dismissed L-1A Case: Software/Electronics Export

US. Deliartmesit of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusctrs Avr , N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washinglon, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: LIN 04 046 52241 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: v&q \ \ 2005 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Imm~gration 
and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. g; 1 IOl(aXIS)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER. 
-- INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decislon 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. 
4--q Pobert P. Wiemam, Direc or 
8 
dministrat~ve Appeals Office 
LIN0404652241 
Page 2 
/ 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petltion was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center. The 
matter 1s now before the Administrative Appeals Oflice (AAO) on appeal. The appeal wdl be d~sm~ssed. 
According to the documentary e~idence~contamed in the record, the petitioner was establ~shed m 2001 and 
claims to be In the buslness of impoang and exporting software and electroruc goods. The petltloner cla~ms 
to be a subsidiary of Soflnet located m New Delhi, Indla. The petlhoner seeks to Gxtend rts 
authorization to employ the beneficiary temporarily m the United States as the chief executlve officer of ~ts 
lndlana office for three years, at an annual salary of $43,900.00. The director deterrnrned that the petrtloner 
had falled to subm~t sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary would be employed by the U.S. entlty 
in a prlmanly managerial or execut~ve capacity, The beneficlaw was init~ally granted a one-yeat penod of its 
stay to open a new office in the Unlted States and was subsequently granted a one-year extension of status and 
the petltloner now seeks to extend the beneficiary's stay for an additional three year pertod 
On appeal, counsel disagrees with the director's decision and asserts that the evldence is sufficient to establ~sh 
that the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
TO establish L-1 eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immgration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 u.s.c. 4 1101(a)(15)(L), the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary, w~thin three years preceding 
the beneficiary's application for admsslon into the United States,-has been employed abroad In a qual~fying 
managerial or executlve capacity, or In a capacity involving specialized knowledge, for one continuous year 
by a qual~fyrng orgamzatlon, and seeks to enter the Un~ted~States temporanly ln order to continue to render 
his or hcr services to the same employer or a subsldlary or af liate thereof, in a capac~ty that IS managenal, 
executive, or lnvolves specialized knowledge. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 214.20)(3) states that an ind~vldual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(1) Ev~dence that the petrhoner and the organlzahon whlch employed or w~ll employ the 
alien are qual~fyng organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this sechon. 
(11) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an execuhve, managenal, or specral~zed 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the serwces to be performed. 
(iil) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization wth the three years preceding thc filing of the 
petrtlon. 
(IV) Evidence that the alien's pnor year of employment abroad was in a posltion that was 
managenal, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's pnor 
education, training, and employment qualifies hlm/her to perform the lntended serves 
in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the same , 
work which the alren performed abroad. 
The Issue in this proceeding n whether the petrhoner has submitted sufficient evldcnce to cstabl~sh that the 
beneficiary will be employed by the U.S. entlty ln a pr~marily managertal or execul~ve capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. Zj 1101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
LN 04 046 52241 
Page 3 
I'he term "managerial capacity" means an assignment within an organization In which the 
employee primarily- 
(1) Manages the organization, or a department, subdiv~slon, function, or 
component of the organization; 
(11) Supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or 
managerial employees, or manages an essential funct~on wlth~n the 
orgaruzatlon, or a department or subdivision of the organizat~on; 
(iir) 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 wtthin the 
organizational hierarchy or with respect to the function managed; and 
(4 Exerc~ses discretion over the day-today operations of the activity or 
funct~on for whlch the employee has authority. A first-line superwsor is 
not cons~dered to be acting in a managerial capacity merely by vlrtue of 
the superv~sor's supervisory duties unless the employees superv~scd are 
professional. 
Sectlon 101 (a)(44b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1 10 l(a)(44)(B), provjder: 
The term "executive capacity" means an asstgnment within an organization rn wh~ch the 
employee prirnanly- 
(9 Directs the management of the organization or a major component or 
functlon of the organlzatlon; 
(11) Establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or 
funct~on; 
(in) Exercises wide lat~tude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(1 V> Recelves only general supe~sion or direction from higher level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organizat~on. 
