dismissed L-1B Case: Marble Construction

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 10, 2024 In Re: 31746246 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker) 
The Petitioner, described as a marble construction and design business, seeks to employ the 
Beneficiary as its manager under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The 
L-1 B classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to 
transfer a qualifying foreign employee with "specialized knowledge" to work temporarily in the 
United States. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner is doing business as defined in the regulations. The matter is now before us on 
appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-lB nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. 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 specialized knowledge capacity. Id. The petitioner 
must also establish that the beneficiary's prior education, training, and employment qualify him or her 
to perform the intended services in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
For purposes of the L-1 nonimmigrant classification, a "qualifying organization" is one that is or will 
be doing business as an employer in the United States and in at least one other country for the duration 
of a beneficiary's stay in the United States as an intracompany transferee. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(G)(2). The term "doing business" means the regular, systematic, and continuous 
provision of goods and/or services by a qualifying organization and does not include the mere presence 
of an agent or office. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(H). 
TI. DOING BUSINESS IN THE UNITED ST A TES 
The sole issue addressed by the Director is whether the Petitioner established that it is doing business 
in the United States. 
The Director emphasized that neither the Petitioner's unaudited income statements nor its parent 
company's U.S. federal income tax returns reflect that it had reported any gross receipts or sales 
between 2018 and 2023. The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of other 
documentation, such as vendor and contractor invoices and bank statements, as evidence of its 
business-related expenses and credits, but emphasized that these documents contained inconsistencies 
and were otherwise insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner has been "doing business" as defined 
in the regulations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not properly weigh all the submitted evidence of 
its activities in the United States. The Petitioner further asserts that the facts here are comparable to 
those presented in Matter of Leacheng, 26 I&N Dec. 532 (AAO 2015), and support a determination 
that the Petitioner is doing business by providing services to a related entity within the same 
organization. 
For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not met its burden to demonstrate that it has been 
engaged in the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and or services in the United 
States. 
On the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, the Petitioner indicated that it was 
established in the United States in 2018 as a marble constrnction and design company. The Petitioner 
stated on the Form 1-129 that it had ten employees in the United States, gross annual income of more 
than $52 million and net annual income of $21.1 million at the time of filing in July 2023. While the 
Petitioner provided evidence that it was established in Nevada in 2018, the record indicates that it had 
no employees and had not yet generated any revenue in the United States. The Petitioner did not 
explain the staffing and revenue figures it provided on the petition. 
The record establishes that the Petitioner's affiliate, purchased 
approximately four acres of land in I I in August 2018 for the purpose of establishing the 
a a 43,914 square foot building complex to be constrncted in a Turkish architectural 
style using Turkish marble and natural stones. The Petitioner explained that the marble, other natural 
stone materials, and several key specialized knowledge workers are being provided by its two 
subsidiaries in Turkey. The Petitioner has consistently stated it is responsible for the "specialized 
constrnction and buildouf' of the spa's multi-use building complex, which will include fine dining 
restaurants, Turkish baths, spa rooms, a salon, and other facilities, and will receive full support from 
the which finances the project." 
The record contains supporting documentation related to the Iproject, including evidence of 
the land purchase, site plan, the purchase of Turkish marble and other materials by I 
2 
I 
and photographs showing the start of construction at the building site. According to a 
statement from the majority shareholder of the Petitioner's corporate group, 
has spent approximately $12 million to date and expects to allocate an additional $8 million to finish 
the building, with the Petitioner tasked to "finish the marble and ceramic installation." He explained 
that the Petitioner has not required full-time or salaried workers to date and "won't be earning any 
money nor profits" until the new building complex is completed and operational. 
The evidence demonstrates that the Iproject was underway when the petition was filed 
and that the project is and will continue to be funded by the Petitioner's affiliated companies. The 
issue before us is whether the Petitioner's involvement in the project to date is consistent with the 
regulatory definition of "doing business" at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(H). 
