dismissed L-1A Case: Audiovisual Production

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N. W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: EAC 06 176 50460 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG 0' 1 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 1 0 1 (a)( 1 5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 1 0 1 (a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 06 176 50460 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary in the position of general 
manager to open a new office in the United States as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee 
pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 
1 10 1 (a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida, is allegedly in 
the audiovisual production business.' 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the United States 
operation will support an executive or managerial position within one year. 
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, counsel asserts that the petitioner has established 
that the beneficiary will perform qualifying duties within one year of petition approval. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one 
continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States. In addition, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his 
or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) 
 Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the 
alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) 
 Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 
(iii) 
 Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization witlun the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
'According to Florida state corporate records, the petitioner's corporate status in Florida was "administratively 
dissolved" on September 14, 2007. Therefore, since the corporation may not carry on any business except 
that necessary to wind up and liquidate its affairs, the company can no longer be considered a legal entity in 
the United States. See Fla. Stat. 607.1405 (2006). Therefore, if tlus appeal were not being dismissed for the 
reasons set forth herein, this would call into question the petitioner's continued eligibility for the benefit 
sought. 
EAC 06 176 50460 
Page 3 
(iv) 
 Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies hindher to perform the intended 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)(3)(~) states that if the petition indicates that the beneficiary is 
coming to the United States as a manager or executive to open or to be employed in a new office, the 
petitioner shall submit evidence that: 
(A) 
 Sufficient physical premises to house the new office have been 
secured; 
(B) 
 The beneficiary has been employed for one continuous year in the 
three year period preceding the filing of the petition in an executive 
or managerial capacity and that the proposed employment involved 
executive or managerial authority over the new operation; and 
(C) 
 The intended United States operation, within one year of the 
approval of the petition, will support an executive or managerial 
position as defined in paragraphs (l)(l)(ii)(B) or (C) of this section, 
supported by information regarding: 
(I) 
 The proposed nature of the office describing the scope of the 
entity, its organizational structure, and its financial goals; 
(2) 
 The size of the United States investment and the financial 
ability of the foreign entity to remunerate the beneficiary and 
to commence doing business in the United States; and 
(3) 
 The organizational structure of the foreign entity. 
Section 10 1 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" as 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 withn the organization, or a department 
or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) 
 if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the authority to 
EAC 06 176 50460 
Page 4 
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 withn the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the 
function managed; and 
(iv) 
 exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function for 
which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is not considered to be 
acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory 
duties unless the employees supervised are professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) 
 directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the 
organization; 
(ii) 
 establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
(iii) 
 exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) 
 receives only general supervision or direction fiom higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the intended United States operation, within one year of the approval 
of the petition, will support an executive or managerial position. 
The petitioner asserts in the Form 1-129 that the beneficiary is coming to the United States to open a new 
office which will provide "audio-visual productions services." The petitioner projects that the United States 
operation will employ seven workers. Counsel describes the beneficiary's proposed duties in her letter dated 
May 18,2006 as follows: 
[The beneficiary] will be responsible in terms of strategic associations to create internal 
procedures and select qualified managerial and non-managerial personnel to coordinate the 
day-to-day operations of the business. Analyzes unit-operating practices, such as record- 
keeping systems, forms control, office layout, suggestion systems, personnel and budgetary 
requirements, and performance standards to create systems or revise establishes procedures 
such as: Sale of the services and products offered, setting marketing guidelines, developing 
new external markets for the sale of products and evaluating the performance of employees. 
The petitioner did not submit a business plan, did not specifically identity the "services and products" to be 
offered, and did not describe any of the seven proposed employee positions claimed in the Form 1-129. 
EAC 06 176 50460 
Page 5 
On September 1 8, 2006, the director requested additional evidence. 