In a November 25, 2003 letter submitted w~th the inlbal petit~on, the petitioner descnbed the beneficiary's 
duties as: 
Serves as Ckef Executive Officer. ...[ The beneficiary] continues to perform many of the 
duties he held dung h~s service with the parent company in India. More specifically. in 
addition to overall d~rection of the company, he will be responsible for leadlng the provision 
of: 
LTN 04 046 52241 
Page 4 
1. Marketing: Advertising in magazines, the Internet and at ehbitlons; location of 
prospective customers; arrangement of demonstrations for customers; finalizing 
product specificat~ons; submitting quotations to customers; negotiating prices with 
customers; pursuing customers until an order is placed; tracking the design'team for 
timely executron of the job as per specifications. 
2. Product Development and Enginwnng; Preparation of the system deslgn chart at the 
subsystem level; decld~ng which Sub-modules are to be developed In India by 
Softnet, by the in-house team in the U.S. at [the pet~t~oner], or by subcontractors; 
assigning'each subsystem to a team with clear specificabons and protocol for 
mtegration; preparation of PERT chart and monitoring of progress as per the time 
schedule; keeping the entire organization current w~th the latest in technological 
developments. 
3. lntemction w~th subcontractors: Min~rnize costs by selecting compet~tive and 
appropriate Sub-contractors; negotiation with Sub-contractors for the best prices; 
monltor~ng the progress for timely execution of projects. 
4. Finance Management: Prepmtron of the budget; negotiation w~th customers for 
advance payment or stage-wise payment; rnalntenance of sufic~ent 'reserves for 
smooth business operation; collection of payments from customers on complet~on of 
projects; monitoring of expenses; monitoring of the cash flow. 
5. Overall Management: Supervise the day-to-day activities of the company; arrange 
basic infrastructure and facilities for smooth operation of the company; recruit 
personnel as per requirements; supervise the management of the company; arrange 
the requisite insurance coverage to ensure there are no legal liabilities; ensure proper 
documentation as required by law; Interact with appropnate government officials. 
6. Personnel Management: In addltion to the Executive duties held by (the beneficiary], 
he is also expected to directly supmse the activit~es of Dr. who handles 
Pharmaceutical matters for [the petitioner]. Thls professional positlon is crucial to 
the organlzat~on, as a major client is a pharmaceutical developer and manufacturer, 
requiring computer validation of various pharmaceutical functions. Due to the nature 
of the types of business engaged in, [the beneficiary] also spends a great deal of time 
supervising and coordinating the activities of [the petitioner's] Sub-contractors 
In a letter, dated Apnl 1, 2003, the petitloner described Dr. job duties as: "Your primary 
responsib~lity wlll be to ascertain requirement of computer validat~on in Pharmaceutical Industry and develop 
appropriate Implementation plans for customers. The main thrust is to be glven on project management of 
pharmaceut~cal computer validation." 
The petltloner subrnltted as evidence a copy of the U.S. entity's Quarterly Wage and W~thholding Report for 
the quarters endmg December 3 1,2002, and March 31,2003. The petitioner also subm~ned copies of the U.S. 
entity's IRS Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return for the quarter ending March 31,2003, and 
pay stub detail evidencing the beneficiary's employment for the months of January, February, and March of 
2003. The petitioner subm~tted copies of a purchase order, dated July 9. 2003. for consultation services for a 
LM 04 046 52241 
Page 5 
two-year period in the amount of $200,000, and a purchase order, dated October 2,2003, for the purchase of 
computer supplies in the amount of $1,772,800. The petitioner also subm~tted a copy of a degree certificate 
in engineering issued to the beneficiary;and company bank statements. 
