dismissed L-1A Case: Manufacturing

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: WAC 07 252 54199 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG 0' 1 2008 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 1 0 1 (a)( 1 5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(l5)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Ths 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. 
' 
-+J 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 07 252 54199 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonirnmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimrnigrant visa petition seeking employ the beneficiary as an L-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois and 
is allegedly a "manufacturer and distributor of flexible magnetics." 
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 an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel to the petitioner asserts that the director 
erred and that the beneficiary's duties are primarily those of a manager. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one 
continuous year withn 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 1-1 29 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 hm/her to perform the intended 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The primary issue in the present matter is whether the beneficiary will be employed by the United States 
entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
WAC 07 252 541 99 
Page 3 
Section 10 1 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S .C. 5 1 10 1 (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 fre or recommend those as well as other personnel actions (such as 
promotion and leave authorization), or if no other employee is directly supervised, 
functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the 
function managed; and 
(iv) 
 exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function for 
which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor is not considered to be 
acting in a managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's supervisory 
duties unless the employees supervised are professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1101(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) 
 directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the 
organization; 
(ii) 
 establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
(iii) 
 exercises hide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) 
 receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
The petitioner does not clarify in the initial petition whether the beneficiary will primarily perform managerial 
duties under section 10 1 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, or primarily executive duties under section 10 1 (a)(44)(B) of 
the Act. Although the petitioner discusses the beneficiary's duties only in the context of the managerial 
classification, the petitioner does not clearly limit the beneficiary to thls classification. Given the lack of 
clarity, the AAO will assume that the petitioner is claiming that the beneficiary will be employed as either a 
manager or an executive and will consider both classifications. 
The petitioner describes the beneficiary's proposed duties as "sales manager responsible for the day[-]to[-]day 
sales and marketing activities and development" in a letter dated August 22,2007 as follows: 
WAC 07 252 54199 
Page 4 
Recruit and employ new personnel for the purpose of expanding and establishing 
Sales department. 
Coordinate sales distribution by establishing sales territories quotas, advising dealers, 
distributors, and clients concerning sales and advertising techniques. 
Analyze sales statistics to formulate policy and assist in promotion of product. 
Train new personnel in the techniques and management of sales once the new 
employees are recruited. 
Review market analyses to determine customer needs, volume potential, prices, and 
discount rates. 
Set goals and objectives of the sales department. 
Directed all activities of sales, set budgets, and manage day[-]to[-]day activities of 
the sales function of the US Company. 
The petitioner also submitted an organizational chart for the United States operation. The chart shows the 
beneficiary reporting to the board of directors and supervising an unnamed "sales" employee and a "sales 
rep." The chart also implies that these subordinates will recruit additional workers. Finally, the chart 
indicates that the "customer service" employee, reports to the general manager and will not 
report to the beneficiary as "sales manager." 
On September 9, 2007, the director requested additional evidence. The director requested, inter alia, a 
description of the duties and educational backgrounds of the beneficiary's proposed subordinate employees; a 
more detailed description of the beneficiary's proposed duties in the United States, including a breakdown of 
the percentages of time she will devote to each of her ascribed duties; copies of the petitioner's quarterly wage 
reports for the last four quarters; evidence that the beneficiary will supervise and control the work of 
supervisory, managerial, or professional employees, or will manage an essential function of the organization; 
and copies of the petitioner's tax returns. 
In response, counsel submitted a letter dated September 20, 2007 in which the beneficiary's proposed duties 
are further described as follows: 
A[.] 
 Recruit and employ new personnel for the purpose of expanding and establishing 
sales department. The beneficiary has placed ads [on the internet] to actively 
recruiting [sic] personnel. Interview prospective employees, evaluate their 
qualifications, check references and to determine the suitability for the position. 
Exercise authority to hire and terminate. The beneficiary also reviews and evaluates 
the existing personnel performance, and decide how long the probation period and 
what the basic wage is to be and when the salary should be raised. 5% 
B. Coordinate sales distribution by establishing sales territories, quotas. Advising 
dealers, distributors and clients coordinating sales. Instruct employees with 
advertising techniques. Take responsibilities in advising and demonstrating the 
correct usages of the company's products. Demonstrate to customers the purpose, 
advantages and right way of using the products, advising the variety of products 
available, delivering dates estimate, and cost. Contact old and new customers; follow 
WAC 07 252 54199 
Page 5 
up on discussions to promote sales. 15% 
C. 
 Analyze sales statistics to formulate policy and assist ih promotion of product. 
Review and analyze sales statistics, volumes of sales, customer preferences and 
determine products are profitable or less profitable. Analyze any comments from 
clients to determine whether certain products need improvement, modification or 
even eliminate. Devise strategies to increase sales. 15% 
D. 
