dismissed L-1B Case: Mortgage And Lending Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P- CORP. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 30,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM l-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a mortgage and lending services provider, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a mortgage processor under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 11 01(a)(15)(L). The L-lB 
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 in a 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition. We dismissed the Petitioner's 
subsequent appeal concluding that the Petitioner did not establish: (1) that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign employer; and (2) that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge or that he has been employed abroad, and would be employed in the United 
States, in a position requiring specialized knowledge. In addition, while not addressed in the 
Director's original decision, we found that the Petitioner provided insufficient evidence to establish 
that it is a qualifying organization doing business in the United States. 
In its combined motion to reopen and reconsider, the Petitioner submits both new and previously 
submitted documents and asserts that it has met its burden to establish eligibility for the requested 
classification. 
Upon review, we will grant the motion to reopen in part. The record now contains sufficient 
evidence to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner is doing business and we 
will withdraw our adverse finding without fu.rther addressing that issue. However, the Petitioner has 
not overcome the two primary grounds for dismissal of the appeal. Accordingly, the motion to 
reopen will be denied in part and the motion to reconsider will be denied. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
To merit reopening or reconsideration, a petitioner must meet the formal filing requirements (such as 
submission of a properly completed Form I-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), 
and show proper cause for granting the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(l ). 
.
Matter of P- Corp. 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of ne1v facts, and a motion to reconsider is 
based on an incorrect application of lavv or policy. The requirements of a motion to reopen are 
located at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(2), and the requirements of a motion to reconsider are located at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates 
eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Motion to Reopen 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .5( a)(2). We interpret "new facts" to mean facts that are relevant to the issue( s) raised on 
motion and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes the original 
petition. Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not 
constitute "new facts." 1 
1. Qualif ying 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 
section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii) (providing definitions of the 
terms "parent," "branch," "subsidiary," and "affiliate"). 
In our prior decision , we determined 
that the Petitioner submitted insufficient evidence with regard 
to its ownership and control and that there were unexplained discrepancies in the evidence provided . 
Specifically, we found that, despite claiming that it is a majority-owned subsidiary of the 
Beneficiary's foreign employer, the Petitioner did not provide supporting evidence of this claimed 
ownership and control , such as stock certificates , a stock ledger, agreements relating to the voting of 
its outstanding shares , profit distribution documents, or other relevant evidence. Further, the 
Petitioner provided copies of its recent federal tax returns which identified an individual, 
as its sole owner . While we acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted a letter from its 
accountant to corroborate its claim that it is majority owned by the foreign entity, we found such 
evidence to be insufficient as the accountant did not explain what documentary evidenc e he 
reviewed to confirm the Petitioner's ownership. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and addresses some of the issues raised in our 
decision. However, we note the Petitioner has not submitted any direct, relevant evidence of its 
1 We note that the Petitioner has resubmitted a number of documents that it previously submitted either prior to the 
denial or in support of the appeal. While we have reviewed and considered all of the evidence submitted in support of 
the instant motion, only those documents that were not previously submitted will be specifically addressed in this 
decision. 
2 
.
Matter of P- Corp. 
ownership such as stock certificates or a stock ledger, and has not claimed that this evidence is 
unavailable. 
Although we specifically mentioned the lack of stock cetiificates and stock ledger in our prior 
decision, the Petitioner seeks to rely primarily on its amended tax returns as evidence of its 
ownership. It provides its year 2013 and year 2014 amended tax returns with date stamps indicating 
.that they were receiv.ed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). While the date stamps establish that 
the amended tax returns were actually filed with the IRS, the information contained within those 
filings has limited evidentiary weight, as the changes were submitted only after we notified the 
Petitioner of the various anomalies in the previously submitted evidence. The amended returns 
indicate that the foreign entity owns a 50.1% interest in the petitioning company, while 
owns 49.9%. As noted, the tax returns submitted previously identified as the 
Petitioner's sole owner. 
The Petitioner also provides a copy of its 2015 federal tax return, which provides the same 
ownership information as the amended 2013 and 2014 tax returns and shows that the foreign entity is 
the majority shareholder. However, despite the May 2016 date filled in by the preparer, which 
indicates that it may have been filed prior to our decision, the tax return contains no signatures either 
from the preparer of the document or from an officer representing the Petitioner; nor is there separate 
evidence of an IRS receipt date, like the date stamps found on the amended tax returns, to contirm 
that this 2015 tax return was actually tiled. The Petitioner's assurance on motion that the tax return 
was filed is not sufficient. The Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Further, we note 
that even if the tax returns consistently identified the foreign entity as the Petitioner 's majority 
owner, the tax returns would not be given as much weight as stock certificates , a stock ledger, or 
documentation o~· meetings of shareholders. 
In addition, the Petitioner's new evidence includes its State of Delaware Annual Franchise Tax 
Report for the 2015 tax year. However, the information contained in that form is inconsistent with 
the Petitioner's certificate of incorporation. Namely, while the latter indicates that the Petitioner was 
authorized to issue 25 ,000 ,000 shares of common stock with a par value of $.0001, the 2015 
franchise tax report shows that only I ,000 shares of stock were authorized with a par value of $.0 I. 
The Petitioner has neither acknowledged this inconsistency nor provided independent , objective 
evidence to resolve it. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BJA 1988). 
Finally, the Petitioner submits a "Business Continuity Plan," which the Petitioner appears to have 
submitted on motion in an effort to show that the foreign entity controls the U.S. entity. As this 
document does not demonstrate the foreign entity's claimed majority ownership of the Petitioner ' s 
shares, it is insufficient to overcome our previous decision. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence on motion to .establish that it 
has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. 
