dismissed L-1A Case: Automotive

iaentihing wsrb k.. ,.*a LO 
prevend ckarfy unwamatmA 
~nvasbn of persoaal pctntcr 
PUBLIC CGPY 
File: 
IN RE: 
U.S. Department of Ifomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave, N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10l(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
@ I obert P. Wiemann. Chief 
Q 
ministrative Appeals Office 
EAC 04 136 53767 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center denied the nonimrnigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimrnigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary 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. tj 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner was incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virgnia 
in 2004 and intends to eng 
 of automobiles and automobile parts. The petitioner 
claims to be an affiliate of 
 , located in Lima, Peru. The petitioner seeks to employ 
the beneficiary as the general manager of its new office in the United States for a one-year period. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner had not established: (1) that the beneficiary 
would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity within one year; or (2) that the petitioner 
had secured sufficient physical premises from which to operate the new office. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the U.S. company intends 
to hire seven employees during the first year of operations and will have a reasonable need for an executive or 
managerial position within one year. The petitioner also clarifies its physical space requirements, noting that 
the company's business model for the first year of operations does not require the company to lease a 
warehouse, as suggested by the director. The petitioner notes that although its leased premises are in a 
residential home, the space can and will be accommodated to house the U.S. operation. The petitioner submits 
a brief in support of the appeal. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifylng 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. tj 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 qualifylng organization within the three years preceding the filing of the petition. 
EAC 04 136 53767 
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 himher 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(~) also provides that if the petition indicates that the beneficiary is 
coming to the United States as a manager or executive to open or be employed in a new office in the United 
States, 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 involves 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. 
The first issue in the present matter is whether, within one year, the beneficiary will be employed by the 
United States entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 
214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1101(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 within the organization, or a department 
or subdivision of the organization; 
EAC 04 136 53767 
Page 4 
(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 10 1 (a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 101(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 from higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
The petition was filed on April 5, 2004. In an un-dated supporting letter, the petitioner indicated that the 
beneficiary would serve in the position of general manager of the U.S. entity and "will devote virtually all of 
his time in the United States to the commencement and management of the U.S. business." The petitioner 
submitted a seven-page business plan outlining the company's objectives, ownership, management structure, 
and personnel plan. The business plan indicates that the beneficiary will "be in charge of starting up the 
business, finding the appropriate location for the permanent office and deposit, as well as hiring the required 
personnel. By the end of the year 2004 [the petitioner] shall hire 2 salespeople, 1 purchasing agent, 1 
secretary, 1 clerk and 1 mechanic." 
The director requested additional evidence on April 12, 2004, in part instructing the petitioner to submit: (1) a 
detailed description of the type of business to be conducted including the type and location of established and 
prospective customers, the services to be rendered and the products or commodities to be sold: (2) an 
explanation of how the beneficiary will qualify as a manager or executive, other than in job title; (3) a 
comprehensive description of the beneficiary's proposed duties during the start up of the operation and after 
the first year; and (4) position descriptions for all proposed employees in the United States and the 
anticipated date of hire for each employee. 
In a response dated May 7, 2004, the petitioner provided the following additional information regarding the 
beneficiary's proposed duties: 
EAC 04 136 53767 
Page 5 
The duties of the proffered job include conducting general administration of the affairs of the 
company, acting as a liaison and representative for [the petitioner's] affiliate company in the 
US, marketing the services and product line of both companies, engaging in long-term 
planning and identifying business opportunities in the U.S. and international markets. He will 
also direct the business activities and be responsible for planning, formulating and 
implementing administrative and operational policies and procedures. 
As Director and General Manager, he will hold the highest managerial position in the US 
company, working directly with the Board of Directors and will be fully responsible for the 
US operation. 
During the first year or start up period, the duties will be to hire and oversee the required 
personnel, including those which will hold a managerial position, contacting and hiring 
professionals such as attorneys, accountants, cargo and customs agencies. He will also be 
responsible for identifying the initial suppliers and deciding if expanding the office and 
deposit space is necessary. 
The petitioner stated that the primary purpose of the U.S. office is the import and export of used automobiles, 
parts and equipment. The petitioner indicated that the U.S. company will purchase products from U.S. 
suppliers or import them from Asia, and export the products to Peru to be sold by the petitioner's affiliate. 
The petitioner described its proposed staffing as follows: 
a. 
 As Director and founder of the company he will work directly with the 
General Manager in setting up the operation and establishing goals and strategies for 
the first year. Mr. 
 already began working for the company. 
b. Secretary: A 
 andle the day to day office work. . . . The secretary will be 
hired as soon as the transferee arrives to the US. 
c. Purchasing Agent: (One) The person holding this position will be responsible for 
spotting the products specified in the plan elaborated by the General Manager. He 
will also be responsible for evaluating the pricefquality of the products and will 
handle any request for quotes from our clients. To be hired when the start up of the 
operation has finished and the General Manager fully assumes all his functions, 
approximately within the first nine months. 
d. 
