dismissed EB-1C Case: Graphic Arts And Publishing

U.S. Department of Ilomeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
 DateduN 2 2 2oO9 
LIN 06 267 50720 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(C) 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. 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 $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
F. Grissom 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed the immigrant visa petition to classify the beneficiary as a multinational manager 
or executive pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(C). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California 
that is engaged in the graphic arts and publishing business. The petitioner represents itself as a 
wholly owned subsidiary of the beneficiary's foreign employer, UN News Ltd., located in Korea, 
and seeks to employ the beneficiary as its general manager. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary 
was employed abroad in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner contends that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) erred and discounted critical evidence. Counsel submits a statement in support of the 
appeal. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(C) Certain Multinational Executives and Managers. - An alien is 
described in this subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding 
the time of the alien's application for classification and admission 
into the United States under this subparagraph, has been employed 
for at least 1 year by a firm or corporation or other legal entity or an 
affiliate or subsidiary thereof and who seeks to enter the United 
States in order to continue to render services to the same employer or 
to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial or 
executive. 
The language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only those executives or managers 
who have previously worked for the firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or 
subsidiary of that entity, and are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its 
affiliate or subsidiary. 
A United States employer may file a petition on Form 1-140 for classification of an alien under 
section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. No labor certification is 
required for this classification. If the alien is already in the United States working for the petitioning 
United States employer or its affiliate or subsidiary, the petitioner must demonstrate that, in the three 
Page 3 
years preceding entry into the united States as a nonimmigrant, the alien was employed by the entity 
abroad for at least one year in a managerial or executive capacity. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(j)(3)(1)(B). The 
prospective employer in the United States must furnish a job offer in the form of a statement, which 
indicates that the alien is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
Such a statement must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the alien. 8 C.F.R. tj 
204.5(j)(5). 
At issue in this proceeding is whether the beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily- 
(i) Manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the organization; 
(ii) Supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the organization, or a 
department or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) 
 Has the authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel 
actions (such as promotion and leave authorization) if another employee or other 
employees are directly supervised; if no other employee is directly supervised, functions 
at a senior level with the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function 
managed; and 
(iv) 
 Exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or fimction for 
which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is not considered to be acting 
in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless 
the employees supervised are professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1 lOl(a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily- 
(i) 
 Directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of 
the organization; 
(ii) 
 Establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
(iii) 
 Exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) 
 Receives only general supervision or direction fiom higher level executives, the 
board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
The petitioner filed the immigrant visa petition on August 25,2006 noting that the beneficiary would 
occupy the position of general manager of the four-person United States company. In the support 
letter dated July 3,2006 submitted with the initial filing, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary has 
been employed as business director with the foreign entity since October 2002. The petitioner 
described the beneficiary's overseas position as follows: 
[The beneficiary] has been responsible for hiringlfiring of businessladministrative 
staff and ensuring that his [sic] directions and instruction are carried out by the 
Supervisors (Sec Head) [sic] in the Business Department down to the office 
workerslstaff. [The beneficiary], as Business Manager in our Korean entity has 
performed the following fbnctions set out hereunder: 
The exact percentage of time spent on each area of duty cannot be determined with 
certainty as these percentages have varied from time to time and circumstance to 
circumstance. Nonetheless all the duties hereinafter detailed are clearly managerial 
in nature. The duties are as follows: 
The beneficiary has controlled, managed and directed the actions of Section 
Heads (Supervisors) and overseen their duties 
The Supervisors report to the beneficiary as regards their duties and the 
implementation by them and through to the workers [sic] 
The beneficiary instructs the Supervisors as regards the ordersldirectives of the 
Executive of the business and is responsible to report to the Executive on their 
aforementioned implementation 
The evaluation and review of reports of the Supervisors on the actions and 
productivity of the Business Department of the business and thereafter to 
prepare reports to the Executive, such reports to include recommendations for 
change or alteration in any particular area. 
