dismissed L-1A Case: Business Management

muc COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave. NW, Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S . Citizenship 
and Immigrabon 
File: WAC 03 155 51851 Office: C 
c 
ICE CENTER Date: at ] 1 2005 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Petition: Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration - 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHAL;F 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, ~irectcd 
b 
Administrative Appeals Ofice 
WAC 03 155 51851 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California 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 nonirnmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1A nonirnmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 8 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of Nevada that intends to 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary had been 
employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity with the foreign entity or that the beneficiary 
would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat theaappeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioqer disputes the director's 
findings and asserts that the beneficiary, in both her foreign position and in her proposed U.S. position, is 
required to supervise a staff of subordinate professional, mapagerial or supervisory personnel who relieve her 
from performing qualified duties. In support of this assertion, the petitioner submits additional evidence. 
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 qualifying managerial or executive capacity; or in a specialized bowledge 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 tempor~rily to continue rendering his 
or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or 
specialized know Iedge capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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. 
4 
(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 within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
(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 
WAC 03 155 51851 
Page 3 
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. $ 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 to 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 involved executive or managerial authority over the new 
operation; 
(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 beneficktry and to commence doing business in the 
United States; and 
(3) The organizational structure of the foreign entity. 
The fust issue in the present matter is whether the beneficiary had been employed by the foreign entity in a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity for one continuous year during the three years preceding the 
filing of the petition. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. Q 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; 
(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, 
WAC 03 155 51851 
Page 4 
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. 9 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 from higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
In the initial petition submitted on April 22, 2003, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary had been 
employed with the foreign entity for more than one year, but did not provide her job title or the name of the 
foreign company. The petitioner described the beneficiary's job duties as follows: 
Over-all & general management of the company; directly supervises the administrative 
financial & technical staff of company; executes & implements corporate policies & business 
strategies; organizes staff; hires and fires employees 
Although the petitioner indicated in its cover letter that it had enclosed an attestation letter describing the 
beneficiary's foreign employment, the foreign company's organizational chart, and various other documents 
regarding the foreign corporation, these documents do not appear to have been submitted with the initial 
petition. 
On June 10, 2003, the director requested additional evidence to establish that the beneficiary had been 
employed by the foreign entity in a managerial or executive capacity. Specifically, the director requested (1) 
payroll records pertaining to the beneficiary for the year preceding the filing of the petition, including the date 
the beneficiary was hired, the positions she has h'eld, and the reason why she was selected for the position 
with the U.S. entity; (2) the total number of emgloyees at the foreign location where the beneficiary is 
employed; (3) a detailed explanation of the beneficiary's duties abroad, including the percentage of time the 
beneficiary devotes to each job duty; and (4) a list of job titles and job descriptions of all employees 
supervised by the beneficiary. 
WAC 03 155 51851 
Page 5 
In response, the petitioner submitted a letter from the foreign company stating that the beneficiary had been 
employed as its general manager since February 1999, pe&cmning the following job duties: 
In this position, she has the full responsibility of planning, controlling, leading, organizing 
and coordinating the different departments of the company to assure attainment of company 
objectives and profitability. She exercises complete day-today discretion authority over the 
work of production department, accounting department, administrative department and 
purchasing department for the parent company. 
The foreign company also submitted a certification of employment letter dated May 5,2003, which states that 
the beneficiary has been employed as its general manager since December 2000. It described her duties as 
follows: 
1. Sets the goals and objectives of the company. 
2. Reviews and approves the company's yearly operational and capital budgets. 
3. Hires and fires employees within the managerial level. 
4. Represents the company and any and all contracts entered into by the company with outside 
parties. 
5. Trains employers within the managerial level. 
The petitioner explained that the purpose for the beneficiary's transfer is to "expand_its market reach, generate 
new patients and generate sufficient and frequent marketing awareness. In order to assure correct positioning 
in the U.S. market, proper promotion and market development of our Philippine products through the 
participation to bring to the new office in the U.S. tradeshows and exhibits is imperative. It is important to 
bring to the new office in the U.S. a person who can organize and start the business and who has the required 
product knowledge acquired from years of experience within our company." 
In addition, the petitioner submitted an organizational chart for the foreign company depicting twenty 
employees, including the beneficiary as general manager, an assistant manager, a marketing manager, an 
operations manager and a sales and purchasing manager;. Finally, the petitioner submitted its bi-weekly 
payroll records for the years 2000 and 2001. 
