dismissed EB-1C Case: Telecommunications And Information Technology

Identifying data deleted to 
prevent clgsrlg lanwarrsn ted 
invasion of personal privaeg. 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: LIN 04 020 51050" Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
T 99 328 899 wesms 
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 BEHALWF 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. 
J 
) dobert P. Wiemann, Director 
kdministrative Appeals Office 
LIN 04 020 5 1050 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based petition. The matter is 
now before the AAO on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed.' 
The petitioner is a company organized in the State of Delaware in March 1990. It provides 
telecommunications and information technology services. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its operations 
program 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. 
fj 1 153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not established a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's 
foreign employer. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner submits documentation and a brief. 
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 coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its affiliate or subsidiary. 
' It is noted that the petitioner filed a second 1-140 (LIN 06 016 51285) for the beneficiary on October 21, 
2005, after the director denied this petition. The second 1-140 petition was approved on November 30, 2005. 
If the second petition was based on the same facts and evidence as the present petition, the approval of the 
second petition may be subject to revocation pursuant to section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1155. 
Accordingly, the director shall review the second petition to determine whether the petitioner disclosed the 
first denial in Part 4 of the Form 1-140 and to determine whether a notice of intent to revoke should be issued. 
This decision will be included in the beneficiary's A-file - 
LlN 04 020 5 1050 
Page 3 
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 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.F.R. 
0 204.5(j)(5). 
The exceptionally complex issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has established 
that a qualifying relationship exists between itself and the foreign entity. In order to qualify for this visa 
classification, the petitioner must establish that a qualifying relationship exists between the United States 
petitioner, , and the beneficiary's foreign employer,-~td. 
(formerljLtd.), in that the petitioning company is the same employer or an'affiliate or 
subsidiary of the foreign entity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 0 204.56)(2) states in pertinent part: 
Afiliate means: 
(A) One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same parent or 
individual; 
(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. 
The 1-140 petition was filed on October 29, 2003. The etitioner submitted a chart labeled "relevant 
corporate relationship" depicting the petitioner, America, Inc. and a United Kingdom 
company as wholly-owned subsidiaries of Internationa f Germany, 
which in turn is wholly-owned traded German corporation. The 
America, Inc. was created as the result of a merger 
between and provided incorporation documents and evidence of 
LIN 04 020 5 1050 
Page 4 
The petitioner indicated that it currently employed the beneficiary in L-1A status and provided copies of his 
current and previous Form 1-797 Approval Notices for all periods of L-1A classification, including an 
approval notice for the Blanket L petition Corporation, and a copy of the Form I-129S, 
Nonimmigrant Petition Based on Blanket L Petition, submitted by the beneficiary to the U.S. Embassy in 
London on January 23,2001. The information provided on the Form 1-129s indicates that the beneficiary was 
employed by DaimlerChrysler UK Limited from April 1998 until January 2001, at which time he was 
transferred to the United States in L-1A status to work for Corporation's Warrenville 
Support Center in Lisle, Illinois. The beneficiary's subsequent L-1A employers, as shown on the submitted 
Forms I-797A, were T-Systems Inc. and T-Systems USA, Inc. 
On June 25,2004, the director requested additional evidence to establish that there is a qualifying relationship 
between the petitioner and the beneficiary's foreign employer. Specifically, the director observed: 
The evidence does not sufficiently establish a qualifying relationship between the United 
States and foreign entities. The Form 1-129s submitted indicates that th eficiary was 
employed abroad be UK Limited. The petitioning entity *North 
America, Inc. You submitted no evidence to establish a relationship between the two entities. 
Specifically, the documentation regarding the petitioning entity indicates that it is a wholly- 
owned subsidiary of to the foreign entity, you 
submitted a copy of Corporation which lists the 
foreign entity under its claimed prior name, Mercedes Benz (United Kingdom) Ltd. The - - 
blanket petition does no the petitioning entity 
are also affiliated with 
entity and its parent c 
Limited. 
