dismissed L-1A Case: Hospitality

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacj 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
IN RE: 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(] 5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1101(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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 08 002 50356 
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 petition seeking to extend the employment of its vice president as an 
L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of 
North Carolina that is engaged in management and consulting.' The petitioner claims that it is the subsidiary 
of Ligna, Ltd., located in Mombasa, Kenya. The beneficiary was initially 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 for an 
additional three years. 
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. Specifically, the director 
noted that the petitioner's organizational structure was unclear, thus rendering it difficult to determine how 
many persons were employed by the petitioner and how many subordinates the beneficiary oversees as part of 
his job. 
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 restates the beneficiary's duties, and 
asserts that these duties meet the regulatory definitions of managerial or executive capacity. In support of 
this assertion, the petitioner submits additional evidence. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one 
continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States. In addition, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his 
or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
 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. 
I 
 Based on evidence in the record, and the petitioner's publicly available Business Corporation North Carolina 
Annual Report, the petitioner is operating as a Days Inn motel and not as a management and consulting 
company as claimed in the record. 
EAC 08 002 50356 
Page 3 
(iii) 
 Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
(iv) 
 Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies 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. 9 214.2(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 1-129, accompanied by the following: 
(A) 
 Evidence that the United States and foreign entities are still qualifying organizations 
as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(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 management or executive 
capacity; and 
(E) 
 Evidence of the financial status of the United States operation. 
The first 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 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) 
 manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of 
the organization; 
(ii) 
 supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees, or manages an essential function within the organization, or a department 
or subdivision of the organization; 
EAC 08 002 50356 
Page 4 
(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; 
(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 nonimmigrant petition was filed on October 2, 2007. In the petition, the petitioner claimed that it 
employed 14 persons, including the beneficiary. In a letter dated September 28,2007, the petitioner described 
the beneficiary's job duties as follows: 
Beneficiary['s] role as Vice President is that of supervising and controlling the USA 
operations of our company at our US office. He establishes policies, vision and goals of our 
US entity. He will have complete authority in decision-making. He receives only general 
supervision from the company president. 
 He works closely with the company's senior 
management so [the] company continue[s] to achieve further development and growth in the 
US marketplace. These duties clearly demonstrate that the beneficiary has been and will be 
managing a subordinate staff of professional, managerial, or supervisory personnel who 
relieves [sic] him from performing non-qualifying duties. 
His duties in the U.S. include: 
1) Supervising a team of general managers who manage Accounts, Finance, Sales & 
Marketing, Operations & Administration departments. 
EAC 08 002 50356 
Page 5 
2) Manage responsibilities of major operations in the United States which include the 
following: 
a) Supervising a team of top management personnel who manage the business 
operations at [the petitioner]. 
b) Providing key strategic management discretionary directives for the business 
operations to stay ahead in US Market. 
c) Manage finance, accounts policies, marketing strateges and Administration 
services. 
d) Set guidelines for accounting, financial, sales, marketing, operations and 
Administration management. 
3) Communicate company's financial status to top management and implement 
management recommendations regarding accounting, finance, marketing and 
administration policies. 
4) Makes hiring, discharging and promotion decisions for the Finance, Marketing, 
Administration and Operations departments. 
5) Communicate company's financial status to top management and implement 
management recommendations regarding accounting, finance, marketing and 
administration. 
The petitioner also submitted an organizational chart, indicating that the beneficiary oversaw three managerial 
employees, namely, a general manager for accounting and finance, a general manager of sales and marketing, 
and a general manager of operations and administration. Each of these managers, in turn, allegedly oversee 
three or more employees. The petitioner further claims that each of these three subordinate positions are 
managerial in nature and require a bachelor's degree at minimum. Therefore, the petitioner concluded that 
the beneficiary is overseeing managerial employees and thus is functioning at a senior level within the 
organization. It is noted that the petitioner did not provide the names of the beneficiary's claimed 
subordinates. 
On December 5, 2007, the director requested additional evidence. 
