dismissed L-1A Case: Software Solutions

PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: WAC 08 222 50574 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
OCT 2 9 2009 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5 for the 
specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a 
Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 days of the 
decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
@f,yd","inistratiue Appeals Ofice 
WAC 08 222 50574 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California 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 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. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a United Kingdom corporation which claims to be the parent 
company of the beneficiary's proposed U.S. employer, a Delaware corporation established in June 2008. Both 
companies are stated to be engaged in selling and implementing IBM software solutions for large and 
medium-sized enterprises. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as chief executive officer of the new 
office in the United States for a period of one year. 
The director denied the petition, determining that the petitioner did not establish that the United States and 
foreign entities have a qualifying relationship. In denying the petition, the director determined that the 
petitioner failed to provide requested evidence to establish that the foreign entity paid for its ownership 
interest in the U.S. company. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the petitioner submitted 
sufficient evidence to establish that the U.S. entity is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the foreign entity. The 
petitioner submits additional documentary evidence in support of the appeal. 
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. 
(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 
WAC 08 222 50574 
Page 3 
education, training, and employment qualifies himlher to perform the intended 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(~) also provides that if the petition indicates that the beneficiary is 
coming to the United States as a manager or executive to open or be employed in a new office in the United 
States, the petitioner shall submit evidence that: 
(A) 
 Sufficient physical premises to house the new office have been secured; 
(B) 
 The beneficiary has been employed for one continuous year in the three year period 
preceding the filing of the petition in an executive or managerial capacity and that the 
proposed employment involves executive or managerial authority over the new 
operation; and 
(C) 
 The intended United States operation, within one year of the approval of the petition, 
will support an executive or managerial position as defined in paragraphs (l)(l)(ii)(B) 
or (C) of this section, supported by information regarding: 
(I) 
 The proposed nature of the office describing the scope of the entity, its 
organizational structure, and its financial goals; 
(2) 
 The size of the United States investment and the financial ability of the 
foreign entity to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business 
in the United States; and 
(3) 
 The organizational structure of the foreign entity. 
The sole issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established that the U.S. and foreign entities 
have a qualifying relationship. To establish a "qualifying relationship" under the Act and the regulations, the 
petitioner must show that the beneficiary's foreign employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same 
employer (i.e. one entity with "branch" offices), or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See 
generally section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1). 
The pertinent regulations at 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(1)(l)(ii) define the term "qualifying organization" and related 
terms as follows: 
(G) QualzJjting organization means a United States or foreign firm, corporation, or other 
legal entity which: 
(1) Meets exactly one of the qualifying relationships specified in the definitions of 
a parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary specified in paragraph (l)(l)(ii) of this 
section; 
WAC 08 222 50574 
Page 4 
(2) Is or will be doing business (engaging in international trade is not required) as 
an employer in the United States and in at least one other country directly or 
through a parent, branch, affiliate or subsidiary for the duration of the alien's 
stay in the United States as an intracompany transferee; and, 
(3) Otherwise meets the requirements of section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. 
(I) Parent means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity which has subsidiaries. 
(J) Branch means an operating division or office of the same organization housed in a 
different location. 
(K) Subsidiary means a firm, corporation, or other legal entity of which a parent owns, 
directly or indirectly, more than half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, 
directly or indirectly, half of the entity and controls the entity; or owns, directly or 
indirectly, 50 percent of a 50-50 joint venture and has equal control and veto power over 
the entity; or owns, directly or indirectly, less than half of the entity, but in fact controls 
the entity. 
(L) Afiliate means 
(I) One of two subsidiaries both of which are owned and controlled by the same 
parent or individual, or 
(2) One of two legal entities owned and controlled by the same group of 
individuals, each individual owning and controlling approximately the same 
share or proportion of each entity. 
The petitioner stated on Form 1-129 that the U.S. entity is wholly owned by the foreign entity, and that the 
beneficiary has managerial control of both companies. In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted a 
copy of the foreign entity's certificate of incorporation, indicating that the foreign entity was established in the 
United Kingdom on January 15, 1999. The petitioner provided a certificate dated April 6, 2005 from the 
Registrar of Companies for England and Wales indicating that the foreign entity has been in continuous 
existence since its incorporation with the beneficiary and his spouse serving as the company's directors. 
