dismissed L-1A Case: Courier And Import/Export

prevent dearly onmm: 
Invasion of oersonal ~dvacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securit? 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washinpron. DC 20579 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: . office: VERMONT SERVlCE CENTER Date: HAY 2 8 'm 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lSXL) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. g; 1101(a)(15)(L) 
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. 
&& 
L~oben P. iernann. Director 
0 Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director. Vermont Service 
Center. and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. 
It is noted that the beneficiary was in removal of filing and was given a 
voluntary departure order on November 26.2002 {See f the beneficiary remains in 
the United States, the director may choose local district office for 
review 
laims to be a branch of located in El 
a courier and import and export business and claims to 
have six employees. The petitioner seeks to hire the beneficiary as a new employee to open its 
U.S. office. Accordingly. on November 22, 2002 the U.S. entity petitioned Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) to classify the beneficiary as a nonimrnigrant intracompany 
transferee (L-IA) pursuant to section IDl(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 llOl(a)(lS)(L), as an executive or manager for one year. The petitioner 
endeavors to employ the beneficiary's services as the U.S. entity's manager. 
On February 28,21X)3, the director denied the petition. The director determined that the petitioner 
failed to establish that sufficient physical premises had been secured for the new office and that 
within one year of approval, the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily executive capacity. 
On appeal. the petitioner's counsel submits a motion for reconsideration' and asserts that the facts 
"will clearly show that sufficient premises have been secured for the new office." Counsel further 
claims that the beneficiary is "currently managing all essential functions within the organization 
and that he will continue to do so. and that, within one year of commencing operation. the 
executive will be supervising the work of other managerial and supervisory (but not professional) 
staff." 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section IOI(a)(15)(L) of the Act. the petitioner must meet 
certain criteria. Specifically, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States, 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. Furthermore, 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 specialired knowledge capacity. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3), an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
' The AAO notes that although the petitioner submitted a copy of its articles of incorporation. 
stock certificates. an application for an employer identification number, and stock ledger. it is 
unclear as to when the petitioner was actually incorporated. 
The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded the appeal to the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for review. 
m Page 3 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will 
employ the alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (I)(l)(ii)(G) 
of this section; 
(ii) ~vidence 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's prior year of employment abroad was 
managerial. executive, or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's 
prior education, training, , and employment qualifies himiher 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. 
(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 hider to 
perform the intended services in the United Stares; however, the work in the 
United States need not be the same work which the alien performed abroad. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. Q 214.2(1)(3)(v), if the petition indicates the beneficiary is coming to the 
United States as a manager or executive to open or to be employed in a new office in the United 
States. the petitioner shall, submit evidence that: 
(A) Sufficient physical premises to house the new office have been secured; 
(B) The beneficiary has been employed for one continuous year in the three 
year period preceding the filing of the petition in an executive or managerial 
capacity and that the proposed employment involved executive or managerial 
authority over the new operation; 
(C) The intended United States operation. within one year of the approval of 
the petition, will support an executive or managerial position as defined in 
paragraphs (I)(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 in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has secured sufficient physical premises 
to house the new ofice. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted insufficient evidence to establish that it had secured sufficient 
physical premises to house the new office. Consequently, on November 29, 2002, the director 
requested that the petitioner submit a copy of the lease agreement for the U .S. entity and photographs 
of the interior and exterior of the premises that had &en secured to house the new ofice. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a copy of a lease agreement and copies of 
interior and exterior of the premises. The lease was for the premises located at 
'ndicating that it was entered into for the 
was made between the- 
Landscape Services. The lease 
y other purposes that those of a 
one family dwelling: that said Lessee will not assign or sublet without the written consent of the 
Lessor." The lease does not indicate the square footage of the space to be rented. The petitioner 
also submitted a bank statement listing a different address than what appeared on the lease 
agreement. 
On February 28, 2003, the director denied the petition. The director determined that the petitioner 
failed to establish that sufficient physical premises had been secured for the new office. 