 Specifically, the director requested 
additional evidence to establish that the beneficiary has been and will be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity in the United States, including but not limited to a comprehensive overview of the 
beneficiary's duties, position descriptions and education credentials for all of the petitioner's employees, and 
payroll records. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a letter dated January 15, 2008, which included the following updated 
description of duties for the beneficiary: 
EAC 08 002 50356 
Page 6 
1) Supervising a team of general managers who manage Finance, Accounts, Sales, 
Marketing and Operations departments. This duty can be elaborated as follows: 
Marketing analysis, research as well as development of sales promotions. The manager 
of sales and marketing achieves this by having professionals work under them. Our 
management and consulting involves analysis of financial and logistics. 
2) Complete managing [of] the responsibilities of major operations in the United States 
which include the following: 
a) Supervising a team of top management personnel who manage the entire 
company operations at [the petitioner]. 
b) Providing key strategic management discretionary directives for the company 
operations for the Finance, Accounts, Sales, Marketing and Operations. 
This duty can be elaborated as follows: Directives shape the view of the key 
managers-in terms of operations of company and its collective thinking. The 
directives could take place in form of memos, policies and procedures. This will 
ensure two results: 
A. 
 Company is operated smoothly, efficiently and profitably. 
B. Company's growth is sustained by adapting to changing business 
environment. 
c) Manage finance, accounts policies, marketing strategies, and Administration 
services. 
It is very important for company to strategize early on to head off any potential 
challenges. The three (3) areas of such challenges are accounting, marketing and 
administration. Companies could fail if lapses occur in any of these areas. For 
example, company might be generating revenues in millions but if it does not know 
the net income, it will collapse eventually. If company cannot market itself 
innovatively and obtain new clients, it will again degenerate. Company's own 
administration also is very important as [I this administration is what clients and 
others will come into contact with. For example, if one department is not 
coordinating with other, it could result in disgruntled employees andlor clients-again 
resulting in loss of business. 
d) Set guidelines for accounting, financial, sales, marketing, operations and 
Administrative management. 
These guidelines serve as roadmap for company's accounting, finance, sales, 
marketing, operations and administration. For example accounting guidelines have a 
EAC 08 002 50356 
Page 7 
notably high subjective element, and that has a material impact on the financial 
statements. These guidelines are often mandated to be described in detail in specific 
sections of a [company's] annual or quarterly report. Similarly marketing guidelines 
will dictate in terms of company's image as well as norms and taster of particular 
market or its segment. 
3) Communicate company's financial status to top management and implement 
management recommendations regarding accounting and finance. 
This duty refers to reporting: Company has to be monitored the work so as to assure that 
everything is going according to plan. Reporting is important as it tells management where 
company is lagging and where company is meeting goals. 
4) Makes hiring, discharging and promotion decisions for the Finance, Accounting, Sales 
and Marketing, and Operations departments. 
This duty is obvious as all three decisions reflect the fact that hiring, discharging and 
promotions relate to personnel / human resource authority as far as these departments are 
concerned. 
The petitioner also submitted copies of Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statements for its employees for 2006, as 
well as copies of Forms 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, for all four quarters of 2007. The W- 
2 forms indicate that the petitioner paid $8,785 in wages during 2006 to eleven employees, including the 
beneficiary. According to the documentation, the beneficiary earned $3,000. In addition, the following 
employees earned as follows: 
A review of the Forms 941 for the first three quarters of 2007 indicates that the petitioner employed the 
following number of persons: 
January to March 2007: 
 9 employees 
April to June 2007: 
 11 employees 
July to September 2007: 
 11 employees 
EAC 08 002 50356 
Page 8 
October to December 2007: 
 11 employees 
The petitioner, however, failed to include information regarding the names of the actual employees who 
received wages during these quarters. 
A review of the list of the beneficiary's subordinate employees, submitted in response to the request for 
evidence, reveals that the following persons are allegedly employed by the petitioner: 
General Manager (Finance and Accounting) 
General Manager (Sales and Marketing) 
General Manager (Operations and Administration) 
Business Development Manager 
Financial Manager 
Administrative Manager 
Sales & Marketing Manager 
Sales Executive 
Accountant 
HR Manager 
Accounting Clerk 
Accounting Clerk 
Facilities Manager 
The MO notes that of the thirteen subordinate employees listed on the chart, the record contains payroll 
documentation for only three of these persons. The three employees, noted in bold type, received a combined 
total of $2,479.81 in wages for 2006. 
