dismissed EB-1C Case: Jewelry

(b)(6)
DATE: JUL 2 9· 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Otricc (AAO) 
20 MassachuseTts Ave .. N. \V., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be 
filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
~ Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition. The matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Florida company engaged in the retail and wholesale of fine jewelry. It seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as its General Manager. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an 
employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be 
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO. On appeal, counsel asserts that the evidence of record is sufficient to 
establish that the beneficiary will be functioning in a managerial or executive position. 
I. The Law 
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 and managers who 
have previously worked for the firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary of that 
entity, and are corning 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 I-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. The prospective employer in the United States must furnish a job offer in the form of a 
statement that 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. See 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(j)(5). 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
II. The Issue on Appeal 
The sole issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(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) if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the 
authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel 
actions (such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee 
is directly supervised, functions at a senior level within the organizational 
hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function 
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. § 110l(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" as 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 from higher-level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
The petitioner indicated on the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, that it is a wholesaler of 
fine jewelry with three employees and gross sales of $544,897. The 
petitioner stated that the organization is a 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
joint venture between the foreign employer and the petitioner. The petitioner indicated that the beneficiary 
will be working as its General Manager and provided a list of the beneficiary's duties. 
The petitioner submitted copies of its IRS Form 941 Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Returns for the first 
three quarters of 2011 and a payroll transaction ledger for 2011. The petitioner also provided a Profit & Loss 
statement for 2011. The Profit & Loss statement and payroll ledger both show payroll expenses of 
$31,300.80. The petitioner made payments to three individuals including 
and during 2011. 
The director issued a request for evidence ("RFE") requesting, inter alia, a detailed organizational showing all 
employees, titles, and job descriptions for the beneficiary's subordinates; a more detailed job description for 
the beneficiary including percentage of time spent on each duty; and copies of the petitioner's IRS Form 941 
Employer's Quarterly Tax Returns for the fourth quarter of 2011 and the first two quarters of 2012. The 
director also requested evidence of the petitioner's employment of contractors, if applicable. 
In a letter submitted in response to the RFE, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary will have overall control 
and management authority of the organization. Specifically, the petitioner provided the same duties as 
provided in the initial petition, and included a percentage breakdown for each duty, as follows: 
Preparation of annual operating and capital budgets, business plans and financial 
projections for Partner approval (10% of week); 
Implementing budgets and business plans approved by the Partners; represent the JV in 
business 
dealings with other parties (20% of week); 
Approve Budgets, business plans and other business dealings associated with the Joint 
Venture and its parties (30% of week); 
Negotiate contracts on behalf of the JV and sign contracts approved by the Partners (30% 
of week); 
Performing all other things necessary or advisable to ensure that the business of the JV is 
carried out properly and legally an in the best interest of the JV. (10% of week). 
The petitioner indicated that the company currently has six employees and contractors, all of which would 
report directly or indirectly to the beneficiary. The petitioner provided the requested organizational chart 
showing the beneficiary as General Manager. Reporting directly to the beneficiary is a Vice President. 
Reporting to the Vice President is a Sales/Buyer, a Sales/Merchandising position, and a contracted jeweler 
position. The petitioner identified two additional sales/merchandising staff as "1099 contract employees." 
The petitioner provided position descriptions for each position within the company. 
The petitioner also submitted copies of its IRS Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, for 
2012, which indicate that the petitioner had two employees throughout the year. The petitioner also submitted 
IRS Forms 1099-MISC for 2011 showing $60,000 in "other income" paid to the jeweler, and payments of 
$8,109 and $47,240, respectively, paid to the two contracted sales/merchandising employees and reported as 
"Section 409A income." 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will be 
employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The director found that the petitioner failed to 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
provide a detailed description of the beneficiary's proposed job duties. The director also found that the 
petitioner failed to submit the Forms 1099-MISC for all contract employees listed on the organizational chart. 
The director therefore concluded that the petitioner does not have the organizational complexity required to 
support a managerial position. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary's job duties support a finding that the offered position is 
managerial in nature and emphasizes that the beneficiary supervises a subordinate managerial employee. 
Finally, counsel asserts that the director made a mistake of fact in finding that the petitioner failed to submit 
all of the Forms 1 099-MISC for the contract employees listed on the organizational chart. 
