dismissed L-1A Case: Legal Document Preparation

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce ofAdminisfrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: EAC 08 203 5239 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
IN RE: 
OCT 2 0 2009 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(] 5)(L) of the lmmigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for the 
specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a 
Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 days of the 
decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
wf,?,":inistrative Appeals Office 
EAC 08 203 52395 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant petition and 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. 9 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a Florida corporation established in 2008, intends to provide legal 
document preparation services. It claims to have a qualifying relationship with the beneficiary's foreign 
private law practice, located in Caracas, Venezuela. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as 
president of its new office in the United States for a period of one year. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be 
acting in a primarily managerial or executive capacity, and that the U.S. company would support the 
beneficiary in such capacity, within one year of commencing operations in the United States. 
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 provides additional evidence regarding 
the planned organizational structure of the U.S. entity, and asserts that the beneficiary will be performing 
primarily managerial or executive duties. 
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. 5 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) 
 Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the 
alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) 
 Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 
(iii) 
 Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
(iv) 
 Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies himther to perform the intended 
EAC 08 203 52395 
Page 3 
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. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v) 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 (I)(l)(ii)(B) 
or (C) of this section, supported by information regarding: 
(I) 
 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. 
The sole issue addressed by the director is whether the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial 
or executive capacity and whether the intended United States operation, within one year of approval, will 
support an executive or managerial position. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, on June 23,2008. The petitioner stated 
on Form 1-129 that the beneficiary's duties as president will be the following: "Design the company's strategic 
business plan, act as operations director, customer service director and generally to make all of the major 
management decisions in addition to monitoring all other business activities." 
In a letter dated May 18, 2008, the petitioner indicated that the U.S. company will be engaged in document 
preparation services for members of the Hispanic community in southern Florida. The petitioner indicated that the 
company intends to hire a minimum of two people to start its operation, including the beneficiary. The petitioner 
noted that the beneficiary will "develop and implement the company's goals." 
The petitioner submitted a copy of its Form SS-4, Application for Employer Identification Number, on which it 
indicated that the U.S. company intends to provide "typing services." Where asked to indicate the highest number 
EAC 08 203 52395 
Page 4 
of employees expected in the next 12 months, the petitioner indicated "0." The petitioner indicated on its business 
license applications that it will engage of "typing of immigration and divorce forms." 
The petitioner submitted a business plan which outlines the company's objectives, mission, ownership, services, 
competition, market analysis, strategies, management team, and financial plan.' According to the petitioner's Pro 
Forma Profit and Loss statement, the company anticipates paying total salaries and wages of $24,000 in fiscal 
year 2009, $32,000 in fiscal year 2010, and $35,000 in fiscal year 201 1. The beneficiary's proffered annual salary 
is $24,000. In addition, the petitioner's personnel plan, found at page 26 of the business plan, indicates that the 
president will be the only payroll position between May 2008 and April 2009. The business plan does not 
otherwise address the proposed staffing of the entity, other than indicating that the company "requires a simple 
organizational structure." 
The director found the initial evidence insufficient to establish that the U.S. entity would employ the beneficiary 
in a primarily managerial or executive position within one year. Accordingly, the director issued a request for 
evidence (WE) on August 5, 2008, in which he requested, inter alia, the following: (1) a comprehensive 
description of the beneficiary's proposed duties and an explanation as to how such duties will be managerial or 
executive in nature; and (2) complete position descriptions for all proposed employees in the United States 
including one for the beneficiary's position, including a breakdown of the number of hours devoted to each of the 
employee's job duties on a weekly basis. 
The director requested other evidence from the United States entity, including photographs of the leased 
premises, a letter from the petitioner's bank, evidence of the size of the U.S. investment, copies of all issued stock 
certificates, evidence of assets purchased, and a copy of the company's business licenses, as well as evidence 
related to the beneficiary's employment with the foreign entity. The petitioner addressed the majority of the 
director's requests, but did not submit the requested comprehensive position description for the beneficiary's 
position or position descriptions for proposed U.S. employees. 
