dismissed L-1A Case: Commercial Printing

U.S. Department of Homeland Securlty 
20 Mass. Avc., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 04 024 52886 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date:,j(j~ 1 4 ZEmj 
IN RE: 
I 
Pet~tioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PEI'l'1'ION: I'el~t~ois for a Nonimm~gant Worker Pursuant to Sect~on 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Inimagratitsn and Nationality Act, 8 I1.S.C. 4 1 101(a)(I 5)(L) 
Th~s is thc decis~on uftht: Adrn~n~strat~ve Appeals Office In your case. All documents have been 
returned to the oi'5l:c that origlnally dcc~ded your case. Any further lnqulry must be made to that 
office. 
Administrative Appeiiis (Jffice 
WAC 04 024 52886 
Page 2 
DISCUSSIQN: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center. The matter is now before the Adminislrative Appmls Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
Thc petitioner clalms that it is a subsidiary of located 
in India. Thc petitioner plans to oporatc a commercial pr~nting operations business. l'he U.S. 
entity was incorporated in the State of California in 2003. The petitioner seeks to hire the 
beneficiary as a new employee to open its U.S. office. Accordingly, in November 2003, the U.S. 
entity petitioned C:itizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) to classify the beneficiary as a 
nonimmigrant intracompany rransferec (L- I A) pursuant to scction 101 (a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act. (the Act), 8 U.S.C. jj I IOl(a)(lS)(I,), as an executive or 
manager for three years. The petitioner endeavors to employ the beneficiary as the U.S. entity's 
president and CEO at 2.n annual salary of S50,000. 
On December 18, 2003, the direc.tor denied tht petition. The director determined that the 
petitioner had not establislied: (1) a financial investment. from the foreign entity sufficient to 
commence doing business in the United Statcs; and, (2) that the beneficiary will function in an 
executive or managerial capacity within one ymr. 
On appeal', ctrunsel disagrees with the director's decision and asserts that the evidence submitted 
is sufficient t(j establish that the L1.S. entity is in a financial position to operate a viable business 
and will be able to support a.n executive position within one vear of operation. Counsel suhmits a 
brief and an expert opinion letter in support of the appeal. 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section IOl(a)(l5)(L) of' the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1101(3)(15)(L), the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary, within 
three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admissior~ illto the United States, has been 
employed abroad in a quiilifyirig nlanagerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving 
specialized knowledge, for one continuous year by a qualifying organization, and seeks to enter 
the United States tcmpnrarily in order to continue to render his or her services to the same 
employer or a s~hsidiary or affiliate thereof, in a capacity that is managerial, exccutive, or 
involves specialized knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.K. 3 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall 
be accompanied by: 
(i) Evidence Ih~at the petitioner and the organization which employed or will 
etnploy the alicn Ere qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph 
(I )( l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) Evidence th.at the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or 
specialized lulowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the 
services to be performed. 
' Counsel filed a Motion to Kecons~der and Appeal. llowever. the dlrector decl~ned to treat the 
appcal as a Motlon to Reconsider and forwarded ~t to the A40 for remew. 
WAC 04 024 52886 
Page 3 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at lcast one cont~nuous year of full-time 
en.tployment abroad w~th a qualifying organization with thc three years 
preceding the fiIing 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 
lalowledge and that tho alien's prior education, training, and employment 
qualifies hindher to perform the intended serves in the United States; 
howevcr, the work in the United States need not be the sarnc work which 
the alien performed abroad. 
