dismissed EB-1C Case: Tourism And Entertainment

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY. 
FILE: OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Date: 
NOV 1 6 2010 
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)(1)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion. 
The fee for a Form I-290B is currently $585, but will increase to $630 on November 23,2010. Any appeal or 
motion filed on or after November 23,2010 must be filed with the $630 fee. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 
103 .5(a)(l )(i) requires that any motion must be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to 
reconsider or reopen. 
erry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
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 Maryland corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary as its vice president. 
Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant 
to section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § I 153(b)(1)(C), as a 
multinational executive or manager. The director denied the petition based on four independent grounds of 
ineligibility. Specifically, the director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that it meets the 
following requirements: 1) the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity; 2) the petitioner would employ the beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity; 3) a qualifying 
relationship exists between the petitioner and the beneficiary's foreign employer; and 4) the foreign entity 
exists and is doing business abroad. 
On appeal, counsel disputes the director's conclusions and submits a brief statement addressing the various 
grounds for denial. . 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
* * * 
(C) Certain Multinational Executives and Managers. -- An alien is described 
in this subparagraph if the alien, in the 3 years preceding the time of the 
alien's application for classification and admission into the United States 
under this subparagraph, has been employed for at least 1 year by a firm or 
corporation or other legal entity or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof and who 
seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render services to the 
same employer or to a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is 
managerial or executive. 
The language of the statute is specific in limiting this provision to only those executives and managers who 
have previously worked for a firm, corporation or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary of that entity, 
and who are coming to the United States to work for the same entity, or its affiliate or subsidiary. 
A United States employer may file a petition on Form 1-140 for classification of an alien under section 
203 (b)(1 )(C) of the Act as a multinational executive or manager. No labor certification is required for this 
classification. The prospective employer in the United States must furnish a job offer in the form of a 
statement which indicates that the alien is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity. Such a statement must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the alien. 
The first two issues in this proceeding call for an analysis of the beneficiary's job duties. Specifically, the 
AAO will examine the record to determine whether the beneficiary was employed abroad and whether he 
would be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
Page 3 
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 III 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 III which the 
employee primarily--
(i) directs the management of the organization or a major component or function 
of the organization; 
(ii) establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or 
function; 
(iii) exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, 
the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
In support of the Form 1-140, the petitioner submitted a letter dated May 19, 2008 in which the petitioner 
stated that progress was made in the building of its ski lift and amusement theme park project in the 
Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan. The petitioner also provided projected income statements and 
copies of numerous invoices showing that various equipment was purchased in furtherance of the project. It 
is noted that the petitioner did not provide a description of the beneficiary's proposed employment. 
-Page 4 
After reviewing the supporting documents, the director determined that the petitioner did not define the 
beneficiary's day-to-day job duties with the proposed U.S. entity and therefore failed to establish that the 
beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying capacity. The director also determined that the petitioner 
failed to provide any evidence to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel points out that the director misspelled the petitioner's company name and contends that 
such oversight indicates that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USerS) did not read any of the 
supporting documents that establish the existence of the foreign entity. Counsel's argument, however, is 
without merit. While the director's misspelling of the petitioner's company name is noted for the record, the 
AAO will not assume that a single typographical error is indicative of the level of care that was used in 
reviewing the petitioner's submissions. The AAO has conducted its own independent review of the record 
and finds that the director's conclusions were warranted, particularly in light of the lack of probative and 
relevant documentation addressing the beneficiary's employment capacity both in his position abroad and in 
his proposed position with the U.S. entity. 
Additionally, counsel claims that the petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2, which have been submitted in support of 
the appeal, specify the beneficiary'S job duties with the foreign and U.S. entities. However, the 
documentation at Exhibits 1 and 2 does not include descriptions of the beneficiary'S duties with the foreign 
and U.S. employers. Exhibit 1 contains a document whose title indicates that its contents will address the 
foreign entity and its management structure. The introductory paragraph of the said document states that the 
foreign entity is a public limited company that was established in Peshawar on September 11, 2006. The 
document then lists the company's "directors/sponsors" and includes the following statements with regard to 
the beneficiary: 
M!
e is the oungest brother of the chief executive and is one of the sponsoring directors. He 
'n agronomy from [the U]niversity of Peshawar in 1998[. S]ince then he is in 
his joint amily business. 
Exhibit 2 contains an organizational chart depicting the personnel structures at the three flour mills and 
tourism business, all of which are claimed to be within the same group of companies. It is noted that the 
name_the same name as that of the beneficiary, is shown as the supervisor of as 
well as the purchasing It is unclear, however, whether the Iary occupIed 
both of those positions as the chart does not include a separate job description or clarification of the position 
titles that were included in the organizational chart. 
