dismissed L-1A Case: Security Alarm Sales

U.S. Department of Homeland Securih, 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W., Rm. A3042 
- .. Washington, DC 20529 ;&pJT$$<v &' 7 i-ug: ta;;-&.;,x ;$p&t&& ;G . , 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Berleficiar 
PETITION T'etitlon for J Nonirnmigran t Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the 
1mmigr:ition and Naiionality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1101(a)(15)(L) 
SELF-REPRESENT ED 
rhis is the deciaian of thr Adrninirtrafire Appeals Ofice in your case. All docunlents have been 
etumed to thc office tiiot originally dzcided you1 case. Any further inquiry must be made to that 
)ffice. 
e~obert P. Wiernans, Director 
Admtnisirative Appeals Office 
DISC(JSSL0N: Thc non~rn~nigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Cenlcr, and is now bcfore llle Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be dlsmisscd 
The petitioner. / endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a manager or 
-- 
executive pursuant to scction 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. D 1 101(a)(15)(Ia). The petitioner claims to be an affiliate of - located 
in Canada and is engnyd in thc sccurity alarm nlonitoring sales business. Tlie initial petition was 
approved ro :illow the petitioner to open a new office. It seeks to extend the petition's validity and 
the bcncficiary's stay for two years as the U.S. entity's general manager. The petitioner was 
incorporatetl in llle St:ttc of Oregon on December 7, 1998 and claims to have one employee. 
On March 12, 2003, ll~e director denied the petition because the petitioneifailed to establish that 
1 (1) a qualifying relationship existed betwecn the petitioner and foreign entity; (2) the petitioner 
hd been doing busmess; and, (3) the beneficiary had been and will be employed in a primarily 
' executive or managerial capacity. 
On appeal, {he petitionctr clai~ns that: 1) 'The company is viable, and doing business as per the 
regulation," 2) "(The beneficiary] has been working in an LIA capacity for the last two years;" 
and, 2) 'The business is of sufficient complexity to support an executive level position." The 
petitioner sr~brnits acld~tronal rvidence In support of the appeal. 
I To establish L-1 el~gibility under ~ection 101(a)(15)(L) ot the Act, the petitioner must meet 
certain criteria. Specifically, within thee years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States, a qualifying organization must have employed the beneticiary in 
a qualifying managerial or execr~tive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one 
continuous ycar. Furthermore, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States temporarily to 
continrlc: rcndcting his or her servlces to the same employer or a suhsidiary or affiliate thereof in a 
I 
managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 
In relevant part, the regulations at X C.F.R 5 214.2(1)(3) state that an individual petition filed on 
Fonn 1-129 sitall be accompanied by: 
i Evidence that the petitioner and the org;lnlzation which employed or will 
employ the alicn are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (I)(l)(ii)(G) 
of this section; 
(ii) Evidenct: that the alien will be ernployed in an executive, managerial, or 
'specializad 1.nor~:ledge capacity, including a detarled description of the services 
to be performed. 
Further, tllc regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(14)(ii) requires that a visa petition under section 
101(a)(15)(1~) of the Act which involved the opening of a new office may be extended by filing a 
I new Forrn 1-129, accnmpanied by the following: 
i 
I 
(A) Evidence that the United States and foreign entities are still qualifying 
organizations as defined In paragraph (I)( l )(ii)(G) of this section; 
(8) Evidence that the Ilnited States entity has been doing busi~iess as defined in 
paragraph (I)(l)(ii)(H) of this section for the previous year; 
(CJ A statement of the duties performed by the beneficiary for the previous ye&r 
and thc: duties the beneticiary will perform under- the extended petition; 
(D) A stdtcment describing the starfirrg of the new operation, including the 
number of crnployecs ant\ types of positions held accompanied by evidence of wages 
paid to employees whzn the beneficiary will he cmployed in a managerial or 
executive capacity; ;md 
(E) Evidence of the financial status of the United States operation. 
The first issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has established a qualifying 
I. 
relationship with th~: foreign entity as required hy 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(i). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(l)(ii) dcfincs the tenn "qualifying organization" and related 
terms as: 
I 
I (G) Qrtalrfjirll: organizatiolz means a United States or foreign firm, corporation, or 
I 
other legal entity whlch: 
(1) Meets cxactly one of the qualif)mg relationships specified in the 
definitions of a parent, brimch, alfiliate or subsidiary specified in paragraph 
\I)(I)(ii) cf this section; 
(2) Is or will be doing business (engaging in intcmational trade is not 
required) as an enlplclyer in the Uniled States and In at least one other 
country directly or thro~~gh a parent, bl-ancl). affiliatr, or subsidiary for 
the dllrarion of the i~lien's stay in the United States as an intracornpany 
lmnsferee; ~nd 
(3) Other\vise mneets thc requiremalts of section IOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Act. 
(I) i'arent means a fir~n, corporation, or other legal entity which has subsidiaries. 
(J) Brtrrlci? means an operation division or office of the same organization housed in 
a different localion. 
I 
I 
I I (K) Srlbsidiary Ineans a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parerit 
owns, directly or indirec~ly. more than half or the entity and controls the entity; 
or owns, directly or indirectly, half of the entiry and controls the entity; or owns, 
directly or indirectly, 50 percent of a 40-50 joint venture and has equal control 
and veto power ovcr the entity: or owns, directly or indirectly. less than half of 
the entity. but in fact controls he entity. 