The regulation al 8 C.F.K $ 214.Z 1)(3)(v) states that if the pctltion ind~cates that the benefic~ary 1s 
comlng to thc Unrted Sates as a nzanagcr or execut~ve to opcn or to be employed in a new office in 
the Unlted States, the peht~oner shall submlt evldence that: 
(A) Sufficient physical premises to house the new office have been secured; 
(B) 'fie beneficiary has been employed for one continuous year in the three 
pear period preceding the filing of the petition in an executive or 
ltxanagerial capacity and that the proposed etnployment involved executive 
or managerial authority o\.ler the new operation; and 
(C) ?'he intended United States operation, within one year of the approval of the 
petition, will support an executive or ha;~a~e~ial position as defined in 
paragraphs (I)(l)(ii)(B) or (C) of this section, supported by information 
regarding: 
(I) ?he proposed nature of the office descnb~ng thc scope of the 
entity, its organszational structure, and ~ts financial goals; 
(2) The si~c of the United States Investment and the financial 
ab~l~ty of the foreign enhty to remunerate the bcneficlary and 
to commence doing business In the lln~ted States; and 
(3) 'Ihe organizatilonal struct~rc of the foreip entity. 
The first issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has established the size of thc United 
States investment and thc financial ability to commence doing business in the United States. 
In support of the 1-129 petition, filed on November 4, 2003, the petitioner submitted its fifteen 
page business plan which providecl the company's background, its plan to acquire an established 
printing business, its proposed products and servic,cs, its sales forecast for the first year of 
operations, growth expa.nsinn plans, a proposed organizational chart, and descriptions of three 
commercial printing businesses described as "target acquisition candidates currently undcr due 
diligence." 
WAC 04 024 52886 
Page 4 
However, on Novenher 9, 2003, the director requested additional evidence including a more 
detailed b~~siness plan, 3 feasibility,study, minutes of the foreign company's meetings discussing 
the U.S. business plans, evidence of the purchase of some assets needed to nrn the petitioner's 
business, and evidence of the tdta~ investntent or capital deposited in the petitioner's bank 
accounts, and an original lelter from the foreign entity explaining the need for the new office in 
the United States. The director noted that thc letter from the foreign entity should address the 
amount of the U.S. investment and the financial ability of the foreign company to pay the 
beneficiary and commence doing business in the U.S. The dircctor also requested evidence to 
show that the foreign ent'ity has co'mmittcd a substantial amount of capital investment in the U.S. 
company, including copies of original wire transfers fiom abroad, or canceled checks and dcposit 
receipts detailing rnonclary amo~ints for the stock purchase. Finally, the director asked the 
petitioner to providc a delaiIetl description of thc actual costs to establish the U.S. business to the 
point of being operational, and el~ider~ce thal the U.S. c,ornpany has been purchasing assets and 
obtaining required pcnnits, licenses, and insurance 
In a response dated L3eccrnber 4, 2003, the petitioner submitted, through counsel, the following: 
(1) an original letter from the foreign entity stating, in part, that the initial investment in the 
petitioner would be $100,000; (2) minutcs of' four board of directors meetings of the foreign 
entity, indicating its decision to establish the U.S. company, inchding a resolutioll "that initial 
investment in the 1J.S. sribsidiary would be approximately US$100,00OV with an additional 
$100,000 investment planned within thc first year ; (3) mother copy of the previously submitted 
business plan; (4) cvidence that the U.S. company had S5,000 in its bank account as of November 
24, 2003; (5) a Calif~mia Notice of Transaction Pursuant to Corporations Code Section 25102(f) 
indicating that the 1~al\it: of the petitioner's stock sold or proposed to be sold was $1 0,000; (6) a 
one-page document outtil-king thr; budgetfoperalting costs for the petitioner's first year of 
operations; and (7) financial docunlentafon for the foreign entity. Counsel advised that the 
foreign entity had not undertaken 3. formal feasibility study with respect to the establishment of 
the U.S. company. With respect to the investment in the United States. counsel stated, "'The 
company has idcntified thee 1J.S. printing companies . . .which the newly established company 
will expand and operate as thc acquisitions are made . . . . Please note an additional $200,000 US 
is budgeted and avail~rblc for ~rakfer to filnd the planned acquisition uo on "Offer to Buy" 
status." The petitioner also incli~ded a description of each "acquisition candidate" and a document 
entitlcd "offer and al:rccment 1.0 buy" a business which identified the beneficiary as the buyer. 
The agreement was signcd by the beneficiary on November 7, 2003, but was not sigmed by the 
sellcr. 
