dismissed L-1A Case: Commercial Property Consulting

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W ., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 101 (a)(15)(L) 
IN 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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 07 019 50335 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimrnigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to continue the previously approved employment 
of its chief executive officer as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 
10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. fj 1 101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is 
a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Georgia and is allegedly a commercial property 
consulting business. The beneficiary was granted a one-year period of stay to open a new office in the United 
States, and the petitioner now seeks to continue this previously approved employment. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a primarily executive capacity. 
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 to the petitioner asserts that the director 
erred and that the beneficiary's duties are primarily those of an executive. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 10 1 (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. t~ 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 
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. 
EAC 07 019 50335 
Page 3 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(14)(ii) also provides that a visa petition, which involved the opening of a 
new office, may be extended by filing a new Form 1-129, accompanied by the following: 
(A) 
 Evidence that the United States and foreign entities are still qualifying 
organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section; 
(B) 
 Evidence that the United States entity has been doing business as defined in 
paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(H) of this section for the previous year; 
(C) 
 A statement of the duties performed by the beneficiary for the previous year 
and the duties the beneficiary will perform under the extended petition; 
(D) 
 A statement describing the staffing of the new operation, including the 
number of employees and types of positions held accompanied by evidence 
of wages paid to employees when the beneficiary will be employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity; and 
(E) 
 Evidence of the financial status of the United States operation. 
The primary issue in the present matter is whether the beneficiary will be employed by the United States 
entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 10 1 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 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 
(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; 1 101(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" as an 
EAC 07 019 50335 
Page 4 
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 fiom higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
The petitioner does not clarify in the initial petition whether the beneficiary will primarily perform managerial 
duties under section 10 1 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, or primarily executive duties under section 10 1 (a)(44)(B) of 
the Act, although counsel on appeal appears to limit the beneficiary to the executive classification. Given the 
lack of clarity, the AAO will assume that the petitioner is claiming that the beneficiary will be employed as 
either an executive or a manager and will consider both classifications. See 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 petitioner describes the beneficiary's proposed duties in a document appended to the Form 1-129 as 
follows: 
a 
 Directing and developing business enterprises. 
a Seek and consult with potential investors from Korea regarding investment 
opportunities in mainland USA. 
a 
 Research and analyze multiple business opportunities. 
a 
 Prepare and advise all visual presentation. 
a 
 Final interviews for all potential new employees[.] 
a 
 Conduct annual performance review for all employees[.] 
The petitioner also submitted an organizational chart placing the beneficiary at the top of the organization 
supervising one subordinate employee, the "president." All other subordinate positions shown on the chart 
are apparently vacant. Finally, while the petitioner submitted quarterly tax returns indicating that it has been 
employing the "president" since March 2006, the petitioner also submitted a balance sheet for the first nine 
months of 2006 indicating that the United States operation generated no revenue during that timeframe. 
On November 16, 2006, the director requested additional evidence. The director requested, inter alia, a 
breakdown of the number of hours devoted to each of the beneficiary's job duties on a weekly basis and a 
description of all subordinate employees in the United States. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a document titled "Businesses and Daily Schedule of [the beneficiary]." 
It is unclear whether this schedule applies to the beneficiary's position abroad or his proposed duties in the 
United States. The schedule indicates how many hours per month the beneficiary devotes to each business 
enterprise operated by the petitioning organization, e.g., 20 hours per month are devoted to the real estate 
EAC 07 019 50335 
Page 5 
consulting and brokerage business. The schedule also outlines the beneficiary's daily routine. According to 
the schedule, the beneficiary devotes two hours every afternoon to "[ilssues concerning the Subsidiary 
Company in the U.S." The schedule, however, does not describe the beneficiary's duties with any specificity. 
Also, the petitioner does not describe the duties of the petitioner's only employee, the "president," even 
though this description was specifically requested by the director in the Request for Evidence. 