On March 18, 2008 the director denied the petition. The director determined that based on the evidence 
submitted, particularly the Forms 941, it was impossible to determine the exact composition of the 
petitioner's enterprise and its personnel. The director noted that the Forms 941 were not endorsed and further 
did not list the names of employees to whom wages were paid. The director also noted that in 2007, 
according to the personnel list provided, the petitioner only employed four of the eleven employees listed on 
the Forms W-2 for 2006. Finally, the director noted that the overall amount of wages, when divided among 
the eleven employees listed on the most recent quarterly return, was not commensurate with that of a 
managerial salary. 
On appeal, the petitioner re-emphasizes the importance of the beneficiary's duties, but fails to address the 
director's comments with regard to the insufficient evidence of the staffing of the petitioning enterprise. 
Upon review, the MO concurs with the director's findings. 
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. 5 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The definitions of executive and 
managerial capacity have two parts. First, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary perfonns the high 
EAC 08 002 50356 
Page 9 
level responsibilities that are specified in the definitions. Second, the petitioner must prove that the 
beneficiary primarily performs these specified responsibilities and does not spend a majority of his or her 
time on day-to-day functions. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th 
Cir. July 30, 1991). 
The AAO will first address its independent findings regarding the nature of the petitioner's actual business. A 
review of Secretary of State records for the state of North Carolina reveals that the petitioner is actually 
operating as a Days Inn motel in Kelty, North Carolina, and not as a management and consulting company as 
claimed in the record. This finding is supported by the petitioner's Business Corporation North Carolina 
Annual Report, filed with the Secretary of State on February 10, 2007 and signed by the beneficiary. The 
petitioner states "motel" as its nature of business, and lists its principal address as that listed in the petition. It 
is further noted that the annual report was transmitted by facsimile, and the facsimile header reads "Days Inn 
Kelty." Finally, an independent internet search by the AAO reveals that a Days Inn occupies the principal 
address provided by the petitioner on Form 1-129. 
A critical analysis of the nature of the petitioner's business, as recently determined by the AAO, undermines 
the petitioner's assertions that the beneficiary is acting in a primarily managerial capacity as the vice president 
of a management and consulting company. In light of these findings, the AAO is left to question the validity 
of the totality of the petitioner's claims and the beneficiary's claimed duties, since the evidence submitted to 
the record refers to the beneficiary's position in a consulting company and not a motel. 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. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988 j. 
Nevertheless, the AAO will review this matter based upon the information in the record and the assertions on 
appeal, but will continually refer to the true nature of the petitioner's business when scrutinizing the evidence. 
In this matter, the petitioner provided a lengthy description of duties for the beneficiary, both with the petition 
and in response to the request for evidence. However, regardless of the discrepancy between the petitioner's 
claimed business operations and the actual operations, the description of duties fails to specifically state the 
exact nature of the beneficiary's duties. For example, duties such as "complete managing [of] the 
responsibilities of major operations in the United States" and "manage finance, accounts policies, marketing 
strategies, and Administration services" are extremely general in nature and fail to pinpoint exactly what the 
beneficiary does on a day-to-day basis. Whether the beneficiary is working in a consulting company or a 
motel, the record still fails to articulate with specificity the exact nature of the beneficiary's responsibilities. 
