dismissed EB-1C Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
LIN 06 218 51409 
IN RE: 
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. 9 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. 
4%- 
John F. Grissom, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a Texas corporation claiming to be engaged in the business of providing software design and 
engineering solutions. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its vice president of business development. 
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 on the basis of two independent grounds 
of ineligibility: 1) the petitioner failed to establish that it has a qualifying relationship with a foreign entity; 
and 2) the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel disputes both of the director's findings and submits a brief in support of his arguments. 
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 a firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary of that entity, 
and who 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. 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. 
The first issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's 
employer abroad. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(j)(2) states in pertinent part: 
Affiliate means: 
Page 3 
(A) 
 One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same parent or 
individual; [or] 
(B) 
 One of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of individuals, each 
individual owning and controlling approximately the same share or proportion of each 
entity; 
* * * 
Multinational means that the qualifying entity, or its affiliate, or subsidiary, conducts 
business in two or more countries, one of which is the United States. 
Subsidiary means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent owns, directly or 
indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, 
half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, 50 percent of a 50-50 
joint venture and has equal control and veto power over the entity; or owns, directly or 
indirectly, less than half of the entity, but in fact controls the entity. 
In support of the Form 1-140, the petitioner provided a letter dated May 10, 2006 in which the petitioner 
mentioned its foreign counterpart, but did not specify the nature of the alleged business nexus, other than to 
imply that some type of a relationship exists between the two entities. There is no indication whether the 
petitioner was claiming to have a subsidiary or an affiliate relationship with the beneficiary's foreign 
employer. The petitioner also provided a number of relevant documents, including, inter alia, the petitioner's 
certificate of incorporation dated July 31, 2001; a Texas certificate of amendment dated October 14, 2004, 
officially changing the petitioner's name; the petitioner's articles of amendment, filed October 14, 2004, in 
which the petitioner indicated that 8,000 shares were outstanding at that time; the petitioner's undated board 
resolution, affective prior to the name change, indicating that the petitioner resolved to issue 10,000 shares of 
its stock to the foreign entity in exchange for consideration of $1,000; and a stock certificate dated September 
5,2002, issuing 1,000 shares (out of an authorized 1,000,000 shares) to the foreign entity. 
On June 15, 2007, the director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE) instructing the petitioner to 
clarify and document any changes in ownership that took place since the petitioner's name change took place 
in 2004. The petitioner was specifically asked to provide a copy of its official stock ledger to show its 
relationship with the foreign entity. 
In response, the petitioner provided the requested stock ledger, which showed that a total of 10,000 shares of 
the petitioner's stock were distributed in the following manner: 2,000 shares to each of four stockholders- 
provided for the foreign entity showing that a total of 1,000,000 shares were distributed in the followin 
; 268,900 shares to 
,000 to the beneficiary; and 1,000 shares to M. 
and, respectively. Both stock ledgers were dated May 3 1,2007. 
On November 28, 2007, the director issued a decision denying the petitioner's Form 1-140. With regard to 
the issue of a qualifying relationship, the director found that the beneficiary's U.S. and foreign employers 
were not commonly owned and controlled, noting that the two entities were not owned by the same number of 
individuals and further stating that the two entities only had three shareholders in common. 
On appeal, counsel first notes that the director erroneously found that the U.S. and foreign entities only have 
three common shareholders, pointing out that the ownership breakdowns provided by the director actually 
show that the two entities have four shareholders in common. While counsel's observation is correct, it 
appears that the director's error was merely typographical and does not disturb the otherwise sound reasoning, 
which served as the basis for the overall conclusion. 
