dismissed L-1A Case: Textile Manufacturing

Z 
- identifying 
prevent c~caxly mwmted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: EAC 07 249 53 178 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL ) 7 2008 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(lS)(L) 
ON 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. 
GC' 
\ Robert P. Wiemann, 
/b" 
dministrative Appeals Office 
EAC 07 249 53 178 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to temporarily employ the beneficiary as an L-1A 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a Louisiana corporation, states that it is engaged in 
textile and clothing manufacturing and trading. It claims to be a subsidiary of Dalian Huaxin Textile & 
Technology Development Co., Ltd, located in Dalian, China. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary 
as president of its new office in the United States for a three-year period.1 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that the beneficiary 
would be employed by the U.S. entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity within one year; or (2) 
that the petitioner had secured adequate physical premises to house the new office. 
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 beneficiary will be 
employed in a managerial position that will involve direct supervision of four department managers. With 
respect to the U.S. company's physical premises, the petitioner states that the company does not yet require 
significant warehouse space but will in fact lease large warehouses in two cities once the beneficiary arrives 
in the United States. The petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence 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 application 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. 5 214.2(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 within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
1 
Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(7)(i)(A)(3), if the beneficiary is coming to the United States 
to open or be employed in a new office, the petition may be approved for a period not to exceed one year. 
EAC 07 249 53 178 
Page 3 
(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 himlher 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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(1)(3)(~) also provides that if the petition indicates that the beneficiary is 
coming to the United States as a manager or executive to open or to 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 involves executive or managerial authority over the new 
operation; and 
(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: 
(I) 
 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. 
The first issue addressed by the director is whether, within one year, the petitioner will employ the beneficiary 
in a primarily managerial or executive capacity, as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 2 14.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
Section 10 l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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 personnel actions (such as 
promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly supervised, 
EAC 07 249 53 178 
Page 4 
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 supervisory 
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: 
(i) 
 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 making; and 
(iv) 
 receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
The one-year "new office" provision is an accommodation for newly established enterprises, provided for by 
CIS regulation, that allows for a more lenient treatment of managers or executives that are entering the United 
States to open a new office. When a new business is first established and commences operations, the 
regulations recognize that a designated manager or executive responsible for setting up operations will be 
engaged in a variety of low-level activities not normally performed by employees at the executive or 
managerial level and that often the full range of managerial responsibility cannot be performed in that first 
year. In an accommodation that is more lenient than the strict language of the statute, the "new office" 
regulations allow a newly established petitioner one year to develop to a point that it can support the 
employment of an alien in a primarily managerial or executive position. 
Accordingly, if a petitioner indicates that a beneficiary is coming to the United States to open a "new office," 
it must show that it is prepared to commence doing business immediately upon approval so that it will support 
a manager or executive within the one-year timeframe. This evidence should demonstrate a realistic 
expectation that the enterprise will succeed and rapidly expand as it moves away from the developmental 
stage to full operations, where there would be an actual need for a manager or executive who will primarily 
perform qualifying duties. See generally, 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(~). At the time of filing the petition to open a 
"new office," a petitioner must affirmatively demonstrate that it has acquired sufficient physical premises to 
house the new office and that it will support the beneficiary in a managerial or executive position within one 
year of approval. Specifically, the petitioner must describe the nature of its business, its proposed 
organizational structure and financial goals, and submit evidence to show that it has the financial ability to 
remunerate the beneficiary and commence doing business in the United States. Id. 
The petitioner filed the nonimmigrant petition on August 3 1, 2007, and indicated on Form 1-129 that it has 
three employees in the United States. In a letter dated August 16, 2007, the petitioner stated that the U.S. 
company was established in August 2007 for the purpose of handling and developing the foreign company's 
textile import and export business in the United States. The petitioner noted that the beneficiary is being 
transferred to the United States "in order to directly operate and develop all business happened [sic] between 
EAC 07 249 53 178 
Page 5 
our Company and US customers." The petitioner further stated that the beneficiary's duties would include the 
following: 
[The beneficiary] has full responsibility for the direction and coordination of activities and 
operation of the Company, responsible for planning, formulating, and implementing 
administrative and operational policies and procedures, supervise hiring or firing of 
employees. 
He will spends [sic] approximately 85% of his time exercising his discretionary authority in 
managing and directing all development activities of [the petitioner], [and] spends [sic] 
approximately 15% of his time conducting information seminars and marketing development. 