Therefore, please explain the alleged relationship between the two entities and submit 
documentary evidence to establish the qualifying corporate interrelationship between the 
United States business entity and the foreign business entity which employs or employed the 
alien. Such evidence must establish common ownership and/or control between the foreign 
entity and the United States entity. Evidence of a qualifying relationship may include, but is 
not limited to, annual reports, articles of incorporation, financial statements, andlor evidence 
of ownership of all outstanding stock for both entities. 
(Emphasis in original.) 
In a response dated September 15, 2004, counsel for the petitioner submitted a "corporate relationship" 
timeline which provided the following information: 
LIN 04 020 51050 t 
Page 5 
ficiary] was employed was called-K later 
1) January 2001n th 
[Tlhe parent corporation stockholders ar 
beneficiarvl was transferred to debis IT 
in every 
4) December 3,2001: debis 
No visa amendment for this name change. 
announce that - 
will buy all o and conclude the sale by March 
2002. 
6) February 15, 2002 Visa amendment petition filed with Nebraska Service Center for 
to reflect that the company's ownership has 
r be involved. L-1 relationship is preserved 
because the new owner of the company was an original joint venture partner and now 
[hlas taken over all assets to create a wholly owned subsidiary including all assets 
abroad. 
7) August 12, 2003 Visa amendment petition filed for [the beneficiary] to reflect 
migration ~OUSA in the merger. L-1 relationship is preserved because the 
parent company remains the same[.] [Clorporate relationship is maintained. 
8) October 200-Inc. mergers SA another wholly owned 
subsidiary of L-l relationship preserved because of the common 
parent company. Name change also takes effect. 
(Emphasis in original.) 
In support of this statement, the petitioner submitted press releases confirming that (1) 
a joint venture between - formed in October 2000, with the latter 
referred to as owning a 50.1 percent "majority stake" in the company; (2)- was re- 
named in February 2001; and, (3) DaimlerChrysler subsequently sold its 49.9 
percent interest 002. The petitioner also submitted its 
certificate of inc ~orth America, Inc. to 
- 
The petitioner provided a corporate organizational chart that purports to show the ownership of the petitioner 
and the beneficiary's foreign employer. The petitioner is depicted as being an indirect, wholly-owned 
hrough its subridiarie lnternaiional 
which is shown as the petitioner's direct 
LIN 04 020 51050 
Page 6 
shows-~td., the beneficiary's foreign em lo er, is now known as- 
and is majority owned (50.1 percent) by the same company The chart also reflects 
once held a 49.9 percent interest - now known i 
not currently own any interest in the company. 
129 Petition ~re~ared in Februarv 2002. which identifies the beneficiarv's foreign em~lover as 
The director denied the petition on December 6, 2004, determining that the submitted evidence did not 
establish that debis Systemhaus owned the beneficiary's foreign employer, that the beneficiary's foreign 
employer was included in the "rebranding or that it was included whensold 
its shares to w he director specifically noted that the evidence did not indicate that the United 
States petitioner was affiliated with so that it was unclear why lanket 
petition would have been used as evidence of a qualifying relationship. The director concluded that the record 
did not contain evidence regarding the actual, current ownership of the beneficiary's forei em loyer or 
evidence that a qualifying relationship exists between UK Limited an- North 
America, Inc. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner contends that the beneficiary was eligible initial 
L-1A blanket petition because "[alt the time of the Beneficiary's transfer the Petiti~ner was a joint venture 
between " Counsel claims that the L-IA relationship was preserved 
even though eventually held no interest in the joint venture. Counsel asserts that since a 
qualifying cornpanyo petitioned for the beneficiary's transfer and that an original party to the joint 
venture purchased the qualifying companies both in the U.S. and abroad, the qualifying relationship is 
preserved, "even if the beneficiary's originalemployer was not purchased in the buy-out 
event." 
On appeal, the petitioner submits evidence to show that the company currently known as 'v, Ltd." 
