dismissed L-1A Case: Sales

I1.S. Department of flnmeland Security 
20 Mass Ave. N.W. Rm A3042 
Wdsh~ngton, DC 20529 
prevent &ly vnwarra 
invasion of loeasGnd prh~w 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
F~le: WAC 03 021 52092 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 1 7 2005 
IN RE: Pet1 t~oner: 
Beneficiary: 
- 
Petition: Petit~on for a Nonimmig-ant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(] 5)(L) of the Immimation - 
and Nat~onallty Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1101(a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF 01' PETITIONEK 
Th~s IS the declslon of'the Admlnlstratlve Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that onglnally dccldcd yourcase. Any further inqulry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. W~ernann. ~l/cctor 
Q 
Adminlstrat~ve Appcals Office 
WAC 03 025 52092 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The D~rector, Cal~fornia Serv~ce Center, denied thc pet~tion for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Adrnln~strative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dtsmiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed th~s nonimrnigrant petition seeking to extend the employment of its pre'sident as an L-1A 
nonimrnigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the immigration and ~ationalh 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9: 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of'california 
locatcd I I'hc beneficiary was in~t~ally 
granted a two-year per~od ot'st'ly to open extcnded 
for an add~t~onal three years. ?'he petittoncr now seeks to extend the beneficlary's stay for two more years. 
The d~rector denied the petition concluding that the petitloner d~d not establ~sh that (I) the beneficlary has 
been and w~ll cont~nue to be employed in the United States In a pr~mar~ly manager~al or executlve capac~ty; 
(2) the petitioner was doing business as required by the regulat~ons; and (3) the pet~t~oner had the financial 
abil~ty to remunerate the benefic~ary 
The petltloner filed an appeal in response to the denial. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner contends that the 
director acted arbitrarily In dcnying the pet~t~on, and that the den~al was not logical. In support of these 
content~ons, counsel subm~ts a bnef and add~t~onal ev~dence for consideration. 
To establ~sh ellgib~l~ty for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa class~fication, the pctltioner must meet the crlterla 
outlined in scct~on 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qual~fy~ng organization must have employed the 
bcneficiary In a qual~fylng n~anager~al or exccut~ve capaclty, or in a spec~at~zed knowledge capaclty, for one 
continuous year ulrth~n three years preced~ng the beneficlary's appl~cation for admiss~on into the Ilnited 
States. In addition, the benefic~a~y must seck to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering h~s 
or her services to the same employcr or a subsldlary or affiliate thereof In a managerial, executive, or 
speclal17ed knowledge capac~ty. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.K 5 214.2(1)(3) states that an lndlv~dual petit~on filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompan~ed by: 
(1) EL idence that the petitloner and the organlzallon whlch employed or w~ll cmploy the 
alien are qual~fying organizations as defined in parab~aph (l)(l)(n)(G) of this sectlon. 
(11) Lv~dcnce that the allen w~ll be employed In an execut~ve, manager~al, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, ~nclud~ng a deta~led descr~pt~on of the scrvlces to be performed. 
(111) Evldence that the ahen has at least one continuous year of full t~me employment 
abroad w~th a qual~fying organization with~n the three years preceding the fil~ng of 
the petlt~on. 
(IV) Evidence that the allen's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executlve or ~nvolved specialized knowledge and that the allen's prior 
WAC 03 025 52092 
Page 3 
cducat~on, trammg, and employment qual~fies him/her to perform the intended 
scrvlces In the United States: however, the work In the Un~ted States nced not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.K. 9 214.2(1)(14)(11) also provldes that a visa petlt~on, which ~nvolvcd the openlng of a 
new office, may be extended by filing a new Form 1-129, accompanled by the followmg: 
(a) Evldence that the United States and forelgn ent~ties are still qualifying organ~zations 
as defined In paragraph (1)(1)(11)(G) of th~s sectlon; 
(b) Ev~dence that the Un~ted States ent~ty has been doing business as defined in 
paragraph (1)(1)(11)(11) of this sedtlon for the previous year; 
(c) A statement of the dut~cs performed by the beneficiary for the prevlous year and the 
dutles the beneficiary will perform under the extended pebtlon; 
(d) A statement describing the staffing of the new operat~on. including the number of 
employees and types of positions held accompanled by evidence of wages pald to 
employees when the beneficiary w~ll be employed In a management or executive 
capacity; and 
(e) Evldencc of the financial status of thc United States operation. 
