dismissed L-1A Case: Retail

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
This is the decision of the Administrative AppeaIs Office in your case. AII documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
4y---.-9 
I- Robert P. Wiemann, Director . 
Administrative Appeals Office 
n 
SRC 04 170 52144 
Page 2 
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 and general 
manager as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section ZOZ(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a Texas corporation 
that claims to be engaged in the retail sale of general goods and household items. It operates a gas station and 
convenience store. The petitioner claims that it is the subsidiary of Iocated 
in Mehsana, India. The beneficiary was initially granted a one-year period of stay in L-1A status to open a 
new office in the United States and was subsequently granted a one-year extension of stay. The petitioner now 
seeks to extend the beneficiary's stay for an additional three-year period. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish: (1) that the beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; or (2) that the U.S. entity was 
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, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director 
erroneously determined that the beneficiary will not serve in a managerial or executive capacity. Specifically, 
counsel claims that the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence was adequate, and asserts 
that the director denied the petition based on the petitioner's failure to provide evidence that was never 
requested. Counsel further contends that the director placed undue emphasis on the size of the petitioning 
company without considering its reasonable needs, and disregarded the job description provided for the 
beneficiary. With respect to the issue of whether the petitioner has been doing business for the previous year, 
counsel asserts that the director ignored the evidence submitted by the petitioner. Counsel submits a brief and 
copies of previously submitted documents in support of the appeal. 
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 appIication 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. 8 214.20)(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 (1)(1)(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. 
SRC 04 170 521 44 
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 himiher 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 primary 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 10 1 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9; 1 101 (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 personneI 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 super-sot= 
duties unless the employees supervised are professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(1) 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 makmg; and 
SRC 04 170 52144 
Page 4 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
'The Form 1-129 petition was filed on June 1, 2004. In a May 26, 2004 letter, the petitioner described the 
beneficiary's duties as follows: 
[The beneficiary] is employed at an executive-level position within the US Company and will 
continue to supervise managers who will manage the day-to-day operations of [the 
petitioner's) retail locations. [The beneficiary3 has been the key person in conducting the 
feasibility and due diligence tests for acquisition of additional locations. [The beneficiary] 
will continue to conduct additional tests for potential locations in furtherance of our goals. 
[The beneficiary] is the key US contact for the parent company and she oversees and directs 
all executive functions of the US Company. [The beneficiary] supervises managers who run 
day-to-day operations of the retail stores. [The beneficiary] establishes goals, policies and 
procedures for [the petitioner]. In sum, [the beneficiary] has the overdl responsibility of 
planning and developing the U.S. investment, executing personnel actions based upon 
recommendations made by management, placing a management team to run the operations, 
detedning where to establish retad centers, supervising all financial aspects of the company 
and developing policies and objectives fm the company. 
[The beneficiary] will have overall executive responsibility for developing, organizing, and 
establishing the purchase, sale, and retail distnbution of food, automotive, and household 
products in the U.S. domestic market. Her other duties will include: (i) identifying, recruihng, 
and building a management team and staff with background and experience in management 
and sales in the U.S. market; (ii) hiring appropriate personnel and leasing equipment and 
retail distribution facilities; (iii) negotiating and supervising the drafting of purchase 
agreements; (iv) overseeing the legal and financial due diiigence process and resolving any 
related issues; (v) negotiating purchases and conducting sales promotions; (vi) developing 
trade and consumer market strateges based on guidelines formulated by [the foreign entity]; 
and (vii) developing and implementing plans to ensure [the petitioner's] profitable operation. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that it had purchased one gas stationlconvenience store as of the date of 
filing, and listed its number of employees as "10 (projected)" on Form 1-129. The petitioner submitted its 
Texas Form C-3, Employer's Quarterly Report, for the first quarter of 2004, showing that the company 
employed four employees as of March 3 1,2004, including the beneficiary. 
On June 7,2004, the director requested additional evidence to establish that the beneficiary will be employed 
in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. In part, the director requested: (1) a definitive statement 
describing the beneficiary's U.S. posihon including all duties, the percentage of time spent on each duty, and 
the number of subordinate employees who report to the beneficiary, with a brief description of their job titles, 
duties and educational background; (2) an explanation as to who produces the products or provides the 
services of the business; and (3) an organizational chart for the United States entity. 
