dismissed L-1A Case: Electrical Components Manufacturing

PUBLIC COPY 
i8srbiQiryJchmsMa(cdca 
pmmt dearly unwarraad 
hsion of psonal priw 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.. Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: EAC 07 085 53022 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
MAY 2 0 2008 
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. 
. , 
Robert P. Wlemann, dhlef 
Admin~strat~ve Appeals Office 
I 
EAC 07 085 53022 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonirnrnigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary in the position of president 
to open a new office in the United States as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to 
section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(L). The 
petitioner, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, is allegedly in the business of 
manufacturing electrical components. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the foreign employer; (2) that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a primarily 
managerial or executive capacity for one continuous year within the three years preceding the filing of the 
petition; or (3) that the United States operation will support an executive or managerial position within one 
year. 
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 asserts that the petitioner has established 
that it is an affiliate of the foreign employer, that the beneficiary was employed abroad for at least one year 
within the past three years in an executive or managerial capacity, and that the beneficiary will perform 
qualifying duties within one year of petition approval. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one 
continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States. In addition, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his 
or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(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 
EAC 07 085 53022 
Page 3 
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. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(~) states that if the petition indicates that the beneficiary is 
coming to the United States as a manager or executive to open or to be employed in a new office, 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; and 
(C) 
 The intended United States operation, within one year of the 
approval of the petition, will support an executive or managerial 
position as defined in paragraphs (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 matter is whether the petitioner has established that it has a qualifying relationship with 
the foreign entity. 
To establish a "qualifying relationship" under the Act and the regulations, the petitioner must show that the 
beneficiary's foreign employer and the proposed United States employer are the same employer (i.e., one 
entity with "branch" offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See generally section 
101(a)(15)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1). If one individual owns a majority interest in the petitioner and 
the foreign employer, and controls those entities, then the entities will be deemed to be "affiliates" under the 
definition. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(L). 
In this matter, it is asserted that both the petitioner and the foreign employer, :- 
are principally owned and controlled by the same person, While the petitioner submitted a 
EAC 07 085 53022 
Page 4 
stock certificate and organizational documents indicating that 
 is the 100% owner of the 
petitioner, a translated organizational document for the Taiwanese company dated July 3 1,2006 indicates that 
- owns 50,206 shares of stock. Three other stockholders own 164,133 shares, 160,000 shares, 
and 9,586 shares respectively. 
In view of the apparent lack of affiliation between the petitioner and the foreign employer, the director 
requested additional evidence on March 14, 2007. The director requested, inter alia, evidence establishing 
that the two entities are qualifying organizations such as stock certificates, stock ledgers, articles of 
incorporation, and any pertinent agreements. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a translation of a "Corporate Change Registration Form" which indicates 
that owns 377,652 shares of stock in the foreign employer out of a total of 750,000 authorized 
shares. The other stockholders are shown to own 133 shares, 1,000 shares, and 9,586 shares respectively. It 
is noted that the English language translation of the Corporate Change Registration Form is undated. The 
record is also devoid of stock certificates, stock ledgers, or other evidence indicating when, exactly, = 
ownership interest increased from 50,206 shares to 377,652 shares. 
On October 17, 2007, the director denied the petition. In concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that 
it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign employer as an affiliate, the director noted that the Corporate 
Change Registration Form submitted in response to the Request for Evidence includes a seal from the Taipei 
municipal government bearing the Chinese version of the date June 4, 2007. Accordingly, as the record 
otherwise fails to establish when became the owner of a controlling interest in the foreign 
employer, the director concluded that the record indicates that 
 ownership interest was 
acquired after the filing of the instant petition on February 5, 2007 and denied the petition accordingly. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the record establishes that 
 owns 387,238 shares of the foreign 
emulover. In suuuort, counsel submits a translated Taiwanese "directow of business registration." However. 
. - A. . 
counsel does not indicate when, exactly, 
address the director's determination that it appears that 
the filing of the instant petition on February 5,2007. 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are not persuasive. 
