dismissed L-1A Case: Transportation And Logistics

u.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
identifying data deleted to 
p~v~nt clearly unwarranted u.S. Citizenship 
invasion of pzrsonal privacy 
 and Immigration 
Services 
File: WAC 07 222 53595 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: IFW!! 0 5 2009 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(15)(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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 4 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
J&.~u]: Grissom, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 0.7 222 53595 
Page 2 
, 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California 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 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, an Illinois corporation, st 
and transportation services provider. It claims to be a subsidiary of 
Ontario, Canada. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as the general manager of its new office in 
the United States for a period of five years.1 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to submit evidence that it had secured 
sufficient 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 it did in fact submit a copy 
of its lease agreement in response to the director's request for evidence. The petitioner submits a short 
statement and a copy of the referenced lease agreement 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. 
(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 
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. 
WAC 07 222 53595 
Page 3 
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. fj 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 sole issued addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established that it secured sufficient 
physical premises to house the new office, as required by 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). 
The nonimmigrant visa petition was filed on July 20, 2007. The petitioner indicated on the Form 1-129, 
Petition for a ~onimmi~iant Worker, that the beneficiary would work at the following address: - 
Lincolnshire, Illinois. The petitioner submitted evidence that the U.S. company was 
incorporated in the State of Illinois, and indicated in its letter dated July 8, 2007 that the business is located at 
the Lincolnshire, Illinois address. The petitioner stated its intent to operate a transportation and logistics 
business, much like its parent company, which provides commercial trucking services. The petitioner did not, 
however, submit a lease agreement or other evidence that it had secured sufficient physical premises to house 
the new office at the claimed location in Lincolnshire, Illinois. 
Accordingly, on September 19, 2007, the director issued a request for evidence (WE) in which he requested, 
inter alia, that the petitioner submit a copy of its lease agreement, a copy of the U.S. company's floor plan 
identifying the square footage of the premises, and original color photographs of the U.S. business premises, 
showing the interior and exterior of all areas being used by the company. The director specified that the 
photographs should depict the petitioner's equipment, merchandise and products, and include any logos, 
emblems or signs displayed on and in buildings and on products. 
WAC 07 222 53595 
Page 4 
The petitioner responded to the RFE in a letter dated December 7,2007. The petitioner stated the following: 
Since we are waiting for approval from your office to run the business in USA under 
beneficiary's administration as manager we have not yet established the office in USA. 
Hence photographs and lay out planes [sic] are not available at this stage of our business 
establishment as the same requires a major amount of investment to make up to our standard 
which we are willing to do only if this application is approved. 
While the petitioner did not provide the photo ra hs, it did submit a change of address notification, and a 
lease agreement for "office space" located at in San lose, California. The agreement, 
which was ostensibly signed in Sugarland, Texas on June 15, 2007, has a validity period of April 15, 2007 
until January 1, 2009. According to the terms of the lease, the office is to be used solely for "sale of Travel 
Fairs and tour operating." 
The director denied the petition on March 10, 2008, concluding that the petitioner had not submitted sufficient 
evidence to demonstrate that it secured sufficient physical premises to house the new operations. The director 
noted the petitioner's statement that it has not yet established the United States office, but did not reference 
the submitted lease agreement in her decision. The director noted that, absent evidence that the petitioner had 
secured sufficient physical premises, "USCIS cannot determine if the petitioner has a defined business plan 
and objectives." 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that it provided evidence to establish that it secured physical premises for the 
new office, as it submitted a copy of its lease agreement in response to the director's request for evidence. The 
petitioner re-submits a copy of the lease agreement in support of the appeal, and requests that the petition be 
approved. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not established that it has secured sufficient physical premises to house the 
office. 
The AAO acknowledges that the petitioner's assertion that the director did not address the petitioner's 
submission of a lease agreement, and it is not clear from the decision whether such evidence was considered. 
However, upon review, there are several deficiencies and discrepancies in the record which preclude a finding 
that the petitioner has secured physical premises for the new office, as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
2 14.2(l)(v)(A). 