SRC 04 170 52144 
Page 5 
In a reply dated August 9, 2004, the petitioner repeated a portion of the job description provided in its May 
26, 2004 letter and indicated that the beneficiary wouId allocate her time as follows: 
Developing [mlarket [sltrategies based on guidelines from lfloreign [olffice 15% 
Overseeing [llegal and [flinancial issues and resolving related issues 3 0% 
DeveIoping and [Ilmplementing [pllans to ensure [plrofitable [olperating 35% 
Riring/[s]upervising [plersonnel 10% 
Negotiating and [s]upenrising [cjapital [dlecisions 10% 
The petitioner indicated that it employed a store manager and two cashiers. The petitioner's Texas Forms C-3, 
Employer's Quarterly Report, confirmed the employment of the claimed employees. One cashier received a 
monthly wage of $500, while the store manager and other cashier both received wages of $1,000 per month. 
The petitioner provided the following job description for the store manager: 
The Store Manager oversees the day-to-day operations of the retail store and gas sales. The 
Store Manager makes recommendations to President on daily management issues such as 
employee discipline, theft, purchasing and receives guidance horn President on policy and 
procedure of the Company. Store Manager handles all customer complaints, negotiates with 
vendors, fills-in for Cashiers as needed, maintains the inventory and equipment, reconciles 
sales transactions and bank accounts. Store Manager is responsible for creating a team of 
lower-level employees, cashiers and stockers by interviewing and training employees. Store 
Manager ensures compliance with applicable regulatory agency requirements and informs the 
President of any renewals of licenses or health department issues. Store Manager listens to 
customer complaints, resolves problems to restore and promote good public relations. He 
schedules and assigns tasks to employees and report to President and makes 
recommendations on the daily operations of the retail outlet and the employees. This position 
requires a Bachelor's Degree. 
The petitioner further indicated that its two cashier/clerks handle customer sales transactions, prepare 
transaction reports, stock merchandise, accept delivery of goods, perform other clerical functions and report to 
the store manager on the daily operations of the store. 
On August 26,2004, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. 
The director observed that the petitioner provided only a general statement that failed to demonstrate that the 
beneficiary will perform managerial or executive duties, noting that there was no documentary evidence 
submitted to establish that the beneficiary perfoms the claimed duties. Specifically, the director addressed the 
breakdown of job duties submitted in response to the request for evidence and noted that the petitioner did not 
clarify the legal and financial issues overseen by the beneficiary, the specific capital decisions she negotiated, 
or the specific plans she developed in order to ensure a profit. The director further found that Dven the current 
structure of the company, the beneficiary would continue to perform the day-to-day services of the 
organization. 
SRC 04 170 52144 
Page 6 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director erroneously concluded that the beneficiary would 
not be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. Counsel objects to the director's 
characterization of the beneficiary's job description as general and asserts: "It is difficult to provide 
documentary evidence on the duties performed by an Executive or Manager since [many] duties are intangible 
and require executory decision making." Counsel asserts that the director only requested a "list of duties" and 
contends that the regulations do not require the petitioner to document the long tern goals developed by the 
beneficiary. Counsel objects to the denial of the petition based on lack of documentation when such 
documentation was never requested by the director. 
Counsel Wher contends that the director erroneously concluded that the petitioner has not established that 
the beneficiary will not engage in the day to day operations of the business, noting that the petitioner must 
only establish that the beneficiary's duties are primarily managerial or execubve, not that she will not engage 
in any non-qualifying duties. Counsel states that the beneficiary has performed duties that are executive in 
nature including involvement in acquisition of retail locations, negotiating purchase agreements, working with 
lawyers and accountants to ensure proper conveyance of title, conducting feasibility studies and market 
research on retail sites, and ensuring compliance with governmental rules and regulations. Counsel asserts 
that the director ignored the job descriptions submitted by the petitioner, and observes that the director "seems 
to have looked at the size of the company and its employees" in concluding that the beneficiary will not act in 
a managerial or executive capacity. 
