dismissed L-1A Case: Hair Products

US. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
identifying data deleted to 
 U. S. Citizenship 
preventcil:_.- .\warranted 
 and Immigration 
invasion of personal pnvac~ 
File: EAC 08 18 1 5 1596 
 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 OCT 1 6 2009 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 8 103.5 for the 
specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the ofice 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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
kf,?d":inistrative Appeals Office 
EAC 08 181 51596 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont 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 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a Georgia corporation, intends to engage in the import and 
wholesale of hair products. It claims to be a subsidiary of Xuchang Haoyuan Hair Products Co. Ltd. located in 
China. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as the vice president of its new office in the United 
States 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 director based the decision, 
in part, on a conclusion that the beneficiary will be the sole employee of the company. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner 
submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or 
executive capacity within one year of approval. Counsel emphasizes that the U.S. entity is a new office and, 
as such, is not required to establish that it has already hired subordinate personnel to perform the non- 
managerial functions of the company. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a 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. § 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 
a EAC 08 181 51596 
Page 3 
education, training, and employment qualifies himher to perform the intended 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 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 basing the decision, in part, on the 
petitioner's current staffing levels. 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. $ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). 
Although the director acknowledged that the petitioner qualifies as a "new office" as defined at 8 C.F.R. 
214.2(1)(l)(ii)(F), the director considered the petitioner's staffing levels at the time of filing, rather than 
EAC 08 181 51596 
Page 4 
considering the proposed organizational structure of the new entity. Accordingly, the director's analysis of the 
beneficiary's proposed position was flawed as it did not taken into account evidence submitted to establish 
that the U.S. company would support a managerial or executive position within one year. Although the 
director's analysis with respect to the petitioner's current staffing levels will be withdrawn, the AAO concurs 
with the director's ultimate conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will not be 
employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
As the 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). 
The sole issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary would be 
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 10 l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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. $ 1101(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) 
 directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the 
organization; 
EAC 08 181 51596 
Page 5 
(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 filed the nonimmigrant petition on June 17, 2008. In a letter dated May 29, 2008, the petitioner 
described the beneficiary's proposed duties as vice president as the following: 
Participating in the Formulation of U.S. subsidiary's Goals and Policies (20%): Participates 
in developing the U.S. subsidiary's policies and strategies and implements them through 
subordinate personnel; assists in establishing major economic objectives for the parent company 
and its various divisions; participates in formulating its global expansion plans and strategies and 
directing its implementation; participates in setting the U.S. subsidiary's goals and providing 
financial support for the newly acquired U.S. subsidiary; directs financial planning, procurement, 
and deployment of funds fiom the parent company's investment; formulates rules and procedures 
regarding the daily operation of the functional departments under his supervision; establishes and 
modifies the operation and control procedures of the U.S. subsidiary and coordinates and 
monitors their implementation; formulates rules and procedures for sales and marketing, 
accounting and administrative, and warehouse; set standards and specifications for products 
customization; and sets uniform standards and procedures for responding and handling customer 
demands or complaints. 
Directing the Management of the Functional Departments and Office (35%) Directs and 
coordinates, under the President, activities of the U.S. subsidiary's Sales and Marketing and 
Accounting and Administrative Departments; directs and oversees the company's hair products 
sales and distribution activities; sets up programs to help manufacturers upgrade and update their 
products so as to improve their marketability and profitability; supervises auditing of contracts, 
orders, and vouchers; orders and monitors periodical evaluation of the performance of the 
functional departments; devises new approaches to improve efficiency of workflow; and inspects 
departmental office layouts and directs their cost reduction programs. 
Supervising and Controlling the Work of other Supervisory and Managerial Employees 
(25%) Supervises and controls the work of the managers of the Sales and Marketing and 
Accounting and Administrative Departments; directs the management of sales and marketing, 
accounting, inventory control, warehousing, and administrative activities of the U.S. subsidiary 
through the departmental managers; and confers with the managers to review its personnel's 
performance and solicits their contributions toward optimizing the operation of the U.S. 
subsidiary. 
Hiring and Firing and Recommending Personnel Actions (5%) Directs and supervises 
recruitment, interviewing and selection of employees to fill vacant positions; decides pay 
. EAC 08 181 51596 
Page 6 
schedules and prepares budget of personnel operations; and contracts with outside suppliers to 
provide employee services. 
Exercising Wide Latitude in Discretionary Decision Making (15%) 
Reports to the President of the U.S. subsidiary and to the Board of Directors of the parent 
company but receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives; and 
exercises wide discretionary power in regard to operational and financial planning, budgeting, 
personnel recruitment, and other matters of the subordinate departments; and makes 
discretionary decisions regarding the hiring and firing of the managers and staff of the Sales and 
Marketing and Accounting and Administrative Departments; and exercises discretionary power 
regarding the hiring and firing of subordinate managers and workers. 
