dismissed L-1A Case: Media Production

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 03 025 53421 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JW( 1 0 2005 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 025 53421 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimrnigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
According to the documentary evidence contained in the record the petitioner was established March 5, 1999, 
and claims to be engaged in the V documentaries, publications, and videos. The 
petitioner claims to be a subsidiary located in Budapest, Hungary. The petitioner seeks 
to extend its authorization to empl rarily in the United States as its president and CEO 
for a period of two years. The beneficiary was initially granted a one-year period of stay to open a new office 
in the United States. 
The director determined that the petitioner had failed to establish that: (I) the beneficiary had been or would 
be employed primarily in a managerial or executive capacity; (2) the petitioning entity has been doing 
business; and (3) the petitioner has secured sufficient physical premises to house its office. 
On appeal, counsel disagrees with the director's decision and asserts that the petitioner has submitted 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary has been and will be employed primarily in a 
managerial or executive capacity; that the organization has been doing business; and that the petitioner has 
secured sufficient physical premises to house its office. 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L), the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary, within three years preceding 
the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving specialized knowledge, for one continuous year 
by a qualifying organization, and seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render 
his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof, in a capacity that is managerial, 
executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii) states, in part: 
Intracompany transferee means an alien who, within three years preceding the time of his or her 
application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad continuously for one 
year by a fm or corporation or other legal entity or parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary 
thereof, and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to render his or her 
services to a branch of the same employer or a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary thereof in a capacity 
that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(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. 
WAC 03 025 53421 
Page 3 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies himher to perform the intended 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(14)(ii) states that a visa petition under section lOl(a)(15)(L) of the Act 
which involved the opening of a new office may be extended by filing a new Form 1-129, accompanied by the 
following: 
(A) Evidence that the United States and foreign entities are still qualifying organizations 
as defined in paragraph (I)(l)(ii)(G) of this section; 
(B) Evidence that the United States entity has been doing business as defined in 
paragraph ( 1)( l)(ii)(H); 
(C) A statement of the duties performed by the beneficiary for the previous year and the 
duties the beneficiary will perform under the extended petition; 
(D) A statement describing the staffing of the new operation, including the number of 
employees and types of positions held accompanied by evidence of wages paid to 
employees when the beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive 
capacity; and 
(E) Evidence of the financial status of the United States operation. 
The first issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has established that the beneficiary has been or will 
be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily- 
(0 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; 
WAC 03 025 53421 
Page 4 
(iii) If another employee or other employees are directly supervised, 
has the authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as 
other personnel actions (such as promotion and leave 
authorization), or if no other employee is directly supervised, 
functions at a senior level within the organizational hierarchy or 
with respect to the function managed; and 
(iv) Exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the 
activity or function for which the employee has authority. A 
first-line supervisor is not considered to be acting in a 
managerial capacity merely by virtue of the supervisor's 
supervisory duties unless the employees supervised are 
professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. Q 1 101(a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily- 
6) Directs the management of the organization or a major 
component or function of the organization; 
(ii) Establishes the goals and policies of the organization, 
component, or function; 
(iii) Exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) Receives only general supervision or direction from higher level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the 
organization. 
In the petition, the petitioner described the beneficiary's past duties with the U.S. entity as: 
[The beneficiary] generally oversees the business activities of the company with complete 
discretionary authority overseeing the development and implementation of promotion, 
marketing, and sales. [The beneficiary] has authority to oversee contract negotiations, 
determination of price, policymaking, etc. He oversees the administration and fianci [sic] of 
the company, and hiring and firing employees. 
The petitioner described the beneficiary's proposed duties as: 
[The beneficiary] will be functioning as an executive capacity [sic], as President, CEO. [The 
beneficiary] will direct the management of the organization, establish goals and policies by 
exercising wide range of latitude in discretionary decision making. He will receive only 
general supervision of direction from the parent co's [sic] shareholders. Substantially, his 
duties will be at the executive level. He will plan, organize, direct, and control the 
organization's major functions. 
WAC 03 025 53421 
Page 5 
In a letter of support, dated October 28, 2002, the foreign entity's president and CEO described the 
beneficiary's present and proposed job duties in part as: 
Initially, [the beneficiary] will continue organizing and setting up the corporation. He will 
hire employees, negotiate contracts, among other work duties. Once the subsidiary is 
operating regularly as a business, and have [sic] a manager and other employees to perform 
the every day business duties, [the beneficiary] will continue to function in an executive 
capacity, as President, C.E.O. 
[The beneficiary] will direct the management of the organization, will establish goals and 
policies of the organization, by exercising wide latitude in discretionary decision making. He 
will receive only general supervision or direction from shareholders of the Hungarian parent 
company. Substantially all of his duties will be at the executive level. He will plan, organize, 
direct and control the organization's major functions by working through other managerial or 
professional subordinate employees. 