(UK) Ltd.," not was previously known as "YIY%IIIILpes UK Ltd. as indicated on the 
petitioner's corporate organizational chart. The petitioner is obligated to clarify the inconsistent and 
conflicting testimony by independent and objective evidence. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). 
LIN 04 020 5 1050 
Page 7 
Counsel's assertions are not persuasive. The petitioner has not established that the U.S. company and the 
beneficiary's foreign employer enjoyed a qualifying relationship at the time of filing this petition.2 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 (BIA 1988); see also 
Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 
(Comm. 1982). In the context of this visa petition, ownership refers to the direct or indirect legal right of 
possession of the assets of an entity with full power and authority to control; control means the direct or 
indirect legal right and authority to direct the establishment, management, and operations of an entity. Matter 
of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
The evidence in the record does not establish that the beneficiary's foreign employe 
Limited, its parent comp tered into a qualifying joint 
ultimate parent company or any of its subsidiaries. Although the regulations 
contemplate a qualifying subsidiary relationship wherein an entity owns, directly or indirectly, 50 percent of a 
50-50 joint venture and has equal control and veto power over the entity, the record in this matter does not 
demonstrate that the beneficiary's foreign employer and the petitioner's ultimate owner ever had a 50-50 joint 
venture relationship. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(2). 
On appeal, the petitioner submits an excerpt fro- Form 20-F filed with the Securities 
and Exchange Commission on Februarv 20. 2003. Pane eleven of this document ~rovides the following v ~0 
information: "In October 2000, ~ervicescombined its information 
technology activities with those of venture. As part of the transaction, 
contributed subsidiary - 
controlling interest in that company." (~m~hasis added.) While - 
may have regarded their ownership ("joint venture," the U.S. 
company at the time of the beneficiary's transfer qualified only as a subsidiary of its maiority owner, 
in the comuanv and thus did not establish the necessarv elements of ownershio and control. Accordinnlv. the 
V 4' 
etitioner then known as Services North America) did not meet the definition of a subsidiary of the 
-Group pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2jl)(ii)(K) or 8 C.F.R. 204.56)(2) at the time of the 
beneficiary's transfer to the United States unde-orporations' blanket L petition. The 
evidence in the record does not support counsel's assertion that the petitioner had a qualifying relationship 
with the beneficiary's foreign employer at the time of his transfer to the United States as a nonimmigrant. 
Nevertheless, counsel relies heavily on the fact that the beneficiary was transferred to the United States in L- 
1A status under corporation's 1998  lanki it L petition as evidence of the qualifying 
relationship between the petitioner and the foreign entity at the time the petition was filed. Counsel's reliance 
* The AAO notes for the record that the submitted evidence does not demonstrate that the petitioner and the 
beneficiary's foreign employer had a qualifying relationship at the time the beneficiary was transferred to the - - 
United ~tateslanket L petition in january 2001. 
LIN 04 020 5 1050 
Page 8 
is misplaced, as the L-1 visa appears to have been granted in error, and it is unclear whether the petitioner 
provided the U.S. Embassy in London with sufficient documentation to make an informed decision regarding 
the petitioner's and beneficiary's eligibility. As noted by the director, the U.S. company then known as 
was not listed on the Blanket L Petition (although its indirect parent 
is on the list of qualifying offices), and it is not clear that the petitioner 
Inc. as the beneficiary's intended U.S. employer at the time of the 
January 12, 2001 letter submitted to the U.S. Embassy in London 
indicated that the beneficiary would work for the Blanket L pethione Corporation. On 
appeal, counsel explains: "The blanket petition and visa refer to the company by generic names. The offer 
letter and subsequent 1-9 caption the legal entity name." The petitioner submits a copy of a January 12, 2001 
offer letter North America, Inc. letterhead, signed by the beneficiary in February 2001, 
after his visa was issued. Based on the date of this letter, it appears that it was not submitted to the U.S. 
