dismissed L-1A Case: Gas Station / Retail

PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
1J.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
OfJice ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: MAR 2 7 2009 
EAC 08 129 50835 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10l(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 08 129 50835 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont 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 visa petition seeking to extend the employment of the beneficiary in 
the position of general manager as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 
10 l(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 l(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is 
a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida and allegedly operates a gas station, 
convenience store, and car maintenance facility. The beneficiary was granted a one-year period of stay to 
open a new office in the United States, and the petitioner now seeks to extend the beneficiary's stay. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States 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 the director erred and that 
the beneficiary will be employed in either a managerial or an executive capacity. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 10l(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 qualifLing 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 hirnlher 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. 
Page 3 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. Cj 214.2(1)(14)(ii) also provides that a visa petition, which involved the opening of a 
new office, may be extended by filing a new Form I- 129, accompanied by the following: 
(A) 
 Evidence that the United States and foreign entities are still qualifying 
organizations as defined in paragraph (])(I )(ii)(G) of this section; 
(B) 
 Evidence that the United States entity has been doing business as defined in 
paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(H) of this section for the previous year; 
(C) 
 A statement of the duties performed by the beneficiary for the previous year 
and the duties the beneficiary will perform under the extended petition; 
(D) 
 A statement describing the staffing of the new operation, including the 
number of employees and types of positions held accompanied by evidence 
of wages paid to employees when the beneficiary will be employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity; and 
(E) 
 Evidence of the financial status of the United States operation. 
The primary issue in the present matter is whether the beneficiary will be employed by the United States 
entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 10 1(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 101(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. Cj 1101(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" as an 
Page 4 
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. 
The petitioner does not clarify in the initial petition whether the beneficiary will primarily perform managerial 
duties under section 10 1 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, or primarily executive duties under section 10 1 (a)(44)(B) of 
the Act, and indicates on appeal that the beneficiary will be employed in either a managerial or an executive 
capacity. Accordingly, the AAO will consider both classifications. 
The petitioner claims in the Form 1-129 to employ 5 workers in its operation of a single-location gas station, 
convenience store, and car maintenance facility. The petitioner describes the beneficiary's proposed duties in 
a document appended to the petition as follows: 
Plan, organize and manages the work of subordinate staff (Administrative Manager 
and both divisions managers) to ensure that the work is accomplished in a manner 
consistent with organizational requirements.. .......................................... .25% 
(Managerial) 
Manage staff, preparing work schedules and assigning specific duties.. ............ .lo% 
(Managerial) 
Set goals and deadlines for the company.. ............................................... 10% 
(Managerial) 
Collaborate with managers under his supervision and staff members to formulate and 
implement policies, procedures, goals, and objectives.. ................................ 10% 
(Operative) 
Monitor operations to ensure that staff members comply with administrative policies 
and procedures, safety rules, union contracts, and government regulations.. ........ 10% 
(Supervision) 
. 
Monitor spending to ensure that expenses are consistent with approved budgets.. .5% 
(Supervision) 
Review financial statements, sales and activity reports, and other performance data to 
measure productivity and goal achievement and to determine areas needing cost 
reduction and program improvement.. .................................................... .5% 
(Operative) 
Establish and implement departmental policies, goals, objectives, and procedures, 
conferring with board members, organizational officials, and staff members as 
necessary.. .................................................................................. ..I O'%O 
Page 5 
(Managerial) 
Determine staffing requirements, and interview, hire and train new employees, or 
oversee those personnel processes.. ....................................................... .5% 
(Operative) 
Direct and coordinate organization's financial and budget activities to fund operations 
and increase efficiency.. ..................................................................... .5% 
(Managerial) 
Analyze internal processes and recommend and implement procedural or policy 
changes to improve operations, such as supply changes or the disposal of records..5% 
(Managerial) 
The petitioner also submitted an organizational chart for the 5-employee organization. The beneficiary is 
shown at the top of the organization directly supervising a gas station manager, a convenience store manager, 
and an administrative manager. The gas station manager and the convenience store manager are each 
portrayed as supervising at least one attendant. The administrative manager is described as supervising an 
unnamed "assistant." In total, the petitioner identifies 7 employees even though it claims to employ 5 workers 
in the Form 1-129. 
