dismissed L-1A Case: Hospitality

identieing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of I-Iomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: WAC 04 213 54368 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 2 6 2006 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned 
to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 213 54368 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimrnigrant visa. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner, a California corporation, operates a full-service motel. The petitioner claims to be a 
subsidiary of Yogi Steel Limited located in Kenya. Accordingly, the United States entity petitioned CIS 
to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant intracompany transferee (L-1A) pursuant to section 
101(a)(15)(L) of the Act as an executive or manager for two years. The beneficiary was initially granted 
a one-year period of stay to open a new office in the United States and was subsequently granted a two- 
year extension of stay. The petitioner now seeks to extend the beneficiary's stay in order to continue to 
fill the position of president. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the record contains insufficient evidence to demonstrate 
that the beneficiary is employed in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner states that the beneficiary is employed in an executive capacity and 
the decision of the director is contrary to the law and the facts. Counsel for the petitioner asserts that the 
evidence submitted shows that a preponderance of the beneficiary's job duties are executive in nature. 
Counsel submits a brief and additional documentation in support of the appeal. 
To establish eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, the petitioner must meet certain criteria. 
Specifically, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States, a firm, corporation, or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof, must have employed 
the beneficiary for one continuous year. Furthermore, 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. fj 214.2(1)(3) hrther states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) 
 Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ 
the alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this 
section. 
(ii) 
 Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or 
specialized knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services 
to be performed. 
(iii) 
 Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing 
of the petition. 
(iv) 
 Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that 
was managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's 
prior education, training, and employment qualifies hidher to perform the 
WAC 04 2 13 54368 
Page 3 
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 issue to be addressed in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has established that the beneficiary 
has been and will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment withn 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 withn the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and 
(iv) 
 exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function for 
which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a 
managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the 
employees supervised are professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment withn 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-malung; and 
(iv) 
 receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the 
board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
The nonirnrnigrant petition was filed on July 27, 2004. The Form 1-129 indicates that the beneficiary will 
continue to be employed in the position of president for the petitioner. The beneficiary's proposed duties in 
WAC 04 2 13 54368 
Page 4 
the U.S. are described as the following: "As president, [the beneficiary] is responsible for corporation 
policies, goals and procedures, legalities, representation of corporation, long term development planning, 
capital assessment and requirements, hiring, firing, promotion etc. of management and subordinate staff, 
major decisions." 
In addition, the petitioner submitted the beneficiary's responsibilities and duties as the following: 
Total responsibility for representing and signing of all legal documents and other on behalf 
of the corporation 
Signing of all corporate checks on behalf of the corporation 
Establishment of corporate goals and policies 
Establishment of corporate financial budgets and cash flows 
Overall control of corporation and its development for profitability and success 
Overall control of finances of corporation 
Setting of procedures 
Monitoring of all financial matters and decision malung on any changes necessary to 
improve efficiency and profitability of corporation 
Training and delegation of duties to Managers to achieve corporation goals through them 
Preparation of Manager and staff training courses 
Delegation to Managers for training of staff and monitoring of work performances 
Recruitment, interviewing, hiring, and training of managerial staff 
Promotion or firing of managerial staff when necessary 
Setting of all staff pay levels and vacation allowance 
Approval of all legal paperwork 
Approval of all Tax Returns prepared by accountant 
Assessment and monitoring of competition 
Review of alternative franchise and decision made on changing franchised trading name 
Organization of legalities regarding change of trading name 
Decision malung and organization of refurbishment of motel 
Obtaining estimates for refurbishment work, negotiating and decision made on contractors to 
use 
Approval of refurbishment work completed and approval of payment to contractors 
Research into improving services to business professionals, such as in house report typing, 
photocopying, conference room facilities, etc. 
Research into providing "special weekends" such as romantic weekends with candlelight 
dinners, golfing weekends, etc. 
Determining new services for improved facilities 
Determining marketing materials and media of facilities for weddings, birthdays, etc. 
Delegation of responsibilities to Manager, including new marketing strategies and 
promotional weekends 
Reports only to the Board of Directors of the Kenyan parent company 
On October 12, 2004 the director requested additional evidence. Specifically, the director requested an 
organizational chart of the U.S. company including a brief job description for each position, and the 
employee's educational level and salary. The director also requested copies of the U.S. company's IRS Form 
WAC 04 213 54368 
Page 5 
941, Quarterly Federal Tax Return, for the last four quarters, and the California Employment Development 
Department Form DE-6, quarterly wage reports for the last four quarters. In addition, the director requested 
additional information regarding the executive capacity of the duties performed by the beneficiary including: 
(1) a list of the specific goals and policies the beneficiary established in the last six months; (2) a list of the 
specific discretionary decisions that the beneficiary has exercised in the last six months; (3) evidence that the 
highest level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization require only general 
supervision of the beneficiary; and (4) a specific day-to-day description of the duties the beneficiary has 
performed over the last six months. 