In addition, counsel emphasizes that the petitioner submitted evidence that it employs a manager who 
oversees the day-to-day operations of the company and questions why the petitioner would "employ a person 
at a Manager's salary who is not really doing 'Managerial' activities." Counsel further claims that the director 
is required to consider the reasonable needs of the petitioning company if considering its staffing levels, and 
contends that it is "normal industry standard for a retail grocery store to have full-time cashiers to perfonn the 
menial day-to-day operations and managers to oversee this activity." Counsel re-submits the petitioner's 
organizational chart and descriptions of the beneficiary's subordinates' duties and asserts that the number of 
employees supervised by the beneficiary is not determinative of her employment in a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
Counsel's assertions are not persuasive. Upon review of the petition and supporting evidence, the petitioner 
has not established that the beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity under the 
extended petition. 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. 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's descriptions of the beneficiary's job duties do not establish that the beneficiary would be 
employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity, other than in job title. As noted by the director, the 
initial job description was vague, indicakng that the beneficiary's responsibilities included "conducting 
feasibiIity and due diligence tests for acquisition of additional locations," "oversee[ingJ and direct[ing] all 
executive functions," "establishing goals, policies and procedures," "planning and developing the U.S. 
investment," "supervising all financial aspects of the company," "overseeing the legal and financial due 
diligence process and resolving any related issues," and "supervising the management." Reciting the 
SRC 04 170 52144 
Page 7 
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 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. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1 I08 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, the initial job description also included job 
duties which could reasonably be construed as non-qualifving tasks, such as "negotiating purchases and 
conducting sales promotions" and "developmg trade and consumer market strategies." Without further 
explanation, these appear to be routine sales and marketing tasks that do not fall under the traditional 
definitions of managerial or executive capacity. See section 101(a)(44) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44). 
Accordingly, the director requested a comprehensive description of the beneficiary's duties including a list of 
specific duties and the percentage of time spent on each duty. In response, the petitioner repeated the same 
job description submitted with the initial petition. Rather than assigning a percentage of time the beneficiary 
devotes to specific duties, the petitioner assigned percentages to broad responsibilities that were described in 
even broader terms than the initial description. For example, based on the petitioner's representations, the 
majority of the beneficiary's time will be divided between "overseeing [Ilegal and [Qinancial issues and 
resolving related issues," and "[dleveloping and [ilmplementing [pllans to ensure [plrofitable [olperating." 
The petitioner has not, however, defined what legal, financial or "related" issues confront the petitioner's 
business such that they would reasonably require the daily attention of an executive, nor has it provided any 
description of the plans developed by the beneficiary or how she implements them. Counsel's claim that it 
would be difficult to document the beneficiary's "intangible" duties is not persuasive; the regulations require 
a detailed description of the beneficiary's duties. See 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The director specifically 
requested a comprehensive description of the beneficiary's duties and was justified in finding the petitioner's 
response insufficient to establish the beneficiary's employment in a managerial or executive capacity. Going 
on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comrn. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Crafi of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
On appeal, counsel claims that the beneficiary's "primary" responsibiIity is to identify additional investments 
and conduct feasibility studies on potential investments. However, counsel does not identify what specific 
duties are entailed by this responsibility, nor does she indicate how conducting feasibility studies qualifies as 
a managerial or executive duty. Further, the record does not substantiate that locating additional investment 
opportunities is the beneficiary's primary responsibility. The record contains a one page "feasibility" study 
which addresses the petitloner's intention to operate gas stations and convenience stores in the United States, 
evidence that the petitioner purchased the gas station and store that it currently operates, and a purchase offer 
contract for a second location. Based on this limited explanation and documentary evidence it cannot be 
concluded that the beneficiary devotes a substantial amount of time to investment and expansion activities, or 
that these activities are primarily managerial or executive in nature. 
In sum, the petitioner's descriptions of the beneficiary's duties do not allow the AAO to determine the actual 
duties performed by the beneficiary, such that they can be classified as managerial or executive, nor does the 
described breakdown of the beneficiary's time seem plausible within the context of the petitioner's 
organization. 
SRC 04 170 52 144 
Page 8 
On appeal, counsel states that the director placed undue emphasis on the petitioner's small staff size in 
making her determination, noting that the statute and regulations do not impose such a requirement with 
respect to the size of the petitioning organization. Pursuant to section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 
1101(a)(44)(C), if staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a 
managerial or executive capacity, Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) must take into account the 
reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the 
organization. However, it is appropriate for CIS to consider the size of the petitioning company in conjunction 
with other relevant factors, such as a company's small personnel size, the absence of employees who would 
perform the non-managerial or non-executive operations of the company, or a "shell company" that does not 
conduct business in a regular and continuous manner. See, e.g. Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 
(D.D.C. 2001). The size of a company may be especially relevant when CIS notes discrepancies in the 
record and fails to believe that the facts asserted are true. Id. 
