dismissed L-1A Case: Floral Arrangements

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw~ted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DA TE: MAY 0 2 2Ull FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .. N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
'b7 
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 I (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U,S.c, § 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 c'F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.llscis.gov 
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 filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-IA nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 I (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.c. § IIOI(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a corporation organized in the State of Wisconsin, claims to be a 
provider of decorative flower arrangements and seeks to employ the beneficiary as a general manager. The 
petitioner seeks to employ the beneticiary in the United States to open a new office. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that (I) it had a qualirying 
relationship with the claimed foreign entity; (2) the benetlciary had been employed abroad in a managerial or 
executive capacity for one continuous year within three years preceding the tiling of the petition; and (3) the 
benetlciary will be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity within one 
year of the approval of the petition. 
The petitioner filed an appeal in response to the denial. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner contends that the 
director's decision was erroneous. Specitlcally, counsel asserts that, with regard to the qualirying relationship 
issue, the bank statements of the beneficiary submitted in response to the RFE demonstrate the ownership of 
the company and thus satisfy this requirement. Counsel further restates the beneficiary'S qualifications, and 
contends that it suppl ied extensive documentation which clearly established that the beneficiary had been 
operating in a primarily managerial or executive capacity abroad. It further asserts that the beneficiary will be 
acting in a primarily managerial or executive capacity by the end of the tirst year of operations based on the 
business plan provided. 
To establish eligibility for the L-I nonimmigrant visa classitlcation, the petItIoner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 10 I (a)( 15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualirying 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. § 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 qualirying organizations as detlned in paragraph (I)(I)(ii)(G) ofthis 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. 
Page 3 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies him/her 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. 
(v) 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 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; 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 
(1)( 1 )(ii)(B) or (C) of this section, supported by information regarding: 
(1) 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 the present matter is whether the petitioner and the foreign organization are qualified 
organizations as dell ned by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(G). The regulation defines the term "qualitying 
organization" as a United States or foreign t1rm, corporation, or other legal entity which: 
(1) Meets exactly one of the qualitying relationships specitled in the definitions of a parent, 
branch, attlliate or subsidiary specitled in paragraph (1)( 1 )(ii) of this section; 
(2) Is or will be doing business (engaging in international trade is not required) as an employer in 
Page 4 
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 I (a)(1 5)(L) of the Act. 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)( I )(ii) provides: 
(I) "Parent" means a finn, corporation, or other legal entity which has subsidiaries. 
(1) "Branch" means an operating division or office of the same organization housed in a diflerent 
location. 
(K) "Subsidiary" means a finn, 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) "At1iliate" means 
(1) 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 and/or consulting services and that markets its accounting 
services under an internationally reCOb'llized name under an agreement with a worldwide 
coordinating organization that is owned and controlled by the member accounting finns, a 
partnership (or similar organization) that is organized outside the United States to provide 
accounting services shall be considered (0 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 organi71ltion of which the United States 
partnership is also a member. 
~ner claims that it is owned by the beneficiary and 
__ who each own 50% of the company. In support this contention, the petitioner 
submitted a copy of its articles of incorporation, indicating that 200 shares of common stock were authorized. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted copies of stock certificates evidencing that both the beneficiary and_ 
Page 5 
_ owned 100 shares of the petitioner. 
The petitioner further contends that the foreign entity and employer, IS 
owned by as a sole proprietorship, and a certificate evidencing the existence of the sole 
proprietorship is contained in the record. Consequently, the petitioner concluded that by virtue of •. 
_ 50% ownership of the petitioner and sole ownership of the foreign entity, a qualifYing relationship 
exists. 
The director found that the initial evidence submitted with the petition to be insufficient to qualify the 
petitioner for the benetit sought, and consequently issued a request for evidence (RFE) on March 20, 2009. In 
the request, the director required the petitioner to submit additional evidence that established its qualifYing 
relationship with the foreign entity. Specifically, the director requested evidence proving that the foreign 
entity actually paid for its 100 shares of stock in the petitioner. The director noted that acceptable evidence 
included copies of the original wire transfers from the parent company, cancelled checks, and/or deposit 
receipts. The director also requested specific details regarding the account holders involved in the 
transactions, as well as details explaining the affiliation between the petitioner, the foreign entity, and any 
third party individuals involved in said transfers. 
In a response dated May 1,2009, the petitioner responded to the director's request. The petitioner's response 
letter did not address the director's queries with regard to the ownership of the petitioner'S stock, and none of 
the specific evidence requested was submitted. It is noted, however, that the beneficiary's personal bank 
statements were submitted in response to the RFE. 