The first issue In this mattcr is whether the benefic~ary w~ll be e~nployed by thc Un~ted States entity in a 
pr~marily managerial or executlvc capac~ty. 
Sect~on 101 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerla1 capacity" as an 
assignment wlth~n an organl7atlon In whlch the employee pr~marily. 
(I) manages the organlzatlon, or a department, subd~vision, function, or component of 
the organlzatlon; 
(11) supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees. or manages an essential function with~n thc organization, or a department 
or subd~v~s~on of the organlzatlon; 
(111) ~f another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the author~ty to 
hlre and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actlons (such as 
prornotlon and leave authorizat~on), or ~f no other employee is d~rectly supervrsed, 
funct~ons at a senlor level w~thln the organ~zational hierarchy or wlth respect to the 
functlon managed; and 
WAC 03 025 52002 
Page 4 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day to day operat~ons of the activlty or function for which the 
employee has authority. A first line supervisor is not cons~dered to be actlng in a managerral 
capacrty merely by vlrtue of the superv~sor's supervisory dutles unless the employees 
supervised are professional . 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1101(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" as an 
ass~gnment w~thln an organizatlon in which the employee primar~ly: 
(I) directs the management of the organ~zat~on or a major component or function of the 
organizatlon; 
(11) establishes the goals and polic~cs of the organlzat~on, component, or function; 
(111) exercises wlde latitude in discret~onary decls~on maklng; and 
(iv) recerves only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organlzatlon. 
In the rni;ial pet~tion, counsel submitted a letter dated October 18, 2003 from the petitloner dcta~llng the 
nature of the beneficiary's duties Specifically, the pet~tloner stated: 
Under [the beneficlary's] direction, the business volume of the U S. subsld~ary have [SIC] 
grown tremendously. In consideration of [the beneficiary's] excellent performance, our 
company had filed an appl~cat~on to extend [the beneficiary's] L-1A visa . . . . 
Under [the beneficrary's] policy, cornpany operat~on. and business strategy, the sales volun~e 
of our busmess expanded rapidly. The pass sales of our company 111 the year 2001 raised 
[SIC] to $498,543.00. The current asset of our company as of 07-30-2002 reached 
$196,277.2 1. These encouraging figures ensured us promlslng future sales revenue. In 
add~t~on, there are large on-going contract negotiations and projects to whlch [the 
beneficiary] IS personally involved and has In-depth knowledge 
On January 8, 2003, the director requested addtt~onal evidence pertaining to the nature of the beneficiary's 
posltlon. Spec~fically, the dlrector requested a description of the beneficiary's day-to-day dutles for the past 6 
months, and requested clar~ficat~on as to the nature of the petitloner's business and the beneficiary's role 
thereln. 
In a response dated March 25, 2002, the petltloner. through counsel, submitted a deta~led response to all of the 
po~nts ra~sed by the d~rector. With respect to the hencficiary's dut~es, the petitioner stated: 
WAC 03 025 52092 
Page 5 
Thc benclic~ary's responsib~lit~es Included. To develop and ma~nta~n sales progress 'To 
coord~nate sales d~str~but~on by establ~sh~ng sales terrltorles, quotas, and sales. To advise 
dealers d~str~butors, and cl~ents concerning sales and advertising techn~ques. To analyzes 
[SIC] sales statlstlcs to formulate pollcy and to ass~st dealers In promot~ng sales. To review 
analyses to determ~ne customer needs, volume potent~al, prlce schedules, and d~scount rates. 
To manage product s~mpllficat~on and standard~zation to ehmlnate unprofitable Items from 
sales llnes To represent company at trade assoc~ation meetlngs to promote products. To 
prepare per~od~c sales reports showing salcs volunics and potentla1 sales To recommend 
budgets and expenditures 
The pet~t~oner further stated that the beneficlary acted as the sales manager for the U.S. ent~ty, and 
adv~sed that In the capaclty of sales manager, h~s dut~es could be described as follows. 
The beneficlary usually spends the mornlng hours In the office In managing the sales 
personnel and matters. He allots tlme to process paper works such as reviewing and 
responding to correspondence; reports; contracts; and approving budget and sales proposals. 
He also recelves and retunis telephone calls from customers and bus~ness associates. 