3 
.
Matter of P- Corp. 
2. Specialized Knowledge 
Next, we will address whether the evidence submitted on motion establishes that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge and that he was employed abroad and \Vould be employed in the 
United States in a position requiring specialized knowledge as defined at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). 
In our decision we noted that the Petitioner initially suggested that the Beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge is based on knowing the English language, U.S. customs, and understanding the needs of 
American banking customers. The Petitioner later claimed the Beneficiary has proprietary 
knowledge of an "internal tool" and third party software only after the Director made adverse 
findings regarding the Beneficiary's claimed specialized knO\vledge. We found that the Petitioner 
neither explained nor documented its internal tools, systems, or methodologies, nor clarified what 
sets them apart from other loan processing businesses. In addition, we determined that the Petitioner 
did not sufficiently explain the training or experience required to master use of its product, services, 
systems, and methodologies or establish that the knowledge the Beneficiary gained through years 
spent working for other companies in the mortgage industry field amounts to specialized knowledge 
of the Petitioner's product, services, methodologies, procedures, and processes. We concluded that 
the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's knowledge is distinct or uncommon compared to 
that possessed by similarly-employed professionals in the Petitioner's industry. 
With regard to the claim that the Beneficiary's knowledge is advanced, we found that Petitioner had 
not detailed its or the foreign entity's processes and procedures or established that the junior 
processors who report to the Beneficiary will be trained on processes and procedures that are 
specific to either the foreign entity or the Petitioner. We noted the overall lack of comparative 
evidence of the salaries, education, duties, and tenure of other similarly employed workers or other 
evidence that would differentiate the Beneficiary's kno\vledge from the other employees within his 
department or with any other individuals within the foreign organization. 
On motion, the Petitioner reiterates previously made claims, maintaining that the Beneficiary "has 
certain advanced or special skills in the training of new junior processors," and once again points to 
the Beneficiary's bachelor's degree in commerce and the claimed proprietary knowledge gained 
through years of working "in this particular field." The Petitioner also claims that the Beneficiary 
gained specialized knowledge as a result of a "hands-on approach and training" as well as by 
working in a managerial position for the foreign entity. 
We find that the above claims are not new and were previously addressed in our decision. While the 
Petitioner acknowledges our findings, it does not provide evidence to overcome them. The 
Petitioner provides a letter from its president, who stated that the Beneficiary's 
"primary job" is managing the "sales pipelines" of the Petitioner's clients and delegating 
responsibilities to "the most appropriate parties." also reiterates previously made claims 
about the Beneficiary's "advanced familiarity with [underwriting] guidelines and overlays" that the 
4 
.
------ --------- ----·-
Matter of P- Corp. 
Beneficiary memorized through years of experience and the Beneficiary's "advanced knowledge" of 
"the overall mortgage application process." 
As with other previously submitted evidence, letter does not specify how the 
Beneficiary's knowledge of the mortgage application process is different from other mortgage 
processor managers or discuss any type of internal company training the Beneficiary had to undergo 
to attain his level of knowledge. The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary actually 
gained his knowledge through employment with the foreign organization . As we discussed in our 
earlier decision, the Beneficiary's ability to memorize third party and general industry information 
cannot be deemed as special knowledge of an employer's products and services and the application 
of those products and services in international markets. Any knowledge the Beneficiary may have 
gained through years he spent working for other companies in the mortgage industry is not 
specialized knowledge of the Petitioner's product, services, methodologies, procedures, and 
processes. The information in letter is not new and does not overcome our earlier 
findings. 
Although the Petitioner again references its internal tracking tool, www.privoloans.com, it does not 
address our prior reservations about the lack of evidence regarding the development, use, or training 
needed to use the tool or the lack of evidence establishing when this tool was developed to 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary was involved in the development process. The Petitioner also did 
not provide evidence to establish that the Beneficiary's knowledge is advanced or uncommon in 
comparison to his colleagues within the organization or that it is uncommon or noteworthy within 
the industry. 
In sum, we find that the Petitioner's brief primarily consists of previously made claims about the 
Beneficiary's purported specialized knowledge. The Petitioner does not provide evidence to 
specifically address the deficiencies discussed in our decision. 
Further, while the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary's former and proposed positions qualify as 
positions that are in both a specialized knowledge and a managerial capacity , the record shows that 
the Petitioner originally claimed that the Beneficiary was and would be employed in a specialized 
knowledge capacity, rather than as an L-lA manager or executive . We reviewed whether the 
Petitioner met its burden of proof to establish eligibility for the requested L-1 B classification 
annotated on the Form 1-129. We have no authority to consider other nonimmigrant classifications 
in the alternative, and there is no regulation that allows the Petitioner to pursue both the L-1 B and 
L-1 A classifications through the filing of a single petition. Therefore, the Petitioner's request that 
we consider whether the Beneficiary qualifies for L-lA classification is denied. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As fully discussed above , the Petitioner has not overcome the two primary grounds for dismissal of 
the appeal. Although we withdrew our firiding that the Petitioner is not doing business, we will not 
grant the motion to reopen or reconsider with respect to the issue of the Petitioner ' s qualifying 
5 
Matter of P- Corp. 
relationship with the foreign entity or the Beneficiary's employment in a specialized knowledge 
position because the evidence submitted on motion does not establish· eligibility for the requested 
classification. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is granted in part and denied in part. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of P- Corp., ID# 242919 (AAO Mar. 30, 2017) 
·, 
6