Regardless, a thorough review of all five of the supporting exhibits shows that the beneficiary'S current and 
proposed job descriptions were both included as part of Exhibit 5, not in Exhibits 1 and 2 as counsel 
erroneously indicated. As a threshold issue in discussing the beneficiary's employment capacity with the U.S. 
entity, the AAO notes that the petitioner must provide a detailed description of the job duties the beneficiary 
would perform under an approved petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(5). Merely describing the beneficiary'S 
current job duties does not establish that the duties to be performed under an approved petition would be 
within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. Nevertheless, the petitioner's Exhibit 5 includes the 
following description of the beneficiary'S current employment: 
• Provided direction and [m ]anaged the overseas supervisor team and sales department. 
Page 5 
• Organize the overseas meetings with [d]irectors to buy more land 
requirements and made [the d]ecision to buy equipment form 
• Attended [a] meeting to buy lift equipment. 
• to [n]egotiate and purchased sheave assemblies from 
• Setup [sic] the dates to [s ]hip the two containers to Karachi Pakistan .... 
• Had meeting with to [fJind out the best possible dates 
to [s]hip the [t]wo [b]ull [w]heel ... and [t]wo [s]pool of [r]ope .... [B]oth need special 
shipping equipment and [the beneficiary is] still [researching] to find out the best possible 
way to ship [them]. 
• Made decision after getting permISSIOn from [the] chief executive of 
to pay extra amount for special [e]quipment and provided direction to [the] sales 
dept[.] ... 
• Organized and [c]hair[ed] the meetings with along with [the d]irectors of 
••••••••••• and Surveyor team to discuss on [sic] ground profile of [the] 
The AAO finds that the above description of the proposed employment does not establish that the beneficiary 
would primarily perform job duties within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. First, the AAO 
notes that the above list of duties is indicative of an entity that has not yet commenced doing business. It is 
apparent based on the above statements and other documentation on record that the main activity of the U.S. 
entity has been shipping equipment for a ski lift/amusement theme park which was planned to be built in 
Pakistan at the time the instant Form 1-140 was filed. The above list of duties are indicative of the petitioner's 
early stage of development wherein the beneficiary is charged with making arrangements to have equipment 
and materials shipped to ensure the successful building of the ski lift/amusement park. While not expressly 
discussed in the petitioner's submissions, it is reasonable to assume that once the petitioner's main source of 
revenue, i.e., the ski lift/amusement park, is up and running, the beneficiary's job duties would likely change 
from those required to ship equipment to Pakistan to duties that would be required to operate an existing 
business. 
Here, the petitioner has not provided any information to clarify precisely when the beneficiary's role would 
shift from shipping ski lift equipment to Pakistan to set up a new business there, to someone running an 
existing business operation in the United States. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to specify exactly what 
job duties the beneficiary would perform once the new entity develops beyond the initial stage of 
development. Nor did the petitioner discuss the role of the other person within its organization to determine 
exactly how the petitioner plans to relieve the beneficiary from having to primarily perform tasks that are not 
within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. While the beneficiary's position within the petitioner's 
organizational hierarchy as well as his discretionary decision-making authority are both relevant factors when 
assessing his employment capacity, it is noted that the actual duties themselves reveal the true nature of the 
Page 6 
employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), af/'d, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. 
Cir. 1990). It is further noted that an employee who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a 
product or to provide services is not considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the 
enumerated managerial or executive duties); see also Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N 
Dec. 593,604 (Comm. 1988). As the petitioner has failed to describe what specific job duties the beneficiary 
would perform under an approved visa petition, the AAO cannot conclude that the beneficiary's time would 
be primarily allocated to the performance of tasks within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
With regard to the beneficiary's employment abroad, the petitioner listed the following duties: 
• Helped in [c ]reating the feasibility of 
• Provide[d] [s]uggestions and [r]ecommendation[s] to [the] board of [d]irectors for [s]ite 
selection [o]f[the c]hairlift [t]errain[.] 
• Performed and negotiated the purchase contracts of land required for [the] 
• Established the goals and policies of the organization for [the] next 10 years. 
• Helped in setting up the budget [p]lan to buy the chairlift [fJrom [the] U[.]S[.]A. 
• Provided direction to [the s]urveyor [t]eam, [sic] to create the ground profile [o]f [the l]ift 
according to 
• Organize[d] and chair[ed] the directors meeting for [the] 
• Helped in exporting the [l]ift shipment from 
(Pakistan.) 
• Provided direction to [the] sales dept[.] to [sic] with 
agent to create [the] necessary paper work according to [c]ustom[s] requirement[s] [a]t 
Karachi port Pakistan. 
• Directly managed the supervisor team and sales department. 
