dismissed EB-1C Case: Textiles

' $. 
i 
 U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave , N.W., Rm A3042 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
PUBLIC COPY 23 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: MAR 1 2006 
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. 3 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
/2:3z 
Robe *. m-femann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 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 engaged in importing and exporting textile goods manufactured by its 
claimed foreign affiliate. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its chief executive officer. 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational 
executive or manager. The director denied the petition on the following independent grounds of ineligibility: 
1) the beneficiary was not employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity; 2) the 
beneficiary would not be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity; 3) the 
petitioner failed to establish thatit had been doing business for one year prior to filing the Form 1-140; and 4) 
the petitioner failed to establish its ability to pay the beneficiary's proffered wage. 
On appeal, counsel disputes 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 yeai-s 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 th'e 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. 
r. 
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. 
Based upon a review of the petitioner's record of proceeding, which includes the description of duties and 
evidence of the foreign entity's organizational structure, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has shown by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or 
executive capacity. Accordingly, the AAO will withdraw the first portion of the director's denial and will 
proceed to address the three remaining grounds for denial. 
I. 
Page 3 
The second issue to be addressed in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has established that the 
beneficiary would be employed'in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 lOl(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 direc,tly 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. § 1 lOl(a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily-- 
(i) 
 directs the management of the organization or a major component or function 
of the organization; 
(ii) 
 establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or 
function; ' 
(iii) 
 exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-ma'king; and 
(iv) 
 receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, 
the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted a letter dated February 6, 2004, which provided a 
description of the beneficiary's-duties with the foreign entity. 
Page 4 
The petitioner further stated that the beneficiary's foreign position involved overseeing the work of three 
senior level employees, including a manager of the manufacturing division, an administrator, and a personal 
assistant. The description was accompanied by a detailed organizational chart further illustrating the foreign 
entity's hierarchical structure, which supports either the manufacturing division or the administrative and 
marketing division. 
Although the petitioner provided its own organizational chart showing a total of 19 employees projected to fill 
12 positions, the only name on the chart was that of the beneficiary. Furthermore, in light of Part 5, Item 2 of 
the Form 1-140, which indicates that the petitioner had a total of four employees when the petition was filed, 
the submitted organizational chart was clearly a projection of the petitioner's future structure, not a reflection 
of the petitioner's organizational structure at the time the Form 1-140 was filed. The petitioner did not provide 
a description of the beneficiary's proposed duties in the United States. 
On May 13, 2005, the director issued a notice of intent to deny (NOID) instructing the petitioner, in part, to 
submit a more detailed description of the beneficiary's job duties in the United States. The petitioner was 
instructed to state the beneficiary's daily duties as opposed to his responsibilities and to specify the percentage 
of time the beneficiary would spend on each of the listed duties. 
The petitioner provided a response, which included the following description of the beneficiary's proposed 
duties in the United States: 
Monday (12.5 %): 
Morning: [The beneficiary] meets with [the] [gleneral [mlanager and [the] [slupervisor of 
[mlarketing in order to plan and set goals and deadlines for the company. The [gleneral 
[mlanager and [the] [slupervisor of [mlarketing provide [the beneficiary] with a summary 
of what their departments have completed over the past week for [the beneficiaryl's review: 
Based upon these reports, [the beneficiary] will provide general guidelines to the [mlanager 
and [slupervisor to implement the week's goals. Based upon these general guidelines, the 
[mlanagers will create a to-do list for their departments with specific goals and deadlines. 
Afternoon: Review the company's sales summary, marketing plan, and a summary of the 
equipment and personnel needs in order to make long-term policy decisions regarding the 
management and operation of the company. Review any expense changes with the 
[gleneral [mlanager to ensure that such changes will fit into the company's budget. Dictate 
the final plan to the [slecretary for distribution to the [mlanager of the [gleneral [mlanager 
and the [mlarketing [slupervisor. 
Tuesday (20%): 
Morning: Meet with the [gleneral [mlanager to receive input as to whether there are any 
significant issues relating to customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Give instructions to the 
[gleneral [mlanager on how to deal with such issues. These issues will be handled by the 
[gleneral [mlanager after receiving general guidance from [the beneficiary]. If the issue 
involves customer dissatisfaction, then [the beneficiary] will direct the [gleneral [mlanager 
to create a plan to ensure that the problem is solved. 
- Page 5 
Afternoon: The [gleneral [mlanager negotiates contracts of sales, purchases and services 
with our customers. After the contract is finalized, the [mlanager will present the contract 
to [the beneficiary] for review and signature. [The beneficiary] reviews and signs these 
contracts. 