In a response dated December 15, 2004, the petitioner submitted all of the requested information. The 
submitted organizational chart for the U.S. company indicates the beneficiary as president who supervises the 
manager who then supervises maintenance, the head housekeeper, two housekeepers, one desk manager and 
one desk clerk. The U.S. company has eight employees in total. The employees work anywhere from 15 to 
40 hours. None of the employees have an education level higher then a high school diploma. The petitioner 
provided a job description for each employee, as required by the director. 
In response to the director's request, the petitioner submitted the policies and goals the beneficiary has made 
in the past six months in property improvement policy, marketing policy and service policy as the following: 
PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT POLICY 
Re designing the Front Lobby and investing in new flooring 
Changng Carpets in some Guest Rooms 
Converting a guest room to a separate Breakfast Area so as to accommodate more people 
SERVICES POLICY 
Offer the Hotel guests a more expanded breakfast to include hot breakfast in addition to the 
already heft continental breakfast. 
Create a Computer System and create a Hospitality Area (business center) for Hotel Guests 
for access for checlung and sending email and other computer related work. 
Ppgrade [sic] the already hard wired speed internet access to a wireless system so that guest 
can access the interested fi-om anywhere withn the hotel. 
MARKETING POLICY 
Continue advertising in the Yellow Pages, The Chamber of Commerce and the Local 
newspapers. 
Furthermore, the petitioner submitted a detailed day-to-day description of the duties performed by the 
beneficiary. The beneficiary's duties in the U.S. are the following: 
Walhng the property, buildings and grounds most mornings with Manager to monitor 
cleanliness and tidiness and to ascertain that all maintenance and cleaning work is being 
covered correctly. Discussions with Manager during and following inspections on various 
items arising. Any problems found are the Manager's responsibility to follow through on 
and get corrected, and to report back to [the beneficiary] on the conclusion. 
Meeting with Manager, , to go over Reports on: 
WAC 04 2 13 54368 
Page 6 
o 
 finances, bank account balances, future supplies, purchase invoices, 
future reservations, etc. 
o merchant credit card payments 
o current reservation numbers 
o future reservation numbers 
o 
 approval of any large supply orders 
o approval of purchase invoices 
o signing of checks 
o 
 discussion and determining resolution on any staffing problems 
o 
 discussion and determining resolution on any customer complaints 
o 
 discussion and determining resolution of any property andlor business 
activity problems 
Review of weekly budgeted figures comparison to actual figures and determination of any 
changes necessary to increaser profit margins 
Review of daily figures with comparison to previous years to ascertain growth and 
comparisons of marketing achievements 
Read e-mails and return telephone calls 
Conference call to Kenyan parent company once a week to report and discuss U.S. progress 
Contact local Chamber of Commerce and local Council Representatives to know about 
future local events coming up where accommodation would be required 
Join and attend Chamber of Commerce meeting to represent company and to promote 
conference facilities to local businesses. 
Review of monthly management account, discussed with Manager on questions arising and 
determining resolution of any problem areas. Final approval of accounts. 
Loohng at various marketing media and determining the best to be used to increase 
reservations for rooms and conference rooms, and relating and delegating implementation to 
Manager. Planning advertising for local newspapers to increase conference room use. 
Determination of marketing budget to include advertising in SCB Yellow Pages, the 
Chamber of Commerce and local newspaper The Californian, The Valley Yellow Pages and 
to link these advertisements with new web site. 
Planning all development andlor refurbishment, including determining of capital required 
additional services to be offered, timescale for project, financial forecasts including lost 
review of rooms being rehrbished, financial projections following completion of project. 
Projects have included refurbishment of bedrooms and bathrooms, painting exterior and 
interior, creation of fitness room, resurfacing of parking lot, new computer reservation 
system, resurfacing of walkways and changing the color scheme to match walkways, new 
enhanced web site, camera surveillance system for staff and guest security, new accounting 
software program. Future development decisions are to redesign the front lobby and install 
new flooring and convert a guest room into a separate breakfast area to accommodate more 
guests. 
Review, approval and acceptance of building and grounds maintenance and renovation work 
quotations. When work is underway, monitoring progress and subcontractors work, and 
discussing and solving problems that arise. 
Chechng that the building, grounds, and recreational facilities (such as fitness room) comply 
and are not in violation of any Government and local rules and regulations, or insurance 
WAC 04 2 13 54368 
Page 7 
requirements. The President takes full responsibility for insuring the corporation's liability 
risks is kept to a minimum. 
