dismissed L-1A Case: Operations And Marketing

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw2f~anted 
invasion of personal privacl 
U.S. Department of IJomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
MAIL STOP 2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
File: EAC 07 056 50038 OFFICE: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: DEC 1 9 2008 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section I01 (a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion hust be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
John F. ~rissom, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 07 056 50038 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service Center. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal with the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), where a 
notice of adverse findings and request for additional evidence was issued. The petitioner has now 
provided a response, and all documents on record have been reviewed. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary in the United 
States in the position of director of operations and marketing as an L-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The director denied the petition based on the finding that the beneficiary was not employed abroad 
for the requisite one-year period within the three years prior to the date the Form 1-129 was filed. 
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 argues that the director's 
denial is based on factual errors concerning the beneficiary's date of arrival to the United states.' An 
appellate brief has also been submitted and will be addressed in a full discussion to follow. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the 
criteria outlined in section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized 
knowledge capacity, for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's 
application for admission into the United States. In addition, the beneficiary must seek to enter the 
United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a 
subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) 
 Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ 
the alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (I)(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. 
1 
 The record shows that while the petitioner was previously represented by counsel, such counsel has recently submitted 
a letter dated November 20, 2008 withdrawing his representation of the petitioner in the present matter. While counsel's 
arguments and submissions have been considered, the petitioner is now considered to be self-represented. 
EAC 07 056 50038 
Page 3 
(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 himlher 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. tj 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. 
The primary issue addressed in the director's decision is whether the beneficiary has the requisite 
one-year period of employment abroad during the three years prior to filing the Form 1-129. In the 
present matter, the Form 1-129 was filed on December 20, 2006. Therefore, the three-year time 
period during which the employment abroad should have taken place is from December 20, 2003 
until December 20, 2006. As the AAO previously stated in a notice dated October 23, 2008, section 
1, item 5 of the L Classification Supplement indicated that the beneficiary was employed abroad 
from January 1, 1998 until July 1, 2005. The AAO further pointed out that the photocopies of the 
beneficiary's numerous visa pages, which the petitioner submitted on appeal, show that the 
beneficiary was issued a BlIB2 U.S. visitor visa on at least four occasions during the time period of 
his alleged employment with the qualifying foreign entity. Furthermore, the annotation section on at 
least two of those visa 
 urpose of the beneficiary's U.S. visit was to serve as 
a personal attendant of 
Accordingly, in light of the factors mentioned above, the AAO instructed the petitioner to provide 
additional documentation to establish the beneficiary's employment with the foreign entity during 
the relevant time period. The AAO expressly informed the applicant that the additional evidence 
should include pay statements issued by. to the beneficiary within the 
relevant time period; Radico Heptulla International's payroll, naming the beneficiary among its 
EAC 07 056 50038 
Page 4 
employees during the relevant time period; or the beneficiary's tax documents specifically naming 
his employer during the relevant time period. 
Although the petitioner has responded to the notice, it has not provided any of the documents 
specifically listed by the AAO as an acceptable means of establishing the beneficiary's foreign 
employment. It is noted that failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry 
shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(14). 
 Here, instead of providing the 
requested documents, the petitioner has provided five undated letters on 7- 
International's letterhead, accounting for the beneficiary's employment with that entity from 
December 20, 2003 through December 31, 2007. These letters are accompanied by documents 
entitled "Receipt," each containing a date, the designated month for which the beneficiary 
purportedly received a salary, and the amount of the salary. Combined, the receipts accounted for 
each month within the time period indicated in each of the five letters of employment. 
After reviewing the above documents the AAO finds that they are not persuasive and that they fail to 
establish the beneficiary's employment abroad during the time period initially claimed. First, the 
AAO observes that the letters of employment account for time periods that extend beyond July 2005, 
indicating that the beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity throughout all of 2005, 2006 and 
2007. This altered claim is significantly different from the petitioner's earlier statements in which 
the petitioner claimed that the beneficiary was only employed abroad from January 1998 to July 
2005. Thus, the documentation submitted in response to the AAO's notice is now in conflict with 
the petitioner's earlier claim. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the 
record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies 
will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the 
truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Here, instead of resolving existing 
deficiencies, the petitioner has created new ones, thereby further undermining the credibility of the 
original claim. 