The petitioner also submitted a business plan prepared by the foreign entity in May 2007, which discusses the 
American market and the creation of the U.S. subsidiary. According to the business plan, the petitioner plans 
to operate initially in Brooklyn, New York, and in New Orleans, Louisiana. The business plan anticipates 
that 12 employees will be needed to staff the company during the 2007-2008 year. The proposed staff were 
identified by job title only and included a president, a vice president, an office manager, a sales manager, a 
driver, a secretary, a consultant, two "workers," two salesmen, and two part-time salesmen. The petitioner 
indicated that it would employee one person in its warehouse, four people in its proposed store, and four 
people in its New York offices. 
The petitioner also submitted a staffing chart for the U.S. company, which provided the following information 
regarding the company's current employees: 
[The beneficiary], President (full-time) - Full responsibility for the direction and coordination 
of activities and operation of the company, including planning, formulating and implementing 
administrative, polices [sic] and procedures. (Salary: $30,000 annually, plus $10,000 for 
travel) 
Vice President (full-time) - Assist president all management [sic] of company. 
Charge of market Analysis including negotiation, hiring sales people[,] operating for 
complete projects (Salary $28,000 annually, plus bonus; hired in August 2007) 
, Office Manager (full-time) - Assisting president and vice president in daily 
management of company, include arrange meetings, make budget, prepare documents, 
contact and answer customers. As well as hire part-time office staff. (Salary $25,000 
annually; hired in August 2007) 
Direct/Consultant (10 hours per week) - Research and provide all commercial 
and financial information required by the company as well as his professional opinions[.] 
Assisting the president in negotiation, legal documents, planning and polices [sic] decision. 
($10,00O/year plus commission; hired in September 2007). 
The director issued a request for additional evidence on September 13, 2007. The director requested the 
following additional evidence: (1) a business plan for commencing the start-up company which includes 
specific dates for each proposed action for the first year of operations; (2) evidence to show how the company 
EAC 07 249 53 178 
Page 6 
will grow to be of sufficient size to support a managerial or executive position, and showing how the 
beneficiary will be relieved from performing the non-managerial, day-to-day operations of the company 
within one year; and (3) a description of the proposed staff of the new U.S. office, including the number of 
employees, their job titles and education levels, duties to be performed, and salaries. 
In a response dated September 17, 2007, the petitioner indicated that it currently has two employees working 
in the U.S. office, and noted that the beneficiary would hire a sales manager and a warehouse manager upon 
his arrival in the United States. The petitioner provided a revised business plan in which it stated that it 
would initially operate one "wholesale center" in New Orleans, Louisiana in 2007-2008, and open a second 
wholesale center in New York between 2008 and 2009. The petitioner stated that for the 2007-2008 year, it 
would require a total of 12 staff, including four people in the wholesale center, two people in the warehouse, 
and four people in the company's New York offices. 
The petitioner also provided a revised staffing chart which indicated that the petitioner would be hiring a sales 
manager and two sales people in October 2007, as well as a "warehouse keeper" who would "manage the 
products and deliver by the orders." The petitioner stated that the consultant and sales manager would both 
possess college degrees. The petitioner referenced another three to four employees to be hired by the 
beneficiary, but did not specify their proposed job titles, job duties, or anticipated dates of hire. 
The director denied the petition on September 26, 2007, concluding that the petitioner had failed to establish 
that the beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive position within one year of the 
approval of the petition. In denying the petition, the director noted that the beneficiary would be supervising 
a staff comprised primarily of non-professional employees. The director also found that the beneficiary's 
proffered salary of $30,000 is "incongruous with that of an employee who is actually managing other bona 
fide managers of professionals." The director concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that 
the beneficiary would perform primarily qualifying duties within one year. Rather, the director concluded that 
the beneficiary would be engaged in the non-managerial, day-to-day operations of the U.S. company. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary will be employed in a high-level management position in 
the United States. The petitioner emphasizes the beneficiary's long tenure with the foreign entity in 
progressive management positions, and notes that he will perform the following duties in the United States: 
As president of [the petitioning company], he will be full[y] responsible for the operating 
daily management and full power to commend all employees[.] He will directly supervise 4 
department managers including an office manager, a Sales manager, a project manager and a 
market [alnalysis. 