Upon review of the petition and evidence, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary would be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity. 
In examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, USCIS will look first to the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). Published case law clearly supports the pivotal role 
of a clearly defined job description, as the actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. 
Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); 
see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). That being said, however, USCIS reviews the totality of the record, which 
includes not only the beneficiary's job description, but also takes into account the nature of the petitioner's 
business, the employment and remuneration of employees, as well as the job descriptions of the beneficiary's 
subordinates, if any, and any other facts contributing to a complete understanding of a beneficiary's actual role 
within a given entity. 
The definitions of executive and managerial capacity have two parts. First, the petitioner must show that the 
beneficiary performs the high-level responsibilities that are specified in the definitions. Second, the petitioner 
must prove that the beneficiary primarily performs these specified 
responsibilities and does not spend a 
majority of his or her time on day-to-day functions. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 
1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). 
The beneficiary's job descriptions submitted in support of the initial petition and in response to the RFE were 
overly general and vague, and therefore the AAO is unable to gain a meaningful understanding of how much 
time the beneficiary will spend performing qualifying tasks versus those that would be deemed non­
qualifying. For instance, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary will perform the following tasks: approve 
budgets, business plans and other business dealings; implement budgets and business plans; prepare operating 
and capital budgets; and perform all other things necessary or advisable. These duties provide little or no 
insight into what the beneficiary will primarily do on a day-to-day basis or how he will carry out his 
objectives as General Manager. Reciting the beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business 
objectives is not sufficient; the regulations require a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. 
The petitioner has failed to provide any detail or explanation of the beneficiary's activities in the course of his 
daily routine. The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS reviews the totality of the record when examining 
the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, including the petitioner's organizational 
structure, the duties of the beneficiary's subordinate employees, the presence of other employees to relieve the 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
beneficiary from performing operational duties, the nature of the petitioner's business, and any other factors 
that will contribute to a complete understanding of a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. 
The petitioner claims to operate a wholesale and retail jewelry business with two current payroll employees 
and a vice president, an owner of the company, who is not on the payroll. Finally, the petitioner claims to 
have three additional staff members working as independent contractors. However, there are inconsistencies 
in the petitioner's evidence which cast doubt on whether it actually employed these independent contractor s. 
At the time of filing, the petitioner submitted a copy of its 2011 Profit and Loss statement. This statement 
does not include any line item under expenses showing over $105,000 in payments made to independent 
contractors as shown on the subsequently submitted Forms 1099-MISC for 2011. The record does not 
include the petitioner's IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, for 2011, which would provide 
additional confirmation that these payments were actually made. The petitioner's 2010 IRS Form 1120 does 
not reflect any payments to contractors. The petitioner's payroll ledger for 2011 shows 12 weekly checks for 
$369.40 paid to the jeweler, between January 6, 2011 and March 31, 2011, and no 
subsequent payments to him, yet the petitioner submitted a Form 1099 indicating that he received $60,000 
from 
the company in 2011. In addition, the social security numbers (last four digits only provided) indicated 
on the Forms 1099 are the same for two of the three claimed contractors. 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). Finally, the petitioner 
has not provided any evidence of payments to contractors made in 2012, the year in which the petition was 
filed. Given these discrepancies and omissions, the petitioner has not established that it actually employed all 
three contractors 
at the time of filing. 
The statutory definition of "managerial capacity" allows for both "personnel managers" and "function 
managers." See section 101(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(44)(A)(i) and (ii). Personnel 
managers are required to primarily supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees. Contrary to the common understanding of the word "manager," the statute plainly 
states that 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 
10l(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(2). If a beneficiary directly supervises other 
employees, the beneficiary must also have the authority to hire and fire those employees, or recommend those 
actions , and take other personnel actions. 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(B)(3). 
On appeal, counsel states that the beneficiary "will manage the professionals or a managerial employee( s)." 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 10l(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(32), states that "[t]he 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 1evel, which is a realistic prerequisite to entry into the particular field of 
endeavor. Matter of Sea, 19 I&N Dec. 817 (Comm'r 1988); Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (R.C . 1968); 
Matter of Shin, 11 I&N Dec. 686 (D.D. 1966). The petitioner did not indicate that any of the positions on the 
organizational chart require the employee to have a bachelor's degree or that any of the workers have 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
completed a degree, and thus the record does not support counsel's claim that the beneficiary would manage 
professional employees. 
