dismissed L-1A Case: Coffee Import/Export

'identifying data deleted to 
prevent cleu-. , xwmanted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. (i 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
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. $ 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. 9 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 09 045 5 1043 
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 l(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. tj 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a Florida corporation established in 2008 that intends to operate a 
coffee import and export business. It claims to be an affiliate of 1 
, located in Guatemala. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as the president 
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 that the beneficiary would be 
employed by the U.S. entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The director also noted that the 
petitioner failed to provide a lease agreement for the U.S. 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, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the evidence 
submitted demonstrates that the beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity. Counsel contends that 
the director "went to great lengths to show that the Beneficiary will not be employed in a managerial 
capacity," and suggests that the director did not give proper consideration to whether the beneficiary would be 
employed in an executive capacity. Counsel 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 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. 9 214.2(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. 
1 Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 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. 
EAC 09 045 5 1043 
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 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. 
As a preliminary matter, the AAO notes that, while the director acknowledged that the petitioning company, 
which was established in June 2008, approximately six months before the petition was filed, is a "new office" 
as defined at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(F), the director did not cite to the regulations applicable to new offices 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). However, the AAO concurs with the director's conclusion that the petitioner 
failed to establish that the beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or 
executive capacity. As the AAO's review is conducted on a de novo basis, the AAO will herein address the 
petitioner's evidence and eligibility pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). The AAO maintains plenary 
power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 557(b) ("On appeal from or review of the initial 
decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in making the initial decision except as it may 
limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also, Janka v. US. Dept. of Tramp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 
(9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g. Dor 
v. INS, 89 1 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
The primary 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. 3 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
EAC 09 045 5 1043 
Page 4 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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, 
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. 5 1 10 l(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 
EAC 09 045 5 1043 
Page 5 
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)(~). 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 November 28, 2008. In a letter dated November 25, 2008, 
the petitioner stated that the beneficiary will perform the following duties as president of the United States 
company: 
He will oversee the overall performance of the affiliate branch, ensuring the policies and 
procedures are maintained, as well as he will implement strategic plans for capital 
investments needed to achieve the company's goals in the most effective and time efficient 
manner. He will identify and measure key performance indicators for the company, its 
divisions and departments. He will analyze business unit performance, and benchmark key 
performance indicators (3 5%) 
In terms of human resources management, [the beneficiary] will conduct performance 
reviews and ensure that the staff and crew will follow corporate procedures and policies. He 
will likewise supervise the work of functional employees. He will exercise direct supervision 
over the key employees of our affiliate, and he will have the authority to implement personnel 
actions with the aforementioned-employees such as hiring, firing, training, delegation of 
assignments according to capabilities, preferences and technical goals. (1 0%) 
[The beneficiary] will develop and direct the management of [the petitioner] to ensure that all 
relevant business operations are continuously monitored and maintained. His assignment's 
purpose is to secure that the company will continue to apply and further develop all 
importation and distribution activities for the products. As the President, [the beneficiary] 
will ensure smooth transition, stable and time-tested implementation of policies. He will 
implement and oversee the overall importation procedures and distribution of products, 
setting-up various operations processes in relation to the quality control and customer service, 
specifically developing and implementing production tracking and quality control systems, 
analyzing production, quality control, maintenance, and other operational reports to detect 
production problems. (25%) 
He will create and implement program/company-wide protocols and be responsible, with 
respect to all matters within his authority, to exercised [sic] broad discretion over the day-to- 
day operational functions of [the petitioner] to establish the most advantageous course of 
action for the successful management and direction of [the U.S. petitioner] and [the foreign 
entity] in Guatemala (30%). 
The petitioner submitted a personnel list which included the beneficiary and a vice president. 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. 
EAC 09 045 5 1043 
Page 6 
5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). The petitioner provided copies of bank statements for the months of June through 
September 2008. The most recent statement showed a balance of approximately $20,000 as of September 30, 
2008. 
The director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE) on December 3, 2008, in which the director 
requested, inter alia, the following: (1) a comprehensive description of the beneficiary's proposed duties; (2) a 
list of the United States employees, including position titles and complete position descriptions for all 
employees, including a breakdown of the number of hours devoted to each of the employee's job duties on a 
weekly basis; and (3) educational requirements for all positions in the United States. The director also 
requested evidence of business conducted at the address listed on the petition, phone records, copies of 
advertisements, evidence of wages paid to employees, and documentary evidence of the U.S. company's 
international trade activities. * 
In response to the RFE, counsel for the petitioner submitted a position description for the beneficiary that is 
identical to the description included in the petitioner's letter dated November 25, 2008. Counsel noted that 
much of the requested evidence could not be submitted because the petitioner has not yet engaged in any 
business dealings. The petitioner did provide a proposed employee list which indicates vacancies for a coffee 
taster, customs agent, logistics manager, accountant, broker assistant, delivery personnel, and secretaries. The 
employee list indicates that the beneficiary will hold the positions of president and commodities broker. 
Counsel stated that complete job descriptions for the vacant positions "are not yet available as they are subject 
to change." She stated however, that each potential employee would work full-time and would need to have a 
bachelor's degree. 
The petitioner submitted two receipts for office equipment and supplies purchases in the amount of 
approximately $900 as evidence of the start-up costs of the company. 