On appeal, the petitioner's counsel states that the facts "will clearly show that sufficient premises 
have been secured for the new office" Counsel submits a ratified lease agreement and a bank 
statement for February 2003 which shows the same address as the lease agreement. The lease 
indicated that the agreement was made and entered into for a term of one year beginning on 
December 15, 2002. The agreement was signed by the lessor and the petitioner on March 13. 
2003. The lease does not indicate the square footage of the space to be rented. Counsel states that 
the lease agreement was ongoing but had not previously been "reduced to a written agreement." 
Counsel further assens that the beneficiary received some bank statements at his residential 
address. and contends that neither the discrepancy on the bank statements nor the lack of a written 
lease were valid reasons for concluding that the petitioner did not have sufficient physical 
premises. 
On review, the petitioner failed to establish that it has secured sufficient physical premises to 
house the new office as required by the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). In response to 
the request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted a lease agreement which commenced 
on December 1, 1999 for a term of one year that restricted the lessee from operating a business by 
stating that the "Lessee will not use said premises for any other purposes that those of a one family 
dwelling: that said Lessee will not assign or sublet without the written consent of the Lessor." The 
petitioner was not a party, to this agreement and there was no indication that there was an authorized 
assignment or sublet of the premises to the petitioner or that the premises could be used for operating 
a business. Therefore, at the time of filing on November 22, 2002 and in the response to the 
director's request for additional evidence. the petitioner had not established that it secured a physical 
premise to house the new office. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the tlme 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 kc. 248 (Reg. Comrn. 1978). 
Moreover. the petitioner submits a new lease on appeal. The new lease indicated that it was for'a 
term of one year commencing on December 15, 2002, although the agreement was executed on 
March 13, 2003. However. a visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future 
eligibility or after the petitioner 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 
(Corn 1971). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a 
deficient petition conform to CIS requirements. See Matter of Izumrni, 22 I&N Dec. 169. 176 
(Assoc. Comrn. 1998). In addition, the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and 
given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the visa petition was 
adjudicated. The petitioner failed to submit the requested evidence and now submits it on appeal. 
However, the AAO will not consider this evidence for any purpose. See Matrer of Soriano. 19 
I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Marter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). The appeal will 
be adjudicated based on the record of proceeding before the director. 
Moreover. the director requested that the petitioner submit photographs of the interior and 
exterior of the new office. The copies of the pictures are unclear and appear to depict a generic 
scene of a single-family house with no identifying address. It is also dificult to ascertain whether 
there is a sufficient amount of space to operate a courier and import and ,export business. The 
petitioner has not described its anticipated space requirements for its courier and import and 
export business and the leases in question do not specify the amount or type of space secured. 
Based on the insufficiency of the information furnished, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner 
has secured sufficient space to house the new office. For this reason, the petition may not be 
approved. 
The second issue in this proceeding is whether the beneficiary's proposed U.S. employment will 
involve primarily executive or managerial authority over the new operation. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 lOl(a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily- 
I. manages the organization. or a department. subdivision, function, or 
component of the organization; 
. . 
I. 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 ernpioyee 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 vinue 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), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means 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; 
. . I. establishes,the goals and policies of the organization, component, or 
function; 
... 
' 111. exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
iv. receives only general supervision or direction from higher level 
. executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
In a November 20, 2002 letter, counsel for the petitioner described the beneficiary's proposed 
U.S. duties as: 
[The Beneficiary] will be directing the start-up of the U.S. enterprise. He will 
procure the contracts, he will hire the staff to establish US operations, he will 
, direct the management of the US enterprise and establish its goals and policies 
without supervision thereof. The [bleneficiary is qualified for the position by 
vinue of his previous management experience. and unique knowledge of the 
Salvadorian community. 
On November 29; 2002. the director requested that the petitioner submit a business plan 
describing the employees who will be working for the U.S. company and a detailed description of 
their duties and educational credentials. 