The petitioner described the proposed U.S. entity personnel as managing director, production supervisor, 
publication supervisor, and executive assistantlsecretary. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence on this subject, counsel stated that the U.S. entity 
has not yet hired employees due to the company's financial status. Counsel further stated that until the U.S. 
entity could begin realizing growth and a profit, it would work with "outsiders as co-producers." Counsel 
contended the beneficiary would perform in an executive capacity in that he would continue organizing and 
setting up the organization, negotiate contracts, and direct the management of the organization. Counsel 
stated the beneficiary's job duties in the United States would involve: 
Meetings including meetings with buyers for market agreements, media sources for 
selling Hungarian productions in the U.S., and business contacts to establish 
opportunities for production sites, like private villas, gardens, farms, etc. 
Discussions via telephone and via email to create and maintain business relations in 
the U.S., Hungary, and other European countries. 
Travels for productions [sic] sites including visiting, choosing, controlling places and 
spaces for shootings, pre and post-production works. 
Counsel further stated that the foreign entity would continue to pay the beneficiary's salary and living 
expenses. 
The director denied the petition, determining that the petitioner had failed to submit sufficient evidence to 
establish that the beneficiary had been and would be employed by the U.S. entity primarily in a managerial or 
executive capacity. The director stated that after more than one year the petitioner has failed to hire any other 
employees besides the beneficiary. The director noted that based upon a review of the evidence, the 
beneficiary's duties were not at the managerial or executive level, but appeared to consist of the day-to-day 
duties of a film production business including: sales, purchasing, negotiations, and bookkeeping. 
On appeal, counsel disagrees with the director's decision and asserts that as a result of the 911 1 tragedy the 
beneficiary has spent his time trying to negotiate and close contracts. Counsel further asserts that it had not 
WAC 03 025 53421 
Page 6 
been feasible to hire new employees where the U.S. entity was not able to realize a profit. Counsel claims 
that the beneficiary has not been able to perform all of his managerial or executive duties with "no employees 
to manage or direct." Counsel concludes by stating that the U.S. entity recently entered into an exclusive 
distribution agreement and anticipates company growth and profit. On appeal, the petitioner submits a copy 
of the exclusive distribution agreement, dated March 5, 2003. 
On reviewing the petition and the evidence, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has been 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity. When examining the executive or managerial capacity of 
the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the petitioner's description of the job duties. See 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 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). In the instant matter, the record shows that the beneficiary was the sole employee of the U.S. 
entity at the time the petition was filed. Based upon duty descriptions contained in the record, it appears that 
the beneficiary primarily performs the sales, contract negotiation, marketing, and production functions of the 
organization. Consequently, there is insufficient evidence to show that the beneficiary has performed or will 
perform the high level responsibilities as defined, or that he has performed or will primarily perform those 
duties rather than spending the majority of his time performing day-to-day functions of the organization. 
On review, the petitioner has provided a vague and nonspecific description of the beneficiary's duties that 
fails to demonstrate what the beneficiary does on a day-to-day basis. For example, the petitioner states that 
the beneficiary's duties include establishing goals and policies, organizing and setting up the corporation, 
overseeing business activities, and directing the management of the organization. The petitioner did not, 
however, define the beneficiary's goals and policies or clarify how he will oversee business activities and 
manage the organization. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 
14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornrn. 1972). 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 reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Further, rather than providing a specific description of the beneficiary's duties, the petitioner generally 
paraphrased the statutory definition of executive capacity. See section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C 8 1101(a)(44)(A). For instance, the petitioner depicted the beneficiary as directing the entire 
operation of the organization, establishing goals and policies of the organization, and exercising sole 
discretionary decision making. 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, supra.; 
Avyr Associates Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at "5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
In addition, the petitioner describes the beneficiary as being involved in the finance, sales and contract 
negotiating process, and marketing the petitioner's product. Since the beneficiary actually performs 
administrative work, markets the petitioner's product, negotiates contracts, and sells the company product, he 
is performing a task necessary to provide a service or product and this duty will not be considered managerial 
or executive in nature. An employee who primarily performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to 
WAC 03 025 53421 
Page 7 
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 (Cornm. 1988). 
Even though the petitioner claims that the beneficiary directs and manages the petitioner's sales, marketing, 
and accounting activities, it does not claim to have anyone on its staff to actually perform those functions. 
Thus, either the beneficiary himself is performing the sales, marketing, or accounting functions or he does not 
actually manage the functions as claimed by the petitioner. 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. Doubt cast on any 
aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the 
remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
The record is not persuasive in demonstrating that the beneficiary has been or will be employed in a primarily 
managerial or executive capacity. The petitioner indicates that it plans to hire additional managers and 
employees in the future. However, 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. 