Embassy in London with the beneficiary's Blanket L-1A visa application, and thus the consular officer would . . 
have reawnably assumed that the beneficiary would be working for Corporation, a 
qualifying affiliate of his foreign employer, in the United ~tates.~ 
Moreover, even if the petitioner did properly identify the beneficiary's actual intended U.S. employer at the 
time he submitted his initial Blanket L-1 visa application, as discussed above, and 
its subsidiaries were no longer qualifying organizations in January 2001 because did not 
hold a majority or 50 percent interest in these "joint venture" companies after October 2000. Accordingly, - - 
while may have been a qualifying subsidiary in December 1998 when the Blanket L 
petition was filed, the petitioner was required to amend its Blanket L petition after selling a majority interest 
in the company toin October 2000. See 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(7)(i)(C)(requiring a Blanket L 
petitioner to file an amended petition to reflect changes in approved relationships). 
Counsel also relies on CIS'S previous approval of an amended L-1A visa petition filed subsequent to the 
transfer of 9.9 percent interest in the petitioner to in January 2002 as 
does not affect the qualifying relationship for L-1 purposes or for 
purposes of qualifying for this visa classification. Again, counsel's reliance on this approved amendment of 
the beneficiary's L-1 status is misplaced. The AAO notes that the petitioner submitted misleading information 
I in support of the beneficiary's subsequent 1-129 petition. Specifically, on the L Classification Supplement to 
Form 1-129, the petitioner identified the beneficiary's foreign employer as - UK Limited, 
now' and stated in its February 14, 2002 letter "the employer abroad was also purchased by 
- The record also chart reflecting the same name 
change K Limited 
the existence of a United Kingdom " it is clearly not the same company as 
the beneficiary's foreign a name change 
and continues to exist as a 100 percent owned subsidiary On appeal, counsel 
submitted evidence that the company currently known as ' 
fh 
Ltd." was previously known as - 
(UK) Limited." Doubt cast on any aspect o t e petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a 
At his discretion, the director may request that the U.S. Embassy review the original visa application to 
d,etermine whether the beneficiary misrepresented his intended U.S. employer. 
LIN 04 020 51050 
Page 9 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
Further, it must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after CIS 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. Suva, 
724 F. Supp. 1 103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Examining the consequences of an approved petition, there is a 
significant difference between a nonimmigrant L-1A 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. 
CJ: $5 204 and 214 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $5 1154 and 1184; see also 5 316 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1427. 
Because CIS spends less time reviewing 1-129 nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 immigrant petitions, some 
nonimmigrant L-1A 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. 5 214.2(1)(14)(i)(requiring no supporting documentation to file a petition to extend 
an L-1A petition's validity); Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (51h Cir. 
2004) (finding that prior approvals do not preclude CIS from denying an extension of the original visa based 
on a reassessment of petitioner's qualifications.) 
Regardless, the present record contains portions of the records for two previous L-1A petitions filed on behalf 
of the beneficiary. In the beneficiary's first two L-1A petitions, the petitioner either misrepresented that they 
had complied with the qualifying relationship requirement, or the consular officer and director committed 
gross error in approving the petitions without sufficient evidence of a qualifying relationship between the 
beneficiary's foreign employer and the U.S. petitioner. Regardless, the approval of the previous petitions 
may be subject to revocation based on the evidence submitted with this petition. See 8 C.F.R. 5 
2 14.2(1)(9)(iii). 
Based on the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has not provided documentary evidence demonstrating that 
it and the beneficiary's foreign employer shared common and controlling ownership when the beneficiary was 
transferred to the United States as an L-1 A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee in January 200 1. Rather, 
the evidence in the record shows that beneficiary's transfer in January 2001 was not to a qualifying entity. 
The petitioner has not demonstrated sufficient common ownership and control between the petitioner and the 
beneficiary's foreign employer to establish that a qualifying relationship existed at the time of filing this 
petition. 
Even if the petitioner had established that the foreign entity had a qualifying relationship with the petitioner at 
the time the beneficiary was transferred to the United States, counsel's arguments would not be persuasive. 
