dismissed L-1A Case: Medical Distribution

US. Department of Homelmnd Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Sewices 
identifying data deleted to Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
prevent clearly unwarranta 
invasion of personal privacy U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
~CCOPk 
File: EAC 09 073 50069 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JuL 1 5 2010 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont 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 is a Florida corporation that seeks to employ the beneficiary for an initial one-year period from 
January 2, 2009 until January 1, 2010 in the position of general manager. Therefore, the petitioner filed this 
nonimmigrant petition seeking to open a new office in the United States and to employ the beneficiary as an 
L- 1 A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 1 0 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 4 1 101(a)(15)(L). 
The director denied the petition based on two independent grounds of ineligibility: 1) the petitioner failed to 
establish that the United States operation will support an executive or managerial position within one year; 
and 2) the petitioner failed to establish the physical location of its business. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director's conclusions 
are erroneous and resubmits exhibits that were previously submitted in response to the request for evidence 
(RFE), which was issued on January 14,2009. 
It is further noted that, after conducting a comprehensive review of the record, the AAO finds that the 
petitioner provided adequate evidence to establish that it has secured sufficient physical premises to house its 
new office. As such, the AAO hereby withdraws the second ground as a basis for denial. The AAO also 
finds the petitioner's eligibility in the present matter is in no way affected by a relationship between the 
petitioner and an entity that previously petitioned to employ the beneficiary in the H-1B nonimmigrant visa 
category. As such, the director's comments with regard to an irrelevant matter are also hereby withdrawn. 
Regardless, the AAO concludes that a denial was warranted in the present matter. A full discussion of the 
petitioner's submissions and the AAO's analysis is provided below. 
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. 4 214.2(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. 
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, executiv,? 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. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(~) states that if the petition indicates that the beneficiary is 
coming to the United States as a manager or executive to open or to be employed in a new office, the 
petitioner shall submit evidence that: 
(A) Sufficient physical premises to house the new office have been 
secured; 
(B) The beneficiary has been employed for one continuous year in the 
three year period preceding the filing of the petition in an executive 
or managerial capacity and that the proposed employment involved 
executive or managerial authority over the new operation; and 
(C) The intended United States operation, within one year of the 
approval of the petition, will support an executive or managerial 
position as defined in paragraphs (l)(l)(ii)(B) or (C) of this section, 
supported by information regarding: 
(I) The proposed nature of the office describing the scope of the 
entity, its organizational structure, and its financial goals; 
(2) The size of the United States investment and the financial 
ability of the foreign entity to remunerate the beneficiary and 
to commence doing business in the United States; and 
(3) The organizational structure of the foreign entity. 
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; 
Page 4 
(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. 5 1 101(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 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the petitioner has established that the intended United States 
operation, within one year of the approval of the petition, will support an executive or managerial position. 
In support of the Form 1-129, the petitioner submitted a letter dated December 12,2008 in which it described 
its proposed U.S. operation as a medical distribution company that will distribute expendable materials to 
clinics, home health care businesses, hospitals, health care centers, and to the general public. In a separate 
attachment, the petitioner described the beneficiary's proposed position as being within an executive capacity. 
In the company's initial stage of development, the beneficiary would be responsible for developing a start-up 
business plan, creating the necessary departments within the organization, and hiring and training the 
necessary personnel. The petitioner also provided the following percentage breakdown of the beneficiary's 
responsibilities during the company's first year of operation: 
To Define the General Policy of the Company and create the specific goals of the business. 
(5%) 
Page 5 
Will be Responsible for complete operation, administration and management of the business. 
(1 0%) 
To Plan and develop organizational Policies and Goals for each department of the business 
and makes [sic] pursuit of their implementation. (5%) 
To Directs [sic] the activities of all departments . . . . (AdministrativeIOffice Dept; Corporate 
Account Sales Dept; Purchase Dept.) (10%) 
To Analyzes [sic] market trends and economic conditions to forecast potential purchases. 
(1 0%) 
To Decide the purchase of new items and products and participates [sic] in the supplier's 
selection. (5%) 
To develop new market Goals in order to achieve maximum profit. (5%) 
To Plan the visit to the potential customers and promotes the business before them with the 
purpose of increasing the portfolio of sales. (5%) 
To deals [sic] with Financial Institutions in obtaining lines of credit and meets [sic] all 
financial needs of the Company. 