The petitioner also submitted the foreign entity's Director's Report and Financial Statements for the year 
ended September 30, 2006. The director's report indicates that the beneficiary and his spouse each own one 
share of the foreign entity's stock and are the only shareholders. The petitioner provided additional 
documentation to demonstrate that the company is actively doing business in the United Kingdom. 
WAC 08 222 50574 
Page 5 
With respect to the U.S. entity, the petitioner submitted evidence that it was incorporated on June 26, 2008 in 
the State of Delaware. The petitioner submitted a copy of the U.S. company's articles of incorporation, which 
indicate that the company is authorized to issue 1,000 shares of stock having a par value of $.01 per share. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted a copy of the U.S. company's by-laws. 
The director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE) on October 7, 2008, in which he instructed the 
petitioner to submit, inter alia, additional evidence to establish that the U.S. and foreign entities have a 
qualifying relationship. Specifically, the director requested copies of the U.S. company's stock certificates 
and stock ledger, and evidence to show that the foreign parent company has paid for its interest in the U.S. 
entity. The director indicated that such evidence should include original wire transfers from the parent 
company, copies of cancelled checks, deposit receipts, etc., detailing the monetary amounts for the stock 
purchase. 
In a response dated November 6,2008, the petitioner submitted a copy of the U.S. company's stock certificate 
number 1, indicating that all 1,000 shares of the company's authorized stock were issued to the beneficiary, as 
well as a copy of its stock transfer ledger. The date of issuance is not completed on the stock certificate; 
however, the date of issuance is indicated as "4-1 1-08" on the stock transfer ledger. As the U.S. company was 
not incorporated until June 2008, the AAO assumes that the date of stock issuance was November 4,2008. 
In response to the director's request for evidence establishing that the claimed foreign parent company paid 
for the stock purchase, the petitioner submitted a copy of the invoice issued by the U.S. company's 
incorporating agent, Delaware Corporations, LLC, to the foreign entity, in care of the foreign entity's 
immigration counsel. 
The director denied the petition on December 2, 2008, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that 
the U.S. and foreign entities have a qualifying relationship. In denying the petition, the director stated: 
The petitioner has presented a stock certificate to document that the parent company owns 
1,000 shares of the U.S. Company. However, the petitioner has provided no evidence that the 
parent company actually purchased the shares. Regarding the start-up activities of a 
corporation, such evidence would include documentation to establish that the claimed parent 
company actually formed the subsidiary and funded the start-up expenditures. Additional 
supporting evidence would include stock purchase agreements, subscription agreements, 
corporate by-laws, minutes of relevant shareholder meetings or other legal documents 
governing the acquisition of the ownership interest. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the evidence submitted establishes that the U.S. entity is a wholly-owned 
subsidiary of the foreign entity. The petitioner indicates that it is submitted additional evidence to "fully 
evidence" the relationship. The new evidence submitted on appeal includes the following: 
The foreign entity's Management Board Meeting Minutes dated April 15, 2008, which 
indicate that the foreign entity had sought advice from an attorney on how to register a 
subsidiary company in the State of Delaware. The meeting minutes indicate that "the 
new subsidiary would be 100% owned and controlled by the UK company." 
WAC 08 222 50574 
Page 6 
Minutes from the foreign entity's Monthly Management Meeting held on November 
10, 2008. The minutes indicate that the foreign entity was advised that stock certificate 
number 1 for the U.S. company was issued incorrectly and has been destroyed, and a 
new stock certificate was issued in the name of the foreign entity in its place. 
A copy of the U.S. company's stock certificate #2, issuing all 1,000 authorized shares 
to the foreign entity; 
An updated copy of the U.S. company's stock transfer ledger, indicating the destruction 
of stock certificate #1 and the transfer of shares from the beneficiary to the foreign 
entity as of November 10,2008; 
A different version of the petitioner's stock certificate #I, on company letterhead, 
indicating that the foreign entity acquired all 1,000 shares of the U.S. company's stock 
on July 22,2008. 