Because our subsidiary is very new, we just start our business in the United States[,] the 
president of it is still waiting for his L1A visa application approved and coming to take his 
new job. After [the beneficiary] arrives, he will manage the subsidiary step by step: 
To hire a sales manager and a project manager. 
To make a decision where the department store will be set. 
To set up a managerial system in the textile business. 
To command his employees do effort for a successful goal. 
EAC 07 249 53 178 
Page 7 
In support of the appeal, the petitioner submits a letter dated October 12, 2007 from the foreign entity's 
president, who states that the beneficiary will "supervise and directed [sic] 12 employees" and hold 
authorization to "operate day-to-day management" with "full power to establish the goals and policies, hire, 
discipline or discharge employees." 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be 
employed by the United States entity in a managerial or executive capacity within one year. However, upon 
review of the director's decision, the AAO finds that the reasons given for the denial are conclusory with few 
specific references to the evidence entered into the record. The AAO also notes that the director's conclusion 
that the beneficiary's proffered salary is not commensurate with employment in a managerial or executive 
capacity is not supported by the statute and regulations, which contain no salary requirements for L-1 
beneficiaries. Accordingly, the director's comment in this regard is withdrawn. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 557(b) ("On appeal 
from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in making the initial 
decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also, Janka v. US. Dept. of Transp., 
NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority has been long recognized by the 
federal courts. See, e.g. Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). Therefore, the AAO will address 
the petitioner's evidence and eligibility herein. 
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. 5 214.2(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. Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS 
reviews the totality of the record when examining the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a 
beneficiary, including the petitioner's proposed organizational structure, the duties of the beneficiary's 
proposed subordinate employees, the petitioner's timeline for hiring additional staff, the presence of other 
employees to relieve the beneficiary from performing operational duties at the end of the first year of 
operations, the nature of the petitioner's business, and any other factors that will contribute to a complete 
understanding of a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. The petitioner's evidence should 
demonstrate a realistic expectation that the enterprise will succeed and rapidly expand as it moves away from 
the developmental stage to full operations, where there would be an actual need for a manager or executive 
who will primarily perform qualifLing duties. See generally, 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(~). 
In the instant matter, the petitioner has repeatedly described the beneficiary's proposed position in broad and 
general terms, noting that his responsibilities would include: "full responsibility for the direction and 
coordination of activities" of the U.S. company; "responsibility for planning, formulating and implementing 
administrative and operational policies and procedures"; supervising the hiring and firing of employees; and 
"exercising his discretionary authority in managing and directing all development activities" of the U.S. 
company. These duties merely paraphrase portions of the statutory definitions of managerial and executive 
capacity at section 10 1 (a)(44) of the Act. 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 provide any detail or explanation of the beneficiary's proposed activities in 
the course of his daily routine. 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), afd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
EAC 07 249 53 178 
Page 8 
Absent a detailed description of the beneficiary's proposed duties, it is impossible to determine that he will 
perform primarily managerial or executive tasks within one year. 
Further, while some duties described by the petitioner would generally fall under the definitions of managerial 
or executive capacity, the minimal supporting evidence submitted in support of the petition, and in response 
to the request for evidence, raises questions as to how long it would realistically take the U.S. company to 
develop to the point where it would require the beneficiary to perform duties that are primarily managerial or 
executive in nature. 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 prove that the beneficiary primarily performs these specified responsibilities and 
does not spend a majority of his or her time on day-to-day functions. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 
1533 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). Here, while the AAO does not doubt that the 
beneficiary would exercise decision-making authority and overall oversight over the petitioning company as 
its president, the petitioner has not met its burden to show that the beneficiary would primarily perform 
managerial or executive duties within one year. The AAO cannot accept a managerial or executive job title 
and broad, conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's responsibilities in lieu of the required detailed 
description of the beneficiary's duties. The petitioner has not adequately described the beneficiary's actual 
proposed duties, such that they could be classified as managerial or executive in nature. Nor has the petitioner 
submitted a more detailed description of the beneficiary's duties for consideration on appeal. 
Furthermore, the totality of the record must be considered in analyzing whether the proposed duties are 
plausible considering the petitioner's anticipated staffing levels and stage of development within a one-year 
period. Upon review, the supporting evidence does not provide a clear or consistent explanation of the 
petitioner's proposed hiring plan. The petitioner initially claimed that it already employs three employees, but 
later stated that it currently has a staff of only two employees, while identifying four different employees by 
name. Regardless, the petitioner has offered no evidence to document any payments to any existing 
employees. Furthermore, the petitioner's business plan and other information provided by the petitioner 
provides an unclear picture of the extent to which the U.S. company is likely to expand by the end of its first 
year of operations. 
