sustained L-1A Case: Lottery Business Consultancy

;:.dentifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasioll 3f persona! privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: DEC 21 2011 OFFICE: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1l01(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of$630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
PerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
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 
sustained. 
The petitioner claims to be engaged in the consultancy of lottery businesses. The petitioner states that it 
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Camelot Global Services Limited ("Camelot UK"), located in the United 
Kingdom. The foreign entity petitioned United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to 
classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant intracompany transferee (L-IA) pursuant to section 
101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). Thepetitioner 
seeks to employ the beneficiary as Program Manager, U.S. Operations for a period of one year to open a new 
office in the United States. 
The director denied the petition on November 1, 2009, concluding that the record contains insufficient 
evidence to demonstrate that a qualifying organization exists between the United States entity and the 
foreign entity. The director noted that the petitioner submitted a receipt for payment of the petitioner's 
stock over a year after the petitioner was formed in the United States. The petitioner submitted an appeal 
on November 18, 2009. 
To establish eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, the petitioner must meet certain criteria. 
Specifically, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States, a firm, corporation, or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof, must have employed 
the beneficiary for one continuous year. Furthermore, 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) further 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 (1)(1 )(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 him/her to perform the 
Page 3 
intended services in the United States; however, the work in the United States 
need not be the same work which the alien performed abroad. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v) states 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 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 (1)(1 )(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 fmancial 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 ofthe foreign entity. 
If a petition indicates that a beneficiary is coming to the United States to open a "new office," it must 
show that it is ready to commence doing business immediately upon approval. 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 commence business, that it has the financial ability to commence doing business in 
the United States, and that it will support the beneficiary in a managerial or executive position within one 
year of approval. See generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). If approved, the beneficiary is granted a one­
year period of stay to open the "new office." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(7)(i)(A)(3). 
The issue in this proceeding is whether a qualifying relationship exists between the foreign company and 
the United States entity. To establish a "qualifying relationship" under the Act and the regulations, the 
petitioner must show that the beneficiary's foreign employer and the proposed U.S. employer is the same 
employer (i.e. one entity with "branch" offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." 
See generally section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1). 
The director stated in the decision that counsel submitted a copy of a wire receipt for a transfer of 
$150,100.00 from the claimed parent company to the petitioner, dated August 19, 2009. The director 
Page 4 
questioned the validity of the claimed parent company's purchase of the petitioner's stock, since the 
payment for the stock purchase was made over a year after the U.S. corporation was formed. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner explains that the foreign company established the petitioner as a 
wholly owned subsidiary in October 2008. Counsel contends that the foreign company purchased the 
petitioner's stock prior to filing the instant petition. Counsel also states the following: 
The Petitioner provided all corporate evidence in existence to ensure the Service that it is 
100% owned and controlled by [the foreign company]. All of the best evidence has been 
provided. [The foreign company] does not have a $100 receipt for the stock purchased 
that was executed on October 7, 2008. [The foreign company] is unsure whether the 
payment was made on October 7, 2008; this result from mere lack of oversight, not any 
sort of issue related to the truth and facts asserted by the Petitioner and its parent, [the 
foreign company). This one piece of evidence lacking, alone, should not be a reason to 
disqualify the qualifying organization from the L-l program, given every alternative 
effort has been made to prove ownership and control by [the foreign company). 
As general evidence of a petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship, the petitioner's stock certificates, the 
corporate stock certificate ledger, stock certificate registry, corporate bylaws, and the minutes of relevant 
annual shareholder meetings must be examined to determine the total number of shares issued, the 
number issued to the shareholder, and the subsequent percentage ownership and its effect on corporate 
control. 
The petitioner submitted the certificate of incorporation for the petltlOner, issued by the State of 
Delaware; the petitioner's by-laws, a copy of the Written Consent of Directors in Lieu ofa First Meeting 
by the Board of Directors of [the petitioner]; a copy (front and back) of the petitioner's stock certificate 
that states the foreign company is the owner of 100,000 shares of capital stock of the petitioner; a copy of 
the Stock Purchase Agreement between the foreign company and the petitioner; receipts of a wire transfer 
of $150,100.00 from the foreign company to the petitioner for $150,000.00 in initial capitalization, plus 
$100.00 for the stock purchase price; and, a copy of the minutes of a meeting of the Board of Directors of 
the foreign company, dated September 24,2008, containing the discussions to form the U.S. subsidiary. 
The Written Consent of Directors in Lieu of a First Meeting by the Board of Directors of the [petitioner], 
dated October 7, 2008, states that [the petitioner] "be and hereby is authorized to enter into and perform 
its obligations under a Stock Purchase Agreement be and between [the petitioner] and [the foreign 
company)." The document also states that the petitioner "may issue and sell 100,000 shares of Common 
Stock to [the foreign company] in consideration of $100.00 (or $.001 per share), on the terms and 
conditions set forth in said Stock Purchase Agreement." 
The petitioner also submitted a copy of the "Stock Purchase Agreement," entered into on October 7,2008 
between the petitioner and the foreign company. The stock agreement states that the petitioner will sell to 
the foreign company 100,000 shares for $100.00. 
The evidence submitted is sufficient to establish that a qualifying relationship exists between the foreign 
company and the United States entity. The AAO will withdraw the director's decision and sustain the 
appeal. 
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 been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.