Wednesday (25%): 
Morning: [The beneficiary] confers with the [gleneral [mlanager and [mlarketing 
[slupervisor regarding the production, design and quality of the company's products. The 
[gleneral [mlanager and [mlarketing [slupervisor provide suggestions on how the quality 
and design of our products can be improved. [The beneficiary] reviews these suggestions 
and makes a final determination on which suggestions the company will accept. The 
[gleneral [mlanager provides [the beneficiary] with a list of custom orders and price 
listings. The [mlanager informs [the beneficiary] whether our manufacturing division in 
Nepal will be able to comply with the custom order and he will inform [the beneficiary] 
whether the listed price falls within our company's financial goals. [The beneficiary] 
authorizes the [gleneral [mlanager to proceed with custom order[s] and authorizes the 
[mlarketing [s]upervisor to proceed with the listed price. If the custom order or price is 
unacceptable to [the beneficiary], then he directs the [gleneral [mlanager to contact the 
customer to renegotiate. 
Afternoon: The [mlarketing [slupervisor provides a marketing plan to [the beneficiary] for 
his review. The m'arketing plan summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of our 
company's competitors. It will also pinpoint the strengths and weaknesses of our products, 
paying special attention to which specific product is successful and at which location the 
success is being enjoyed. The [mlarketing [s]upervisor provides [the beneficiary] with a 
summary of how his division plans to promote our products through the media, 
conferences, travel or other means. [The beneficiary] provides general guidance to the 
[mlarketing [s]upervisor as to the marketing plan. [The beneficiary] must authorize any 
major expense or plan by the marketing division before it can be implemented. 
Thursday (25%): 
The [gleneral [mlanager provides a personnel summary to [the beneficiary]. This report 
summarizes the personnel needs of the company, suggestions on hiring or ,firing personnel, 
the duties of each employee, and the expenses associated with each employee. [The 
beneficiary] must finalized any decision made concerning the hiring or firing of an 
employee before it can be implemented. If a certain division of the company requires more 
personnel, [the beneficiary] determines whether our company should be restructured . . . or 
whether additional hiring is required to meet that need. The day-to-day responsibility of 
handling personnel issues will be handled by the [gleneral [mlanager. However, if any 
major issue involving personnel arises, such as legal issues, then the [gleneral [mlanager 
informs [the beneficiary] so that [he] can seek the advice of corporate counsel. 
Friday (17.5 96): 
The [gleneral [mlanager and the [mlarkeing [slupervisor provide [the beneficiary] with a 
summary of their departments' achievements. [The beneficiary] reviews the work of the 
[gleneral [mlanager and the [mlarketing [slupervisor through reviewing these reports and 
Page 6 , , 
communicating with the two individuals. He meets with each of these two individuals 
separately to provide them with an outline of their strengths and weaknesses. He creates a 
to-do-list for both individuals which he will review during the following week. He rewards 
the [mlanager and [slupervisor when a project is completed successfully. [The beneficiary] 
listens to suggestions which the [mlanager and [slupervisor may have. He provides each 
individual with both long-term and short term goals to meet. He also provides them with a 
general outline as to new developments in our products as well as marketing trends which 
the [mlanager and [slupervisor will share in detail with their departmental teams. 
The petitioner also provided its quarterly wage statements for the first two quarters of 2005. While both wage 
reports list the same six employees, the first wage report indicates that in February of 2005, when the Form I- 
140 was filed, the petitioner had five employees. A comparison of the two reports indicates that 
- 
(with social security number ending inwas the employee hired during the third month of the first 
quarter. The AAO notes that since the petitioner's employee list shows 'two individuals with the exact same 
initials without accompanying social security numbers, the AAO cannot determine whether the petitioner, at 
the time of filing the 1-140, 
 a secretary or without an administrative assistant, as both 
positions are occupied by an 
 However, the AAO can determine, with a sufficient degree of 
certainty that during the relevant time period the petitioner was operating' with two full-time employees, 
-. 
which included the beneficiary and the general manager, and three part-time employees, which most likely 
included the administrative assistant, the marketing supervisor, and the supervisor's assistant. It appears that 
the position of secretary had not been filled until after the petition was filed. 
On August 4, 2005, the director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary's proposed position would primarily consist of managerial or executive duties.' The director 
specifically noted the confusing manner in which the petitioner chose to break down the beneficiary's job 
duties, suggesting that the petitioner did not provide a complete description of the duties that'comprise the 
beneficiary's days on the job. The director also noted that one of the beneficiary's subordinates cannot be 
deemed professional because he only possesses a high school diploma. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director made a series of errors, which resulted in the denial. First, counsel 
states that the language in the NOID is ambiguous as it pertains to the request for a percentage breakdown of 
the beneficiary's daily duties. Counsel states that the director should have clarified whether the requested 
information was a breakdown of hours in one day or days in a week. Counsel's argument, however, is without 
merit. The director's goal was merely to gauge the amount of time, daily or weekly, the beneficiary would 
spend on each listed duty. In the instant matter, the petitioner provided what appeared to be a day-by-day 
description of the beneficiary's tasks. However, the description was severely muddled by the confusing 
addition of a percentage figure next to each day of the week, rather than each listed duty, leaving the director 
to assume that each set of duties was assigned a certain day of the week and once the particular duty was 
completed for the day, the beneficiary's work day was done, leaving several days where the beneficiary 
seemingly worked less than eight hours. For example, Monday's duties comprised 12.5% of the work week. 
