dismissed L-1A Case: Dairy Production

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Ofice, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: WAC 08 068 5 13 10 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAY I 
 2009 
IN RE: 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
, John F. Grissom 
cting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
' WAC0806851310 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal.' 
The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States 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. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The U.S. petitioner, a corporation organized in the State of California that is 
engaged in dairy product production, seeks to extend the employment of the beneficiary as its executive 
director. The petitioner claims that it is the subsidiary of Kalleh Dairy Company located in Tehran, Iran. 
The director denied the petition, determining that the petitioner had failed to establish that the petitioner and 
the organization which employed the beneficiary in Iran had a qualifying relationship. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner submits a brief and 
additional evidence which seeks to clarify the petitioner's relationship with the foreign entity. 
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 qualifylng 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. 4 214.2(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 qualifylng organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) 
 Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 
(iii) 
 Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full time employment abroad 
with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of the petition. 
(iv) 
 Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
1 
 It is noted that, according to California State corporate records, the petitioner's corporate status in California 
has been suspended. See httv:Nke~ler.ss.ca.~ov/corpdata/ShowA11List?OuervComNumber=C2852543 (last 
accessed May 13, 2009). Therefore, the petitioner can no longer be considered a legal entity authorized to 
conduct business in the United States. In order to meet the definition of "qualifymg organization," there must 
be a United States employer. See 8 C.F.R. 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(G)(2). 
' WAC 08 068 51310 
Page 3 
education, training, and employment qualifies himlher 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. 9 214.2(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 management or executive 
capacity; and 
(e) 
 Evidence of the financial status of the United States operation. 
The first issue in the present matter is whether the petitioner and the foreign organization are qualified 
organizations as defined by 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(G). The regulation defines the term "qualifying 
organization" as a United States or foreign firm, corporation, or other legal entity which: 
(I) Meets exactly one of the qualifjmg relationships specified in the definitions of a parent, branch, 
affiliate or subsidiary specified in paragraph (l)(l)(ii) of this section; 
(2) Is or will be doing business (engaging in international trade is not required) as an employer in the 
United States and in at least one other country directly or through a parent, branch, affiliate, or 
subsidiary for the duration of the alien's stay in the United States as an intracompany transferee; and 
(3) Otherwise meets the requirements of section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Act. 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(1)(l)(ii) provides: 
(I) "Parent" means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity which has subsidiaries. 
(J) "Branch" means an operating division or office of the same organization housed in a different 
location. 
' WAC 08 068 51310 
Page 4 
(IS) "Subsidiary" means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent owns, directly or 
indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, half of 
the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, 50 percent of a 50-50 joint venture 
and has equal control and veto power over the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, less than half of 
the entity, but in fact controls the entity. 
(L) "mliate7' means 
(I) One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same parent or 
individual, or 
(2) One of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of individuals, each 
individual owning and controlling approximately the same share or proportion of each entity, or 
(3) In the case of a partnership that is organized in the United States to provide accounting 
services along with managerial andlor consulting services and that markets its accounting 
savices under an intermtionally recognized name under an agreement with a worldwide 
coordinating organization that is owned and controlled by the member accounting firms, a 
partnership (or similar organization) that is organized outside the United States to provide 
accounting services shall be considered to be an affiliate of the United States partnership if it 
markets its accounting services under the same internationally recognized name under the 
agreement with the worldwide coordinating organization of which the United States partnership 
is also a member. 
In this case, the petitioner claims that the U.S. entity is the subsidiary of the Iranian entity. Specifically, on 
Form 1-129, the petitioner claims that the Iranian entity is the sole owner of the petitioner. 
The petitioner failed to submit documentary evidence in support of the claimed relationship with the Iranian 
parent company. Consequently, the director issued a request for evidence on January 14, 2008. In the 
request, the director specifically required the petitioner to submit evidence to definitively establish that the 
foreign entity had paid for its alleged ownership interests in the U.S. petitioner. In response to the director's 
request, the petitioner submitted several documents, including a stock certificate, a copy of the petitioner's 
IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return for 2007, bank statements evidencing wire transfer 
deposits, and meeting minutes dated October 23,2006. 
Upon review of the evidence submitted, the director concluded that ownership of the petitioner could not be 
definitively determined from the evidence submitted. Specifically, the director noted that the wire transfers 
did not appear to originate with the claimed foreign parents, and the petitioner's Schedule K on IRS Form 
1120 indicated that it was not owned, in whole or in part, by a foreign entity. The director subsequently 
concluded that the petitioner's claimed subsidiary relationship with the foreign entity was invalid, and as a 
result, the petition was denied on April 14,2008. 