The petitioner stated that the U.S. company will operate with a three-tier organizational structure, which will 
include: the beneficiary (vice president) and company president as the senior staff; a tier of managerial employees 
(sales department manager and manager of the accounting and administrative department); and a third tier to 
include marketing specialists, sales representatives, an accountant, and warehouse workers. The petitioner 
provided detailed proposed position descriptions for the subordinate managers, and brief job descriptions for the 
lower-tier employees. Notably, the petitioner stated that the marketing specialists and sales representatives will 
perform the following duties: 
Contacts new and existing clients to discuss sales and purchase of pneumatic components and 
equipment shipped from the parent company in China, including solenoid valve, steam valves, 
fluid control valves, angle valves, IS0 standard cylinders, butterfly valve, and air supply 
treatment components; answers customers' questions about pneumatic components and 
equipment. 
All other evidence in the record indicates that the petitioner and its Chinese parent company have been and will 
be involved in the sale of hair weaves and related products, not pneumatic and industrial equipment. 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). 
The petitioner submitted a proposed organizational chart for the U.S. office which indicates that the 
beneficiary will report to a company president (to be hired), and will supervise a sales and marketing 
department manager, and an accounting and administrative department manager. The lower-level positions 
depicted on the chart are marketing specialists/sales representatives and an accountant. The chart does not 
identify any proposed warehouse positions. 
The petitioner indicated that the parent company has invested $100,000 for the establishment of the U.S. 
subsidiary, which is stated to be engaged in "importing, wholesaling and retailing hair products from China." In 
this regard, the petitioner submitted a wire transfer notice dated May 6, 2008, which shows an incoming wire in 
the amount of $99,982 posted to the petitioner's bank account. The originating party of the wire transfer was 
. EAC0818151596 
Page 7 
," who has a Hong Kong address listed. The petitioner did not provide evidence of this 
individual's connection to the petitioner's claimed Chinese parent company. 
The petitioner also provided a copy of its lease agreement and photographs which purportedly depict the premises 
secured for the business in Atlanta, Georgia. The photographs depict an office with several workstations, a 
warehouse stocked with boxes, and a showroom with hair products on display. Although no employees are 
pictured, the office and warehouse suggest a company that is already doing business in some capacity. 
On July 17,2008, the director issued a request for additional evidence (WE), instructing the petitioner to provide, 
inter alia, a comprehensive description of the beneficiary's proposed duties; complete position descriptions for all 
proposed U.S. employees; a breakdown of the number of hours devoted to each of the employees' job duties on a 
weekly basis; and educational requirements for all proposed positions. 
In a letter dated August 7,2008, counsel for the petitioner referred the director to its letter dated May 29,2008 for 
detailed position descriptions for the beneficiary and his subordinates. The petitioner supplemented the previous 
information by providing the percentage of time that the beneficiary's subordinates would devote to specific job 
duties. The petitioner also indicated that, of the proposed employees, the manager of the accounting and 
administrative department and the accountant would be required to have a college degree. 
The director denied the petition on October 8, 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 partially 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, counsel emphasizes that the petitioner, as a new office, "has a one-year grace period for fulfilling the 
obligation of recruiting a staff and creating a three-tier corporate structure to support the beneficiary's 
manageriaVexecutive capacity." Counsel requests that the petition be approved so that the petitioner may proceed 
with recruiting staff and doing business in the United States. In support of the appeal, the petitioner submits 
additional photographs of the U.S. company, which appears to be operational, with an "Open" sign and hours 
posted on its storefront. 
Upon review, 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 qualifLing duties. The petitioner has 
failed to sufficiently describe the beneficiary's proposed duties after the petitioner's first year in operation and 
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, as 
required by 8 C.F.R 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
First, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will be performing primarily "managerial" or 
"executive" duties after the petitioner's first year in operation. When examining the proposed executive or 
managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the petitioner's description of the proposed 
. EAC 08 181 51596 
Page 8 
job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(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. 
As noted by the director, the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's proposed duties, while lengthy, is 
excessively vague and provides little insight into what types of duties the beneficiary would primarily 
perform as vice president of the company at the end of one year. The petitioner's general breakdown of the 
beneficiary's duties merely paraphrased the statutory definitions of managerial and executive capacity. See 
sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. For example, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary's role will 
entail "participating in the formulation of U.S. subsidiaries goals and policies"; "directing the management of 
functional departments"; "supervising and controlling work of other supervisory and managerial employees"; 
hiring and firing and recommending personnel actions"; and "exercising wide latitude in discretionary 
decision making." Conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's employment capacity are not sufficient. 
Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. 
Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); 
Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
Although the petitioner technically listed duties to be performed by the beneficiary within each area of 
responsibility, such duties were equally vague and nonspecific. 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 proposed daily job duties. The petitioner has failed to provide any detail or 
explanation of the beneficiary's activities in the course of his daily routine. The actual duties themselves will 
reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1 108. 
The director provided the petitioner with notice that the initial evidence was insufficient to establish that the 
beneficiary would be performing primarily managerial or executive duties when he instructed the petitioner to 
provide a comprehensive job description, and information regarding the number of hours the beneficiary 
would devote to specific duties on a weekly basis. The petitioner opted to refer the director to the previously 
submitted job description that was already reviewed and found to be deficient. The failure to submit requested 
evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. See 8 C.F.R. 
tj 103.2(b)(14). Finally, although the director specifically cited the lack of a detailed, specific job description 
as a basis for the adverse decision, the petitioner has not addressed the beneficiary's proposed job duties on 
appeal. 
