dismissed L-1A Case: Retail Management

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave, N.W., Room. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: EAC 08 0 15 5 188 1 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: OCT 2 9 2008 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
 1 10 1 (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. 
obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
dministrative Appeals Office 
EAC 08 015 51881 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimrnigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States 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. 8 110l(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a limited liability company organized in the State of ~ennessee' that 
claims to be engaged in the management of a retail convenience store with a gas station, seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as the manager of its new office in the United States. The petitioner claims that it is the affiliate 
of Gajanand Tours 'n' Travels, located in Mahesana, India. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the U.S. entity would 
employ the beneficiary in a primarily managerial or executive position. Specifically, the director found that 
the petitioner failed to submit adequate documentation to establish that the beneficiary would supervise a 
subordinate staff of professionals or that he would manage an essential function. 
On appeal, newly-retained counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner fully complied with the 
evidentiary requirements for a new office, and that the director erred by not considering the petitioner's 
eligibility under these regulations. Counsel also asserts that the petition contained numerous errors as a result 
of former counsel's negligence, and thus relies on this as a second basis for reconsideration. The director 
declined to treat the appeal as a motion, and forwarded it to the AAO for review. 
Prior to addressing the grounds for denial in this matter, the AAO will address counsel's claim of ineffective 
assistance of counsel. Any appeal or motion based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires: 
(1) that the claim be supported by an affidavit of the allegedly aggrieved respondent setting forth in detail the 
agreement that was entered into with counsel with respect to the actions to be taken and what representations 
counsel did or did not make to the respondent in this regard, (2) that counsel whose integrity or competence is 
being impugned be informed of the allegations leveled against him and be given an opportunity to respond, 
and (3) that the appeal or motion reflect whether a complaint has been filed with appropriate disciplinary 
authorities with respect to any violation of counsel's ethical or legal responsibilities, and if not, why not. 
Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), afd, 857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988). The petitioner has not 
complied with these provisions; therefore, this basis for reconsideration will not be considered by the AAO on 
appeal. 
However, upon review of counsel's assertion that the petitioner is in fact a new office, the AAO finds that the 
director erroneously failed to apply the regulations governing new offices to the instant petition. The 
director's error is harmless because the AAO conducts a de novo review, evaluating the sufficiency of the 
evidence in the record according to its probative value and credibility as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
4 245a.2(d)(6). The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 557(b) 
("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also, Janka v. U.S. 
-- - 
1 
A review of corporate records as maintained by the Tennessee Secretary of State indicates that the company 
is currently inactive, and a certificate of administrative dissolution was issued on February 22,2008. 
EAC 08 015 51881 
Page 3 
Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority has been long 
recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g. Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). The AAO will 
review the appeal in accordance with the regulations governing new offices. 
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. $ 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. 
(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 hidher 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. 
(v) 
 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 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 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 
EAC 08 015 51881 
Page 4 
paragraphs (l)(l)(ii)(B) or (C) of thls 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. 
Although the director denied the petition solely upon a finding that the beneficiary would not be employed in 
the United States in a managerial capacity, the AAO finds that this matter presents two related, but distinct, 
issues: (1) whether the U.S. entity will be able to support a managerial or executive position within one year 
after the petition's approval; and (2) whether the petitioner complied with the evidentiary requirements of 8 
C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) by providing evidence of the proposed nature of the office describing the scope of 
the entity, its organizational structure, and its financial goals; 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 the organizational structure of the foreign entity. 
Section 101 (a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 101 (a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) 
 manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of 
the organization; 
(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. 
EAC 08 015 51881 
Page 5 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) 
 directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the 
organization; 
(ii) 
 establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
(iii) 
 exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision making; and 
(iv) 
 receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
The petition in this matter was filed on October 18, 2007. The record indicates that the petitioner was 
incorporated in the State of Tennessee on October 10, 2007 and entered into a management agreement with 
Santilal, Inc. for the day-to-day operation and management of Main Stop Market, a convenience store and gas 
station, on October 11, 2007. In a letter of support dated October 15, 2007, the petitioner provided the 
following overview of the beneficiary's proposed duties in the United States: 
[The beneficiary] will be employed as a Manager in [the petitioner] during the period of his 
U.S. assignment. As Manager, [the beneficiary] will implement and establish operational 
policies and directives of the parent company as well as train and hire employees. 
Additionally, [the beneficiary] will oversee the day to day management of the U.S. company 
and coordinate his efforts in accordance with the corporate objectives of the parent company 
[I in India. 
The petitioner also submitted a lease agreement, dated October 1, 2007, for a property identified as "Unit 1 ," 
for a monthly rental fee of $250. No additional information regarding the size of the property was submitted. 
