sustained L-1A Case: Satellite Manufacturing

U.S. Department of Homeland !Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
identifying data del~tcd to 
 O$ce ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
prevent clet?rly unwaranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
 U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC CO 
 Services 
File: WAC 08 23 1 5 164 1 
 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: 
 JuL 17 2009 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(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. 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 08 231 51641 
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 AAO will sustain the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. tj 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a Delaware limited liability company, intends to engage in the 
manufacture and sale of satellites. The petitioner claims to be a subsidiary of Surrey Satellite Technology, 
Limited, located in Surrey, United Kingdom. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its chief 
executive officer of its new office in the United States for a period of one year. 
The director denied the petition on two independent grounds, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: 
(1) that the beneficiary had at least one continuous year of full-time employment with the foreign entity 
within the three years preceding the filing of the petition; and (2) that the U.S. company and the foreign entity 
have a qualifying relationship. 
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, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director's 
decision reveals a "blatant disregard" for the evidence submitted. Counsel asserts that all requirements for 
approval of the L-1A classification petition have been met. 
To establish eligibility for the L-l nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section lOl(a)(lS)(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. 
(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 
WAC 08 231 51641 
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. 5 214.2(1)(3)(~) further 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 involved executive of 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 he 
United States; and 
(3) The organizational structure of the foreign entity. 
The first issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary had at least 
one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, on August 25, 2008. The petitioner 
stated on the L Classification to Form 1-129 that the beneficiary was employed by its foreign parent company 
from October 1, 1996 until August 3 1, 2006, without interruption, and from "1 1/05/1997" to the present.' In a 
letter dated August 19, 2008, the foreign entity's Director of Finance confirmed that the beneficiary was hired 
as the company's Commercial Director in November 2007, and previously held the positions of Projects 
Director (2005-2006), Senior Program Engineer Manager (2003-2005), Program Manager (2000-2003), 
Senior EngineerIProject Manager (1998-2000) and Engineer (1 996- 1998). The beneficiary was employed 
with an unrelated company from 2006 until 2007. 
' The AAO notes that upon review of the totality of the evidence, the "1 1/05/1997" date appears to have been 
a typographical error. The record shows that the beneficiary was most recently hired by the foreign entity in 
November 2007, rather than in November 1997. 
WAC08231 51641 
Page 4 
The initial evidence also included the beneficiary's resume, which provided position descriptions and dates of 
employment for each position he has held with the foreign entity since 1992. 
The director issued a request for additional evidence (WE) on September 2, 2008, in which she requested 
copies of the foreign company's payroll records pertaining to the beneficiary for the year preceding the filing 
of the petition. 
In response to the RFE, the foreign entity's Director of Finance stated that the beneficiary was recruited for 
his current position in November 2007, "having previously worked for [the foreign entity] during his 
university studies and formally, in various roles, between 1 October 1996 and 31 August 2006." The 
petitioner submitted a statement summarizing the beneficiary's employment history with the company and 
provided payroll records dating back to November 2007. 
The director denied the petition on October 22, 2008, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity on a continuous full-time basis for at least one year during the 
three years preceding the filing of the instant petition. In denying the petition, the director determined that the 
beneficiary had been employed with the foreign entity for a period of only ten months within the three years 
prior to the date of filing the petition. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director failed to consider the full three-year period 
preceding the filing of the petition in determining whether the beneficiary had been employed by the foreign 
entity for the requisite one-year period. Counsel emphasizes that the beneficiary was in fact continuously 
employed by the foreign entity for one year within the applicable time period, between August 2005 and 
August 2006, and notes that the petitioner clearly provided information regarding the beneficiary's prior 
employment with the company. 
In support of the appeal, the petitioner submits copies of the beneficiary's pay stubs for the period August 
2005 through August 2006. 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are persuasive. The petitioner has established that the beneficiary was 
employed by the foreign entity on a full-time basis for one continuous year within the three years preceding 
the filing of the petition. The director appears to have overlooked or erroneously disregarded the petitioner's 
statements that the beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity on a continuous basis from the 1990s until 
August 3 1,2006. The evidence submitted on appeal further corroborates the beneficiary's employment history 
with the foreign entity. Accordingly, the director's determination with respect to this issue will be withdrawn. 
The second and final issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established that the U.S. 
company and the foreign entity have a qualifying relationship. 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 are the same employer (i.e. one entity with "branch" offices), or related as a "parent and 
subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See generally section IOl(a)(15)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. tj 2 14.2(1). 