The petitioner also submitted job descriptions for the gas station and convenience store "managers." Both the 
gas station and convenience store managers are described as being responsible for the operations, inventory, 
scheduling, and training associated with these components. 
Although the gas station manager, convenience store manager, and gas station attendant are all described as 
being hired on or before October 1, 2007, the Florida quarterly wage report for the fourth quarter of 2007 
indicates that the petitioner had zero employees in October and November 2007. Also, although the petitioner 
claims that two additional convenience store attendants were hired in 2008, the petitioner did not submit any 
wage reports corroborating this claim. The petitioner also did not reconcile this claim with its assertion in the 
Form 1-129 to employ 5 people. The instant petition was filed on April 2, 2008. 
On April 10, 2008, the director requested additional evidence. The director requested complete position 
descriptions and educational credentials for all the beneficiary's subordinates in the United States. 
In response, the petitioner submitted job descriptions for the subordinate workers. As these descriptions are 
in the record, they will not be repeated here verbatim. In general, the gas station and convenience store 
"managers" are described as supervising one or two subordinate attendants and as administering their 
respective components. Also, the petitioner claims that the administrative and gas station "managers" are 
professionals who have earned university degrees. 
On May 9, 2008, the director denied the petition. The director concluded that the petitioner failed to establish 
that the beneficiary will be employed primarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary will primarily perform qualifying duties in the United 
States. 
Page 6 
Upon review, the petitioner'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. $ 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner's description of the job 
duties must clearly describe the duties to be performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are 
either in an executive or managerial capacity. Id. 
In this matter, the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's job duties fails to establish that the beneficiary 
will act in a "managerial" or "executive" capacity. In support of the petition, the petitioner has submitted a 
vague and non-specific job description which fails to sufficiently describe what the beneficiary will do on a 
day-to-day basis. For example, the petitioner states that the beneficiary will establish goals, deadlines, 
policies, objectives, and procedures. The petitioner also states that the beneficiary will devote most of his 
time to managing the subordinate staff, preparing schedules, assigning duties, collaborating with subordinates, 
and monitoring operations. However, the petitioner does not specifically define these goals, deadlines, 
policies, objectives, and procedures, or explain what, exactly, the beneficiary will do to "manage" the 
operation other than to act as a first-line supervisor of four subordinate gas station, convenience store, and car 
maintenance workers. The fact that the petitioner has given the beneficiary a managerial or executive title 
and has prepared a vague job description which includes inflated job duties does not establish that the 
beneficiary will actually perform managerial or executive duties. 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. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. 
Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d.Cir.1990). 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 Calz$ornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). 
Consequently, the record is not persuasive in establishing that the beneficiary will primarily perform 
qualifying duties in his administration of the single-location gas station, convenience store, and car 
maintenance facility. Not only are the beneficiary's duties so vaguely described that it cannot be concluded 
that any are managerial or executive in nature, it has also not been established that the ascribed duties 
pertaining to the supervision of the four subordinate employees are qualifying because it has not been 
established that any of these workers is supervisory, managerial, or professional (see infia). Accordingly, it 
appears more likely than not that the beneficiary will primarily perform non-qualifying first-line supervisory, 
administrative, or operational tasks in his administration of the business. 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 (requiring that 
one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); see also Matter of Church 
Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). A managerial employee must have 
authority over day-to-day operations beyond the level normally vested in a first-line supervisor, unless the 
supervised employees are professionals. Section 10 1 (a)(44)(A)(iv) 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 asserted in the petition, the beneficiary will directly supervise four subordinate gas station, convenience 
EAC 08 129 50835 
Page 7 
store, and car maintenance employees.' However, it has not been established that any of these workers is 
truly a supervisory or managerial worker. To the contrary, it appears that these workers will perform the tasks 
necessary to the operation of the business. An employee will not be considered to be a supervisor simply 
because of a job title or because he or she supervises daily work activities and assignments. Rather, the 
employee must be shown to possess some significant degree of control or authority over the employment of 
subordinates. Artificial tiers of subordinate employees and inflated job titles are not probative and will not 
establish that an organization is sufficiently complex to support an executive or manager position. In this 
matter, the petitioner has not established that the needs of the United States operation could reasonably 
compel the employment of a managerial or executive employee to oversee one or more subordinate 
supervisors. To the contrary, it is more likely than not that the workers will primarily perform non-qualifying 
tasks. See generally Family, Inc. v. US. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 469 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 2006). 