On December 18, 2003, the dlrector denled the petition determ~ning that the U.S company was 
not In a financ~al posrt~on to operate a vlable business 'I'he d~rector found that the Investment 
capltal of $5,000 was rnsufficient lo operate the buslncss and was not sufficient to pay for the 
stocks purchased by the fore~gn ent~ty. The director also noted that there was no documentary 
evidence such as contracts subrnltted to support tl~e petitioner's claim that it planned to acquire 
three U.S. bascd pnntlrsl: companies The dlrector cotrc1ud:d that "the petitioner has failed to 
substantlate that ~t has, v:, ~ts fore~gn affilintcd companv, made the financial ~nvcstment requ~red 
to set up a quatlfy~ng ncnr offict. opcral~on In thc Unlted States." 
WAC 04 024 52886 
Page 5 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the evidence submitted is sufficient to establish that the C!.S. entity 
is in a financial position to operate a viable business and will be able to support an executive 
position within one year of operation. Counsel claims that the "U.S. budget for the first two (2) 
years for acquisition and set up was $200,000. . . Please note that the account is currently in 
excess of approximately $100,000.00." Counscl further explains that a "corporation may establish 
price for its stock" and that "the viability of the company is based on the Business Plan and 
overall funding." Counsel also notes that the U.S. subsidiary's budget was "clearly shown in a 
number of places as $200,000." 
On review, the AAO finds that the petitioner submitted insufficient evidence of the financial 
ability of the forei~m entity to rcmuncratc the beneficiary and to commence doing business in the 
United States. Although counsel. claims and submits evidence that the U.S. entity currently has 
"$100,000" in its bank account, the petitioner. was put on noticc of required evidence and glven a 
reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the visa petition was adjudicated. Thc 
petitioner failed 1.0 suk~rnit the reyue!jted evidence and now submits it on appeal. However, the 
AAO will not consider this evide11c.e for any purpose. See Mutter of Soriurlo, 19 I&N Dec. 764 
(BIA 1988); Matter qf'Ohaigheno: 10 IRLN Dec. 533 (ULA 1988). The appeal will be adjudicated 
based on the record of proceeding before the director. 
Moreover, at the time of filing its petition and in examining the documents submitted, the U.S. 
entity had $5,000 in ~ts 1J.S. business checking account as oi'bioveniber 24, 2003. Rased on the 
petitioner's and counsel's representations, the I1.S. business rcqirircs an initial investment of 
$100,000. 'I'hcrcfore, SS.000 ;Ippears to bc insufficient to suppon the establishment: of the new 
business. In addition, nithough counscl has merit in claiming that the "par Value ofa Company's 
stock has no relation 1.0 the actv.al v;~l.ue; that a c~rporation nlay establish any price for its stock," 
the AAO will evaluatc the sale of the stock and transfer of funds as evidence of having the 
financial ability to commencc doing business in the IJniled States. In this case, the petitioner has 
jailed to establish that the foreign entity had transferred any funds to the U.S. company as of 
November 2003. The petitioner submitted evidence that it had $5,000 in its bank account and 
noted that such funds were for its initial stock offe~ing. However, there is no evidence that these 
funds originated with the foreign entity. 'I'be director specifically requested documentation as to 
the origin of the 1J.S. compa.ny9s investnlent fi.rnds, including copies of wire transfers. The 
petitioner did not. document the source of these funds. Failure to submlt requested evidence that 
precludes a n~aterial line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(14). Furthermcxe, the docurnentation si~bnlitted indicates that the petitioner valued its 
initial stock offering at $10,000, not $5,000, which raises further questions regarding the foreign 
company's investment in the United States cntity. 