Responsibility to hire and fire employees andlor determine sanctions in the 
Business Management Department or otherwise as regards employees. 
The petitioner also submitted an organizational chart for the foreign entity, which places the 
beneficiary at the sixth level of management, below the chief executive officer, managing director, 
executive director, management officer, and business director, respectively. It is noted that the 
beneficiary's title on the chart is "Department of Business, Head," not business director as the 
petitioner claimed in the July 3, 2006 letter and elsewhere in the record. In fact, the beneficiary is 
depicted as reporting directly to the business director. The chart also shows the beneficiary 
supervising two employees whose titles are stated as "business" and "clerk." 
On July 3, 2007, the director issued a request for further evidence (WE). Specifically, the director 
requested a statement setting forth the dates of employment, job titles, specific job duties, and types 
of employees under the beneficiary's supervision, and the title and level of authority of the 
beneficiary's immediate supervisor. The director also requested an organizational chart for the 
foreign entity, noting that the organizational chart previously submitted for the foreign entity was not 
legible. 
In a letter responding to the RFE dated September 12, 2007, counsel added the following to the list 
of the beneficiary's job duties overseas: 
1. Analyze the demographics of the Korean population in California with a view to the 
establishment of a USA subsidiary entity. Further analysis of the Social structure in 
the USA as it pertains to proposed content of publications to be distributed in the 
USA amongst the Korean speaking population. 
2. The preparation of reports to the Executive as regards the above with analysis of the 
situation together with recommendations. 
3. The evaluation of interest in proposed publications for USA market with specific 
regard to the United Nations and their diplomatic activities specifically of the Korean 
government in that body. 
The petitioner resubmitted the previous organizational chart for the foreign entity, and counsel 
provided the following descriptions of the job titles and duties of the beneficiary's two subordinates 
in the foreign entity: 
instructions from the beneficiary. This individual attended to day to 
[sic] gathering of data/facts/documents required by the beneficiary. Furthermore this 
person attends to all needs of the beneficiary in the day to day administration of the 
business & reported to the beneficiary 
took instructions from 
 and attended to clerical duties as well as 
telephone duties as well as attending to correspondence and arranging 
meetings. 
In his November 28, 2007 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated 
that the beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity in a primarily managerial or executive 
capacity. Referring to the descriptions of the beneficiary's former overseas employment, the director 
concluded that the record indicates that the beneficiary was a first-line supervisor with two 
employees under her supervision, neither of whom qualifies as a professional, manager or 
supervisor. The director noted that the assertion of counsel that the beneficiary meets all 
requirements for the requested status does not constitute evidence. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner contends that USCIS erroneously disregarded submitted 
documentation regarding the beneficiary's employment abroad. Counsel asserts that supervision of 
other employees is not the sole criteria for establishing a managerial position and that the beneficiary 
"could have been managing an essential hnction of the business operations and still be eligible" as a 
manager. However, counsel does not point to any evidence that would support the claim that the 
beneficiary qualifies as a function manager. Counsel claims that the evidence clearly stated that 
there are supervisors who report to the beneficiary, and that the beneficiary "instructs the supervisors 
in matters of policies, strategies, business plan, operational activities and philosophy of the 
business." Counsel contends that the director erred in concluding that there is no evidence to show 
that the beneficiary supervises any supervisors. Counsel then points to the two clerical and 
secretarial workers listed under the beneficiary's supervision and asserts that the director did not 
request evidence of their educational background or experience, nor is that information required for 
purposes of this petition. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary was employed by the foreign 
entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to 
the petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(j)(5). The petitioner's description 
of the job duties must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate 
whether such duties are either in an executive or managerial capacity. Id. The petitioner must 
specifically state whether the beneficiary is primarily employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
On review, the petitioner has provided a vague and nonspecific description of the beneficiary's 
duties that fails to demonstrate what the beneficiary did on a day-to-day basis while employed by the 
foreign entity. For example, the petitioner states that the beneficiary's duties include "control[ing], 
manag[ing] and direct[ing] the actions of Section Heads (Supervisors) and oversee[ing] their duties"; 
"instruct[ing] the Supervisors as regards the ordersldirectives of the Executive of the business and . . 