The sole subordinate manager or supervisor identified on the organizational chart is the petitioner's vice 
president, who is described as being "in charge of the daily operations and management of the company." 
While the organizational 
chart shows all subordinate employees and claimed contractors reporting to the vice 
president, the record does not document the employment of any workers other than the sales/buyer and 
sales/merchandising employee. Given the nature of the business, a retail store that is described as being open 
on evenings and weekends, it is evident that all three current employees would need to participate in the day­
to-day operations of the company in order to keep the store staffed during its operating hours. Further, even if 
the petitioner established that the vice president serves in a supervisory or managerial position, the 
petitioner's breakdown of the beneficiary's job duties does not indicate that he will allocate any portion of his 
time to supervisory duties. The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary qualifies for the benefit 
sought as a manager. 
Furthermore, the petitioner has not established that it will employ a staff that will relieve the beneficiary from 
performing non-qualifying duties so that the beneficiary may primarily engage in managerial duties. A 
company's size alone, without taking into account the reasonable needs of the organization, may not be the 
determining factor in denying a visa to a multinational manager or executive. See§ 101 (a)(44)(C) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(C). However, it is appropriate for USCIS to consider the size of the petitioning 
company in conjunction with other relevant factors, such as a company's small personnel size, the absence of 
employees who would perform the non-managerial or non-executive operations of the company, or a "shell 
company" that does not conduct business in a regular and continuous manner. See, e.g. Family Inc. v. USCIS, 
469 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 2006); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). The size of a 
company may be especially relevant when USCIS notes discrepancies in the record and fails to believe that 
the facts asserted are true. See Systronics, 153 F. Supp. 2d at 15. 
Regardless, the reasonable needs of the petitioner serve only as a factor in evaluating the lack of staff in the 
context of reviewing the claimed managerial or executive duties. The petitioner must still establish that the 
beneficiary is to be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity, pursuant to 
sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) or the Act. As discussed above, the petitioner has not established this 
essential element of eligibility. Regardless of the beneficiary's position title, the petitioner has not established 
that the beneficiary will function at a senior level within an organizational hierarchy. 
In summary, the petitioner has failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary would be 
employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity and the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
III. Qualifying Relationship 
Additionally, while not previously addressed in the director's decision, the AAO finds that the record contains 
other deficiencies that preclude approval of the petition, specifically with respect to the petitioner's claimed 
qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
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. a U.S. entity with 
a foreign office) or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See generally§ 203(b)(1)(C) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C); see also 8 C.P.R. § 204.5Q)(2) (providing definitions of the terms "affiliate" 
and "subsidiary"). 
In a letter in su port of the petition, counsel stated that the petitioner recently entered into a Joint Venture 
with , the beneficiary's foreign employer located in China. Counsel 
stated that "the Joint Venture will be the subsidiary of the corporation in China." Counsel further explained 
the relationship as follows: 
In the instant case [the petitioner] and have entered into a Joint Venture 
Agreement, attached hereto, where the Joint Venture in the US shall be conducted under the 
name of and will make contributions to the Joint Venture. Each company 
effectively has control of the Joint Venture through 1ts veto power (See section 6(c) of the 
Joint Venture Agreement, Exhibit 19). Therefore , each partner shall possess the same rights 
and powers as a general partner in a Joint Venture formed under the laws of the state. Also, 
the profit and losses of the Joint Venture shall be allocated 50% to each partner. ... 
Additionally, hereto attached please find confirmation of a wire transferr ed [sic] made by the 
(Chinese Partner) for the purposes of the Joint Venture in the amount of 
$299,820. 