The Petitioner maintains that the previously submitted evidence demonstrates business activities that 
go "beyond the mere presence of an agent or office" noting that it "currently works with its affiliate 
organizations and provides service to them by managing the contraction [sic] site." Specifically, it 
states it substantiated that it is an active business by providing evidence of "regular and consistent 
subcontractor compensation, timely settlement of outstanding bills and invoices, asset management, 
property upkeep for executive and owner stay[s] during essential I I site visits, and 
employment of a 1099-contracted site manager." The Petitioner further emphasizes that it is 
"progressing with the construction" and is "charged with all future operations" of the building complex 
once it is completed and open for business. 
The Petitioner also contends that the facts here are similar to those presented in Matter ofLeacheng, 
26 I&N Dec. 532 (AAO 2015), in which we concluded a petitioner may establish that it is "doing 
business" by demonstrating that it is providing goods and/or services in a regular, systematic, and 
continuous manner to related companies within its multinational organization. The Petitioner 
maintains that, like the petitioner in Leacheng, "defined the specific services" it provides to its affiliate 
and substantiated that it is "actually carrying out its services of constructing the building complex on 
the land owned by its [affiliate] company." 
To determine whether a petitioner has met its burden to show that it is providing services in a regular, 
systematic, and continuous manner to a related company, we consider the totality of the record, 
including relevant documentation to substantiate its business activities. In Matter ofLeacheng, the 
petitioner provided a copy of its service agreement with a foreign affiliate and substantial evidence 
showing that it paid wages to its staff of employees, billed the foreign entity for its services, and was 
in fact performing the services described in the service agreement in a manner consistent with the 
regulatory definition of "doing business." See Leacheng, I&N Dec. at 536. 
Unlike the petitioner in Matter of Leacheng, the Petitioner in this matter has not clearly defined the 
specific services it provides or submitted sufficient supporting documentation to corroborate that it 
has been performing services for its affiliate company in a regular, systematic, and continuous manner. 
The Petitioner states it has been providing services to its affiliate by managing the construction of the 
Ibuilding complex on the I I property owned by _______ The 
Petitioner's responsibility for the "construction and management" of the project is mentioned in the 
minutes of a board of directors meeting held by ________ in December 2022. It is 
3 
I 
unclear whether there is any written agreement between the Petitioner and its affiliate further 
delineating the nature and scope of its services and each party's responsibilities with respect to the 
I project. While such an agreement is not required to demonstrate it is doing business, it is 
nevertheless the Petitioner's burden to clearly define and document the specific services it provides to 
its affiliate, and what is entailed by its responsibility for "construction and management" ofthel I 
project. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner, established in 2018, has never had a foll-time employee assigned 
to oversee the project's development or any other payroll staff. It did not explain how it has planned, 
coordinated, or managed any construction activities carried out to date without personnel to perform 
these functions or any associated administrative or operational duties that would reasonably be 
associated with a project of this size. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that, for over a year, it has been working with a general 
contractor, _________ to complete the construction of the building complex in 
I I The record includes a January 2023 letter froml Ithe company's owner. He stated that 
he "started working withl Ion the ________ project over a 
year ago." He did not mention the Petitioner, his company's relationship with the Petitioner, or the 
Petitioner's involvement with the project. 
The record contains copies of monthly invoices issued by _______ for work on the
I Iproject between March 2022 and August 2023. From March 2022 until January 2023, 
the contractor issued monthly invoices for "employment services" in the amount $18,333.33. Between 
February 2023 and August 2023, the contractor invoiced this amount, plus an additional $10,000 
monthly for the services of an individual identified as a "site supervisor/general superintendent." The 
invoices were issued to the attention of "O-S-" (the majority owner of the Petitioner's group) and 
include the Petitioner's company name. However, the record lacks sufficient supporting evidence of 
the Petitioner's relationship with the contractor, such as a copy of the contract between the two parties 
detailing the nature and scope of the contracted work and the Petitioner's role in overseeing that work. 
There is also insufficient evidence that the Petitioner, as opposed to another company in its group, was 
consistently responsible for paying the invoices issued by _______ The record includes 
copies of the Petitioner's bank statements for the months of May 2023, September 2023, and October 
2023. The May and October statements show "preauthorized debits" in the amount invoiced by 
However, some of the earlier invoices submitted by this contractor bear approval 
stamps indicating they were paid from several different bank accounts. GivenI I statement 
that he had been working forl Irather than for the Petitioner, the invoices and 
three bank statements are insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner contracted his services and is 
responsible for overseeing the services his company provides. 