Counsel further argues that the U.S. and foreign entities are commonly owned by virtue of having the same 
four individuals own more than a majority of each entity. Counsel's argument, however, is without merit. As 
there is no single individual with a controlling interest in both entities, the petitioner must establish that the 
same group of individuals owns, either directly or indirectly, the petitioner and the foreign entity and that 
their ownership interests are similar in both entities. In the present matter, the director has properly pointed 
out that the foreign entity has six owners, while the U.S. entity has seven owners. This factor alone is 
sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the two entities are not "owned and controlled by the same group of 
individuals, each individual owning and controlling approximately the same share or proportion of each entity 
. . . .I1 8 C.F.R. § 204.56)(2). 
In addition, the AAO points out that even the four owners that are common to both entities are not shown as 
owning similar portions of each entity. More specifically, while the beneficiary owns approximately 20% of 
the petitioner's alleged outstandin shares, he is only shown as ownin less than 1% of the foreign entity's 
shares. Conversely, while and are each shown as owning 20% 
of the petitioner's stock, they are each shown as owning more than 30% of the foreign entity's stock. These 
numerous differences in ownership further indicate that the U.S. and foreign entities are not commonly owned 
and controlled. See 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 addition to the above findings, the petitioner failed to overcome the various inconsistencies pointed out in 
the director's decision. Specifically, the director properly observed the following: 1) the petitioner's stock 
certificate, which the petitioner provided in support of the Form 1-140, showed that 1,000 out of an authorized 
1,000,000 shares of stock were issued to the foreign entity on September 5, 2002; 2) an undated board 
resolution showed that a total of 10,000 shares were issued to the foreign entity; and 3) the petitioner's 
articles of amendment from 2004 show that the petitioner issued 8,000 shares of its stock, rather than the 
1,000 shares indicated in the stock certificate or the 10,000 shares indicated in the board resolution. 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). 
In the present matter, the petitioner has not provided any further stock certificates to show the issuance of 
additional shares beyond the shares issued in the 2002 stock certificate, nor has the petitioner resolved the 
inconsistency regarding the number of authorized shares and the number of shares that were actually issued. 
While the petitioner has provided stock transfer ledgers for both entities, the ledgers are both dated May 3 1, 
2007, even though the Form 1-140 in the present matter was filed on July 12, 2006. It is noted that the 
petitioner must establish eligbility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the 
petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Comm. 197 1). Thus, the petitioner has failed to resolve the inconsistencies discussed above and has failed to 
establish that the foreign and U.S. entities are qualifying organizations. Based on these findings, this petition 
does not warrant approval. 
The other issue in this proceeding is whether the beneficiary's employment in the United States would be 
within a qualifying capacity where the majority of the job duties performed would of a managerial or 
executive nature. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 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) 
 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. 5 1 101(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 
Page 6 
(iv) 
 receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, 
the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
In the petitioner's support letter dated May 10, 2006, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary is being offered 
a position within an executive capacity in which he would evaluate and review customers' needs and oversee 
the foreign entity's engineering operations as they relate to the U.S. entity's business development within the 
North American market. The petitioner also provided its organizational chart, which illustrates a multi-tiered 
entity with a president at the top of the hierarchy and the beneficiary as one of three vice presidents at the 
level directly subordinate to the president. The beneficiary is shown as overseeing sales, marketing, and 
partnerships. However, no further statements were provided to explain whether the beneficiary manages 
employees or a function and no specific job duties were listed. 
Accordingly, the director's RFE addressed the deficiencies described above by instructing the petitioner to 
provide a more detailed job description for the beneficiary, including the beneficiary's daily tasks and an 
estimate of the percentage of time allotted to each task. 
In response, the petitioner supplemented the record with the following job description: 
Management of the Board of Directors and Investor Relations (5% of time spent) 
Responsible for developing business plans and corporate goals. 
Work closely with the [bloard of [dlirectors to obtain the necessary budgets. 
Responsible for briefing the [bloard of [dlirectors on the progress of the company in 
implementing its business plans and in obtaining its corporate goals. 
Provide executive level presentations to prospective investors. 
Management of Administration (3% of time spent) 
Work with HR manager and [aldministration manager to recruit, hire and retain managers 
in the product development, sales and IT areas and provide these managers an 
environment to innovate and excel. 