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., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 
(Comm. 1982). In the 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 International, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
EAC 07 085 53022 
Page 5 
In this matter, the petitioner has failed to establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign 
em lo er, The petitioner has failed to establish that the same individual, 
Ywns and contiis both the foreign employer and the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner 
has failed to establish that the two entities are "affiliates" as defined by the re ulations. As correctly noted by 
the director, the petitioner originally submitted evidence indicating that e owns a minority 
interest in the foreign employer. While the petitioner submitted evidence on appeal, and in response to the 
Request for Evidence, that has acquired a majority ownership interest in the foreign employer, 
the record is devoid of evidence establishing when, exactly, or under what circumstances, he acquired this 
majority interest. 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)). 
Furthermore, as noted by the director, as all of the evidence pertaining to 
 acquisition of a 
majority interest in the foreign employer is dated after the filing of the instant petition, the record is not 
persuasive in establishing that the two entities were affiliates at the time the instant petition was filed on 
February 5, 2007. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. 
A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under 
a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978). Accordingly, it 
appears more like than not that Chung-Ye Liu, even if he owns a majority interest in the foreign employer, 
did not acquire this interest until after the filing of the instant petition. 
Therefore, as the petitioner has failed to establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign 
employer, the petition may not be approved for this reason. 
The second issue is whether the petitioner has established that the beneficiary was employed abroad for one 
continuous year in the three-year period preceding the filing of the instant petition in a primarily managerial 
or executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) 
 manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of 
the organization; 
(ii) 
 supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees, or manages an essential function within the organization, or a department 
or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) 
 if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the authority to 
hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions (such as 
promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly supervised, 
functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the 
function managed; and 
EAC 07 085 53022 
Page 6 
(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. 5 1101(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) 
 directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the 
organization; 
(ii) 
 establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
(iii) 
 exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) 
 receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
Counsel described the beneficiary's claimed employment abroad as "production manager" for the foreign 
employer in a letter dated January 25,2007 as follows: 
As previously noted, [the beneficiary] has served in both a managerial and executive capacity 
for the overseas affiliated company since 2004. In this role, [the beneficiary] has gained 
valuable experience in every aspect of the management and running of the subject business. 
During his tenure as the production manager overseeing the production and manufacturing 
departments, the overseas affiliated company has achieved unprecedented success. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from the foreign employer indicating that the beneficiary has been 
employed as a production manager since 2004. However, the petitioner submitted a copy of the beneficiary's 
resume which indicates that the beneficiary had only worked for the foreign employer from June 1998 until 
October 1999 as a "network administrator." 
On March 14, 2007, the director requested additional evidence. In the Request for Evidence, the director 
noted that, as Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) records indicate that the beneficiary was present in 
the United States in F-1 visa (student) status from March 14, 2003 until September 12, 2005, it is unclear how 
the beneficiary could have been employed in Taiwan by the foreign employer since 2004. Accordingly, the 
director requested, inter alia, evidence establishing that the beneficiary was employed full-time for one 
continuous year within the three years prior to February 5, 2007; a copy of the beneficiary's most recent 
foreign tax return and, if applicable, tax withholding statement indicating the name of the employer; copies of 
the foreign employer's payroll documents reflecting the beneficiary's period of employment and his salary; a 
more detailed description of the beneficiary's duties abroad; and complete position descriptions for each 
employee supervised by the beneficiary, including breakdowns of the number hours devoted to each duty on a 
weekly basis, including a breakdown for the beneficiary's duties. 
EAC 07 085 53022 
Page 7 
In response, the petitioner submitted a list of 24 claimed employees of the foreign employer, which includes 
the beneficiary, and a copy of the same letter from the foreign employer submitted with the initial petition 
which indicates that the beneficiary has been employed abroad since 2004. The petitioner did not submit job 
descriptions for the beneficiary or the other alleged foreign workers, tax returns, or payroll documents. The 
petitioner also did not reconcile, or otherwise address, the director's observation that the beneficiary was 
present in the United States in F-1 student status until September 2005 with its claim that the beneficiary has 
been employed abroad since 2004. 
