dismissed L-1A Case: Liquor Distribution

puBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042, 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: WAC 04 089 53327 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: APR 0 3 2006 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
IN 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. 
~oberf-B: Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 089 53327 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California 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 employ the beneficiary as its sales and marketing 
manager. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an L-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner claims that it is a corporation organized in the State of California that 
is engaging in the w 
 bution of liquor. The petitioner claims that it is the wholly- 
owned subsidiary of 
 located in Delhi, India. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity.' 
The petitioner subsequently filed a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal to the AAO, and a brief entitled "Motion 
to Reopen and Reconsider." The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded the appeal to 
the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director's decision is in error in law 
and in fact. Counsel submits additional evidence in support of his assertions. 
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. 9 214.2(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. 
' The AAO notes that although the director states in several places in the decision that the record does not 
establish that the beneficiary "has been or will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity," 
his analysis and final conclusion indicate that the denial is based on the finding that the petitioner has not 
shown that the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity with the U.S. 
entity. 
WAC 04 089 53327 
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. 
At issue in the present matter is whether the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) 
 manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of 
the organization; 
(ii) 
 supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees, or manages an essential function within the organization, or a department 
or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) 
 if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the authority to 
hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions (such as 
promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly supervised, 
functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the 
function managed; and 
(iv) 
 exercises discretion over the day to day operations of the activity or function for 
which the employee has authority. A first line supervisor is not considered to be 
acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory 
duties unless the employees supervised are professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 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 
WAC 04 089 53327 
Page 4 
(iv) 
 receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
In a letter dated February 9, 2004 accompanying the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, 
counsel described the beneficiary's intended duties in the United States as follows: 
It is clear that the beneficiary will be performing executive functions. [The beneficiary's] 
major duties are outlined as follows: 
a. Reflect and interchanges [sic] ideas to the Chief Executive Officer, Directors and 
Stockholder regarding business expansion; 
b. Assist in the preparation of the business planning for the company, as well as establishing 
goals by: setting goals for new business, market and product development, analyze 
product and market feature, reinforce and expand business connections; 
c. 
 Take [plriority to create more sales, profits, etc[.] 
The beneficiary . . . will exercise wide latitude and receive only general input and supervision 
from the CEO and other high company executives. Thus, based upon the definition of 
executive capacity, [the beneficiary] will serve as Sales and Marketing Manager overseeing 
the east coast operations and expansion, a major component of the organization. 
Counsel indicated in the same letter that the staff of the U.S. entity at that time consisted of the president and 
a manager. 
 Counsel also submitted an organizational chart for the U.S. entity. 
 The chart shows the 
company's CEO and president at the top; directly below him are the secretaryICF0, a sales and marketing 
manager for the West Coast, and the beneficiary as sales and marketing manager for the East Coast. Each 
sales and marketing manager is shown as supervising seven or eight regional sales managers and a customer 
support center."he chart does not list any names of individuals holding these positions, and there is no other 
indication that these subordinate positions were filled at the time the petition was filed. 
On March 3 1, 2004, the director requested additional evidence. In connection with the beneficiary's position 
in the U.S. entity, the director requested a copy of the U.S. entity's organizational chart, which should include 
the current names of all executives, managers, supervisors, and the number of employees within each 
department; identify clearly the beneficiary's position; list the names, job titles, descriptions of job duties, 
educational levels, annual salaries, and immigration status for all employees under the beneficiary's 
supervision; and explain the source of remuneration of all employees and state whether the employees are on 
salary, wage, or paid by commission. The director also requested a more detailed description of the 
beneficiary's duties in the U.S., indicating the percentage of time spent on each duty, and listing all employees 
2 
 The AAO notes that the chart appears to show the West Coast and East Coast positions in reverse. 
Although the beneficiary is listed as the East Coast manager, the states listed under him are West Coast states, 
and the West Coast manager has East Coast states listed under him. The petitioner has not corrected this 
discrepancy anywhere in the record. 
WAC 04 089 53327 
Page 5 
under the beneficiary's direction with their job titles and job description. The director also requested copies of 
the U.S. entity's California Quarterly Wages Reports for all employees for the preceding four quarters. 
In response, counsel for the petitioner submitted the following statement from the petitioner regarding the 
beneficiary's job duties in the U.S. entity: 
He will assist the CEO on the following specific jobs: 
1. He will be made in charge of sales & marketing of company's products of beers, wine and 
spirits imported from India primarily for the company's distribution centers in the city of 
Hayward in Northern California, and in city of Camarillo in Southern California. He will 
additionally share the import and distribution responsibilities at the main office at 
Camarillo. 