As noted, the Petitioner states on appeal that it employs the services of a "1099 contracted site 
manager," but it does not identify this individual in its brief or provide a copy of an IRS Form 1099 it 
issued to the claimed site manager or tax forms issued to any other contractors. In response to the 
Director's request for copies of the Petitioner's income tax returns, it submitted a letter from I I 
which states "for U.S. tax purposes, the income and expenses of [the Petitioner] are required to 
be included with its owner, ________ and be reported on the owner's U.S. tax return." 
4 
While the Petitioner submitted copies of this entity's federal tax returns, they did not include all 
accompanying statements, and, as submitted, and do not include any references to the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner also submitted copies of its unaudited income statements and balance sheets for the 
years 2018 through 2022 and a partial-year statement for 2023. The most recent statements, for 2022 
and 2023, indicate significant payments to contractors. However, without additional corroborating 
evidence showing how the Petitioner is actively overseeing the project, the information 
provided in the unaudited financial statements is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
been regularly and systematically providing the claimed "construction and management services" for 
its affiliate. As discussed further below, the statements show that the company had almost no other 
business-related expenses in 2022 or 2023. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that in addition demonstrating that it has been engaged in the 
construction of the I I spa by relying on contractors, it provided evidence of its "timely 
settlement of outstanding bills and invoices, asset management, [and] property upkeep for executive 
and owner stay[s] during essential I I site visits." In this regard, the Petitioner provided an 
affidavit from D-H-, who indicates that, as the Petitioner's contractor, she has hosted visitors toD 
I I and arranged for them to stay at residential properties owned by _______ She 
indicates that the Petitioner pays her a fixed monthly fee for her services and pays for all overhead 
expenses related to thesel lbased company meetings. D-H- also indicates that she organized 
the Petitioner's participation in a June 2019 trade show, for which the Petitioner paid all associated 
expenses. She does not identify any other functions she currently performs for the company or indicate 
that she performs duties related to the construction of thel !building complex. She states she 
will serve as the facility's customer service manager when it opens for business. 
The record does not contain a copy of the Petitioner's contract with D-H- outlining the terms of their 
relationship and the nature and scope of services she provides. However, it contains copies of invoices 
she submitted to the Petitioner, some evidence corroborating the Petitioner's payment of expenses 
related to the 2019 trade show, and evidence that it paid utility bills and other invoices associated with 
maintenance of the two residential properties owned by For example, the 
Petitioner's income statement for 2019 reflects it paid trade show expenses as well as expenses 
categorized as telephone, auto, travel, cleaning, accounting, internet, house supplies, insurance, legal, 
meals and entertainment, office expenses, utilities, and repairs and maintenance, among others. 
Similar types of payments appear on its income statements for 2020 and 2021. 
However, the submitted income statements reflect the Petitioner was no longer paying most of these 
expenses in 2022 or at the time it filed the petition in 2023. In fact, in 2023, the Petitioner reported 
$1324 in auto expenses, $700 in legal expenses, $40 in bank charges, and no other office or business­
related expenses other than payments to contractors. 1 As such, it appears that any services it may have 
been providing to manage the Iresidential properties owned by its affiliate had ceased prior 
to the filing of the petition. Further, the minimal business-related expenses reported for the 18-month 
period preceding the filing of the petition do not substantiate the Petitioner's claim that it was doing 
1 The Petitioner submitted an affidavit and invoices from its attorney. The evidence shows that the attorney invoiced the 
company $700 annually to handle certain filings with the Nevada Secretary of State. The invoices are addressed to the 
Petitioner at the Canadian address of its majority owner. 
5 
business by actively managing the _____ project and other facilities on behalf of its affiliate 
company. 
Finally, we acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that it will be responsible for managing the operations 
of the new building complex once it is completed and open for business, at which point it would hire 
additional staff and generate revenue. The Petitioner cannot establish its eligibility based on its 
planned future business activities. Rather, it must demonstrate it met all eligibility requirements for 
the requested benefit at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that it was doing business 
as defined in the regulations when it filed the petition. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6