 Train new personnel in the techques and management of sales once the new 
employees are recruited. Conduct individualized instructions to show and have the 
new employees acquainted with the company's products. Indoctrinate employees in 
the company's philosophy, goals and policies and the directions the company is 
aiming to develop. 5% 
E. 
 Reyiew market analysis to determine customer needs, volume potentials, prices, and 
discount rates. This analysis is in conjunction with the analysis of sales statistics to 
determine individual customer's particular needs, their volume potentials, and 
provide any discount rates, if applicable. Introduce new products to customers as 
they grow and increasing [sic] their needs. 15% 
F. 
 Set goals and objectives of the sales department. Set definite quota as to possible 
sales for the quarter, and set goals for percentage increase for the sales every 
quarterly [sic]. Review quarterly sales to review sales goals and objectives, modify 
and re-set goals and objectives as needed. Devise strategies to increase sales. 20% 
G. 
 Direct all activities of sales and budgets, and manage day[-]to[-]day activities of the 
sales function of the US Company. Manage and exercise discretion over sales 
department day[-] to[-]day functions. Review sales department budgets to see 
whether it exceeds the budgetary limits, or request additional budgets if needed. 
Determine allocation of budgets as to set priorities as a particular time in sales. 
Oversee accurate recording of sales as to the accounts, volume and items of sales. 
Compile statistics and reports. 25% 
The petitioner also submitted a "revised" organizational chart, which portrays the beneficiary as supervising 
an internal sales worker, a sales representative, an administrative assistant, and "outside sales." The 
beneficiary's proposed subordinate workers are described as follows: 
1. 
 - Internal Sales. Responsibilities; Assist sales manager in devising 
market and sales strategies. Gather and compile reports for beneficiary's review, 
assist in researching customer's preferences, volume of sales as to particular items. 
2. 
 - Sales Representative. 
 He is to represent company in selling of 
products. He demonstrates the usages, advantages, and strength of the products. 
Establish sales strategies, establish and expand sales territories. 
3. 
 Administrative Assistant. She is to maintain all records of sales, clients 
WAC 07 252 541 99 
Page 6 
list, employment records, intemavexternal and overseas correspondences, record 
minutes of all meetings, upkeep records. Check and maintain inventories. 
The petitioner did not submit any evidence pertaining to the educational backgrounds of the proposed 
subordinate workers. 
It is noted that the "revised" organizational chart, as well as the list of the beneficiary's proposed subordinate 
workers, differs materially from the evidence submitted with the initial petition. The original organizational 
chart indicates that is a "customer service" employee and that she will not report to the 
beneficiary. Likewise, the original organizational chart fails to list the administrative assistant. Accordingly, 
it appears that the administrative assistant was hired after the filing of the instant petition. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted copies of its quarterly wage reports. The wage report for the second quarter 
of 2007, the quarter immediately preceding the filing of the instant petition, indicates that the petitioner 
employed one person. 
On October 8, 2007, the director denied the petition. The director concluded that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary will be employed primarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary's duties are primarily those of a manager. 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are not persuasive. 
As a threshold issue, it must be noted that the petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the 
nonimmigrant visa petition. A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the petitioner or 
beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. 
Comm. 1 978). Accordingly, the petitioner's hinng of the administrative assistant or other workers after the 
filing of the instant petition may not be considered. Furthermore, the petitioner's future hiring and business 
expansion plans may not be considered in determining whether the beneficiary will primarily perform 
qualifying managerial or executive duties immediately upon petition approval. A visa petition may not be 
approved based on speculation of future eligibility. See id.; Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 
1971). 
Moreover, it is noted that the petitioner's attempt to submit a materially different organizational chart in 
response to the director's Request for Evidence which shifts the supervisory responsibility over the "internal 
sales" worker to the beneficiary from the general manager was inappropriate and will not be recognized by 
the AAO on appeal. The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit fuaher information that clarifies 
whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(8). When responding to a 
request for evidence, a petitioner cannot offer a new position to the beneficiary or her subordinate workers, or 
materially change a position's title, its level of authority withn the organizational hierarchy, or its associated 
job responsibilities. As noted above, the petitioner must establish that the position offered to the beneficiary 
when the petition was filed merits classification as a managerial or executive position. Matter of Michelin 
Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. at 249. If significant changes are made to the initial request for approval, the 
petitioner must file a new petition rather than seek approval of a petition that is not supported by the facts in 
WAC 07 252 54199 
Page 7 
the record. Accordingly, based on the organizational structure in place at the time the petition was filed, the 
only worker that the petitioner claims will be supervised by the beneficiary is the "sales representative," - 
- 
In view of the above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will be primarily employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
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. A petitioner cannot claim that some of the duties of the 
position entail executive responsibilities, while other duties are managerial. A petitioner may not claim that a 
beneficiary will be employed as a hybrid "executive/manager" and rely on partial sections of the two statutory 
definitions. 
