dismissed L-1A Case: Water Treatment

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10700413 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Blanket L-1 Approval 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 26, 2021 
The Petitioner seeks approval of a blanket petition to expedite future transfers of foreign workers to the 
United States under the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification for intracompany transferees. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 214(c)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(A). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not meet the regulatory requirements for approval of a blanket petition. Specifically, 
the Director found that the company did not demonstrate that it has been doing business in the United 
States for at least one year and has at least three foreign and domestic branches, subsidiaries, or 
affiliates. The Director also found that the Petitioner did not establish that it and the other entities 
listed in the petition engage in commercial activities and have obtained at least 10 L-1 petition 
approvals during the prior year, have U.S. subsidiaries or affiliates with combined annual sales of at 
least $25 million, or have a U.S. work force of at least 1,000 employees. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit. See section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. BLANKET L PETITIONS 
L-1 visa status allows qualified noncitizens to temporarily work in the United States if their petitioners 
or the petitioners' parents, branches, affiliates, or subsidiaries continuously employed the workers 
abroad for at least one year in the three years before the filings of their petitions. Section 101(a)(15)(L) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). A blanket L approval notice lists U.S. and foreign qualifying 
organizations within a petitioner's business group, eliminating the need to establish a qualifying 
relationship in individual cases. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(4)(iii). Blanket L approval allows petitioners to 
submit nonimmigrant petitions (on Forms l-129S) for managers, executives, and specialized 
knowledge professionals directly to U.S. consulates or border officials. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(5). 
A petitioner may file a blanket L petition if: (1) the petitioner and each of the listed entities engage in 
commercial trade or services; (2) the petitioner has an office in the United States that has been doing 
business for at least one year; (3) the petitioner has three or more domestic and foreign branches, 
subsidiaries, or affiliates; and (4) the petitioner and the other listed qualifying organizations: have 
obtained approval of petitions for at least ten "L" managers, executives, or specialized knowledge 
professionals during the previous 12 months; have U.S. subsidiaries or affiliates with combined annual 
sales of at least $25 million; or have a U.S. work force of at least 1,000 employees. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(I)(4)(i). 
II. DOING BUSINESS FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR 
A blanket L petitioner must demonstrate that it has an office in the United States that has been "doing 
business" for at least one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(4)(i)(B). The term "doing business" means "the 
regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services ... and does not include the 
mere presence of an agent or office." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(1)(ii)(H). 
The Petitioner describes itself as a manufacturer of water treatment products and documented its U.S. 
formation inl 12018.1 The Petitioner filed the petition in November 2019 and claims that it has 
been doing business in the United States since its formation. 
The Director found that the record lacks sufficient evidence to corroborate the company's claimed 
U.S. business activities since at least November 2018, one year before the petition's filing. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1) (requiring a petitioner to establish eligibility "at the time of filing"). The 
Petitioner submitted copies of 2018 audited financial statements and a 2018 annual report of a former 
owner of the water treatment operations. As the Director found, however, the documents do not 
indicate that the company owned the Petitioner or acquired its assets in whole or part as its successor­
in-interest. The documents therefore do not demonstrate the Petitioner's engagement in U.S. business 
activities for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(4)(iv)(A) (requiring a petitioner to submit 
evidence that it meets the regulatory requirements of a blanket L petition). 
To establish the Petitioner's U.S. business activities, the Director's written request for additional 
evidence suggests that the Petitioner submit copies of sales invoices, export declarations, bank 
statements, or other documentation. The Petitioner, however, did not provide any of the suggested 
materials. 
The record does not establish the Petitioner's regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods 
or services in the United States for at least one year before the petition's filing. We will therefore 
affirm the petition's denial on this ground. 
Ill. THREE BRANCHES, SUBSIDIARIES, OR AFFILIATES 
A blanket L petitioner must demonstrate that it has at least three "domestic and foreign branches, 
subsidiaries, or affiliates" and that all entities listed in the petition are "qualifying organizations." 
8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(I)(4)(i)(C), (iv)(B). Branches, subsidiaries, and affiliates are corporate relationships 
that the regulations define in terms of ownership and control. 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(J), (K), (L). 
Ownership means the direct or indirect legal right of possession of the assets of an entity with full 
power and authority to control. Matter of Church Scientology lnt'I, 19 l&N Dec. 593, 595 (Comm'r 
1 The documentation indicates the Petitioner's formation as a corporation and later conversion to a limited liability 
company. 
2 
1988) (citations omitted). Control refers to the direct or indirect legal right and authority to direct the 
establishment, management, and operations of an entity. Id. 
A blanket L petitioner must also submit evidence that "all entities for which approval is sought are 
qualifying organizations." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(4)(iv)(B). The term "qualifying organization" includes 
a parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary, as defined by the regulations. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(1)(ii)(G). 