The director found that the evidence submitted in support of the initial petition was insufficient to warrant 
approval. Therefore, the director issued a request for evidence on December 20,2007. The request noted that 
it did not appear that the beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity, and 
asked the petitioner to submit an organizational chart for the U.S. entity, along with the position descriptions 
for all employees and the percentage of time the employees would devote to each stated task. Additionally, 
the director requested evidence of the salaries of the petitioner's employees as well as their Form 941, 
Employer's Quarterly Tax Returns, for 2007. 
The petitioner submitted a detailed response, including an updated description of the beneficiary proposed 
duties. Specifically, in a letter dated January 15,2008, the former counsel for the petitioner stated: 
[The beneficiary] wishes to use his talents to expand his horizons once again. He would like 
to use his marketing abilities to expand the convenience store business in Tennessee. 
Although [the petitioner] currently has only one store, its goal is to expand into a multi-store 
EAC 08 015 51881 
Page 6 
operation. This operation will be able to analyze market trends to ensure that its stores can 
meet and exceed the expectations of the customer base in the area. [The beneficiary] will use 
his market analysis skills to seek out and develop new business opportunities. 
In the business operations area, [the beneficiary] will implement new training procedures. He 
will ensure that inventory controls are in place, understood, and practiced by all personnel. 
Eventually, as the company grows, the composition of the staff will change and so will [the 
beneficiary's] primary duties. 
In an attached list, the petitioner listed the beneficiary's duties as follows: 
Personnel 
Develops and implements training programs 
Hires / fires employees 
Maintains payroll records 
Financial 
Chooses and maintains relationships with vendors 
Maintains invoices 
Generates accounts payable checks 
Complies financial data for financial statements 
Responsible for maximizing profits 
Responsible for inventory control 
Payroll 
Prepares payroll for all employees 
Marketing 
Develops business plans 
Investigates new business opportunities 
Analyzes the retail / convenience store market to determine products needed and those that 
will maximize profits 
An organizational chart was also submitted, which indicates that the beneficiary will oversee the following 
employees: 
These two employees in turn oversee: 
EAC 08 015 51881 
Page 7 
The petitioner also submitted payroll records for these employees, demonstrating that they had been 
during 2007. It is noted that two additional employees, namely, - 
and 
 received wages in 2007 but were not listed on the organizational chart. 
Upon review of the submitted evidence, the director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner did not 
establish that it would employ the beneficiary in a primarily managerial or executive position. The director 
focused on the lack of professional employees under the beneficiary, in addition to the petitioner's failure to 
demonstrate that the beneficiary managed an essential function. On appeal, newly-retained counsel asserts 
that the director should have reviewed the petitioning entity under new office regulations, and relies on those 
regulations as an affirmation of the beneficiary's eligibility. The AAO disagrees with counsel's assertions. 
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. 9 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). This evidence should demonstrate a realistic 
expectation that the enterprise will succeed and rapidly expand as it moves away from the developmental 
stage to full operations, where there would be an actual need for a manager or executive who will primarily 
perform qualifying duties. 
Upon review, the AAO notes that while the petitioner complied with most of the evidentiary requirements of 
this regulation, the evidence pertaining to the petitioner's business plan and the size of the U.S. investment 
was insufficient. The AAO will first review the petitioner's business plan. 
As contemplated by the regulations, a comprehensive business plan should contain, at a minimum, a 
description of the business, its products andlor services, and its objectives. See Matter of Ho, 22 I&N Dec. 
206, 2 13 (Assoc. Cornrn. 1998). Although the precedent relates to the regulatory requirements for the alien 
entrepreneur immigrant visa classification, Matter of Ho is instructive as to the contents of an acceptable 
business plan: 
The plan should contain a market analysis, including the names of competing businesses and 
their relative strengths and weaknesses, a comparison of the competition's products and pricing 
structures, and a description of the target marketlprospective 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 andlor 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 staffing 
requirements and contain a timetable for hiring, as well as a job description for all positions. It 
should contain sales, cost, and income projections and detail the bases therefor. Most 
importantly, the business plan must be credible. 
EAC 08 015 51881 
Page 8 
Id. 
The petitioner in this matter submitted a very generic overview of its business goals in the response to the 
request for evidence, and essentially claimed that it would like to acquire multiple convenience stores in the 
future. On appeal, newly-retained counsel submits a more detailed plan, which discussed market trends and 
briefly touches on competition. The petitioner's plan, however, includes no description of the target 
marketJprospective customers of the new commercial enterprise. Moreover, the plan further omitted any 
mention of the marketing strategy of the business, including pricing, advertising, and servicing, and did not 
demonstrate that any contracts for its proposed conveniences stores and/or gas stations had yet been executed 
or even investigated. 