In response. the petitioner submitted a three-page business plan describing its plan of activities 
and a description of its proposed employees and their duties. The petitioner described the staffing 
of the U.S. entity to include the beneficiary as the general manager, his assistant, an office 
manager and receptionist, and up to six 5ouriers. The beneficiary's duties were described as the 
following: 
Oversee company operations. formulate and implement business plan. Meet with 
accountant, lawyer and bank representatives. Oversee customer relations. take 
Page 7 
orders. purchase airline tickets and supervise and pay staff. As the company 
grows. this position wiH evolve into an exclusively managerial one - the General 
Manager will delegate most of the day to day operational duties to the office 
manager(s) and other office staff and will focus on marketing and expanding the 
company and overseeing the operations and staff. 
On February 28,2003, the director denied the petition. The director determined that the petitioner 
failed to establish that within one year of approval, the new office will support an executive or 
managerial position. The director found that the beneficiary will not supervise the work of 
managerial, professional, or supervisory employees, and that he will be primarily performing the 
non-managerial, operational tasks of the business. 
On appeal, the petitioner's counsel asserts that the beneficiary is "currently managing all essential 
functions within the organization and that he will continue to do so, and that, within one year of 
commencing operation, the executive will be supervising the work of other managerial and 
supervisory (but not professional) staff." Counsel reiterates the beneficiary's job description and 
assens that he will primarily be engaged in expansion activities by the end of the first year of 
operations. 
In examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary. the AAO will look first to 
the petitioner's description of job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(ii). On review. the 
beneficiary's job description lacks specificity and is vague. The petitioner described the 
beneficiary's proposed duties as: "procure the contracts." "hire the staff to establish US 
operations," "direct the management," and "establish its goals and policies without supervision." 
However, the beneficiary's described duties do not clearly indicate what specific duties the 
beneficiary will primarily perform. The petitioner also indicated that the beneficiary will "focus 
on marketing and expanding the company " but does not identify any employees who would 
relieve the beneficiary from performing routine marketing tasks, or identify any specific 
managerial tasks related to business expansion. Specifics are clearly an important ind~cation 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. Fetlin Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Sova, 724 F. Supp. 1 103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd. 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
When a new business is established and commences operations, the regulations recognize thal a 
designated manager or executive responsible for setting up operations will'be engaged in a variety 
of activities not normally performed by employees at the executive or managerial level and that 
often the full range of managerial responsibility cannot be performed. In order to qualify for L- I 
nonimrnigrant classification during the first year of operations, the regulations require the 
petitioner to disclose the business plans and the size of the United States investment, and thereby 
establish that the proposed enterprise will support an executive or managerial position within one 
year of the approval of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. 9 214,2(1)(3)(v)(C). This evidence should 
demonstrate a realistic expectation that the enterpnse will succeed and rapidly expand as it moves 
away from the developmental stage to full operations, where there would he an actual need for a 
manager or executive who will primarily perform qualifying duties. 
The brief business plan submitted by the petitioner also lacks specificity. In examining the 
business plan, the precedent decision, Matter of Ho, 22 I&N Dec. 206, 213 (Imrn. 1998), lists 
possible criteria for establishing an acceptable business plan. ';The plan should set forth the 
business's organizational structure and its personnel's experience. It should expla~n the business's 
staffing requirements and contain a timetable for hiring, as well as job descriptions for all 
positions." The decision concluded, "Most importantly. the business plan must be credible." Id. at 
213. Although Matter of Ho. id., addresses the specific requirements for the immigrant investor 
visa classification, the discussion of the business plan requirements is instructive for the L-1A 
new office requirements. In this matter, the petitioner has failed to clearly establish the need for a 
managerial or executive position by the end of its first year of operations. For example, the 
petitioner stated that the "company's primary purpose is to provide personalized and secure 
delivery service to our community" and "the company personally delivers the packages." 