To set up an operational Budget and coordinates [sic] the activities of all Departments under 
her control to properly allocate funds . . . . (5%) 
Will represent The Company before any Governmental Agency. (5%) 
To Confer with Administrative Personnel and reviews [sic] the activities and analyzes [sic] 
reports to determine any changes that need to take place in the program and operations in 
order to [ensure] cost reduction, improvement [sic] the process or policy change. (5%) 
Will be Responsible for laying out the different [pllans the USA [clompany will pursue and 
conferring with the Executive Board (Dominican Republic). (5%) 
To prepare and send monthly to the Board of Directors in [the] Dominican Republic, a Report 
with the results of his [sic] management. (10%) 
Recruitment and training the staff: determines such human resources as are necessary, when 
hiring new personnel, takes part in their selection, hiring and training. (5%) 
To ensure the maintenance of official records, by-laws, and standing rules according to Board 
actions. (5%) 
Page 6 
The petitioner indicated that it projects the hiring of an office manager and "several top line employees" to 
work in the administrative, corporate account sales, and purchase departments. Although the petitioner made 
approximate hiring projections for its first two years of operation, it did not specie the exact number of 
expected hires in any of the departments after its first year of operation. 
The petitioner also provided a business plan outlining its financial summary and business objectives. The 
plan outlines a financial summary of the hnds needed to support the business operation, a timetable for hiring 
sales representatives, and the projected revenues that could be anticipated after the first and second year of 
operation. It is noted that the financial summary shows that the beneficiary would receive $10,580 from its 
investors and that it would borrow an additional $5,000 as a short-term loan. The same document contains a 
dollar breakdown of the anticipated start-up costs, including a projected $10,000 in start-up expenses and 
$12,275 in projected purchase of start-up assets for a total of $22,275. The breakdown does not account for 
any costs to be incurred for the hiring of personnel. 
On January 14, 2009, the director issued a request for evidence (RFE) instructing the petitioner to submit, 
inter alia, evidence that the beneficiary, within one year of operation, will be relieved from performing 
primarily non-qualifying tasks. The petitioner was asked to provide a business plan with a timetable that 
would include specific dates for specific actions commencing with the company's initial date of existence. 
In response, the petitioner submitted an undated document entitled "Proposed Organizational Structured 
[sic]," whose contents (with regard to the U.S. entity) are identical to those found in a previously submitted 
document titled, "USA Company: Inrnersa of Miami, Inc[.]" The petitioner also provided a business plan 
timetable projecting when various events would take place. The AAO notes, however, that the timetable 
contains two columns showing two different dates for each action. One column is titled "Timescale," while 
the other is titled "Date." The petitioner did not provide any information to clarify what these two dates 
represent. For instance, the petitioner identified the purchase of inventory as one of the actions that would be 
taken. The date in the timescale column is shown as December 2009-April 2010 while the date in the date 
column is shown as DecemberEebruary 2008. The petitioner did not provide any information to explain 
what each date represents or when the actual purchase of inventory would take place. If the timescale date 
was intended to shown the period of time during which inventory would be purchased, the petitioner did not 
clarify the progression of its purchases during the five-month period or indicate whether the purchases would 
be made in phases and, if so, what would be purchased during which particular phase of the five-month 
period. 
The petitioner's timetable further indicates that the petitioner would introduce its marketing campaign 
between April and November 2010; make initial staffing selections between July and November 2009; and be 
fully staffed as of December 20 10. 
In a decision dated March 5, 2009 the director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to 
submit sufficient evidence to establish that the petitioner would support a managerial or executive employee 
within its first year of operation. 
Page 7 
On appeal, the petitioner provides a summary of the director's findings and previously submitted documents, 
asserting that the prior submissions were sufficient to establish that the petitioner meets the eligibility 
requirement in question. The petitioner also restates the relevant regulatory provisions and statutory 
definitions and concludes that the U.S. entity is viable and would support the beneficiary in a managerial or 
executive position. The AAO finds that the petitioner's assertions are not persuasive. 
When a new business is established and commences operations, the regulations recognize that a designated 
manager or executive responsible for setting up operations will be engaged in a variety of activities not 
normally performed by employees at the executive or managerial level and that often the full range of 
managerial responsibility cannot be performed. In order to qualifL for L-1 nonimmigrant classification during 
the first year of operations, the regulations require the petitioner to disclose the business plans and the size of 
the United States investment, and thereby establish that the proposed enterprise will support an executive or 
managerial position within one year of the approval of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). This 
evidence should demonstrate a realistic expectation that the enterprise will succeed and rapidly expand as it 
moves away from the developmental stage to full operations, where there would be an actual need for a 
manager or executive who will primarily perform qualifying duties. 
As contemplated by the regulations, a comprehensive business plan should contain, at a minimum, a 
description of the business, its products and/or services, and its objectives. See Matter of Ho, 22 I&N Dec. 
