dismissed L-1A Case: Shipping Logistics

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-H-Y -L- L TO. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 19,2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, 
1 
a foreign entity planning to operate a shipping logistics business, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as CEO of a new office2 under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act)§ 101(a)(l5){L) , 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1 101(a)(l5)(L). The L-IA classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its 
affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to work 
temporarily in an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required , that: (1) it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiar y's prospective 
employer in the United States; (2) the Beneficiary has at least one continuous year of employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of the petition; 
(3) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a manageri al or executive capacity ; and ( 4) the 
Petitioner would support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive position within one year of an 
approval ofthe instant petition . 
On appeal , the Petitioner provides a " Business Plan Addendum, " resubmits various documents. and 
offers an affidavit from the Beneficiary's spouse, claiming to be "the owner" of the 
foreign and U.S. entities. 
Upon de novo review , we will dismiss the appeal. Because the existence of a qualif ying relationship 
between the Beneficiary 's foreign and U.S. employers and the Beneficiary 's emplo yment with a 
qualifying entity abroad are both fundamental to establishing eligibility, and the Petitioner has not 
met these requirements , we will not address the two remaining 
grounds for denial. 
1 
In the denial, the Director referenced an Articles of Incorporation, indicating that the Petitioner is "listed as 
· That observation is incorrect. The Articles of Incorporation names a new corporation that is 
entirely separate from the Petitioner, a previously existing entity in China where the Beneficiary· s foreign employment is 
claimed to have taken place. The Articles of Incorporation lists a new entity where the Beneficiary's prospective 
employment is expected to take place. 
2 
The term "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one 
year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)( l)(ii)(F). The regulation at 8 C.F.R . § 2 14.2(1)(3 )(v)(C) allows a "new office'' operation no 
more than one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
.
Matter ofS-H-Y-L- Ltd. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-IA nonimmigrant visa classification for a new office, a qualifying 
organization must have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity for one 
continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application tor admission into the 
United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). In addition , the beneficiary must seek to enter the 
United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a 
subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Act. The petitioner must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education , training. and 
employment qualifies him or her to perform the intended services in the United States . 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3). 
The petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new office will be able to support a 
managerial or executive position within one year. This evidence must establish that the petitioner 
secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation and disclose the proposed nature and 
scope of the entity, its organizational structure, its financial goals, and the size of the U.S. 
investment. See generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
II. QUALIFYING RELATIONSHIP 
The first issue to be addressed in this decision is whether the Petitioner established that it has a 
qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary ' s employer abroad . To establish a "qualifying 
relationship" under the Act and the regulations, a petitioner must show that the beneficiary' s foreign 
employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (i.e. one entity with "branch " 
offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See generally section 
101(a)(15)(L) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1). 
The Petitioner's initial claims regarding its relationship with the prospective U.S. employer were 
inconsistent. In the L Classification Supplement portion of the petition , the Petitioner referred to the 
lJ .S. employer as "our branch in ' while checking off the box tor "subsidiary" when 
asked to describe the U.S. entity 's relationship to the Petitioner and indicating that it is l 00% owner 
of the U.S. entity. In a supporting cover letter, which wrote in her capacity as the foreign 
Petitioner ' s president , she referred to herself and the Beneficiary as the Petitioner ' s owners and went 
on to state that the "Board of Directors have authorized [the Beneficiary] to be our U.S. Chief 
Executive Ofticer and set up our new company in the United States." The Petitioner also provided 
the U.S. entity's Articles oflncorporation, thus indicating that the U.S. entity is not a branch oftice. 
However, the Petitioner did not provide supporting evidence identifying its owner(s) or the owner(s) 
ofthe U.S. entity. 
In a request for evidence (RFE) the Petitioner 
was notified that the record lacked sufficient evidence 
to confirm the existence of a qualifying relationship between it and the prospective U.S. emplo yer. 
The RFE provided a long list of documents that the Petitioner could submit to cure the evidentiary 
2 
.
Matter ojS-H-Y-L- Ltd. 
deficiency. The Petitioner responded by providing its registration certificate, which identified 
as owner of the foreign entity. As evidence of the U.S. entity's ownership, the Petitioner 
offered a California Commercial Lease Agreement, which named the Beneficiary as the tenant. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that it has a qualifying relationship with 
the Beneficiary's prospective U.S. employer. The Director focused on the lack of evidence to 
support the claim that the two entities have an established parent-subsidiary relationship. The 
Director found that despite the submission of evidence showing as owner of the foreign 
Petitioner, the record does not contain evidence to show that either or the Petitioner owns 
and has made monetary contributions towards the purchase of the U.S. entity. 