Upon review of the evidence submitted, the director concluded that no evidence was submitted to demonstrate 
that the foreign entity actually paid for its claimed 100 shares of stock in the petitioner. As a result, the 
petition was denied on May 21,2009. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement in which it claims that the beneficiary's bank statements, 
submitted in response to the RFE, demonstrate that the beneficiary owns 50% of the petitioner. The petitioner 
concludes that the petitioner and the foreign entity are a 50-50 joint venture and that the bank statements were 
sufficient proof of ownership as requested by the director. No additional evidence is submitted. 
The AAO will first examine the record of proceeding and the director's decision prior to examining the 
petitioner's claims on appeal. 
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 
Maller o/Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Maller (JjHughes, 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. Malter 
Page 6 
ofChllrch Sciel1t()/oxy, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
Upon review of the record of proceeding, the petitioner has not established that it has the required qualirying 
relationship with the foreign entity. 
In this case, the petitioner has provided documentary evidence outlining the shareholder interests in the U.S. 
and foreign entities, and has supplemented this evidence with explanatory statements which discuss the 
percentages of shareholder ownership. the statement of the petitioner accompanying the initial 
petition claimed that the beneficiary and each own a fifty percent share of ownership in the 
petitioner. Although no discussion of the ownership of the foreign entity was submitted, the documents in the 
record demonstrate that the foreign entity is a sole proprietorship owned by 
The issue to be examined, therefore, is whether the petitioner has demonstrated that it is an affiliate of ••• 
the foreign entity and employer. Since the foreign entity is a sole proprietorship 
iiiiiiiiiii the petitioner must show that also owns and controls the petitioner. 
Upon review of the record of proceeding, the AAO concurs with the director's finding that, i.e., the petitioner 
has failed to establish that the U.S. and foreign entities have a qualirying relationship as defined by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. §214.2(1)( I )(ii), 
The definition of affiliate requires that two entities be owned and controlled by the same parent or individual. 
or owned and controlled by the same group of individuals who own approximately the same amount of shares 
in each entity. See 8 C.F,R. § 214.2(1)(I)(ii)(L). The record lacks evidence that at the time of the filing of the 
petition, the petitioning enterprise maintained a qualirying "affiliate" relationship with the overseas company. 
The petitioner submitted copies of its articles of incorporation, undated copies of share certificates for the 
U.S. entity, and a copy of a document affirming the foreign entity's status as a sole proprietorship owned by 
_ This evidence alone is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of a qualirying relationship. As 
general evidence of a petitioner's claimed qualirying 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., supra. Without full disclosure of all 
relevant documents, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is unable to determine the elements 
of ownership and control. 
Although requested by the director, the petItIOner also failed andlor refused to submit documentation 
demonstrating that had purchased the claimed 100 shares in the petitioning entity. Although the 
petitioner argues on appeal that the beneficiary's bank statements demonstrate the beneficiary's ownership 
Page 7 
interest in the petItIOner, it disregards the fact that the request was not for proof of the beneficiary's 
ownership, but rather proof of the foreign entity's ownership via its sole proprietor, . 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). It should also be noted that, absent copies of additional documents such as the 
petitioner's stock ledger or meeting minutes, the AAO cannot determine the price per share for the 200 shares 
of stock allegedly issued by the petitioner. Therefore, while the beneficiary's ownership interest in the 
petitioner is irrelevant for purposes of this analysis, the bank statements submitted would remain insufficient 
evidence of stock ownership since the AAO cannot determine either the purchase price for the beneficiary's 
shares or the applicable withdrawal amounts to look for in his bank statements, to confirm such a contention. 
Even if the petitioner's claim that the U.S. entity was equally owned by the beneficiary 
documented sufficiently, a review of the ownership structure of the two entities in context of the regulatory 
detinition renders it impossible to find that the two companies were affiliates at the time of the petition's 
filing 
The two enlltles were not owned and controlled by the same parent or individual or same group of 
individuals, as set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 2 14.2(1) (I)(ii)(L)(l). The petitioner's own admission in its letter dated 
February 24, 2009 confirms that the U.S. entity was owned jointly by the beneficiary and The 
documentation in the record with respect to the foreign entity and employer, 
demonstrates that the foreign entity was the sole proprietorship of Mr. AI-Awad. There is no 
evidence to the contrary in the record. 
According to the evidence submitted, the U.S. and foreign entities were not owned in the majority by anyone 
person and were not owned in their entirety by the exact same persons. Based on the evidence presented, it is 
thus concluded that the petitioner and the foreign entity were not affiliates as of the filing date ofthis petition, 
and thus did not have a qualifying relationship as required by the regulations. 
The second issue is whether the beneficiary's 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, as required by 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii), or that such employment was in a position that was managerial, executive or involved 
specialized knowledge, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iv). 