A stock transfer agreement dated July 22, 2008, indicating that "for value received," 
the U.S. company sold, transferred and assigned 1,000 shares of stock to the U.K. 
company. 
The U.S. company's "Consent of Directors" dated July 22,2008, in which the director's 
resolved to "accept the subscription of $10.00 to purchase one thousand (1,000) shares 
of the common stock" of the company, and acknowledged receipt of $10.00 from the 
U.K. company in full payment. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not submitted evidence appeal to overcome the director's determination. 
The regulation and case law confirm that ownership and control are the factors that must be examined in 
determining whether a qualifying relationship exists between United States and foreign entities for purposes 
of this visa classification. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1988); see also 
Matter of Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 
(Comm. 1982). In the context of this visa petition, ownership refers to the direct or indirect legal right of 
possession of the assets of an entity with full power and authority to control; control means the direct or 
indirect legal right and authority to direct the establishment, management, and operations of an entity. Matter 
of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 595. 
As general evidence of a petitioner's claimed qualifying relationship, stock certificates alone are not sufficient 
evidence to determine whether a stockholder 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., supra. Without full disclosure of all 
relevant documents, USCIS is unable to determine the elements of ownership and control. 
The regulations specifically allow the director to request additional evidence in appropriate cases. See 8 
C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(viii). As ownership is a critical element of this visa classification, the director may 
reasonably inquire beyond the issuance of paper stock certificates into the means by which stock ownership 
WAC 08 222 50574 
Page 7 
was acquired. As requested by the director, evidence of this nature should include documentation of monies, 
property, or other consideration furnished to the entity in exchange for stock ownership. 
Furthermore, as noted by the director, in the case of a new U.S. office established as a subsidiary of a foreign 
entity, additional evidence would also include documentation to establish that the claimed parent company 
actually formed the subsidiary and funded the start-up expenditures. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 
214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(2) requires the petitioner to provide evidence of the size of the U.S. investment in the new 
office. 
Although requested by the director, the petitioner did not provide any evidence of funds transferred to the 
United States entity for purchase of its stock or for its start-up expenses. Notwithstanding the fact that this 
was the primary reason for denial of the petition, the petitioner has not supplemented the record on appeal 
with evidence that the foreign entity has funded the U.S. company. Although the petitioner claims that the 
foreign entity paid only a nominal fee of $10 for the purchase of 1,000 shares of stock, it is reasonable to 
believe that the U.S. entity would require some funding or investment beyond this amount in order to 
commence business activities in the United States. 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). 
In addition, although not addressed by the director, the evidence submitted prior to the adjudication of the 
petition indicated that the beneficiary, and not the foreign entity, is the sole owner of the U.S. company.' The 
stock certificate was not issued until several weeks after the request for evidence, and more than four months 
after the U.S. company was established. No explanation has been provided for this considerable delay. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a different version of stock certificate number 1 for the U.S. company, dated 
July 22, 2008, issuing 1,000 shares of stock to the U.K. company. The petitioner does not explain why this 
stock transaction was not recorded on a standard form stock certificate or entered into the company's stock 
transfer ledger. Nor has the petitioner explained why a second certificate #1 was issued to the beneficiary 
several months thereafter. Notwithstanding the petitioner's claim that the latter stock certificate # 1 was issued 
in error to the beneficiary, the AAO notes that the certificates were signed by the beneficiary himself, and it is 
reasonable to believe that he is fully aware of the ownership of the U.S. company. 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). 
In light of the omissions and discrepancies catalogued above, the petitioner has not established the claimed 
parent-subsidiary relationship between the foreign and U.S. entities, nor has it submitted sufficient evidence 
to establish that it otherwise meets "exactly one of the qualifying relationships specified in the definitions," as 
required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(G)(I). Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
-- 
' The director erroneously stated in the Notice of Decision that the petitioner presented a stock certificate to 
document that the parent company owns 1,000 shares of the U.S. company. The only stock certificate 
reviewed by the director was the stock certificate number one issued to the beneficiary on November 4,2008. 