The director stated in the request for evidence, dated December 11, 2003, that the documentation submitted 
by the petitioner was not sufficient to warrant a favorable consideration of the petltlon, and subsequently 
requested the petitioner submit evidence demonstrating the beneficiary's managerial or executive capaclty as 
dictated by the regulations. The director fimther requested that the petihoner: 
Submit evldence to establ~sh that the beneficiary qualifies under all four cnteria stated above 
for e~ther a Manager or Execuhve. Submit a statement srgned by an authorized official of the 
prospective employer describing the alien's employment for one continuous year abroad 
wtthln the three years immediately preceding the fillng of this petitton, or if the alten 1s 
already m the U.S., Immediately preceding histher enby as a nonimmigrant, describing 
the intended employment in the U.S. (Emphasis in original.) The statement should include 
lnformatlon concerning the dates of employment, job titles, spec~fic job duties, [and] types of 
employees supemsed, tf any, level of authority, and title and level of authority of the allen's 
~mrned~ate supervtsor.. .. 
Also submit an organizational chart showing the alien's current and proposed positions in 
relation to others in the company. 
In response to the director's request for evidence on the subject, counsel for the petitloner stated that thc 
beneficiary's posrtron with the U.S. entity would be that of executive. Counsel also stated that the beneficiary 
met all requrrernents as an executive in that he directs the overall operation of the company and has final say 
over matters tncluding the "provision of computer validation of various pharmaceutical functions for a major 
international pharmaceutical company," and "the importation of parts plastic, sheet metal and castmg to the 
USA and Canada." Counsel asserted that the subordinate, Dr. conducts and directs the functions 
of the organization and ~eports directly to the beneficiary. Counsel.also asserted that the beneficrary was 
responsible for negotiating agreements for company services and provides overall guidance to Dr. 
in carrying them out. Counsel noted that the U.S. entity recerved three major consult~ng contracts for which 
the beneficiary possesses the authority to negotiate, secure, and mon~tor the progress of Counsel stated, "[the 
beneficlay] has responsibility for negotiation with.. .subcontractors, cost rnin~rmzation in agreements and 
production, and respons~bility for bmely execution of projects and delivenes." Counsel noted that as the 
majoncy of the petiboner's business consists of the importation of subcontract parts and materials and the 
provlsion of verification and information solutions, it has no need for large production facilit~es or a large 
staff 
Counsel asserted that the beneficiary estabhshed the goals and pol~cies of the U.S. entity in that he has 
authority over contract negotiations and major business decisions of the company. Counsel also asserted that 
the beneficiary exercrses wide latitude in discretionary decisron-making regardrng the negot~at~on and 
execution of contr?cts, production choices, use of subcontractors, assignment or use of personnel, and 
bustness servlce chorces. Counsel firther asserted that the beneficiary recelves only general supervision or 
direction from the presrdent of the U.S. entlty and holds dtrect responsibrlity for d~rectmg Interactions wlth 
customers and suppliers, ~ncluding negotlatjons and leading the provlsion of services. 
LlN 04 046 52241 
Page 6 
The petltionw submitted as evidence a copy of the U.S. entity organizational chart, wh~ch depicted Jawahar 
G~dvani as pres~dent, the beneficiary as CEO, and Dr. as Pharmacologist. It was demonstrated 
in the chart that the beneficiary was respons~ble for the "identlficabon of new customers, preparation of 
project reports, negotiation with customers, supervision of installation of software, interaction with 
Ind~anfChmese customers, management of finances, and all admnistrative respons~bllitles." The petltloner 
also submtted a copy of an invoice, dated December 1, 2003, for the development of custom software m the 
amount of $50,000; a copy of the U.S. entity's RS Form 1120-A, U.S. Corporation Short-Form Income Tax 
Return for 2002; and bank statements from the Nabonat Ctty Bank of Indiana. 