WAC 08 231 51641 
Page 5 
The pertinent regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii) define the term "qualifying organization" and 
related terms as follows: 
(G) 
 Qualzfiing organization means a United States or foreign firm, corporation, 
or other legal entity which: 
(I) 
 Meets exactly one of the qualifying relationships specified in the 
definitions of a parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary specified in 
paragraph (l)(l)(ii) of this section; 
(2) 
 Is or will be doing business (engaging in international trade is 
not required) as an employer in the United States and in at least 
one other country directly or through a parent, branch, affiliate or 
subsidiary for the duration of the alien's stay in the United States 
as an intracompany transferee[.] 
(I) Parent means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity which has 
subsidiaries. 
(K) 
 Subsidiary means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent 
owns, directly or indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the 
entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, half of the entity and controls the 
entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, 50 percent of a 50-50 joint venture and 
has equal control and veto power over the entity; or owns, directly or 
indirectly, less than half of the entity, but in fact controls the entity. 
The petitioner indicated on Form 1-129 that it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Surrey Satellite Technology 
Limited, located in Surrey, United Kingdom. In support of the petition, the petitioner provided: 
A certificate from the Registrar of Companies for England and Wales confirming the 
active corporate status of the foreign entity as of January 30,2008; 
The foreign company's Articles of Association as adopted by Special Resolution on 
January 10,2005; 
The U.S. company's Limited Liability Company Agreement which identifies Surrey 
Satellite Technology Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, as the petitioner's sole 
member; 
The petitioner's Certificate of Formation filed with the Delaware Secretary of State on 
February 2 1,2008; 
WAC 08 231 51641 
Page 6 
A chart outlining the group organizational structure of the petitioner's group structure, 
which indicates that the petitioner is indirectly owned by Surrey Satellite Technology 
Limited through a United Kingdom holding company, Surrey Satellite Investments 
Limited, which in turn owns Surrey Satellite Technology Holdings, Inc., the petitioner's 
direct parent company; 
A press release issued by Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. on August 5, 2008, 
announcing the establishment of the petitioning company as its U.S. subsidiary. 
In the RFE issued on September 2, 2008, the director requested evidence to show that the foreign parent 
company has paid for its ownership interest in the U.S. company, in the form of original wire transfers, 
canceled checks, deposit receipts, etc. 
In a letter dated October 3,2008, the foreign entity indicated that the petitioner and its U.S. affiliate have been 
funded in cash by Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd., and that it is the foreign entity's intention to provide over 
$1 million within six months. The petitioner submitted a feasibility study conducted by the foreign entity in 
connection with the establishment of the U.S. office. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted: 
The minutes of three board of director's meetings held on December 7,2007, February 1, 
2008 and February 29, 2008, which discuss the establishment of the petitioner, a second 
U.S. limited liability company, and the U.K. holding company Surrey Satellite 
Investments, Ltd. 
Evidence that funds totaling $50,000 were transferred from Surrey Satellite Technology 
Ltd. to the petitioning company in February 2008. 
A Subscription Agreement for Surrey Satellite Technology Holdings, Inc. in which 
Surrey Satellite Investments, Ltd. subscribes to 10 shares of the Delaware corporation's 
stock. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that there is a qualifying 
relationship between the petitioner and the foreign entity. In denying the petition, the director emphasized that 
the petitioner did not submit its corporate stock certificate ledger, stock certificate registry, corporate bylaws 
or the minutes of relevant annual shareholder meetings or other evidence formalizing the foreign entity's stock 
purchase. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the evidence is sufficient to substantiate the parent-subsidiary 
relationship between the foreign and U.S. companies. Counsel emphasizes that the director seemed to ignore 
the evidence submitted and instead focused on the petitioner's failure to provide evidence that was never 
requested. Counsel asserts that all of the evidence submitted indicates that the U.S. company is a wholly- 
owned, indirect subsidiary of the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
In support of the appeal, the petitioner submits an affidavit from the foreign entity's director of finance and 
member of the board of directors who confirms that the petitioner is a wholly-owned indirect 
subsidiary of Surrey Satellite Technology Limited. 
WAC 08 231 51641 
Page 7 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are persuasive. The evidence of record, considered as a whole, is sufficient 
to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioning company is an indirect, wholly-owned 
subsidiary of the foreign entity. The petitioner's failure to submit specific evidence that was never requested 
by the director cannot be used to discredit a petitioner's otherwise consistent claim. The director appears to 
have improperly given no evidentiary weight to the petitioner's statements or to the substantial documentation 
submitted to establish the parent-subsidiary relationship. Accordingly, the director's decision will be 
withdrawn, and the petition will be approved. 
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. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has met that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be sustained and the decision of the director will be withdrawn. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. The petition is approved.