Cornm. 1978). Furthermore, 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows the intended United States operation one 
year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. There is no 
provision in Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) regulations that allows for an extension of this one- 
year period. If the business is not sufficiently operational after one year, the petitioner is ineligible by 
regulation for an extension. In the instant matter, the petitioner has failed to submit sufficient evidence to 
establish that the beneficiary has been and will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Furthermore, the record demonstrates that the U.S. entity has not reached the point that it can employ the 
beneficiary in a predominantly managerial or executive position. For this reason, this petition may not be 
approved. 
The second issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to establish 
that the U.S. entity has been doing business. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(G) state: 
Qualifying organization means a United States or foreign firm, corporation, or other legal 
entity which: 
(1) 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; 
(2) Is or will be doing business (engaging in international trade is not required) as an 
employer in the United States and in at least one other country directly or through a 
parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary for the duration of the alien's stay in the United 
States as an intracompany transferee; and 
(3) Otherwise meets the requirements of section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(H) state: 
WAC 03 025 53421 
Page 8 
Doing business means the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or 
services by a qualifying organization and does not include the mere presence of an agent or 
office of the qualifying organization in the United States and abroad. 
The petitioner claims that the U.S. entity is a subsidiary of Profilm KFT, Inc., located in Hungary. The 
petitioner also claims that the U.S. entity was incorporated in 1999 and engages in film production, 
production of TV documentaries, cultural publications, and video production. In a letter of support, dated 
October 28, 2002, the petitioner stated, "the US subsidiary has not been producing profit yet." The petitioner 
submitted a business plan covering the years 2002 through 2003 for the foreign entity, which encompassed 
plans for the U.S. entity. The plan included: the production and publication of scientific and documentary 
films in the United States; the preparation of broadcasting programs and documentaries in the United States; 
providing camera rental, video production, and other miscellaneous services to U.S. customers; engaging in 
book publication in the United States, including films, documentaries, and videos; and engaging in on- 
demand film and video brokering between the United States film and video producers. The petitioner 
submitted copies of the U.S. entity's IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return for the year 2001; 
California State Form 100, California Corporation Income Tax Return for the year 2001; a photograph of a 
Bank of America bank card; a business proposal, dated May 29, 2002, from DapTV Associates to the U.S. 
entity concerning "World of Prisons" series; a translated written offer to the U.S. entity from Digitpost Ltd., 
located in Hungary; a translated written notice of assignment from Venko Studio Kft. in Hungary; and a letter 
of interest from Magyar ATV Argo TV. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence on the subject, the petitioner stated that the U.S. 
entity did not have a business bank account or commercial insurance. The petitioner submitted as evidence 
copies of the U.S. entity's Articles of Incorporation, Statement by Domestic Stock Corporation, and Federal 
Employer ID number Application. The petitioner also submitted copies of translated offers to purchase 
documentaries from the U.S. entity, and authorizations to market Hungarian films and documentaries in the 
United States. 
The director denied the petition after determining that the petitioner had failed to submit sufficient evidence to 
show that the U.S. entity has been doing business. The director stated that it appeared from the record that the 
U.S. entity was merely maintaining a representative office for the foreign entity and that the beneficiary was 
merely performing as a sales or purchasing agent in the United States. The director noted that the U.S. 
entity's address was that of its legal representative thus proving that it had not acquired sufficient physical 
premises to conduct business. The director concluded by noting that the petitioner had failed to submit 
sufficient evidence to show that the U.S. entity is providing a regular, systematic, and continuous provision of 
goods andlor services as a qualifying organization. 
On appeal, counsel disagrees with the director's decision and asserts that the foreign entity will continue to 
finance the U.S. entity. Counsel also asserts that the U.S. entity recently entered into an exclusive distribution 
agreement with Powersports Video Production. On appeal, the petitioner submits a copy of an exclusive 
distribution agreement entered into by the U.S. entity, Euro Enterprises Company, and Powersports Video 
Production and dated March 5, 2003. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. Q 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows the intended United States operation one year within the 
date of approval of the petition to establish the new office. Furthermore, at the time the petitioner seeks an 
extension of the new office petition, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. Q 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B) requires the petitioner to 
demonstrate that it has been doing business for the previous year. The term "doing business" is defined in the 
WAC 03 025 53421 
Page 9 
regulations as "the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services by a qualifying 
organization and does not include the mere presence of an agent or office of the qualifying organization in the 
United States and abroad." 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(l)(ii). Counsel and the petitioner contend that the U.S. entity 
has been in operation for only one year since the beneficiary was initially granted L-1A intracompany 
transferee status. They further contend that a film and video production business needs more than one year to 
develop into a viable entity. There is no provision in CIS regulations that allows for an extension of this one- 
year period. If the business is not sufficiently operational after one year, the petitioner is ineligible by 
regulation for an extension. 