Approximalcly once In a week, or when such need ex~sts, he holds a regular meet~ng 
dlscusslng salcs matters, and to revlew and to discuss if promot~onal methods are necessary to 
boost the company salcs volume. 
'l'he beneficlary usually spends the afternoon hours In the field, such as vis~t~ng markets to 
inspect our company products which are put on display by our vendors, or vls~ting our 
business assoc~ates dlscusslng and negotiating terms of purchasing contracts. The beneficlary 
usually sets as~de the late afternoon hours for appointments and meehngs w~th vis~tors. 
The benefic~ary has also made business tr~ps to attend food product meetings, to participate in 
trade shows and conventions, and to present progress report to our parent company. 
The petitloner further stated that thelr peak season IS durlng the hol~days, namely, the Ch~nese and 
V~etnamese trad~t~onal hol~days such as the Lunar New Year. Dunng this per~od, the petitioner stated that the 
benefic~ary IS busy "gatlier~ng prlces of competitors, checklng and comparing product qual~t~es, approving 
product prices, contirni~ng purchase orders, ncgotlat~ng and approving terms for dlscount and commlsslon, 
lnspectlng product dlsplays at vendors' markets, and partic~pating In sales promot~on act~v~t~es " 
On May 13, 2003, the d~rector denled the pet~t~on. The d~rector, who rev~ewed the record to determine 
el~gibil~ty under both manager~al and executive capacity, found that the ev~dence in the record was 
insufficient to warrant a finding that the benefic~ary had been and would contlnue to be functioning In a 
capaclty that was primar~ly manager~al or executive. Spec~fically, the d~rector found that the petitloner did 
not employ a suffic~ent staff to rel~eve the benefic~ary form perform~ng non-qual~fy~ng dut~es. Add~t~onally, 
the dlrector found that the benefic~ary was lnvolved In substant~ally all of the day-to-day dut~es of the 
busmess as opposed to merely dlrect~ng such actlons through other managers, supervisors, or profess~onal 
employees. 
WAC 03 025 52092 
Page 6 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director's conclusion were erroneous, and submits the petitioner's quarterly 
tax returns for the quarters endln h 31, 2003. Since these returns list another 
employee bes~des the petitioner he petltloner allcges that ~t dld employ a 
subordinate staff to relieve the b ual~fylng dutles, and thus lt had establ~shed 
the benefic~ary's elig~bll~ty Spcclfically, counsel states that these documents "support the fact that the 
petltlonlng corporation ma~ntained other employees performing clencal dut~es to subordlnate [SIC] the 
beneficlary." 
Upon revlew, counsel's assertions are not persuasive. When examining the execut~vc or managerlal capac~ty 
of the beneficlary, the AAO w~ll look first to the pctit~oner's descript~on of the job dutles. See 8 C.F.R. 
242()(3)(i). The petltloner's dcscnptlon of the job dut~es must clearly descrlbe the duties to be 
performed by the benefic~ary and lndlcate whether such dut~es are e~ther In an executlve or manager~al 
capacity. Id. The burden is on the pet~t~oner lo spcc~fically state whether the beneficlary IS pr~rnarlly 
employed In a manager~al or executlve capacity. 
As prev~ously stated, the inltlal descrlption of the beneficiary's dutles was ~nsuffic~ent. Consequently, the 
dlrector requested additional detalls regarding the benefic~ary's duties and an example of a typical day In the 
beneficlary's job. The pctit~oner's response further clar~fied the benefic~ary's dut~es, and explained that the 
beneficlary would devote a large portlon of his tlme dolng market rcsearch and deallng dlrectly w~th cl~ents 
and vendors. The response further lndlcated that the beneficiary would be performing customer servlce and 
admlnistratlve dutles. Although a deta~led descrlption of the beneficiary's dut~es was provided, the petlt~oner 
faded lo prov~de a breakdown In terms of the pelcentage of time he would devote to each duty. 