Counsel argues: "When bou ht the entire .oint venture including the assets abroad, the L- 
1A relationship remains preserved even though is no longer involved. The statute does not 
require that the qualifying relationship between companies must remain the same throughout the entire course - - 
of employment." This statement might be accurate if a - ited Kingdom 
had employed the beneficiary. However, the beneficiary's foreign employer UK Ltd., was 
not involved in the purchase "of assets abroad" and had no qualifying relationship a? all with the petitioner's 
LIN 04 020 5 1050 
Page 10 
predecessor company following the sale of a majority interest in 
October 2000. 
4 in 
Furthermore, counsel's reliance on the beneficiary's continuous maintenance of L-1A status, and on the 
regulations governing L-1 nonimmigrant intracompany transferees at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1) is not persuasive in 
the context of this immigrant visa petition. The AAO acknowledges that both the immigrant and 
nonimmigrant visa classifications rely on the same definitions of "subsidiary" and "affiliate." See 8 C.F.R. 
$5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(K) and (L); 8 C.F.R. 5 204.56)(2). However, there are situations in which changes in 
corporate relationships will render an L-1A nonimmigrant ineligible for classification as a multinational 
manager or executive pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(C), even when such changes do not affect the 
nonimmigrant alien's ability to maintain his or her L-1A status. 
The L-1 nonimmigrant classification only requires that the petitioning organization continue to operate 
outside the U.S. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(l)(ii)(G)(2) (defining "qualifying organization" as a United States or 
foreign firm, codoration, o.r other legal entity which is or will be doing business in at least one other country 
for the duration of the alien's stay in the United States as an intracompany transferee.) While a qualifying 
relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer must exist at the time of the beneficiary's transfer to the 
United States in L-1 status, a subsequent sale or dissolution of the foreign entity that employed the beneficiary 
will not necessarily render the beneficiary ineligible to maintain L-1 status, so long as the petitioner continues 
to do business in at least one other country through a qualifying branch, parent, affiliate or subsidiary. In such 
an instance, the regulations require the petitioner to file an amended 1-129 petition so that CIS can determine 
whether the petitioner is still a qualifying organization. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(7)(i)(C). 
In contrast, in order to establish eligibility for classification as a multinational manager or executive for 
immigrant visa purposes, the petitioner must establish that it maintains a qualifying relationship with the 
beneficiary's foreign employer; the foreign corporation or other legal entity that employed the beneficiary 
must continue to exist and have a qualifying relationship with the petitioner at the time the immigrant petition 
is filed. 8 C.F.R. $204.5(j)(3)(i)(C). A multinational executive or manager is one 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." Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1153(b)(l)(C). 
Although the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(j)(3)(i)(B) reference beneficiaries who are already employed by 
the petitioner as nonimmigrants, the fact that the beneficiary is currently in the United States in L-1A 
classification does not exempt the petitioner from its burden to establish the existence of an ongoing 
qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's previous foreign employer as of the date the petition is filed. 
Rather, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.56)(3)(i)(B) simply allows CIS to look beyond the three-year period 
immediately preceding the filing of the 1-140 Petition in order to determine whether the beneficiary has the 
requisite one year of qualifying employment abroad. To construe the regulation as creating an exception that 
allows L-1 A beneficiaries to qualify as multinational managers without a qualifying relationship between the 
U.S. and foreign entity would contravene the plain language of the statute. The petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing the immigrant visa petition. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 
1971). 
LIN 04 020 5 1050 
Page 11 
In this case, the tenuous affiliate relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary's foreign employer 
was severed when sold all interest in - 
The fact that the petitioner continues to be part of a multinational group is irrelevant in this proceeding, as this - 
group does not include the foreign company that employed the beneficiary. The beneficiary's employment 
abroad with- UK Limited is not considered employment with a qualifying entity for the 
purposes of this immigrant visa classification, and it cannot be found that the beneficiary is seeking "to 
continue to render services to the same employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof." 
The petitioner has not established that a qualifying relationship exists between the petitioner and the 
beneficiary's foreign employer. For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.