The evidence initially submitted by the petitioner demonstrated that the U.S. entity had received offers and 
authorizations to sell video productions and documentaries. However, there was nothing contained in the 
record to demonstrate that the organization actually conducted business in the year preceding the filing of this 
petition. When asked by the director to submit evidence of a business bank account, business insurance 
policy, list of employees, list of business property, business licenses, and quarterly wage reports, the 
petitioner responded by asserting that the U.S. entity either did not have or had not yet obtained such items. 
Furthermore, the U.S. entity's IRS Form 1120, U.S. Corporate Tax Return for 2001 and Form 100, California 
Corporate Tax Return for 2001 show no income from sales for that year. 
On appeal, counsel relies on evidence that was produced only after the decision to deny the petition was 
made. The petitioner submitted a copy of an exclusive distribution agreement, dated March 5, 2003. It is 
noted for the record that the petition in the instant matter was filed November 1, 2002. This document was 
not in existence at the time the petition was filed. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a 
petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 
Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., supra. CIS cannot consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the 
filing of a petition. See Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981). Based upon a review of the record, 
there has been insufficient evidence submitted to establish that the U.S. entity has been doing business as 
defined by the regulations. For this additional reason, this petition may not be approved. 
The third issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to establish that 
the U.S. entity has secured sufficient physical premises to house its business as required by 
8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(1)(3)(v)(A). 
The petitioner initially indicated that the U.S. entity's business address was 9080 Santa Monica Blvd., in Los 
Angeles, California. 
The director stated that the address provided was the petitioner's attorney's address, and subsequently 
requested the petitioner submit a signed and dated lease agreement. The director also requested the petitioner 
to submit a copy of its business insurance policy. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted a copy of a lease 
agreement and black and white photographs of the business premises. The petitioner stated that the U.S. 
entity had not yet acquired a business insurance policy. 
The director denied the petition after determining that the petitioner had failed to submit sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that the U.S. entity had acquired sufficient physical premises to house its business. The director 
noted that it appeared from the record that the U.S. entity was merely maintaining a representative office for 
the foreign entity. 
WAC 03 025 53421 
Page 10 
On appeal, counsel disagrees with the director's decision and asserts that the U.S. entity has leased its own 
office space within the same two-story building which houses the attorney's office. Counsel asserts that 
although the address to both offices may be the same, there is a difference in suite numbers. Counsel further 
asserts that the building in question occupies thirteen tenants, and is equipped with a large reception area, 
conference room, two kitchens, and a private parking lot. 
On reviewing the petition and the evidence, the petitioner has not established that the U.S. entity has acquired 
sufficient physical premises to house its business office. In this matter, the lease agreement is signed and 
dated February 15, 1999. The agreement states in part: 
1. TERM: The terms shall be for a period of 10 monthis), commencing on the 15~ day 
of, February 1999 and continuing through December 15, 1999 at a total rent of 
$2,500.00 . . . . 
5. OPTION: Lessee has the right to exercise an option for an additional rental lease at 
the rental rate to be determined upon renewal of lease giving written notice to lessor 
no later than 60 days prior to the expiration of the initial lease term. 
16. INSURANCE: Lessee shall maintain a policy of general liability for the premises, 
naming Lessor as an additional insured. Further, Lessee shall maintain a policy of 
insurance for the personal property owned by the Lessee, and lessor shall not be 
responsible for the damage, removal or destruction of lessee. 
Furthermore, counsel and the petitioner admit that the U.S. entity has not conducted business, and does not 
possess a business insurance policy for liability or damage to personal property as required by the lease 
agreement. Therefore, the petitioner has not shown that sufficient physical premises have been secured to 
house the business office. For this additional reason, this petition may not be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has not established that it is eligible for an extension of the 
initial one-year "new office" validity period. As previously noted, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(14)(ii) 
provides strict evidentiary requirements that the petitioner must satisfy prior to the approval of this extension 
petition. Upon review, the petitioner has not satisfied all of the enumerated evidentiary requirements. The 
petitioner has not submitted evidence to demonstrate that the United States and foreign entities are still 
qualifying organizations as defined in 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(G), in that the foreign entity has continued 
doing business in the absence of the beneficiary. Although the petitioner stated that the foreign entity has 
been engaged in cultural service activities, production and publication of films, etc., there is not sufficient 
evidence of this claim in the record. Furthermore, although the petitioner claims that the foreign entity will 
continue to financially support the U.S. entity, and pay the beneficiary's salary and living expenses, there is 
nothing in the record to substantiate that claim. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Crnft of 
WAC 03 025 5342 1 
Page 11 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornm. 1972). For these additional reasons, the petition may not be 
approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the 
AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F.SU~~.~"~ 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9" 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). 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought rests solely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.