 Salesperson: (Two) The main responsibility of this position is to contact our 
prospective clients in order to offer our products and obtain purchase orders. Will 
work with the purchasing agent once a quote is requested and/or purchase order 
placed. Will be under the direct supervision of the General Manager. Need to be fully 
bilingual (EnglishlSpanish) as most of our business will be done in South America. 
e. 
 Mechanic: (One) Will be responsible for certifying that all of the automobiles that the 
company purchases to be exported are in good working and mechanical condition, 
and if not to indicate what problems are spotted and suggest if the repairs should be 
done in the US or abroad. ~r. is currently handling this responsibility, thus the 
mechanic will be hired at the end of the first year of operations. 
EAC 04 136 53767 
Page 6 
f. 
 Clerk: (One) Handle all clerical duties within the company. During the start up period 
the clerical and secretarial responsibilities will be handled by the same person but by 
the end of the first year of operations the duties will be divided if necessary. 
The director denied the petition on May 21,2004, concluding that the petitioner had failed to establish that the 
business will grow, within one year, to the level and scope required to support the beneficiary in a primarily 
managerial or executive position. The director observed that the petitioner would employ few people and 
noted that it appears the beneficiary will merely serve as a supervisor and that "the function in which he will 
oversee will not rise to the level and magnitude intended by Congress." The director further determined that 
the petitioner had not submitted evidence that the business has sufficient capital to begin operations. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the business plan and proposed organizational structure previously 
submitted establish the U.S. company's ability to support the beneficiary in a primarily managerial or 
executive capacity. The petitioner emphasizes that the company needs to hire at least seven employees in 
order to execute its business plan, and claims that three of these employees, the director, the mechanic and the 
purchasing agent, will be employed in a managerial, supervisory or professional capacity. 
The petitioner also contends that its initial $30,000 in working capital is sufficient for the implementation of 
the office and to pay salaries for the first few months of operation, The petitioner notes that the company will 
initially work as an "import export agent" for its foreign affiliate, which will pay for purchases in advance or 
through letters of credit. The petitioner states that the U.S. company will not need to disburse money in order 
to start the operation. 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be 
employed by the United States entity in a managerial or executive capacity within one year. When examining 
the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the petitioner's description 
of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly 
describe the duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are either in an 
executive or managerial capacity. Id. 
In the instant matter, the petitioner has provided only a vague description of the beneficiary's job duties that 
fails to identify what managerial or executive tasks he will perform on a day-to-day basis once the petitioner's 
business is operational. For example, the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary will conduct "general 
administration of the affairs of the company," "direct business activities," "engage in long-term planning and 
identify business opportunities," "be fully responsible for the US operation," and be responsible for 
"planning, formulating and implementing administrative and operational policies and procedures." Reciting 
the beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the regulations 
require a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. The petitioner has failed to answer a 
critical question in this case: What does the beneficiary primarily do on a daily basis? The actual duties 
themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 
1 108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afyd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
EAC 04 136 53767 
Page 7 
The petitioner has not enumerated the specific managerial or executive job duties to be performed by the 
beneficiary on a daily basis as the company's general manager. The AAO will not accept a vague job 
description and speculate as to the related managerial or executive duties. The fact that the beneficiary 
manages a business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee 
in a managerial or executive capacity within the meaning of sections 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. See 52 Fed. 
Reg. 5738, 5739 (Feb. 26, 1987). The record must establish that the majority of the beneficiary's duties will 
be primarily directing the management of the organization or a component or function of the organization. 
Furthermore, the director specifically requested that the petitioner provide a comprehensive description 
identifying the specific duties to be performed by the beneficiary after the first year of operations. Any 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). 
The AAO does not doubt that the beneficiary will have managerial or executive authority over the petitioner's 
start-up operations and would eventually supervise the day-to-day operations of the business once it is 
operational. However, the definitions of executive and managerial capacity have two parts. First, the 
petitioner must show that the beneficiary performs the high-level responsibilities that are specified in the 
definitions. Second, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary primarily performs these specified 
responsibilities and does not spend a majority of his or her time on day-to-day functions. Champion World, 
Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). The test is basic to ensure that 
a person not only has the requisite authority, but that a majority of his or her duties are related to operational 
or policy management, not to the supervision of lower level employees, or other non-managerial and non- 
executive duties. The inadequate job description provided does not allow the AAO to discern the 
beneficiary's actual duties, such that they could be classified as managerial or executive. 
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 full range of 
managerial responsibility cannot be performed. In order to qualify for L-1 nonimmigrant classification during 
the first year of operations, the regulations require the petitioner to disclose its 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. 8 214.2(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. 