Most troubling to the AAO, however, is the fact that the beneficiary, individually, appears to be "managing" a 
business owned by another corporation; namely, Santilal, Inc. The documents in the record indicate that the 
beneficiary will essentially receive a "salary" of $84,000 annually as well as 5% of the profits of the 
convenience store, in exchange for his management of the day-to-day operations of the business. The 
petitioner provides no proposed manner or timeframe for its ultimate acquisition of its own convenience 
stores, and it appears from the record that Santilal, Inc. will continue to employ the convenience store 
workers, not the petitioning enterprise. 
Although the petitioner on appeal included a brief statement regarding the staffing of the proposed entity, it 
failed to outline a timetable for hiring. While it claimed that it hoped to hire employees within four months of 
the petition's approval, no specific plan or timeline was submitted. Moreover, while the petitioner did in fact 
provide a brief job description for the administrative assistant; secretary/receptionist; audit clerk; investment 
representative; and business development manager, it omitted any discussion of the roles such persons would 
play in the operation of the convenience stores and gas stations which would eventually form the core of the 
petitioner's enterprise in the United States. 
For example, the petitioner contends that the beneficiary, as president, will direct the entire U.S. entity and 
will not engage in any non-executive functions. However, it admits that none of the five positions mentioned 
above have yet been filled, and it further contends that such action will not take place until the approval of the 
beneficiary's L-1A petition. Although the petitioner claims that the business development manager is 
currently assisting the U.S. entity until the petition is approved, no evidence of this person's employment with 
the petitioner has been submitted. Most importantly, there is no discussion or allocation for support staff, 
such as cashiers, stocking clerks, etc. to relieve the beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties by the 
end of the year. While the petitioner has outlined a proposed staff of six persons, it failed to even discuss the 
staffing of the convenience stores and gas stations, which traditionally remain open for sixteen to twenty-four 
hours per day, seven days per week. 
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 
EAC 08 015 51881 
Page 9 
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). This 
evidence should demonstrate a realistic expectation that the enterprise will succeed and rapidly expand as it 
moves away from the developmental stage to full operations, where there would be an actual need for a 
manager or executive who will primarily perform qualifying duties. 
The minimal information contained in the petitioner's business plan, the letter of support dated October 15, 
2007, and the response to the request for evidence fall far short from providing a comprehensive and credible 
business plan as outlined above. Although the petitioner contends that the new entity will acquire multiple 
stores in the future, it does not provide a specific outline of how it plans to accomplish this objective. 
Moreover, the beneficiary appears to be working full-time for another corporation and earning a salary, yet 
provides no insight on how the beneficiary will acquire new convenience stores for the petitioner when he is 
obligated to work full-time for Santilal, Inc. pursuant to the submitted management agreement. 
Moreover, despite the claim that the beneficiary will manage subordinate employees, these persons are not 
employed by the petitioner, but by Santilal, Inc. This issue has not been addressed. Regardless, even if these 
persons were legitimate employees of the U.S. petitioner, there is insufficient evidence that the employees are 
managerial, supervisory or professional. Although the beneficiary is not required to supervise personnel, if it 
is claimed that her duties involve supervising employees, the petitioner must establish that the subordinate 
employees are supervisory, professional, or managerial. See 9 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
The petitioner did not provide the level of education required to perform the duties of the convenience store 
employees. Thus, the petitioner has not established that these employees possess or require a bachelor's 
degree, such that they could be classified as professionals. Nor has the petitioner shown that either of these 
employees supervise subordinate staff members or manage a clearly defined department or function of the 
petitioner, such that they could be classified as managers or supervisors. While the organizational chart lists a 
store manager and a deli manager, it is unclear whether these managers actually supervise a clearly defined 
department. Moreover, the management agreement indicates that the beneficiary would essentially be the 
store manager on behalf of Santilal, Inc., thereby making this issue more contradictory. Thus, the petitioner 
has not shown that the beneficiary's subordinate employees are supervisory, professional, or managerial, as 
required by section 10 1 (a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
The petitioner currently employs the beneficiary, who in turn will provide services to Santilal, Inc. for a fee of 
$84,000 per year plus 5% of the profits of the store. Although the management agreement names the U.S. 
petitioner as a party to the agreement, the petitioner fails to discuss the manner in which the petitioner's 
business dealings with Santilal, Inc. will eventually lead to the expansion of the petitioner into the 
convenience store circuit. Moreover, the petitioner fails to discuss who will staff its future convenience 
stores, where their salaries will come from, and how the beneficiary will ultimately acquire these new store 
yet refrain from engaging in non-qualifying duties by the end of the first year of operations. 
