dismissed L-1A Case: Retail

tdentifylng oab dew- 
prevealt ckarl y unwarm- 
io-11 of wrsonal 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Room 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: SRC 04 221 5 1554 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: SEp 1 4 2006 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(15)(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. 
~obert+~iemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 04 22 1 5 1554 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the nonimmigrant visa petition, and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a new office operating as a convenience store. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its 
presidentlgeneral manager and filed a petition to classify the beneficiary as an L-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 8 1 101(a)(l5)(L). The petitioner claims that it is the wholly owned subsidiary of Telas La Decorativa, 
C.A., located in Zulia State, Venezuela. 
The director denied the petition after determining that the petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad in a primarily managerial or executive capacity for one continuous year out 
of the three years preceding the filing of the petition. 
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 the evidence does 
demonstrate that the beneficiary functioned in an executive capacity in her previous employment with the 
foreign entity. The petitioner elaborates upon the beneficiary's overseas employment in a letter 
accompanying the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal. 
To establish L-1 eligibility, the petitioner must meet the criteria outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(L). Specifically, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States, 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. 
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. 8 214.2(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 withn 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. 
SRC 04 221 51554 
Page 3 
Moreover, pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(3)(~), if the petition indicates that the beneficiary 
is coming to the United States as a manager or executive to open or be employed in a 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 involved executive or managerial authority over the new operation; 
(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 the foreign 
entity to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business in the 
United States; and 
(3) 
 The organizational structure of the foreign entity. 
At issue in this proceeding is whether the beneficiary was employed abroad in a primarily managerial or 
executive capacity for one continuous year in the three years prior to the filing of the petition. 
In a letter from the petitioner dated July 24, 2004, submitted with the initial petition, the petitioner indicates 
that the beneficiary has been employed by the foreign entity since February 13, 1997 as a vice president of the 
company. In an attachment to the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker, the petitioner described 
the beneficiary's position with the foreign entity as "administrator" and stated her duties as follow: 
1. Coordination, management and supervision of the account and financial department of the 
entity. 
2. Responsible for the accounts collections, payments of providers and the timely compliance of 
them[.] 
3. Authority to supervise others employees [sic] that work in the area. 
4. Authority to set the standards for a reasonable accountant practices [sic] in the entity[.] 
5. The maximum authority in the entity. [sic] 
On August 26, 2004, the director issued a request for further evidence. The director noted that the evidence 
of record at that time did not establish that the beneficiary was employed by a qualifying organization abroad 
for one year out of the three years prior to the filing of the petition. Accordingly, the director requested: 
SRC 04 221 51554 
Page 4 
A description of the duties and educational background of the foreign entity's other 
employees 
The foreign entity's organizational chart 
An explanation of how the beneficiary was engaged primarily in managerial or executive 
duties rather than in the day to day operations of the business 
Evidence that the beneficiary was managing other managers and professionals 
The foreign entity's payroll records from August 13,200 1 to August 13,2004 
In an undated letter responding to the director's request, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary had come to 
the United States for a six-month vacation, which was extended for another six months; no dates were given 
for this vacation period. The petitioner claimed that during that time, the beneficiary sent daily instructions to 
her managers and communicated by phone and email frequently with her employer. The petitioner provided 
an organizational chart of the foreign entity showing that the beneficiary supervised four employees with the 
titles of "sales wholesale," "sales detail," and two "sellers" (who are subordinates of the "sales detail" 
employee). The petitioner also provided a chart of educational background stating only that three of the 
beneficiary's subordinates were trained in accounting and one in computer technology, without any indication 
of their level of education. The petitioner submitted a copy of the beneficiary's resume, which indicates that 
the beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity from 1997 to "the present" in the position of 
presidentlgeneral manager. The petitioner stated in the response letter that a copy of the foreign entity's 
payroll showing wages paid to the beneficiary during the requested period was included with the submission; 
however, the AAO did not find any such documentation in the record. 
On October 8, 2004, the director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner has failed to show that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad in a primarily managerial or executive capacity for one continuous year in 
the three years prior to the filing of the petition. Specifically, the director noted that the beneficiary did not 
manage other managers or professionals within the foreign entity, and that her duties and responsibilities in 
the United States will be significantly different from those with the foreign entity. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director's finding that the beneficiary's duties and responsibilities in 
the United States will be significantly different from those with the foreign entity is not relevant because the 
beneficiary does not have to render her services in the same capacity in the United States as that abroad. In a 
letter accompanying the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, the petitioner claims that the beneficiary functioned 
in an executive capacity abroad and elaborates upon the beneficiary's qualifications and job duties in her 
position with the foreign entity in support of that claim. The petitioner also contends that the beneficiary 
supervises two managers in sales who in turn have their own subordinates. 