. report[ing] to the Executive on their . . . implementation"; "evaluation and review of reports of the 
Supervisors on the actions and productivity of the Business Department of the business" and 
"prepare reports to the Executive." The petitioner did not, however, provide any detail regarding the 
actions or duties of the "Supervisors" that she purportedly oversaw, nor was there any information 
given regarding the orders and directives of the "Executives" or the reports that the beneficiary was 
to have prepared for them. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's 
duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would 
simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
In addition, in response to the RFE, the petitioner added a further job description that indicated that 
the beneficiary was responsible for market research and analysis for her foreign employer. The 
Page 7 
beneficiary appeared to have been directly performing this work herself, since her immediate 
subordinate was only responsible for the "gathering of data/facts/documents required by the 
beneficiary" and not for performing the analysis or preparing the reports. Since the beneficiary 
actually performed the market research and analysis tasks, she was performing a task necessary to 
provide a service or product and this duty will not be considered managerial or executive in nature. 
An employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide 
services is not considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See 
sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated 
managerial or executive duties); see also Matter of Church Scientology Int 'I., 19 I&N Dec. 593,604 
(Comm. 1988). 
Furthermore, while the initial description of the beneficiary's overseas job duties indicate that the 
beneficiary was primarily involved in the supervision, management and evaluation of "Section 
Heads" and "Supervisors," the organizational chart shows that the beneficiary actually supervised 
two employees, only one of whom appears to have a nominally supervisory role. In the 'ob 
description of these employees, the petitioner stated that the "Clerk" took instructions from d 
, whose job title is listed only as "Business." There is no indication on the job description of Sang 
that this person supervises another employee, only that slhe is responsible for the "gathering 
of data/facts/documents required by the beneficiary" and "attends to all needs of the beneficiary in 
the day to day administration of the business." Thus, the description of the duties of the beneficiary's 
subordinates paints a very different picture from the beneficiary's job description, which depicted the 
beneficiary as directing and managing a number of "Section Heads" and "Supervisors." As such, the 
organizational chart and description of the duties of the beneficiary's subordinates are not consistent 
with the description of the beneficiary's job responsibilities. The petitioner has not explained or 
reconciled these inconsistencies. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies 
in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing 
to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any 
aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency 
of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Id. 
It is noted that on appeal, counsel argues that "supervision of employees is not the sole criteria for 
establishing a managerial position" and that "the beneficiary could have been managing an essential 
function of the business operations and still be eligible for this criteria." However, counsel did not 
point to any evidence, nor did the AAO find any evidence in the record, that would support a claim 
that the beneficiary qualified as a function manager in her employment abroad. Without 
documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's 
burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BLA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); 
Matter ofRamirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
In light of these deficiencies in the evidence with regards to the beneficiary's overseas employment, 
the AAO finds that the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in 
a primarily executive or managerial capacity. For that reason, the petition will be denied. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the AAO also finds that the petitioner has failed to establish that 
the beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive 
capacity. 
In its July 3, 2006 letter accompanying the Form 1-140, the petitioner described the beneficiary's 
anticipated duties with the U.S. company as follows: 
[The beneficiary,] as general manager, will continue to ensure that the Department 
Managers and/or supervisors implement [her] decisions, strategies and managerial 
orientated issues to assist and ensure in the efficient and effective operation and 
managing of our business affairs. 
[The beneficiary] will continue to give instruction and direction to the Department 
Managers and the latter in turn instruct, manage and guide supervisors. [The 
beneficiary] will continue to be responsible for setting guidelines and parameters 
within which the various departments of the business will be managedJconducted and 
all directives and policies in the various department in this regard will continue to be 
provided by [the beneficiary.] 