206, 213 (Assoc. Comm. 1998). Although the precedent relates to the regulatory requirements for the alien 
entrepreneur immigrant visa classification, Matter of Ho is instructive as to the contents of an acceptable 
business plan: 
The plan should contain a market analysis, including the names of competing businesses and 
their relative strengths and weaknesses, a comparison of the competition's products and 
pricing structures, and a description of the target market/prospective customers of the new 
commercial enterprise. The plan should list the required permits and licenses obtained. If 
applicable, it should describe the manufacturing or production process, the materials required, 
and the supply sources. The plan should detail any contracts executed for the supply of 
materials and/or the distribution of products. It should discuss the marketing strategy of the 
business, including pricing, advertising, and servicing. The plan should set forth the 
business's organizational structure and its personnel's experience. It should explain the 
business's staffing requirements and contain a timetable for hiring, as well as job descriptions 
for all positions. It should contain sales, cost, and income projections and detail the bases 
therefor. Most importantly, the business plan must be credible. 
Id. 
For several reasons, the petitioner in this matter has failed to establish that the United States operation will 
succeed and rapidly expand as it moves away from the developmental stage to full operations, where there 
would be an actual need for a manager or executive who will primarily perform qualifjling duties. The 
petitioner has failed to specifically describe the beneficiary's proposed duties after the petitioner's first year in 
operation; has failed to establish that the beneficiary will be relieved of the need to perform the non- 
Page 8 
qualifying tasks inherent to the operation of the business by a subordinate staff within the petitioner's first 
year in operation; has failed to establish that a sufficient investment has been made in the United States 
operation; and has failed to sufficiently describe the nature, scope, and financial goals of the new office. 
8 C.F.R. 8 2 14.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
As a threshold issue, the AAO notes that the dollar amount of the investment in the U.S. entity is inconsistent 
with the amount the petitioner has indicated it would need for its initial start-up costs, which do not include 
the larger costs that would be needed for inventory and personnel. Specifically, the petitioner's financial 
summary, which was submitted initially with the petition, indicates that the owners of the U.S. entity would 
invest a total amount of $10,580 into the U.S. business. While the petitioner indicated that it was in the 
process of seeking an additional $5,000 as a short-term loan, there is no evidence to corroborate this claim, as 
the record contains no documentation of any steps taken by the petitioner in order to secure the loan. Going 
on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofjci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Moreover, even if the petitioner had 
submitted evidence to show that the $5,000 loan had been secured, the petitioner would only have $15,580 to 
use towards start-up operational costs. This amount falls far short of the $22,275 the petitioner indicated it 
would need to cover the required costs. 
Also, as previously noted, the petitioner's summary of costs did not account for necessary expenses such as 
the cost of inventory and the cost of personnel salaries, particularly that of the beneficiary. More importantly, 
the foreign entity's investment of $10,580 is insufficient to pay the beneficiary's salary, which the petitioner 
indicates would be $1,000 per week, or to cover the cost of additional personnel, inventory, and advertising, 
which total to over $400,000.' 
Next, in light of the insufficiency of the funds available to pay for the petitioner's personnel, inventory, and 
advertising expenses, the AAO finds that the petitioner would be precluded from commencing business 
activity for an indefinite period. While the regulations for a new office petition do not require the petitioner 
to provide evidence of any business transactions, the regulations require that a petitioner seeking to extend the 
employment of a beneficiary who initially came to work in or open a new office must submit evidence to 
show that it has been doing business for the previous year. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B). This 
requirement indicates that even a new office petitioner is expected to do business throughout its first year of 
operation. In the present matter, even if the size of the foreign entity's investment were sufficient to cover the 
additional operational costs, the timetable provided in response to the RFE indicates that the petitioner would 
not commence the hiring of employees until July 2009 and it would not purchase inventory until December 
2009, nearly one year after the filing of the petition. In light of the petitioner's delay in purchasing inventory 
and hiring staff until months after filing the petition, the AAO concludes that the petitioner would have been 
unable to commence doing business at the time of filing. 
Lastly, when examining the proposed executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look 
first to the petitioner's description of the proposed job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner's 
1 See the business and operating plan timetable submitted in response to the RFE. 
Page 9 
description of the job duties must clearly describe the duties that will be performed by the beneficiary and 
indicate whether such duties will be either in an executive or managerial capacity. Id. While the petitioner 
provided a list of the beneficiary's job duties during the petitioner's first year of operation, no description of 
job duties was provided to establish what the beneficiary would be doing beyond that first year. As such, the 
AAO is unable to determine whether the beneficiary would primarily perform tasks within a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity after the petitioner has been operational for one year. 