On October 17, 2007, the director denied the petition. The director concluded that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad for one continuous year in the three-year period preceding 
the filing of the instant petition in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner has established that beneficiary was employed abroad for one 
year in an executive or managerial capacity. Specifically, counsel argues that the beneficiary's position as 
"production manager" is a managerial position and that, even if he was in the United States until September 
2005 as a student, the beneficiary's employment abroad after that date, which is more than one year prior to 
the filing of the instant petition, would still constitute qualifying employment. 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are not persuasive. 
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. $9 214.2(1)(3)(iii)-(iv). The petitioner's description of 
the job duties must clearly describe the duties performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties 
were either in an executive or managerial capacity. Id. 
In this matter, the petitioner has failed establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity. The petitioner failed to specifically describe the beneficiary's job duties abroad. Specifics 
are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties were 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. 1 103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Once again, 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. 
 The fact that the 
petitioner has given the beneficiary a managerial title and has described him vaguely as "overseeing the 
production and manufacturing departments" will not establish that the beneficiary actually performed 
qualifying managerial or executive duties. 
Furthermore, the petitioner failed to submit any of the evidence requested by the director pertaining to the 
beneficiary's purported qualifying employment abroad since 2004. The petitioner failed to submit the 
beneficiary's most recent foreign tax return, a tax withholding statement indicating the name of the 
beneficiary's employer, the foreign employer's payroll documents reflecting the beneficiary's period of 
employment and his salary, a more detailed description of the beneficiary's duties abroad, complete position 
descriptions for each employee supervised by the beneficiary, or breakdowns of the number hours devoted to 
each ascribed duty on a weekly basis for both the beneficiary and his subordinate workers. Failure to submit 
EAC 07 085 53022 
Page 8 
requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 
8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(14). The non-existence or other unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption 
of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2)(i). Absent detailed descriptions of the duties of both the beneficiary 
and his 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. 
Finally, the record contains material inconsistencies which undermine the petitioner's claim that the 
beneficiary was employed abroad since 2004. First, the beneficiary's resume which was submitted for the 
record fails to list any employment by the foreign employer other than employment as a network 
administrator from 1998 until 1999. The petitioner offers no explanation for why the beneficiary chose to 
omit his alleged employment as a manager or executive abroad from his resume. Second, as noted by the 
director, it appears that the beneficiary was in the United States in F-1 (student) status until September 2005. 
Even though this inconsistency was identified by the director in the Request for Evidence, the petitioner chose 
not to resolve this inconsistency. Instead, counsel on appeal argues that this inconsistency is harmless since it 
was possible for the beneficiary to have been employed abroad for one year between the end of his studies in 
the United States and the filing of the instant petition. However, this argument, in the absence of a credible 
explanation addressing how and why this error was made in the first place, is not persuasive. 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). 
Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and 
sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Id. at 591. As the petitioner 
failed to resolve or to explain the inconsistencies in the record pertaining to his claimed foreign employment, 
the petition may not be approved. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has been 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. 
The third issue in this matter is whether the petitioner has established that the proposed United States 
operation will support an executive or managerial position within one year as required by 8 C.F.R. $ 
2 14.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
As indicated above, if the petition indicates that the beneficiary is coming to the United States as a manager or 
executive to open or to be employed in a new office, the petitioner shall submit evidence that: 
(C) The intended United States operation, within one year of the 
approval of the petition, will support an executive or managerial 
position as defined in paragraphs (l)(l)(ii)(B) or (C) of this section, 
supported by information regarding: 
(1) 
 The proposed nature of the office describing the scope of the 
EAC 07 085 53022 
Page 9 
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. 