Accordingly, it appears that the beneficiary will be, at most, the first-line supervisor of non-professional gas 
station, convenience store, and car maintenance employees. Finally, as it has not been established that 
university degrees are necessary to perform the duties of any of the subordinate positions, the petitioner has 
not established that the beneficiary will manage professional employees.2 Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
established that the beneficiary will be employed primarily in a managerial capacity.3 
'1t is noted that the record contains inconsistencies pertaining the number of workers employed by the 
petitioner. As noted above, the petitioner claims to employ 5 people in the Form 1-129. However, in the 
organizational chart and job descriptions, the petitioner claims to employ 7 workers, including two additional 
"attendants" allegedly subordinate to the convenience store manager. The petitioner offers no evidence 
corroborating this assertion or addressing this inconsistency in the record. 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). 
2 
In evaluating whether the beneficiary will manage professional employees, the AAO must evaluate whether 
the subordinate positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. 
Section 101(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1101(a)(32), states that "[tlhe term profession shall include but not 
be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary 
schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." The term "profession" contemplates knowledge or learning, not 
merely skill, of an advanced type in a given field gained by a prolonged course of specialized instruction and 
study of at least baccalaureate level, which is a realistic prerequisite to entry into the particular field of 
endeavor. Matter of Sea, 19 I&N Dec. 8 17 (Comm. 1988); Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (R.C. 1968); 
Matter of Shin, 11 I&N Dec. 686 (D.D. 1966). Therefore, the AAO must focus on the level of education 
required by the position, rather than the degree held by subordinate employee. The possession of a bachelor's 
degree by a subordinate employee does not automatically lead to the conclusion that an employee is employed 
in a professional capacity as that term is defined above. In the instant case, the petitioner has not established 
that a bachelor's degree is necessary to perform the duties of any of the subordinate positions. In fact, it is not 
credible that the duties of the beneficiary's subordinates, i.e., employees of a single-location gas station, 
convenience store, and car maintenance facility, would reasonably require the earning of university degrees. 
3 
While the petitioner has not argued that the beneficiary will manage an essential function of the organization, 
the record nevertheless would not support this position even if taken. The term "function manager" applies 
EAC 08 129 50835 
Page 8 
Similarly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will act in an "executive" capacity. The 
statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position within a complex 
organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the organization, and that person's 
authority to direct the organization. Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. Under the statute, a beneficiary must 
have the ability to "direct the management" and "establish the goals and policies" of that organization. 
Inherent to the definition, the organization must have a subordinate level of employees for the beneficiary to 
direct, and the beneficiary must primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than 
the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. An individual will not be deemed an executive under the statute 
simply because they have an executive title or because they "direct" the enterprise as the owner or sole 
managerial employee. The beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision making" 
and receive only "general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or 
stockholders of the organization." Id. For the same reasons indicated above, the petitioner has failed to 
establish that the beneficiary will act primarily in an executive capacity. As explained above, it appears 
instead that the beneficiary will be primarily employed as a first-line supervisor and will perform the tasks 
necessary to produce a product or to provide a service. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary will be employed primarily in an executive capacity. 
In reviewing the relevance of the number of employees a petitioner has, federal courts have generally agreed 
that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) "may properly consider an organization's small size 
as one factor in assessing whether its operations are substantial enough to support a manager." Family, Inc. v. 
US. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 469 F.3d at 13 16 (citing with approval Republic of Transkei v. 