2. After an initial term of about 6 months he will also be given charge of Texas State, where 
the company has another distribution center planned in the immediate near future. 
3. He will work along side in the market with [slales persons to help increase the accounts 
and extend distribution of company's products at the retail markets, restaurantslpubs, etc. 
4. He is very enthusiastic and self motivated, can speak a few Indian languages besides 
communication skills in English. His association with the industry for the last over [sic] 
3 years has made him an asset to a company like ours as he is very reliable, sincere and 
hard working and the company needs him to accomplish long term goals. Besides he has 
a very good liaison with the exporters companies [sic] in India, it would be easier for him 
to monitor the imports and coordinate on certain changing quality standards in terms of 
innovative packaging, timely plan the flow of inventory etc. [sic] 
5. He is well versed in computer software and operating systems/programs. Which would 
be very helpful in creating some marketing information data base and implementing of 
some new Web marketing etc[.] 
6. As the company has plans to extend and expand its distribution in many more states in 
the near future, he being a loyal, sincere, hardworking and one of most competent 
persons, has been chosen to assist company's CEO in the U.S. [sic] 
7. There would be about 6 sales persons initially under his team, and the number[ ] would 
grow with the growth in the company's business[, wlhich he will decide according to the 
situation in each territory. 
8. Since he has a fair idea about company's productshrands, he will also assist in the 
advertising and publicity campaigns of the company here in the U.S. Plesides 
development of new ideas. 
In a letter dated June 22, 2004, counsel stated, "each of [the] territories [that will be overseen by the 
beneficiary] will have a regional marketing staff which will be supervised by the beneficiary upon completion 
of the expansion. Expansion [i]s currently underway with the opening (yet to be staffed) [in Houston, Texas. 
The beneficiary] will be supervising the staff at this facility, as well as other future facilities." Counsel also 
submitted a new organizational chart for the U.S. entity. The chart shows that the layer of personnel 
operating under the beneficiary has been changed from the chart submitted with the initial petition. Instead of 
WAC 04 089 53327 
Page 6 
supervising regional managers, the beneficiary is shown as supervising "wholesale distribution warehouse in 
Hayward City for Northern California," "import and wholesale distribution warehouse in Camarillo, "sales 
persons, delivery persons," "distribution warehouse in Texas State," and "customer support." The petitioner 
submitted no further details relating to the beneficiary's subordinate staff. 
In denying the petition, the director concluded that the evidence provided is insufficient to establish that the 
beneficiary will be employed in the United States in an executive or managerial capacity. Specifically, the 
director observed that the beneficiary's proposed duties primarily comprised marketing tasks, which are tasks 
necessary to produce a product or provide a service. As such, the director found, the beneficiary cannot be 
considered to be performing primarily executive or managerial duties. The director also noted that even 
though the petitioner claimed that it planned to hire additional employees, at the time the petition was filed, 
the beneficiary was not supervising any employees and had no staff to relieve him of non-qualifying duties. 
The director further noted that although the beneficiary was employed at the U.S. entity since 2001, the record 
does not show that the company paid any salaries or wages for that year. The director found this to be an 
unresolved inconsistency that precludes a grant of the petition. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director's decision is in error. Counsel contends that the 
number of employees on the staff of the petitioner should not be a determining factor in assessing whether the 
beneficiary is acting in a managerial or executive capacity. Counsel further asserts that that the beneficiary's 
job is not "primarily of a marketing nature," as the director observed. Counsel claims the beneficiary would 
be functioning in a primarily managerial capacity in that he will be overseeing the entire East Coast operation 
of the U.S. entity with a wide range of duties and responsibilities. Counsel also contends that the director's 
statement that there are inconsistencies regarding the beneficiary's employment in 2001 is based on a 
misreading of the record. Counsel submits additional evidence, including revised organizational charts and 
new licenses and permits for the U.S. entity, as well as another copy of the receipts for payment of the 
beneficiary's salary in 2003 and 2004 by the foreign entity. 
At the outset, the AAO acknowledges that counsel's assertions on appeal regarding the beneficiary's 
employment by the foreign entity in 2001 appear to be supported by the record. The petitioner stated on the L 
Supplement to Form 1-129 that the beneficiary has been employed by the foreign entity since April 1, 2001 
without interruption. The petitioner also submitted a number of receipts dating from August 2001 through 
April 2004 for payment of the beneficiary's salary by the foreign entity. The petitioner did not claim 
anywhere in the record that the beneficiary was employed by the U.S. entity in 2001. Therefore, the director's 
finding that the claim that the beneficiary was employed by the U.S. entity in 2001 is inconsistent with 
evidence in the record showing that the U.S. entity did not pay any salaries or wages during that year is in 
error and will be withdrawn. 
