dismissed L-1A Case: Oriental Rug Import

U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: 
 WAC 05 095 50532 
 Office: 
 CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: JAN 2 9 2007 
rN RE: 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 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. 
ert P. Wieman , Chief 
h 
@ 
dministrative Appeals Office 
WAC 05 095 50532 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a California corporation established in August 2004 that claims to 
be engaged in the import and wholesale of oriental rugs. The petitioner claims to be a subsidiary of Orient- 
& located in Gifhom, Germany. The petitioner seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as the manager of its new office in the United States for a three-year period. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the U.S. company and 
the foreign entity have a qualifying relationship. The director referenced the petitioner's 2004 corporate tax 
return and other evidence in the record which indicated that the U.S. company is owned by an individual, 
rather than by the foreign entity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the foreign 
entity is the majority owner and only investor in the petitioning entity. Counsel also provides an explanation 
for the discrepancy noted in the petitioner's corporate tax return. Counsel submits a brief and additional 
evidence, including an amended 2004 tax return for the petitioning entity, in support of the appeal. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one 
continuous year 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 (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) 
 Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 
(iii) 
 Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
WAC 05 095 50532 
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 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. 8 214.2(1)(3)(~) also provides that if the petition indicates that the beneficiary is 
coming to the United States as a manager or executive to open or be employed in a new office in the United 
States, 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 involves 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 sole issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established that the U.S. company and the 
beneficiary's foreign employer have a qualifying relationship as required by 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(1)(3)(i). To 
establish eligibility, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary's foreign employer and the proposed U.S. 
employer are the same entity or are related as a "parent and subsidiary" or "affiliates." 
The pertinent regulations at 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(1)(l)(ii) define the term "qualifying organization" and related 
terms as follows: 
(G) 
 Qualzfiing organization means a United States or foreign firm, corporation, or other 
legal entity which: 
WAC 05 095 50532 
Page 4 
(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 [.I 
Parent means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity which has subsidiaries. 
(K) 
 Subsidiary means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent owns, 
directly or indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, 
directly or indirectly, half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or 
indirectly, 50 percent of a 50-50 joint venture and has equal control and veto power 
over the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, less than half of the entity, but in fact 
controls the entity. 
(L) Affiliate means 
(1) 
 One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the 
same parent or individual, or 
(2) 
 One of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of 
individuals, each individual owning and controlling approximately the 
same share or proportion of each entity. 
The nonimmigrant petition was filed on February 16,2005. On the L classification supplement to Form 1-1 29, 
- - - 
the petitioner stated that the beneficiary owns 100 percent of the shares of the foreign entity, 
which in turn owns 60 percent of the U.S. company. 
In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted a company registration document for the foreign entity, 
issued by a German court on October 2, 2001, identifying the beneficiary as the sole registered owner of the 
foreign entity. The petitioner also provided a copy of the U.S. entity's articles of incorporation, dated August 
10, 2004, which indicate that the company is authorized to issue 10,000 shares of stock. The petitioner 
submitted a copy of its stock certificate number one, dated September 30, 2004, issuing 5,500 shares of stock 
to the foreign entity. 
WAC 05 095 50532 
Page 5 
The petitioner also submitted a California Employment Development Department (EDD) Form DE-24, 
Notification of Change of Employer Account Information, notifying the EDD of a change of ownership that 
- . - 
occurred on October 15,2004. The Form DE-24 identifies 
 as the owner of the U.S. company, 
and indicates the addition of" 
The director issued a request for evidence on July 15, 2005, requesting that the petitioner submit additional 
evidence to establish the ownership and control of the petitioning company and the foreign entity. In part, the 
director instructed the petitioner to submit: (1) a copy of the minutes of the meeting for the U.S. company that 
lists the shareholders and the number and percentage of shares owned by each; (2) a copy of the U.S. 
company's articles of incorporation; (3) copies of all of the U.S. company's stock certificates (both front and 
back sides) issued to the present date, clearly indicating the name of each shareholder; (4) copies of the U.S. 
company's stock ledger showing all stock certificates issued to the present date, including total shares of stock 
sold, names of shareholders, and purchase price; and (5) a detailed list of the owners of the U.S. company, 
including the names and percentage of ownership for each owner. Finally, the director requested evidence to 
show that the foreign entity has paid for its ownership interest in the U.S. entity. The director advised that 
such evidence should include copies of the original wire transfers from the parent company, as well as 
canceled checks, deposit receipts, or other evidence detailing monetary amounts for the stock purchase. The 
director emphasized that the evidence must clearly show that the monies originated with the foreign entity. 
