remanded L-1A Case: Persian Rug Retail

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20536 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 02 110 53910 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL 1 4 20~ 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 101 (a)(l5)(L) 
ON BEH&F 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. 
l~drninistrative ~~&als Office 
WAC 02 110 53923 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The acting director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The decision of the director 
will be withdrawn and the case will be remanded for further consideration and action. 
The petitioner is described as an importer, repairer, and retailer of Persian rugs, It seeks to employ the beneficiary 
in the United States as its production manager. The petitioner states that it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the 
foreign entity, which is located in Iran. The director concluded that the beneficiary is a native of Iran who would 
be coming to the United States to work as an employee of an Iranian business entity. Therefore, in accordance 
with the Executive Orders and regulations relating to Iranian economic sanctions, the director concluded that she 
is not authorized to cany out activities in the United States as an intra-company transferee. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary is already present in the United States and will be employed by a 
U.S. corporation and shall not be performing any duties or services for an Iranian entity. 
To establish L-I eligibility under section lOl(a)(15)Q of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 3 K 101 (a)(] 5)(L), the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary, within three years preceding the 
beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving specialized knowledge, for one continuous year by a 
qualifying organization and seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render his or her 
services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or 
involves specialized knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(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 qualifyrng 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 hll-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 himiher 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. 3 214.2(1)(3)(~) states that if the petition indicates that the beneficiary is corning 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: 
WAC 02 110 53923 
Page 3 
(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 involved 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: 
(1) 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. 
In addition, U.S. laws and the readations relating to Iranian economic sanctions must be applied when a 
petitioner requests nonimmigrant classification under section 1 Ol(a)(lS)(L) of the Act for an Iranian citizen or 
national. Specifically, Executive Order 13059 prohibits, except where otherwise authorized, the importation into 
the United States of any goods or services of Iranian origin. Exec. Or. 13059 Q 1, 62 Fed. Reg. 44,531 (1997). 
The executive order also prohibits any transaction or dealing by a United States person related to services of 
Iranian origin. Id. Q 2(d). 
As implemented by the United States Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the 
regulations state in part: "Except as otherwise authorized pursuant to this part, . . . the importation into the United 
States of my goods or services of Iranian origin. . . is prohibited." 31 C.F.R. 8 560.201. 
31 C.F.R. 8 560.419 states: 
The prohibitions in Q 560.201 make it unlawhl to hire an Iranian national normally located in 
Iran to come to the United States solely or for the principal purpose of engaging in employment 
on behalf of an entity in Iran or as the employee of a U.S. person, unless that employment is 
authorized pursuant to a visa issued by the U.S. State Department or by Q 560.505. 
The regulation at 3 1 C.F.R. 8 560.505(a) generally authorizes the importation of Iranian-origin services into the 
United States for scholarly conferences and cultural performances. Additionally, as long as the alien receives the 
appropriate visa f?om the Department of State, 31 C.F.R. Q 560.505(b) specifically allows services by persons 
otherwise qualified for a nonimrnigrant visa under categories A-3 and (3-5 (employees of aliens in diplomatic 
status), D (crewmen), F (students), I (media representatives), J (exchange visitors), M (non-academic students), 0 
and P (aliens with extraor* ability, athletes, artists and entertainers), Q (international cultural exchange 
visitors), R (religious workers), or S (witnesses). 
WAC 02 1 10 53923 
Page 4 
However, 31 C.F.R. $ 560.505(c) allows for the admission of L-1 nonimrnigrants under more narrow 
circumstances: 
Persons otherwise qualified for a visa under . . . L (intra-company transferees) . . . are authorized 
to carry out in the United States those activities for which such a visa has been granted by the 
U.S. State Department, provided that the persons are not coming to the United States to work as 
an agent, employee or contractor of the Government of Iran or a business entity or other 
organization in Iran. 
(Emphasis added.) 
Defining the critical terms of the Iranian economic sanctions, 31 C.F.R. 8 560.305 states that the term "person" 
means "an individual or entity" and the term "entity" means "a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, 
corporation or other organization." 31 C.F.R. 5 560.314 further states that the term "United States personf' means 
"any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States 
(including foreign branches), or any person in the United States." 
in California in December 2001, and states that it is a 
ocated in Tehran, Iran. In support o 
petitioner submitted a copy of its Articles of Incorporation and a single stock certificate listing 
the shareholder. 