However, it is unclear how the company will achieve these goals. In addition, the petitioner's 
business plan indicates that the company does not intend to hire delivery couriers or commence 
import and export activities until July 203, eight months after the petition was filed, which 
undermines the petitioner's assertions that the business can reasonably be expected to move 
beyond the developmental stage by the end of its first year of operations. Thus, given the business 
plan's generalities and the petitioner's projected timetable for expansion of its operations. it 
cannot demonstrate whether the new office will support a manager or executive within one year 
of filing this petition. 
Counsel claims that the director focused on the number of subordinate staff to be supervised by 
the beneficiary but failed to consider that the beneficiary is clearly the functional manager of the 
entire company. The term "function manager" applies generally when a beneficiary does not 
supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead will be primarily responsible for 
managing an "essential function" within the organization. See section 1011a)(44)(A)(ii) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 I lOl(a)(44)(A)(ii). Here, the petitioner claims that the beneficiary will manage 
"all essential functions within the organization." However, the petitioner must identify the 
function with specificity, arficulate the essential nature of the function. and establish the 
proportion of the beneficiary's daily duties that will be attributed to managing the essential 
function. In addition, the petitioner must provide a comprehensive and detailed description of the 
beneficiary's daily duties demonstrating that the beneficiary will manage the function rather than 
primarily perform the duties relating to the function. An employee who primarily performs the 
tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity. Maner of Chlirck Scientologv Inrernnrior~nl, 19 I&N Dec. 593. 
604 (Cornm. 1988). In this matter. the petitioner has not provided evidence that the beneficiary 
will manage an essential function. 
The AAO notes that although counsel cites previous AAO decisions to support the petitioner's 
claim that the beneficiary manages the organization, these decisions are unpublished and are not 
binding. While 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(c) provides that CIS precedent decisions are binding on all CIS 
employees in the administration of the act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
Counsel also did not provide the AAO with a copy of these decisions. 
Finally. the AAO also notes that at the time of filing the petition on November 22, 2002, the 
petitioner indicated on the Form 1-129 that the beneficiary was corning to the U.S. to serve in an 
executive or managerial capacity. However. on appeal, counsel claims, "ln the alternative. the 
beneficiary's specialized knowledge of the company's products and procedures based on'his ten 
years of experience managing the Salvadorian branch clearly qualify him for an visa as an 
inter-company transferee with specialized knowledge." Therefore. counsel offers an alternative 
position if the beneficiary fails to qualify for an L-1A visa. Counsel's request to amend the 
petition on appeal is not properly before the AAO. The regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(1)(7)(i)(C) 
state: 
The petitioner shall file an amended petition, with fee, at the service center where the 
original petition was filed to reflect' changes in approved relationships, additional. 
qualifying organizations under a blanket petition, change in capacity of employment (i.e. 
from a specialized knowledge position to a managerial position). or any information 
which would affect the beneficiary's eligibility under section 'IOl(a)(IS)(L) of the Act. 
The request to reconsider the original petition on appeal as a petition for L-IB specialized 
knowledge classification is. therefore. rejected. 
Based on the above discussion. the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be 
employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity within one year as required by 8 C.F.R. 
P (1)(3)(v)(B) & (C) or that the new office wfl support such a position. Beyond the decision of 
the director, the AAO finds that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has been 
employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity abroad as defined at section 
IOl(a)(44) of the Act. As previously slated, to establish L-l eligibility under section 
LOL(a)(15)(L) of the Act, the petitioner must submit evidence that within three years preceding 
the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, the foreign organization 
employed the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized 
knowledge capacity, for one continuous year. Id. The petitioner provided a limited and vague 
description of the beneficiary's foreign duties. For example, on the Form 1-129. the petitioner 
stated that the beneficiary "[olverses accounts, daily operations, and public relations," 
"[s]upervise[s], hire[sj and train[sl staff," and "design[s] and implement[s] marketing and sales 
strategies." These duties are vague and do not establish that the beneficiary has been employed 
abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. It is unclear how the beneficiary served 
in either of those capacities. 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 (Comrn. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craj of Californra. 14 I&N Dec. 