In a response dated September 26, 2005, the petitioner submitted the minutes of a meeting of the board of 
directors for the U.S. entity, dated September 1, 2004, in which the directors resolved to issued 5,500 shares 
of stock to the foreign entity and 1,000 shares to -he document further provides: 
beneficiary] in the amount of $33,000.00. The funds will be transferred within the next two 
months from Citibank, Acct# . . . after she arrives in the USA from Germany; and 
= 
will receive his shares gratis based upon the many hours of service he had rendered 
compensation [in] organizing [the petitioning company]. 
The document appears to bear the signatures ofwho signed as company secretary, an 
who signed as company chairman. The petitioner re-submitted a copy of its stock 
number one, dated September 30, 2004, which identifies the foreign entity as the owner of 5,500 shares of the 
U.S. company. 
The petitioner also submitted a copy of its stock certificate number two, which indicates on the front side that 
1,000 shares of stock were issued t 
 on September 1, 2004. However, the number of shares 
issued has clearly been altered. 
 have been obscured with correction fluid, and the 
words "one thousand" have been typed in their place. The upper right corner of the certificate, which also 
indicates the number of shares issued as 1,000, bears an obvious erasure mark. The reverse side of the 
certificate indicates the number of shares issued to - "Five Thousand (5,000)." 
In response to the director's request for evidence that the foreign entity paid for its stock ownership in the 
petitioning company, counsel for the petitioner stated: "The firm has not yet filed the Notice of Transaction 
WAC 05 095 50532 
Page 6 
pending arrival of [the beneficiary]. Banks statements show financial transactions." The petitioner submitted 
partial copies of its bank statements for the months of January through June 2005, showing account balances 
in excess of $1 60,000. 
The petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence also included the company's 2004 IRS Form 
1120-A, U.S. Corporation Short-Form Income Tax Return. The petitioner indicated under Part 11, Question 2, 
that an individual, partnership, estate or trust owned 50% or more of the company's stock, and attached a 
statement identifying as the owner of a 100% interest in the company. The petitioner also re- 
submitted the above referenced California EDD Form DE-24 identifying Mr as an owner of the 
company. 
The director denied the petition on November 25, 2005, concluding that the petitioner had failed to establish 
the existence of a qualifying relationship between the U.S. company and the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
The director acknowledged the stock certificate and the minutes of the September 1, 2004 meeting of the 
petitioner's board of directors, which indicate that the claimed parent company owns a majority interest in the 
U.S. company. However, the director noted the conflicting information contained in the petitioner's Form 
1120A and Form DE-24, which casts doubt on the petitioner's claim that it is owned by the beneficiary's 
foreign employer. The director determined that the petitioner had failed to submit independent, objective 
evidence to resolve the inconsistencies. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner states: 
As already established, it has been demonstrated by bank statements that the German firm 
had fully financed the business operations of the Corporation in the USA. The amount 
contributed was over $100,000.00. All which must be demonstrated is that the German firm 
owns at least 5 1% of of the firm and its assets. Stock certificates demonstrate that the German 
firm as 5,500 out of 10,000 shares, with an employee, Mr. who manages the firm 
here . . . and he has 1,0000 [sic] shares. The other shares are dF unlssue oms DE-6 have been 
filed to show thats a salaried employee and that he made no financial contribution 
to the firm, he takes money, he did not and does not invest any money. The I-129L and 
Resolutions demonstrate that. 
Counsel states that the petitioner's accountant made a "typographical mistake" in indicating that 
owns 100% of the U.S. company, and suggests that Mr. ame was used because the 
does not have a social security number or tax identification number, which is requested on the 
Form 1120-A. With respect to the EDD Form DE-24, counsel asserts that the form was also prepared by the 
- - 
accountant, and that 
w 
was placed there as only he has a [U.S. social security number]. A 
corporation is owned y s are o ers and not individuals unless one owns over 50.1% of the shares. He was 
put down because he manages but does not own the firm." Counsel further contends "a ave no 
money to purchase the shares and the German firm did, the firm is owned by the German company, and there 
is a valid parent-subsidiary relationship." 
WAC 05 095 50532 
Page 7 
Counsel further emphasizes that the bank statements submitted by the petitioner "show that the German firm, 
firm had put their own capital 'at 
(spouse of the 
beneficiary who lives with the beneficiary) account. There fi 
Germans contributed all of the capital." 