The director denied the petition on November 18, 2008, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary would be employed by the U.S. company in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. The 
director noted the petitioner's failure to submit the requested position descriptions for the beneficiary and her 
proposed subordinates and found that the brief job description submitted was too vague to establish that the 
beneficiary would be primarily engaged in managerial duties. The director found insuficient evidence to establish 
that the beneficiary would be primarily engaged in the supervision and control of a subordinate staff of 
professional, managerial or supervisory employees, or that she would primarily manage an essential function of 
the organization within one year. 
' The petitioner's business plan, at Section 7.3 Break-Even Analysis, indicates: "The following table and chart 
summarize the break-even analysis for Calico Computer Consulting. Fixed Costs are minimal, consisting 
mostly of rent and utilities for the home office." The petitioner in this matter is not "Calico Computer 
Consulting." 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). 
EAC 08 203 52395 
Page 5 
On appeal, the petitioner states that the beneficiary "will be ultimately responsible for the planning, organizing, 
and execution of the company goals in the United States," and "responsible for the management and coordination 
of the different divisions and personnel related to the company." The petitioner acknowledges that "in our 
previous response we were so concerned with providing information on our parent company in Venezuela that we 
overlooked to provide adequate information on the US branch." 
In support of the appeal, the petitioner submits a proposed organizational chart indicating that the beneficiary will 
supervise a typing department with one paralegal, a customer service department with one customer service 
representative, and a marketing and sales department with one marketing/sales representative, as well as a 
subcontracted accountant and attorney. The petitioner submits position descriptions and job requirements for 
each position depicted on the chart. Subsequently, in April 2009, the petitioner submitted a copy of its 2008 Form 
1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, and a letter in which the petitioner notes that it has begun a direct 
promotion campaign, hired employees, and planned a move to a larger location. 
Upon review, the petitioner's assertions are not persuasive. The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 
will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity or that the petitioning company will support a 
managerial or executive position within one year. 
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. &j 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. &j 
2 14.2(1)(3)(v)(B). 
When examining the proposed executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to 
the petitioner's description of the proposed job duties. 
 See 8 C.F.R. &j 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. 
The petitioner's initial description of the beneficiary's duties was brief and non-specific, and therefore failed to 
explain the actual duties the beneficiary would perform on a day-to-day basis. For example, the petitioner 
stated that the beneficiary will "develop and implement the company's goals," and "design the company's 
strategic business plan, act as operations director, customer service director and generally make all the major 
management decisions in addition to monitoring all other business activities." These broad statements 
provided little insight into the nature of the tasks the beneficiary will perform as president of a document 
preparation company. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are 
primarily executive or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of 
EAC 08 203 52395 
Page 6 
reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1 103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F.2d 
4 1 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Upon review of the initial evidence, the director reasonably requested a comprehensive position description 
and information regarding the proportion of time the beneficiary will devote to specific job duties, as well as 
evidence regarding the proposed structure of the organization that would assist in demonstrating whether the 
beneficiary would manage an essential function of the organization or direct a subordinate staff comprised of 
managerial, supervisory or professional employees. The petitioner was granted 12 weeks to provide this 
information. As noted by the director, and as conceded by the petitioner, the petitioning company "overlooked 
to provide adequate information on the U.S. branch." The petitioner now submits a lengthier position 
description for the beneficiary's proposed position, a proposed organizational chart, and position descriptions 
for proposed employees on appeal. 
The regulation states that the petitioner shall submit additional evidence as the director, in his or her 
discretion, may deem necessary. The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further information that 
clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of the time the petition is filed. See 
8 C.F.R. 9s 103.2(b)(8) and (12). The 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). 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BLA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 
(BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be considered, it should have submitted 
the documents in response to the director's request for evidence. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO need 
not and does not consider the sufficiency of the evidence submitted on appeal. 
