dismissed L-1A Case: Food Service

US. Department of Homeland Security 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
U.S. citizenship and Immigration Services 
Oflce ofAdrninistrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immi~ration 
File: WAC 08 236 50885 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 0 2 2009 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
ON 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. $ 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, as required by 8 C.F.R. fj 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
un F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 08 236 50885 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. 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-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a Philippines corporation, states that it intends to operate a branch 
office known as "Golden Cuisine" in the State of California. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary 
as the manager of its new office for a period of one year. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary will be 
employed by the U.S. entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that it submitted sufficient 
evidence to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity 
within one year of approval. The petitioner emphasizes that the company is committed to hiring ten full-time 
employees during its first year in operation. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 10 l(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 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
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. 
WAC 08 236 50885 
Page 3 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(~) also provides that if the petition indicates that the beneficiary is 
coming to the United States as a manager or executive to open or 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 involves 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 (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 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. 
As a preliminary matter, the AAO notes that the director erred by adjudicating the instant matter as a petition 
involving an established U.S. entity, rather than applying the regulations pertaining to new offices at 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(1)(3)(~). 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. 5 
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 perform qualifying duties. The petitioner must 
also establish that the beneficiary will have managerial or executive authority over the new operation. See 8 
C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). 
Accordingly, the director's analysis of the beneficiary's proposed position was flawed as it did not take into 
account the petitioner's business plan and other evidence submitted to establish that the U.S. company would 
support a managerial or executive position within one year. The director's analysis with respect to the 
petitioner's current staffing levels will be withdrawn; however, the AAO concurs with the director's ultimate 
conclusion that the beneficiary will not be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. As the 
WAC 08 236 50885 
Page 4 
AAO's review is conducted on a de novo basis, the AAO will herein address the petitioner's evidence and 
eligibility. See Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a 
de novo basis). The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 557(b) 
("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also, Janka v. US. 
Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). As discussed further below, a review of the 
record of proceeding reveals that there are multiple grounds to support the denial of the instant petition, and it 
would serve no useful purpose to remand the matter to the director. 
The first issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary would be employed in 
a primarily managerial or executive capacity within one year of the approval of the petition. 
Section 101 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) 
 manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of 
the organization; 
(ii) 
 supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees, or manages an essential function within the organization, or a department 
or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) 
 if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the authority to 
hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions (such as 
promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly supervised, 
functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the 
function managed; and 
(iv) 
 exercises discretion over the day to day operations of the activity or function for 
which the employee has authority. A first line supervisor is not considered to be 
acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory 
duties unless the employees supervised are professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(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 
WAC 08 236 50885 
Page 5 
(iv) 
 receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
The petitioner filed the nonimmigrant petition on August 29, 2008. The petitioner submitted a statement 
describing the beneficiary's proposed duties as manager as the following: 
Manage the operational and fiscal activities of the restaurant to include: staffing levels, 
budgets, and financial goals. 
Plan and develop systems and procedures to improve the operating quality and 
efficiency of the restaurant. 
Analyze and document business processes and problems. Develop solutions to enhance 
efficiencies. 
Coordinate and implement solutions from process analysis and general restaurant 
projects. 
Direct staff in the development, analysis and preparation of reports. 
Supervise staff in accordance with company policies and procedures. 
Conduct interviews, hire new staff, and provide employee orientation. 
Coach and provide career development advice to staff. 
Establish employee goals and conduct employee performance reviews. 
Responsible for staff scheduling to include: work assignments/rotations, employee 
training, employee vacations, employee breaks, overtime assignment, back-up for absent 
employees, and shift rotations. 
Assist staff to resolve complex or out of policy operation problems. 
Coordinate with Human Resources for appropriate staffing levels. 
Schedule and conduct department meetings. 
Responsible to meet restaurant productivity and quality goals. 
Communicate with Supervisors, Managers and Vice Presidents on restaurant operations. 
Complete human resources paperwork. 