 The director requested, inter alia, 
evidence establishing that, within one year of commencing operations, the beneficiary will be relieved from 
performing non-qualifying tasks, an organizational chart for the United States operation, and job descriptions 
for each of the proposed employees. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a letter dated December 8, 2006. The petitioner claims that, as part of 
his establishment of the United States operation, the beneficiary will "[elxpand operations by giving 
consulting in this field, providing service and distribution and sales of audio/visual technology equipment 
between [the] United States and Latin America includ[ing] Venezuela." The petitioner also claims that it will 
employ a production department manager, a sales and marketing department manager, a production 
supervisor, a post-production supervisor, two editors, and three camera operators. The proposed 
organizational chart shows the beneficiary at the top of the organization directly supervising the sales and 
marketing department manager, the production department manager, and contracted providers of accounting 
and legal services. The production department manager is, in turn, portrayed as supervising the production 
supervisor and the post-production supervisor, who, in turn, are each portrayed as supervising subordinate 
camera operators and editors. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted a breakdown of the beneficiary's proposed duties in the United States. The 
petitioner asserts that the beneficiary will devote 25% of his time to planning, ordering, and controlling "all 
operational/production activities," 20% of his time to analyzing and controlling "financial matters," 10% of 
his time to managing equipment, supplies, and products, 10% of his time to planning upcoming projects, 5% 
of his time to hiring and promoting employees, 15% of his time to supervising sales and service, 10% of his 
time to overseeing training and conducting presentations, and 5% of his time to reporting to the "parent 
company. " 
On May 3, 2007, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
United States operation will support an executive or managerial position within one year. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner has established that the beneficiary will perform qualifying 
duties within one year of petition approval. 
Upon review, the petitioner's assertions are not persuasive. 
When a new business is established and commences operations, the regulations recognize that a designated 
manager or executive responsible for setting up operations will be engaged in a variety of activities not 
normally performed by employees at the executive or managerial level and that often the fbll range of 
managerial responsibility cannot be performed. In order to qualify for L-1 nonimrnigrant classification during 
the fust year of operations, the regulations require the petitioner to disclose the business plans and the size of 
the United States investment, and thereby establish that the proposed enterprise will support an executive or 
managerial position within one year of the approval of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). This 
evidence should demonstrate a realistic expectation that the enterprise will succeed and rapidly expand as it 
moves away from the developmental stage to full operations, where there would be an actual need for a 
manager or executive who will primarily perform qualifying duties. 
EAC 06 176 50460 
Page 6 
As contemplated by the regulations, a comprehensive business plan should contain, at a minimum, a 
description of the business, its products andlor services, and its objectives. See Matter of Ho, 22 I&N Dec. 
206, 213 (Assoc. Comrn. 1998). Although the precedent relates to the regulatory requirements for the alien 
entrepreneur immigrant visa classification, Matter of Ho is instructive as to the contents of an acceptable 
business plan: 
The plan should contain a market analysis, including the names of competing businesses and 
their relative strengths and weaknesses, a comparison of the competition's products and 
pricing structures, and a description of the target marketlprospective customers of the new 
commercial enterprise. The plan should list the required permits and licenses obtained. If 
applicable, it should describe the manufacturing or production process, the materials required, 
and the supply sources. The plan should detail any contracts executed for the supply of 
materials and/or the distribution of products. It should discuss the marketing strategy of the 
business, including pricing, advertising, and servicing. The plan should set forth the 
business's organizational structure and its personnel's experience. It should explain the 
business's staffing requirements and contain a timetable for hiring, as well as job descriptions 
for all positions. It should contain sales, cost, and income projections and detail the bases 
therefor. Most importantly, the business plan must be credible. 
Id. 
For several reasons, the petitioner in this matter has failed to establish that the United States operation will 
succeed and rapidly expand as it moves away fi-om the developmental stage to full operations, where there 
would be an actual need for a manager or executive who will primarily perform qualifying duties. The 
petitioner has failed to specifically describe the beneficiary's proposed duties after the petitioner's first year in 
operation; has failed to establish that the beneficiary will be relieved of the need to perform the non- 
qualifying tasks inherent to the operation of the business by a subordinate staff within the petitioner's first 
year in operation; has failed to establish that a sufficient investment has been made in the United States 
operation; and has failed to sufficiently describe the nature, scope, organizational structure, and financial 
goals of the new office. 8 C.F.R. 5 21 4.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
First, as correctly noted by the director, the record is not persuasive in establishing that the United States 
operation will support an executive of managerial position within one year. The job descriptions for both the 
beneficiary and his proposed subordinate workers fail to credibly establish that the beneficiary will be 
performing primarily "managerial" or "executive" duties after the petitioner's first year in operation. When 
examining the proposed executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the 
petitioner's description of the proposed job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner's description 
of the job duties must clearly describe the duties that will be performed by the beneficiary and indicate 
whether such duties will be either in an executive or managerial capacity. Id. 
