dismissed L-1A Case: Retail

identitling data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: EAC 07 187 5 1384 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 (13 2008 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l5)(L) of the bigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 101 (a)(15)(L) 
IN 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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, ~hikf 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 07 187 51384 
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 filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary in the position of 
"president" to open a new office in the United States as an L-1A nonirnmigrant intracompany transferee 
pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 
1 101 (a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Texas, 
will allegedly operate a retail establishment. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish (1) that the beneficiary had at 
least one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three 
years immediately preceding the filing of the petition; or (2) that the United States operation will support an 
executive or managerial position within one year. 
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 asserts the definition of "intracompany 
transferee" only requires the petitioner to establish that the beneficiary had at least one year of continuous 
employment by a qualifying organization within three years preceding the time of her application for 
admission into the United States. The petitioner asserts that, since the beneficiary first applied for, and was 
granted, admission into the United States on August 2, 1999 in H-4 dependent visa status, it only needs to 
demonstrate that the beneficiary had been employed abroad for one continuous year within three years 
preceding August 2, 1999. As the beneficiary was allegedly employed in a managerial or executive capacity 
for a qualifying organization from June 1, 1998 until July 20, 1999, counsel claims that the petitioner meets 
this criterion. Counsel also asserts that the petitioner has established that the beneficiary will primarily 
perform qualifying duties within one year. 
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 (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. 
EAC 07 187 51384 
Page 3 
(iii) 
 Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
(iv) 
 Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies himher to perform the intended 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
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. 
Furthermore, "intracompany transferee" is defined in 8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(A) as follows: 
Intracompany transferee means an alien who, with three years preceding the 
time of his or her application for admission into the United States, has been 
employed abroad continuously for one year by a fm or corporation or other 
legal entity or parent, branch, affiliate, or subsidiary thereof, and who seeks to 
enter the United States temporarily in order to render his or her services to a 
EAC 07 187 51384 
Page 4 
branch of the same employer or a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary thereof in a 
capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
Periods spent in the United States in lawful status for a branch of the same 
employer or a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary thereof and brief trips to the United 
States for business or pleasure shall not be interruptive of the one year of 
continuous employment abroad but such periods shall not be counted towards 
fulfillment of that requirement. 
The first issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has established that the beneficiary had at least one 
continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years 
immediately preceding the filing of the petition. 
The instant petition was filed on June 13, 2007. As indicated above, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary 
was employed in a managerial or executive capacity for a qualifying organization from June 1, 1998 until July 
20, 1999. The petitioner also asserts that, since the beneficiary first applied for admission into the United 
States on August 2, 1999 as an H-4 nonirnrnigrant, she only needs to establish that she had at least one 
continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years 
immediately preceding this date and not the date of the filing of the instant petition. 
On October 5, 2007, the director denied the petition. The director concluded that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary had at least one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a 
qualifying organization within the three years immediately preceding the filing of the petition. 
On appeal, the petitioner reiterates its argument that the definition of "intracompany transferee" only requires 
the petitioner to establish that the beneficiary had at least one year of continuous employment by a qualifying 
relationship within three years preceding August 2, 1999, the day on which she applied for admission into the 
United States. 
Upon review, the petitioner's assertions are not persuasive, and the appeal will be dismissed. 
As indicated above, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(iii) clearly requires that an individual petition 
filed on Form 1-129 be accompanied by evidence that the beneficiary "has at least one continuous year of full 
time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding theJiling of the 
petition." (emphasis added). This requirement is repeated in the "new office" regulations at 8 C.F.R. 3 
214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). While counsel correctly quotes the definition of "intracompany transferee" in the 
regulations, her interpretation of this definition is inconsistent with the clear and unambiguous requirements 
set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). When construed together with the 8 C.F.R. @ 214.2(1)(3), the phrase 
"preceding the time of his or her application for admission into the United States" refers to a beneficiary's 
admission "for a branch of the same employer or a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary thereof' or for "brief trips to the 
United States for business or pleasure." Accordingly, while it is possible for Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (CIS) to "reach over" a period of presence in the United States in another status in order to confirm 
that a beneficiary has been employed abroad for the requisite one-year period, this exception does not apply 
here because the beneficiary was in the United States in H-4 dependent status. The beneficiary was not in the 
EAC 07 187 5 1384 
Page 5 
United States on behalf of the same employer or on a brief trip for business or pleasure. Had the beneficiary 
been employed in the United States in H-IB visa status, for example, and working for an employer who has 
qualifying relationship with the foreign employer, it may have been possible to "reach over" this employment 
in the United States to find the requisite period of employment abroad. Accordingly, CIS may not in this case 
"reach over" her stay in the United States and consider employment abroad which concluded more than three 
years prior to the filing of the instant petition. 