Review the performance of these managers regularly and compensate them at market 
standards. 
Monitor, review and approve the budgets, leaves, pay checks and other expenditure to the 
overseas team. 
Monitor, review and approve the sales commissions and other payments to attorneys, 
marketing firms, trade shows[,] etc[.] in the United States. 
Manage outside professionals on behalf of the company, including U[.]S[.] attorneys and 
accountants. 
Negotiate and act on behalf of the company in entering into various contracts with 
vendors, partners, employees and customers. 
Management of Business Development (25% of time spent) 
Responsible for developing the strategic business development activities, including 
identifying the markets and market needs, tracking the competition, developing product 
Page 7 
pricing strategies and building the reseller channels, technology partners, and managing 
the customer relationships. 
Develop and execute strateges for development and management of relationships with 
customers, prospects, resellers, technology partners, university partners and venders. 
Responsible for management of a number of corporate memberships . . . [.I 
Responsible for management of relationships with executive/senior level management of 
[the petitioner's] customers . . . [.I 
Responsible for management of relationships with executive/senior level management of 
[the petitioner's] prospects . . . [.I 
Management of Marketing (1 0% of time spent) 
Attend and represent the company as an executive of the company at conferences and 
tradeshows. 
Give interviews as an executive representative of the company to trade magazines, 
business journals[,] etc[.] 
Responsible for working with corporate attorneys on registering trademarks for the 
product in the U[.]S[.] and overseas[.] 
Responsible for working with executives/managers of outside marketing companies in 
writing the relevant product positioning articles in trade magazines[.] 
Work with partner company managers to negotiate partnership contracts[.] 
Working with leading industry analysts to provide market perspectives in the [vjisual 
[c]ollaboration [ajrea and getting quoted in leading journals for visibility and building 
[the petitioner's] brand. 
Reviewing the web site vistor information sent by the IT manager and identifying the 
valid leads to follow-up [sic] and sending this information to the sales managers as well 
as world wide resellers. 
Working with web development company and marketing managers for web site branding 
& logo development[.] 
Responsible for writing and publishing of professional papers in national and 
international conferences to promote the product[.] 
Management of Sales (25% of time spent) 
Responsible for negotiating sales with executives/senior level management from clients, 
including the negotiation of global pricing agreements for automotive OEM's. 
Manages the company's sales managers, sales directors, and outside resellers and 
partners in: 
1. Setting the sales goals. 
2. Working with sales managers to make relevant product demos . . . at customer sites. 
3. Travels to various client places along with sales managers and makes high level 
company and product presentations to the clients . . . . 
4. Coordinating with sales managers, sales directors and resellers to collect the 
customer needs as well as feedback and coordinating with product managers to get 
the pilot projects successfully executed for customers. 
5. Attends the negotiations along with sales managers to negotiate the corporate deals 
with global pricing managers at [the] customer[']s place. 
6. Managing and making sure that the sales managers, sales directors, resellers, [and] 
partners are up to date with respect to [plroduct [blriefings. 
7. Helping the sales mangers and directors in making the appropriate proposals and 
quotes and responsible for reviewing an approving the final quotes. 
8. Responsible to [sic] negotiate and finalize the sales contracts, license agreements and 
pricing strategies. 
Management of Product Development (25% of time spent) 
Responsible for managing a product development tam consisting of managers, advanced 
degreed engineers and computer science professionals . . . . 
Responsible for integrating the Indian engineering operations with the business 
development operations in the [sic] North America. 
Responsible for the setting and management of product development budgets and road 
map based on regular interactions with sales managers, resellers and customers to collect 
their feedback and future requests, reviews them and turns them into product 
development specs for the future versions, sets the product development goals to the 
development managers and manages the development managers in India. 
Work with the product managers to identify and approve the appropriate budgets and 
relevant human as well as other resources (software and hardware). 