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 2 14.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(l) 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 an import and wholesale distribution business. 
EAC 08 181 51596 
Page 9 
As contemplated by the regulations, a comprehensive business plan should contain, at a minimum, a 
description of the business, its products andlor services, and its objectives. See Matter of Ho, 22 I&N Dec. 
206, 213 (Assoc. Comm. 1998). Although the precedent relates to the regulatory requirements for the alien 
entrepreneur immigrant visa classification, Matter of Ho is instructive as to the contents of an acceptable 
business plan: 
The plan should contain a market analysis, including the names of competing businesses and 
their relative strengths and weaknesses, a comparison of the competition's products and 
pricing structures, and a description of the target marketlprospective customers of the new 
commercial enterprise. The plan should list the required permits and licenses obtained. If 
applicable, it should describe the manufacturing or production process, the materials required, 
and the supply sources. The plan should detail any contracts executed for the supply of 
materials andlor the distribution of products. It should discuss the marketing strategy of the 
business, including pricing, advertising, and servicing. The plan should set forth the 
business's organizational structure and its personnel's experience. It should explain the 
business's staffing requirements and contain a timetable for hiring, as well as job descriptions 
for all positions. It should contain sales, cost, and income projections and detail the bases 
therefore. Most importantly, the business plan must be credible. 
Id. 
While the regulations for new office L-1A petitions do not specifically require the submission of a formal 
business plan, the petitioner must provide some evidence related to the structure and objectives of the new 
entity beyond a proposed organizational chart. The petitioner has not submitted a business plan or other 
documentation addressing the company's proposed hiring plan or intended staffing, and the record contains no 
evidence of the petitioner's financial projections or goals for the first year of operation. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Given that the petitioner's primary claim regarding the 
beneficiary's proposed employment capacity is that the beneficiary will manage two tiers of subordinate 
employees, this evidence is critical to a determination as to whether the beneficiary will be employed in a 
qualifying capacity within one year. 
Overall, the lack of evidence regarding the petitioner's ability to support the proposed organizational structure 
undermines the petitioner's claim that the petitioner will hire sufficient staff within the first year of operations 
to relieve the beneficiary from performing primarily non-managerial and non-executive duties. 
Finally, 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. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(2). The petitioner claims that the foreign entity has provided the 
petitioner with $100,000 as an initial investment. However, the petitioner has not established that the wire 
transfer in the amount of $100,000, from an individual in Hong Kong, actually originated with the foreign 
entity or that it was intended as an investment. Counsel explained that "the stringent foreign exchange 
control imposed by the Chinese authorities made it necessary for the funds to make a detour via Hong Kong 
- EAC0818151596 
Page 10 
before they reached the destination." However, no supporting evidence was submitted to establish the path of 
the funds from the foreign entity to the United States entity. Without documentary evidence to support the 
claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of 
counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of 
Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
Furthermore, even if the petitioner had submitted evidence of a $100,000 investment from the foreign entity, 
the record is devoid of a business plan or other evidence identifying the petitioner's anticipated start-up costs 
and initial operating expenses associated with the new office, such that it could be determined whether the 
investment was sufficient to carry out the petitioner's plans for the first year of operation. Again, 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. at 165. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, 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. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C), and 
the petition may not be approved for the above reasons. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the AAO finds insufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary has been 
employed by the foreign entity for one continuous year in the three-year period preceding the filing of the 
petition in an executive or managerial capacity, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). The petitioner 
indicates that the beneficiary's one year of qualifying employment occurred between May 10, 2007 and June 
2, 2008. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(l)(ii)(A) states, in pertinent part: 
Periods spent in the United States in lawful status for a branch of the same employer or a 
parent, affiliate, or subsidiary thereof and brief trips to the United States for business or 
pleasure shall not be interruptive of the one year of continuous employment abroad but such 
periods shall not be counted toward fulfillment of that requirement. 
The petitioner indicated on Form 1-129 that the beneficiary was not in the United States. The petition was 
signed by the petitioner on June 3, 2008 and filed with USCIS on June 17, 2008. In support of the petition, 
the petitioner submitted partial copies of two passports issued to the beneficiary. The evidence shows that the 
beneficiary was admitted to the United States in B-1 status on March 10, 2008, and was authorized to remain 
in the country until June 8, 2008. The beneficiary's exact date of departure is not known; however, the 
petitioner did submit various receipts for purchases made by the U.S. entity. This evidence indicates that the 
beneficiary used his credit card to purchase a computer printer at a retail store in Atlanta on May 10, 2008. 
The beneficiary's presence in the United States would also explain why the petitioner's premises appeared to 
be occupied and open for business as of the date of filing, despite the claim that no employees have been 
hired. At a minimum, the evidence indicates that the beneficiary was in the United States for at least two 
months during the previous year, and therefore it cannot be concluded that he has completed the requisite year 
of continuous employment abroad. For this additional reason, the petition cannot 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. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 200 1 ), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
. EAC 08 181 51596 
Page 1 I 
(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.