dismissed EB-1C Case: Stage Automation Engineering

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: DEC 3 0 2014 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Nebraska Service Center Director denied the preference visa petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as a multinational executive or manager pursuant 
to section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(C). The petitioner is a supplier of stage automation engineering and control 
systems. It claims to be a subsidiary of the beneficiary's foreign employer, 
located in the United Kingdom. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its Vice 
President of Business Development. 
The director denied the petition on March 28, 2014, concluding that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary had been and would be employed within a qualifying 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 for review. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that it 
provided sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad and would be 
employed in the U.S. in a qualifying managerial capacity. Counsel for the petitioner submits a 
brief and additional evidence in support of the appeal.1 
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. 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis (See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004)). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
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. 
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. § 1101(a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which 
the employee primarily--
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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. 
Finally, if staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a 
managerial or executive capacity, USCIS must take into account the reasonable needs of the 
organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. 
Section 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
II. ISSUES ON APPEAL 
A. Employment Abroad in a Managerial or Executive Capacity 
The first issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
1. Facts 
The beneficiary worked with the foreign employer from June 2006 until October 2008 as a Sales 
Manager. In a letter dated May 28, 2013, the petitioner described the beneficiary's duties abroad 
as follows: 
As Sales Manager, [the beneficiary] successfully managed and coordinated all 
activities involving sales and marketing of [the foreign company's] products and 
services, as well as managed and supervised the sales support staff. Specifically, 
[the beneficiary] developed and managed new customers, generated new sales 
leads, and maintained relationships with existing customers. She reviewed sales 
operational records and reports to project sales and determine profitability, as well 
as studied the market trends to identify prospects, and secure local and 
international account businesses. She resolved customer complaints regarding 
sales and services, and monitored customer preferences to determine focus of 
sales efforts. She was responsible for increasing awareness of [the foreign 
company's] brand by investigating potential new markets and possible customers 
in targeted markets. She worked directly with other senior managers to develop 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
sales and marketing support materials to target prospective customers while also 
increasing the depth of penetration within the existing customer base. She 
developed and executed sales and marketing plans, as well as monitored and 
evaluated effectiveness of these strategies. Further, [the beneficiary] prepared and 
submitted sales proposals, conducted meetings with prospective customers, 
negotiated contracts, and completed other sales and marketing activities when 
necessary. 
On September 30, 2013, the director sent a request for additional evidence (RFE). In part, the 
director requested a detailed job description of the beneficiary's specific tasks on a normal 
business day including the percentage of time spent on each task when employed by the foreign 
company. In addition, the director requested an organizational chart including the names of all 
employees, employees' titles, a clear description of their job duties, educational level, and 
whether they worked part-time or full-time. The director also requested a description of the 
foreign entity's products and services, including the exact production and administrative tasks 
necessary to produce the product and services, and who performs those tasks, and tasks related to 
goal-setting, policy-making, and discretionary decision-making. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted a letter from the Managing Director, dated 
December 9, 2013. The letter further detailed 'the duties performed by the beneficiary as Sales 
Manager with the foreign company as follows: 
• Sales and Business Development - Permanent Installation EUROPE/Rest of 
the World (NON-USA). [Approximately 25%) [The beneficiary] reviewed 
sales operational records and reports to project sales and determine profitability, 
as well as studied the market trends to identify prospects and secure local and 
international account businesses. She was responsible for working on requests for 
information and bids for new projects in Europe and Asia. These were projects 
with existing clients or were new clients where we had received bids via Theatre 
consultants or from Tender websites. [The beneficiary's] time was spent working 
with clients to determine the type of installation and equipment needed depending 
on the type of project. Mter working with clients to obtain their equipment 
requirements, [the beneficiary] would then work with our Technical department to 
work up costs to generate a proposal. Once [the beneficiary] developed and 
submitted a proposal, [the beneficiary] spent time liaising with the client to see if 
the proposal was within their budget. If the client could not afford our proposal, 
[the beneficiary] had discretionary authority to determine pricing strategies or 
value engineer some items into the proposal. 
• Sales and Business Development Permanent Installation USA. 