Initially, the AAO acknowledges that the regulations allow that "the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad." 8 C.F.R. €J 214.2(1)(3)(iv). The AAO also notes that the 
information provided in response to the director's request for further evidence does indicate that one of the 
beneficiary's subordinates in the foreign entity supervises two other subordinate employees. However, 
notwithstanding the foregoing, the AAO still finds the record insufficient to show that the beneficiary has at 
least one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three 
SRC 04 22 1 5 1554 
Page 5 
years preceding the filing of the petition in a managerial or executive capacity, as required under 8 C.F.R. 
tj 214.2(1)(3). 
The petitioner has failed to show that the beneficiary was employed abroad with a qualifying organization for 
the requisite time period. While the petitioner claimed that the beneficiary has been employed by the foreign 
entity since February 2000, the petitioner has failed to provide any proof of this claim. The director requested 
the payroll records for the three year period immediately preceding the filing of the petition, but the petitioner 
did not provide the requested documentation. This evidence is critical as it would have established whether or 
not the beneficiary was indeed employed by the foreign entity during that time period as claimed. 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. fj 103.2(b)(8). The failure to submit requested evidence that 
precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(14). 
Moreover, the record is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary was employed overseas in a primarily 
executive or managerial capacity. 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. fj 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. In the initial petition, 
the petitioner described the beneficiary's job duties in general terms such as "coordination, management and 
supervision of the account and financial department," "responsible for the accounts collections, payments of 
providers and the timely compliance of them," and ascribes to her the authority to "supervise others 
employees" and "set the standards for . . . reasonable accountant practices." This description is vague and 
nonspecific and fails to demonstrate what the beneficiary does on a day-to-day basis. Reciting the 
beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the regulations 
require a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. The petitioner has failed to answer a 
critical question in this case: What does the beneficiary primarily do on a daily basis? The actual duties 
themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 
1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
The AAO further notes that the petitioner's July 24, 2004 letter and the foreign entity's organizational chart 
state that the beneficiary has been employed by the foreign entity since 2000 as vice president of sales. 
However, the beneficiary's resume states that she has been employed by the foreign entity since 1997, and 
states her title as "presidentlgeneral manager." The petitioner has not clarified or explained this discrepancy. 
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). 
In light of the foregoing, the AAO concurs with the director's conclusion that the petitioner has failed to 
establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for one continuous 
year in the three years prior to the filing of the petition, as required under 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(1)(3). 
Beyond the director's decision, the AAO finds that the record is insufficient to demonstrate that there exists a 
qualifying relationship between the foreign entity and the U.S. entity as required under 8 C.F.R. 
SRC 04 221 5 1554 
Page 6 
9 214.2(1)(3)(i). The regulations and case law confirm that ownership and control are the factors that must be 
examined in determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between the U.S. and foreign entities for 
purposes of this visa classification. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (Comm. 
1988); see also Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 
I&N Dec. 289 (Comm. 1982). 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 
International, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. On the L Supplement to Form 1-129, the petitioner claimed that the U.S. 
entity is 100% owned by the foreign entity. However, the petitioner has provided no documentation 
whatsoever in support of this claim regarding ownership in the U.S. entity. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). For this additional reason, the petition may not be 
approved. 
In addition, the petitioner has not established that it has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new 
office pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(1)(3)(vi)(A). The petitioner submitted a copy of a lease 
for premises at However, this address is not the same as 
the address provided as the petitioner's address on the Form 1-129 and elsewhere in the record. In fact, the 
only other place this address appears is as the home address on the beneficiary's resume. In addition, while 
the lease term is stated as May 5, 2004 to May 5, 2007, the document states that the lease is "made and 
effective May, 05 2005 [sic]." Moreover, the bottom of each page of the lease indicates that it is only a draft 
and not a finalized document. The petitioner has not explained or addressed these inconsistencies anywhere 
in the record. As previously noted, 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. at 591-92. The petitioner also has not described the anticipated space requirements for its 
business, nor does the lease in question specify the amount or type of space secured. In light of these 
deficiencies in the record, the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) cannot determine whether the 
petitioner has secured sufficient space to house the new office. For this additional reason, the petition may 
not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989) (noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can 
succeed on a challenge only if she shows that the AAO abused it discretion with respect to all of the AAO's 
enumerated grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. 
SRC 04 221 51554 
Page 7 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving 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. Accordingly, the 
director's decision will be affirmed and the petition will be denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.