dismissed L-1A Case: Business Management

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: EAC 08 192 50805 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 0 4 2Do9 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 10 1(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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. fj 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
hief, Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 08 192 50805 
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 appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)( 1 5)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
petitioner, a Florida corporation, claims to be a subsidiary of - 
located in Brazil. 
 The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as the 
administrative and general manager of its new office in the United States for a two-year period.' 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that the beneficiary 
would be employed by the U.S. entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity or that the U.S. entity 
will support a managerial or executive position within one year; or (2) that the U.S. company has a qualifying 
relationship with the foreign entity. 
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 director's decision 
contains at least one misstatement of fact and concedes that its response to the director's request for evidence 
was not presented "in a good manner." The petitioner submits a letter and additional documentary evidence in 
support of 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 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. 8 214.2(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 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 
1 
Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(7)(i)(A)(3), if the beneficiary is coming to the United States 
to open or be employed in a new office, the petition may be approved for a period not to exceed one year. 
- I 
EAC 08 192 50805 
Page 3 
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. tj 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 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 to be addressed is whether the petitioner established that it will employ the beneficiary in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity within one year, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
Section 10 l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 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 within the organization, or a department 
or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) 
 if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the authority to 
hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions (such as 
promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly supervised, 
functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the 
function managed; and 
-. 
EAC 08 192 50805 
Page 4 
(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. 
The one-year "new office" provision is an accommodation for newly established enterprises, provided for by 
USCIS regulation,that allows for a more lenient treatment of managers or executives that are entering the 
United States to open a new office. When a new business is first 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 low level 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 that first 
year. In an accommodation that is more lenient than the strict language of the statute, the "new office" 
regulations allow a newly established petitioner one year to develop to a point that it can support the 
employment of an alien in a primarily managerial or executive position. 
Accordingly, if a petitioner indicates that a beneficiary is coming to the United States to open a "new office," 
it must show that it is prepared to commence doing business immediately upon approval so that it will support 
a manager or executive within the one-year timeframe. 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. See generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(~). At the time of filing the petition to open a 
"new office," a petitioner must affirmatively demonstrate that it has acquired sufficient physical premises to 
house the new office and that it will support the beneficiary in a managerial or executive position within one 
year of approval. Specifically, the petitioner must describe the nature of its business, its proposed 
organizational structure and financial goals, and submit evidence to show that it has the financial ability to 
remunerate the beneficiary and commence doing business in the United States. Id. 
The petitioner filed the nonimmigrant petition on June 25, 2008. The petitioner submitted evidence that the 
U.S. company was incorporated in October 2007, and provided a copy of its lease agreement for commercial 
office space. In a letter submitted in support of the petition, the petitioner described the beneficiary's 
proposed duties as follows: 
[The beneficiary] will be responsible for the general management of [the petitioner]. She will 
coordinate the set up of the office, hiring subdivision managers and supporting clerical staff. 
- I 
EAC 08 192 50805 
Page 5 
She will exercise wide latitude in discretionary decision-making over the day-to-day 
operations and activities of the Company. She will receive general supervision of the 
partnersfowners of [the foreign entity], the parent company. 
The petitioner did not describe the proposed nature of the office, the scope of the entity, its organizational 
structure, and its financial goals, nor did it provide evidence of the size of the United States investment, as 
required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
The director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE) on August 15, 2008, in which the director 
requested, inter alia, the following: (1) evidence showing the management and personnel structure of the U.S. 
entity, including an organizational chart and complete position descriptions for the United States employees; 
(2) information regarding the number of subordinate supervisors to be managed by the beneficiary; (3) 
information regarding the amount of time the beneficiary will allocate to executive/managerial duties; and (4) 
additional information to demonstrate that the beneficiary would not be performing the non-managerial, day- 
to-day operations involved in producing a product or providing a servi~e.~ 
In response to the WE, the petitioner submitted a letter which was identical in content to the letter submitted 
at the time of filing. The petitioner submitted copies of pay stubs and IRS Forms 941, Employer's Quarterly 
Federal Tax Return, demonstrating that it has been paying one employee since June 2008. The petitioner did 
not provide the employee's job title or provide the requested organizational chart depicting current and 
proposed employees. The petitioner's response to the RFE did not otherwise address the above-referenced 
requests. 
The director denied the petition on December 15, 2008, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that 
beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity, or that the U.S. company 
would support an executive or managerial position within one year of commencing operations. The director 
acknowledged the brief position description submitted, but noted that the petitioner had not identified any 
other current or proposed employees who would performing the day-to-day non-managerial operations of the 
company. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary will "coordinate the set up of the office, hiring 
subdivision managers and supporting clerical staff," and "will exercise wide latitude in discretionary decision- 
making over the day-to-day operations and activities of the company." The petitioner states that the petitioner 
has sufficient finds to cover its initial expenses and that the foreign entity will provide financial support until 
the U.S. company is capable of generating revenues. The petitioner indicates that it hired a "clerk person" in 
July 2008 and states that "the goal of the corporation is set up a health insurance network aimed mostly the 
Brazilian community." 