On February 14,2002, the director issued a decision denying the petition. The director found that the petitioner is 
a subsidiary of the foreign entity located in Tehran, Iran. The director determined that the petition indicated that 
the beneficiary is a national of Iran and has been working for the foreign entity in Iran. The director concluded 
that because the beneficiary is coming to the United States to work as an employee of a business entity in Iran, 
she is not authorized to carry out activities in the United States as an intra-company transferee and is not eligible 
for admission. 
On March 25, 2002, counsel for the petitioner filed a motion to reconsider and in the alternative an appeal. On 
appeal, counsel asserts "[tlhe beneficiary is already in the United States and [is] not applying for an L-1A visa 
through the State Department to enter the United States." Additionally, counsel claims "the beneficiary is to be 
employed on a 111 time basis for a U.S. corporation. She shall not be performing any duties or services for an 
Iranian business entity." 
Counsel also cites 3 1 C.F.R. 3 560.306(d) as an exclusionary clause, which states: 
(d) 
 The terms services of Iranian origin, Iranian-origin services, and services owned or 
controlled by the Government of Iran do not include: 
The AAO notes that, according to California State corporate records, the petitioner's corporate status in 
California has been suspended. Although the reason for this suspension is unclear, it raises the issue of the 
company's clontinued existence as a legal entity in the United States. 
WAC 02 1 10 53923 
Page 5 
(3) 
 Services performed outside Iran by an Iranian citizen or national who is resident 
in the United States or a third country, provided such services are not performed 
by or on behalf of the Government of Iran (other than diplomatic and consular 
services), an entity organized under the laws of Iran, or a person located in Iran. 
Counsel claims that the above clauses "specifically excludes services performed outside Iran, (i.e. the U.S.) unless 
the services are for an entity organized under the laws of Iran." Counsel states the petitioner is not such an entity 
since it was organized under the laws of the state of California. 
The regulations generally prohibit the importation of "services of Iranian origin," which include, as defined at 3 1 
C.F.R. 3 561).306(b): 
(1) Services performed in Iran or by an entity organized under the laws of Iran, or a person 
residing in Iran; and 
(2) Services performed outside Iran by a citizen, national or permanent resident of Iran who is 
ordinarily resident in Iran, or by an entity organized under the laws of Iran. 
Counsel states, however, that because the beneficiary is already in the United States, she should be excluded fi-om 
this prohibition. 
Counsel is incorrect. In reviewing the information provided by the petitioner, the Form 1-129 states that the 
beneficiary entered the United States on a B-1 visa. As defmed in the Act, the B-1 nonimmigrant visa requires 
the holder to have a residence in a foreign country that he or she does not intend to abandon. Section 
101(a)(15)(B) of the Act; see also 9 FAM 41.3 1 N2 a(1). The beneficiary indicated on the Form 1-129 that her 
residence is Tehran, Iran. The beneficiary is a not a resident of the United States simply because she is visiting 
the country on a temporary business visa. For this reason, the beneficiary must be considered a resident of Iran. 
Thus, as the beneficiary is a resident of Iran, 31 C.F.R. 3 560.306(d) does not apply and the services to be 
performed by the beneficiary in the United States must be considered of Iranian-origin. The AAO finds that the 
petitioner seeks to hire an "Iranian national normally located in Iran" to come to the United States solely for the 
principal purpose of engaging in employment. Pursuant to 31 C.F.R. § 560.419, this employment must be 
deemed unlawhl unless that employment is authorized pursuant to a visa issued by the Department of State or by 
31 C.F.R. ij 560.505. 
As previously noted, the regulation at 31 C.F.R. ij 560.505 allows a person who is otherwise qualified for an 
L-1A nonirnmigrant visa "to carry out in the United States those activities for which such a visa has been granted 
by the U.S. State Department, provided that the persons are not coming to the United States to work as an agent, 
employee or contractor of the Government of Iran or a business entity or other organization in Iran." In a cable 
issued in 1999 after the publication of the OFAC regulation, the Department of State advised all diplomatic and 
consular posts that they may issue an L-1 visa in accordance with 31 C.F.R. 3 560.505 without the need for an 
WAC 02 1 10 53923 
Page 6 
advisory opinion only in cases "where there is no apparent nexus between the applicant and an Iranian-based 
business, organization or government entity." State Department Cable, 9 8-State-1 28375 (July 8, 1999), 
reproduced in 76, No. 28 Interpreter Releases 1124 (July 26, 1999). 