(L) Afiliflte means 
( OLI~ uJ' tv~o subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the 
same parcnr or individual, or 
(2) One of two legal cntities owned and controlled by Lhe same group of 
individuals, each individual owning anti controlling approxin~ately the same 
share or p~ oportion of each entity. 
The regulation and case law confirrn that ownership and control are the factors that must be 
examined in Jclerniining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and 
foreign entitles lor purposes of this visa classification. iMatter of Clzurch Scierztology 
I Intcr-nalionnl, 19 7&PI Tlr-:. 593 (BIA 1988); see al,vn Mutter of Sieniens Medical Systen~s, inc., 
19 INrN kc. 302 (Hh1 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dcc 289 (Comm. 1982). In context of 
th~s visa petition, ownership refers Lo the direct or indirect legal right of possession of the assets 
of an entity with full power and aufholity to control, control means the direct or indirect legal 
right and authority to direct the establishnlent, management, and operations of an entity. Matter of 
1 Church Scientology Ir1r~r~zl7tional. 19 I&N 1)ec a1 595. 
The Form 1-1 29 pctition was subniitted on October 3 1.2002 without a cornpletcd L Classification 
Supplcmcnt or documc~ntary evidence to establish a qualifying relationship between the two 
entities. 
a On December 21, 3102, Ihe dircctor 'requested evidence to show that the petitioner and the 
foreign entity have a qualifying relationship. In particular. the director requested evidence that 
shows the colnrnon ownership and control between the foreign entity and the U.S. entity. 
In response. the petitioacr submitted ,I completed L Classification Supplement to Fonu 1-129, and 
stating that the beneficiary owns the foreign entity and that the beneficiary and his wife own the 
U.S. entity. 'rhc petitioner submirtecl a copy of the ccrtifjcate~ of incorporation for each company 
and recent bank stdtcmcnts. 
On March 12, 2003, thc director denied the petition bccause the petitioner failed to establish that 
a qualifying ~.tl:rlionshil) existed bctw~:en the petitioner and foreign entity. The director found that 
the documents submitted did not establish the ownership of the U.S. entity. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a copy of the U.S. company's minutcs of the first mceting of the 
board of directors dared January 3, 1999. which indicates that the company's shares would be 
I issued in equal shares to the beneficiary and his spousr. 
I 
On review, thcrc is insufficient evidence to establish that a qualifying relationship exists between 
the petitioncr and the foreign entity pursuant to S C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(Ci)(l). On the Form 
1-129. the petitioner clairlls that the U.S. organization is an affiliate of the foreign conrpany. The 
petitioner claimed that the benetici:uy and his wife equally own the U.S. entity and beneficiary 
owns 100 percent of the fo~cign entity. The petitioner subnutted its articles of incorporation, the 
minutes ol the first meeting, and bank statements. However, the petitioner submitted insufficient 
docurne~~ta~ion to establish the ownership and contr-01 of the U.S. business and foreign entity. 
AlthoilgI~ litc ~ninuk*; oT the first meeting states that the U.S. corporation is "authorized to issue 
and dellvcr a cerlili~ale in the amount of 750 shares each" to the beneficiary and his wife, there is 
no evidenct: that the shi~res were actually transferred and the beneficiary and his wife actually 
paid for these shares. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not suficient 
for purposrs ot Ineellng the burden of proof in these proceedings. ~Mntrer of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Conlm. 1998) (citing Matter of Ttaasure Croft oj Califol-nia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). 
Further, thew is insufficient evidence In est.~b\ish the current ownership ot the foreign entity. A 
company resolution for tfa: foreign entity confirms {hat the beneficiary received one class "A" 
conzmon sllare 15 1111. c-;rnpany's stuck on February 18, 1994, which, at the time was the only 
issucd shruc. I~oln~cver, the fore1~11 entity is a~rthori~ed to issue 140,000 common and preferred 
sharcs. Without additional documentation, such as copies of all current and canceled share 
certificates and a share transfer ledger, the AAO cannot detennine the total numbcr of shares 
issued 3s of tlic date of filing or the compaop's cul~ent ownership. Thc petitioner has not 
I 
I substantiated its claim that the benc:ficiary owns the foreign entity. 
Atter carel'ul consider3tion of the evidence, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has not 
established that n qualifying relationship exists between the United States and foreign entities. For 
this reason, the petition may not be approved. 
The :3cconc! issue in rhis proceeding is whcthe~ the petitioning organization has been doing 
business for the previous year iu rcquired by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(R). 
The regolation ilt 8 C F.R. # 214.'>(I)(l)(ii)(H) detincs "doing business" as: 
Dorng Dlisrnrs.~ means the regular, systernatic, and continuous provision of goods 
andfor scrviccs by a qualifyu~p organizat~on and does not J~C~U~C the mere prescnce 
of an agent or office of the qualifying organization in the Unitcd States and abroad. 
On the Form 1-129, the petitioner indicated that it had one employee at the time of filing and in 
2001 act~ieved gross arlr:\~sl income of $46,975.09. 
On March 12, 3003, the dircctor denied the petitloll because the petitioner failed to establish that 
it had been doing bosiness. The director found that the petitioner's two bank statements showed 
minimal buslness activity and that one of the bank statements. dated December 9,2002. indicated 
I 
that the petitlon5r had closed its account. The director also found that based upon the petitioner's 
own statements it was unclear whether it had been or will be doing business.