The petitioner's proposed business plan is too general to demonstrate that the U.S. entity would employ a 
subordinate staff sufficient to relieve the beneficiary from performing non-qualifying operational or first-line 
supervisory duties associated with operating an import and export business within one year. The business plan 
indicates that the petitioner intends to immediately hire a secretary, and asserts it will hire a purchasing agent 
within nine months and a mechanic "at the end of the first year of operations." The petitioner also identified 
two sales positions, but did not provide an anticipated date of hiring for these employees, as requested by the 
director. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
EAC 04 136 53767 
Page 8 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sof$ci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Based on the petitioner's 
representations, the petitioner will initially be operating as a purchasing and importlexport agent for the 
foreign entity. Specifically the record suggests that the foreign entity will in fact be selling the products 
exported by the petitioner and will submit requests for specific products directly to the petitioner. Therefore, 
the AAO will not assume that the sales staff would be hired during the first year of operations. The petitioner 
also identified a clerk position that would only be filled "if necessary." Finally, the petitioner indicated that it 
already employs a "director and founder" who will work with the beneficiary to set up the operations and 
establish the goals of the company. The petitioner did not adequately describe his duties, and the AAO cannot 
conclude that this employee, who is a shareholder of the petitioning company, will be subordinate to the 
beneficiary. 
Therefore, based on the petitioner's business plan, it appears that the company would employ a director, a 
purchasing agent, a secretary and a mechanic, in addition to the beneficiary, by the end of the first year of 
operations. Although the beneficiary is not required to supervise personnel, if it is claimed that his duties 
involve supervising employees, the petitioner must establish that the subordinate employees are supervisory, 
professional, or managerial. See § 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
In evaluating whether the beneficiary manages professional employees, the AAO must evaluate whether the 
subordinate positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. 
Section lOl(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 (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 slull, 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. 8 17 (Comm. 1988); Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (R.C. 1968); 
Matter of Shin, 11 I&N Dec. 686 (D.D. 1966). 
Therefore, the AAO must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree held 
by a subordinate employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee does not 
automatically lead to the conclusion that an employee is employed in a professional capacity as that term is 
defined above. In the instant case, the petitioner has not established that a bachelor's degree is actually 
necessary, for example, to perform the duties of a purchasing agent, secretary or mechanic. Nor has the 
petitioner shown that the beneficiary's proposed subordinates will supervise subordinate staff members or 
manage a clearly defined department or function of the petitioner, such that they could be classified as 
managers or supervisors. The AAO notes that the petitioner asserts on appeal that the director is employed in 
a managerial position, the record contains no description of his supervisory duties, nor does the record 
demonstrate that he will work under the beneficiary's supervision. Thus, the petitioner has not shown that the 
beneficiary's subordinate employees are supervisory, professional, or managerial, as required by section 
101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
Finally, it must be noted that the petitioner's business plan is quite brief and lacks the detail required to 
establish that the company is prepared to do business and expand to the point where it could employ the 
EAC 04 136 53767 
Page 9 
beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity. While the petitioner has stated that a $30,000 investment is 
sufficient to commence operations and provided anticipated gross sales figures for the 2004 through 2006 
years, there is no market research or financial data included in the plan to support these figures, nor any 
evidence of the petitioner's anticipated operating costs. For example, the section of the business plan devoted 
to the petitioner's financial plan states: "There is no need of a financial plan for [the U.S. entity] as the main 
shareholder of the company is also the main shareholder of the Peruvian affiliate and both, the shareholders 
personally as well as the foreign company have enough funds to cover the company's initial financial needs." 
The petitioner has not provided evidence of the petitioner's shareholders' financial status. Regardless, without 
additional evidence regarding the petitioner's anticipated income and operating costs, it is impossible to 
determine whether its business objectives and hiring plans are feasible. Again, going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Sof$ci, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Collectively, the beneficiary's vague job description, the petitioner's proposed organizational structure, and 
the business plan submitted fail to demonstrate a realistic expectation that the enterprise will rapidly expand 
to the point where it would require a manager or executive to perform primarily qualifying duties within one 
year. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary will be primarily supervising a subordinate staff of 
professional, managerial, or supervisory personnel, or primarily managing an essential function withn the 
organization. Further, the record is not persuasive that the beneficiary functions at a senior level withn an 
organizational hierarchy other than in position title. Based on the evidence submitted, it cannot be found that the 
beneficiary will be employed primarily in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. For ths reason, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The second issue in this matter is whether the petitioner had secured sufficient physical premises to house the 
new office in the United States as required by 8 C.F.R. 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A), as of the date the petition was 
filed. 