[Approximately 30%) [The beneficiary] was responsible for working on requests 
for information and bids for U.S. projects. She acted as the point of contact in the 
London office through whom U.S. employees could consult with regarding 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
pricing, product literature and delivery times. [The beneficiary] was also the key 
person who liaised with USA-based Theater consultants who were working on 
projects outside of the United States. Much like her duties above (Permanent 
Installation EUROPE/Rest of the World (NON USA)), her work on bids involved 
reading specifications, working with the technical department to gather pricing 
information, creating a pricing strategy and big proposal and then negotiating the 
final contract if we were successful with the bid. If the client could not afford our 
proposal, [the beneficiary] had discretionary authority to determine pricing 
strategies or value engineer some items into the proposal. During her tenure as 
the Sales Manager in our London office, [the beneficiary] negotiated several key 
projects including a $6.5 million Qroject for j show; 
$3 million contract with a $3 million contract with 
BAS and a $7 million contract for 
• Client Meetings. [Approximately 20%] [The beneficiary] developed and 
managed new customers, generated new sales leads, and maintained relationships 
with existing customers. [The beneficiary] would visit clients and consultants. 
She was responsible for increasing awareness of [the foreign company's] brand by 
investigating potential new markets and potential clients in targeted markets. This 
responsibility included traveling, giving product demos, and conducting general 
meetings with clients and consultants to ensure that we were kept on their bid lists 
and were up to date with all the information they could share about their 
upcoming projects. This role also required [the beneficiary] to monitor client 
preferences to determine the focus of future efforts. 
• Trade Shows. [Approximately 10%] [The beneficiary] was tasked with 
representing the company at various trade and industry shows. This included 
setting up trade shows, and attending trade shows in the United Kingdom, Europe 
and the United States. 
• Marketine. [Approximately 5%] [The beneficiary] developed and executed 
sales and marketing plans and oversaw the Marketing team to develop sales and 
marketing support materials to target prospective customers while also increasing 
the depth of penetration within the existing customer base. She maintained and 
evaluated the effectiveness of these strategies. Specifically, she worked with the 
clients and the Marketing team to develop and publish press releases about the 
company's new projects and new products. She prepared technical and factual 
explanation in bullet points, which Marketing could then use to produce press 
releases, case studies and update the website. 
• Education. [Approximately 10%] [The beneficiary] visited local London-based 
Theatre schools to give lectures and workshops of Automation and Stage 
technologies. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
The petitioner also explained that the beneficiary's direct supervisor was the Commercial 
Director and her immediate subordinates were the Sales Account Manager and the Marketing 
Assistant. 
The director denied the petition, in part, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
1. Analysis 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, we review the totality 
of the record, starting first with the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's job duties. See 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). A detailed job description is crucial, as the duties themselves will reveal 
the true nature of the beneficiary's foreign and proposed employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v . 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). We will then 
consider this information in light of other relevant factors, including job descriptions of the 
beneficiary's subordinate employees, the nature of the business that is conducted, the foreign 
company's subordinate staff, and any other facts contributing to a comprehensive understanding 
of the beneficiary's actual role within the foreign entity. While an entity with a limited support 
staff will not be precluded from the immigration benefit sought herein, it is subject to the same 
burden of proof that applies to a larger entity with a moderate or large subordinate staff. In other 
words, regardless of an entity's size or support staff, the petitioning entity must be able to 
provide sufficient evidence showing that it has the capability of maintaining its daily operations 
such that the beneficiary was relieved from having to primarily perform the operational tasks. 
In the present matter, upon review of the totality of the record, the evidence does not support a 
finding that the beneficiary allocated her time primarily to the performance of tasks that are 
within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
On review, the petitioner provided a vague description of the beneficiary's duties with the 
foreign company that fails to demonstrate what the beneficiary did on a day-to-day basis. For 
example, the petitioner stated the beneficiary was responsible for "working oii requests for 
information and bids for new projects;'' and "developed and managed new customers, generated 
new sales leads, and maintained relationships with existing customers." This description fails to 
explain the specific tasks associated with these duties. 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 
sufficient detail or explanation of the beneficiary's activities in the course of her daily routine. 
The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108. 