In support of its claim to have received an investment sufficient to commence doing business in the United 
States, the petitioner submitted bank statements and checks indicating that it deposited $100,000.00 into its 
bank account on August 10,2006. The source of these funds was a check for $25,000.00 fi-om Dynabest, Inc. 
and a check for $75,000.00 from an unknown source. 
The petitioner also submitted a business plan which indicates its intention to "immediately enter the American 
market as one of the foremost importers of Asian and Chinese food products into the United States" but also 
claims to make "high quality, customized electrical components in the United States." 
On March 14, 2007, the director requested additional evidence. The director requested, inter alia, evidence 
establishing the source of the $100,000.00 investment, "such as copies of the foreign entity's audited or 
reviewed financial statements and tax returns or copies of the Customs Form 4790's that were executed to 
document the transfer of funds between the foreign business and the United States entity." 
The petitioner responded to the director's Request for Evidence on June 8, 2007. However, the petitioner did 
not respond to the director's request pertaining to the sources of, or circumstances surrounding, the claimed 
$100,000.00 "investment" in the United States operation. 
On October 17, 2007, the director denied the petition. The director concluded that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the United States operation will, within one year of petition approval, support an executive or 
managerial position because the petitioner failed to establish that an "investment" was made in the United 
States operation. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the presence of $100,000.00 in the petitioner's bank account sufficiently 
establishes that an investment has been made in the enterprise. 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are not persuasive. 
When a new business is established and commences operations, the regulations recognize that a designated 
manager or executive responsible for setting up operations will be engaged in a variety of 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-1 nonimmigrant 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. 3 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). This 
EAC 07 085 53022 
Page 10 
evidence should demonstrate a realistic expectation that the enterprise will succeed and rapidly expand as it 
moves away from the developmental stage to full operations, where there would be an actual need for a 
manager or executive who will primarily perform qualifying duties. 
As contemplated by the regulations, a comprehensive business plan should contain, at a minimum, a 
description of the business, its products and/or services, and its objectives. See Matter of Ho, 22 I&N Dec. 
206, 213 (Assoc. Comm. 1998). Although the precedent relates to the regulatory requirements for the alien 
entrepreneur immigrant visa classification, Matter of Ho is instructive as to the contents of an acceptable 
business plan: 
The plan should contain a market analysis, including the names of competing businesses and 
their relative strengths and weaknesses, a comparison of the competition's products and 
pricing structures, and a description of the target market/prospective customers of the new 
commercial enterprise. The plan should list the required permits and licenses obtained. If 
applicable, it should describe the manufacturing or production process, the materials required, 
and the supply sources. The plan should detail any contracts executed for the supply of 
materials and/or the distribution of products. It should discuss the marketing strategy of the 
business, including pricing, advertising, and servicing. The plan should set forth the 
business's organizational structure and its personnel's experience. It should explain the 
business's staffing requirements and contain a timetable for hiring, as well as job descriptions 
for all positions. It should contain sales, cost, and income projections and detail the bases 
therefor. Most importantly, the business plan must be credible. 
Id. 
For several reasons, the petitioner in this matter has failed to establish that the United States operation will 
succeed and rapidly expand as it moves away from the developmental stage to full operations, where there 
would be an actual need for a manager or executive who will primarily perform qualifying duties. The 
petitioner has failed to sufficiently describe both the beneficiary's and his subordinates' proposed duties after 
the petitioner's first year in operation; has failed to establish that an investment has been made in the United 
States operation; has failed to sufficiently describe the nature, scope, organizational structure, and financial 
goals of the new office; and has failed to sufficiently describe the organizational structure of the foreign 
entity. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
First, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will be performing primarily "managerial" or 
"executive" duties after the petitioner's first year in operation. In this matter, the petitioner has provided a 
vague and nonspecific description of the beneficiary's duties that fails to demonstrate what the beneficiary 
will do on a day-to-day basis. 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. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103, aff'd, 905 F.2d 41. 
Once again, 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. 