Accordingly, as the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary had at least one continuous year of 
full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years immediately preceding the 
filing of the petition, the petition may not be approved. 
The second issue in the present matter is whether the intended United States operation, within one year of the 
approval of the petition, will support an executive or managerial position. 
Section 101 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) 
 manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of 
the organization; 
(ii) 
 supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial 
employees, or manages an essential function within the organization, or a department 
or subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) 
 if another employee or other employees are directly supervised, has the authority to 
hire and 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 bction 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. 4 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 hnction; 
EAC 07 187 51384 
Page 6 
(iii) 
 exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) 
 receives only general supervision or direction fiom higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
The petitioner asserts in the Form 1-129 that the beneficiary will be employed as the "president" of the United 
States operation, a retail establishment. The petitioner also asserts that the United States operation is a "new 
office" as defined by the regulations. In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted a document titled 
"business plan" in which the petitioner claims that the United States retail enterprise will sell groceries and 
consumer items such as leather goods, handbags, and accessories. The petitioner projects "profitability" 
within six months and describes its initial financial requirements as follows: 
[The petitioner] will start with operating capital of $1 5,000. The initial start up cost for Town 
Square Mart will be $9,300.00 and the initial start up for R & I Infusion will be [$]7,011.00[.] 
The [petitioner] will have total capital in the amount of $3 1,000. 
The petitioner also claims that the enterprise will operate two retail locations. However, it appears that the 
petitioner had only secured a single location at the time the petition was filed. 
The petitioner also described the proposed staffing of the enterprise in the "business plan." The petitioner 
claims that the beneficiary will hire a general manager "to oversee the management of both retail operations" 
as well as store managers and additional employees to staff the individual stores. The petitioner projects a 
"full staff of seven to eight employees" by the end of the first year in operation. This proposed personnel 
structure is also described in an organizational chart. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted a lease and bank account information. The lease, titled "license agreement," 
indicates that the petitioner leased space in a shopping mall for $1,106.00 per month plus a $1,000.00 security 
deposit. The petitioner did not submit documents establishing the rent of the proposed second location. The 
bank statement indicates that the petitioner has $10,700.00 in a checking account. The record does not 
address the source of these funds. 
On June 26, 2007, the director requested additional evidence. The director requested, inter alia, photographs 
of the proposed retail location, a more specific business plan giving projected dates for proposed actions, a 
description of the beneficiary's proposed job duties, and information regarding the size of the United States 
investment by the foreign entity. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a revised "business plan" which indicates that the enterprise will hire 
employees for the first location in August 2007 and for the second location in November 2007. The petitioner 
also submitted a proposed "job description" for the beneficiary as follows: 
It will be [the beneficiary's] responsibility to oversee all investments of [the petitioner]. As 
part of her duties she will locate appropriate premises for retail locations. She will negotiate 
EAC07 18751384 
Page 7 
all leases and contracts on behalf of the company and it will be her sole responsibility to 
make sure the company commences the operation of retail and convenience store outlets. 
It is [the beneficiary's] responsibility to formulate policies and direct the operations of all the 
businesses of [the petitioner]. She will be responsible for meeting frequently with 
subordinate managers to ensure that operations are conducted in accordance with these 
policies. [The beneficiary] retains overall accountability; however, as President she will 
delegate several responsibilities to her operation manager and store managers, including the 
authority to oversee subordinate employees who will be responsible for providing services to 
the public on a day-to-day basis. She will be responsible for hiring and training a managerial 
staff that who [sic] in turn will oversee subordinate employees. 
In addition, she will direct the organization's financial goals, objectives, and budgets. She 
will oversee the investment of funds and manage associated risks, supervise cash 
management activities, execute capital-raising strategies to support the company's expansion 
plans. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted a July 2007 bank statement indicating that an additional $10,000.00 was 
deposited into the petitioner's bank account on July 30,2007. 