Other duties as assigned. 
The petitioner submitted a business plan for "Golden Cuisine Restaurant and Catering Services" which indicates 
the petitioner's intent to open a Pacific-Asian Chinese restaurant. The business plan includes a narrative 
description of the intended business and information regarding the beneficiary's background, and also outlines the 
restaurant's equipment requirements, physical premises requirements, accounting methods, financing strategy, 
acquisition strategy, and marketing plans. 
The director issued a request for additional evidence on October 8, 2008, in which she requested, inter alia, a 
more detailed description of the beneficiary's duties in the United States, and a copy of the company's 
organizational chart, to include job titles and duties for all positions under the beneficiary's supervision. 
In a response received on November 19, 2008, the petitioner provided a proposed organizational chart for 
"Saludes Golden Son, Inc.," an entity incorporated in the State of California on November 3, 2008. The chart is 
accompanied by a list of proposed employees. The petitioner indicates that its restaurant operations department 
will include a chef, two cooks, two cashiers, a head waiter, five waiters, two busboys, a dishwasher and a janitor. 
WAC 08 236 50885 
Page 6 
The petitioner indicated that it also intends to employ a marketing manager, and two commissioned account 
representatives in its marketing department. The petitioner also stated that it will have a general merchandise 
department with a store manager, a purchaser, two cashiers and four sales assistants. The total number of full-time 
employees anticipated is 25. The petitioner provided the names of individuals who would serve as chef, 
marketing manager, and store manager, and indicated that the beneficiary and members of his family would hold 
the "administration"/officer positions, including CEO, CFO, COO and Corporate Secretary. The petitioner 
submitted briefjob descriptions for all positions identified on the organizational chart. 
The petitioner also submitted the minutes of a director's meeting held in the Phillipines on March 3, 2007, in 
which it was approved that the beneficiary and be authorized to explore feasible business options 
in California. The board decided on a budget of $50,000 "to be deposited fiom time to time to the dollar account 
of ' The petitioner provided a certificate issued by the Philippines entity on November 10, 
2208, indicating that the company sent monies totaling $27,700 to the savings account of its president, 
for the expenses of the new U.S. business. The certificate lists 29 cash transfers ranging fiom $100 to 
$3,800, made between August 14, 2007 and November 7, 2008. The petitioner also submitted cash deposit 
receipts as evidence that such funds were deposited in the joint account held by and the beneficiary, 
her spouse. 
The director denied the petition on December 1, 2008, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. As discussed, insomuch as the 
director's decision was primarily based on a finding that the majority of the positions in the company were un- 
staffed at the time of filing, the director's analysis will be withdrawn. However, the director also found that the 
petitioner's description of the beneficiary's duties provided insufficient detail regarding the actual duties to be 
performed and the percentage of time he would devote to specific tasks. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that "it has the ability and realistic goal of being able to support" a managerial or 
executive capacity position "within a reasonable period of time." The petitioner further describes the beneficiary's 
proposed duties as the following: 
[The beneficiary] will fill the position of Chief Executive Officer and President of Saludes 
Golden Son, Inc. He will handle the overall sales and marketing for the company for the time 
being as well as maintaining the client and vendor relations of the company. Moreover, he will 
supervise, manage, and coordinate with all of [the] department heads to ensure the smooth 
overall operation of the company. 
Moreover, [the beneficiary's] job duties include recruitment and training of essential personnel 
for Saludes Golden Sun hc. which means all department heads and professional [sic] with 
specialized work experience. . . . He will exercise unfettered discretion over the work performed 
by company personnel within the departments as soon as the department heads are properly 
trained and learn the duties and responsibilities of their department that they will handle or their 
scope of work. 
Furthermore, [the beneficiary] will supervise, manage and coordinate the financial and 
administrative aspects of the company. Duties will include the supervision and communication 
WAC 08 236 50885 
Page 7 
with outside contractors such as public accountant, bookkeeper, attorney and manufacturing 
vendors. In a few months, the company and [the beneficiary] intends to hire additional full time 
employees to be added to the Restaurant, Sales and Marketing division and [they] will be 
supervised by him. Within a year, the company is committed to hiring TEN (1 0) full time staff in 
its U.S. office. 