For example, the petitioner initially identified 12 proposed positions and indicated that for the first year of 
operations, it would employ one person in its warehouse, four in its store and four in its offices in New York. 
The proposed positions included a president, vice president, office manager, sales manager, driver, secretary, 
consultant, two workers, and four full-time and part-time sales people. In response to the request for evidence, 
the petitioner submitted a revised business plan indicating that the company would be operating a single 
"wholesale center" located in New Orleans during the 2007-2008 year. The petitioner stated that four people 
would work in the wholesale center, two people would work in the warehouse and four people would work in 
the company's New York office. The petitioner provided no explanation for these changes. The petitioner also 
provided a chart identifying its proposed staff which included only five full-time and three part-time staff. The 
petitioner did not identify what positions would be filled by the other "three to four" staff to be hired, and, 
again, no evidence was provided to document the existence of the workers that the petitioner claimed to have 
already hired. Neither business plan includes specific dates for proposed activities, income projections, 
information regarding start-up costs and available funds, or other data that would assist in establishing what 
staffing levels the petitioner anticipates and whether such proposed staffing levels are feasible during the first 
year of operations. 
EAC 07 249 53 178 
Page 9 
On appeal, rather than clarifying the petitioner's business plans and hiring plans, the petitioner states for the 
first time that the beneficiary would supervise four department managers, including an office manager, a sales 
manager, a project manager and a "market analysis." The petitioner did not mention proposed positions for a 
project manager or a marketing analyst employee prior to the adjudication of the petition, nor does it offer 
position descriptions or proposed hiring dates for these newly-proposed positions on appeal. 
Overall, the record is fraught with inconsistencies with respect to the petitioner's business plans and hiring 
plans for the first year of operations. 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). 
It should be noted that the AAO's review of this issue is severely restricted by the petitioner's failure to submit 
evidence or information regarding the proposed nature of the office, the anticipated scope of the entity, and its 
financial goals, as required by 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)(3)(~)(2). As contemplated by the regulations, a 
comprehensive business plan should contain, at a minimum, a description of the business, its products andor 
services, and its objectives. See Matter of Ho, 22 I&N Dec. 206, 213 (Assoc. Comm. 1998). Although the 
precedent relates to the regulatory requirements for the alien entrepreneur immigrant visa classification, 
Matter of Ho is instructive as to the contents of an acceptable business plan: 
The plan should contain a market analysis, including the names of competing businesses and 
their relative strengths and weaknesses, a comparison of the competition's products and 
pricing structures, and a description of the target marketlprospective customers of the new 
commercial enterprise. The plan should list the required permits and licenses obtained. If 
applicable, it should describe the manufacturing or production process, the materials required, 
and the supply sources. The plan should detail any contracts executed for the supply of 
materials and/or the distribution of products. It should discuss the marketing strategy of the 
business, including pricing, advertising, and servicing. The plan should set forth the 
business's organizational structure and its personnel's experience. It should explain the 
business's staffing requirements and contain a timetable for hiring, as well as job descriptions 
for all positions. It should contain sales, cost, and income projections and detail the bases 
therefore. Most importantly, the business plan must be credible. 
Id. 
Based on the petitioner's representations, the U.S. company intends to operate a textile import business that 
will eventually include "wholesale centers," retail department stores and domestic manufacturing operations. 
At the time of filing, the petitioner had a sublease agreement for two office rooms and one conference room, 
which were to be used as offices only, and the petitioner claims to have an initial investment of $150,000 
from its parent company. No other information or evidence has been provided to establish how the petitioner 
will grow to a size where it will require the services of a qualifying managerial or executive employee within 
one year. While the petitioner has provided two different business plans, it has not adequately articulated the 
intended scope of the organization or its financial goals, nor consistently identified the specific positions to be 
filled or the timeline for hiring additional employees. It has also provided insufficient evidence of the size of 
the investment required for start-up operations, and no financial objectives or projections for the company's 
start-up operations. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes 
EAC 07 249 53 178 
Page 10 
of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 1 90 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
The AAO cannot speculate as to when the proposed employees might be hired or otherwise determine how 
many employees the company would support at the end of the first year of operations, or who would be 
performing the day-to-day, non-managerial functions of the petitioner's business. There is insufficient 
evidence to support the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary would supervise subordinate managers and 
professionals within one year. 