Therefore, according to the petitioner's confusing breakdown, the beneficiary appears to work only five hours 
on Mondays, while working ten hours on Wednesdays based on the indication that Wednesday's duties 
I 
 On page one of the body of the decision, the director refers to 8 C.F.R. 205.5(j), suggesting that provisions regarding 
multinational managers and executives can be found there. However, the relevant provisions are found in 8 C.F.R. 
204.5(j), as subsequently noted in page three of the director's decision. 
m Page 7 
comprise 25% of the work week. Although the petitioner adds to the original breakdown, thereby clarifying 
that the intent was to provide a weekly breakdown of duties, the initial breakdown lacked this clarification. 
Therefore, the director's comment pointing out this obvious deficiency was reasonable and appropriate. 
Next, counsel argues that the director erroneously concluded that the beneficiary does not supervise the work 
of managerial, professional, or supervisory employees, claiming that the petitioner has maintained all along 
that the beneficiary oversees the work of a general manager and a marketing supervisor. However, the AAO 
notes that in the original organizational chart provided in support of the Form 1-140, the petitioner indicated 
that the beneficiary would assume the position of general manager. Since then, the petitioner has consistently 
referred to one of the beneficiary's subordinates as the general manager. As such, the AAO must question the 
significance, if any, of the initial organizational chart and the inconsistency between the representations in the 
chart and the petitioner's subsequent claims. 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). 
Counsel goes on to argue that the beneficiary does not perform lower-level duties as clearly suggested by the 
detailed description of the beneficiary's proposed position. While the AAO acknowledges the significance of 
a detailed job description, a determination regarding the beneficiary's eligibility for classification as a 
multinational manager or executive cannot hinge entirely on that description, particularly when the petitioner 
lacks a sufficient staff to support the beneficiary and relieve him from having to perform nonqualifying job 
duties. According to the beneficiary's description of job duties, his days are entirely comprised of overseeing 
the work of one claimed managerial and one claimed supervisory employee. However, at the time the 
petition was filed, only one of those subordinate employees, i.e., the general manager, was performing 
services on a full-time basis. The petitioner's marketing supervisor, who purportedly conducted feasibility 
studies, arranged for billing clients, and marketed the petitioner's products, was employed on a limited part- 
time basis according to the salary he was compensated during the first quarter of 2005. 
Despite the strong implications of the beneficiary's job description, the petitioner's limited organizational 
hierarchy does not support the conclusion that the beneficiary was primarily performing duties of a qualifying 
nature. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). A company's size alone, 
without taking into account the reasonable needs of the organization, may not be the determining factor in 
denying a visa to a multinational manager or executive. 3 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
3 1101(a)(44)(C). Instead, an executive's or manager's duties must be the critical factor. However, if CIS 
fails to believe the facts stated in the petition are true, then that assertion may be rejected. Section 204(b) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1154(b); see also Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
In the instant matter, the petitioner is engaged in selling a product manufactured by the petitioner's claimed 
foreign affiliate. Thus, the nature of the business requires individuals to market and sell the petitioner's 
products. The fact that the petitioner has only one part-time marketing employee and one part-time sales 
employee leads the AAO to question who actually sells the petitioner's products. A critical analysis of the 
nature of the petitioner's business undermines counsel's assertion that the subordinate employees relieve the 
beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties. Although the petitioner may be in the process of 
undergoing an expansion, as pointed out by counsel on appeal, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the 
-~ Page 8 
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 (Comrn. 1971). The petitioner in 
the instant matter has not established that it would have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or 
executive capacity at the time the petition was filed. 
The third issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner had been doing business for at least one year prior to 
the date it filed the petition. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(j)(3)(i)(D) states that the petitioner is required to submit evidence that the 
prospective United States employer has been doing business for at least one year. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(j)(2) states that doing business means "the regular, systematic, and continuous 
provision of goods andlor services by a fm, corporation, or other entity and does not include the mere presence 
of an agent or office." 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a number of sales invoices dating back to January of 2004 in an attempt to 
establish that the U.S. company has been doing business for at least one year prior to filing the Form 1-140. 