A review of the record with respect to the petitioner's staffing levels undermines the petitioner's claim that 
the beneficiary primarily performs managerial or executive-level dut~es associated with the company's 
investment and expansion efforts and overall management. The petitioner has established that it employs the 
beneficiary as president, a store manager, and two cashiers. Counsel emphasizes the "manager's salary" paid 
to the claimed store manager as evidence that this employee performs supervisory or managerial duties, yet 
the AAO notes that the store manager and one of the petitioner's cashiers receive the same salary of $1,000 
per month. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may undermine 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 other cashier appears to be employed only part-time, as he or she receives a monthly salary of 
only $500. When examining the managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) reviews the totality of the record, including descriptions of a beneficiary's duties 
and his or her subordinate employees, the nature of the petitioner's business, the employment and 
remuneration of employees, and any other facts contributing to a complete understanding of a beneficiary's 
actual role in a business. 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 manager position. 
In this matter the petitioner operates a gas station and convenience store, a type of retail business that is 
typically open daily and requires long operating hours. The AAO will assume that the business is open at least 
80 hours per week. The petitioner requires employees to take inventory, order merchandise and supplies, 
arrange and stock merchandise displays, clean the store, process customer purchases of groceries and 
gasoline, receive gasoline and grocery deliveries, reconcile daily cash register receipts, make bank deposits, 
and perform many other routine duties. The petitioner also submitted a copy of its Iicense as a "food 
manufacturer" which suggests that its store also offers at least some prepared foods and requires employees to 
perform duties related to this service. Even assuming that the claimed "store manager" performs the stated 
supervisory duties associated with the day-to-day operations of the petitioner's store, it is not clear who would 
perform these duties when the store manager is not on duty, if not the beneficiary. Accordingly, based on the 
evidence presented, the beneficiary must spend a significant portion of her time performing non-qualifying 
operational duties in the petitioner's store, or serving as a first-line supervisor of lower-level employees. In 
the present matter, the totality of the record does not support a conclusion that any of the beneficiary's 
SRC 04 170 52144 
Page 9 
subordinates are supervisors, managers. or professionals. Instead, the record indicates that the beneficiary's 
subordinates perform the actual day-to-day tasks of operating the gas station and convenience store. The 
petitioner has not provided evidence of an organizational structure sufficient to elevate the beneficiary to a 
supervisory position that is higher than a first-lme supervisor of non-professional employees. Pursuant to 
section 101(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act, the beneficiary's position does not qualify as primarily managerial under 
the statutory definition. 
In this case, while the AAO does not doubt that the beneficiary has authority to make executive decisions 
with respect to the management of the United States entity, the record does not support a conclusion that his 
duties are primarily managerial or executive in nature. Further, regardIess of the beneficiary's position title, 
the record is not persuasive that the beneficiary will fiinction at a senior level within an organizational 
hierarchy. Based on the record of proceeding, the beneficiary's job duties are principally composed of non- 
qualifying duties that preclude her from functioning in a primarily managerial or executive role. An 
employee who primarily performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not 
considered to be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. Matter of Church Scientology International, 
19 I&N Dec. 593,604 (Comm. 1988). 
The definitions of executive and managerial capacity have two parts. First, the petitioner must show that the 
beneficiary performs the high-level responsibilities that are specified in the definitions. Second, the petitioner 
must show that the beneficiary primarily perfoms these specified respo~lsibilities and does not spend a 
majority of his or her time on day-today functions. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 
1992 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). The test is basic to ensure that a person not only has the requisite 
authority, but that a majority of his or her duties are related to operational or policy management, not to the 
supervision of lower level employees, performance of the duties of another type of position, or other 
involvement in the operational activities of the company. 
While counsel correctly states that performing non-qualifying tasks necessary to produce a product or service 
will not automatically disqualify the beneficiary as long as those tasks are not the majority of the beneficiary's 
duties, the petitioner still has the burden of establishing that the beneficiary is "primarily" performing 
managerial or executive duties. Section 10l(a)(44) of the Act. As discussed above, the lack of specificity in 
the beneficiary's job description, considered in light of the nature of the petitioner's business and current 
staffing levels, makes it impossible for the AAO to conclude that the beneficiary devotes the majority of her 
time to operational and policy management. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be employed in 
a primarily managerial or executive capacity pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3). For this reason, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The second issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner established that it has been doing business for 
the year preceding the filing of the instant petition. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R.5 214.2fl)(l)(ii)(H) states: "Doing business 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." 