' WAC0806851310 
Page 5 
The petitioner appealed the decision, asserting that an inadvertent oversight resulted in the erroneous 
declaration on the petitioner's Schedule K accompanying the IRS Form 1120. The petitioner submits a copy 
of an amended tax return now claiming that the Iranian entity is the 100% owner of the petitioner. In 
addition, the petitioner addresses the director's objection to the wire transfers, and claims that all transfers 
were made by the parent company through another one of its subsidiaries, namely, "Solico Import UND" 
based in Frankfurt, Germany. 
Upon review of the record of proceeding, the petitioner has not established that it has the required qualifying 
relationship with the claimed Iranian parent company. 
The regulation and case law confirm that ownership and control are the factors that must be examined in 
determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and foreign entities for purposes 
of this visa classification. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1988); see also 
Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 1 9 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of Hughes, 1 8 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. Matter 
of Church Scientology, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
In this case, the petitioner has provided documentary evidence outlining the shareholder interests in the U.S. 
entity, and has supplemented this evidence with an amended tax return and copies of bank statements 
evidencing receipt by the U.S entity of numerous incoming wire transfers of varying amount in June 2006. 
The AAO will first examine the stock certificate. As general evidence of a petitioner's claimed qualifying 
relationship, stock certificates alone are not sufficient evidence to determine whether a stockholder maintains 
ownership and control of a corporate entity. The corporate stock certificate ledger, stock certificate registry, 
corporate bylaws, and the minutes of relevant annual shareholder meetings must also be examined to 
determine the total number of shares issued, the exact number issued to the shareholder, and the subsequent 
percentage ownership and its effect on corporate control. Additionally, a petitioning company must disclose 
all agreements relating to the voting of shares, the distribution of profit, the management and direction of the 
subsidiary, and any other factor affecting actual control of the entity. See Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, 
Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362. Without full disclosure of all relevant documents, Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (CIS) is unable to determine the elements of ownership and control. 
In this matter, the petitioner submitted stock certificate number 
 , indicating that the Iranian company is the 
owner of 100,000 shares of the petitioner's stock. It is noted that the certificate is dated October 23, 2006. 
Upon review of other evidence in the record, the AAO acknowledges the receipt of meeting minutes dated 
October 23, 2006, whereby it is resolved that 100,000 shares of the petitioner's common stock would be 
issued to the Iranian entity. However, these documents alone are insufficient to establish eligibility. 
The petitioner failed to submit any evidence that would reveal how many shares had been issued in total. For 
example, the articles of incorporation and the stock ledger, which were not submitted by the petitioner, would 
confirm how many shares of stock were in fact authorized and issued by the petitioner. Without knowing 
how many shares are actually issued, the AAO cannot determine that the 100,000 shares allegedly issued to 
WAC 08 068 51310 
Page 6 
the Iranian entity represent all of the outstanding shares. 
 Therefore, the meeting minutes alone are 
insufficient to confirm that the Iranian entity is the sole owner of the petitioner, since they represent only one 
action pertaining to the petitioner's stock. 
The AA0 also notes that the minutes do not state the purchase price for the 100,000 shares of stock issued to 
the Iranian entity. A review of the petitioner's Schedule K, accompanying Form 1120 for 2007, indicates that 
the petitioner has $500,000 in outstanding capital stock as of the filing of the 2007 return. However the 
petitioner also submitted a financial statement dated December 31, 2007 that shows a total of $2,962,382 in 
capital. The petitioner has not resolved this discrepancy. Therefore, it stands to reason that more shares of 
stock may have been issued by the petitioner since October 23, 2006, which would explain the increase in 
capital. 
This factor brings the AAO to analyze the wire transfers, which the petitioner claims is evidence of payment 
for the 100,000 shares of the petitioner's stock. The record contains several of the petitioner's bank 
statements, issued by Washington Mutual in Chatsworth, California. The petitioner's bank statement for the 
period from May 12, 2006 to May 3 1, 2006 indicates that on May 26, 2006, a wire transfer in the amount of 
$10,000 was received; however, no confiition of the originator is provided. 
The Washington Mutual bank statement for the period from June 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006 indicates that the 
petitioner also received the following wire transfers: 
The petitioner also submitted the Washington Mutual "Incoming Wire Transfer Notices" for five of the six 
wire transfers. These notices indicate that "SOLICO IMPORT UND" was the originator of the transfers that 
occurred between June 9 and June 26, 2006.~ All five of the notices indicate in the memo or "Originator to 
Beneficiary Information" section that the transfers were for "RUECKERSTATTUNG DES DARLEHENS." 