Likewise, the record is not persuasive in establishing that the beneficiary will be, after the first year, relieved 
of the need to "primarily" perform the non-qualifying tasks inherent to his duties and to the operation of the 
business in general. As previously stated, while the petitioner claims that it will hire office personnel, two 
managers, and two subordinates to assist each manager during its first year in business, the petitioner has 
failed to establish that it will truly be in a position to hire these workers and, even if so, that these workers 
will relieve the beneficiary of the need to primarily perform non-qualifying tasks. Furthermore, the petitioner 
fails to describe its marketing strategy, market analysis, financing sources, competitors, business 
relationships, pricing, or licensing requirements. The petitioner has also failed to provide evidence of any 
proposed business activity. Crucially, the record is devoid of evidence establishing that the United States 
enterprise will more likely than not grow to the point that it will reasonably require the full-time services of 
an employee who would primarily perform qualifying managerial or executive duties. Once again, going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof 
in these proceedings. Id. 
Accordingly, the petitioner's claim that its newly formed operation will hire employees who will relieve the 
beneficiary of the need to primarily perform non-qualifying tasks is not credible and is not supported by any 
evidence. Simply alleging that the petitioner will hire three employees who will perform all the non- 
qualifying tasks inherent to the business does not establish that the United States operation will truly grow 
and mature into an active business organization which will reasonably require the services of a beneficiary 
who will primarily perform managerial or executive duties. Rather, the petitioner must clearly define the 
scope and nature of a United States operation and establish that it has, and will continue to have, the ability to 
support the establishment and growth of the business. However, as the record in this matter is devoid of any 
such evidence, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will more likely than not perform 
"primarily" qualifying duties after the petitioner's first year in operation. 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; see also 
Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593,604 (Comm. 1988). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will be primarily employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity within one year, and the petition may not be approved for that reason. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has failed to meet at least two additional eligibility 
requirements. 
First, the petitioner has failed to establish that it and the foreign employer are qualifying organizations. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(i) states that a petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be accompanied by 
EAC 09 073 50069 
Page 10 
"[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 (I)(l)(ii) of this section" and "is or will be doing 
business." "Subsidiary" is defined in pertinent part as a corporation "of which a parent owns, directly or 
indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity." 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(K). "Doing business" is 
defined in part as "the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services." 8 C.F.R. 
5 2 14.2(1)(1)(ii)(H). 
The regulation and case law confirm that ownership and control are the factors that must be examined in 
determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and foreign entities for purposes 
of this visa classification. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 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. 
In this matter, the petitioner has provided three unnumbered stock certificates to establish its ownership. One 
stock certificate indicates that the foreign entity owns 5 1% of the U.S. entity's shares; another stock certificate 
indicates that the beneficiary owns 19% of the U.S. entity's shares; and the remaining stock certificate 
indicates that Eduardo Fernandez owns 40% of the U.S. entity's shares. Based on these percentages, the 
petitioner has indicated that it has sold 110% of its shares. This is a factual impossibility, as the petitioner 
cannot sell more shares than are authorized to be issued. As the petitioner did not indicate the specific 
number of shares it intended to issue to the purported subscribers, the AAO cannot determine how many 
shares were actually issued and who owns the majority of those authorized shares. Once again, 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. 
Second, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary has been employed in a primarily managerial 
or executive capacity with the foreign entity for one year within the three years prior to the filing of the 
petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(1)(3)(v)(B). As the petitioner filed the Form 1-129 on January 12, 2009, the 
relevant three-year time period during which the beneficiary's one year of foreign employment must have 
taken place is from January 12,2006 and January 12,2009. It is noted that brief trips to the United States that 
took place during the beneficiary's employment abroad do not interrupt the one-year period of continuous 
employment abroad, but those brief trips will not be counted toward the fulfillment of the requirement. See 
8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(A). In the present matter, the petitioner stated in a letter that was annexed to Exhibit 
1 of the RFE response that the beneficiary has been the foreign entity's general manager from August 2006 
through the present. However, in the same annexed letter, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary came to 
the United States in August 2006 as an L-2 nonimmigrant dependent of an L-1. As indicated above, any time 
spent in the United States since her August 2006 entry into the United States cannot be counted towards the 
requisite one-year period of foreign employment. As the beneficiary could not have been employed abroad 
for longer than seven months during the qualifying three-year period, i.e. from January to August 2006, the 
EAC 09 073 50069 
Page 11 
petitioner has failed to meet the one year of foreign employment requirement and the AAO need not address 
the issue of whether or not the beneficiary was employed abroad within a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity. 
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 l), afd, 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). This petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as 
an independent and alternative basis for denial. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.