Upon review, the petitioner's assertions and additional evidence are not persuasive in establishing that the 
United States operation will support a managerial or executive position within one year. 
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 the beneficiary's proposed duties after the petitioner's first year in 
operation; has failed to sufficiently describe the nature, scope, organizational structure, and financial goals of 
the new office; and has failed to establish that a sufficient investment has been made in the United States 
operation. See 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(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. When examining the proposed executive or 
managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the petitioner's description of the proposed 
job duties. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly describe 
the duties that will be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties will be either in an 
executive or managerial capacity. Id. 
In this matter, the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's proposed duties is insufficient to establish that 
his duties will be primarily managerial or executive in nature. Most of the duties described at the time the 
petition was filed were related to recruiting, hiring, training, scheduling, coaching and supervising restaurant 
staff. The petitioner has since stated that the beneficiary's personnel responsibilities will be limited to hiring 
and training "department heads" for the restaurant, marketing and general merchandise departments. 
However, as discussed further below, the petitioner has not adequately described its hiring plan and it cannot 
be concluded that the beneficiary would be supervising subordinate managers or supervisors within one year. 
Contrary to the common understanding of the word "manager," the statute plainly states that 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)(A)(iv) of the Act; 8 
C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(B)(2). 
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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(I) requires the petitioner to provide evidence regarding 
the proposed nature of the office describing the scope of the entity, its organizational structure, and its 
financial goals. While the petitioner provided a proposed organizational chart for the U.S. company and job 
descriptions for proposed positions, the petitioner must also establish that there is a realistic expectation that 
sufficient staff will be hired within one year to relieve the beneficiary from performing the non-qualifying 
duties associated with operating a restaurant. The petitioner's business plan does not address the company's 
WAC 08 236 50885 
Page 8 
proposed hiring plan or staffing plan, and does not contain any financial projections or goals. The petitioner 
indicates on appeal that it intends to hire ten full-time employees during the first year of operations, but it has 
not identified which positions would be filled within that timeframe. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Given the petitioner's indication on its organizational chart that it 
intends to operate both a store and a restaurant and hire more than 20 employees, it is unclear how ten 
employees could be expected to adequately staff two businesses. Furthermore, without evidence related to the 
petitioner's financial objectives, the evidence does not support a finding that the petitioner could feasibly 
compensate ten full-time staff within one year. 
The AAO acknowledges that the petitioner identified the names of employees who would serve as chef, store 
manager and marketing manager. However, the petitioner did not provide evidence to establish that such 
employees have actually been offered employment with the company or that they have already been hired. 
Again, 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. at 165. 
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 a sufficient investment was made in the 
enterprise. 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(2). The evidence of record indicates that the foreign entity provided 
the beneficiary and his spouse with $27,700 in cash to cover expenses associated with establishing a business 
in the United States, and that up to $50,000 has been budgeted for this purpose. However, there is no evidence 
that there was any investment in a U.S. entity at the time of filing, nor is there any evidence of the anticipated 
start-up costs associated with the new office in the United States. 
Finally, as discussed further below, the evidence of record shows that there was no legal entity established in 
the United States at the time the petition was filed, nor did the petitioner provide evidence that it had leased 
premises sufficient to house the new office. These factors further undermine a determination that the 
proposed enterprise would 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. Rather, it is unclear when the petitioner would realistically be able to even open a 
restaurant, given the need to first incorporate a U.S. entity, locate suitable premises, and obtain the necessary 
licenses and permits to operate a food service business. 