In light of the additional inconsistencies created by the newly submitted documents, the AAO 
questions the validity of the employment letters and receipts for wages purportedly paid to the 
beneficiary within the relevant time period. 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. The AAO further notes that none of the documents 
submitted by the petitioner can be deemed contemporaneous evidence and appear to have been 
fabricated for the sole purpose of meeting the regulatory requirements. Moreover, the fact that the 
employment letters are not contemporaneous evidence affords these documents minimal probative 
value in determining whether the beneficiary was employed by the foreign entity during the relevant 
time period. 
Accordingly, given the numerous significant deficiencies discussed above, the AAO concludes that 
the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad for one year by a 
qualifying entity during the relevant three-year time period. 
The AAO will continue the discussion of the petitioner's eligibility by addressing the additional 
issues that were discussed earlier in the AAO's October 23,2008 notice. 
EAC 07 056 50038 
Page 5 
The first two issues discussed in the AAO's notice question the beneficiary's employment capacity 
both abroad and with the U.S. entity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1 101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
The tenn "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the 
employee primarily-- 
(i) 
 manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or 
component of the organization; 
(ii) 
 supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees, or manages an essential function within the 
organization, or a department or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) 
 if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has 
the authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other 
personnel actions (such as promotion and leave authorization), or if no 
other employee is directly supervised, functions at a senior level 
within the organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function 
managed; and 
(iv) 
 exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or 
function for which the employee has authority. A first-line supervisor 
is not considered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by 
virtue of the supervisor's supervisory duties unless the employees 
supervised are professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1101(a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means 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. 
In support of the Form I- 129, the petitioner provided two separate letters discussing the beneficiary's 
foreign and proposed employment. With regard to the former, the petitioner provided a letter dated 
EAC 07 056 50038 
Page 6 
November 10, 2006 on the foreign entity's letterhead, signed by the company's president. The 
following statements were used to describe the beneficiary's position abroad as manager: 
In this capacity, [the beneficiary] oversees the overall operation of the company in the 
field of catering, [and] domestic service recruitment for providing manpower services 
to our clients in [the] Middle East and Saudi Arabia, where we have been providing 
our manpower for [sic] our clients. He hires, trains, supervises, and fires cooks, chefs 
and domestic servants for work in [the] Middle East. He trains them and oversees the 
operation of the of [sic] our parent company. 
[The beneficiary] has been supervising [sic] catering and food branch of [the] parent 
entity. His recipes, cooking and catering services have been appreciated by [the 
foreign entity's] clients. 
The petitioner also provided the foreign entity's organizational chart, showing a multi-tiered 
organization with the board of directors, the company's president, and three directors at the top three 
levels of the hierarchy, respectively. Each director is shown as having at least one manager as 
hisker direct subordinate, and two of the four managers are shown as having assistant managers as 
their subordinates. One of the managers is shown as having no subordinates and the fourth manager, 
i.e., the account manager, is shown as supervising a bookkeeper. Each of the assistant managers is 
shown as having subordinate staff members within hisker respective division. The AAO notes, 
however, that neither of the beneficiary's subordinate employees was identified by name and neither 
individual's job description was provided. 
With regard to the beneficiary's proposed employment with the U.S. entity, the petitioner provided a 
letter dated December 15,2006 in which the following job description was provided: 
[The beneficiary] will serve as [dlirector [of the petitioning entity] and will hire, train, 
supervise and fire all of the personnel involved in business [with the petitioner. He] 
will, in turn, perform managerial functions with respect to lower echelon employees. 
He will establish and maintain relations and will develop and implement an overall 
operating structure and marketing plan for [the] food business. 
The petitioner also provided an organizational chart illustrating its own proposed hierarchy. The 
beneficiary's position of vice president is shown as third from the top, subordinate directly to the 
petitioner's president. The positions subordinate to the beneficiary include seven managers, each of 
whom is shown as having an assistant subordinate who is then assisted by various staff members 
who are assigned to perform the operational tasks within hisher given department. It is noted that 
the only positions that were filled at the time the chart was created were the beneficiary's position 
and the position of the company president. 