The AAO notes that in English, the phrase indicates that the transfers were for "reimbursement of the loans" 
2 
 In German, the word "und" is a conjunction that translates as "and." Despite the abbreviated version of the 
originator's name on the wire transfer notice, "SOLICO IMPORT UND" or "Solico Impoft and" in English, 
the petitioner failed to identify the full name of the wire transfer originator. Indeed, even when the petitioner 
submitted the translated minutes of the Board of Director's meeting as evidence that the originator is an 
affiliate, the petitioner again referred to the incomplete name of the company. Additionally, the petitioner 
consistently capitalizes the German conjunction "UND" in the name, as if it were similar to "Inc." or "AG" or 
"GMBH." The petitioner's failure to identify the full name of the claimed German affiliate undermines the 
petitioner's claims. 
WAC 08 068 51310 
Page 7 
- the phrase does not indicate that the funds were for the purchase of capital stock. The petitioner did not 
submit a wire transfer notice for the transaction that occurred on June 2. 
The record suggests that the Iranian company purchased 100,000 shares of stock on October 23, 2006. 
However, no evidence of wire transfers corresponding with the date of purchase have been submitted. The 
petitioner claims that the wire transfers of June 2006 evidence the money transfers to cover the purchase of 
the petitioner's stocks. 
This claim is insufficient for two reasons. First, the wire transfer notices clearly indicate that the finds were 
intended as "RUECKERSTATTUNG DES DARLEHENS" or "reimbursement of loans," and not for the 
purchase of capital stock. Second, the petitioner failed to provide documentation with regard to the purchase 
price for the stock. Therefore, it is impossible to match a specific wire transfer deposit with the purchase 
price of the stock. Finally, the petitioner did not reveal the full name of the originator of the wire transfers - 
"Solico Import und." The petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence in support of this claim, other 
than an unsupported declaration and a mention in the minutes of Kalleh Board of Director's meeting. 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)). 
Although the petitioner claims that "Solico Import UND" is the subsidiary of the Iranian entity and submits 
the minutes of a Board meeting, the AAO will not consider this evidence. The petitioner was put on notice of 
required evidence, specifically, evidence proving that the Iranian entity purchased the stock, and was 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 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. 
Nevertheless, even if the wire transfers could be determined to be legitimately from the Iranian entity, they 
still do not correspond with the shares of stock issued four months later. Additionally, the petitioner's claims 
are further undermined by the discrepancy between the $500,000 in capital stock, as represented by the 
petitioner's tax returns, and the $2,962,382 in capital, as represented on the financial statement dated 
December 31, 2007. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by 
independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice 
unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582,591-92 (BIA 1988). 
On appeal, counsel seeks to clarify the wire transfer confusion and acknowledges that the petitioner's 
response to the request for evidence was insufficient. However, for the reasons discussed above, even if the 
petitioner could prove that the wire transfers in fact originated with the Iranian entity, there is no evidence to 
establish that these funds were actually allocated to the purchase of stock four months thereafter. 
WAC 08 068 51310 
Page 8 
In addition, it is noted that the petitioner submits an amended tax return on appeal, which corrects its claims 
on Schedule K to reflect that it is 100% owned by the Iranian entity. Without a fill explanation as to how the 
mistake was made, supported by independent evidence, the amended tax returns are insufficient. Again, the 
petitioner must resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent and objective evidence. Any attempt 
to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BL4 1988). Like a 
delayed birth certificate, the petitioner's amendment of tax returns years after the claimed transaction raise 
serious questions regarding the truth of the facts asserted. CJ: Matter of Bueno, 21 I&N Dec. 1029, 1033 (BIA 
1997); Matter of Ma, 20 I&N Dec. 394 (BIA 199l)(discussing the evidentiary weight accorded to delayed 
birth certificates in immigrant visa proceedings). 
For the reasons set forth above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the Iranian entity is the sole owner of 
the petitioner. 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 (Cornm. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). For this reason, the 
petition may not be approved. 