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. 9 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C), and the petition may not be 
approved for the above reasons. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the AAO finds that the petitioner did not establish that it has secured 
sufficient physical premises to house the new office, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(1)(3)(v)(A). The record 
shows that the beneficiary's spouse, signed a lease for a single family residence located at 
purpose. According to the business plan submitted, the U.S. entity will require a 1,500 square foot premises 
with a kitchen and a room for private parties. It is evident that the petitioner cannot operate a restaurant or 
WAC 08 236 50885 
Page 9 
any business from its leased residential premises. Accordingly, the petitioner has not met this evidentiary 
requirement. 
Another issue not addressed by the director is whether there is a qualifying organization in the United States, 
and whether the petitioner, a Philippines corporation, has a qualifjiing relationship with the new U.S. 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 U.S. 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 
1 Ol(a)(15)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1). 
(G) Quallfiing organization means a United States or foreign firm, corporation, or other 
legal entity which: 
(1) Meets exactly one of the qualifying relationships specified in the definitions of 
a parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary specified in paragraph (l)(l)(ii) of this 
section; 
(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)( 1 5)(L) of the Act. 
(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. 
(K) 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) Afjliate means 
(1) One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same 
parent or individual, or 
WAC 08 236 50885 
Page 10 
(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. 
The petitioner stated on Form 1-129 that the U.S. entity is a branch office of the foreign entity, Vision in Life 
Philippines, Inc. At the time of filing, the petitioner referred to the U.S. entity as "Golden Cuisine." The 
regulations define the term "branch" as "an operating division or office of the same organization housed in a 
different location." 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(J). USCIS has recognized that the branch office of a foreign 
corporation may file a nonimmigrant petition for an intracompany transferee. See Matter of Kloetti, 18 I&N 
Dec. 295 (Reg. Comm. 198 1); Matter of leblanc, 13 I&N Dec. 81 6 (Reg. Comm. 1971); Matter of Schick, 13 
I&N Dec. 647 (Reg. Comm. 1970); see also Matter ofPenner, 18 I&N Dec. 49, 54 (Comm. 1982)(stating that 
a Canadian corporation may not petition for L-1B employees who are directly employed by the Canadian 
office rather than a United States office). When a foreign company establishes a branch in the United States, 
that branch is bound to the parent company through common ownership and management. A branch that is 
authorized to do business under United States law becomes, in effect, part of the national industry. Matter of 
Schick, supra at 649-50. 
Probative evidence of a newly-established branch office would include a state business license establishing 
that the foreign corporation is authorized to engage in business activities in the United States; copies of a 
lease for office space in the United States; or state tax forms that demonstrate that the petitioner is a branch 
office of a foreign entity. The petitioner submitted none of this evidence. 
Rather, the record shows that a U.S. entity, Saludes Golden Son, Inc., was incorporated by the beneficiary in 
California on November 3, 2008, more than two months after the petition was filed. It is fundamental to this 
nonimmigrant classification that there be a United States entity to employ the beneficiary. In order to meet 
the definition of "qualifying organization," there must be a United States employer. See 8 C.F.R. tj 
214.2(1)(1)(ii)(G)(2). As in the present matter, if the petitioner is a foreign entity with no branch office in the 
United States and no qualifying ownership interest in a U.S. entity, there is no U.S. entity to employ the 
beneficiary and no qualifying organization. For this additional reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
The AAO notes that the fact that a U.S. entity was incorporated after the date of filing is irrelevant. 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). However, even assuming arguendo that 
the California corporation had been established at the time of filing, the evidence submitted does not establish 
that the U.S. and foreign entities have a qualifying relationship. The U.S. company, Saludes Golden Son, Inc., 
is wholly-owned by the beneficiary. The petitioning company, Vision in Life Philippines, Inc. is owned by ten 
shareholders, and the beneficiary holds only a 28.5% interest in the company. The two entities do not have the 
degree of common ownership required to establish an affiliate relationship. 
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 
WAC 08 236 50885 
Page 11 
(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 and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternative basis for the decision. When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative 
grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only if it is shown that the AAO abused its discretion with 
respect to all of the AAO's enumerated grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 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. 5 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.