may deem 
necessary. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). Further, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(3)(viii) provides 
that a petition shall be accompanied by "such other evidence as the director, in his or her discretion, 
may deem necessary." 
Here, in light of the noted ambiguity in the record regarding the identity of the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer, the Petitioners unsupported statements were insufficient to carry its burden of proof, and 
the Director's request for payroll or personnel records to document his foreign employment was an 
appropriate exercise of discretion. 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)(14). 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has at least one year 
of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the 
filing of the petition. For this additional reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
V.RESERVEDISSUES 
As the identified bases for denial are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding the Beneficiary's employment abroad 
in a managerial or executive capacity, the Petitioner's physical premises, and the Petitioner's ability 
to support a managerial or executive position within one year of approval of the petition. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues 
the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N 
Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). 
VI. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer, that the foreign employer is and will be doing 
business, and that the Beneficiary has at least one year of employment with a qualifying organization 
abroad in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7