In summary, the vague job description provided for the beneficiary, the lack of consistency and detail 
regarding the petitioner's business plan and hiring plan for the first year of operations, considered with the 
lack of evidence of the size of the U.S. investment as discussed further below, prohibits a determination that 
the petitioner could realistically support a managerial or executive position within one year. For this reason, 
the appeal will be dismissed. 
The second and final issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established that it had secured 
sufficient physical premises to house the new office, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). 
The petitioner indicated on Form 1-129 that the beneficiary would work at 2463 E. 22nd Street, Suite 2R, in 
Brooklyn, New York. The petitioner stated in its business plan that it would operate locations in both 
Brooklyn, New York and New Orleans, Louisiana during the first year of operations. At the time of filing, the 
petitioner submitted a sub-lease agreement for "two office rooms and one conference room" located at 2700 
Fenelon Street in Chalmette, Louisiana. Although the lease is dated July 15, 2007, it has a commencement 
date of November 1, 2007. The petitioner sought to employ the beneficiary at its New York location 
beginning on October 1, 2007 and has consistently maintained that it intends to employ four people in its New 
York office. However, the record did not contain evidence that the petitioner has secured any physical 
premises in New York. 
In the request for evidence issued on September 13, 2007, the director instructed the petitioner to submit 
evidence that it has acquired premises of sufficient size to conduct international trade. The director observed 
that the petitioner had not shown that it had secured warehouse, shipping, and receiving facilities. The director 
requested original lease agreements, a statement from the petitioner's lessor identifying the square footage of 
the leased premises, and telephone numbers for the petitioner's lessors. 
In response, the petitioner submitted the following documents: 
A letter from 
 and who stated that the petitioning company 
signed a lease agreement to rent one office room with 460 square feet of space to be 
used as a warehouse. Ms. 
 stated that the lease had a one-year term commencing on 
November 1,2007. 
A lease agreement dated August 30, 2007 between 
 and the 
petitioning company. The lease is for the premises 
1R in Chalmette, Louisiana, and is for a term commencing October 1, 2007 and ending 
on September 30, 2009. According to the agreement, the leased premises include 620 
square feet of space and are to be used for the warehousing of textile products. 
EAC 07 249 53 178 
Page 11 
In denying the petition on September 26, 2007, the director determined that the petitioner had failed to 
establish that a warehouse space of 460 or 620 square feet would be sufficient to support the petitioner's 
business. 
On appeal, the petitioner acknowledges that it has rented a small warehouse for the beginning stages of its 
business. The petitioner asserts that such space is sufficient as the company does not anticipate receiving large 
shipments prior to December 2007, or until after the beneficiary's arrival in the United States. The petitioner 
states that it intends to rent "two big warehouses for the wholesale center in New Orleans, LA and Brooklyn, 
New York after [the beneficiary] arrive[s] here." 
The petitioner submits a sub-lease agreement executed between the petitioner and American Chamber of 
Commerce for Overseas Chinese, Inc. for premises located at 600 E. Judge Perez Drive in Chalmette, 
Louisiana. According to the lease agreement, the premises consist of 1,850 square feet of space and are to be 
used for the warehousing of textile products. The lease has a one-year term commencing on December 1, 
2007. The petitioner has submitted four photographs which allegedly depict the interior of the newly-leased 
premises. 
Upon review, the petitioner's assertions are not persuasive. The lease agreements and photographs submitted 
do not clearly establish that the petitioner has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office, as 
required by 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). The petitioner has not described its anticipated space requirements 
for its proposed business. Moreover, the petitioner clearly indicated on Form 1-129 that the beneficiary would 
work in Brooklyn, New York, yet the record is devoid of evidence that the petitioner has leased or purchased 
any premises in New York. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Moreover, the petitioner must establish that it has secured premises as of the date the petition was filed. 
Although the petitioner claimed at the time of filing that it already had three employees, none of the lease 
agreements submitted have a term that commenced prior to October 1, 2007. The petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. A visa petition may not be approved at a future 
date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire 
Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978). For this additional reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternative basis for the decision. 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. 5 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.