As correctly noted by the director, absent a showing that a qualifying relationship exists between the petitioner 
and the claimed foreign employer, the petitioner cannot demonstrate that the beneficiary meets the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
Even if there had been sufficient evidence to establish that a qualifying relationship existed between the 
parties, the petitioner has still failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary's employment abroad met the 
requirement under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iv). 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § IIOI(a)(44)(A), delines 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 tire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions (such as 
promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly supervised, 
functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the 
function managed; and 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day to day operations of the activity or function for 
which the employee has authority. A first line supervisor is not considered to be 
acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory 
duties unless the employees supervised are professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(8) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(8), 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 ofthe organization. 
As noted by the director, the evidence submitted with regard to the beneficiary's position abroad is vague and 
generalized. In the letter of support dated February 24, 2009, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary was a 
general manager and a business manager in Saudi Arabia, but failed to provide any details regarding his 
position abroad. The petitioner simply stated that the beneficiary is a well-known businessman in Saudi 
Arabia and that he has choreographed hundreds of events. In response to the RFE, the petitioner provided a 
list of duties for the beneficiary in an undated document on company letterhead. However, despite heading 
the document with the title "Duties Abroad," the list of duties identifies the beneficiary's role as the general 
manager for the U.S. petitioner, and not the claimed foreign employer. 
Page 9 
The AAO notes that the director cites to some of the general duty titles in this document, such as "directs and 
coordinates activities" and "oversees activities," However, as discussed above, these duties describe his 
proposed employment in the United States, and not abroad for the foreign entity, and the little that has been 
stated regarding his claimed eight years of employment abroad is too vague to allow a determination of 
whether such work was managerial or executive in nature. Reciting the beneficiary's vague job 
responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient: the regulations require a detailed 
description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. The petitioner has failed to answer a critical question in this 
case: What did the beneficiary primarily do on a daily basis? The actual duties themselves will reveal the true 
nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 
F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). As noted by the director, the record is too vague to allow a proper examination of the 
beneficiary's duties abroad. As noted in the denial, specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a 
beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would 
simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Id. 
Despite the vague description of his position abroad, the petitioner has still failed to establish that the foreign 
employer and petitioner had a qualifying relationship at the time of filing. Therefore, in addition to failing to 
provide a concise description of duties demonstrating managerial and/or executive capacity abroad, the 
petition has tirst and foremost failed to establish that the requisite qualifying relationship existed with the 
foreign entity. For this additional reason, the petition may not be approved. 
The final issue is whether the petitioner has demonstrated that it will support the beneticiary in a managerial 
or executive position within one year ofthe approval of the petition. 
Again, 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 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; 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)(I)(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. 
In the petitioner's letter of support dated February 24, 2009, the petitioner provided vague statements with 
regard to the beneficiary's position in the United States. For example, the petitioner indicated that the 
beneficiary's title will be "General Manager and he will be in charge of overseeing the day-to-day operations 
of the business, from a macro-economical point of view'- Other than this statement, the petitioner provides 
no additional detail regarding the proposed duties of the beneficiary. Regarding its business, the petitioner 
claimed that it foresaw an income of $100,000 in the first year, which it believed would double as of the 
second year. No business plan or other financial documentation was submitted in support of this contention. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted additional evidence regarding the beneficiary's duties and its 
business plan. Regarding the duties of the beneficiary, the petitioner stated as follows: 
• Oversees activities directly related to making products[.] 
• Directs and Coordinates activities of the business or department that are directly 
related with the production, pricing, sales, or distribution ofproducts[.] 
• Review financial statements, sales, and activity reports, and performance data to 
maximize profit productivity and overlook areas needing cost reduction and program 
improvement. 
• Manage staff; prepare work schedules and assign specific duties. 
• Determine staffing requirements, interview, hire and train new employees. 
• The annual salary for a general manager is $88,700 & the minimum amount or 
degree needed[.] 
The petitioner also submitted an organizational chart, demonsl:rat 
president, and would oversee three supervisors: 
Sales Manager; Labour Supervisor. 
Each supervisor in tum would supervise employees in their respective departments. 
Finally, the pctitioner submitted a business plan for 2009-2010. However, while it outlined its financial goals 
and objectives, the business plan failed to specify 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, as 
rcquired under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(2). 
