dismissed L-1A Case: Wireless Equipment Wholesale

identifying dsta deletd to 
prevent clearly unwd 
invasion of personal 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave, N W , Rm A3042 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: SRC 03 178 53594 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: APR 2 4 2006 
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 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
~ob>rt P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 03 178 53594 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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 states that it is engaged in the wholesale of wireless equipment, accessories, and imports. It 
seeks to extend the employment of the beneficiary in the position of vice president and general manager as a 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to 5 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(~).  he petitioner claims to be the subsidiary of - 
located in Karachi, Pakistan. The beneficiary was initially granted a one year period of stay to open a new 
office in the United States, and the petitioner now seeks to extend the beneficiary's stay for an additional 
three years. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had not been doing business for the previous year 
as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(B). Specifically, the director found that the minimal 
evidence of the petitioner's business dealings in the United States suggested that it was not doing business as 
defined by the regulations. 
The petitioner filed an appeal in response to the denial. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner contends that the 
evidence previously submitted had been sufficient to establish that the petitioner was doing business as 
defined by the regulations. In addition, counsel contended that the petitioner admittedly could not meet its 
target of sales during the previous year due to poor economic conditions, but that its sales for the current 
period reflected an increase. In support of these contentions, counsel for the petitioner submits a brief 
statement and additional evidence. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimrnigrant 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. 
 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. 
SRC 03 178 53594 
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 himher 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. 
 214.2(1)(14)(ii) also provides that a visa petition, which involved the opening of a 
new office, may be extended by filing a new Form 1-129, accompanied by the following: 
(a) 
 Evidence that the United States and foreign entities are still qualifying organizations 
as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section; 
(b) 
 Evidence that the United States entity has been doing business as defined in 
paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(H) of this section for the previous year; 
(c) 
 A statement of the duties performed by the beneficiary for the previous year and the 
duties the beneficiary will perform under the extended petition; 
(d) 
 A statement describing the staffing of the new operation, including the number of 
employees and types of positions held accompanied by evidence of wages paid to 
employees when the beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity; and 
(e) 
 Evidence of the financial status of the United States operation. 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the petitioner has been doing business as required by the regulations 
for the previous year. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. §214.2(1)(l)(ii)(H) defines the term "doing business" as "the 
regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods andlor services by a qualifying organization and does not 
include the mere presence of an agent or office of the qualifying organization in the United States and abroad." 
In this matter, the petitioner claims that it is engaged in the wholesale of wireless equipment, accessories, and 
imports. The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the regulatory 
requirements for doing business for the previous year. 
With the initial petition, minimal evidence of the petitioner's business practices was submitted. 
Consequently, in the request for evidence issued on September 29, 2003, the director requested 
documentation establishing that the petitioner had been doing business during the previous year as required 
by the regulations. In the response dated December 26, 2003, counsel for the petitioner submitted various 
documents, including software usage agreements, letters from various wireless companies regarding dealer 
agreements, and invoices showing that the petitioner purchased numerous types of wireless products. Many 
of these documents were dated after June 2003, the month during which the extension request was filed and 
the one-year new office petition expired. 
SRC 03 178 53594 
Page 4 
On review of the evidence submitted, the AAO concludes that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that it had 
been doing business during the previous year. The record indicates that the beneficiary was granted a 
one-year period of stay from June 12, 2002 to June 12, 2003 to open a new office. The record further 
indicates that the petitioner would engage in the wholesale of wireless equipment, accessories, and imports. 
However, despite the various forms of documents submitted in response to the director's request, there is no 
evidence establishing that the petitioner actually engaged in the wholesale of wireless equipment. While the 
record indicates that the petitioner purchased various wireless phones and accessories, there is no evidence in 
the record to demonstrate the petitioner's sale of these items to the general public. No invoices evidencing 
the petitioner's sales were submitted, despite the director's specific request in the request for evidence dated 
September 29, 2003. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be 
grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(14). The petitioner's bank statements show "customer 
deposits" and bank card withdrawals, yet none of the transactions are identifiable as sales or deposits from 
sales. Finally, there is no documentation or information regarding the activities of the beneficiary and the 
petitioner during the time period prior to November 2002. 