On February 21, 2007, the director denied the petition. The director concluded that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary will be employed primarily in an executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary's duties are primarily those of an executive. Counsel also, for 
the first time, submits a copy of the president's resume. 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are not persuasive. 
Title 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows the "new office" operation one year within the date of approval of 
the petition to support an executive or managerial position. There is no provision in Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) regulations that allows for an extension of this one-year period. If the business 
does not have sufficient staffing after one year to relieve the beneficiary from primarily performing 
operational and administrative tasks, the petitioner is ineligible by regulation for an extension. Future hiring 
and business expansion plans may not be considered. A visa petition may not be approved based on 
speculation of future eligibility or after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. 
See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 
45, 49 (Comm. 1971). In the instant matter, the United States operation has not reached the point that it can 
employ the beneficiary in a predominantly managerial or executive position. 
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. A petitioner cannot claim that some of the duties of the 
position entail executive responsibilities, while other duties are managerial. As explained above, a petitioner 
may not claim that a beneficiary will be employed as a hybrid "executive/manager" and rely on partial 
sections of the two statutory definitions. 
In this matter, the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's job duties fails to establish that the beneficiary 
will act in a "managerial" or "executive" capacity. In support of the petition, the petitioner has submitted a 
vague and non-specific job description which fails to sufficiently describe what the beneficiary will do on a 
day-to-day basis. For example, the petitioner states that the beneficiary will direct and develop the business 
enterprise, research business opportunities, consult with potential investors, prepare visual presentations, 
interview potential employees, and conduct performance reviews of existing employees. However, while the 
petitioner identified the Wateria distnbutorship opportunity, the petitioner failed to specifically describe 
future "business opportunities" or what, exactly, the beneficiary will do in researching them. The petitioner 
also failed to identify the potential investors to be consulted or to describe the "visual presentations" to be 
prepared. Finally, the petitioner failed to explain what the beneficiary will do in directing and developing the 
business. Broad, managerial-sounding duties are not probative of the beneficiary performing qualifying 
EAC 07 019 50335 
Page 6 
duties. The fact that the petitioner has given the beneficiary a managerial or executive title and has prepared a 
vague job description which includes inflated job duties does not establish that the beneficiary will actually 
perform managerial or executive duties. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a 
beneficiary's duties will be primarily executive or managerial in nature; otherwise meeting the definitions 
would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). 
Likewise, the record is not persuasive in establishing that the beneficiary will be relieved of the need to 
perform the non-qualifying tasks inherent to his duties or to the management of the business in general. As 
indicated above, the record indicates that the petitioner currently employs one person, the "president." Even 
though the director specifically requested that the petitioner describe the president's duties, the record is 
devoid of evidence addressing her employment with the petitioner. Failure to submit requested evidence that 
precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(14). As the 
petitioner has not described the president's duties, the petitioner has failed to establish that this subordinate 
employee will relieve the beneficiary of the need to perform non-qualifying tasks and, thus, it has not been 
established that the beneficiary will be "primarily" employed as a manager or an executive. An employee 
who "primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to 
be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the 
Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); see also Matter 
of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Cornrn. 1988).' 
Furthermore, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will supervise and control the work of 
other supervisory, managerial, or professional employees, or will manage an essential function of the 
organization. As explained above, it appears that the beneficiary will supervise a single employee, the 
"president." However, this worker has not been described as having supervisory or managerial 
responsibilities. In view of the above, the beneficiary would appear to be primarily a first-line supervisor of a 
non-professional worker, the provider of actual services, or a combination of both. A managerial or executive 
employee must have authority over day-to-day operations beyond the level normally vested in a first-line 
supervisor. 101(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act; see also Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 
at 604. Moreover, as the petitioner failed to establish the skills or education required to perform the duties of 
the "president," the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will manage a professional employee.2 
1 
As noted above, counsel submitted a copy of the president's resume for the first time on appeal. This resume 
vaguely outlines the president's job duties with the petitioner. However, since the director specifically 
requested this description, and the petitioner chose not to produce it in response to the Request for Evidence, 
the AAO will not consider it for the first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 
1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). The appeal will be adjudicated based on the 
record of proceeding before the director. Regardless, the vague job description, even if considered, does not 
establish that the president will relieve the beneficiary of the need to primarily perform non-qualifying tasks. 