The director denied the petition on January 24, 2009, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. In denying 
the petition, the director emphasized that the petitioner failed to provide the requested detailed position 
description for the beneficiary and neglected to provide any position descriptions for his proposed 
subordinates. Therefore, the director found that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be 
involved in the supervision of a subordinate staff of supervisory, managerial or professional employees who 
would relieve him from performing the services of the corporation. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director primarily considered whether the beneficiary 
would be employed in managerial capacity, but failed to consider whether he would be employed in an 
executive capacity. Counsel quotes portions of the job description previously provided for the beneficiary and 
asserts that the duties described fall within the statutory definition of executive capacity at section 
10 1 (a)(44)(B) of the Act. Counsel emphasizes that the day-to-day operations of the petitioner's business 
consist of high-valued business transactions which require the experience of an executive and "will 
* The petitioner indicated on the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, that the beneficiary is not 
coming to the United States to open a new office. It appears that this misleading statement on the Form 1-129 
lead to some initial misunderstanding on the part of the director as to the operational status of the U.S. 
company. The petitioner acknowledges that the recently-established U.S. entity has not commenced any 
business activities in the United States. 
EAC 09 045 5 1043 
Page 7 
unequivocally involve the exercise of wide latitude in discretionary decision-making . . . necessitating a 
position where one has the freedom to act fast and independently." Finally, counsel asserts that the position 
will require the beneficiary's "extensive experience in navigating the import/export and commodities trading 
markets, as well as intimate experience with assessing the nuances of various aspects of coffees." 
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, while lengthy, is too 
vague and non-specific to establish that he will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity 
within one year. For example, the petitioner indicates that the beneficiary "will oversee the overall 
performance of the affiliate branch," ensure that "policies and procedures are maintained," "implement 
strategic plans," "develop and direct the management of [the petitioner]," and "create and implement 
programlcompany-wide protocols," and "exercise broad discretion over the day-to-day operational functions." 
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. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), afd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 
(S.D.N.Y.). 
The director advised the petitioner of the deficiency of this description by requesting that it provide a 
"comprehensive description" of the beneficiary's proposed duties. Rather than clarifying the nature of the 
beneficiary's day-to-day duties, counsel re-submitted the exact same general description in response to the 
RFE. Any failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for 
denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(14). Although the director denied the petition, in part, based on the 
petitioner's failure to submit a detailed position description, counsel once again relies on the same vague job 
description to support her contention on appeal that the proposed position will be executive in nature. The 
AAO will not accept a vague job description that paraphrases the statutory definition of executive capacity in 
lieu of the required detailed description. 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 provide any detail or explanation of the beneficiary's activities in the 
EAC 09 045 5 1043 
Page 8 
course of his daily routine. The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin 
Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1 108. 
Furthermore, in response to the RFE, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary would be serving as both 
president of the petitioning company, and as a commodities broker. The petitioner did not provide a 
description of the duties the beneficiary would perform in this secondary role, nor did it indicate how his time 
would be allocated between the two positions. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972)). Therefore, the job description provided by the petitioner must be considered incomplete in addition to 
being deficient for the reasons discussed above. 
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. The 
regulations specifically require the petitioner to provide information regarding the proposed nature of the 
office describing the scope of the entity, its organizational structure, and its financial goals. 8 C.F.R. 3 
214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(I). The petitioner has provided no business plan, no financial plan, and no hiring plan to 
demonstrate its anticipated growth during the first year of operations. Although the petitioner has provided a 
list of nine positions to be filled, the petitioner has not indicated when these workers would be hired. 
Furthermore, the director specifically requested position descriptions for all proposed employees, which the 
petitioner stated it is unable to provide. Absent information regarding the number and types of workers to be 
hired during the first year of operations and 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- 
qualifying duties within one year. 
The 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. 
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. 3 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(2). 
The evidence submitted on appeal indicates that the petitioner had approximately $20,000 in its checking 
account at the time of filing. 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)(v)(C). 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. Again, going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 
22 I&N Dec. at 165. 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 
EAC 09 045 5 1043 
Page 9 
operations, or who would be performing the day-to-day, non-managerial and non-executive 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 could realistically support a managerial or executive position within one year. For this 
reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the AAO finds that the record as presently constituted contains 
insufficient evidence that the petitioner has secured sufficient physical premises to house the new office. See 8 
C.F.R. $214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). 
Guatemala in September 2005 between the foreign entity and "U.S. Postal." The contract, which is not 
accompanied by an English translation, appears to provide the company with a U.S. post office box and 
physical mailing address in Miami, Florida. The address listed in the contract is the same address listed as the 
beneficiary's U.S. worksite on the Form 1-129. However, this contract is not a lease agreement, and there is no 
apparent physical premises associated with the contract. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted a license agreement for a 180 square foot office located in 
Panorama City, California. The license agreement was executed in December 2008, subsequent to the 
issuance of the RFE, and had a commencement date of February 1, 2009. The petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. A visa petition may not be approved at a future 
date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire 
Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978). 
Therefore, the petitioner has not established that it had secured any physical premises to house the new office 
as of November 2008 when the petition was filed. For this additional reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
Another issue not addressed by the director 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)(] 5)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. $ 2 14.2(1). 
The petitioner states that the petitioner and the foreign entity are affiliates based on common majority 
ownership by the beneficiary. The petitioner submitted the foreign entity's bylaws, with English translation, 
indicating that the beneficiary owns 60 percent of the company's issued shares. However, the record as 
presently constituted does not contain any documentary evidence of the beneficiary's claimed ownership of 70 
percent of the petitioner's shares. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
EAC 09 045 5 1043 
Page 10 
for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. The 
petition cannot be approved for this additional reason. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the 
AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003). As noted above, the AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 
5 U.S.C. 557(b) ("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it 
would have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also, 
Janka v. US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g. Dor v. INS, 89 1 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
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. 
at 1043. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 136 1. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.