190 (Reg. Cornm. 1972)). In sum, the AAO is not persuaded that the beneficiary has been 
employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity abroad. For this additional reason. the 
petition may not be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, another issue to be addressed is whether there is a qualifying 
relationship between the petitioner and foreign entity pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(G). On 
the Form 1-129. the petitioner indicated that it was a branch of the foreign entity. However. it 
submitted evidence that it was incorporated. In defining the nonimmigrant classification, the 
regulations specifically provide for the temporary admission of an intracornpany transferee "to 
the United States to be employed by a parent, bratzclr, affiliate, or subsidiary of [the foreign firm. 
corporat~on. or other legal entity]." 8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(I)(l)(i) (emphasis added). The regulations 
r 
define the term "branch" as "an operating division or office of the same organization housed in a 
different location." 8 C.F.R: 8 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(.l). CIS has recognized that the branch office of a 
foreign corporation may file a nonimrnigrant petition for an intracompany transferee. See Matter 
of Kloetti, 18 I&N Dec. 295 (Reg. Comm. 1981); Matter of Leblanc. 13 I&N Dec. 816 (Reg. 
Comrn. 1971); Matter of Schick, 13 I&N Dec. 647 (Reg. Comrn. 1970); see also Mutter of 
Penner, 18 I&N Dec. 49-54 (Comm. I982)(stating that a Canadian corporation may not petition 
for L-IB employees who are directly employed by the Canadian office rather than a United States 
office). 
If the petitioner submits evidence to show that it is incorporated in the United States, then that 
entity will not qualify as "an . . . office of the same organization housed in a different location." 
since lhat corporation is a distinct legal entit'y separate and apart from the foreign organization. 
See Matter of M. 8 I&N Dec. 24, 50 (BIA 1958, AG 1958); Mntter of Aphrodite Itlvestments 
Limited. 17 I&N Dec. 530 (Comm. 1980); and Matter of Tessel, 17 I&N Dec. 631 (Act. Assoc. 
Comm. 1980). If the claimed branch is incorporated in the United States, CIS must examine the 
ownership and control of that corporation to determine whether it qualifies as a subsidiary or 
affiliate of the overseas employer. The petitioner claims that both entities are owned in equal 
proportions by the same two individuals. which if supported by credible evidence, would 
establishan affiliate relationship. See 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)( l)(ii)(L)(2). 
The regulation and case law confirm that ownership and control are the factors that must be 
examined in detennining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and 
foreign entities for purposes of this visa classification. Marter of Clzurch Scientology 
In1ernntiona1, 19 l&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1988); see ulso Matrer of Siemens Medical Systems. Inc., 
19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm. 1982). In 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. Mntter 
of Church Scientoiog-y Inrernational. 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 astockholder 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 Medicni Systems, Inc., supm. In this matter, the stock 
certificates and stock ledger indicate that the beneficiary and 
.S. company. The petitioner also clatme ah t at t e ne ~ciary each and 
the foreign entity in equal shares. In support of this assertion. the 
entity's company constitution and copies of two stock 
certificates. The Constitution, dated November 28, 1992, y issued 1,000 
of its 2.000 shares to the beneficiary and 1,000 shares to However. the 
share certificates indicate that the beneficiary received 
Dec. 28, 1992 and received stock certificate number five for 50 shares 
on the same date. stock certificates numbered two, three, and four 
or the foreign entity's stock ledger, nor did it ex lain the inconsistency regarding the number of 
shares issued to the beneficiary an ithout full disclosure of all reievant 
documents, CIS is unable to determine P wnership and control. For this additional 
reason, the petition may not be approved. 
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 Stares, 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. I002 n. 9 
(2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de ttovo basis). 
I 
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. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.