On appeal counsel submits copies of W-2 forms, evidencing wages paid by the petitioner to the beneficiary 
and three other employees in 2003, and also submits a statement from Amir Kassam, Certified Public 
Accountant, claiming that the petitioner's business did not reach its targeted sales during the previous year but 
that the business was becoming more profitable. 
Based on this limited information, it is clear that the petitioner was not doing business as required by 8 C.F.R. 
$ 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B). The AAO acknowledges the petitioner's claim that business was slow to start due to 
poor economic conditions, and that it is now becoming more prosperous as business conditions improve. 
However, the record is devoid of an explanation as to what the petitioner did between June 2002 and June 
2003, and further lacks any explanation or documentation regarding other activities engaged in by the 
petitioner to promote its business during this period. The fact that the petitioner did not appear to commence 
operations during this period. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows the intended United States operation one year within the 
date of approval of the petition to establish the new office. Furthermore, at the time the petitioner seeks an 
extension of a new office petition, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B) require the petitioner to 
demonstrate that it has been doing business for the previous year. In the present matter, the evidence 
submitted at the time of filing does not support the petitioner's claim that it had been conducting business as 
required. The fact that it began consistently improving its sales after the expiration of the beneficiary's initial 
stay does not automatically entitle the petitioner to an extension of the visa, for it fails to change the fact that 
the petitioner did not conduct business during the previous year. For this reason, the petition may not be 
approved. 
Moreover, although not explicitly addressed in the decision, the record contains no documentation to persuade 
the AAO that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity as defined at section 
101(a)(44) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1101(a)(44), or that the petitioner could support such a position after one 
year of approval of the initial petition. The petitioner has not submitted a detailed statement of the duties 
performed by the beneficiary for the previous year and the duties the beneficiary will perform under the 
SRC 03 178 53594 
Page 5 
extended petition so that the AAO can determine whether the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily 
managerial or executive capacity. Although the petitioner submitted an organizational chart and claims that 
the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily executive capacity, the record is not persuasive that the 
beneficiary is or will in fact be employed in such a capacity. At the time of filing, it appears that the 
petitioner had only one other employee on its payroll. The organizational chart identifies positions such as 
"managers," "human resources" and "general workers," none of which were filled at the time of filing by 
actual employees. The absence of a subordinate staff to relieve the beneficiary from performing non- 
qualifying duties coupled with the vague description of the beneficiary's duties is insufficient to establish that 
the beneficiary will function primarily as an executive. For this additional reason, the petition may not be 
approved. 
Additionally, the petitioner has not established that a qualifying relationship exists between the petitioner and 
the foreign entity. The petitioner claims that the U.S. petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of the foreign 
entity. However, the Minutes of the Meeting of Shareholders for t iti rd De mber31,2001, 
y is owned b four individuals, namely, e beneficiary, 
The corpohiforeign entity 
provides a certificate listing the same four shareholders as listed in the meeting minutes of the petitioner dated 
December 3 1, 2001. However, on Schedule M of the petitioner's Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax 
Return for 2002, the petitioner indicates on Line 5 that one individual owns 100% of the entity. Furthermore, 
Line 10 indicates that the petitioner had two shareholders, and the supplemental attachment to Schedule K 
As general evidence of a petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship, stock certificates, the corporate stock 
certificate ledger, stock certificate registry, corporate bylaws, and the minutes of relevant annual shareholder 
meetings must also be examined to determine the total number of shares issued, the exact number issued to 
the shareholder, and the subsequent percentage ownership and its effect on corporate control. Additionally, a 
petitioning company must disclose all agreements relating to the voting of shares, the distribution of profit, 
the management and direction of the subsidiary, and any other factor affecting actual control of the entity. 
See Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Znc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986). Without full disclosure of all 
relevant documents, CIS is unable to determine the elements of ownership and control. 
In this case, the conflicting claims of ownership and the lack of share certificates and additional 
documentation make it impossible for the AAO to conclude that a valid qualifying relationship exists between 
the petitioner and the claimed foreign parent. 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). For this additional reason, the petition 
may not 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 
SRC 03 178 53594 
Page 6 
(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). 
When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only 
if she shows that the AAO abused it discretion with respect to all of the AAO's enumerated grounds. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, ajf'd. 345 F.3d 683. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. 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. § 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.