Further, the petitioner's assertion that "an additional $200,000 US is budgeted and available for 
Transfer to fund the planned acqui!;itions" and limited exhibits is insufficient evidence to indicate 
that the f0rei.g company had the financial resources Lo commence doing business in the United 
States. Without actual doc1.1rnentary evidence such as a bank shternents and copies of wire 
transfers indii:ating that the U.S. entity had actually received the necessary funding at the time it 
filed the petition, it is unclear how exactly the company would commence operations. In addition, 
although the petllioner repeatedly claimed that $200,000 is available for transfer to thc 113. 
company, the petitioner dirl not submit evidence, such as the foreigl~ entity's bank statements, to 
WAC 04 023 52886 
Page 6 
estabIish theexistence of tl~cse claimed funds. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
.Matter of Soffici, 22 8&N Dec. i1 165 (Reg. Con~m. 1988) (citing Matter of. Treasure Cra$ of 
Cal@rnia, 14 1&N Dee. I90 (Reg. Comm. 19'72)). 
Without eviclencc of funding, the petitioner has not established how it would carry out its 
business strategy to acquire existing printing businesses in the United States. The petitioner 
submitted evidence of an offer to buy an existing: busi~~ess but this document identified the buyer 
as the beneficiary, not the U.S. company. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that this offer was 
accepted by the seller or that the company had funds to pay the proposed $35,000 downpayment. 
This documcnt is insufficient to establish that the petitioner is prepared to commence doing 
business in the United States. 
After carehl cons~derxtlon of the cv~dence, the AAO has determined that the petltioncr failed to 
establ~sh the investment in the U.S. company and financial ability to commence doing business. 
Accordingly, the appeal wall be dlsmlsscd. 
The second ~ssuc In this procxeding 1s whether the rv~dr:nce suhrnltted 1s sufficient to demonstrate 
that the beneficiary wlll be primar~ly employed In an executive or managerial capaclty wlthln one 
year of the approval of the petttron. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 li.S.C. 5 110l(a)(44)(A), provldcs: 
The term "manaLgerial rapaccity" means an assignlnent within an organization in which the 
employee pnrnanly- 
(i.) manages the orgsnizatlon, or a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the organlzat~on; 
(ii.) supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, profcss~onal, or 
managerla] employees, or manages an essential funct~on w~thln the organization, 
or a depzrtmcnt or subdlvls~on of the organizatton; 
(111 ) 11' another rmployee or other employees ::re d~rectly superv~sed, has the 
authority to hlrta and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actlons 
(such as prornotlon arid leave authorlzatlon), or tf no other employee is dlrectly 
superv~sed. funct~oris af a senior level within the organ~zatlonal hierarchy or wlth 
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 srlpervisory dutjts unless the en~ployees supervised are prclfessional. 
Section 101(a)(44jjB) of'thc Act. 8 1 J.S.C. 4 I l Ol (a)(44)(B), pmvldes: 
WAC 04 024 52886 
Page 7 
The term "executive capacity" means an assipmcnt within an organization in which the 
employee primarily- 
(i.) directs the management of the organization or a major component or 
function of lhe orgiinization; 
(~i.) establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or 
function; 
(i~i.) er.erclses iv~de, latitude in discretionary dcc~s~on-making; and 
(I. receivcs only general supervision or direction from higher level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
In an October 3 1, 200? lettcr suhrn~tted w1t1.l the tnitnal petltron, thc pet~tloncr stated that the 
beneficlary, as pres~dent and CEO of the U.S. ent~ty, would be ~nvolved m the followrng dut~es: 
[Hlold ultimate responsibility for establishing, implementing, managing and 
directing all operations of the US. subsidiary, including thc goals, policies and 
objectives of the corporation in order to cnsure a successful and profitable 
business operation. ['The beneficiary] will have the authority over thc marketing, 
financial, product development, and acquisition departments of [the petitioner]. 
He will have f~:lf authority to hire, fire and promote subordinate management 
personnel as well as general staffing personnel. ['l'he beneficiary] will also be 
responsible for- researching and identifying prospective new acquisitions and 
negotiating contracts for p~rchase on behalf of [the U.S. company]. 
The petitioner also submitted its bosirless plan, which indicates that the company expects to hire 
three to five employees within thc first year. 'l'he business plan also includes a proposed 
organizational chart depicting a company secretary, adrninistra~ive assistant, a sales and 
marketing department, ii produclion and operations department, and a finance and human 
resources department. '!'he petitioner indicated in its October 3 1, 2003 letter that it projccts initial 
staffing of four to six in.dividuals during the first one to two years of operations. 