The petitioner submitted an organizational chart for the U.S. company showing four employees. The 
president is listed above the beneficiary's position of general manager. Under the beneficiary, there 
are two positions with the titles "secretaryladministration, administrative1subscription department" 
and "supervisor, publishinglmarketing department." Under the "supervisor, publishinglmarketing 
department" position, the chart simply listed "workers" without identifying any names or titles. 
In the response to the RFE dated September 12,2007, counsel for the petitioner added the following 
with respect to the beneficiary's duties: 
Overall management/control of Department ManagersISupervisors. Responsibility 
for reviewing and overseeing and instructing Department Managers 15% 
Instruction to appropriate staff as regards policies, strategies, business practices 
and philosophy and ensuring coordination between various departments of the 
business 20% 
Ensuring implementation of all Executive level decisions and ensuring that they 
are properly and efficiently carried out 15% 
Evaluation of reports or Managers/supervisors as regards productivity and sales 
and preparation of reports and recommendations to the Executive 15% 
Responsibility to evaluate and hirelfire Managers and Supervisors and 
recommending other sanctions or benefits for workers 10% 
Setting management guidelines for conduct and operation of the business and the 
fulfilling of the goals of the business 10% 
Evaluate data received from Managers/Supervisors & others as to the degree of 
interest in UN and its diplomatic activities with specific reference to Korea and 
assess need for nature of publication 15% 
The petitioner submitted a different organizational chart for the U.S. company, which shows the 
beneficiary supervising "independent contractors" and two individual employees in "purchase & 
administration" and "sales." According to counsel, the individual previously identified as 
"supervisor, publishinglmarketing department" is now "supervisor/purchase & administration," 
whose duties include "supervise[ing] and manag[ing] the activities of individuals such as sub 
contractors and outside entities in the preparation of publication as well as purchase of product 
required therein." The "secretary/administration" position was not listed on the new chart. Instead, 
the other employee under the beneficiary's supervision is described as a "sales supervisor," whose 
duties are to "supervise and manage activities relating to Sales and promotion of Sales of the 
petitioner's publication/newspaper" as well as preparation of reports with recommendation in the sale 
area to be made and presented to the [beneficiary]" and "obtaining reports on the interest in the 
Korean community in the dissemination of data regarding the UN as it pertains to Korea." 
Again, the petitioner has provided a vague and generic description of the beneficiary's duties that 
fails to demonstrate what the beneficiary does on a day-to-day basis in her job in the U.S. company. 
As with the beneficiary's overseas position, the petitioner described the beneficiary's duties using 
general phrases such as "overall management/control of Department managers/supervisors"; 
"instruction to appropriate staff as regards policies, strategies, business practices and philosophy"; 
"evaluation of reports or managers/supervisors as regards productivity and sales;" and "setting 
management guidelines for conduct and operation of the business." No details were provided that 
would shed light on what the instructions regarding "policies, strategies, business practices and 
philosophy" involve, or what "setting management guidelines" entails. Specifics are clearly an 
important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or managerial in 
nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. 
Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1 103. 
Further, although the beneficiary is not required to supervise personnel, if it is claimed that her 
duties involve supervising employees, the petitioner must establish that the subordinate employees 
are supervisory, professional, or managerial. See 5 10 1 (a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. Although counsel 
sought to characterize the beneficiary's two direct subordinates in the U.S. company as 
"supervisors," the record does not support this characterization. There is no evidence that these 
individuals supervises or manages any other employees within the organization; thus, they appear to 
be "supervisors" in name only. 
The petitioner also has not established that the beneficiary's subordinate employees are 
professionals. In evaluating whether the beneficiary manages professional employees, the AAO 
must evaluate whether the subordinate positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for 
entry into the field of endeavor. Section 101 (a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1 101 (a)(32), states that 
"[tlhe term profession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, 
surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." The 
term "profession" contemplates knowledge or learning, not merely skill, of an advanced type in a 
given field gained by a prolonged course of specialized instruction and study of at least 
baccalaureate level, which is a realistic prerequisite to entry into the particular field of endeavor. 