However, none of the invoices identify the petitioner as a party to the sales transaction. While each of the 
invoices names the buying party and lists the purchased items, there is no indication that the petitioner was 
the selling party in any of the sales transactions. 
Counsel asserts that the director's NOD did not address the fact that the petitioner failed to submit sufficient 
evidence to establish that it had been doing business for the requisite one-year period. However, even if the 
director had committed a procedural error by failing to solicit further evidence regarding this issue, it is not 
clear what remedy would be appropriate beyond the appeal process itself. The petitioner has in fact 
supplemented the record on appeal, and therefore it would serve no useful purpose to remand the case simply 
to afford the petitioner the opportunity to supplement the record with new evidence. Based on the evidence 
provided, the AAO cannot conclude that the petitioner meets the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5Cj)(3)(i)(D). 
The fourth issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner established its ability to pay the beneficiary's 
proffered wage of approximately $3 1,200 per year.2 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(g)(2) states, in pertinent part: 
Ability of prospective employer to pay wage. Any petition filed by or for an employment- 
based immigrant which requires an offer of employment must be accompanied by evidence 
that the prospective United States employer has the ability to pay the proffered wage. The 
petitioner must demonstrate this ability at the time the priority date is established and 
continuing until the beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence. Evidence of this ability 
In Part I11 of the NOID, the director noted that the Form 1-140 indicates that the beneficiary's proffered wage is 
$32,600. This statement, however, is erroneous. Part 6, Item 9 of the petitioner's Form 1-140 indicates that the petitioner 
would be paid $600 per week. Based on a 52-week year, the beneficiary's proffered wage would be $31,200. The AAO 
will determine the petitioner's ability to pay based on the proffered wage as indicated by the petitioner, not the 
miscalculated wage that appears in the director's NOID. 
- Page 9 
shall be in the form of copies of annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial 
statements. 
In determining the petitioner's ability to pay the proffered wage, CIS will first examine whether the petitioner 
employed the beneficiary at the time the priority date was established. If the petitioner establishes by 
documentary evidence that it employed the beneficiary at a salary equal to or greater than the proffered wage, 
this evidence will be considered prima facie proof of the petitioner's ability to pay the beneficiary's salary. In 
response to the NOD, the petitioner submitted its first and second quarterly wage statements for 2005. The 
petitioner's first quarterly wage statement for 2005 shows that the beneficiary was compensated $7,500, which 
is equivalent to $30,000 per year, a figure that is $1,200 shy of the proffered wage. While the petitioner is not 
required to pay the proffered wage unless and until the Form 1-140 is approved, the ability to pay the full 
$31,200 must be established at the time the petition is filed. Although the second quarterly wage statement 
suggests that the beneficiary was paid more than the proffered wage as of April 2005, the petitioner filed its 
Form 1-140 on February 14, 2005. The record lacks proper evidence to establish that the petitioner had the 
ability to pay the beneficiary $600 per week as of such date. 
Additionally, though not discussed in the director's decision, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(j)(3)(i)(C) 
require the petitioner to have an established qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer at the 
time the Form 1-140 is filed. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(j)(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. 
In the instant matter, the petitioner submitted two letters, one dated February 6, 2004 and another dated 
February 12, 2004, both claiming that the U.S. company is 100% owned by the beneficiary's foreign 
employer. The petitioner submitted a stock certificate dated January 12, 2004 showing that the foreign entity 
owns all of the petitioner's 200 authorized shares. However, in response to the NOID, the petitioner provided 
a copy of its 2004 tax return containing Schedule E, which indicates that the beneficiary is the owner of all of 
the petitioner's outstanding stock. The beneficiary is also identified as the petitioner's owner in a lease 
agreement dated June 9, 2005 (exhibit 12 in response to the NOD). Counsel reiterates the claim that the 
beneficiary is the petitioner's owner on page two of the appellate brief where he indicates that the beneficiary 
owns the U.S. and foreign entity. Although the two entities can be deemed affiliates based on the above 
Page 10 
definition, the petitioner's inconsistent claims regarding its ownership cannot be disregarded. The AAO 
reiterates the petitioner's responsibility to resolve any inconsistencies in'the record by independent objective 
evidence. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. In the instant matter, the petitioner has neither resolved, 
nor even acknowledged the inconsistent claims and documentation regarding its ownership. Therefore, the 
AAO cannot conclude that the petitioner has established the existence of a qualifying relationship between 
itself and the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). Accordingly, based on the additional ground of ineligibility discussed above, this 
petition cannot be approved. 
When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only 
if she shows that the AAO abused it discretion with respect to all of the AAO's enumerated grounds. See 
Spencer Enterprises, lnc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, affd. 345 F.3d 683. 
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. § 1361. The petitioner has not 
sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.