Customer relations policies - setting customer relations example for staff by acknowledging 
guests when in lobby area to create and promote excellent customer relations with a very 
personalized professional service. 
Increase and improve services offered to guests - decisions have been made to buy a new 
accounting software program to improve checlung in, create a computer system and create a 
hospitality area (business center) to give guests access to email facilities, upgrade hard wired 
high speed internet accept to give guests access throughout the hotel and add a hot breakfast 
menu to the current continental one 
The director denied the petition on March 2, 2005 on the ground that the petitioner did not establish that 
the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The director also 
suggested that the beneficiary does not supervise a subordinate staff of professional employees and thus 
the beneficiary must be performing non-qualifying day-to-day activities of the company's operations, 
rather than performing managerial or executive duties. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the duties performed by the beneficiary are executive in 
nature. Counsel for the petitioner asserts that the job description for the position clearly establishes duties 
that are executive in nature. In addition, counsel for the petitioner declares that the statute does not 
require an executive to direct and supervise a subordinate staff of professionals. Furthermore, counsel for 
the petitioner asserts that the law does not prohibit an L-1 executive from performing some functions of 
the business that are not executive in nature, but instead only requires that the beneficiary perform duties 
that are primarily executive in nature. Finally, counsel for the petitioner indicates that the motel has 
seven employees in addition to the beneficiary who perform the day-to-day duties of the motel, and only 
the highest level executive duties would be performed by the beneficiary. 
Counsel's assertions are not persuasive. Upon review of the petition and evidence, the petitioner has not 
established that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. 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. 3 214.2(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. 
The definitions of executive and managerial capacity have two parts. First, the petitioner must show that 
the beneficiary performs the high 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 test is basic to ensure not only that a person has 
the requisite authority, but that a majority of his or her duties are related to operational policy 
management, not to the supervision of lower-level employees or the performance or the duties of another 
type of non-managerial or non-executive position. 
WAC 04 213 54368 
Page 8 
Here, while the beneficiary evidently exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the business, 
the petitioner's description of his current and proposed duties suggests that the beneficiary's actual duties 
are and will continue to be providing the services of the business. 
While the petitioner provided a comprehensive list of the job duties performed by the beneficiary, the job 
description includes several non-qualifying duties such as: "loolung at various marketing media and 
determining the best to be used to increase reservations for rooms and conference rooms," "checking that 
the building, grounds, and recreational facilities (such as fitness room) comply are not in violation of any 
Government and local rule and regulations, and insurance requirements," "preparation of Manager and 
staff training courses," "obtaining estimates for refurbishment work, negotiating and decision made on 
contractors to use," and "research into improving services to business professionals." In addition, it 
appears the beneficiary would be responsible for the corporation's finance and marketing, and for 
personally negotiating and obtaining estimates from contractors for renovations and researching improved 
motel services and travel packages to offer guests. Although a portion of the beneficiary's time would be 
spent performing executive and managerial tasks, the record does not indicate the amount of time the 
beneficiary would devote to these tasks, or more importantly, whether the beneficiary would be primarily 
performing the non-qualifying job duties previously listed. An employee who "primarily" performs the 
tasks necessary to produce a product or provide a service 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 (Comrn. 1988). 
Based on the current record, the AAO is unable to determine whether the claimed managerial duties 
constitute the majority of the beneficiary's duties, or whether the beneficiary primarily performs non- 
managerial administrative or operational duties. The petitioner's description of the beneficiary's job 
duties does not establish what proportion of the beneficiary's duties are managerial in nature, and what 
proportion are actually non-managerial. See Republic of Transkei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 177 (D.C. Cir. 
1991). 
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, 8 U.S.C. 4 
1101(a)(44)(B). 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 managerial 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-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 malung" and receive only "general 
supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the 
organization." Id. 
A critical analysis of the nature of the petitioner's business undermines counsel's assertion that the 
subordinate employees relieve the beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties. It appears from the 
organizational chart submitted by the petitioner that the only individuals performing any marketing, sales, 
WAC 04 213 54368 
Page 9 
accounting, human resources, corporate development, budgeting, payroll, finance-related functions are 
the beneficiary and the manager. It is implausible that the manager is able to handle all the day-to-day 
operations of a 40-room motel on her own. The manager only has a high school diploma and does not 
appear to be trained in all the areas mentioned above. It can only be assumed, and has not been proven 
otherwise, that the beneficiary is performing a majority of the marketing, sales, finance and development 
functions, including devising marketing plans, contacting advertisers, and performing any public relations 
tasks since the beneficiary only has one other subordinate, the manager, to assist him with all these tasks. 