Regularly review the product development by reviewing the product managers' work as 
well as the quality of the product development. 
Interacts regularly with the quality managers to review regularly the quality process. 
Responsible for management of the IT managers to identify the hardware and software 
needs for all the engineers. 
Responsible for the review and approval of IT budgets and purchases. 
Responsible for approving new IT initiatives to improve the efficiency of managers and 
engineers as well as to improve the security of the network. 
Management of Training and Support (10% of time spent) 
Responsible for management and coordination of sales managers to identify and execute 
the training needs for the existing customers. . . . 
Conducted management and professional level trainings to customers . . . [.I 
Responsible to [sic] manage the large integration project of [the petitioner and] GM's 
enterprise collaboration system and their IT infrastructure. . . . 
Management of Brand Development (2% of time spent) 
Responsible for community development by working with many directors . . . and other 
managers in the industries . . . . 
Responsible for writing joint proposals with universities for doing research projects . . . . 
Page 9 
Responsible for chairing international conference sessions. 
Responsible for identifying opportunities for donating the [petitioner's] software to 
various [ulniversities. . . . 
Responsible for representing [the petitioner] as its executive representative at [ulniversity 
conferences and symposiums. 
After reviewing the above, the director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary 
would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. The director explained that portions of 
the petitioner's description were overly broad, citing general responsibilities that did not contain an 
explanation as to which specific duties the beneficiary would perform in order to meet those responsibilities. 
The director also found that other portions of the job description contained job duties that are not within a 
managerial or executive capacity. Lastly, the director addressed the organizational chart the petitioner 
submitted earlier, finding that the chart did not clearly identify the beneficiary's subordinates or their job 
duties. 
On appeal, counsel acknowledges that prior nonimmigrant approvals are not binding with regard to 
subsequent petitions filed by the same petitioner. However, counsel contends that the petitioner's previously 
approved employment of the beneficiary in the nonirnmigrant L-1A visa category is instructive as to how the 
director should proceed in the present matter. Counsel further asserts that the petitioner's response to the 
director's RFE contained a detailed job description which placed the beneficiary's job duties as being within 
the executive and/or managerial capacity. Counsel's statements, however, are not persuasive and do not 
overcome the director's valid concerns. 
First, with regard to the beneficiary's previously approved L-1 employment, there are significant differences 
between the nonimrnigrant visa classification, which allows an alien to enter the United States temporarily for 
no more than seven years, and an immigrant visa petition, which permits an alien to apply for permanent 
residence in the United States and, if granted, ultimately apply for naturalization as a United States citizen. 
Cf: $9 204 and 214 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $3 1154 and 1184; see also $ 3 16 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1427. 
Therefore, aside from the same statutory definitions for managerial and executive capacity, the question of 
overall eligibility requires a comprehensive review of all relevant provisions, not just the definitions of 
managerial and executive capacity. 
Moreover, each nonimmigrant and immigrant petition is a separate record of proceeding with a separate 
burden of proof; each petition must stand on its own individual merits. The approval of a nonimmigrant 
petition in no way guarantees that Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) will approve an immigrant 
petition filed on behalf of the same beneficiary. CIS denies many 1-140 immigrant petitions after approving 
prior nonimmigrant 1-129 L-1 petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 25; 
IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. 
Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). In fact, if the petitioner's prior Form 1-129 were approved based on the same 
unsupported assertions that are contained in the current record, the approval would constitute material and 
gross error on the part of the director. The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where 
eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, 
e.g. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). 