Furthermore, the petitioner's initial evidence did in fact provide some insight into the petitioner's intended 
organizational structure. As noted above, the petitioner's business plan indicates that the beneficiary will be 
the petitioner's only employee during the first year of operations and its financial forecasts are based on the 
assumption that her salary will be the only salary paid through April 30, 2009. The petitioner anticipates 
paying only $32,000 in salaries during its second year of operations, which presumably includes the 
beneficiary's $24,000 salary. The only other possible employee mentioned at the time of filing was the 
beneficiary's spouse, who, according to the petitioner, would serve as secretary. The petitioner now claims 
that it intends to employ a paralegal, a customer service representative, and a sales and marketing 
representative. The petitioner has not, however, submitted a revised business plan or financial objectives 
demonstrating how the company intends to support such staff. Furthermore, although the petitioner indicates 
that it has hired staff as of April 2009, it has not offered any documentary evidence in support of this claim or 
indicated with any specificity what positions have been filled. 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)). Regardless, a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in 
an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 
169, 176 (Assoc. Comm. 1998). 
EAC 08 203 52395 
Page 7 
The definitions of executive and managerial capacity each 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). While the AAO does not doubt that the beneficiary will 
exercise the appropriate level of authority over the business as its president and purported majority owner, the 
petitioner must establish that her duties will be primarily managerial or executive in nature within one year of 
commencing the new business in the United States. As discussed, the petitioner has described the 
beneficiary's duties in only vague and conclusory terms. 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 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. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 
F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
In the case of a new office, the AAO will view the beneficiary's proposed duties in view of the petitioner's 
proposed organizational structure, the nature of the business, business plans, financial projections, and other 
factors to determine whether the petitioner will reasonably support a managerial position within one year. The 
petitioner must establish that the beneficiary will be relieved from having to primarily perform the daily 
operational tasks of the business within one year. 
Here, the petitioner's projected staffing and profit and loss statements for the first year in operations do not 
demonstrate that the beneficiary would be relieved from primarily performing non-managerial duties. 
According to the petitioner's business plan, the beneficiary would be the only employee during the first 12 
months of operations. It appears that the company intends to pay $8,000 in additional wages during the 
second year of operation, which may indicate either an intended pay raise for the beneficiary, or the addition 
of a part-time employee. The only other possible employee mentioned prior to the appeal was a secretary. The 
petitioner reasonably requires employees to perform marketing and advertising functions, legal document 
preparation, client interaction and customer service, and routine financial, administrative and clerical tasks. 
Based on the evidence submitted, the beneficiary would be the sole full-time employee. Collectively, the 
evidence brings into question how much of the beneficiary's time could actually be devoted to managerial or 
executive duties after the first year in operations. As stated in the statute, the beneficiary must be primarily 
performing duties that are managerial or executive. See sections 1 Ol(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. Based on 
the evidence submitted, it is evident that the beneficiary will perform all or nearly all of the operational 
functions of the company. 
The AAO does not dispute that small companies require leaders or individuals who plan, formulate, direct, 
manage, oversee and coordinate activities; however the petitioner must establish with specificity that the 
beneficiary's duties will comprise primarily managerial or executive responsibilities and not routine 
operational or administrative tasks. The fact that the beneficiary manages a business, regardless of its size, 
does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as an intracompany transferee in a managerial or 
executive capacity within the meaning of sections 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. See 52 Fed. Reg. 5738, 5739 
(Feb. 26, 1987). Here, the record fails to establish that the majority of the beneficiary's duties within one year 
EAC 08 203 52395 
Page 8 
will be primarily directing the management of the organization or a component or function of the 
organization. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary would be employed 
in a primarily managerial or executive capacity within one year. For this additional reason, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has not established that 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, as required by 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). 
The petitioner indicated on Form 1-129 that the beneficiary has been working for ten years in Venezuela as an 
attorney with her own private law practice in the areas of civil, commercial and labor law. The petitioner 
noted that the beneficiary "oversaw the operations of the office including the oversight of budget, public 
relations, customer service and general management of the business." The petitioner submitted a copy of the 
beneficiary's resume in which she states that, from 1998 until 2008, she had an "independent professional 
practice of the legal profession," and had "defended with honesty the rights of clients achieving extrajudicial 
agreements," and "collaborated with colleagues in defense of clients when litigating before the courts." The 
petitioner also submitted evidence that the beneficiary is a member of the Venezuelan Bar Association. 