The job description also includes several non-qualifying duties such as the beneficiary "studied 
the market trends to identify prospects and secure local and international account businesses;" 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
"work on bids involved reading specifications, working with the technical department to gather 
pricing information, creating a pricing strategy and big proposal and then negotiating the final 
contract if we were successful with the bid;" "developed and executed sales and marketing plans 
and oversaw the Marketing team to develop sales and marketing support materials to target 
prospective customers while also increasing the depth of penetration within the existing customer 
base:" "maintained and evaluated the effectiveness of these strategies;" "worked with the clients 
and the Marketing team to develop and publish press releases about the company's new projects 
and new products;" and, "prepared technical and factual explanation in bullet points, which 
Marketing could then use to produce press releases, case studies and update the website." Since 
the foreign organizational chart does not list any employees in the positions of Marketing 
Director and Assistant Sales Manager, it is not clear who handled the market research, and 
developed the marketing and sales programs. It appears that the beneficiary conducted the 
market research, marketing, sales and negotiations as it does not appear that the beneficiary 
oversaw other employees that performed those tasks. Thus, it appears that the beneficiary is 
performing the duties inherent in obtaining new sales for the company. An employee who 
"primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or provide a service 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). 
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§ 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
In evaluating whether the beneficiary manages professional employees, we 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. § 1101(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 level, which is a realistic prerequisite to entry into the particular field of endeavor. 
Matter of Sea, 19 I&N Dec. 817 (Comm'r 1 988); Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (R.C. 1968); 
Matter of Shin, 11 I&N Dec. 686 (D.D. 1966). 
Therefore, we must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the 
degree held by subordinate employee. 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 as that term is defined above. In the instant case, the petitioner has not, in 
fact, established that a bachelor's degree is actually necessary, for example, to perform the duties 
of the Sales Account Manager whom was responsible for all "cruise ship bids" and "responsible 
for projects that the company was working on" and the duties of the Marketing Assistant who 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
was responsible for "managing all marketing materials" and "assisted the Sales team with bids, 
organized all trade shows and provided support" to the beneficiary. 
In the instant matter, the job description submitted by the petitioner provides little insight into the 
true nature of the tasks the beneficiary performed abroad. 
In light of the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary was 
employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
B. U.S. Employment in a Managerial or Executive Capacity 
The second issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary would 
be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner offered the beneficiary the position of Vice President-Business Development. In a 
letter of support dated May 28, 2013, the petitioner explained the duties of the proffered position 
as follows: 
As Vice President - Business Development, [the beneficiary] will continue to 
provide her managerial and executive expertise and comprehensive knowledge of 
our industry, as well as her critical knowledge of [the petitioner's] policies and 
methods of operations to devise strategies for creating value transactions that are 
of utmost strategic importance to [the petitioner.] As such, [the beneficiary] will 
continue to oversee and supervise a team of 4 employees. She will continue to 
report directly to the President, [the president]. 
As Vice President - Business Development, [the beneficiary] works with the 
Group CEO, and other Vice Presidents of [the petitioner] in promoting the 
company through marketing developments, communications and sales activities. 
She wins new business and makes significant contribution to the company's 
continued growth. She studies the U.S. market and provides focused well­
researched leads within the theatrical and entertainment industry in the United 
States and worldwide, and develops a strong pipeline of future opportunities, and 
excellent relationship with new clients. She acts as the first point of contact for 
incoming sales and website enquiries in the United States. She works closely 
with the Group marketing team to develop new leads and new contracts, and 
works with the Group sales team to provide and produce high quality presentation 
material for potential clients. She also works with the projects and rentals teams 
to provide competitive tender bid documents and accurate estimated budgets. She 
ensures that any marketing materials that are produced are accurate and reflect the 
excellent work of the company. She monitors competitors and advises on how the 
company may use the information to its advantage. She works with the Group 
sales team to coordinate and manage exhibitions and events in the United States. 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Furthermore, she is responsible for project management - in particular, she 
ensures that communication with the client is maintained throughout the project, 
reporting any problems to the General Manager and the project team; ensures that 
any new developments are handled in a timely and proactive way; upon 
completion of a project, responsible for the handover to the client and ensure that 
the service department is fully briefed and have all the correct contacts; and 
ensures that all marketing opportunities are fully exploited. Finally, she ensures 
that [the petitioner] delivers projects to a high standard in order to represent [the 
petitioner's] global ambition. 
In an RFE, the director requested a detailed job description of the beneficiary's specific tasks on 
a normal business day including the percentage of time spent on each task. In addition, the 
director requested an organizational chart including the names of all employees, employees' 
titles, a clear description of their job duties, and educational levels. 
In response, the petitioner provided the following breakdown of the duties performed by the 
beneficiary as follows: 
• Business Development with existing clients and consultants [20% ]. 
• Business development with new customers and new markets [18%]. 
• Sales rental market [5%]. 
• Sales for permanent install market [15%]. 