On December 11,2003, the director denied the petition. The director determined the record was insufficient 
to establish that the beneficiary was employed prim&ly in a managerial or executive capacity with the 
foreign company. The director noted that a preponderance of the beneficiary's duties appear to have been 
directly providing the services of the business; and also remarked on the petitioner's failure to provide a 
comprehensive description of the beneficiary:~ duties. The director concluded that the beneficiary was no 
more than a fust-line supervisor of low'level employees and therefore could not be deemed a manager as 
defined by section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner states that the director did not take into account the foreign company's 
organizational chart, which shows that the beneficiary supervises an assistant manager, who in turn supervises 
an operations manager, assistant operations manager, a marketing manager, and a sales and purchase 
manager. Counsel states that the positioty of the beneficiary's subordinates are all managerial and 
WAC 03 155 51851 
Page 6 
professional and that the beneficiary therefore meets the statutory requirements for classification as a manager 
for immigration purposes. 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary had been 
employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding 
the filing of the petition for classification as a nonimmigrant intracompany transferee. While the director's 
decision focuses on whether the beneficiary's claimed job duties could be considered managerial or executive 
under sections 101(a)(44)(A) or (B) of the Act, the AAO notes that there is no probative evidence in the 
record to establish that the beneficiary was ever employed with the foreign company. 
As noted above, the company submitted its bi-weekly payroll records, dated January 1,2000 to December 3 1, 
2001, all of which show the beneficiary as the first employee on the payroll record and indicate her title as 
general manager. However, most of the payroll records have clearly been altered. Specifically, the name listed 
first on the payroll record for each period, along with this individual's signature, has been covered with 
correction fluid, and the beneficiary's name and signature have been written in. Most of the documents were 
photocopied after the alteration was made; however, at least two of the registers, for J 
December 15,2000, were submitted with original alterations. The name that was covered dllilbk 
can easily be read from the reverse side on both documents. This is the name of the foreign entity's 
ownerlproprietor, who presumably also acts as its general manager, rather than the beneficiary. A similar 
alteration seems to have been made for the tenth e payroll register; a name and 
signature were covered on the documents and the name as been added to each document 
as a "Sales & Purchase Person." Doubt cast on any may, of course, lead to a 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591 (BIA). 
Based on the petitioner's submission of altered documents to establish a key element of eligibility, the AAO 
will give no weight to the petitioner's unsupported representations regarding the beneficiary's foreign 
employment. If CIS fails to believe that a fact stated in the petition is true, CIS may reject that fact. See e.g., 
Anetekhai v. Z.N.S., 876 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5" Cir. 1989); Lu-Ann Bakelg Shop, Inc. v. Nelson, 705 F. Supp. 7, 
10 (D.D.C. 1988); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 CD.D.C. 2001). Furthermore, willful 
misrepresentation in these proceedings may render the beneficiary inadmiisible to the United States. Section 
212(a)(6)(C) of the Act. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not established that the bneficiary has the requisite one continuous 
year of employment abroad with the foreign entity as required by-8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3)(iii) and the petition 
cannot be approved. The AAO will not consider whether the beneficiary's alleged duties abroad were 
managerial or executive, absent evidence that she was actually employed with the foreign entity. 
The next issue in this matter is whether the beneficiary wpuld be employed in a primarily managerial or 
executive capacity in the United States within one year of the approval of the petition for the new office. 
On the 1-129 petition, the petitioner described the beneficiary's proposed duties as "to establish a residential 
home care facility, to hire, fire, train employees, and manage the home care. facility." The petitioner further 
described the beneficiary's proposed duties as follows on the 1-129 L Supplement: 
- 
WAC 03 155 51851 
Page 7 
To set up company in U.S.: Over-all management ?f company; in-charge of development 
market; develop; train & hire staff, institute marketing & management strategies compatible 
with parent company promote or otherwise secure products for and on behalf of parent 
company; new products/equipment in U.S. with potential market of parent company in the 
I 
Philippines. 
The petitioner indicated that the beneficiary has a bachelor of science degree in commerce and a three-year 
associate's degree in nursing. Although the petitioner stated that copies of her diploma and transcripts were 
included, these documents do not appear to have been submitted. 
In his request for evidence, the director' the petitioner to submit the U.S. entity's organizational chart; a 
detailed description of the beneficiary's proposed duties, including the percentage of time to be spent on each 
duty; and a list of employees to be supervised by the beneficiary, including their names, job titles, job duties 
and education level. The director also requested the petitioner's detailed business and hiring plans, evidence 
of a genuine investment in the United States and evidence of purchases made to enable the company to 
commence operations, among other documents. 