On February 7, 2007, the director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE). The director 
informed the petitioner that the statements addressing the beneficiary's proposed employment were 
overly general and resembled restated portions of the applicable regulatory definitions. Accordingly, 
the petitioner was asked to provide a comprehensive description of the beneficiary's proposed job 
duties, expressly stating which job duties qualify the beneficiary as a managerial or executive 
EAC 07 056 50038 
Page 7 
capacity employee. With regard to the beneficiary's employment abroad, the director instructed the 
petitioner to describe the beneficiary's typical managerial responsibilities, including an explanation 
of how the beneficiary evaluated his subordinates. The petitioner was also asked to provide 
documentary evidence of managerial decisions the beneficiary made on behalf of the foreign entity 
and to describe the job duties of the beneficiary's subordinates. 
In response, the petitioner provided an undated letter, which was accompanied by the following 
statements regarding the beneficiary's proposed and foreign employment, respectively: 
Proposed Duties of [the] Beneficiary as Director [of Olperations and Marketing[:] 
1. 
 To [pllan, direct, or coordinate the operations of [the petitioner's business] in 
[the] U[.]S[.]A. 
2. 
 To formulate company policies, manage daily operations of its retail and whole 
sale [sic] operations in [the] U[.]S[.]A[.], and plan the efficient and economic 
utilization of company resources [sic] materials as well as human resources. 
3. 
 To organize the operations of [the] entity in [the] U[.]S[.]A[.], including but not 
limited to hiring and firing of company employees working in [the] U[.]S[.]A[.,] 
which includes personnel management, purchasing of merchandise, or 
administrative services. 
4. 
 To [dlirect the actual distribution movement of a product or service to the 
customer. 
5. 
 Coordinate sales distribution by establishing sales territories, quotas, and goals 
and establish training programs for sales representatives. 
6. 
 Analyze sales statistics gathered by staff to determine sale [sic]. 
Duties performed as Director [ofj Catering Services with [the fjoreign parent 
entity[:] 
To see overall operations of [the floreign [elntity as [the] director [of] catering 
services in India. He oversaw the operation of [clatering and [dlomestic services of 
[the plarent [elntity in India. He hired, fired and trained the employees and managers 
including but not limited to hiring and firing of employees working in [the 
dl epartment [.I 
To [dlirect the actual distribution or movement of a product s [sic] or services to the 
customer; [cloordinate sales distribution by establishing training programs for 
[mlanagers; [alnalyze sales statistics gathered by staff to determine potential and 
inventory requirements and monitor the preferences of customers[.] 
EAC 07 056 50038 
Page 8 
Plan, direct or coordinate operations of our [sic; t]o formulate company policies, 
manage daily operations in [the] head office[.] 
To plan the efficient and economic utilization of company resources [sic] materials as 
well as human resources. 
Although the director did not analyze or make a finding with regard to the above information, the 
AAO conducted its own independent review on appeal and found that while the petitioner 
acknowledged the director's notice, the above response lacked the requested comprehensive 
description of the beneficiary's proposed job duties and instead contained additional statements 
generally discussing the beneficiary's overall job responsibilities. 
The AAO found that the petitioner's descriptions of the beneficiary's foreign and proposed 
employment were inadequate, lacking any detailed information about the beneficiary's specific day- 
to-day job duties and generally failing to convey a meaningful understanding of the tasks the 
beneficiary performed abroad and would perform for the U.S. entity in order to meet his overall job 
responsibilities. 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. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), afd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Accordingly, in its own separate RFE, the AAO notified the petitioner that, in addition to the ground 
for ineligibility previously identified by the director, the petitioner was also ineligible due to its 
failure to provide sufficient job descriptions for the beneficiary's foreign and proposed positions and 
that the petitioner therefore failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad and would 
be employed in the United States in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
In response, the petitioner submits a letter dated November 23,2008. As the letter is not signed, it is 
unclear whether the person making statements on behalf of the petitioner is authorized to do so. 
Regardless, the response merely reaffirms the prior claim that the beneficiary's proposed 
employment in the United States would be within a managerial capacity and further states that a 
detailed job description "will develop further as this new line of service establishes [sic]." 
In response to the AAO's findings regarding the description of the beneficiary's foreign employment, 
the letter states that new evidence is being provided with details of the beneficiary's employment to 
show that the beneficiary was a managerial worker. However, the only additional evidence provided 
in response to the AAO's RFE were the receipts for alleged payments of the beneficiary's salary and 
the five employment letters all of which are identical and state that the beneficiary was employed as 
a "[c]ook~[s]upervisor [who was] in charge of the [plantry." While this brief description lacks the 
degree of detail necessary to establish the beneficiary's daily tasks, it is nevertheless indicative of an 
individual whose time appears to have been primarily devoted to performing operational, rather than 
managerial, job 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 (Comm. 1988). 