In this matter, the petitioner has provided a vague and nonspecific description of the beneficiary's duties that 
fails to demonstrate what the beneficiary will do on a day-to-day basis after the petitioner's first year in 
operation. For example, the petitioner states that the beneficiary will devote most of his time to planning and 
EAC 06 176 50460 
Page 7 
controlling "all operational/production activities;" managing equipment, supplies, and products; planning 
upcoming projects; and establishing and conducting training programs. However, the petitioner fails to 
specifically describe these "operationaVproduction activities," "upcoming projects," or "training programs and 
materials." The petitioner also fails to explain what, exactly, the beneficiary will do in managing unspecified 
equipment, supplies, and products. Overall, the petitioner has provided so few details regarding its proposed 
business that it cannot be discerned what the beneficiary will do on a day-to-day basis. The fact that the 
petitioner has given the beneficiary a managerial title and has prepared a vague job description which includes 
inflated duties does not establish that the beneficiary will actually perform managerial duties after the first 
year in operation. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties will be 
primarily executive or managerial in nature; otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of 
reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1 1 03 (E.D.N.Y. 1 989), affd, 905 F.2d 
41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes 
of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 
190 (Reg. Comrn. 1972). 
Likewise, the record is not persuasive in establishing that the beneficiary will be, after the first year, relieved 
of the need to "primarily" perform the non-qualifying tasks inherent to his duties and to the operation of the 
business in general or that he will supervise and control the work of other supervisory, managerial, or 
professional employees, or will manage an essential function of the organization. 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; 
see also Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comrn. 1988). A managerial or 
executive employee must have authority over day-to-day operations beyond the level normally vested in a 
first-line supervisor. See 101 (a)(44) of the Act; see also Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N 
Dec. at 604. 
In this matter, the petitioner failed to submit any evidence addressing this issue even though the director 
specifically requested such evidence in the September 18, 2006 Request for Evidence. Failure to submit 
requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(14). While the petitioner claims that the petitioner will hire ten employees, including five 
subordinate managers in three tiers, during its first year in business, these claims are entirely unsubstantiated 
by evidence. The record does not include a business plan, a marketing strategy, or projected financial data, 
and fails to specifically identify a single product, service, or business relationship related to its proposed 
"audiovisual production business." The petitioner's unsubstantiated claims that the newly formed business 
entity will adopt a complex organizational structure and hire 10 or more workers does not establish that the 
United States operation will truly grow and mature into an active business organization which will reasonably 
require the services of an employee who will primarily perform managerial or executive duties. Rather, the 
petitioner must clearly define the scope and nature of a United States operation and establish that it has, and 
will continue to have, the financial ability to support the establishment and growth of the business. However, 
the record in this matter is devoid of any such evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner has failed to establish 
that the United *states operation, vaguely described as an audiovisual production business, will reasonably 
need the services of two subordinate tiers of managers, supervisors, or professionals. Again, boldly stating 
that the beneficiary will supervise two subordinate tiers of managers, supervisors, and professionals is not 
EAC 06 176 50460 
Page 8 
sufficient in the absence of evidence that the petitioner's business will acquire a complex organizational 
structure and evidence that the petitioner is, or will be, able to employ such a workforce. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will be primarily employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity within one year, and the petition may not be approved for that reason. 
Second, the petitioner failed to establish that the United States operation will support an executive or 
managerial position within one year because it failed to establish that a sufficient investment was made in the 
enterprise. 
 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(Z). 
In this matter, the petitioner submitted bank documents 
indicating that it has opened an account with Bank of America. However, these documents do not indicate 
whether the petitioner has any money in this account, and the record is generally devoid of evidence 
establishing that the petitioner has any assets. Once again, going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190. Absent evidence that the foreign employer has made an 
investment in the United States operation, it cannot be concluded that the enterprise will succeed and rapidly 
expand as it moves away from the developmental stage to full operations, where there would be an actual 
need for a manager or executive who will primarily perform qualifying duties. Accordingly, the petition may 
not be approved for this additional reason. 
Third, the petitioner failed to establish that the United States operation will support an executive or 
managerial position within one year because the petitioner has failed to sufficiently describe the nature, scope, 
and financial goals of the new office. 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(I). As explained above, the petitioner 
vaguely describes the petitioner's proposed business as an "audiovisual production business." However, the 
petitioner failed to submit a "business plan" which specifically describes the petitioner's proposed products, 
services, customers, or competitors. The petitioner also fails to make any projections regarding revenue, 
income, expenses, or financial goals. The record does not contain any independent analysis, contracts, 
business contacts, or purchase orders. Absent a detailed, credible description of the petitioner's proposed 
United States business operation addressing the petitioner's proposed product, marketing plan, customers, and 
incomelexpense projections, it is impossible to determine whether the proposed enterprise will succeed and 
rapidly expand as it moves away from the developmental stage to full operations, where there would be an 
actual need for a manager or executive who will primarily perform qualifying duties. 