In support of the appeal, the petitioner submits a Form 1120X, Amended U.S. Corporation Income Tax 
Return, which indicates at Part 11, question 2 that the foreign entity owns 60% of the U.S. company, an= 
owns 10%. The amended Form 1120-A includes a Form 5472, Information Return of a 25% 
Foreign-Owned U.S. Corporation, identifying the foreign entity as a shareholder. The Form 1120-X is not 
dated, and the petitioner has not provided evidence that it has actually been filed with the Internal Revenue 
Service. The petitioner also submits a California Form DE-24, bearing a date of May 1, 2005, on which the 
petitioner reported the addition of the beneficiary as an officer of the company. The AAO notes that the 
version of the Form DE 24 utilized bears a publication date of "6-05" which raises questions as to the actual 
date of execution. 
Upon review, counsel's assertions and the submitted documentation are insufficient to establish that the 
petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. 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 (BIA 1988); 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. 
As general evidence of a petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship, stock certificates alone are not sufficient 
evidence to determine whether a stockholder or member maintains ownership and control of a corporate 
entity. The corporate stock certificate ledger, stock certificate registry, corporate bylaws, and the minutes of 
relevant annual shareholder meetings, or equivalent documents, must also be examined to determine the total 
number of shares or membership units issued, the exact number issued to each shareholder or member, and 
the subsequent percentage ownership and its effect on control of the company. Additionally, a petitioning 
company must disclose all agreements relating to the distribution of profit, the management and direction of 
the subsidiary, and any other factor affecting actual control of the entity. See Matter of Siemens Medical 
Systems, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 362. Without full disclosure of all relevant documents, Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) is unable to determine the elements of ownership and control. 
The AAO acknowledges the petitioner's submission of a stock certificate indicating that the foreign entity 
owns a majority interest in the petitioning organization, and the minutes of a meeting of the company's board 
of director's indicating the petitioner's intent to issue 5,500 of the company's 10,000 shares to the foreign 
entity. However, contrary to counsel's assertions that "all of the documents submitted" show that the German 
WAC 05 095 50532 
Page 8 
entity owns the U.S. company, the number of unexplained inconsistencies and discrepancies in the evidence 
submitted prevents a determination that the petitioner has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. 
The most critical deficiency in the petitioner's evidence is the altered stock certificate number two submitted 
in response to the director's request for evidence of the company's ownership. Upon review of the document, 
it appears that 5,000 shares, rather than 1,000 shares, were in fact issued to Further, the AAO 
notes that the date of issuance for stock certificate number one is 29 days subsequent to the date of issuance 
for stock certificate number two, which raises further questions regarding the authenticity of either document. 
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). For this reason, the minutes of the meeting of the petitioner's board of directors dated 
September 1, 2004, in which the petitioner addressed the distnbution of the company's stock, will be given 
little evidentiary weight. 
The regulations specifically allow the director to request additional evidence in appropriate cases. See 8 
C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(viii). The director specifically requested that the petitioner submit a copy of its stock 
transfer, which would identify the names of all shareholders, the number of shares owned by each, the date of 
issuance, the consideration paid in exchange for the company's stocks, and any changes in stock ownership. 
The petitioner failed to provide a copy of its stock transfer ledger in response to the director's request. 
Furthermore, as ownership is a critical element of this visa classification, the director may reasonably inquire 
beyond the issuance of paper stock certificates into the means by which stock ownership was acquired. As 
requested by the director, evidence of this nature should include documentation of monies, property, or other 
consideration furnished to the entity in exchange for stock ownership. The petitioner failed to submit any 
evidence that the foreign entity had in fact paid for its claimed interest in the U.S. company. Any failure to 
submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 
8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(14). 
While the petitioner's bank statements establish that the U.S. company has been funded, the petitioner has 
offered no evidence to corroborate its assertion that all of these funds were provided by the foreign entity or 
by the beneficiary. ' Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not 
satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); 
Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Furthermore, the minutes of the meeting of 
the company's board of directors identified with specificity the means by which the stock would be paid for, 
noting that the beneficiary's spouse would transfer $33,000 from a specific Citibank account as payment in 
consideration for 5,500 shares of stock. The petitioner provided no evidence that such a transfer ever 
I 
 The evidence submitted shows that the foreign entity is a sole proprietorship owned by the beneficiary. A 
sole proprietorship is a business in which one person operates the business in his or her personal capacity. 
Black's Law Dictionary 1398 (7th Ed. 1999). Unlike a corporation, a sole proprietorship does not exist as an 
entity apart from the individual proprietor. See Matter of United Investment Group, 19 I&N Dec. 248, 250 
(Comm. 1984). Therefore, the petitioner could have submitted evidence that payment for the stock 
certificates issued originated from the beneficiary's personal account or the foreign entity's company account. 