The AAO notes that the initial petition was filed without a completed L Classification Supplement to Form 
I- 129, on which the petitioner is required to indicate whether the beneficiary is coming to the United States to 
open a new office. The petitioner indicated on Form 1-129 that it has 11 employees and gross annual income 
in excess of $627,857. The petitioner has since clarified that this information pertained to the foreign entity; 
however, these factors appeared to have impacted the director's assessment of the initial evidence, as the 
director believed that the petitioner was presenting itself as a fully-staffed and operational company. 
-. 
EAC 08 192 50805 
Page 6 
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. 5 214.2(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. Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS 
reviews the totality of the record when examining the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a 
beneficiary, including the petitioner's proposed organizational structure, the duties of the beneficiary's 
proposed subordinate employees, the petitioner's timeline for hiring additional staff, the presence of other 
employees to relieve the beneficiary from performing operational duties at the end of the first year of 
operations, the nature of the petitioner's business, and any other factors that will contribute to a complete 
understanding of a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. As discussed above, the petitioner's 
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. See generally, 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(~). 
In the instant matter, the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's proposed duties is too vague and non- 
specific to establish that she will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity within one 
year. For example, the petitioner indicates that the beneficiary "will be responsible for the general 
management" of the company, "exercise wide latitude in discretionary decision-making over the day-to-day 
operations and activities," and "receive only general supervision of the partnerslowners." These statements 
merely paraphrase the statutory definition of executive capacity and provide little insight into the nature of the 
beneficiary's proposed duties. Conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's employment capacity are not 
sufficient. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden 
of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1 103, 1 108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 F. 2d 4 1 (2d. 
Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y .). 
The totality of the record must be considered in analyzing whether the proposed duties are plausible 
considering the petitioner's anticipated staffing levels and stage of development within a one-year period. 
With respect to the petitioner's staffing levels, the petitioner failed to provide a proposed organizational chart 
for the company and simply stated that the beneficiary will hire "subdivision managers" and clerical staff. 
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 petitioner has provided no business, financial or hiring plan to 
demonstrate its anticipated growth during the first year of operations. Absent information regarding the 
number and types of workers to be hired and evidence of the company's ability to support the hiring of such 
subordinate staff, the AAO cannot conclude that the beneficiary would be relieved from performing primarily 
non-managerial duties within one year. 
Although the director noted the lack of evidence with respect to the company's proposed staffing and 
organizational structure in the notice of denial, the petitioner has not addressed the petitioner's proposed 
staffing levels on appeal other than providing the job title and evidence of wages paid to the one employee 
already hired. This minimal evidence does not in fact establish a reasonable expectation that the business will 
rapidly expand to the point where it requires a manager or executive to primarily perform the high-level duties 
contemplated by the statutory definitions. The petitioner has provided no information regarding the intended 
U.S. operation other than indicating on appeal that it intends to "set up a health insurance network." The 
. . 
EAC 08 192 50805 
Page 7 
record remains devoid of any evidence that would indicate how the petitioner intends to accomplish this goal 
and support a managerial or executive position within one year. 
A related issue not addressed by the director is whether the petitioner provided sufficient evidence of the size 
of the financial investment in the new United States office, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(2). 
The evidence submitted on appeal shows that the petitioner had $472 in its checking account as of June 30, 
2008. The record contains evidence of one wire transfer in the amount of $10,000 which was deposited to the 
petitioner's account in October 2008. The petitioner has not provided a business or financial plan or otherwise 
outlined its anticipated capital requirements and start-up costs, and it is thus impossible to evaluate whether 
the petitioner has sufficient funds to commence business operations. 
Therefore, the AAO's review of this issue is severely restricted by the petitioner's failure to submit evidence 
or information regarding the beneficiary's proposed duties, the proposed nature of the office, the anticipated 
scope of the entity, and its financial goals, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(~)(2). While a business plan 
is not explicitly required by the regulations, the petitioner has provided no explanation regarding the intended 
scope of the organization or its financial goals, no timeline for hiring additional employees, insufficient 
evidence of the size of the investment required for start-up operations, and no financial objectives or 
projections for the company's first year of business. 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 AAO cannot speculate as to when or how many employees might be hired or otherwise 
determine how many employees the company would support at the end of the first year of operations, or who 
would be performing the day-to-day, non-managerial functions of the business. 
The AAO does not doubt that the beneficiary will have supervisory authority over the petitioner's business. 
However, the definitions of executive and managerial capacity each 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). Overall, the vague job description provided for the 
beneficiary, the lack of detail regarding the petitioner's business plan and hiring plan for the first year of 
operations, considered with the lack of evidence of the size of the U.S. investment, prohibits a determination 
that the petitioner will support a managerial or executive position within one year. For this reason, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The second issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner established that the U.S. company and the foreign 
entity have a qualifying relationship. To establish a "qualifying relationship" under the Act and the 
regulations, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary's foreign employer and the proposed U.S. employer 
are the same employer (i.e. one entity with "branch" offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as 
"affiliates." See generally section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii) states, in pertinent part: 
(G) 
 QuallJjting organization means a United States or foreign firm, corporation, or other 
legal entity which: 
,. . 