EAC 07 085 53022 
Page 11 
Likewise, the record is not persuasive in establishing that the beneficiary will be, after the first year, relieved 
of the need to perform the non-qualifying tasks inherent to his duties and to the operation of the business in 
general. The petitioner failed to specifically describe the duties of the proposed subordinate employees or to 
explain how, exactly, these prospective employees will relieve the beneficiary from performing non- 
qualifying tasks. As the petitioner fails to explain what tasks the beneficiary and his subordinate staff will 
perform after the petitioner's first year in operation or to explain how much time the beneficiary will devote to 
performing non-qualifying tasks, it cannot be confirmed that he will be "primarily" employed as a manager or 
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; see also Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 604. 
The petitioner has also 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 noted above, the petitioner has failed to specifically describe the duties of the proposed subordinate 
employees. Therefore, it cannot be confirmed that the beneficiary will supervise and control other 
supervisory, managerial, or professional employees. A managerial or executive employee must have 
authority over day-to-day operations beyond the level normally vested in a first-line supervisor. See 
10 1 (a)(44) of the Act; see also Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 604. Therefore, 
the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be employed primarily in a managerial or executive 
capacity after the petitioner's first year in operation. 
Second, the petitioner failed to establish that the United States operation will support an executive or 
managerial position within one year because it failed to establish that an "investment" was made in the 
enterprise. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(2). In this matter, the record indicates that petitioner received a total 
of $100,000.00 from two sources. However, the petitioner failed to establish that these funds constitute a 
bona fide "investment" in the United States operation. As explained above, the director specifically requested 
additional evidence pertaining to the source of these funds. The petitioner, however, chose not to respond to 
this request. Once again, failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall 
be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(14). 
 As the source, and the circumstances 
surrounding the petitioner's receipt, of the $100,000.00 is essential to discerning whether this transfer was a 
bona fide "investment" in the United States operation, the petitioner's choice not to respond to the director's 
request precluded a material line of inquiry into the scope and nature of the operation as well as the 
enterprise's ability to do business in the United States and to grow to the point that it will support a managerial 
or executive position within one year. Therefore, the petition may not be approved for this additional reason. 
Third, the petitioner failed to establish that the United States operation will support an executive or 
managerial position within one year because the petitioner has failed to sufficiently describe the nature, scope, 
organizational structure, and financial goals of the new office. 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(I). The 
petitioner's business plan fails to specifically describe the petitioner's proposed products, services, customers, 
or competitors. The plan also fails to provide any credible projections regarding revenue, income, expenses, 
staffing, or financial goals. Absent a detailed, credible description of the petitioner's proposed United States 
business operation addressing the petitioner's proposed products, marketing plan, customers, staffing, and 
incomelexpense projections, it is impossible to determine whether the proposed enterprise will succeed and 
EAC 07 085 53022 
Page 12 
rapidly expand as it moves away from the developmental stage to full operations, where there would be an 
actual need for a manager or executive who will primarily perform qualifying duties. 
Furthermore, the petitioner's vague description of its proposed enterprise contains inconsistencies which 
undermine its claim to be a bona fide business entity. For example, the petitioner claims that it will 
"immediately enter the American market as one of the foremost importers of Asian and Chinese food products 
into the United States." However, the petitioner also claims to make "high quality, customized electrical 
components in the United States." The petitioner offers no explanation for this inconsistency. Once again, 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. at 591-92. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the United States operation will support an executive or 
managerial position within one year for this additional reason. 
Fourth, the petitioner failed to establish that the United States operation will support an executive or 
managerial position within one year because the petitioner failed to describe the organizational structure of 
the foreign entity. 8 C.F.R. $ 2 14,2(1)(3)(v)(C)(3). The record is devoid of evidence addressing the duties of 
the subordinate workers abroad or the organizational structure of the foreign employer. Once again, failure to 
submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 
8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(14). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the United States operation will support an executive or 
managerial position within one year as required by 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C), and the petition may not be 
approved for the above reasons. 
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 MO'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, 8 U.S.C. 9 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.