In response, the petitioner submitted an undated job offerfcontract of employment signed by the beneficiary 
which describes the beneficiary's proposed duties as follows: 
As general manager, you will be responsible for the overall operation of the U.S. entity. And 
you will have the final say hiring and firing of employees. You will be supervising directly 
the Marketing Manager and Operation Manager including the Cashier of the home care 
facility. You will gather and analyze data of existing service/contractual agreements with 
current clients, vendors, and suppliers and conduct surveys of market policies in other 
outlying areas. You too will be responsible in the preparation and management of the annual 
operating and capital budgets. You have the primary responsibility to hire, train and frre 
personnel. You will prepare and submit an annual performance report to the board of 
directors. Lastly, you will be responsible in maintaining a safe work site to conform to the 
existing state and federal safety regulations. 
The offer letter indicates that the beneficiary would manage a marketing manager, operations manager, 
cashier, registered nurse, certified nursing assistants and care givers. 
The foreign company also described the following duties in its letter submitted in response to the request for 
evidence: 
This position is a key managerial one for the new office, because it will be her responsibility 
to organize and start the new business. This position requires her to: (1) Hire and train 
initially three employees . . . It is anticipated that there will be at least three of these persons 
to be employed within the first year of operation and who will eventually run the business 
after [the beneficiary] completes her assignment. 
WAC 03 155 51851 
Page 8 
She will exercise a wide latitude in decision making in the day to day oeprations [sic] of the 
business. She must spend a majority of her time coordinating the various responsibilities and 
managing her staff. Strong managerial and organizational skills are needed for the important 
functions performed by the Manager of a new business in the U.S. [The beneficiary] will 
report directly to [the owner] for approval of major plans. 
Finally, the petitioner stated that it planned to hire a reglstered nurse/administrator, a certified licensed 
nursing assistant/marketing manager, a night-shift nursing assistant and a day shift nursing assistant, whose 
wages would range from $12 to $39 per hour. The petitioner indicated that the employees, who were 
identified by name, would be hired upon approval of the beneficiary's L-1 visa and upon approval of the state 
license of the facility. 
In his decision, the director concluded that the record ,contained insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the 
beneficiary will be employed primarily in a managerial or executive capacity. Specifically, the director noted 
that a preponderance of the beneficiary's duties would involve directly providing the services of the business 
rather than managing a subordinate staff of professional, managerial or supervisory personnel who will relieve 
her from performing non-qualifying duties. On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner's marketing 
director, home care facility administrator and nursing staff will perform the day-to-day tasks of the 
organization, while the beneficiary will perform only managerial and executive duties. 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are not persuasive. 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. 
2142(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. 
The petitioner has provided a vague, nonspecific, and inconsistent description of the beneficiary's duties that 
fails to demonstrate what the beneficiary would do on a day-today basis. Many of the duties described appear 
to be unrelated to management of the home care facility. For example, the petitioner states that the 
beneficiary's duties include being "incharge of development market," "institute marketing & management 
strategies compatible with parent company," "promote or otherwise secure products for and on behalf of 
parent company" and "identify new productsfequipment in U.S. with potential market of parent company in 
the Philippines." The petitioner did not, however, describe its development market, define its market and 
management strategies, or explain why the general manager of the home care facility would be involved in 
promoting "products" of a foreign parent company that doesn't produce any products. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
The beneficiary is also described as "gathering and analyzing data of existing servicefcontractual agreements 
with current clients, vendors and suppliers7' and "conducting surveys of market policies in other outlying 
areas." The petitioner has not described how these job duties qualify as managerial or executive or how they 
are related to the petitioner's proposed business operations. Specifics are clearly an important indication of 
whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the 
WAC 03 155 51851 
Page 9 
definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 
1 103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 F.2d 41 (26 Cir. 1990). 
The AAO notes that the director's decision is based entirely on the nature of the beneficiary's job duties. 
However, when a new business is established and commences operations, the regulatibhs 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 nonirnmigrant 
classification during the first 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). 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. 
In this case, while the petitioner has described the beneficiary's job duties as almost exclusively managerial or 
executive, it has not provided the required supporting evidence which could allow CIS to make a 
determination as to whether the business would realistically allow her to perform in such a capacity by the 
end of the first year of operations. With the initial petition, thk petitioner submitted only its one-page articles 
of incorporation and evidence that it had applied for a tax identification number. Although it indicated on the 
cover letter that a copy of its lease agreement was enclosed, there was no lease submitted. In the request for 
evidence, the director requested extensive documentation to evidence the size of the U.S. investment and the 
ability to commence doing business, including a defailed business plan with planned actions, objectives and 
projections over a five-year period and feasibility study prepared by the foreign company for the U.S. 
company. The director asked that the petitioner identify the actual cost of creating the business and provide 
proof of payments for rent, equipment and inventory purchases, as well as copies of licenses, permits, 
insurance and other documentation required by governmental authorities. Finally the director requested a 
copy of the beneficiary's signed lease agreement identifying the total square footage of the premises and color 
photographs of the U.S. company's business premises. 