In the RFE issued on August 5, 2008, the director requested photographs of the interior and exterior of the 
foreign entity's business premises, an organizational chart for the foreign entity, with complete position 
descriptions for all subordinate managerial employees, and additional evidence of payments to the 
beneficiary. In response, the petitioner submitted a position description for the beneficiary, and indicated that 
she has one direct subordinate, a general management assistant, and four indirect subordinates, including three 
attorneys identified as "co-associates" and a public accountant. The petitioner indicated that the general 
management assistant supervises a messenger, a court assistant and a credit and billing assistant. The 
petitioner provided position descriptions and requirements for all positions. The petitioner did not, however, 
provide the names of any individual employees. The petitioner submitted additional supporting evidence of 
the foreign entity's activities which demonstrate that the beneficiary represents clients in court and is a 
practicing attorney. The petitioner submitted financial statements from the beneficiary's accountant which 
indicate that her office paid salaries of BF15,600 or $7,255.81 in 2007. Even accounting for economic 
differences between the United States and Venezuela, based on this evidence, the AAO is not persuaded that 
the beneficiary's law office actually employed the claimed three attorneys, accountant and four direct 
employees. 
Overall, the evidence in the record suggests that the beneficiary is primarily engaged in providing 
professional legal services to clients, rather than managing or overseeing the provision of such services as 
claimed by the petitioner. 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 10 1 (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 Int'l., 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). For 
this additional reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
EAC 08 203 52395 
Page 9 
Another issue not addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established that it has a qualifying 
relationship with the foreign entity. To establish a "qualifying relationship" under the Act and the regulations, 
the petitioner must show that the beneficiary's foreign employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same 
employer (i.e. one entity with "branch" offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See 
generally section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1). 
The petitioner states that the beneficiary owns 100 percent of the foreign entity and a 65 percent interest in the 
United States entity. While the petitioner has described what would be a qualifying affiliate relationship, there 
are two critical deficiencies which prohibit a finding that the requisite relationship exists. First, the petitioner 
has failed to provide any documentary evidence of the ownership of the United States company. The director 
specifically requested in the RFE that the petitioner submit copies of all stock certificates issued to date. In 
response, the petitioner submitted, without explanation, a blank "stock certificate order form." 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. 
Second, the petitioner has not submitted any evidence to establish that the foreign entity, which appears to be 
a sole proprietorship, will continue to do business in Venezuela as required at 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(1)(1)(ii)(G)(2). 
Unlike a corporation, a sole proprietorship does not exist as an entity apart from the individual owner. Matter 
of United Investment Group, 19 I&N Dec. 248 (Comm. 1984). A sole proprietorship is a business in which 
one person owns all of the assets and operates the business in his or her personal capacity. Black's Law 
Dictionary 1398 (7th Edition). As the beneficiary claims to be the owner and sole proprietor of the foreign 
business, the presence of the beneficiary in the United States raises the question of whether the foreign 
company will continue to do business abroad. As discussed above, the evidence does not demonstrate that the 
foreign entity is a multi-attorney practice. If the beneficiary is the only attorney providing services to clients, 
and she is in the United States, it cannot be concluded that the foreign entity will continue to do business and 
does not meet the definition of a qualifying organization. See 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(l)(ii)(G). 
In this regard, the AAO notes that the director specifically requested that the petitioner submit photographs of 
the interior and exterior of the foreign entity which clearly depict the organization and operation of the entity. 
The petitioner submitted photographs of a building exterior and an interior door, but its response did not 
include a photograph of any interior office space, signage, employees, or any other images that would suggest 
the existence of an ongoing legal practice. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, the petitioner did not establish that the petitioner and foreign entity are 
qualifying organizations. 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. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003). 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 AAO's de novo authority has been long 
recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g. Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
EAC 08 203 52395 
Page 10 
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.