Second, with regard to the description of the beneficiary's proposed employment, the director expressly stated 
the nature of his concern, i.e., that portions of the job description were overly broad while other portions of 
the description included job duties that could not be deemed managerial or executive. Counsel responds to 
the director's findings by merely disagreeing with them and restating the eight main categories into which the 
petitioner subdivided the beneficiary's duties and responsibilities. The MO notes, however, that the 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 
(BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 
506 (BIA 1980). 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the MO will look first to the 
petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. tj 204.56)(5). The MO will then consider this 
information in light of the petitioner's organizational hierarchy, the beneficiary's position therein, and the 
petitioner's overall ability to relieve the beneficiary from having to primarily perform the daily operational 
tasks. Thus, regardless of the job description given to a beneficiary and its level of detail and specificity, this 
factor alone is not sufficient for approval of an immigrant visa petition in the classification sought in the 
present matter. A favorable decision cannot be made without due consideration of the petitioner's 
organizational hierarchy and documentation to establish that the petitioner was able to relieve the beneficiary 
from having to primarily perform non-qualifying tasks when the Form 1-140 was first filed. As previously 
noted, the petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
In the present matter, the record is deficient with regard to all of the factors discussed above. As properly 
pointed out by the director, the job description provided by the petitioner is deficient. Rather than attributing 
a percentage of time to specific job duties, the petitioner subdivided the beneficiary's job responsibilities into 
eight major categories and attributed a percentage of time to each one. Thus, even if some of the described 
job duties can be deemed as qualifying, CIS has no way of determining how much of the beneficiary's time 
will be attributed to those specific job duties. The AAO also notes that the petitioner's breakdown accounts 
for 105% rather than 100% of the beneficiary's time. This factual impossibility indicates that the percentage 
distribution as provided by the petitioner is not an accurate representation of the beneficiary's time allocation. 
Additionally, a substantial portion of the components of each of the eight categories is comprised of broad job 
responsibilities, which do not reveal the nature of the duties performed. For instance, the petitioner attributed 
25% of the beneficiary's time to each of three of the eight major subheadings, including management of 
business development, management of sales, and management of product development, thereby indicating 
that approximately three fourths of the beneficiary's time is attributed to the job duties underlying those three 
subdivisions. However, at least two of those categories, which cumulatively consume 50% of the 
beneficiary's time, are defined with the use of broadly stated job responsibilities, including developing and 
executing strategies for managing the petitioner's business relationships with various parties; managing a 
product development team; and managing project development budgets. The MO has no way of 
determining what specific tasks the beneficiary carries out on a daily or weekly basis in order to meet these 
vague job responsibilities. Further, since the petitioner did not clearly assign a specific percentage of time to 
any of the components underlying the eight general headings, the MO cannot determine how much of the 
beneficiary's time is attributed to unknown tasks. 
That being said, a number of the job duties underlying several of the general headings appear to be of a non- 
qualifying nature. More specifically, negotiating client agreements, helping to make product demos, and 
traveling to client sites are all tasks that are indicative of providing the services of the petitioning entity. As 
such, the amount of time that would be spent on these operational tasks is highly relevant, particularly when a 
substantial portion of the job description consists of broad job responsibilities. 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 International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). The petitioner's failure to quantify the 
amount of time spent performing non-qualifying tasks precludes the AAO from concluding that the 
beneficiary would spend the primary portion of his time performing qualifying tasks. 
Lastly, the AAO observes that a significant portion of the beneficiary's job description contains references to 
subordinates, including sales managers and directors as well as a development team of managers and 
advanced degree professionals. While the record contains an organizational chart showing that the 
beneficiary would manage sales, marketing, and partnerships, the chart lists no specific positions nor does it 
name any specific employees for the beneficiary to manage. Furthermore, the petitioner has provided no 
documentation to establish that it had the claimed support staff in place at the time of filing. Merely 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. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft 
of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
In summary, the deficient job description attributed to the beneficiary coupled with the lack of supporting 
evidence to support the staffing structure implied in the job description preclude the AAO from concluding 
that the beneficiary would spend the primary portion of his time performing duties within a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity. 
When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only 
if it is shown that the MO abused its discretion with respect to all of the AAO's enumerated grounds. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afyd, 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003). 
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. tj 1361. The petitioner has not 
sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.