The petitioner submitted only a partial copy of the Joint Venture agreement in support of the initial petition, 
including pages 6 to 14 of the 14-page agreement. The petitioner also submitted a copy of a letter from an 
attorney addressed to advising that the petitioner's corporate relationship with the Chinese 
entity is based on "an unregistered joint venture agreement." 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) accepts the interpretation that a 50-50 joint venture creates a 
subsidiary relationship for purposes of section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Act, see also 8 C.P.R. § 204.5G)(2) 
(providing definitions of the terms "affiliate" and "subsidiary"). Neither the Act nor the regulations provides 
a definition of the term "joint venture." However, the AAO has applied a broad definition of joint venture in 
prior decisions. Matter of Hughes states that a joint venture is "a business enterprise in which two or more 
economic entities from different countries participate on a permanent basis." Matter of Hughes , 18 I&N Dec. 
289 (Comm. 1982) (quoting a definition from Endle J. Kolde, International Business Enterprise (Prentice 
Hall, 1973)). Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc. states: "Where each of two corporations (parents) 
owns and controls 50 percent of a third corporation Goint venture), the joint venture is a subsidiary of each of 
the parents." 19 I&N Dec. 362, 364 (BIA 1986). A joint venture must be formed as a corporation or other 
legal entity. A business created by a contract as opposed to one created under corporation law is not be 
deemed a "legal entity." Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289, 294 (Corum. 1982); see also Matter of Schick, 
13 I&N Dec. 647 (Reg. Comm. 1970). 
In this case, there is no evidence of a "third corporation" or other legal entity formed by the petitioner and the 
beneficiary's foreign employer, and thus no evidence of a valid joint venture relationship for immigration 
purposes. The petitioner cannot establish the existence of a qualifying joint venture relationship simply by 
submitting a joint venture agreement indicating that the petitioner agreed to provide 50% control of its 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
existing business to a foreign entity, with no transfer of ownership and no creation of a separate joint venture 
entity. 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 United States and foreign entities for 
purposes of this visa classification. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (Comm'r 
1988); see also Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (Comm'r 1986); Matter of 
Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm'r 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. 
Here, there is no evidence that the beneficiary's foreign employer has acquired any stock ownership in the 
petitioning company, such that the petitioner could be considered a subsidiary of the Chinese company. 
There is nothing in the partial copy of the joint venture agreement indicating that the petitioner's two 
shareholders have transferred or intend to tnt'nsfer any ownership interest to the foreign entity. The petitioner 
provided evidence that the beneficiary had a balance of $299,820 in his personal bank account as of 
December 2011, and indicated that the foreign contributed this amount to the joint venture. However, the 
petitioner did not provide evidence to establish that this money originated with the foreign entity, that it was 
intended to be used to purchase at least 50% of the petitioner's stock or an interest in a joint venture entity, or 
that these funds have been transferred to the petitioner or to a separate joint venture entity. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft 
of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
In addition, the limited purpose of the proposed joint venture, as described by the petitioner, also raises the 
question of the petitioner's intent to enter into anything more than a temporary agreement with the 
beneficiary's foreign employer to obtain the beneficiary's services for the wholesale of jewelry. The joint 
venture agreement states that the one condition for dissolution is there "being no further work for the J.V. in 
accordance with its purposes; or 18 months." This clause suggests that the initial term of the joint venture 
agreement would expire during the beneficiary's requested period of employment. 
Further, it is noted that, even if the petitioner and the foreign entity had formed a qualifying 50-50 joint 
venture prior to the date of filing the petition, the petitioner in this case is not the joint venture itself, but 
rather one of the partners or shareholders in the claimed joint venture. The partners or shareholders of a 50-50 
joint venture do not acquire a qualifying corporate relationship by virtue of forming a joint venture; the 
qualifying relationship formed exists only between each individual parent and the joint venture entity. Other 
than the petitioner's statement that the beneficiary would be employed by the joint venture, there is no 
indication that the petitioner intended to file the petition on behalf of a separate entity. 
The evidence of record suggests the possibility that the petitioner and foreign entity's proposed "joint 
venture" would be a temporary business enterprise, based on an unregistered signed agreement alone, that 
would not be established as a legal entity and would not otherwise grant the foreign entity any ownership 
interest in the petitioning company. At best, the record suggests that the proposed joint venture simply had 
not yet been formed as a legal entity at the time of filing. In either case, the petitioner has not established that 
it had a qualifying relationship at the time of filing the petition, and the petition cannot be approved. 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
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), aff'd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
IV. Conclusion 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility 
for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 
127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.