dismissed L-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 6041464 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 27, 2020 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lB Specialized Knowledge Worker 
The Petitioner , 1 a company engaged in enterprise software development, sales, and implementation, 
seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as technical product manager of its U.S . affiliate 's new 
office 2 under the L-lB nonimmigrant classification for intracompany transferees . Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). 3 
The Director of the California Service Center initially denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner 
did not establish, as required, that: (1) it secured sufficient physical premises to house the business 
operation of its U.S . affiliate; (2) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial capacity; and 
(3) the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and would be required to use such knowledge in 
his proposed U.S. position. We reviewed the decision and the Petitioner's submissions on appeal and 
found that the Petitioner overcame the grounds cited for denial. Notwithstanding our withdrawal of 
the Director's decision, we found that the Petitioner did not meet all of the requirements applicable to 
a new office; therefore, we remanded the matter to the Director. The Director has since issued a new 
decision, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish, as required, that: ( 1) it secured sufficient 
physical premises to house the business operation of its U.S . affiliate; and (2) it had the financial ability 
to remunerate the Beneficiary and commence doing business in the United States through its U.S. 
affiliate . 4 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1361. Upon de nova review, we find that the Petitioner did not meet 
that burden . Therefore , we will dismiss the appeal. 
1 The Petitioner in this matter is the Beneficiary's foreign employer and an affiliate of the proposed US. employer , 
I l a company established in 2017 . 
2 The te1m "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one year. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F). 
3 The Petitioner requested that the Beneficiary be granted a five-year period of temporary employment. However , if a 
beneficiary is coming to the United States to be employed in a new office, the petition may be approved for a period not 
to exceed one year. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(7)(i)(A)(3). 
4 Because we found that the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the physical premises requirement , the 
Director's contrary finding on this issue in the current decision is withdrawn. Our authority over the service centers is 
comparabl e to the relationship between a court of appeal s and a district court. Therefore , we are not be bound to follow 
the contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 44 F. Supp. 2d 800, 803 (E.D. 
La. 1999). 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lB nonimmigrant visa classification, 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. Section 10l(a)(l5)(L) of the Act. 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). 
To establish eligibility for the L-lB nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving a new 
office, the Petitioner must submit evidence that its U.S. affiliate secured sufficient physical premises 
to house its operation, evidence that the new business entity is or will be a qualifying organization, 
and evidence that it has the financial ability to remunerate the Beneficiary and commence doing 
business in the United States. See generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(vi). Doing business means the 
regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services and does not include the mere 
presence of an agent or office of the qualifying organization. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(H). As the 
validity of a new office petition is limited to one year, the Petitioner must show that it will be doing 
business as defined in the regulations within that timeframe. 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF APPROVAL 
The issue to be addressed in this discussion is whether the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to 
establish that it had the financial ability to support the Beneficiary and commence doing business in 
the United States. 
A. Factual Background 
The petition was filed in September 2017 and indicated that the Beneficiary would assume a 
specialized knowledge position with the Petitioner's U.S. affiliate within one year of the petition's 
approval. The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would remain on its payroll and that his 
compensation package would include "dividends and allowances," such as health insurance and a 
pension plan, and would be a minimum of $4000 per month. The Petitioner claimed, however, that it 
had been compensating the Beneficiary an average of $5500 per month "during his current stay." The 
Petitioner provided the Beneficiary's bank statements from 2016 and 2017 showing that the 
Beneficiary had $24,690 in his bank account as of August 2017. The Petitioner also provided evidence 
pertaining to its own finances in Turkey, including a "Certificate of Activity" from the Chamber of 
Commerce inl I Turkey showing that the Petitioner's capital as of August 2017 was 500,000 
Turkish lira, the Petitioner's bank account statement showing that it had $38,515 in August 2017, the 
Petitioner's partially translated tax returns, and a number of other foreign documents containing partial 
translations and the Beneficiary's handwritten attestations that his translations are accurate because he 
is "competent in both English and Turkish." 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director informed the Petitioner that it had not provided sufficient 
evidence of its financial ability to pay the Beneficiary and commence doing business in the United 
States. It pointed to evidentiary deficiencies in the record, including the lack of information about the 
2 
Petitioner's U.S. investment and the lack of a business plan outlining the U.S. entity's start-up costs, 
expenses, financial goals, and income projections. 
In response, the Petitioner provided a business plan that contains an executive summary stating that 
the Petitioner had approximately $72,000 in its bank as ofJune 2018 and projected that its 2019 income 
from its current client~ I- would be $95,000; the Petitioner stated that it had sufficient 
funds to cover its estimated expenses of "less than $93,000 for the first 12 months and $115,500 before 
the first independent sales of! !operation," which it referred to as the U.S. entity's start-up 
expenses and "survival costs," respectively. In the "Survivability and Pricing Strategy" section of the 
business plan, the Petitioner provided a breakdown of the U.S. entity's business expenses, stating that 
it will cover such expenses by providin~ lwith additional IT development and maintenance 
services, which will generate additional revenue in 2019. The plan lists the U.S. entity's monthly 
expenses for the first year, allocating funds to the Beneficiary's living expenses, a co-working space, 
travel, and accommodation expenses for potential customer site visits, "unexpected expenses," and 
lead generation, accounting, and legal services. 