The AAO finds that the above job duties fail to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity. First, as with the beneficiary's U.S. job description, the above 
job duties are indicative of an individual acting in the context of a start-up business. The petitioner repeatedly 
referred to the beneficiary's role in planning to buy certain equipment that was needed to complete the chair 
lift project. These. references are confusing, as the chair lift project was earlier noted as part of the U.S. 
business venture. Without further clarification, the AAO cannot ascertain whether the beneficiary's role in the 
purchase of equipment was part of his position with the foreign entity or with the U.S. entity. This apparent 
overlap of job duties between the U.S. and foreign entities precludes the AAO from being able to distinguish 
the beneficiary's foreign and U.S. positions. The petitioner mentions a sales department, but no explanation 
Page 7 
was provided to clarify what exactly the foreign entity was or would be selling. Again, it appears that the 
source of revenue would be patrons of the ski lift/amusement park that the petitioner and/or the foreign entity 
have been involved in building. However, as the U.S. petitioner is an entity that is separate from the foreign 
entity, they must be treated individually. The fact that the beneficiary's job duties overlap to such a large 
degree makes it virtually impossible to determine which job duties the beneficiary was performing for the 
foreign entity and which job duties he now performs for the U.S. entity. If, as indicated above, the 
beneficiary's employment abroad entailed primarily job duties that were performed in order to further the 
start-up of the U.S. entity, the AAO fails to see how those same job duties can be deemed as pertaining to the 
beneficiary's employment abroad. 
In summary, the petitioner has provided insufficient information to clearly describe the beneficiary's foreign 
employment. The record does not clearly establish the foreign entity's business activity, nor is there any 
clarity as to the beneficiary's specific function in relation to the foreign entity's business operations. As stated 
above, the beneficiary's U.S. and foreign employers have been described as two separate entities and must be 
treated as such. Here, the beneficiary appears to have been doing the same tasks abroad as he has been doing 
in the United States and he has been doing those tasks for a single business entity. For all intents and 
purposes, the beneficiary's efforts have been and continue to be allocated to a single business purpose, which 
is the start-up operation of a ski lift/amusement park in Northwest Pakistan. Based on the information that 
has been presented in the present matter, the AAO cannot conclude that the beneficiary was employed abroad 
or would be employed in the United States within a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
The third issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's 
foreign employer. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) states in pertinent part: 
Affiliate 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 ofthe entity, but in fact controls the entity. 
Page 8 
In the denial, the director concluded that the petitioner failed to submit any evidence of ownership and control 
of either a qualifying foreign entity or the U.S. entity. The AAO agrees with the director's finding. 
In its May 19, 2008 support letter, the petitioner referred to as its foreign parent 
entity. However, the petitioner's 2007 tax return, which was submitted in support of the Form 1-140, does not 
indicate that the petitioner is foreign-owned. Additionally, while the petitioner provided the foreign entity's 
certificate of incorporation establishing corporate existence in Pakistan, no 
documentation was provided establishing that the U.S. and foreign entities are commonly owned and 
controlled. 
On appeal, counsel refers to Exhibit 2 for verification of the claimed qualifying relationship between the 
petitioner and Specifically, the documents at Exhibit 2 include the petitioner's 
Articles of Incorporation wherein Article X names three shareholders, including the beneficiary, with each 
individual holding 2,000 shares of the petitioner's common stock. The same information is reiterated in the 
Articles of Amendment, wherein the fourth amendment describes the same ownership scheme, but shows a 
change in one of the three shareholders. It is noted that both documents identify the beneficiary as one of the 
petitioner's three shareholders. 
After reviewing these documents in light of the petitioner's claim, the AAO finds that the supporting 
documents provided fail to corroborate either the petitioner's or counsel's claim regarding the alleged 
qualifying relationship. First, the AAO notes that both counsel and the petitioner have set forth the claim that 
the U.S. petitioner is a subsidiary of However, this claim is in conflict with the 
information contained in the petitioner's and Articles of Amendment, both of which 
indicate that the petitioning entity is directly owned by three individuals. 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). Here, the petitioner 
neither acknowledges nor provides evidence to resolve this considerable inconsistency. 
Furthermore, even if the petitioner were to claim that it has a more general affiliate relationship with the 
foreign entity, 8 C.F.R. § 204.50)(2) indicates that in order to be deemed affiliates, the U.S. and foreign 
entities would either have to be two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same parent 
or individual, or they would have to be owned and controlled by the same group of individuals. Regardless, 
in order to establish that the U.S. petitioner and the foreign entity are affiliates, the petitioner would have to 
provide adequate evidence establishing who owns the foreign entity. In the present matter, the record lacks 
evidence establishing the foreign entity's ownership and control, which are the two key 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). Although the petitioner provided two deeds ofpartnership-one dated July 15, 
2003 and another dated May 4, 2003-both documents address the ownership of 
General Mills. Regardless of the petitioner's claim that it and the other named entity belong to the same group 
of companies, the foreign entity's ownership has not been established with the submission of documentary 
evidence. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). The petitioner's mere 
Page 9 
claim that it shares common ownership with other foreign entities is insufficient. Moreover, the more recent 
deed of partnership lists a total of 18 owners. Thus, even if the ownership scheme 
General Mills was the same as that of the foreign entity in question, the petitioner, which is shown as being 
owned by three individuals in equal parts, and the foreign entity, which is claimed to be owned by 18 
different individuals, could not be deemed as being owned by the same group of individuals and therefore 
would not be deemed affiliates. 