• Sales Forecasts [2%]. 
• Overseeing project management [10%]. 
• Support department management [10%]. 
• Education outreach [10% ]. 
• Marketing [5%]. 
• Trade shows attendance and planning [5%]. 
The petitioner explained that the beneficiary's immediate subordinates include: Support 
Manager, Project Manager, Lead Automation for Tours, Automation Tech on Tour, and Support 
Engineer on Tour. The beneficiary is a part of the U.S. Management Team which includes: VP 
Rigging and Install, VP Finance and VP Controls. 
2. Analysis 
When examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, we review the totality 
of the record, starting first with the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's job duties. See 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5). A detailed job description is crucial, as the duties themselves will reveal 
the true nature of the beneficiary's foreign and proposed 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). We will then 
consider this information in light of other relevant factors, including job descriptions of the 
beneficiary's subordinate employees, the nature of the business that is conducted, the foreign 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
company's subordinate staff, and any other facts contributing to a comprehensive understanding 
of the beneficiary's actual role within the foreign entity. While an entity with a limited support 
staff will not be precluded from the immigration benefit sought herein, it is subject to the same 
burden of proof that applies to a larger entity with a moderate or large subordinate staff. In other 
words, regardless of an entity's size or support staff, the petitioning entity must be able to 
provide sufficient evidence showing that it has the capability of maintaining its daily operations 
such that the beneficiary was relieved from having to primarily perform the operational tasks. 
In the present matter, upon review of the totality of the record, the evidence does not support a 
finding that the beneficiary would allocate her time primarily to the performance of tasks that are 
within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
On review, the job description includes several non-qualifying duties such as the beneficiary will 
be "traveling around the United States and meeting with existing clients, consultants and 
decision-makers to update them on [the petitioner's] new products, technology and brief them on 
new projects;" "work[ing] with the technical team to design theaters, opera houses, shows, 
movies, and work[ing] with the clients' specific budgets to cost out these systems;" "researching 
new markets, building new relationships with potential clients and developing new 
opportunities;" "writ[ing] technical documents that detail our proposal and how we are 
approaching the project;" "prepar[ing] reports, and submit[ing] these to the Group Directors to 
update sales forecast;" and, "overseeing ongoing projects." It appears that the beneficiary will 
handle all the business development such as finding new clients, performing market research and 
negotiating as it does not appear that the beneficiary would oversee other employees that 
performed the day-to-day tasks of negotiation, sales and market research. Upon review of the 
job description for the beneficiary's subordinates, none of her subordinates are involved in 
business development operations. Instead, her subordinates handle project management, 
aftersales support and technical support for the scheduled tours. Thus, it appears that the 
beneficiary is performing the duties inherent in business development. An employee who 
"primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or provide a service is not 
considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See sections 
1 01(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). 
In the instant matter, the job description submitted by the petitioner provides little insight into the 
true nature of the tasks the beneficiary will perform. While the petitioner has provided a 
breakdown of the percentage of time the beneficiary will spend on various duties, the petitioner 
has not articulated whether each duty is managerial or executive. 
In light of the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary would 
be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity and on the 
basis of this second adverse conclusion, this petition cannot be approved. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
On appeal, the petitioner contends that the beneficiary has already met regulatory and evidentiary 
criteria with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") previous granted L-lA 
classification to the beneficiary. It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied 
after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant 1-129 L-1 petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. 
v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); 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). Examining 
the consequences of an approved petition, there is a significant difference between a 
nonimmigrant L-lA visa classification, which allows an alien to enter the United States 
temporarily, and an immigrant E-13 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. §§ 204 and 214 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1154 and 1184; see also § 316 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1427. Because USCIS spends less time reviewing 1-129 nonimmigrant petitions 
than 1-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant L-lA petitions are simply approved in error. 
Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(1)(14)(i)(requiring no supporting documentation to file a petition to extend an L-lA 
petition's validity). 
If the previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same unsupported and 
contradictory assertions that are contained in the current record, the approval would constitute 
material and gross error on the part of the director. We are not required to approve applications 
or pe�itions 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'r 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that USCIS or any agency must treat 
acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 
1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a 
court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the 
nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, we would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 
282785 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. When the AAO denies a 
petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only if it is shown 
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 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 
345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003). 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit 
sought. Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). The petitioner must prove by a 
-----------------------
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
preponderance of evidence that the beneficiary is fully qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.