The second issue, beyond the decision of the director, is that the minimal documentation of the petitioner's 
business operations raises doubts whether the petitioner is a qualifylng organization doing business in the 
United States. Specifically, under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(G)(2) a petitioner must 
demonstrate that it is engaged in the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods or services and 
does not represent the mere presence of an agent or office in the United States. The directed correctly noted 
that the petitioner's federal tax return for 2007 reflected no gross receipts, no cost of goods sold, and no 
profits. Although the petitioner claims that the U.S. entity is still in its start-up phase in accordance with its 
business plan, this reasoning is erroneous. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows the intended United States operation one year within the 
date of approval of the petition to establish the new office. Furthermore, at the time the petitioner seeks an 
extension of the new office petition, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B) requires the petitioner to 
demonstrate that it has been doing business for the previous year. The term "doing business" is defined in the 
regulations as "the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods andor services by a qualifylng 
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. § 214.2(1)(l)(ii). 
There is no provision in CIS regulations that allows for an extension of this one-year period. If the business is 
not sufficiently operational after one year, the petitioner is ineligible by regulation for an extension. For this 
additional reason, the petition may not be approved. 
The third issue, again not addressed by the director, is whether the petitioner is subject to economic sanctions. 
On March 15, 1995, the President declared a national emergency with respect to Iran pursuant to the 
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 8 1701, to address "the unusual and extraordinary 
threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States" constituted by the 
WAC08 068 51310 
Page 9 
Government of Iran, including its support for international terrorism, efforts to undermine the Middle East 
peace process, and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. E.O. 12957,60 
Fed. Reg. 14615 (March 17, 1995). The President subsequently issued Executive Order 12959 imposing 
more comprehensive sanctions to &her respond to the Iranian threat. 60 Fed. Reg. 24757 (May 9, 1995). 
Finally, on August 19, 1997, the President issued Executive Order 13059 to consolidate and clariij the 
previous orders. 62 Fed. Reg. 4453 1 (August 21, 1997). Executive Order 13059 continues in effect. See 70 
Fed. Reg. 12581 (March 10,2005) ("Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran"). 
Executive Order 13059 and the regulations relating to Iranian economic sanctions must be applied when a 
United States petitioner requests nonirnrnigrant classification under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act for an 
Iranian citizen or national. The executive order specifically prohibits "the importation into the United States . 
. .of any goods or services of Iranian origin." E.O. 13059 at 5 1. Executive Order 13059 also prohibits "any 
transaction or dealing by a United States person . . . related to . . . services of Iranian origin." Id. 5 2(d). The 
executive order defines a "United States person" as "any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, 
entity organized under the laws of the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United 
States." Id. 5 4(c). 
In a policy memorandum dated January 15, 1998, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Office of 
General Counsel advised that the Executive Order 13059 requires the denial, or the revocation of an approval, 
of visa petitions predicated on the employment of Iranian citizens residing in Iran. See Lori Scialabba, INS 
Acting General Counsel, "Prohibition on Employment-Based Immigration from Iran," HQCOU 7018.5P (Jan. 
15, 1998). Relying on the United States Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) 
interpretation of the implementing regulations, the memorandum states: "Given OFAC's holding that an 
employer in the United States may not lawfully make a binding offer of employment to an Iranian national 
residing in Iran, we believe that the Service should deny an employment-based immigrant or nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed by an employer seeking to do so." (Emphasis added.) 
On April 26, 1999, the Office of Foreign Assets Control subsequently amended the regulations to allow 
certain Iranian-origin services in the United States related to specific visa categories, including the L 
nonimmigrant visa. 64 Fed. Reg. 20168 (April 26, 1999). The regulation at 31 C.F.R. 5 560.505(c) states the 
following: 
Persons otherwise qualified for a visa under categories E-2 (treaty investor), H (temporary 
worker), L (intra-company transferees) and all immigrant visa categories are authorized to 
carry out in the United States those activities for which such a visa has been granted by the 
U.S. State Department, provided that the persons are not coming to the United States to work 
as an agent, employee or contractor of the Government of Iran or a business entity or other 
organization in Iran. 
(Emphasis added.) 
In the present matter, the petitioner claims to be the wholly-owned subsidiary of an Iranian business entity 
and the beneficiary is a citizen of Iran who was previously employed by the Iranian business in Tehran, Iran. 
WAC08068 51310 
Page 10 
According to the petitioner's assertions, the beneficiary would be coming to the United States to work as the 
executive director of an Iranian-owned business entity. Accordingly, there is a clear nexus between the 
beneficiary and an Iranian-based business, organization, or government entity. The AAO concludes that the 
petitioner is precluded by Executive Order 13059 flom offering employment to the beneficiary. 
For this additional reason, the petition must be denied. 
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), afd. 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. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.