In response, the petitioner provided a one and a half page business plan that identified some of the services to 
be provided by the home care facility. The business plan states that the cost to start the business is 
approximately $30,000, but offers no explanation as to how it derived this figure or how this money would be 
used. The petitioner provided evidence of various wire transfers deposited to its bank account in July and 
August 2003. There is no evidence of any investment in the U.S. entity from any source prior to the filing of 
the petition. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a 
future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 
I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Cornm. 1978). The originator for all of the wire transfers was Josefino Malana, who 
appears to be the beneficiary's father. There is no evidence that the foreign entity was the source of the money 
transferred to the U.S. company, nor is there any evidence that the foreign entity has sufficient funds to 
remunerate the beneficiary or support the U.S. entity during the first year of operations. The business plan 
merely states that the owner of the foreign company has $24,000 in a savings account and that the foreign 
entity expects net income of $18,138.28 "to remunerate the cost to start up the business." Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
WAC 03 155 51851 
Page 10 
these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 
(BIA 1980). 
In a letter submitted in response to the request for evidence, the foreign company states that it will be able to 
sustain the beneficiary within one year. ~~ecifickl~, the letter states 'We have a projected gross income of 
$500,000.00 for the fmt year of operations through the aggressive marketing and sales of our catering and 
services from the Philippines and the sale of U.S. products'to the Philippines." This statement is not credible, 
since it is unsupported by documents or even by the petitioner's own statements that it will be operating a 
home care facility business. The AAO notes that some of the beneficiary's proposed job duties also involve 
marketing and identifying products to export to the Philippines. 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 evidence pointing to where the truth 
lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Based on these inconsistencies and the lack of a 
business plan, the AAO cannot conclude that petitioner even intends to operate a home care facility, much 
less that it has sufficient funds to enable the new business to succeed to the point where it could support a 
managerial or executive employee within one year. The petitioner also failed to provide evidence that it had 
applied for any licenses or pennits to operate the home care facility, other than mentioning that a state license 
was required. Further, although the petitioner stated that it was submitting receipts for purchases of medical 
supplies and rental payments, no such documents were provided. Finally, the petitioner did not secure a lease 
for the U.S. entity until August 2003, several months after the petition was filed. The lease agreement does 
not include any information regarding square footage, and the photographs provided do not convey the size of 
the property, which appears to be a typical single family home. In addition, the petitioner has submitted no 
evidence that it has invested money to adapt the property to accommodate the physical needs of its future 
patients. The nonexistence or other unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2)(i). Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall 
be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(b)(14). 
In view of the lack of investment in the United States entity, the absence of an actual business plan describing 
the U.S. company's proposed actions and goals* and the lack of evidence that the petitioner is even preparing 
to commence doing business, the petitioner'sfrepresentations that it will hire a full staff to support the 
beneficiary and expects to achieve a gross income of $500,000 during the first year of operations is not 
credible. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the intended United States operation, within one 
year of the approval of the petition, will support an executive or managerial position as required by 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(c). For this additional reason: the petition may not be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has not established that it has a qualifying relationship with 
the foreign entity The record shows that the foreign entity is a sole 
proprietorship owned by a national of the Philippines. On the 1-129 Petition, the 
petitioner indicated that it is a subsidiary of the foreign company, and the owner of the foreign company 
claims that he is the sole owner of both companies. With the initial petition, the petitioner submitted its one- 
page articles of incorporation showing that it is authorized to issue 125 shares of stock without par value. This 
document was submitted to the Secretary of State of Nevada in March 2003. In response to the director's 
request for proof of a qualifying relationship, the petitioner submitted its stock ledger and stock certificates. 
The following stock certificates were submitked: 
WAC 03 155 51851 
Page 11 
Number Name Shares Amount Paid 
All of the stock certificates indicate that the company is authorized to issue a :total of $75,000 shares of stock 
at no par value. The stock ledger does not indicate any transfers of stock, which suggests that 220,000 original 
shares have been issued. The stock certificates were all issued three to four months after the petition was 
filed, so it is not clear who owned the U.S. company at the time of filing. Again, 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 point to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Regardless of the 
questions raised by the U.S. entity's stock certificates, the two entities are clearly not owned by the same 
individual or group of individuals, such that they could be considered affiliates, nor do they appear to have 
any other qualifying relationship. For this additional reason, the petition will be denied. 
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. 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.