Whether the beneficlary IS a manager or cxecut~ve employee turns on whether the petlt~oner has sustained ~ts 
burden of provlng that her dut~es are "pnmanly" managerlal or executlve. See sectlons 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) 
of the Act. In thls case, counsel alleges that the beneficiary IS a manager by vlrtue of hls poslt~on t~tle, 
expenence, and associated dutles. Ilowcver, the stated dut~es Identified m the record do not substantlate the 
cla~ms of the pct~tioner and counsel for two reasons. Flrst, the petltloner falls to document what proportion of 
the benefic~ary's dut~es would be rnanagcrlal or executlve functions and what proportion would be 
non-managerial and non-exccutlve Although the petltioner prov~ded an updated overvlew of the 
benefic~ary's dut~es whlle In the U.S., ~t fdlled to prov~de a breakdown of the percentage of tlme spcnt on each 
of the ldcntified dutles Consequently, 11 IS ~mposstble to determ~ne, bascd on the current record, how much 
tlme the beneficiary wlll allocate to executlve or managenal dutles as opposed to the numerous non- 
quallfylng dut~es l~sted In the response The fillure to prov~de th~s requested informat~on IS important becausc 
several of the benefic~ary's daily tasks, such as representing the company at trade assoclatlon meetings, 
part~c~pat~ng In sales promotion actlvltles, checking and comparing compet~tor pnces, and recelvlng and 
retum~ng calls from customers, do not fall dlrectly under tradltlonal managerlal dut~es as defined in the 
regulations 
Addltlonally, it appears that the beneficiary 1s d~rectly respons~ble for generating the servlces of the business, 
slnce some of the other speclficd dut~es, namely, vls~tlng markets to Inspect company products and meetlng 
w~th vlsltors, are essent~al services necded to establ~sh a company's reputat~on In the industry. Furthermore, 
there IS no ev~dence In the record, other than the quarterly tax returns subm~tted on appeal, that the pet~t~oner 
WAC 03 025 52092 
Page 7 
employed any other individuals to relieve the beneficiary of these duties prior to the end of 2002. Therefore, 
absent evidence to the contrary, the beneficiary is directly responsible for generating the petitioner's business 
and potential sales and, thus, is personally ensuring that the petitioner's product and/or services penetrate the 
U.S. market. 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 b~~ernutronal, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). 
Finally, the fact that there is no evidence of a subordinate staff further supports the conclusion that the 
beneficiary has not been employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. Although a company's 
size alone, without taking into account the reasonable needs of the organization, may not be the determining 
factor in denying classification as a multinational manager or executive, it is appropriate for Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) to consider the si7e 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 Fj IOl(a)(44)(C) of.the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ I 10 l(a)(44)(C); see, e.g. 
Systronrcs Corp 1: INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). The si~e of a company may be especially 
relevant when CIS notes discrepancies in the record and fails to believe that the facts asserted are true. See id. 
As required by section 1 bl(a)(44)(~) of the Act, if staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether 
an individual is acting in a managerial or executive capacity, CIS must take into account the reasonable needs 
of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. To establish 
that the reasonable needs of the organization justify the beneficiary's job duties, the petitioner must 
specifically articulate why those needs are reasonable in light of its overall purpose and stage of development. 
In the present matter, the petitioner has not explained how the reasonable needs of the petitioning enterprise, 
which was established in 1996 and has employed the beneficiary for five years, justify the beneficiary's 
performance of non-managerial or non-executive duties, such as performing marketing duties and'customer 
service tasks. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of Calrfornla, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg. Comm. 1972). 
Furthermore, the reasonable needs of the petitioner will not supersede the requirement that the beneficiary be 
"primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity as required by the statute. See sections 
lol(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1 IOI(a)(44). The reasonable needs of the petitioner may justify 
a beneficiary who allocates 5 1 percent of his dutles to managerial or executive tasks as opposed to 90 percent, 
but those needs will not excuse a beneficiary who spends the majority of his or her time on non-qualifying 
duties. Since there is no evidence that the petitioner employed any other individual until the final quarter of 
2002, the AAO must, conclude that the majority of the beneficiary's time has been spent performing the 
essential non-managerial duties necessary to the running of the company.' The burden is on the petitioner to 
clearly establish that the beneficiary qual~fies as a manager or executive. 