The Petitioner also provided its December 2018 bank statement and included information in the 
business plan about additional income it claims to have generated. Namely, the Petitioner stated that 
it generated $136,000 within eight months by providing services tol I Lastly, the Petitioner 
provided a translated income statement from September 2018 containing an account of the Petitioner's 
finances. 
The Director denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence 
demonstrating its financial ability to remunerate the Beneficiary and to commence doing business in 
the United States. The Director observed that the Petitioner's available funds as of December 2018 
were approximately $90,000, which is less than the amount the Petitioner claimed it needed for its 
first year start-up costs. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that it "mistakenly" neglected to update the executive summary in its 
business plan and asks us to focus on the financial projections contained in sections 8 and 9 of the 
plan. It also provides a new table of expenses and offers evidence of future income to support the 
claim that it had adequate funds to support the Beneficiary and commence doing business in the United 
States through its U.S. affiliate. 
B. Analysis 
We find that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to support its claim. First, with regard 
to the Petitioner's submission of partially translated foreign documents, we note that any document in 
a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3). As the Petitioner's partial translations are not in compliance with that requirement, we 
cannot meaningfully determine whether the translated material is accurate and thus supports the 
Petitioner's claims. Likewise, we will not consider the contents of a translation that the Petitioner 
3 
submitted without the corresponding foreign language document it purports to translate. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3). 5 
Further, as previously noted, the Petitioner provided evidence that was not consistent with its claims 
regarding the amount of fonds it had available. The information provided in the "Financial Summary" 
section of the business plan states that the Petitioner had $72,000 "or equal in its bank account as of 
06.12.2018." This information is inconsistent with the referenced bank letter, 6 which states that the 
combined balances of the Petitioner's two bank accounts as of "17.12.2018," only five days after the 
date referenced in the business plan, was $89,926.41. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that its executive summary "was mistakenly not updated," indicating 
that the above referenced bank letter, rather than the executive summary in the business plan, contained 
the most accurate fonding information. Even if that were true, the Petitioner must establish that all 
eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and 
continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Here, the Petitioner relied on evidence 
pertaining to the fonds it had available in December 2018, more than one year after this petition was 
filed. According to the Petitioner's August 2017 bank statement, it had only $38,515 the month prior 
to filing this petition. Likewise, prospective revenue that the Petitioner expected to generate in 2019 
is not sufficient to establish that it had sufficient fonds at the time of filing to remunerate the 
Beneficiary and commence doing business. Further, with regard to the $136,000 the Petitioner 
claimed to have generated by providing services tol I the Petitioner did not state when it 
generated this income and instead provided a December 2018 email from the Beneficiary, where he 
referenced a contract with I I with a January 2019 effective date. The Petitioner did not 
supplement the record with evidence showing that it had the fonds necessary to pay the Beneficiary's 
wage and cover the U.S. entity's start-up costs so that it could commence doing business in September 
201 7, when this petition was filed. 
The Petitioner also provided insufficient and inconsistent information about the U.S. entity's initial 
start-up costs. First, although the plan refers to "survival costs," it does not list what those costs are 
or account for the $20,000+ in additional expenses that the Petitioner anticipates after the U.S. 
affiliate's first year of operation. Rather, the plan offers an expense table that itemizes the U.S. entity's 
monthly "Pessimistic cash flow projection" from January 2019 through December 2024 and shows 
that the U.S. entity will have $7700 in monthly operating expenses for 16 months - from March 2019 
through June 2020. The table indicates that this figure will more than double to $16,200 in July 2020 
and will farther increase to $24,700 in January 2021, but it does not list or describe the factors that 
would contribute to the $115,500 in "survival costs." 
On appeal, the Petitioner adds to the confusion surrounding the U.S. entity's operating expenses by 
providing a table containing evidence that is inconsistent with information in the business plan. More 
specifically, the new table provides an itemized list of the U.S. entity's expenses during its first six 
5 Even if the Petitioner were to have provided the corresponding foreign language original, a financial statement from 
September 2018 would not be sufficient to establish the Petitioner's available finances in September 2017. when this 
petition was filed. 
6 When citing to this date, the Petitioner added a footnote referencing a bank letter dated "17.12.2018." Given that there 
are no more than 12 months in a year, it is reasonable to conclude that the order of these numbers represents the day, 
month, and year of the given document. 
4 
months and its second six months of operation, showing that during the first six-month period there 
would be $6100 in monthly expenses and that the cost would rise in the next six months to $7700 per 
month, totaling $82,800 for the first year of operation. In the business plan, however, the Petitioner 
stated that the U.S. entity's first-year expenses would be $7700 monthly, which would amount to 
$92,400 annually and would be approximately $10,000 higher than what the Petitioner now claims in 
the new table submitted on appeal. The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency in the record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-
92 (BIA 1988). 
In sum, the Petitioner provided deficient evidence that does not accurately establish what the U.S. 
entity's start-up costs would be, nor does it provide sufficient evidence showing that it had sufficient 
funding available at the time of filing to cover those costs. In light of these deficiencies, we cannot 
conclude that the Petitioner had the funds it needed to remunerate the Beneficiary and adequately 
support the U.S. operation so that it could commence doing business. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5