The dtrector subsequently denied the petttion. The director determined that the evldence submitted was not 
sufficient to estabbsh that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. The 
dlrector stated that the pehtioner had failed to demonstrate that the benefic~ary would be primarily supervlslng 
a subord~nate staff of professional, managerial, or supervisory personnel who would relieve h~rn From 
perfonnlng non-qualify~ng duties. The director further stated that the petitioner indicated the benefic~ary 
would supervise the only other employee of the company, %and that his dutles would consist of 
the provlslon of computer validation of various phannaceut~cal hct~ons for a major lntematlonal 
pharrnaceutlcal company. The director aiso stated that there had been no evldence submitted to establish that 
Dr. was a profess~onal or that he was currently employed by the U.S. entlty. The dlrector noted 
that the record d~d not establ~sh that the majority of the beneficlary's duties would be d~rectlng the 
management of the organization. The director also noted that the record Indicated that a preponderance of the 
beneficlary's duties would be directly performing the operations of the organlzatlon. Rnally, the dlrector 
stated that the petitloner's claim to ut111ze contracted support services d~d not demonstrate managerral 
capacity. 
On appeal, counsel disagrees wlth the dimtor's decision and asserts that the declslon was incorrectly based 
on thc petitioner's fallure to submit requested evidence when no such evldence was requested concerning Dr. 
positton, professional status, payroll records, or educational certificat~on. The petitioner subm~ts 
as evrdence on appeal, copies of Dr resume, University of Delln Doctor of Philosophy degree, 
Un~versity of Delh~ Master of Pharmacy degree, University of Delhi Bachelor of Pharmacy degree, Unlverslty 
of Delhl statement of marks, and Univers~ty of Delhi College of Pharmacy Certificate of Merit. The 
pet~tloner also submitted copies of U.S. entity payroll detail lnd~catmg that ~r-was employed by 
the entlty in November and December of 2003, and in January of 2004. 
Counsel contends that the beneficiary wll be managing the direction of the pharrnaceut~cal services 
component or function of the organization and in so doing will be responsible for supervising Dr. - 
who IS charactcnzed as a professional employee. Counsel further contends the beneficla? also directs other 
components of the busmess namely the importation of plastic parts, sheet metal, and castmg. Counsel 
argues that due to the nature of the U.S. business there is no need for large produchon faclhhes or a large 
staff. Counsel further argues that the beneficiary negotiates sales contracts and "leads provlslon 
of. ..marketmng, product development and engneerlng, finance management, personnel management and 
overall management." Counsel contends the beneficiary has authority over interactions with subcontractors. 
Counsel fmhm contends the beneficiary negotiates w~th and ma~ntains relations w~th customers and supphers 
at the executive level. Counsel surmlses that the ev~dence subm~tted also demonstrates that the beneficiary 
functions at a senior level wlthln the organizational hierarchy and with respect to the function managed, 
exercises discretion over the day-today operations, and supervises a profess~onal employee. 
LIN 04 046 52241 
Page 7 
Counsel argues that the beneficiary receives only general supervision or direction fiom higher level 
executives or the board of directors. Counsel fmher argues that the beneficiary directs the management of 
the organization, establishes the goals of the organization, component or function, and exercises wide latitude 
in discretionary decision-making. Counsel contends that the day-to-day duties the beneficiary is performing 
include: 
Preparation of the budget, sipenising Dr. maintenance of sufficient reserves, 
negotiation, supervision, and coordination .of subcontractors, keeping the entire organization 
current in the latest technological developments, arrange basic infrastructure and facilities for . . 
smooth operation of the company, recruit personnel 'as per requiremerits, supervise the 
management of the company, negotiating prices with customers, interilct with appropriate 
government officials, and others. 
Counsel claims the duties described are cleatly executive, or in the altemative, manaprial in nature. Counsel 
quotes the Occupation Outlook Handbook'; description of "top executive" and claims the definition is similar 
to the beneficiary's duties as described. Counsel reiteiates the beneficiary's duty descriptions given by thc 
petitioner in responk to the director's request for evid&ce, which will be made a part of this record. Counsel 
notes that the beneficiary has been granted L-1A status by CIS &ice previously. 