1 The AAO notes that according to the quarterly tau returns for the quarters ending December 31, 2002 and 
March 31. 2003, the petitioner hired a second employee. However, the nature of this person's position, as 
well as his duties and job title, have been ommitted from the record. Consequently, the AAO cannot 
WAC 03 025 52092 
Page 8 
Counsel further alleges that CIS overlooked the petitioning entity as a whole, and failed to take Into account 
the dutles of all employees named in the record. At the time the petit~on was filed, however, the pet~tioner 
only employed one other employee in addltion to the beneficlary. Although the pet~t~oner alleges that 
numerous subcontractors work for the company, and the pet~tloner has slnce hired other employees and wlll 
contlnue to do so, these assertions are misplaced and ilnpersuaslve. The regulat~on at 8 C.F.R. $ 
214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows the intended Un~ted States operat~on one year w~thln the date of approval of the 
petltion to support an executlve or managerla1 pos~t~on. There 1s no provlslon in CIS regulatlons that allows 
for an extension of th~s one-year period. If the busmess IS not sufficiently operational after one year, the 
petitioner IS lnellg~ble by regulat~on for an extension In the Instant matter, the petitioner d~d not reach the 
polnt where ~t could employ the beneficiary in a predominantly managerial or executlve posit~on by the end of 
th~s one-year per~od 
For the reasons set forth above. the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficlary's duties are pr~marlly 
managerla1 or executlve in nature. For thls reason, the pct~tlon may not be approved. 
The second issue in this matter IS whether the pet~tioner has been doing business as requlred by the regulatlons 
for the prcvlous year. The regulat~on at 8 C F.K. $2 14 2(1)(1)(11)(H) defines the term "dolng business" as "the 
regular, systcmat~c, and continuous provlslon of goods and/or scrvlces by a qualifytng organi7atlon and does not 
include the mere presence of an agent or office of the qualifying organlzat~on in the Un~ted States and abroad." 
In this matter, the petitloner cla~ms that 11 is engaged In the ~mportatlon and d~stnbut~on of food products. The 
dlrector denled the petltlon, findlng that the pet~tloner had fa~led to satlsfy the regulatory requirements for 
dolng busmess, and spec~fically noted the absence of customs and regulatory documentations pertalnlng to the 
import buslness. 
With the lnltlal pct~tlon, ~nsuffic~etit evidence of the petitioner's business pract~ces was subm~tted. 
Consequently. rn thc request for ev~dence Issued on January 8, 2003, the dlrector requested additional 
information pertain~ng to the nature of the pet~t~oner's business. Spec~fically, the dlrector requested a 
descr~pt~on of the petitioner's business and the role of the benefic~ary thereln. In the response filed on March 
25, 2003, the pctlt~oner subm~tted a large amount of documentat~on pertalnlng to the foreign entlty, and a 
brief d~scuss~on of the 1J.S. buslness. 
determine whether th~s employee actually d~d relleve the benefic~ary from performing non-qual~fylng tasks in 
the last quarter of 2002, because no dcta~ls are prov~ded regarding th~s person's dut~er, More ~mportantly, 
however, the fact that an addit~onal enlployee was hlred at the t~me the beneficlary's vlsa was due 'to explre 
(the val~d period was January 1, 2000 through December 3 1, 2002) does not establ~sh the beneficiary's 
el~glbll~ty as a manager or executlvc, slnce he was rcqulre to run the business alone In 2000, 2001, and the 
majority of 2002. 1 he records for the first quarter of 2003 are l~kewlse unpersuaslvc, slnce The pet~t~oner 
must establ~sh el~gibll~ty at the t~me of filing the nonimmig~ant vlsa pet~tion A visa pet~t~on may not be 
approved at a future date after the petlt~oner or beneficlary becomes cl~g~ble under a new set of facts. Matter 
ofMzchelin Tzre COIF , 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg Comm 1978) 
WAC 03 025 52092 
I 
Page 9 
The dlrector denled the petition on May 13, 2003, and specifically stated that the record faded to conta~n the 
company's Form 7525-V, andlor Shipper's Export Declaration for In-Transit Goods, Form 7513 or U.S. 
Customers Forms 7501, Entry Summary, and 301, Customs Bond. On appeal, counsel submits coples of the 
petlt~oner's Form 30 1 from 2000 and copies of ~ts Forms 750 1 from November and December 2002. 
On review of the evldence subm~tted, the AAO concludes that the pet~tioner falled to demonstrate that ~t had 
been do~ng buslness during the previous year. Howcver, the AAO must first note that the drrector's denla1 dld 
not thoroughly address the grounds for denying the petition on th~s basis. When denying a petition, a director 
has an affirmative duty to explaln the specific reasons for the denial; this duty includes lnform~ng a petittoner 
why the evldence fallcd to sat~sfy ~ts burden of proof pursuant to sect~on 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. See 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(l). In thls iatter, the dlrector merely stated that the record did not contarn certain 
customs fom~s, but d~d not explain why this statement had any relevance to the decls~on. The AAO will 
endeavor to explaln why the petitloner faded to satlsfy its burden of proof In thls matter. 