On October 5, 2007, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
United States operation will support an executive or managerial position within one year. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner has established that the beneficiary will perform qualifying 
duties within one year of petition approval. 
Upon review, counsel'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 qualify 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. $ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). Thls 
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 andfor services, and its objectives. See Matter ofHo, 22 I&N Dec. 
206, 2 13 (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: 
EAC 07 187 51384 
Page 8 
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 fill operations, where there 
would be an actual need for a manager or executive who will primarily perform qualifying duties. The 
petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will primarily perform qualifying 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-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 and credibly describe the nature, scope, and financial 
goals of the new office. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
First, the job description for the beneficiary fails to credibly establish that the beneficiary will be performing 
primarily "managerial" or "executive" duties after the petitioner's first year in operation. 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 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. 
In this matter, the petitioner has provided a vague and nonspecific description of the beneficiary's duties that 
fails to demonstrate what the beneficiary will do on a day-to-day basis after the petitioner's first year in 
operation. For example, the petitioner states that the beneficiary will "formulate policies and direct the 
operations" as well as direct the organization's "financial goals, objectives, and budgets." However, the 
petitioner fails to specifically define these policies, goals, and objectives other than in the context of 
administering a retail establishment. Overall, the petitioner has provided so few details regarding its proposed 
retail business that it cannot be discerned what the beneficiary will do on a day-to-day basis in performing any 
of the ascribed duties pertaining to the "management" of the business. The fact that the petitioner has given 
the beneficiary a managerial or executive title and has prepared a vague job description which includes 
inflated duties does not establish that the beneficiary will primarily perform managerial duties after the first 
year in operation. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties will be 
EAC 07 187 51384 
Page 9 
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. 1 1 03 (E.D.N.Y. 1 989), affd, 905 F.2d 
41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes 
of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 
190 (Reg. Comrn. 1972). 
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 her duties and to the operation of the 
business in general. While the petitioner claims that it will hire seven or eight additional employees during its 
first year in business, the petitioner has failed to establish that it will truly be able to hire these workers and, 
even if it could, that these workers will relieve the beneficiary of the need to primarily perform non-qualifying 
tasks. The petitioner's "business plan" vaguely describes the proposed United States operation as a two- 
location retail operation which will sell groceries and consumer goods. However, the plan and associated 
financial projections are entirely unsupported by evidence. The record does not specifically describe the 
operation's marketing strategy and fails to identify any business relationships or potential customers. The 
petitioner did not submit any evidence addressing the location of, or cost of acquiring, the second retail 
location. The petitioner failed to establish the proposed cost of hiring the additional workers or explain in 
detail what, exactly, they will do on a day-to-day basis. Finally, the record does not contain any purchase 
orders or contracts, and the only evidence addressing its assets is a bank statement indicating that the 
petitioner has $10,700.00 in a checking account.' 
Accordingly, the petitioner's claim that its newly formed operation, which has $10,700.00 in the bank, will 
hire seven or more workers who will relieve the beneficiary of the need to primarily perform non-qualifying 
tasks within the requisite one-year period is not credible and is not supported by any evidence. 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. Simply 
alleging that the petitioner will hire seven 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 financial 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" 
1 
It is noted that, in response to the director's Request for Evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence that it 
deposited an additional $10,000.00 into its bank account on July 30,2007. However, as the petition was filed 
on June 13, 2007, this additional deposit may not be considered. The petitioner must establish eligibility at 
the time of filing the nonirnmigrant visa petition. A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after 
the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 
I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comrn. 1978). 
EAC 07 187 51384 
Page 10 
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 (Cornm. 1988). 
Furthermore, even assuming that the petitioner will have the ability to hire the workforce proposed in the 
petition, the record is not persuasive in establishing that the beneficiary will supervise and control the work of 
other supervisory, managerial, or professional employees. As asserted in the record, after the first year in 
operation, the beneficiary will directly supervise a general manager who, in turn, will directly or indirectly 
supervise subordinate workers in two locations. However, the petitioner has failed to establish that any of 
these workers will truly be a supervisory or managerial employee. To the contrary, it appears that any 
workers hired by the petitioner will perform the tasks necessary to the operation of the retail establishment. 