On appeal, the Petitioner resubmits the U.S. entity's Articles of Incorporation and offers an affidavit 
from stating that she is the Petitioner's owner while explaining that the U.S. entity's "[t]itle 
was taken in my husband's name for simplicity purposes .... " maintained the claim that 
the Petitioner "completely owns the American company," thereby indicating that the two entities 
have a parent-subsidiary relationship in which she indirectly owns the U.S. entity. 
Regulation and case law confirm that ownership and control are the factors that must be examined in 
determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and foreign entities. See. 
e.g., Matter o_(Church Scientology lnt 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (Comm'r 1988); Matter of Siemens Med. 
Sys., Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (Corum 'r 1986); Maller of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Corum 'r 1982). 
The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0). Here, the Petitioner made ambiguous and 
inconsistent claims regarding the U.S. entity's ownership by implying on the one hand that the 
Beneficiary owns the company by virtue of having "title'' to that entity "for simplicity purposes:· 
while on the other hand maintaining the claim that the foreign and U.S. entities have a parent­
subsidiary relationship whereby the Petitioner owns the U.S. entity. The Petitioner has not provided 
independent, objective evidence to resolve this incongruity in the record and point to where the truth 
lies. Matter ofHo , 19 I&N Dec. 582,591-92 (BIA 1988). 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that it has the requisite qualifying relationship 
with the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employer and therefore the petition cannot be approved. 
III. EMPLOYMENT ABROAD 
Next, we will discuss whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary was employed abroad 
for at least one continuous year during the three-year period that 
preceded the filing of this petition. 
In the denial decision, the Director determined that the evidence submitted by the Petitioner only 
showed that the Beneficiary was on the foreign entity's payroll in January 2017, but did not establish 
that the Beneficiary was employed abroad for one year during the relevant three-year time period. 
.
Matter ojS-H-Y-L- Ltd. 
While we agree with the Director ' s adverse conclusion , we find that the Petitioner did not provide a 
certified English translation of its January 2017 payroll record and therefore the Director's 
affirmative finding was not warranted because the translated document does not meet the relevant 
regulatory requirement, which states that any document in a foreign language must be accompanied 
by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.2(b )(3 ). The translator must certify that the 
English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent to 
translate from the foreign language into English. !d. Here, the Petitioner offered a translation that 
was not properly certified ; therefore , we cannot determine whether the translated material is 
complete and accurate and supports the Petitioner's claims . 
We also acknowledge that the RFE response included a document titled "Certificate of 
Employment," which states that the Beneficiary has been employed by the foreign Petition er since 
August 2012 . This certificate appears to be a translation of a foreign document, as indicated by the 
absence of the foreign entity's seal and the replacement ofthe seal with the words ' 
' However, the Petitioner did not provide the original 
employment certificate or submit a translator's certification stating that the translation is complete 
and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
!d. Therefore, the certificate does meet the regulatory requirements and cannot be deemed as 
reliable evidence of the Beneficiary's employment abroad. 
On appeal, the Petitioner attempts to address the documentary deficiency pertammg to the 
Beneficiary's employment abroad by submitting translated payroll statements , a translated proof of 
health insurance document , and a copy of the above described "Certificate of Employment. '' 
However , these documents , like those discussed above, are not accompanied by the required 
translator's certification. Rather , the Petitioner offers a document titled ''Notarial Certificate'' 
followed by the word "Translation" in parenthesis. The latter certificate states that its purpose "is to 
certify that the foregoing English 
Translation of the Notarial Certificate ... conforms to the Notarial 
Certificate in Chinese." The translated certificate does not appear to apply to any of the documents 
that pertain to the Beneficiary ' s employment abroad , nor does it satisfy the above discussed 
regulatory requirements. See id. 
In light of the above , we find that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to support its 
claim regarding the Beneficiary 's employment abroad. We therefore cannot conclude that the 
Beneficiary was emplo yed abroad for the statutorily required time period and on the basis of this 
finding, the instant petition cannot be approved. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, we find that the Petitioner has not established that it has a 
qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employer or that the Beneficiary was 
employed abroad by a qualifying entity for the mandated time period. The appeal will be dismissed 
for these reasons. As these elements are fundamental to establishing eligibility and the Petitioner has 
not met the two threshold requirements , the two remaining issues - whether the Beneficiar y's 
4 
Matter of S-H- Y-L- Ltd 
employment abroad was in a managerial or executive capacity and whether the Beneficiary's U.S. 
employment was in a managerial or executive capacity within one year of the petition's approval­
will not be addressed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-H-Y-L- Ltd, ID# 841489 (AAO Jan. 19, 2018) 
5