In thls matter, the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's job duties fails to establish that the beneficiary 
will act primarily in a "managerial" or "executive" capacity. To the contrary, the petitioner has submitted a 
job description which describes the beneficiary as primarily performing sales and marketing tasks which do 
not rise to the level of being managerial or executive duties. For example, the petitioner asserts that the 
beneficiary will devote most of her time to recruiting sales personnel, establishing sales territories and quotas, 
analyzing sales statistics, training personnel, and reviewing market analyses. However, these sales and 
marketing duties are tasks necessary to the provision of a service or the production of a product, or are the 
duties of a first-line supervisor, and are not qualifying managerial or executive duties. Furthermore, given 
that the beneficiary will supervise only one worker, a "sales representative," the record is not persuasive in 
establishing that the beneficiary will be relieved of the need to perform the non-qualifying sales and 
marketing tasks inherent to her position. Accordingly, it must be presumed that the beneficiary will perform 
these tasks. The fact that the petitioner has given the beneficiary a managerial or executive title does not 
establish that the beneficiary will actually perform managerial or executive duties. 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 "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); see also Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593,604 (Comrn. 1988). A managerial employee must have 
authority over day-to-day operations beyond the level normally vested in a first-line supervisor, unless the 
supervised employees are professionals. 10 1 (a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act; see also Matter of Church Scientology 
International, 19 I&N Dec. at 604. 
The petitioner has also failed to establish that the beneficiary will supervise and control the work of other 
supervisory, managerial, or professional employees, or will manage an essential hction of the organization. 
As asserted in the original organizational chart, the beneficiary will directly supervise a "sales representative." 
However, the record is not persuasive in establishing that this worker is a supervisory, managerial, or 
professional employee. The record does not indicate that the sales representative will supervise any 
subordinate workers. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to describe the educational background or slulls 
necessary to perform the duties of the sales representative, even though ths evidence was requested by the 
director. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for 
WAC 07 252 54199 
Page 8 
denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(14). 
 Accordingly, it cannot be concluded that the "sales 
representative" is a professional employee.' In view of the above, it appears that the beneficiary will more 
likely than not primarily perform non-qualifying administrative or operational tasks or will be, at most, a first- 
line supervisory of non-professional workers. See generally Family, Inc. v. US. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services, 469 F.3d 13 13 (9' Cir. 2006). Therefore, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will 
be employed primarily in a managerial capacity.* 
Similarly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will act in an "executive" capacity. The 
statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position with 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. 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 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-day 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 
1 
In evaluating whether the beneficiary will manage professional employees, the AAO must evaluate whether 
the subordinate positions require a baccalaureate degree as a minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. 
Section 10 1 (a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(32), states that "[tlhe term profession shall include but not 
be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary 
schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." The term "profession" contemplates knowledge or learning, not 
merely skill, of an advanced type in a given field gained by a prolonged course of specialized instruction and 
study of at least baccalaureate level, which is a realistic prerequisite to entry into the particular field of 
endeavor. Matter of Sea, 19 I&N Dec. 8 17 (Comm. 1988); Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (R.C. 1968); 
Matter of Shin, 1 1 I&N Dec. 686 (D.D. 1966). 
2 
Counsel argues on appeal that the beneficiary will manage an essential function of the organization. 
However, the record does not support this arguement. The term "function manager" applies generally when a 
beneficiary does not supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead is primarily responsible 
for managing an "essential function" within the organization. See section 10 1 (a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The 
term "essential function" is not defined by statute or regulation. If a petitioner claims that the beneficiary is 
managing an essential function, the petitioner must furnish a written job offer that clearly describes the duties 
to be performed in managing the essential function, i.e., identify the function with specificity, articulate the 
essential nature of the function, and establish the proportion of the beneficiary's daily duties attributed to 
managing the essential function. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(ii). In addition, the petitioner's description of the 
beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary manages the function rather than performs the 
duties related to the function. In this matter, the petitioner has not provided evidence that the beneficiary will 
manage an essential function. Instead, the petitioner's job description indicates that the beneficiary will more 
likely than not perform the tasks related to the sales function and serve as a first-line supervisor of a 
subordinate sales representative. Absent a clear and credible breakdown of the time spent by the beneficiary 
performing her duties, the AAO cannot determine what proportion of her duties will be managerial, nor can it 
deduce whether the beneficiary will primarily perform the duties of a function manager. See IKEA US, Inc. V. 
US. Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22,24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
WAC 07 252 54199 
Page 9 
managerial employee. The beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision making" 
and receive only "general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or 
stockholders of the organization." Id. For the same reasons indicated above, the petitioner has failed to 
establish that the beneficiary will act primarily in an executive capacity. As explained above, it appears 
instead that the beneficiary will be primarily employed as a first-line supervisor and will perform the tasks 
necessary to produce a product or to provide a service. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary will be employed primarily in an executive capacity. 
In reviewing the relevance of the number of employees a petitioner has, federal courts have generally agreed 
that Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) "may properly consider an organization's small size as one 
factor in assessing whether its operations are substantial enough to support a manager." Family, Inc. v. US. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, 469 F.3d at 1316 (citing with approval Republic of Transkei v. INS, 
923 F.2d 175, 178 (D.C. Cir. 1991)); Fedin Bros. Co. v. Suva, 905 F.2d 41,42 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam); Q 
Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25,29 (D.D.C. 2003). Furthermore, it is appropriate for 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). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will primarily perform managerial or 
executive duties, and the petition may not be approved for that reason. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad 
for at least one continuous year in a position that was managerial or executive in nature. 8 C.F.R. $5 
214.2(1)(3)(iii) and (iv). 
The petitioner described the beneficiary's job duties abroad as a "sales manager" in a letter dated August 22, 
2007 as follows: 
Direct staffing, training, and performance evaluations to develop and control sales 
program. 
Coordinate sales distribution by establishing sales territories quotas, and goals - 
advising dealers, distributors, and clients concerning sales and advertising 
techques. 
Assign sales territory to other managerial personnel and analyze sales statistics to 
formulate policy and assist in promotion of product. 
Review market analyses to determine customer needs, volume potential, price 
schedules, and discount rates. 
Direct product simplification and standardization to eliminate unprofitable items 
from sales line. 
Employ and terminate personnel within the department not inconsistent with [the 
foreign employer's] policies of personnel management. 
WAC 07 252 541 99 
Page 10 
The petitioner also submitted an organizational chart for the foreign employer. However, the chart fails to 
establish its personnel structure and does not specifically identify the beneficiary's position within the foreign 
employer's organizational hierarchy. 
Upon review, the record is not persuasive in establishing that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity. First, the beneficiary's job description fails describe the 
beneficiary as primarily performing managerial or executive duties abroad. Similar to the proposed United 
States position, it appears that the beneficiary primarily performed non-qualifying sales and marketing tasks 
andlor served as a first-line supervisor of sales workers. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to describe the 
duties of the beneficiary's purported subordinates abroad. Absent detailed descriptions of the beneficiary's 
purported subordinates, it is impossible for CIS to discern whether the beneficiary was "primarily" engaged in 
performing managerial or executive duties abroad. It is also impossible for CIS to determine whether she was 
relieved of the need to perform non-qualifying tasks by a subordinate staff or whether she supervised and 
controlled other managerial, supervisory, or professional employees, or managed an essential function. See 
sections 10 1 (a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act; see also Matter of Church Scientology International, 1 9 I&N Dec. 
at 604. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a primarily 
managerial or executive capacity for one continuous year in the three years preceding the filing of the 
petition, and the petition may not be approved for this reason. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner failed to establish that it has a qualifying relationshp with 
the foreign employer. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(1)(3)(i) states that a petition filed on Form 1-1 29 shall be accompanied by 
"[elvidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the alien are qualifying 
organizations." Title 8 C.F.R. 5 214,2(1)(l)(ii)(G) defines a "qualifying organization" as a firm, corporation, 
or other legal entity which "meets exactly one of the qualifying relationships specified in the definitions of a 
parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary specified in paragraph (l)(l)(ii) of this section" and "is or will be doing 
business." "Subsidiary" is defined in pertinent part as a corporation "of whch a parent owns, directly or 
indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity." 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(K). 
In this matter, the petitioner claims that it is 90% owned by the foreign employer and, thus, is a "subsidiary" as 
defined by the regulations. However, the record contains inconsistencies which undermine this claim. For 
example, the petitioner's 2006 Form 1 120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, indicates in Schedule K that the 
petitioner is not a subsidiary, that no one entity owns 50% or more of the petitioner's stock, and that 25% of the 
petitioner's stock is not owned by a foreign entity. All three of these averments are inconsistent with the 
petitioner's claim to be 90% owned by a Chinese business entity. The petitioner offers no explanation for this 
fundamental inconsistency in the record pertaining to its ownersbp and control. 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 ofHo, 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. at 591. 
WAC 07 252 54199 
Page 11 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign employer, 
and the petition may not be approved for this additional reason. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 200 I), affd, 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 it is shown that the AAO abused its discretion with respect to all of the AAO's 
enumerated grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc., 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1 043. 
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 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.