First, the petitioner specifically indicated on the Form 1-129 and supporting documentation submitted at the 
time of filing that the company intended to establish a logistics and transportation company in Lincolnshire, 
Illinois, and provided a specific address for the beneficiary's worksite. The petition was filed on July 20, 
2007. Given these facts, it is questionable why the petitioner would submit in response to the RFE a lease 
agreement for an office in San Jose, California which was ostensibly signed by the petitioner on June 15, 
2007, a month prior to the date the petition was filed. If the petitioner intended to establish an office in 
California, then it reasonably would have stated as much on the Form 1-129. The petitioner provided no 
explanation for the address change, nor did it identify the date of the change. 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). The petitioner has provided no documentary evidence to 
WAC 07 222 53595 
Page3 
establish that it secured physical premises in Illinois, as claimed on the petition at the time of filing. 
Furthermore, the lease agreement, although signed in June 2007, indicates a commencement date of April 
2007. The petitioner was not incorporated until May 21, 2007. Therefore, the dates on the lease agreement 
are not credible. 
Second, according to the lease agreement the leased premises are to be used for the "sale of Travel Fairs and 
tour operating." Although the petitioner has not provided a business plan describing its proposed operations, 
all statements made by the petitioner indicate that it intends to engage in the same business as its parent 
company, logistics and transportation. For this additional reason, the lease agreement is lacking in credibility 
and probative value. 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. Doubt cast on any 
aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the 
remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 59 1 (BIA 1988). 
Third, as noted by the director, the petitioner did specifically state in reply to the request for evidence, that as 
of December 2007 that it has "not yet established the office in USA" and was therefore unable to provide 
photographs or a layout of the secured premises. Given that the petitioner simultaneously submitted a lease 
agreement for the office in San Jose purportedly signed six months previously, and claimed to be using that 
address for correspondence as the date of its response, the petitioner's failure to respond to the director's 
request for photographs and information regarding the square footage of the office cannot be excused. Failure 
to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the 
petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(14). 
For all of the above reasons, the AAO finds the lease agreement submitted to be insufficient to establish that 
the petitioner had secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office as of the date of filing. The 
petitioner has not submitted additional evidence on appeal, or otherwise attempted to explain the 
discrepancies in the record. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the 
intended U.S. office would support a managerial or executive position within one year of approval, as 
required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). The petitioner has not submitted a business plan for the U.S. office, 
or otherwise provided evidence regarding the proposed nature of the office or describing the scope of the 
entity, its organizational structure, and its financial goals. See 8 C.F.R. 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(l). The petitioner 
simply states that the U.S. company will engage in the same business as the foreign entity, that the number of 
employees in the United States "will increase" once the business is established, and that there will be "more 
financial transactions" in the United States once the company is operational. These statements fall 
significantly short of meeting the evidentiary standard in the regulations. 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)). 
Furthermore, the petitioner has not submitted evidence to establish the size of the investment in the United 
States entity, nor has it documented the ability of the foreign entity to commence doing business in the United 
States. 8 C.F.R. 3 214,2(1)(3)(v)(C)(2). The petitioner has not outlined its anticipated capital requirements 
and start-up costs, and thus it cannot be determined how large of an investment is required. Nevertheless, 
WAC 97 222 53595 
Page.6 
there is no evidence that any investment has been made in the United States company as of the date of filing. 
The record also contains very limited financial documentation for the foreign entity. The only recent 
document is a 2006 balance sheet which shows that the foreign entity had total assets valued at $64,353. 
Overall, the petitioner has not established that it has the funding required to commence business operations in 
the United States. 
When a new business is 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 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 order to qualify for L-1 nonimmigrant classification during 
the first year of operations, the regulations require the petitioner to disclose the business plans and the size of 
the United States investment, and thereby establish that the proposed enterprise will support an executive or 
managerial position within one year of the approval of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 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. Here, the evidence does not establish that 
the new office will grow to the point where it will be able to support a primarily managerial or executive 
position within one year. For this additional reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the 
AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
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. When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative 
grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only if he or she shows that the AAO abused its discretion 
with respect to all of the AAO's enumerated grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. 
Supp. 2d at 1043. 
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. tj 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.