2 
In evaluating whether the beneficiary will manage professional employees, the AAO must evaluate whether 
the subordinate positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. 
EAC 07 019 50335 
Page 7 
Therefore, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be employed primarily in a managerial 
capacitye3 
Similarly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will act in an "executive" capacity. The 
statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position within a complex 
organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the organization, and that person's 
authority to direct the organization. Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. Under the statute, a beneficiary must 
have the ability to "direct the management" and "establish the goals and policies" of that organization. 
Inherent to the definition, the organization must have a subordinate level of employees for the beneficiary to 
direct, and the beneficiary must primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than 
the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. An individual will not be deemed an executive under the statute 
simply because they have an executive title or because they "direct" the enterprise as the owner or sole 
managerial employee. The beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision making" 
and receive only "general supervision or direction fi-om higher level executives, the board of directors, or 
stockholders of the organization." Id. For the same reasons indicated above, the petitioner has failed to 
Section 10 1 (a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 10 1 (a)(32), states that " [t] he term profession shall include but not 
be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary 
schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." The term "profession" contemplates knowledge or learning, not 
merely skill, of an advanced type in a given field gained by a prolonged course of specialized instruction and 
study of at least baccalaureate level, which is a realistic prerequisite to entry into the particular field of 
endeavor. Matter of Sea, 19 I&N Dec. 8 17 (Comm. 1988); Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (R.C. 1968); 
Matter of Shin, 1 1 I&N Dec. 686 (D.D. 1966). 
3 
While the petitioner has not argued that the beneficiary will manage an essential function of the organization, 
the record nevertheless would not support this position even if taken. The term "function manager" applies 
generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead is 
primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" within the organization. See section 
101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The term "essential function" is not defined by statute or regulation. If a 
petitioner claims that the beneficiary is managing an essential function, the petitioner must furnish a written 
job offer that clearly describes the duties to be performed in managing the essential function, i.e., identify the 
function with specificity, articulate the essential nature of the function, and establish the proportion of the 
beneficiary's daily duties attributed to managing the essential function. See 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(1)(3)(ii). In 
addition, the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary 
manages the function rather than performs the duties related to the function. In this matter, the petitioner has 
not provided evidence that the beneficiary will manage an essential function. The petitioner's vague job 
description fails to document that the beneficiary's duties will be primarily managerial. Also, as explained 
above, it is more likely than not that the beneficiary will primarily be a first-line supervisor of a non- 
professional employee andlor will perform non-qualifying operational or administrative tasks. Absent a clear 
and credible breakdown of the time spent by the beneficiary performing his duties, the AAO cannot determine 
what proportion of his duties will be managerial, nor can it deduce whether the beneficiary will primarily 
perform the duties of a function manager. See IKEA US, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 
(D.D.C. 1999). 
EAC 07 019 50335 
Page 8 
establish that the beneficiary will act primarily in an executive capacity. The job description provided for the 
beneficiary is so vague that the AAO cannot deduce what the beneficiary will do on a day-to-day basis. 
Moreover, as explained above, it appears that the beneficiary will be primarily employed as a first-line 
supervisor and will perform the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide a service. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be employed primarily in an executive capacity. 
In reviewing the relevance of the number of employees a petitioner has, federal courts have generally agreed 
that CIS "may properly consider an organization's small size as one factor in assessing whether its operations 
are substantial enough to support a manager." Family, Inc. v. US. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 469 
F.3d 13 13, 13 16 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing with approval Republic of Transkei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 178 (D.C. 
Cir. 1991); Fedin Bros. Co. v. Suva, 905 F.2d 41, 42 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam); Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. 
INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25, 29 (D.D.C. 2003). Furthermore, it is appropriate for CIS to consider the size of the 
petitioning company in conjunction with other relevant factors, such as a company'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 
Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7,15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will primarily perform managerial or 
executive duties, and the petition may not be approved for that reason. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad 
for at least one continuous year in a position that was managerial or executive in nature. 8 C.F.R. $$ 
214.2(1)(3)(iii) and (iv). 
The petitioner described the duties of the beneficiary abroad in a document appended to the Form 1-129 as 
follows: 
Real Estate brokerage and consulting 
Sale and manage commercial properties 
Develop and sell Condominiums and shopping center 
Train new employees 
Give a public lecture to employees of other companies 
Research and analyze multiple business opportunities 
Prepare and advise all visual presentation 
Final interviews for all potential new employees 
Conduct annual performance review for all employees[.] 
The petitioner also submitted two documents which appear to be organizational charts for the foreign 
employer(s). However, neither of these charts describes the duties of the individuals beneath the beneficiary. 
Upon review, the record is not persuasive in establishing that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a 
managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner failed to specifically describe the beneficiary's job duties 
abroad as being primarily managerial or executive in nature. Specifics are clearly an important indication of 
whether a beneficiary's duties were primarily executive or managerial in nature; otherwise meeting the 
EAC 07 019 50335 
Page 9 
definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. 
Supp. 1103, aff'd, 905 F.2d 41. To the contrary, duties such as "sale and manage commercial properties" and 
"prepare and advise all visual presentations" are non-qualifying sales or marketing tasks. Furthermore, the 
petitioner failed to describe the duties of the beneficiary's purported subordinates abroad, if any. Absent 
detailed descriptions of the duties of the purported subordinates, it is impossible for CIS to discern whether 
the beneficiary was "primarily" engaged in performing managerial or executive duties abroad. See sections 
101 (a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act; see also Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 604. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary was employed in a primarily managerial or 
executive capacity for one continuous year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition, and the 
petition may not be approved for this reason. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has failed to establish that it and the foreign employer are 
qualifying organizations. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(i) states that a petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be accompanied by 
"[elvidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the alien are qualifying 
organizations." 
 See also 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(A). 
 Title 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(G) defines a 
"qualifying organization" as a firm, corporation, or other legal entity which "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" and "is or will be doing business." "Doing business" is defined as "the regular, 
systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services by a qualifying organization and does not include 
the mere presence of an agent or office of the qualifying organization in the United States and abroad." 8 C.F.R. 
5 2 14.2(1)(l)(ii)(H). 
In this matter, the record is not persuasive in establishing that the petitioner is, or has been, doing business as 
defined by the regulations. The petitioner's income statement for the first nine months of 2006 indicates that the 
petitioner generated no revenue, and had no income, during that timeframe. While it appears that the petitioner 
employed one person in 2006 and that this person may have devoted her time to investigating business 
opportunities for the petitioner, these activities do not constitute the regular, systematic, and continuous provision 
of goods and/or services. The mere presence of an agent or office does not constitute the conduct of business 
under the regulations. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that it and the foreign entity are qualifying organizations. For 
this additional reason, the petition may not be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has also failed to establish that the petitioner has been 
"doing business" for the previous year as required by 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B). As indicated above, it 
does not appear that the petitioner generated any revenue in 2006 or was otherwise engaged in the regular, 
systematic, and continuous provision of goods andlor services. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the petitioner has been "doing business" for the 
previous year, and the petition may not be approved for this additional reason. 
EAC 07 019 50335 
Page 10 
The previous approval of an L-1A petition does not preclude CIS from denying an extension based on a 
reassessment of petitioner's qualifications. Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 
1240482 (5th Cir. 2004). Despite any number of previously approved petitions, CIS does not have any 
authority to confer an immigration benefit when the petitioner fails to meet its burden of proof in a subsequent 
petition. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. 
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. 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., 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.