Counsel's assertions .are not persuasive. Upon review of the petition and the evidence, the petitioner has not 
established that the beneficiary has been or will be employed in ,a managerial or executive capacity. When 
examining the executive or managerial capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 6 214.20)(3)(ii). The petitioner's description of the job duties must 
clearly describe the duties to be perfonned by the beneficiary qd indicate whether such duties are'either in an 
executive or managerial capacity. Id. On appeal, coGsel for the petitioner contends that the beneficiary's 
duqes are executive, or in the alternative, managerial in nature. The petitioner must specifically state whether 
the beneficiary is primarily employed in a managerial or executive capacity. A petitioner must establish that a 
beneficiary meets each of the four criteria set forth in the statutorj. definition for executive and the statutory 
definition for manager if it is representing that the beneficiary isboth an execut~ve and a manager. In the 
instant matter, the petitioner claims that the beneficiary will perform both managerial and executive dutics but 
fails to provide a break down of each. 
The definit~ons of executive and managerial capacity have two parts. F~rst, the petlhoner must show that the 
benefic~ary performs the high level responsibilities that are specified in the definitions. Second, the petltioner 
must prove that the beneficiary primargly performs these specified responsibilities and does not spend a 
majority of his or her time on day-to-day hctions. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 
1991 WL 144470 (9'Clr. July 30, 1991). In the instant matter, counsel stated that the beneficiary would be 
responsible for managing staff, negotiating contracts, client relations, and establishing goals. However, there 
has been tnsuficient evldence subm~tted andfor explanation given to establish that the beneficiary has and 
wll primarily perform high-level responsib~lities charactenstic of a managerlal or executrve psitlon. In 
revlew of the record it appears that the beneficlaty has been and will be primar~ly performing the day-to-day 
scrvlces of the business 
\ 
Further, rather than providing a spec~fic descriptton of the beneficiary's dut~ea, the petitloner generally 
paraphrased the statutory definition of executive capacity. See section IOl(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 
8 (J S.C. 8 1101(a)(44)(A). For mstanoe, the petitioner dep~cted the beneficiary as directing the ennre 
operation of the organ~zat~on, establishing goals and pollc~es of the organization. and exerclslng sole 
LIN 04 046 5224 1 
Page 8 
discret~onary decision-malang authority. However, conclusory asserhons regarding the benefic~ary's 
employment capacity are not sufficient to meet the petitioner's burden of proof. Merely repeating the 
language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Feclin Bros Co., Ltd. 
v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Crr. 1990); Avyr Associutt.;v Inc. v. 
Meissner. 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y .). 
h addition, the petitioner describes the beneficiary as developing the petitioner's product, marketlng the 
petitloner's product, and negotiating contracts with potential customers. Srnce the beneficlary actually 
performs those tasks, he is performing tasks necessary to provlde a service or product and this duty w~ll not be 
considered managerial or executive in nature. An employee who pnmanly performs the tasks necessary to 
produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be empioyed m a managerial or executive 
capacity. Matter oJChurch Scienfology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593,604 (Comrn. 1988). 
Ihe petitioner fails to document what proportion of the beneficiary's dutles would be managenal functions 
and what propomon would be non-managerial. The petitioner lists the benefictary's dutres as managerial, but 
~t fails to quanhfy the ha the beneficiary spends on them. This failure of documentation is ~mportant 
because several of the beneficiary's dally tasks, such as developing the product, markebng thc product, and 
negotiating the contracts do not fall directly under traditional managerla1 duties as defined in the statute. For 
this reason, the AAO cannot detwmine whether the beneficiary IS primarily pedomng the dut~es of a 
functlon manager. See IKEA US, Inc. v. U.S. Dep. ofJustice, 48 1;. Supp. 2d 22,24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
Although the beneficlary is not required to supervise personnel, if it is claimed that his duties involve 
supewlang employees, the petit~oner must establish that the subordinate employees are supervrsory, 
professional or managerial. See 9 101(a)(44)(A)(i1) of the Act. The petitioner has establtshed that the 
beneficiary's sole subordinate, Dr. IS a professional. However, the petitioner has farled to establish 
that supemsing his one professional subordinate is the beneficiary's pnmary responsibihty. Dr. ole 
is linuted to providrng technologyconsulting services within the scope of the petitioner's pharmaceut~cal 
sector. However, the beneficiary is also charged with "leading" the petitioner's marketlng, product 
development and engmneenng, and titlance funcbons. As the petiboner does not employ any staff to rellevc 
the beneficiary from performing the day-today operations duties, ~t is assumed, and has not been proven 
otherwise, the preponderance of the benefic~ary's time is allocated to nonqualifying duties, rather than to 
supervision of hls one subordmnate. The fact that the beneficlary devotes some port1011 of his time to 
supervising one profess~nnal employee is insufficient to overcome the director'sfinding that the benefic~ary IS 
pnmarrly engaged rn duties that cannot be considered managenal or executive in nature. 