Reciting the beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the 
regulations require a detailed description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. The petitioner has failed to 
answer a critical question in this case: What does the beneficiary primarily do on a daily basis? The actual 
duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 
1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Moreover, the description of duties, in several sections, merely paraphrases the regulatory definitions. For 
example, the petitioner provided the following description of the beneficiary's duties: "He establishes 
policies, vision and goals of our US entity. He will have complete authority in decision-making. He receives 
only general supervision from the company president. He works closely with the company's senior 
EAC 08 002 50356 
Page 10 
management so company continue to achieve further development and growth in the US marketplace." This 
description is general and clearly using the language of the statutory definitions. Moreover, the petitioner 
submits one entire page of duties where it cites the regulatory definition and reiterates that beneficiary's 
claimed duties by adopting the language of the regulations. 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. Id. at 1108; Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 
(S.D.N.Y.). Upon review, the description of the beneficiary's duties is insufficient to establish that he will be 
employed in a capacity that is primarily managerial or executive, regardless of the actual nature of the 
petitioner's business. 
An additional issue to be addressed is the staffing of the U.S. entity and whether the beneficiary would be 
overseeing a staff of managerial, supervisory, or professional employees who would thus relieve him from 
performing non-qualifying duties. As discussed by the director, the petitioner submitted an overview of its 
subordinate staff, with a detailed description of the subordinate employees' duties, qualifications, and, where 
applicable, educational backgrounds. However, there are two problems with this evidence. First, for the 
reasons stated above, if the petitioner is in fact operating as a motel, then the subordinate employees are 
undoubtedly filling motel staff positions, such as desk clerks, housekeepers, and maintenance personnel. 
Presuming that this is the case, the position descriptions provided by the petitioner are falsified and may not 
be afforded any weight in these proceedings. For example, if the petitioner is operating a motel as its annual 
report claims, the fact that the petitioner has a minimum of nine "managers" on staff and no housekeepers or 
maintenance personnel raises serious questions regarding the nature of the business. On the other hand, if the 
petitioner is in fact operating a consulting business, it is unclear why the petitioner would have nine 
managers, three accounting personnel, two sales personnel, but no consultants? If CIS fails to believe that a 
fact stated in the petition is true, CIS may reject that fact. Section 204(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1154(b); see 
also Anetekhai v. I.N.S., 876 F.2d 121 8, 1220 (5th Cir.1989); Lu-Ann Bakery Shop, Inc. v. Nelson, 705 F. 
Supp. 7, 10 (D.D.C. 1988); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 200 1). 
Regardless of the nature of the petitioner's business, the position descriptions and claimed organizational 
structure of the petitioner are not credible. Moreover, the petitioner failed to submit evidence establishing 
that the named employees are actually working for the petitioner. The petition provides a list of 13 
employees, in addition to the beneficiary, which it claims constitutes its employment roster. However, the 
Forms 941 for the quarter ending on September 30, 2007 indicates that the petitioner only employed 11 
persons and paid a total of $29,609.33.~ If, as the director noted, these wages are divided equally among the 
11 employees, it would appear that each person earned, on average, $2691.76 per quarter, or $10,767.03 
annually. These wages are not commensurate with the wages one would expect full time managerial or 
2 
 The petition in this matter was filed on October 2, 2007. Although the record contains evidence pertaining 
to the petitioner's employees after this date, 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). Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, the AAO will refer to the employment records of the 
petitioner as of September 30, 2007. 
EAC 08 002 50356 
Page 11 
professional employees to receive. Furthermore, if the beneficiary is actually being paid an annual salary of 
$42,000, or a quarterly salary of $10,500, then the remaining ten employees would have earned, on average, 
approximately $1,900 during the third quarter of 2007. Alternatively, this low figure suggests that many of 
the named employees who are all claimed to work 40 hours per week might actually be part-time workers, 
thereby raising further questions with regard to how the beneficiary would be relieved from performing 
non-qualifjrlng duties. 
Nevertheless, the petitioner failed to include pertinent documentation, such as a list of employees to whom it 
paid wages or state quarterly wage reports. Without this documentation, it cannot be determined whether the 
petitioner actually employed the three general managers it claimed are subordinate to the beneficiary. 
Moreover, without additional documentation, it would appear that an equitable distribution of the wages each 
quarter results in less than the minimum wage standard, thereby suggesting that the employees are not of a 
managerial or professional caliber. In the alternative, perhaps many of the workers are part-time employees 
and thus can not relieve the beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties. More appropriate, perhaps, is 
the conclusion that these employees are actually motel employees earning minimum wage providing 
housekeeping, maintenance and food services, thus negating the petitioner's claims regarding their positions 
and casting further doubt on the validity of the petition. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a 
material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(14). 