WAC 05 095 50532 
Page 9 
occurred. The record as presently constituted contains no documentary evidence linking the funds in the 
petitioner's bank account with the beneficiary or the foreign entity. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of SofJ;ci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Further, the petitioner has not resolved the discrepancies noted by the director with respect to its reporting of 
as the sole owner of the U.S. company on its 2004 IRS Form 1120-A. Counsel a pears to 
assert that the petitioner's accountant made a "typographical mistake" by includin Mr. 
the return, while simultaneously asserting that the accountant used Mr. 
 me on the tax return 
intentionally because he has a U.S. social security number and the fo mdnarne does not. Counsel's on 
assertions are not persuasive. Further, the amended tax return submitted on appeal is insufficient to resolve 
the discrepancies, as there is no evidence that the 
 filed the return with the IRS, and in light 
of other evidence in the record indicating that Mr 
 oes in fact own more than a 10 percent interest 
in the petitioning company. 
The petitioner is obligated to clarify the inconsistent and conflicting testimony by independent and objective 
evidence. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Furthermore, evidence that the petitioner 
creates after CIS points out the deficiencies and inconsistencies in the petition will not be considered 
independent and objective evidence. Necessarily, independent and objective evidence would be evidence that 
is contemporaneous with the event to be proven and existent at the time of the director's notice of decision. 
Finallv, the petitioner has not adequately addressed the California Form DE 24 which appears to indicate that 
d, 
ownership of the petitioning company transferred from 
 on October 15, 2004. 
Counsel merely asserts on appeal that the accountant provi e 
 name because the foreign 
A 
entity did not have a company identification, driver's license or social security number, and submits a copy of 
a more recent Form DE-24 on which the beneficiary was reported as an officer of the company. Contrary to 
counsel's assertion that the Form DE-24 was amended, there is no evidence that the petitioner filed an 
amended Form DE-24 actually correcting the ownership of the company to reflect ownership by the 
beneficiary or by the foreign entity. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 
165. 
A few errors or minor discrepancies are not reason to question the credibility of an alien or an employer 
seeking immigration benefits. See, e.g., Spencer Enterprises Inc. v. US., 345 F.3d 683, 694 (9th Cir., 2003). 
However, anytime a petition includes numerous errors and discrepancies, and the petitioner fails to resolve 
those errors and discrepancies after CIS provides an opportunity to do so, those inconsistencies will raise 
serious concerns about the veracity of the petitioner's assertions. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's 
proof may undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa 
petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. In this case, the discrepancies and errors catalogued above lead 
the AAO to conclude that the evidence of the qualifying relationship between the U.S. and foreign entities is 
not credible. For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed. 
WAC 05 095 50532 
Page 10 
Beyond the decision of the director, the AAO finds insufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary 
would be employed by the petitioner in a primarily managerial or executive capacity within one year, as 
required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). At the time of filing the petition to open a "new office," a petitioner 
must affirmatively demonstrate that it has acquired sufficient physical premises to house the new office and 
that it will support the beneficiary in a managerial or executive position within one year of approval. 
Specifically, the petitioner must describe the nature of its business, its proposed organizational structure and 
financial goals, and submit evidence to show that it has the financial ability to remunerate the beneficiary and 
commence doing business in the United States. Id. The petitioner indicated that the beneficiary, as president 
of the petitioner's oriental rug import and wholesale business, will devote 20% of his time to hiring, training, 
and recruiting employees; 40% of his time to overseeing employees, establishing "policies, budgets, 
operations, etc.; 30% of his time to establishing and overseeing import, customs operations, negotiating 
contracts"; and 10% of his time to directing, managing and assigning duties for subordinates and resolving 
problems. This vague job description is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary will be employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 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), afyd, 
905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Furthermore, the petitioner has not submitted a detailed business plan, or otherwise described the proposed 
nature of the office, the anticipated scope of the entity, or its expected organizational structure. Although the 
beneficiary's proposed job description places heavy emphasis on his supervision of subordinate employees, 
the petitioner has provided no evidence with respect to the number and types of positions to be filled during 
the first year of operations. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary would be 
relieved from performing the non-managerial functions associated with purchasing, importing, marketing and 
selling the petitioner's products, or that the company would employ subordinate staff to perform other routine 
administrative and operational tasks. Again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 
165. For this additional reason, the petition cannot 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. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.