Accordingly, as the petitioner has failed to provide adequate and reliable evidence to establish the common 
ownership and control of the U.S. and foreign entities, the AAO cannot conclude that the two entities have the 
requisite qualifying relationship as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3)(i)(C). 
The final issue that was addressed in the director's decision was whether the petitioner submitted sufficient 
evidence to establish the existence and ongoing business activity of the foreign entity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2) states that doing business means "the regular, systematic, and continuous 
provision of goods and/or services by a firm, corporation, or other entity and does not include the mere presence 
of an agent or office." As a preliminary concern, the petitioner would have to establish the existence of the 
foreign entity, as an entity that does not exist clearly cannot be deemed as doing business. 
In the present matter, the petitioner provided the foreign entity's photocopied Certificate of Incorporation 
showing that the foreign entity was established on September 13, 2006. As the petitioner has satisfied the 
preliminary requirement of establishing the foreign entity's corporate existence, the AAO will next examine 
the record for evidence of whether the foreign entity was doing business at the time the Form 1-140 was filed 
and continues to do business. Pursuant to the definition of multinational at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2), in order to 
be deemed a multinational entity, the petitioner must establish that it conducts business in two or more 
countries, one of which is the United States, through a foreign affiliate or subsidiary. 
In the present matter, the petitioner's initial submissions included: 1) the foreign entity's capital value tax 
payment receipt with the words "Land Purchase" handwritten at the top of the page; 2) a partial copy of a 
"Mutation Fee Receipt" as well as additional similar receipts all indicating that three thousand rupees were 
paid on "9/2/07" by an unidentified payor; 3) an undated bank document showing payment made by the 
foreign entity; 4) an unidentified photocopied document with no identifiable names or dates; and 5) the 
foreign entity's projected income statement, cash flow statement, depreciation, money balance, revenue 
projections, and statements of costs and expenses covering a span of five years. 
The AAO notes that the foreign language documents were not accompanied by certified English language 
translations of the contents of these documents. Therefore, the AAO cannot determine whether the evidence 
supports the petitioner's claims. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and 
will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. With regard to the tax payment receipt described in No.1 
above, there is no evidence that the document in any way pertains to a land purchase as indicated by the 
handwritten notation at the top of the page. As such, the validity and probative value of this document is 
dubious at best. Similarly, the AAO questions the probative value of the various mutation fee receipts 
referenced in No.2 above, as none of the receipts contained names of any companies or individuals as a point 
of reference. Lastly, while the information in the five-year projection plans was clearly conveyed, its 
probative value is also extremely limited, as these plans are mere speculations and are not necessary based on 
the business activity that had been taking place at the time the Form 1-140 was filed. 
Page 10 
On appeal, counsel questions the basis of the director's finding that the foreign entity is not doing business. 
Counsel refers to the submitted tax returns, Articles of Incorporation, shipping receipts, and bills of lading, 
which he deems as sufficient evidence of the foreign entity's business activity. Counsel's contention, 
however, is unpersuasive. First, the AAO notes that while corporate tax returns and incorporation documents 
establish a company's corporate existence, they in no way indicate that a company provides goods and/or 
services on a "regular, systematic, and continuous" basis. 
Next, the AAO will address the petitioner's submissions of handwritten and printed invoices on the foreign 
entity's letterhead. While these shipping invoices name the foreign entity as the shipper of certain equipment that 
was being shipped to the U.S. petitioner, the most recent ofthe shipping receipts was dated March 21,2008. It is 
noted, however, that the petition was filed on September 15,2008. Therefore, the shipping receipts that are dated 
six months prior to the filing of the petition fail to establish that the foreign entity was doing business as of the 
date the petition was filed. Additionally, the AAO notes that all of the submitted shipping voices show the 
petitioning entity as the recipient of the foreign entity's shipping services. Based on the evidence shown, it is 
unclear whether the foreign entity was conducting business with any other entities. If not, as the record seems to 
indicate, it is unclear how the foreign entity can claim that it is doing business in a "regular, systematic, and 
continuous" manner when its sole client appears to be a start-up operation. In other words, it is not clear that the 
business needs of a single start-up entity can ensure that the foreign entity would lend its services regularly, 
systematically, and continuously, per regulatory defmition. 
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.