Without additional documentation regarding the actual staffing of the petitioner, it cannot be concluded that 
the beneficiary functions in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. Despite the petitioner's claims that 
the beneficiary is in fact a manager, and despite their claims that he manages a staff of subordinate managerial 
or professional employees, the record does not contain documentation to support these contentions. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof 
in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft 
of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). More importantly, the petitioner has misrepresented 
the true nature of its business, thereby casting serious doubt on all claims set forth in the instant petition. 
The record is not persuasive in establishing that the beneficiary is employed in a primarily managerial or 
executive capacity. For this reason, the petition may not be approved. 
While not directly addressed by the director, the minimal documentation of the petitioner's business 
operations raises the issue of whether the petitioner is a qualifying organization doing business in the United 
States. Specifically, under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(G)(2) a petitioner must demonstrate that 
it is engaged in the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods or services and does not represent 
the mere presence of an agent or office in the United States. The only documentary evidence of the 
petitioner's alleged business dealings is an abundance of telephone records. However, these records alone are 
not sufficient to establish that the petitioner has been engaged in its claimed management and consulting 
services. It is further noted that the petitioner's Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return for 2006, 
despite evidencing gross receipts in excess of $51,000, strategically uses a "COPY" stamp to cover its 
business activity on Schedule K. This, coupled with the newly discovered evidence of the motel business, 
further supports a finding that the petitioner was not in fact operating as a consulting company for the 
previous year. For this additional reason, the petition may not be approved. 
EAC 08 002 50356 
Page 12 
Finally, the AAO notes a discrepancy with regard to the petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship with the 
foreign entity. Although it claims that Ligna Ltd. owns 51% of the petitioner and thereby it maintains a 
parent-subsidiary relationship, there is insufficient documentation to support this finding. 
The regulation and case law confirm that ownership and control are the factors that must be examined in 
determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and foreign entities for purposes 
of this visa classification. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1988); see also 
Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 
(Comm. 1982). In the context of this visa petition, ownership refers to the direct or indirect legal right of 
possession of the assets of an entity with full power and authority to control; control means the direct or 
indirect legal right and authority to direct the establishment, management, and operations of an entity. Matter 
of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
In support of the relationship, the petitioner submits copies of its stock certificates and its articles of 
incorporation evidencing that 1,000 shares have been authorized. The stock certificates, on their face, appear 
to support the petitioner's contentions, but it is noted that the certificates themselves are not traditional stock 
certificates and appear to be hand crafted. As discussed previously, the serious discrepancies contained 
throughout the record obligate the AAO to scrutinize this documentary evidence carefully. A review of the 
petitioner's Schedule K on Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Tax Return for 2006, indicates that the petitioner 
claims to have one shareholder who owns 100% of the petitioner, and further claims to have no foreign 
shareholders. 
Therefore, the evidence contained in the record is insufficient to warrant a finding that the claimed qualifying 
relationship exists. As general evidence of a petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship, stock certificates 
alone are not sufficient evidence to determine whether a stockholder maintains ownership and control of a 
corporate entity. The corporate stock certificate ledger, stock certificate registry, corporate bylaws, and the 
minutes of relevant annual shareholder meetings must also be examined to determine the total number of 
shares issued, the exact number issued to the shareholder, and the subsequent percentage ownership and its 
effect on corporate control. Additionally, a petitioning company must disclose all agreements relating to the 
voting of shares, the distribution of profit, the management and direction of the subsidiary, and any other 
factor affecting actual control of the entity. See Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362. 
Without full disclosure of all relevant documents, coupled with the contradictory claims on Schedule K, CIS 
is unable to determine the elements of ownership and control. For this additional reason, the petition may not 
be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 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). 
When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only 
if she shows that the AAO abused it discretion with respect to all of the AAO's enumerated grounds. See 
EAC 08 002 50356 
Page 13 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.