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the AAO finds that the record is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary 
would be employed by the U.S. entity in a primarily 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. 5 214.2(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 petitioner must specifically state whether the beneficiary is 
WAC 04 089 53327 
Page 7 
primarily employed in a managerial or executive capacity. A petitioner cannot claim that some of the duties 
of the position entail executive responsibilities, while other duties are managerial. A beneficiary may not 
claim to be employed as a hybrid "executive/manager" and rely on partial sections of the two statutory 
definitions. 
In this instance, it is unclear whether the petitioner is claiming that the beneficiary is primarily engaged in 
managerial duties under section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, or primarily engaged in executive duties under 
section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. In the February 9, 2004 letter accompanying the initial petition, counsel 
stated that "[ilt is clear that the beneficiary will be performing executive functions," and counsel provided a 
brief description of the beneficiary's job duties that generally paraphrased the statutory definition of executive 
capacity. However, on appeal, counsel asserted that the beneficiary would be "functioning in a primarily 
managerial capacity" and refers to the job description provided in response to the director's request for further 
evidence in support of that assertion. The petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary's responsibilities 
will meet the requirements of one or the other capacity. Here, neither of the job descriptions provided is 
sufficient to make that showing, as will be discussed further below. 
As previously noted, the beneficiary's job description in counsel's February 9, 2004 letter generally 
paraphrased the statutory definition of executive capacity rather than providing a specific description of the 
beneficiary's duties. See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(44)(A). For instance, the 
petitioner depicted the beneficiary as "establishing goals" for the company and "exercis[ing] wide latitude and 
receiving only general input and supervision from the CEO and other high company executives." However, 
conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's employment capacity are not sufficient to meet the 
petitioner's burden of proof. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), am, 
905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
The job description provided in response to the director's request for further evidence is also vague and 
nonspecific and fails to demonstrate what the beneficiary does on a day-to-day basis. For example, the 
petitioner states that the beneficiary will "be made in charge of sales & marketing of company's products," 
"share the import and distribution responsibilities at the main office," "work along side in the market with 
[slales persons to help increase the accounts and extend distribution of company's products," and "assist in the 
advertising and publicity campaigns of the company." Reciting the beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or 
broadly cast business objectives as the petitioner did here is not sufficient; the regulations require a detailed 
description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. Without further details as to what the beneficiary's tasks 
actually entail when he is "in charge of," "working along side with" or "assisting" others, the petitioner has 
failed to address the critical issue of what the beneficiary would be doing on a daily basis in his position with 
the U.S. entity. The actual duties themselves will reveal the true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108. 
The AAO also does not find persuasive counsel's claim on appeal that the beneficiary's job is not primarily 
marketing in nature, and that he "will be overseeing [the] entire East Coast operation" of the U.S. entity. The 
record supports the director's observation that the beneficiary's position appears to be primarily a marketing- 
related one. Again, the beneficiary's duties are described as "sales & marketing of company's products," 
WAC 04 089 53327 
Page 8 
"work[ing] along side in the market with [slales persons to help increase the accounts and extend distribution 
of company's products," "assist[ing] in the advertising and publicity campaigns of the company," and using 
his computer knowledge "in creating some marketing information data base and implementing of some new 
Web marketing." These are all marketing-related tasks, or tasks that are necessary to provide a service or 
product, and will not be considered managerial or executive in nature. An employee who primarily performs 
the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593,604 (Comm. 
1988). 
Furthermore, it is noted that in addition to failing to provide a more detailed description of the beneficiary's 
anticipated duties in the U.S. entity, the petitioner also failed to provide a breakdown by percentage of time to 
be spent on each duty, as the director specifically requested. Any 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). This 
failure of documentation is also significant because, as previously noted, a number of the beneficiary's daily 
tasks relate to marketing the petitioner's product, and as such, do not fall directly under traditional managerial 
duties as defined in the statute. Absent further detail, the AAO cannot determine whether the beneficiary is 
primarily performing the duties of a manager, as counsel claims. See IKEA US, Inc. v. US. Dept. of Justice, 
48 F. Supp. 2d 22,24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
The AAO also notes that it is unclear from the record whether the beneficiary is the sale and marketing 
manager for the West Coast or the East Coast. While the Form 1-129, counsel's February 9, 2004 letter and 
counsel's brief all indicate that the beneficiary would be the manager for the East Coast, the job description 
submitted in response to the director's request for evidence and both of the organizational charts on record 
show him supervising West Coast personnel andfor facilities. The petitioner has offered no explanation or 
clarification for these inconsistencies. 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). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, 
lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa 
petition. Id. 