Including itself, the Petitioner listed 18 companies in the petition as qualifying organizations. The list 
describes the Petitioner and 16 of the entities as wholly owned subsidiaries of a U.S. corporation. The 
Petitioner also submitted organizational charts of the group's corporate structure. 
Some of the entities listed in the petition do not appear on the organizational charts. The petition lists 
companies in Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands. But the charts do not list the same entities as 
part of the Petitioner's corporate structure. The discrepancies cast doubts on the claimed qualifying 
relationships among the entities. A petitioner must resolve inconsistencies of record with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
The Petitioner also submitted numerous corporate documents regarding itself and other entities. This 
evidence, however, does not establish the required elements of ownership and control. We therefore 
agree with the Director that the record does not demonstrate qualifying relationships among the listed 
entities and the Petitioner. The record contains documentation regarding past owners and past names 
of some entities. But the evidence does not document the Petitioner's claim that it or any of the listed 
entities are wholly owned subsidiaries of the purported parent. 
The Petitioner further submitted copies of a press release and other documents regarding an equity 
firm's February 2019 purchase of the water treatment operations from the former owner. But these 
documents do not specify the entities acquired by the equity firm or the equity firm's relationship to 
the Petitioner and the purported U.S. parent. 
Further, although unaddressed by the Director, the Petitioner submitted corporate documents regarding 
Argentinian and Mexican entities in the Spanish language without certified, English translations. A 
full translation in the English language must accompany any document containing a foreign language. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Translators must also certify that their translations are complete and accurate, 
and that the translators are competent to translate from the corresponding foreign languages to English. 
Id. Thus, in any future filings in this matter, the Petitioner must submit certified, English translations 
of these corporate documents. 
For the foregoing reasons, the record does not establish that the Petitioner has at least three branches, 
subsidiaries, or affiliates, or that the entities listed in the petition are qualifying organizations. We will 
therefore also affirm the petition's denial on this ground. 
IV. COMMERCIAL TRADE OR SERVICES 
A petitioner must further establish that it "and each of those entities" listed in a blanket L petition 
engage in "commercial trade or services." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(I)(4)(i)(A). Under this requirement, a 
3 
petitioner must demonstrate that it and listed entities provide goods or services for profit. Final Rule 
for L Petitions, 52 Fed. Reg. 5738, 5743 (Feb. 26, 1987). 
The Petitioner claims that it and the other entities listed in the petition make water treatment products 
and sell them for profit to homeowners, businesses, and governments. 
As the Director found, however, the record does not establish that all the listed entities engage in 
commercial activities. The Director found that the 2018 audited financial statements and annual report 
of the former owner establish only the commercial trade of a listed, South African entity. The 
Petitioner argues on appeal that a note to the financial statements identifies other entities listed in the 
petition, indicating that they similarly engage in commerce. But the note does not identify listed 
entities in Belgium, China, Germany, or India. Thus, contrary to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(4)(i){A), the 
record does not demonstrate that all the listed entities engage in commerce. 
Moreover, as previously discussed, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it has been doing business. 
Thus, the record similarly does not establish the Petitioner's engagement in commercial trade or 
services. The Director therefore correctly found that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the 
engagement of it and each listed entity in commercial activities. We will therefore also affirm the 
petition's denial on this ground. 
V. ADDITIONAL BLANKET L REQUIREMENTS 
Finally, a petitioner must demonstrate that it and entities listed in a blanket L petition have: (1) 
obtained at least 10 L-1 petition approvals for managers, executives, or specialized knowledge 
professionals during the prior year; (2) U.S. subsidiaries or affiliates with combined annual sales of at 
least $25 million; or (3) a U.S. work force of at least 1,000 employees. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(4)(0). 
The Petitioner claims that it and the listed entities have both U.S. subsidiaries or affiliates with 
combined sales of at least $25 million and a U.S. work force of more than 1,000 employees. 
As the Director found, however, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to corroborate its 
claims. The 2018 audited financial statements of the former owner indicate that the water treatment 
operations generated 521 million Swiss francs, or more than $581 million. See XE Currency 
Converter, https://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/ (last visited Feb. 23, 2021). But the financial 
statements do not establish that this amount includes at least $25 million in sales from U.S. subsidiaries 
or affiliates of the Petitioner and the other entities. Also, neither the financial statements nor the 2018 
annual report of the former owner detail how many workers the water treatment operations employ in 
the United States. The record therefore does not establish that the Petitioner and the listed entities 
meet at least one of the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(4)(D). 
VI. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established eligibility for approval of a blanket L petition. We will therefore 
affirm the petition's denial. 
4 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5