2 
It is further noted that the petitioner's description of the proposed subordinate workers fails to establish that 
any of the workers will be a "professional." In evaluating whether the beneficiary manages professional 
employees, the AAO 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. 5 1 10 1 (a)(32), states 
that " [tlhe 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. 81 7 (Comm. 
1988); Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (R.C. 1968); Matter of Shin, 1 1 I&N Dec. 686 (D.D. 1966). 
EAC 06 176 50460 
Page 9 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the United States operation will support an executive or 
managerial position within one year as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C), and the petition may not be 
approved for the above reasons. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has failed to establish that it has secured sufficient physical 
premises to house the new office. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). 
In support of its petition, the petitioner submitted a copy of a document titled "Virtual Services Agreement" 
between the petitioner and the "Intelligent Office." This Agreement, which pertains to the petitioner's 
"membership" with the "Intelligent Office" in Coral Gables, Florida, entitles the petitioner to the receipt of 
telephone answering services, reception services for the petitioner's visitors to 4000 Ponce de Leon 
Boulevard, and mailbox services. Under the agreement, if the petitioner wants to reserve a conference room 
or office, it must make arrangements with the "Intelligent Office" and pay "an extra charge." The agreement 
is devoid of any customary lease terms regarding physical space and possession of premises. 
Title 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(1)(3)(v)(A) requires that the petitioner submit evidence that "sufficient physical 
premises to house the new office have been secured." While the regulations do not define what type of 
premises could be considered "sufficient" for purposes of the "new office" regulations, the regulations do 
clearly require the petitioner to secure "physical" premises. In this matter, the petitioner is not leasing an 
office or any physical space to house the new office. The petitioner's agreement with the Intelligent Office is 
not a lease and does not entitle the petitioner to use any physical space for its business. The agreement only 
entitles the petitioner to telephone, reception, and mailbox services. The petitioner may only use an office or 
conference room if it chooses to reserve one 24 hours in advance and pay an additional fee, which is not 
dissimilar fi-om renting a conference room at a hotel or cornrnunity center. Therefore, for this reason alone, 
the petition may not be approved. 
Regardless, even if the petitioner's "membership" permitting it to have limited access to these shared facilities 
could be considered to be the securing of "physical" premises, the record is devoid of any evidence that these 
premises would be "sufficient" to house the new office. Given that the petitioner plans to hire additional 
employees and presumably to have clients, the petitioner did not submit any documentation which establishes 
that the "Intelligent Office" would be "sufficient" for the "new office." Once again, going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190. 
Accordingly, as the petitioner has failed to establish that it has secured sufficient physical premises to house 
the new office, the petition may not be approved for this additional reason. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary has been 
employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity with the foreign entity for one year within the 
preceding three years. 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14,2(1)(3)(v)(B). The petitioner failed to specifically describe the 
beneficiary's job duties abroad as "general manager." Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether 
a beneficiary's duties were primarily executive or managerial in nature; otherwise meeting the definitions 
would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1 103, 
EAC 06 176 50460 
Page 10 
aff'd, 905 F.2d 41. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to describe the duties of the beneficiary's purported 
subordinates abroad. Absent detailed descriptions of the duties of both the beneficiary and his purported 
subordinates, it is impossible for Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) to discern whether the 
beneficiary was "primarily" engaged in performing managerial or executive duties abroad. See sections 
lOl(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act; see also Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 604. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has been employed in a primarily 
managerial or executive capacity for one continuous year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition 
as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B), and the petition may not be approved for this reason. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's services will be 
used for a temporary period and that the beneficiary will be transferred to an assignment abroad upon 
completion of the temporary assignment in the United States. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(vii). 
In this matter, the petitioner claims to be 100% owned and controlled by the foreign employer which is 
allegedly majority owned and controlled by the beneficiary. As a purported owner of the petitioning 
organization, the petitioner is obligated to establish that the beneficiary's services will be used for a temporary 
period and that he will be transferred to an assignment abroad upon completion of the assignment. Id. 
However, the record is devoid of any evidence establishing that the beneficiary's services will be used 
temporarily. 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 (Comrn. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190). 
Accordingly, as the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's services will be used for a temporary 
period and that the beneficiary will be transferred to an assignment abroad upon completion of the temporary 
assignment in the United States, the petition may not be approved for this additional reason. 
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). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. 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., 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. tj 136 1. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.