On November 9. 2003, thc directmoot requested additional evidence of the beneticiary's proposed 
U.S. position including a detailed description of his proposed duties, the L!.s. entity's 
organizational chart showing the beneficiary's position, and job titles and job duties for any 
subordinate employees the henejiciary will supervise. 
In response to the director's request for evidence on this subject, the petitioner resubmitted the 
organizational chart included in the business plan. The petitioner described the beneficiary's 
subordinate employees' duties and explained how the beneficiary would monitor the support 
staffs duties and responsibililies. The petitioner also slated tl~al the beneficlary would perform 
the follow~ng job responslblllt~es: 
WAC 04 024 52886 
Page 8 
0 To supervise and manage all aspects of the U.S. subs~diary company, & 
'I'o direct all operations of the company, tnciuding the goals, pollcles and 
oblectlves In order to ensure a successful and profitable operation, (35%) 
a To hold authonty over the market~ng, financial, product development 
departn~eiits of the company, (26%) 
0 To hold full authonty to hlre, fire and promote subordinate management 
personnel as well as generate staffing personnel, and (1 0%) 
0 To be responstble for researctllng and ident~fy~ng prospechve new 
acqu~sit~cpns and negotlatlng contracts for purchase on behalf of the 
company. (20%) 
The director subsequttntly denled the petitLon because thc petitioner faded to establish that the 
benefic~ary will bc crnployed in a primar~ly executive or managerlal capaclty within one year of 
the approval of the petition. The d~rector noted that the descnphon of the job dutles merely 
paraphrased the dctin~t~ons ot'managenal and execut~ve capacity. 
On appeal, counsel disagrees with tlae director's decision, and claims that the director ignored the 
submitted business plan and anticipated. growth of the business. (:ounsel also submits an expert 
opinion letter which ad'drlresses the viability of the I1.S. company and the beneficiary's 
qualifications. When a new business is established and comnlcnces operations, the regulations 
recognize that a designated manager or executive responsible for setting up operations will be 
engaged in a variety of activi+ics not normally pcrformed by employees at the executive or 
managerial level and that often the full range of managerial responsibility cannot be performed. 
In order lo qualify for 1,-1 nonirnmigant classification during the first year of operations, the 
regulations require the petitionc~: to disclose the business plans and the size of the United States 
investment, and thereby cstablish that the proposed enterprise will support an executive or 
managerial position within o~c year of the approval of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. 
9 214,2(1)(3)(v)(C). This cvidenck should dernoslslrate a realistic expectation that the enterprise 
will succeed and rapidly cxjland its it tmovcs away from the developmental stage to full 
operations, where there viould he an actual need for a manager or executive who will primarily 
perform qualifying duties. 
In the instant matter, the business plan submi.tted by the petitioner fails to detail clear, realistic 
projections to establish that the 1l.S. entity will realize gowth within one year. ~lthbu~h the 
organizational chan dcm.onstr;ate that the: 1.J.S. entity intends to hire new employees, it has not 
provided a clear tirnelable lor hiring subordinate ernployces, or established that there would be 
sufficient staff to relieve the beneficiary from pel-forming non-qualirying duties within one year 
of approval of the pctitian. 
In addition, the AAO notes that the petittoncr has budgeted only $60,000 for satancs dunng ~ts 
first year of operations. If this figure includes the beneficrary's $50,000 salary, ~t IS clear that h~s 
subordinate staff would be minimal. Even if this figurc does not include the beneficiary's salary, 
it's not clcar how this arnoulit pay the wages of all the employees of one to three full-service 
printlng buslncsses 
WAC 04 024 52886 
Page 9 
Moreover, while the petitioner has provided detailed descriptions of its proposed personnel, it's 
proposed staff does not include any employees who would perform the actual printing services of 
the business. 'The peti.tioner has not established that its organizational structure will support a 
managerial or executive position within one year of commencing operations. 