In support of the initial petition, the petiti 
 a "business lease" between the petitioning company 
and its director and minori 
 The lease agreement is for the property located at 
Alexandria, Virginia and is to be used for "mechanical services and import- 
export office" for a six-month period commencing on April 1,2004. The lease does not specify the amount or 
type of space secured. The business plan submitted with the petition states that the beneficiary, upon his 
arrival in the United States, will "determine the permanent location and lease the proper establishment for the 
operation of both the import/export business and the future shoplstore." 
In her April 12, 2004 request for evidence, the director requested photographs of the interior and exterior of 
the leased premises as well as the following documents: 
Submit a copy of your COMMERCIAL LEASE showing a facility of sufficient size to 
conduct an export business, providing for a warehouse for shipping and receiving goods and 
other services. It must be shown sufficient physical premises have been secured for the type 
of business indicated in the petition. Submit a copy of the floor plan. The evidence should 
EAC 04 136 53767 
Page 10 
also include an official zoning map and the phone number and address of the lessor and/or 
leasing agent. 
Submit a clarification of the current business address where the beneficiary will actually be 
employed. Define the worksite as a sales office, representative agency, distributorship, etc. 
Explain what type of building in which the office is located. . . . 
In a response dated May 
..., 
etitioner stated that the leased premises is an import-export office 
located on the premises of 
 residential home. The petitioner noted that the home has a basement 
with a large office that will be divided when more employees are hired, as well as two "deposits" and two 
bathrooms "which will be destined entirely to the operation of [the petitioner]. In addition on the outside there 
is sufficient space to store the automobiles that will be exported." The petitioner further indicated that once 
the operation "starts in full" the company intends to build on the same property "a totally independent office 
and to build a roof in order to store the automobiles while their shipping is handled." 
The petitioner submitted a floor plan diagram purported to show the leased premises, including a large office, 
two bathrooms, two "deposits," and a "service area." The petitioner submitted a photograph of the exterior of 
a residential home that appears to have the house number photograph of a living room containing 
one desk, computer and fax machine, and a photograph presumably intended to depict the side or back yard of 
the house. 
The director denied the petition on May 21, 2004, noting "the physical premises are that of a residentially 
zoned house. . . . The petitioner has not provided evidence to show that they have acquired commercial space 
but in fact will utilize residentially zoned space to operate a vehicle and automobile parts sales business 
from." The director further observed that the submitted photographs depict a living room within a residence 
without sufficient space for the projected number of employees or sufficient storage space for vehicles or 
space for a parts warehouse. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that during its first year of operations, the U.S. company "will not sell 
directly to the public any goods, it will act as an "international broker" and for doing so we only require 
officie [sic] space destined for computers, faxes and telephones, which can perfectly and legally [sic] be 
handled in the premises we have secured." The petitioner asserts that the merchandise it imports does not 
actually enter the United States "as it stays 'on bond' at the port of arrival departure, while it is shipped to its 
'export destination."' The petitioner notes that the merchandise it purchases in the United States will be 
shipped directly from its sellers to export agents, thus obviating the need for warehousing space. 
The petitioner further acknowledges that the photographs provided depicted Victor Linan's living room, 
noting that he currently handles the affairs of the business from that space. The petitioner notes that it 
previously explained that the U.S. company has secured the entire basement of the house to be used for 
operation of the business. The petitioner emphasizes that no mechanical work will be performed on the 
premises and asserts that "on the outside of the secured premises there is plenty of space to store the 
automobiles that will be exported." The petitioner again states that the company has a plan to build an 
EAC 04 136 53767 
Page 11 
independent office on the property and to build a roof in order to store automobiles "but this will be done only 
if we are able to secure a license by the zoning authority." 
The petitioner's assertions are not persuasive. The record establishes that the petitioner had secured one room 
in a residential home from which to operate its import and export business. Although the petitioner claims 
that it will have full use of the basement of a residential home, the petitioner did not submit the requested 
photographs or architectural floor plans of the leased premises to establish that the house even has a basement 
with the described features, nor does the lease specify the amount of space rented. 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. at 165. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims that it does not require any storage or warehouse space, while simultaneously 
asserting that the leased property contains sufficient space for the storage of vehicles that are awaiting export. 
The petitioner also asserts that no mechanical work will be performed on the premises, yet the floor plan 
submitted in response to the director's request for evidence identified a "service area." 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. 582,59 1-92 (BIA 1988). 
Furthermore, the petitioner's business plan indicates that the beneficiary will "determine the permanent 
location and lease the proper establishment" for the business upon his arrival in the United States. There was 
no reference in the business plan to the petitioner's intention to convert a basement for the company's use, or 
to build an independent office or storage space on the property purportedly leased or owned by Mr. Linan. 
Rather, the business plan strongly suggests that the petitioner had not yet located sufficient physical premises 
from which to operate its business as of the date of filing, and this conclusion is further supported by the 
photographs submitted in response to the director's request for evidence. The petitioner has not submitted 
evidence on appeal sufficient to overcome the director's decision. For this reason, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving 
eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.