WAC 08 222 50574 
Page 8 
Beyond the decision of the director, the record as presently constituted does not establish that the beneficiary 
has been employed by the foreign entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity as those terms are 
defined at section 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. The petitioner indicated in its letter dated April 23, 2007 
the beneficiary serves as "Company Director and executive responsible for Sales," including "day-to-day 
management and directing of the companies' sales activities." The petitioner indicated on Form 1-129 that the 
U.K. company has eight employees and stated in its supporting letter that "many other activities are 
outsourced" or provided by the IBM global partner network. 
In a separate job description submitted at the time of filing, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary 
currently supervises an office manager, five software sales employees, six technical sales staff, and "various 
contractors," thus suggesting a subordinate staff of 12 employees. 
The petitioner also submitted a document titled "Funding Business Case" prepared by the beneficiary for the 
foreign entity, and dated July 9, 2007. The business case, at page six, contains the following explanation of 
the company's operating structure: 
The business is owned by two shareholders [the beneficiary] and [the beneficiary's spouse] 
(non active). [The beneficiary] is the sole employee and all other resources are contracted as 
required. All costs are variable. [The foreign entity] is a Business Partner of IBM and has a 
web, "store front" presence . . . costing 575lquarter. [The foreign entity] creates the 
impression of being a larger organization through the use of virtual office facilities provided 
by Regus costing approximately &200/month. 
The current business model of a consultative, very experienced and highly motivated sole 
trader, creating the impression of being a larger organization provides a framework which is 
highly flexible and dynamic, allowing costs to be kept low. 
The business case goes on to state that "the sole trader, entrepreneurial approach being followed by the owner, 
prioritizing on sales activities is at the expense of a proper growth strategy," and indicates that the foreign 
entity "is effectively a sole trader trading as a Limited Company," with the beneficiary acting as "owner and 
sales resource." The business case indicates that the foreign entity was seeking funding, partnership and 
financial management to enable growth, and set out cash flow analyses for several different hiring plans. The 
petitioner also submitted a "Proposal for IBM Co-Funded Sales Head" dated October 30, 2007, thus it does 
not appear that the foreign entity had hired any permanent staff as of that date. 
The most recent detailed financial statements provided for the foreign entity were for the year ended on 
September 20,2006. During that year, the petitioner paid £29,677 to contractors and no salaries or wages. 
In the RFE, the petitioner was requested to indicate the total number of employees working for the foreign 
entity, and to provide a detailed organizational chart depicting the structure of the foreign company. The 
director also requested brief descriptions of job duties, educational level and annual salaries for all employees 
working under the beneficiary's supervision. 
WAC 08 222 50574 
Page 9 
In response to the director's request, the petitioner submitted an organizational chart for the foreign entity 
depicting the beneficiary as CEO of an organization with 15 employees, including an operations manager, a 
sales director, a technical director, three sales employees, two telesales employees, six technical presales 
employees, and a lead architect. The petitioner did not provide the requested job duties, educational 
qualifications or salaries for the claimed foreign employees. Failure to submit requested evidence that 
precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(14). 
Based on the evidence submitted, the foreign entity claims to employ anywhere between one and sixteen 
employees. The beneficiary unequivocally stated that he was operating the foreign entity essentially as a sole 
trader, with no other permanent employees, as of July 2007, and the most recent financial information 
submitted did not document that the foreign entity pays substantial amounts to contracted or commissioned 
employees. The evidence also indicates that the foreign entity was seeking external funding in order to hire 
one additional employee as of October 2007. In light of this evidence, it is reasonable to question whether the 
foreign entity, as of the date the petition was filed, actually employed the 15 workers identified on the 
organizational chart submitted in response to the RFE. As stated above, 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. at 591-92. 