The record also contains inconsistent information regarding the beneficiary's subordinates. 
 While the 
organizational chart submitted with the initial petition shows the beneficiary supervising seven or eight 
regional managers, the revised organizational chart submitted in response to the director's request for further 
evidence appears to indicate that the beneficiary would be supervising an undefined group of employees at the 
company's various warehouses on the West Coast. The petitioner has offered no clarification or explanation 
for these inconsistencies. Again, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the 
record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not 
suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of 
Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. In any event, it appears that regardless of how the beneficiary's subordinate staff 
will be organized ultimately, at the time the petition was filed, there is no such staff in place, and the U.S. 
entity's personnel consists only of two persons. Thus, even though the petitioner claims that the beneficiary 
would be "in charge of sales & marketing," it does not appear to have anyone on its staff to actually perform 
WAC 04 089 53327 
Page 9 
the sales and marketing function at the time of filing. Thus, either the beneficiary himself is performing these 
functions or he does not actually manage these functions as the petitioner claimed. In either case, the AAO is 
left to question the validity of the petitioner's claim and the remainder of the beneficiary's claimed duties. 
Again, doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the 
reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Id. As previously 
noted, if the beneficiary is performing the sales and marketing functions directly, the AAO notes that an 
employee who primarily performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not 
considered to be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. Matter of Church of Scientology 
International, 19 I&N Dec. at 604. 
It is noted that the petitioner had indicated that it plans to hire additional staff in the future; however, the 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonirnmigrant 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). 
Finally, counsel correctly observes that a company's size alone, without taking into account the reasonable 
needs of the organization, may not be the determining factor in denying a visa to a multinational manager or 
executive. See 9 101(a)(44)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(44)(C). However, it is appropriate for the 
Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS) to consider the size of the petitioning company in conjunction 
with other relevant factors, such as a company's small personnel size, the absence of employees who would 
perform the non-managerial or non-executive operations of the company, or a "shell company" that does not 
conduct business in a regular and continuous manner. See, e.g. Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 
(D.D.C. 2001). The size of a company may be especially relevant when CIS notes discrepancies in the 
record and fails to believe that the facts asserted are true. Id. 
 Moreover, 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 shown that 
there are employees who would relieve the beneficiary from primarily performing non-managerial tasks, and 
therefore the petitioner has failed to established this essential element of eligibility. 
Based on the foregoing, the record does not support the conclusion that the beneficiary would be employed in 
the United States in a primarily executive or managerial capacity, as required by 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(3). 
Beyond the director's decision, the petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that there is a 
qualifying relationship between the U.S. and foreign entities. The regulations and case law confirm that 
ownership and control are the factors that must be examined in determining whether a qualifying relationship 
exists between the United States and foreign entities for purposes of this visa classification. Matter of Church 
Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 593; 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. 
WAC 04 089 53327 
Page 10 
On the Form 1-129, the petitioner indicated that the U.S. entity is a subsidiary of the foreign entity but stated 
no further detail as to that corporate relationship. In counsel's February 9, 2004 letter, counsel stated that the 
following documentation was submitting along with the petition: (1) the U.S. entity's articles of 
incorporation, minutes, by-laws, share certificates showing 100% ownership by the foreign entity, wire 
transfers evidencing the foreign entity's payment for the shares; and (2) the articles and certificate of 
incorporation for the foreign entity. However, the AAO's review of the record reveals that none of these 
documents were submitted. In considering a petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship, CIS must be able to 
examine evidence such as the stock certificates, stock ledger, stock certificate registry, corporate bylaws, and 
the minutes of relevant annual shareholder meetings 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. Contrary to counsel's 
claim, the petitioner has failed to provide any of the stated documentation regarding the ownership and 
control of the U.S. entity. Without full disclosure of all relevant documents, the elements of ownership and 
control, and consequently the qualifying relationship between the U.S. entity and its foreign parent, simply 
cannot be determined. For this additional reason, the petition will be denied. 
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 denial. 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 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. 8 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the 
director's decision will be affirmed and the petition will be denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.