The petltloner has failed to overcome the objections of the director. Even though the petlnoner claims that the 
beneficiary d~rects and manages the petitioner's importation of plastlc parts, sheet metal, and casttng 
actlvlties, it does not clarm to have anyone on its staff to actually perform the ~rnportation function. h this 
matter, counsel clalms that due to the nature of the U.S. ent~ty's buslness there 1s no need for large production 
facrlitles or a large staff. However, without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertlons of 
counsel will not sat~sfy the pctltroner's burden of proof. The assertlons of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Mutter of Obargbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter dLaureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); 
Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Further, therc has been no ev~dcnce 
submitted to demonstrate the activlt~es of the subcontractors or that they have entered into an employment 
agreement with the U.S. entity. Thus, either the beneficrary himself IS performrng the rmportat~on funcnon or 
he does not actually manage the importation functron as cla~med by the petltroner. In clther case, the MO is - 
left to questlon the validity of the petiboner's claim and the remainder of the beneficrary's claimed duties. 
LIN 04 046 52241 
Page 9 
I 
Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliabiltt~ and 
sufficiency of the remalnmng evidence offered in support of the vlsa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 
591 (BM 1988). If the beneficiary is performing the importation function, the AAO notes that an employee 
who primarily performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services IS not considered to be 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity. Matter of Church of ~cientology hternational, 19 I&N Dec. 
593,604 (cbmm. 1988). 
@ 
Furthennore, the petlhoner's evidence is not sufficient to substantiate ~ts cla~m that the beneficiary wlll be 
duecting the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organizat~on, 
establ~sh~ng the goals and polictes of the organization, exercising wide latitude in dtscretionary declslon- 
malung, and recetwng only general supervision or direction from higher level executtves. Rather, ~t appears 
from the evidence that the beneficiary has been and will continue to prlmanly perform the day-today duties 
of the organtzation and l~rmted managerla1 or executive duties. There has been no evidence presented to 
demonstrate that the beneficiary will be functioning at a senior level wthin an organizational hterarchy other 
than m poslhon tttle. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
Counsel noted on appeal that CIS approved two other petitions that had been previously filed on behalf of the 
benefic~ary. The director's decision does not indicate whether he rewewed the prior approvals of the other 
nonlmmgrant petihons. If the previous nonimmigrant petitions were approved based on the same 
unsupported and contradictory assertions that are contain4 in the current record, the approval would 
constitute material and gross error on the part of the director. 'The AAO is not required to approve 
appllcat~ons or petitions where eligbihty has not been demonstrated, merely because of pnor approvals that 
may have been erroneous. See, e.g. Matier of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593. 597 
(Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that CIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as 
brnding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Ctr. 1987): cert. denied, 
485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court 
of appcals and a district COIIX-t. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmgrant petttions on 
behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a servlce 
center. Loui.siana Philharmonic Orchestra V. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. ~a.): affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Clr. 
200 1). cert. denred, 122 S.Ct. 5 1 (200 1). 
The pnor approvals do not preclude CIS from denying an extension of the orig~nal visa based on reassessmellt 
of pet~tioner's qualtfications. Texas AM Univ. v. Upchurch. 99 Fed. Appx. 556,2004 WL 1240482 (5th Clr. 
2004). Accordingly, the appeal wl1 be dismissed. 
In vlsa petit~on proceedmgs, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entrrely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The pentioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dtsmissed.