An employee will not be considered to be a supervisor simply because of a job title, because he or she is 
arbitrarily placed on an organizational chart in a position superior to another employee, or even because he or 
she supervises daily work activities and assignments. Given the size and nature of the vaguely described 
retail business, it is more likely than not that the beneficiary and his proposed subordinate employees will all 
primarily perform the tasks necessary to the operation of the business. See generally Family, Inc. v. U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, 469 F.3d 13 13 (9th Cir. 2006). It is not credible that a business, such as 
the petitioner's proposed United States operation, will develop an organizational complexity within one year 
which will require the employment of a subordinate tier of managers or supervisors who will ultimately be 
supervised and controlled by a primarily executive or managerial employee. Therefore, it appears that the 
beneficiary will be, at most, a first-line supervisor of non-professional employees. A managerial or executive 
employee must have authority over day-to-day operations beyond the level normally vested in a first-line 
supervisor. See Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 604; see also $ 101(a)(44) of 
the Act. 
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. 
Second, the petitioner failed to establish that the United States operation will support an executive or 
managerial position within one year because it failed to establish that a sufficient investment was made in the 
enterprise. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(2). In this matter, the petitioner claims to have received a $10,700.00 
investment. In support of this assertion, the petitioner submits a bank statement. However, the record is not 
persuasive in establishing that the petitioner has received a sufficient investment to support the start-up of the 
new office. It is not credible that $10,700.00 will be sufficient to establish the two-location retail enterprise 
vaguely described in the petition. As noted above, the petitioner claims in its "business plan" that it requires 
"total capital in the amount of $31,000" and start-up operating capital of $15,000.00. Therefore, according to 
its own uncorroborated "business plan," the petitioner has not received a sufficient investment. Furthermore, 
the petitioner failed to corroborate with independent evidence many of its financial projections. For example, 
the petitioner claims that the proposed start-up of the second retail location will require $7,011 .OO in capital. 
However, the record is devoid of evidence corroborating this claim. The petitioner did not submit evidence of 
the cost of inventory or a copy of a proposed lease for this location. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that 
the $10,700.00 "investment" would be sufficient under the circumstances. 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 Calflornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190. 
EAC 07 187 51384 
Page 11 
Accordingly, as the petitioner has failed to establish that it has received a sufficient investment, the petition 
may not be approved for this additional reason. 
Third, the petitioner failed to establish that the United States operation will support an executive or 
managerial position within one year because the petitioner has failed to sufficiently describe the nature, scope, 
and financial goals of the new office. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(I). As explained above, the petitioner 
vaguely describes the United States operation as a two-location retail enterprise which will sell groceries and 
consumer goods. However, the plan and associated financial projections are entirely unsupported by 
evidence. The record does not specifically describe the operation's marketing strategy, and the petitioner fails 
to submit evidence of having established any business relationships or identified any potential customers. It 
is unclear what, exactly, the petitioner will sell and in what quantities, where the products will be stored, how 
the products will be transported, and to whom the petitioner will market the products in the United States. 
The record does not contain any independent analysis, contracts, list of business contacts, or copy of a 
proposed lease for the second location. Absent a detailed, credible description of the petitioner's proposed 
United States business operation specifically addressing the petitioner's proposed products, marketing plan, 
and customers, it is impossible to conclude that the proposed 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. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the United States operation will support an executive or 
managerial position withn one year as required by 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C), and the petition may not be 
approved for the above reasons. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has failed to establish that it and the foreign employer are 
qualifying organizations. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(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. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(G) defines a "qualifying organization" as a firm, corporation, 
or other legal entity which "meets exactly one of the qualifying relationships specified in the definitions of a 
parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary specified in paragraph (l)(l)(ii) of this section" and "is or will be doing 
business." "Doing business" is defined in part as "the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods 
and/or services." 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(H). 
In this matter, the petitioner has not established that the foreign employer is "doing business" as defined in the 
regulations. The record is devoid of evidence that the foreign employer was engaged in the regular, 
systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services in 2007. For example, the petitioner submitted 
three purchase orders from 2006 but no business records from 2007. The instant petition was filed on June 
13,2007. 
Accordingly, as the record is not persuasive in establishing that the foreign employer is doing business, the 
petitioner has failed to establish that it is a qualifying organization, and the petition will not be approved for 
this additional reason. 
EAC 07 187 51384 
Page 12 
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), afd, 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989) (noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can 
succeed on a challenge only if it is shown that the AAO abused its discretion with respect to all of the AAO's 
enumerated grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc., 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. 
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.