If the beneficiary is in fact the foreign entity's sole permanent, full-time technical and sales resource, then it is 
more likely than not that he would be primarily engaged in providing the sales and services of the 
organization, rather than performing primarily managerial or executive duties. As required by section 
101(a)(44)(C) of the Act, if staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting 
in a managerial or executive capacity, USCIS must take into account the reasonable needs of the organization, 
in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. In reviewing the relevance of the 
number of employees a petitioner has, federal courts have generally agreed that USCIS "may properly 
consider an organization's small size as one factor in assessing whether its operations are substantial enough 
to support a manager." Family Inc. v. US. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 469 F. 3d 13 13, 13 16 (9th 
Cir. 2006) (citing with approval Republic of Transkei v. INS, 923 F 2d. 175, 178 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Fedin Bros. 
Co. v. Sava, 905 F.2d 41, 42 (2d Cir. 1990)(per curiam); Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25, 
29 (D.D.C. 2003)). Furthermore, it is appropriate for USCIS to consider the size of a company in conjunction 
with other relevant factors, such as a company's small personnel size, the absence of employees who would 
perform the non-managerial or non-executive operations of the company, or a "shell company" that does not 
conduct business in a regular and continuous manner. See, e.g. Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 
(D.D.C. 2001). The size of a company may be especially relevant when USCIS notes discrepancies in the 
record and fails to believe that the facts asserted are true. Id. 
Based on the unexplained discrepancies in the record regarding the stafing and structure of the foreign entity, 
the AAO is not persuaded that the beneficiary, in his current role, is relieved from performing the day-to-day 
sales and consulting services of the U.K. company. An employee who "primarily" performs the tasks 
necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be "primarily" employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one 
WAC 08 222 50574 
Page 10 
"primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); see also Matter of Church Scientology 
Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). For this additional reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
Finally, the AAO notes that the petitioner has not established that the intended United States operation, within 
one year of the approval of the petition, will support an executive or managerial position, as the petitioner has 
not provided sufficient information regarding: (1) the proposed nature of the office, describing the scope of 
the entity, its organizational structure, and its financial goals; or (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, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 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. 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. 
At the time of filing, the petitioner submitted a position description for the beneficiary indicating that staff to 
be recruited for the U.S. office will include an office manager, a software sales employee, two technical sales 
employees, and contractors. The petitioner stated that the subordinate staff would perform the day-to-day 
hands-on duties in the areas of sales, technical sales support, marketing, finance and compliance relations, 
leaving the beneficiary to primarily manage sales strategies, establish the goals and policies of the 
organization, and manage high-level relationships with partners, suppliers and clients. The petitioner 
submitted a similar job description in response to the RFE, accompanied by a proposed organizational chart 
identifying 15 proposed subordinate positions, instead of the four proposed staff indicated at the time of 
filing. The proposed staff includes an operations manager, sales manager, technical director, lead architect, 
five sales employees, and six technical presales employees. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted a business plan for the U.S. office which contains cash flow analyses for two 
possible staffing scenarios, one which involves hiring a single sales resource immediately and maintaining 
that staffing level for the first three years, and one which involves hiring three sales resources during the first 
year of operations, and one additional resource in both year two and year three. There is nothing in the 
business plan to suggest which hiring scenario would be implemented. Overall, the petitioner appears to have 
presented four different potential hiring plans, suggesting that the company would be recruiting between one 
and fifteen employees. The AAO is not in a position to determine which hiring plan the petitioner intends to 
implement. The petitioner has not clearly described the scope of the U.S. entity, its structure or its financial 
goals for the first year of operations, and it cannot be determined, based on the limited and conflicting 
evidence in the record, that the beneficiary would be relieved from performing the sales, marketing, technical 
and administrative functions of the U.S. office within one year. 
Furthermore, as discussed above, the petitioner has not provided evidence regarding the size of the U.S. 
investment, disclosed its anticipated start-up costs or operating expenses, or provided any evidence that the 
company has received any funding from its claimed parent. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
' WAC 08 222 50574 
' Page 11 
Comm. 1972)). As such, it cannot be concluded that the U.S. entity would rapidly grow and expand to the 
point where it would require the beneficiary to perform primarily managerial or executive duties within one 
year. For this additional reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the 
AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003). 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. US. 
Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1 147, 1 149 (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 petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternative basis for the decision. When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative 
grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only if it is shown that the AAO abused its discretion with 
respect to all of the AAO's enumerated grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 
2d at 1043. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.