Based on the record of proceeding, the beneficiary's job duties are principally composed of non- 
qualifying duties that preclude him from functioning in a primarily managerial or executive role. 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 "primarily7' perform the enumerated managerial or executive 
duties); see also Matter of Church Scientology Intn 'l., 19 I&N Dec. 593,604 (Comm. 1988). 
Furthermore, when examining the managerial or executive capacity of a beneficiary, Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) reviews the totality of the record, including descriptions of a beneficiary's 
duties and his or her subordinate employees, the nature of the petitioner's business, the employment and 
remuneration of employees, and any other facts contributing to a complete understanding of a 
beneficiary's actual role in a business. The evidence must substantiate that the duties of the beneficiary 
and his or her subordinates correspond to their placement in an organization's structural hierarchy; 
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. An individual whose 
primary duties are those of a first-line supervisor will not be considered to be acting in a managerial 
capacity merely by virtue of his or her supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are 
professional. Section 10 1 (a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act. 
In the present matter, the totality of the record does not support a conclusion that the beneficiary's 
subordinates are supervisors, managers, or professionals. Instead, the record indicates that the 
beneficiary's subordinates perform the actual day-to-day tasks of operating the maintenance, front desk 
and housekeeping operations. Although the beneficiary has one manager with a high school diploma as a 
subordinate, the petitioner has not provided evidence of an organizational structure sufficient to elevate 
the beneficiary to a supervisory position that is higher than a first-line supervisor of non-professional 
employees. Pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act, the beneficiary's position does not qualify as 
primarily managerial under the statutory definitions. 
The director based his decision partially on the size of the enterprise and the number of staff, and thus the 
regulations require that the reasonable needs of the enterprise must be considered. As required by section 
101(a)(44)(C) of the Act, if staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is 
acting in a managerial or executive capacity, CIS must take into account the reasonable needs of the 
organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. 
At the time of filing, the petitioner was a full service motel that claimed to have a gross annual income of 
nearly half a million dollars. The firm employed the beneficiary as president, plus a general manager, one 
desk manager, one desk clerk, one housekeeping head, one housekeeping staff and one maintenance staff. 
The AAO notes that two of the employees have managerial or executive titles. The petitioner did not 
WAC 04 21 3 54368 
Page 10 
submit evidence that it employed sufficient amount of subordinate staff members needed to perform the 
actual day-to-day, non-managerial operations of the company. Based on the petitioner's representations, 
it does not appear that the reasonable needs of the petitioning company might plausibly be met by the 
services of the beneficiary as president and two managerial employees. For example, petitioner indicated 
in the petition that the front desk of the hotel operates 24 hours per day. The petitioner employed two 
desk employees, one of whom is stated to work on a part-time basis. Given the nature and operating 
hours of the petitioner's business, the record does not establish that the subordinate staff would relieve the 
beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties. Regardless, the reasonable needs of the petitioner 
serve only as a factor in evaluating the lack of staff in the context of reviewing the claimed managerial or 
executive duties. The petitioner must still establish that the beneficiary is to be employed in the United 
States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity, pursuant to sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) or the 
Act. As discussed above, the petitioner has not established this essential element of eligibility. 
Based upon evidence submitted, it appears that the beneficiary has been and will be performing the 
services of the U.S. entity rather than performing primarily managerial or executive duties as its president 
and general manager. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary will be functioning at a 
senior level within an organizational hierarchy other than in position title. Accordingly, the petitioner has 
failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary has been or will be employed primarily in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity. For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the record contains insufficient evidence to establish that the overseas 
company employed the beneficiary in a primarily executive. Although counsel refers to the beneficiary's 
overseas position as Director, the beneficiary was one director out of three. The other employees were 
one sales executive, two store assistants and one driver. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
beneficiary was functioning at a senior level within an organizational hierarchy other than in position title. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary was employed primarily in a 
qualifying managerial or executive capacity. For this additional reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner noted that CIS approved other petitions that had been previously filed on behalf of the 
beneficiary. The director's decision does not indicate whether he reviewed the prior approvals of the 
other nonirnmigrant petitions. If the previous nonirnrnigrant petitions were approved based on the same 
unsupported and contradictory assertions that are contained in the current record, the approval would 
constitute material and gross error on the part of the director. The AAO is not required to approve 
applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals 
that may have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 
597 (Comrn. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that CIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors 
as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. 
denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a 
court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant 
petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision 
of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 
F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 5 1 (2001). 
WAC 04 213 54368 
Page 11 
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), 
afyd. 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 the decision. 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. tj 1361. Here, that 
burden has not been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.