As noted by the director in the denial, the business plan fails to outline the need for the U.S. business and the 
sOllrce of funds for the start-up expenses of the company. Additionally, although the director specifically 
requested financial evidence such as the petitioner's bank statements for the past six months, the petitioner failed 
to submit such documentation. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry 
Page II 
shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). The petitioner argues repeatedly both on 
appeal that the submission of the beneficiary's bank statements are sufficient financial evidence, since the 
beneficiary owns 50% of the petitioner. However, the petitioner overlooks the fact that a corporation is a 
separate and distinct legal entity from its owners or stockholders. See Matter of M, 8 I&N Dec. 24, 50 (BIA 
1958, AG 1958); Matter of Aphrodite Investments Limited, 17 I&N Dec. 530 (Comm. 1980); and Matter 01 
Tessel, 17 I&N Dec. 631 (Act. Assoc. Comm. 1980). Therefore, the personal bank statements of the 
beneficiary cannot serve as evidence of the petitioner's financial situation. Although the petitioner's alleged 
financial statements for 2006, 2007, and 2008 are submitted, these documents provide little evidence 
pertaining to the business structure and expansion plans. Moreover, as it appears the petitioner was not 
incorporated unti I 2009, these financial statements are not relevant to this matter given that they must pertain 
to an entity other than the petitioner. 
In denying the petition, the director found that the evidence in the record failed to establish that the 
beneficiary would be functioning in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. Specifically, the director 
concluded that absent a more detailed overview of the petitioner's business and the beneficiary's role therein, 
it could not be determined that the petitioner would reach the point where it could employ the beneficiary in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity by the end of the first year of operations. 
On appeal, the petitioner contends that the director's decision was erroneous. The petitioner contends that its 
business plan is well prepared and sincere in nature, and indicates that the plan is in accord with the risks 
involved in the business world. 
Upon review, the petitioner's assertions are not persuasive. Whether the beneficiary will be a manager or 
executive employee turns on whether the petitioner has sustained its burden of proving that his duties would be 
"primarily" managerial or executive. See sections 10 I (a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. In this case, the petitioner 
asserts that the beneficiary is a qualified manager or executive by virtue of his position title, experience abroad, 
and associated duties. However, the description of duties provided is vague and fails to specify the exact nature 
of the claimed executive duties. As stated previously, specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a 
beneficiary's duties would be primarily executive or managerial in nature; otherwise meeting the definitions 
would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co .. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103. 
The description of the beneficiary's proposed duties is vague and seems to merely paraphrase the regulatory 
definitions. Specifically, the identification of duties such as "oversees activities," "manage staff," and "directs and 
coordinates activities" do little to clarify what the beneficiary will do on an average workday. The actual duties 
themselves reveal the true nature of the employment. Id. 
The petitioner claims on appeal that the beneficiary "fully complies" with each aspect of the regulatory definitions 
is not persuasive in light of the petitioner's business and proposed business plan contained in the record. Although 
the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary will be acting in a primarily managerial capacity within one year of the 
approval of the petition, the petitioner provides no independent evidence to corroborate these claims. Without 
documentary evidence to support its statements, the petitioner does not meet its burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter ,!ISqffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998). 
Page 12 
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 nonnally 
performed by employees at the executive or managerial level and that often the full range of managerial 
responsibility cannot be perfonned. In order to qualifY for L-I 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. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). This 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 perfonn qualifYing duties. 
The petitioner's business plan is too vague to specifY the exact nature of operations after one year of doing 
business. In addition, despite claiming to employ numerous persons, no independent objective evidence has been 
submitted to establish this fact. Absent evidence that the petitioner will have sufficient staff to relieve the 
beneficiary from perfonning non-qualifYing duties, the petitioner's proposed business plan is insufficient to 
convince the AAO that the beneficiary will be relieved from perfonning day-to-day, non-qualifYing duties by the 
end of the first year of operations. 
For the reasons set forth above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary's duties would be 
primarily managerial or executive in nature within one year of the approval of the petition. For this reason, 
the petition may not be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, a related issue is whether the petitioner has established that it has secured 
sufficient physical premises to house the new office. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(v)(A) requires a 
petitioner that seeks to open a new office to submit evidence that it has acquired sunicient physical premises 
to commence doing business. In this matter, the petitioner submitted a copy of its lease, signed in 2008, and 
photographs of its onice space, both of which demonstrate that the claimed business premises are small in 
size. Moreover, since the lease was signed in 2008, but the petitioner was not incorporated until 2009, it is 
unclear whether the lease submitted in this matter is valid, since the petitioner was not a legal entity at the 
time of signing.' Based on the contradictory infonnation furnished, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner 
has secured sufficient space to house the new onice. 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. Uniled Slales, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), ajj'd, 345 F.3d 683 
(9
th 
Cir. 2003); see also Sollane v. DO.!, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
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. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the 
director's decision will be aninned and the petition will be denied. 
Page 13 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.