The record Indicates that the beneficrary was ganted an initial two-year perlod of stay from February 2, 1997 
to December 31, 1999 to open a new office The record further lndlcates that his stay was extended for an 
addrtlonal period, from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2002. The petlt~oner claimed that ~t would 
engage rn the Importation and distrlbutlon of food products. 
The record contams the following documentatlon regardrng the business transact~ons for the pctit~oner during 
th~s perrod. For 1997, 1998. and 1099, a handful of sh~pplng documents were subm~tted. Therc IS no 
documentatlon whatsoever pertaming to the year 2000. For the year 2001, the record contalns copies of 
~nvolces from January 23, 2001 and July 5, 2001. For the year 2002, the pctltloner subm~tted a total of six 
Invoices, one from April, two fi-om June, one from July, one from August, and one from October. 
In the course of examln~ng whether a petitronrng company has been dolng busmess as an lmport and export 
finn, tt is reasonable to request that the company produce copies of documents that are required In the daily 
operation of the enterpr~se due to routlne regulatory oversight. Upon the importation of goods into the Un~ted 
States, the Customs Form 7501, Entry Summary, serves to classlfy the goods under the Harmon~zed Tarlff 
Schedules of the Unlted States and to ascerta~n customs dutles and taxes. The Customs Form 301, Customs 
Bond, serves to secure the payment of Import dutles and taxes upon entry of the goods Into the United States. 
According to 19 C.F.R 4 144 12, the Customs Form 7501 shall show the value, class~ficat~on, and rate of 
duty for the Imported goods as approvcd by the port d~rector at the tlme the entry summary is filed. The 
regulation at 19 C.F R $ 144 13 states that the Customs Form 301 will be filed in the amount required by the 
port director to support the entry documentatron Although customs brokers or agents are frequently ut~l~zed 
In the Import process, thc ultimate conslb.nee should have access to these forms slnce they are liable for all 
import dutles and taxes. Any company that is dorng business through the regular, systematic, and continuous 
provision of goods through rmportation may reasonably be expected to sublnlt coples of these forms to show 
that they are do~ng business as an Import firm In th~s case, there are no copies of such forms, aslde from 
those submitted on appeal, to establish that the petitloner was regularly. systematically, and contmuously 
providing goods through ~mportatlon as it clarn~s. 
WAC 03 025 52092 . 
Page 10 
In add~t~on, ~t 1s clear that the pet~tioner also falled to regularly, systematically, and cont~nuously prov~de 
goods through distribution durlng this penod. 'I'hus, the petltloner was not doing business during the relevant 
period as required by 8 C.F.R. S 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B). The AAO acknowledges the pet~t~oner's claim that 
busmess may have been slow to start. However, the record 1s devo~d of an explanat~on as to what the 
petitioner d~d during the most recent per~od, from January 1, 2000 through December 3 1, 2002, and a total of 
8 ~nvoices during th~s period IS not enough to establish that the pet~tioner has been conducting a regular and 
continuous dlstributlon buslness durlng th~s t~me. 
The regulation at 8 C!F.R. 5 214,2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows the Intended Unlted States operation one year within the 
date of approval of the pet~tlon to establish the new office. Furthermore, at the t~me the petltloner seeks an 
extension of a new office petltlon, the regulations at 8 C.F.K. 4 214 2(1)(14)(ii)(B) requlre the pet~tioner to 
demonstrate that it has been dolng busrness for the previous year In the present matter, the ev~dence 
subm~tted at the time of filing confim~ed that the pet~t~oner had not been conducting buslness as required, and 
notably, the petltion In this matter was filed over five years after the petlt~oner commenced operations. For 
this add~tlonal reason. the petlt~on may not be approved. 
'I 
In visa pet~tion proccedlngs, the burden of provlng eligb~lity for the benefit sought renlalns entirely with the 
petltloner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the 
director's decislon w~ll be affirmed and the petition will be denled. 
ORDER: 'rhe appeal IS dism~ss~:d.