The OFAC regulations make it clear that the petitioner may engage an Iranian national to carry out only "those 
activities for which such a visa has been granted by the U.S. State Department." Under the plain terms of the 
OFAC regulations, the Department of State must issue the L-l visa and the alien must enter the United States as 
an L-1 nonimmigrant before those services will be deemed authorized under the regulations governing the Iran 
economic  sanction^.^ Even if CIS were to grant a change of nonimmigrant status &om B-1 to L-1 A pursuant to 8 
C.F.R. (j 248.1, there would be doubt as to whether the alien's activities in the United States would be authorized 
under the Iran economic sanctions and the OFAC regulations. 
Accordingly, the application for change of status must be denied. The grant of an application for change of status 
is a discretionary decision delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Section 248 of the Act; see also, Lun 
Kwai Tsui v. US. Atty. Gen., 445 F.Supp. 832 (D.D.C. 1978). It is appropriate to deny a change of status where 
the granting of a change of status would have the effect of condoning an apparent violation of a federal, state, or 
municipal law or ordinance. Matter ofMunguia, 15 I&N Dec. 698 (Comrn. 1976). 
However, the director did not deny the application for change of status in this case, but instead denied the 
nonimmigrant visa petition. The visa petition procedure is not the forum for determining substantive questions of 
admissibility under the immigration laws. When eligibility for the claimed status is established, the petition 
should be granted. See Matter of 0, 8 I&N Dec. 295 @IA 1959) (in immigrant visa proceedings). The director 
must make two separate decisions on the petition and the application for change of status. Accordingly, the 
director should have entered one decision on the nonirnrnigrant visa petition and a separate decision denying the 
application for change of status due to the Iran economic sanctions. Because the director improperly based the 
decision on admissibility issues and did not enter a separate decision on the application for change of status, the 
decision of the director must be withdrawn. 
With regard to the underlying petition, however, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish 
eligibility for the visa. While not addressed by the director, the petitioner provided insufficient evidence to 
establish whether the beneficiary has been or will be employed primarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
When examining the managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. (j 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner has provided no comprehensive 
description of the beneficiary's duties that would demonstrate that the beneficiary will be managing the 
2 
 The petitioner proposes to import carpets and rugs from Iran. It is noted that the Department of Treasury 
regulations at 31 C.F.R. (j 560.534 permit the importation of Iranian carpets and textile floor coverings into 
the United States and state that United States persons are authorized to "engage in transactions or dealings in 
or related to" Iranian-origin carpets. It is noted that this provision relates specifically to "goods" of Iranian 
origin and not "services." Whether the hiring of an Iranian national might be deemed a "transaction or 
dealing" incidental to Iranian-origin rugs is a question of admissibility that may be examined by the 
Department of State at the time of visa issuance. As always, whenever a person makes an application for a 
visa, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with that person. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
WAC 02 1 10 53923 
Page 7 
organization, or managing a department, subdivision, function, or component of the company. In addition, the 
petitioner has provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary was employed abroad by the 
Iranian pment company in a managerial or executive capacity. Conclusory assertions regarding the 
beneficiary's employment capacity are not sufficient. Merely repeating the language of the statute or 
regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1 103, 
1 108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, he. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 
188942 at "5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
Based on the record, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary has been employed abroad or that 
she will be employed in the United States in an executive or managerial capacity. 
Furthermore, as noted above, California State corporate records indicate that the petitioner's corporate status 
in California has been suspended. Therefore, the director may also wish to take this opportunity on remand to 
request additional evidence from the petitioner, such as its 2005 tax documents and evidence of its active 
corporate status, to ensure the U.S. entity is still "doing business" and will continue doing so for the duration 
of the beneficiary's temporary stay in the United States. See 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(G)(2). 
For these adchtional reasons, the appeal may not be sustained, and the matter must be remanded to the director for 
mher action. 
ORDER: 
 The decision of the director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded to the director for further 
action consistent with the above and entry of a new decision.