INS, 923 F.2d 175, 178 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Fedin Bros. Co. v. Sava, 905 F.2d 41, 42 (2d Cir. 1990) (per 
curiam); Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25, 29 (D.D.C. 2003)). Furthermore, it is 
appropriate for USCIS to consider the size of the petitioning company in conjunction with other relevant 
factors, such as a company's small personnel size, the absence of employees who would perform the non- 
managerial or non-executive operations of the company, or a "shell company" that does not conduct business 
in a regular and continuous manner. See, e.g. Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead is 
primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" within the organization. See section 
101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The term "essential function" is not defined by statute or regulation. If a 
petitioner claims that the beneficiary is managing an essential function, the petitioner must furnish a written 
job offer that clearly describes the duties to be performed in managing the essential function, i.e., identify the 
function with specificity, articulate the essential nature of the function, and establish the proportion of the 
beneficiary's daily duties attributed to managing the essential function. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(ii). In 
addition, the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary 
will manage the function rather than perform the tasks related to the function. In this matter, the petitioner 
has not provided evidence that the beneficiary will manage an essential function. The petitioner's vague job 
description fails to document that the beneficiary's duties will be primarily managerial. Also, as explained 
above, the record indicates that the beneficiary will primarily be a first-line supervisor of non-professional 
employees and will perform non-qualifying tasks. Absent a clear and credible breakdown of the time spent 
by the beneficiary performing his duties, the AAO cannot determine what proportion of his duties will be 
managerial, nor can it deduce whether the beneficiary will primarily perform the duties of a function manager. 
See IKEA US, Inc. v. US. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22,24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
EAC 08 129 50835 
Page 9 
The size of a company may be especially relevant when USCIS notes discrepancies in the record and fails to 
believe that the facts asserted are true. Id. 
In this matter, the record contains several inconsistencies pertaining to its staffing which undermine the 
credibility of the petition. For example, the petitioner claims to employ 5 people in the Form 1-129. 
However, in the organizational chart and job descriptions, the petitioner claims to employ 7 workers, 
including two additional "attendants" allegedly subordinate to the convenience store manager. Also, although 
the gas station manager, convenience store manager, and gas station attendant are all described as being hired 
on or before October 1, 2007, the Florida quarterly wage report for the fourth quarter of 2007 indicates that 
the petitioner had zero employees in October and November 2007. The petitioner offers no explanation for 
these inconsistencies in the record. 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. 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 59 1. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will primarily perform managerial or 
executive duties, and the petition may not be approved for that reason. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has failed to establish that it and the foreign employer are 
qualifying organizations. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(i) states that a petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be accompanied by 
"[elvidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the alien are qualifying 
organizations." Title 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(i)(l)(ii)(G) defines a "qualifying organization" as a firm, corporation, 
or other legal entity which "meets exactly one of the qualitjling relationships specified in the definitions of a 
parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary specified in paragraph (l)(l)(ii) of this section" and "is or will be doing 
business." "Subsidiary" is defined in pertinent part as a corporation "of which a parent owns, directly or 
indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity." 8 C.F.R. 3 214,2(1)(l)(ii)(K). "Doing business" is 
defined in pertinent part as "the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services." 8 C.F.R. 
$ 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(H). 
In this matter, the petitioner claims in the Form 1-129 that it is 60% owned by the foreign employer. 
However, the petitioner's 2007 Form 1120 indicates in schedule K that it is 5 1% owned by a foreign entity or 
person. 
 Furthermore, the petitioner failed to identify this foreign owner in its 2007 Form 5472. 
 The 
petitioner fails to address these inconsistencies pertaining to its ownership and control. 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. As the 
record contains unresolved inconsistencies regarding the ownership and control of the United States 
operation, the petitioner has failed to establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign employer. 
EAC 08 129 50835 
Page 10 
Furthermore, the record is devoid of evidence establishing that the foreign employer is still "doing business." 
8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(A). The evidence in the record pertains only to business activity occurring more 
than one year prior to the filing of the petition in April 2008. 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. USCIS may in its discretion deny a petition if 
required evidence is not submitted or does not demonstrate eligibility. 8 C.F.R. 6 103.2(b)(S)(ii). 
Accordingly, as the petitioner has failed to establish that it and the foreign employer are qualifying 
organizations, the petition may not be approved for this additional reason. 
The previous approval of an L-1A petition does not preclude USCIS from denying an extension based on a 
reassessment of the petitioner's qualifications. Texas ABM Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556,2004 WL 
1240482 (5th Cir. 2004). Despite any number of previously approved petitions, USCIS does not have any 
authority to confer an immigration benefit when the petitioner fails to meet its burden of proof in a subsequent 
petition. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afd, 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989) (noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. 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., 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. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.