In addition, the petitioner has provided a vague and nonspecific description of the beneficiary's 
duties that fails to demonstrate what the beneficiary does on a day-to-day basis. For example, the 
petitioner states that the beneficiary's duties include "directing all operations of the company," 
"hold authority over marketing, financial and protluct development departments," and "supervise 
and manage all aspects of tlie U.S. subsitliar). company." Reciting the beneficiary's vague, job 
responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the regulations require a 
detailed description of the bcncficiary's daily job duties. The petitioner has failed to answer a 
critical question in this case: What does the beneficiary primarily do on a daily basis? The actual 
duties themselves will reveal the tn~e naturc of the employment. k'edcn Bro.~. Co., Lld. v. Suva, 
724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.'Y.. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). In addition, many 
of the descrilled dutres gimerally parkphrase the shtutory definition of executive capacity. See 
section 10I(a)(44)(B) of tare Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 IOl(a)(44)(B). Conclusory assertions regarding the 
beneficiary's employlncnt capa.city are not sufficient. Merely repeating the language of the 
statute or reg~~lations docs not satisfy the pctitioner's burden of' proof. Ferlirz Hros. Co., Ltd. v. 
' 
Suva, 724 F. Supp, at 1108. 
Further, the petit;oner clz.imed that the "Initial size of the company is irrelevant." Tllc AAO notes 
that a company's size alone, without taking into account the rcasonabfe needs of the organization, 
may not be the determining factor in denying a visa. CIS must take into account the reasonable 
needs of the organization: in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the 
organization. However, it is appropriate for CIS to c011:;ider the size of the petitioning company 
in conjunction v~ith other relevant factors, such as a coinpany's small personnel size, the absence 
of employees who would perform the non-managerial or non-executive operations of the 
company, or a ,"shell company" that does not conduct business in a regular and continuous 
manner. See, e.g. Systronics Gorp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (1I.D.C. 2001). In addition, as 
noted above, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) requires a petitioner seeking to open a 
new office sufficient evidence regarding the size of the investment, its proposed organizational 
structure and its detailed busincss plan in order to demonstrate a realistic expectation that the 
company, at the end of its first year of operation, will have an actual need for a manager or 
executive who primarily performs qualifying duties. As natcd above, the petitioner has provided 
insufficient evidence of its tinanciaml ability to commence operations, and an unclear picture as to 
what the company's orga13irationa.l structure may be wittiin one year, and a vague description 
which fails to identi@ the Sreneficia~'!; actual proposed duties. 
Bascd upon the ev~dence presentccl, the petltloner has failed lo demonstrate the C1.S. ent~ty will be 
able to support thc bcneficlary 111 a pr~mar~ly managerla1 or executlve posltlon w~th~n one year of 
cornmcnclng operattons Accordingly, the appeal wrll bc d~smissed. 
The AAO notcs that the petjt~nner subrnltted an expert opinion letter in support of the appeal 
offered as evidence of ?he viabiliiy of the 1J S. company and of the beneficiary's managerial and 
executlve quallficatlons. \Vt-ile the 4h0 cerh~nly respects the oplnlon provided, the test~monlal 
WAC 04 024 52 886 
Page 10 
letter does not shed light on any of the documentary deficiencies regarding the foreign entity's 
Investment 111 the U S. entity, nor does it explain how the beneficiary meets the definttions of 
managerla1 or executive capactty under the Irnmigrat~on and Nat~onal~ty Act. The AAO may, m 
~ts dlscretlon, use as adv~sary opln~on statements subrriltted as expert test~mony. However, where 
an oplnion IS not In accord with other ~nfornlatlon or 1s In any way quest~onable, the AAO IS not 
requ~red to accept or may give less weight to that evldencc. Matter c,f Caron Infernatlonul, 19 
I&N Dec 791 (Comm 1988). ?key [he expert oplnlovl subm~tted does not overcome the val~d 
objections of the d~recicir or the defic~encies discussed In detall abovc 
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. 9 1361. Here, that buiden has not 
been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: 'fie appeal 1s dismissed.