EAC 08 192 50805 
Page 8 
(1) 
 Meets exactly one of the qualifying relationships specified in the 
definitions of a parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary specified in 
paragraph (l)(l)(ii) of this section; 
(2) 
 Is or will be doing business (engaging in international trade is not 
required) as an employer in the United States and in at least one other 
country directly or through a parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary for the 
duration of the alien's stay in the United States as an intracompany 
transferee[.] 
(I) 
 Parent means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity which has subsidiaries. 
* * * 
(K) 
 Subsidiary means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent owns, 
directly or indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, 
directly or indirectly, half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or 
indirectly, 50 percent of a 50-50 joint venture and has equal control and veto power 
over the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, less than half of the entity, but in fact 
controls the entity. 
(L) Affiliate means 
(I) One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same parent or 
individual, or 
(2) One of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of individuals, each 
individual owning and controlling approximately the same share or proportion of each 
entity. 
The petitioner indicated in its initial letter that the U.S. company is wholly-owned by the foreign entity, 
The petitioner submitted the U.S. company's articles of 
incorporation, but did not provide evidence to demonstrate the ownership of the company. 
Accordingly, in the RFE issued on August 15, 2008, the director requested documentary evidence of the 
ownership and control of the companies, including copies of stock certificates, stock ledgers, articles of 
incorporation or other documentation. As noted above, the director also instructed the petitioner to complete 
and submit the L Classification Supplement to Form 1-129, which was not included in the initial filing. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a letter in which it reiterated that the U.S. company is wholly-owned by 
the Brazilian entity. The petitioner stated on Form 1-129 that the U.S. entity is the parent company of the 
foreign entity. Where asked to describe the stock ownership and mana erial control of each company, the 
petitioner indicated: " - 80%; a - 20%." The petitioner 
did not submit copies of its stock certificates or any documentary evidence of the ownership of the company. 
* 
EAC 08 192 50805 
Page 9 
The petitioner's response to the RFE included a copy of its 2007 IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income 
Tax Return. The petitioner indicated at Form 1120, Schedule K that no foreign person or entity owns at least 
25% of the U.S. company's stock. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the foreign entity. The director acknowledged the petitioner's claim that it is a subsidiary of 
the foreign entity, but observed that "no legal documentation was submitted to demonstrate that connection." 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the foreign entity owns 80 percent of the petitioner's stock. In support of 
this assertion, the petitioner submits a copy of the petitioner's stock certificate number one, which indicates 
that the foreign entity was issued 800 of the company's 1,000 authorized shares on October 30, 2007. The 
petitioner also submits a copy of stock certificate number two, which indicates that 200 shares of the 
petitioner's stock were issued to the petitioner on October 30, 2007. The petitioner also re-submits a copy of 
its IRS Form 1 120 for 2007. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish the claimed parent-subsidiary 
relationship. 
The regulation and case law confirm that ownership and control are the factors that must be examined in 
determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and foreign entities for purposes 
of this visa classification. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1988); see also 
Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 
(Comm. 1982). In the context of this visa petition, ownership refers to the direct or indirect legal right of 
possession of the assets of an entity with full power and authority to control; control means the direct or 
indirect legal right and authority to direct the establishment, management, and operations of an entity. Matter 
of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
As general evidence of a petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship, stock certificates alone are not sufficient 
evidence to determine whether a stockholder maintains ownership and control of a corporate entity. The 
corporate stock certificate ledger, stock certificate registry, corporate bylaws, and the minutes of relevant 
annual shareholder meetings must also be examined to determine the total number of shares issued, the exact 
number issued to the shareholder, and the subsequent percentage ownership and its effect on corporate 
control. Additionally, a petitioning company must disclose all agreements relating to the voting of shares, the 
distribution of profit, the management and direction of the subsidiary, and any other factor affecting actual 
control of the entity. See Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., supra. Without full disclosure of all 
relevant documents, USCIS is unable to determine the elements of ownership and control. 
The regulation states that the petitioner shall submit additional evidence as the director, in his or her 
discretion, may deem necessary. The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further information that 
clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of the time the petition is filed. See 
8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(8) and (12). The 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). 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
b 
EAC 08 192 50805 
Page 10 
appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 
(BIA 1988). The record before the director contained no documentary evidence of the U.S. company's 
ownership, despite the director's specific request for such evidence. Therefore, the petition was properly 
denied. 
If the petitioner had wanted its stock certificates to be considered, it should have submitted the documents in 
response to the director's request for evidence. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO need not and does not 
consider the sufficiency of the evidence submitted on appeal. Consequently, the appeal will be dismissed. 
Furthermore, as noted above, the record contains an unresolved discrepancy, given the petitioner's response 
on its Form 1120 that it has no foreign majority owner. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any 
inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
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. 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. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 
2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afd. 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003). 
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.