SRC 04 170 52144 
Page 10 
In support of the initial petition, the petitioner submitted: (1) a copy of the bill of sale for its gas station and 
convenience store, executed in January 2003; (2) copies of federal and state quarterly wage reports for the last 
three quarters of 2003 and the first quarter of 2004; (3) various state and local government licenses for the 
sale of gasoline, alcohol, food, tobacco and lottery tickets, including a Texas sales and use tax permit 
identifying the company's first business date as "02/15/2003"; (4) receipts for goods purchased during the 
first quarter of 2004; and, (5) copies of telephone bills for the months of March through November 2003 and 
April 2004. 
On June 7, 2004, the director instructed the petitioner to submit additional evidence to establish that the 
petitioner was doing business for the previous year. Specifically, the director requested copies of bank 
statements, payroll records, invoices, sales records, bills of sale, shipping receipts and orders for goods and 
services. The director also requested a copy of the petitioner's 2003 Internal Revenue Services (IRS) Form 
1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, and evidence that the petitioner had registered a fictitious 
business name in order to do business as ' 
- 
In response, the petitioner submitted the requested assumed name certification and an unsigned copy of its 
2003 IRS Form 1120 showing gross receipts of $259,848. 'I'he petitioner also re-submitted the above- 
referenced licenses, receipts, and copies of telephone bills, but did not provide any documentation not 
previously submitted. 
The director denied the petition, in part concluding that the petitioner had not established that it has been 
doing business for the previous year. 
On appeal, counsel references the documents submitted with the initial petition and in response to the request 
for evidence and asserts that the evidence was "obviously ignored" by the director. 
Upon review, the AAO finds insufficient evidence to establish that the petitioner has been engaged in the 
regular and continuous provision of goods andlor services for the year preceding the filing of the petition. The 
director specifically requested that the petitioner provide additional documentary evidence in the form of 
invoices, orders, receipts and other documents to establish that the petitioner had been doing business for the 
previous year. The petitioner chose to re-submit the same documentation submitted with the initial petition, 
consisting only of business licenses, recent invoices and receipts for goods purchased, and telephone bills that 
do not identify the petitioning entity. 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. $8 103.2(b)(8) and (12). The failure to submit requested evidence that 
precludes a material Iine of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(14). If the 
petitioner had been doing business for one year, it was reasonable to expect it to provide the requested 
evidence dating back to June 2003, such as invoices or receipts for gasoline and grocery items purchased, 
copies of monthly sales and use tax returns, or other evidence that would substantiate the amount of sales 
reported on the petitloner's unsigned Forrn 1 120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return. The petitioner has not 
submitted evidence on appeal to overcome the director's decision on this issue. For this additional reason, the 
appeal wiII be dismissed. 
SRC 04 170 52 144 
Page 11 
Beyond the decision of the director, the record reflects that the petitioner did not file the petition for an 
extension within the required time frame. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(14)(i) provides, in pertinent 
part, that a petition extension may be filed only if the validity of the original petition has not expired. In the 
present case, the beneficiary's authorized period of stay expired on May 30, 2004. However, the petition for 
an extension of the beneficiary's L-1A status was filed on June 1, 2004, after the expiration of the 
beneficiary's status. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.1(~)(4), an extension of stay may not be approved for an 
applicant who failed to maintain the previously accorded status or where such status expired before the 
application or petition was filed. As the extension petition was not timely filed, it is noted for the record that 
the beneficiary is ineligible for an extension of stay in the United States. 
Finally, the AAO notes that the instant petition is the petitioner's second request for an extension of the 
beneficiary's L-1A status. While CIS approved another petition that had previously been filed on behalf of the 
beneficiary, the prior approval does not preclude CIS from denying an extension of the original visa based on 
a reassessment of the petitioner's and beneficiary's qualifications. Moreover, if the previous nonimmigrant 
petition were approved based on the same unsupported assertions that are contained in the current record, the 
AAO finds that the director was justified in departing from the previous approvals by denying the present 
extension petition. The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of Church 
Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 597. It would be absurd to suggest that CIS or any agency must 
treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomeiy, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6h 
Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court 
of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant petitions on 
behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO wouId not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service 
center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), afd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 
2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligbility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.