EAC 07 056 50038 
Page 9 
In light of the petitioner's deficient response to the AAO's adverse findings regarding the job 
descriptions for the beneficiary's foreign and proposed employment, the AAO concludes that the 
petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary's employment abroad (even if established) and 
his proposed employment in the United States have been and would be within a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity. 
The remaining issue addressed by the AAO in its RFE notice was that of a qualifying relationship 
between the U.S. petitioner and the beneficiary's alleged foreign employer. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(1)(3)(i) states that a petition filed on Form 1-129 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. fj 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 which 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). "Doing business" is defined in part as "the 
regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods andlor services." 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(1)(l)(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. 
With regard to the issue of a qualifying relationship, the AAO found that the petitioner's claim is not 
supported by the evidence of record. Specifically, the AAO pointed out that the L Classification 
Supplement to Form 1-129 identifies the relationship between the foreign entity and the U.S. 
petitioner as that of parentlsubsidiary, the latter being the subsidiary. The AAO further observed 
that the record contains documents that are inconsistent with one another. Namely, Article 4 of the 
petitioner's Articles of Incorporation states that the petitioner is authorized to issue a total of 1,000 
shares of its stock. However, this document is accompanied by stock certificate No. 1, which issued 
a total of 10,000 shares of the petitioner's stock to the foreign entity. Thus, the stock certificate 
indicates that the petitioner issued an excess of 9,000 shares of stock, thereby going beyond the 
authorized amount specified in its Articles of Incorporation. 
Further discrepancies were found when the AAO reviewed the above documents and considered the 
petitioner's claim in light of the petitioner's Minutes of Organizational Meeting of the Board of 
Directors, dated September 30,2005. While this document is consistent with the petitioner's Articles 
of Incorporation in terms of the number of shares the petitioner was authorized to issue, the 
document lists and - as the petitioner's owners. More specifically, 
EAC 07 056 50038 
Page 10 
the document indicates that Asad Siddiqui became owner of 900 of the petitioner's authorized shares 
in exchange for his payment of $9,000, while became owner of the remaining 
100 shares in exchange for her payment of $1,000 with a par value of $10 per share. It is further 
noted that and - were named as the petitioner's shareholders in a document 
entitled, "Stock Purchase ~greemen; of [the Petitioner] a For-Profit Corporation," which was 
executed on August 20, 2006, four months prior to the date the petition was filed. The AAO has 
already informed the petitioner that these documents are entirely inconsistent with regard to the 
petitioner's claimed ownership, a factor that is germane in determining whether the foreign and U.S. 
entities are commonly owned and controlled. See id.; see also Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, 
Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362; Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289. 
In response to the above findings, the petitioner's letter merely expresses regret for a typographical 
error in the submitted documents and reaffirms the claimed parentlsubsidiary relationship previously 
claimed. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by 
independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not 
suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 59 1-92 (BIA 1988). Moreover, 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 ofcallfornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
In the present matter, the petitioner has submitted a letter alleging that a typographical error in "the 
numbers [sic] of zero in the amount of shares." It is noted that the letter does not specifically explain 
which document contains the alleged error, nor is there any corroborating, documentary evidence 
supporting the claim in the letter, keeping in mind that the petitioner has not identified the author of 
the letter nor established that whoever wrote the letter had the authority to make statements on behalf 
of the petitioner. There is also no acknowledgement or documentation resolving the added 
inconsistency regarding who actually owns the petitioning entity. In light of these considerable 
deficiencies, the petitioner's failure to provide documentation resolving such inconsistencies and 
establishing common ownership and control between the U.S. and foreign entities, the AAO 
concludes that the petitioner has failed to establish that the two entities have a qualifying relationship 
as claimed. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. 
Cal. 2001), afyd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 
1989)(noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). Therefore, based on the additional 
grounds of ineligibility discussed above by the AAO, this petition cannot be approved. 
When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a 
challenge only if it is shown that the AAO abused its discretion with respect to all of the AAO's 
enumerated grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, affd, 
345 F.3d 683. 
EAC 07 056 50038 
Page 11 
The 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. § 1361. The 
petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.