While performing non-qualifying tasks necessary to produce a product or service will not automatically 
disqualify the beneficiary as long as those tasks are not the majority of the beneficiary's duties, the petitioner 
EAC 08 015 51881 
Page 10 
still has the burden of establishing that the beneficiary is "primarily" performing managerial or executive 
duties. Section 101(a)(44) of the Act. Whether the beneficiary is an "activity" or "function" manager turns in 
part on whether the petitioner has sustained its burden of proving that his duties are "primarily" managerial. 
In the present matter, the petitioner fails to address this issue, yet indicates that the beneficiary will be 
responsible for the day-to-day duties associated with operating the store. However, this claim directly 
contradicts the current business plan and the current status of the petitioner, which indicate that the 
beneficiary will be the sole employee for at least a few months, and will not have a designated staff to 
implement research and investigation of new markets. Since the petitioner claims that the beneficiary will 
"[choose] and maintain relationships with vendors," "[generate] accounts payable checks," and be 
"responsible for inventory control," it is clear that he will be responsible for the major duties of operating the 
convenience store s when there is no one else on the petitioner's payroll to begin expansion and acquisition. 
Therefore, absent a clear and credible business plan and a breakdown of the time spent by the beneficiary 
performing his duties, the AAO cannot conclude that the majority of the beneficiary's duties would be 
managerial or executive, nor can it deduce whether the beneficiary is primarily performing the duties of a 
function manager. See IKEA US, Inc. V. US. Dept. ofJustice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22,24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
In this matter, the proposed position of the beneficiary is president of a company that will operate 
convenience stores and gas stations. The petitioner has not demonstrated that it will employ a staff that will 
relieve the beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties so that the beneficiary may primarily engage in 
managerial duties. Despite the staff of six employed by Santilal, hc., the beneficiary is still responsible for 
vendor relations, managing inventory, and other operational duties. Further, regardless of the beneficiary's 
position title, the record is not persuasive that the beneficiary will function at a senior level within the 
proposed organizational hierarchy. Even though the enterprise is in a preliminary stage of organizational 
development, the petitioner is not relieved from meeting the statutory requirements, and has failed to 
demonstrate a proposed hiring plan and expansion plan as required by the regulations. Instead, the petitioner 
appears to rely on the business dealings and organizational structure of Santilal, Inc. to satisfy this 
requirement. Based on the limited documentation furnished, it cannot be found that the beneficiary will be 
employed primarily in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. For this reason, the petition may not be 
approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, another issue in this matter is whether the beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a primarily managerial or executive capacity for one continuous year in the three year period 
preceding the filing of the petition as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). 
The petitioner indicated that the beneficiary was an owner and manager of the foreign entity since its 
inception. However, very limited information regarding the role of the beneficiary abroad was provided. 
Merely claiming that the beneficiary was a "manager," without additional documentation, is insufficient to 
establish eligibility in this matter. 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. 158, 165 
(Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Additionally, the petitioner's failure to provide detailed information regarding the beneficiary's subordinate 
employees abroad and their titles and duties with the foreign entity render it impossible to conclude that the 
EAC 08 015 51881 
Page 11 
beneficiary acted primarily as a manager or executive abroad with a subordinate staff to relieve him from 
performing day-to-day operational tasks. 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). For this additional reason, the 
petition may not be approved. 
Finally, the petitioner has failed to establish that the claimed qualifying relationship exists between the 
petitioner and 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. 
In this matter, the petitioner submits a copy of its Articles of Organization, which identify the beneficiary and 
Jigar Pate1 as its members. No documentation regarding the percentage of interests they hold is offered. On 
the L Supplement to Form 1-129, however, the petitioner claims that it is 100% owned by Gajanand Tours 'n' 
Travel, the foreign entity. 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). 
As general evidence of a petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship, stock certificates alone are not sufficient 
evidence to determine whether a stockholder 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 must also be examined to determine the total number of shares issued, the exact 
number issued to the shareholder, and the subsequent percentage ownership and its effect on corporate 
control. Additionally, a petitioning company must disclose all agreements relating to the voting of shares, 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. 362. Without full disclosure 
of all relevant documents, CIS is unable to determine the elements of ownership and control. 
Based on the insufficient evidence pertaining to the petitioner, the AAO cannot determine whether a 
qualifying relationship exists between the petitioner and the foreign entity. For this additional reason, the 
petition may not be approved. 
When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only 
if she shows that the AAO abused it discretion with respect to all of the AAO's enumerated grounds. 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). 
EAC 08 015 51881 
Page 12 
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. 4 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.