Matter of Sea, 19 I&N Dec. 81 7 (Comm. 1988); Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (R.C. 1968); 
Matter of Shin, 11 I&N Dec. 686 (D.D. 1966). Moreover, the AAO must focus on the level of 
education required by the position, rather than the degree held by subordinate employee. Counsel 
indicated that both of the beneficiary's subordinates possess bachelor's degrees. However, the 
possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee does not automatically lead to the 
conclusion that an employee is employed in a professional capacity. In the instant case, the 
petitioner has not, in fact, established that a bachelor's degree is actually necessary for the duties 
performed by the beneficiary's subordinates. Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to show that the 
beneficiary's subordinate employees are supervisory, professional, or managerial, as required by 
section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
It is noted that the organizational chart also indicates that the beneficiary supervises "independent 
contractors." However, no information was provided other than the corporate names and addresses 
of the entities. The petitioner has neither presented evidence to document the existence of these 
contractors nor identified the services they provide. Without documentary evidence to support its 
statements, the petitioner does not meet its burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158,165 (Comm. 1998). 
In light of the above deficiencies in the evidence, the AAO finds that the petitioner has failed to 
establish that the beneficiary will be employed in the United States in an executive or managerial 
capacity as required by section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(C). For this 
additional reason, the petition will be denied. 
In addition, the AAO finds the evidence is insufficient to establish that the petitioner has a qualifying 
relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. In order to qualify for this visa classification, the 
petitioner must establish that a qualifjmg relationship exists between the United States and foreign 
entities in that the petitioning company is the same employer or an affiliate or subsidiary of the foreign 
entity. See section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act. The regulation and case law confirm that ownership and 
control are the factors that must be examined in determining whether a qualifying relationship exists 
between U.S. and foreign entities for purposes of this visa classification. Matter of Church 
Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Siemens Medical 
Systems, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm. 1982). In 
the context of this visa petition, ownership refers to the direct or indirect legal right of possession of 
the assets of an entity with full power and authority to control; control means the direct or indirect 
legal right and authority to direct the establishment, management, and operations of an entity. 
Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
In this matter, the record contains a material discrepancy regarding the petitioner's ownership and 
control. The petitioner claims that it is the wholly-owned subsidiary of the foreign entity. In support 
of this claim, the petitioner submitted a copy of share certificate #1, dated April 29, 2005, showing 
the foreign entity as the record holder of 100 shares of the company, and a stock transfer ledger 
showing that certificate #1 represents the only issued and outstanding shares of the company. The 
petitioner also submitted its Internal Revenue Service Forms 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax 
Returns, for the years 2005 and 2006. The 2006 tax return listed the foreign entity as the owner of 
100% of the U.S. company's stock. However, the 2005 return indicated that 
 the 
- - 
president of the U.S. company, was the owner of 100% of the company' stock during that calendar 
year. This information is inconsistent with the company's corporate records showing that the foreign 
entity owns 100% of the U.S. company's stock as of April 2005. The petitioner has not indicated 
that there has been any change of ownership since the establishment of the company, nor is there any 
documentation or explanation that would reconcile or clarify this inconsistency in the record 
regarding the ownership of the U.S. company. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any 
inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile 
such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 591. Doubt cast on any aspect of the 
petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the 
remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Id. 
Accordingly, the AAO finds the petitioner has not established satisfactorily that there exists a 
qualifying relationship between the U.S. and foreign entities. For this additional reason, the petition 
will be denied. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. 
Cal. 2001), afd. 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 
1989) (noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). When the AAO denies a petition 
on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only if she shows that the 
AAO abused its discretion with respect to all of the AAO's enumerated grounds. See Spencer 
Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. 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, 
that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the director's decision will be affirmed and the petition 
will be denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.