dismissed L-1A Case: Tourism

identifyingdatadeletvdto
preventcl~i2?aiy wlwarranted
invasionofpersona} privacy
pUBLICCo¥Y
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
File: EAC 07 007 52988 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: FEB 2 8 2008
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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.
R~f
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
EAC 07 007 52988
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal.
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary in the position of manager
to open a new office in the United States as an L-IA nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to
section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L). The
petitioner, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida, is allegedly in the tourism business.!
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the United States
operation will support an executive or managerial position within one year.
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner has established
that the beneficiary will perform qualifying duties within one year of petition approval.
To establish eligibility for the L-l nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria
outlined in section 101(a)(l5)(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.
lAccording to Florida state corporate records, the petitioner's corporate status in Florida was "administratively
dissolved" on September 14, 2007. Therefore, since the corporation may not carry on any business except
that necessary to wind up and liquidate its affairs, the company can no longer be considered a legal entity in
the United States. See § 607.1405, Fla. Stat. (2006). Therefore, if this appeal were not being dismissed for
the reasons set forth herein, this would call into question the petitioner's continued eligibility for the benefit
sought.
EAC 07 007 52988
Page 3
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior
education, training, and employment qualifies him/her to perform the intended
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the
same work which the alien performed abroad.
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v) states that if the petition indicates that the beneficiary is
coming to the United States as a manager or executive to open or to be employed in a new office, the
petitioner shall submit evidence that:
(A) Sufficient physical premIses to house the new office have been
secured;
(B) The beneficiary has been employed for one continuous year in the
three year period preceding the filing of the petition in an executive
or managerial capacity and that the proposed employment involved
executive or managerial authority over the new operation; and
(C) The intended United States operation, within one year of the
approval of the petition, will support an executive or managerial
position as defined in paragraphs (1)(1)(ii)(B) or (C) of this section,
supported by information regarding:
(1) 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 primary issue in this matter is whether the intended United States operation, within one year of the approval
of the petition, will support an executive or managerial position.
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capacity" as an
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily:
(i) manages the organization, or a department, subdivision, function, or component of
the organization;
(ii) supervises and controls the work of other supervisory, professional, or managerial
employees, or manages an essential function within the organization, or a department
EAC 07 007 52988
Page 4
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.
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 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.
In support of the petition, counsel describes the proposed United States operation in a letter dated October 6,
2006 as follows:
The Petitioner plans to have extensive operations in the tourism industry. In this industry, the
Petitioner's objective is to promote Ecuador's magnificent and exotic destinations, offering
individual or group packages that will show the versatility of climate and scenery this country
can offer, such as: the top of the highest volcano in the world, the Amazon jungle, the calm
beaches of the Pacific [O]cean or the Galapagos Islands, and many other historical sites.
The first step, which will be developed in the first operational year, is to establish its
subsidiary in the United States and start operations. To accomplish its plan, the Petitioner
expects to hire a professional staff to help them with their new quest in the United States.
Counsel also describes the proposed organizational structure of the United States operation in the October 6,
2006 letter. Counsel claims that the beneficiary will lead the organization and will directly or indirectly
supervise marketing, sales, and clerical employees. While counsel further claims that the sales and marketing
EAC 07 007 52988
Page 5
posItIons will reqUIre bachelor's degrees, he did not describe the duties of these proposed subordinate
employees.
Finally, counsel describes the beneficiary's proposed duties in the United States in the October 6, 2006 letter
as follows:
• Review financial statements, sales and activity reports, and other performance data to
measure productivity and goal achievement and to determine areas needing cost
reduction and program improvement.
• Manage staff, prepare work schedules and assign specific duties[.]
• Establish and implement departmental policies, goals, objectives, and procedures,
conferring with board members, as necessary.
• Determine staffing requirements, and interview, hire and train new employees, or
oversee those personnel processes.
• Oversee activities directly related to providing services[.]
• Direct and coordinate organization's financial and budget activities to fund
operations, maximize investments, and increase efficiency.
• Engage in long-range planning and identify business opportunities in the US[.]
• Acquisition of new clients and business relationships.
• Formulate and implement administrative and financial policies and [p]rocedures.
• Cash management[,] etc.
Counsel does not clarify whether these duties apply during the United States operation's first year In
operation, after its first year in operation, or both.
On November 29, 2006, the director requested additional evidence. The director requested, inter alia,
evidence establishing that, within one year of commencing operations, the beneficiary will be relieved from
performing non-qualifying tasks and a detailed explanation outlining how the duties of the proposed
subordinate employees will be managerial or professional.
In response, counsel submitted a letter dated February 16, 2007 which includes a chart indicating that, during
the beneficiary's first year of employment, she will gradually cede non-qualifying operational tasks to newly
hired employees. Counsel also submits an organizational chart purportedly applicable to the United States
organization after its first year in operation. This new chart shows a complex organization headed by an
operational manager who will supervise a marketing manager, an administrative manager, a financial
manager, and a sales manager who, in tum, will all supervise subordinate employees. It appears that counsel
is claiming that the petitioner will employ, after the first year in operation, at least 16 employees and
independent contractors. Moreover, counsel describes the proposed duties of these various proposed
employees and independent contractors. As these descriptions are in the record, they will not be repeated
here. Generally, counsel describes several of the proposed "manager" positions to require bachelor's degrees
and claims that the beneficiary will supervise and control a subordinate tier of managers or supervisors who,
in tum, will supervise subordinate workers.
EAC 07 007 52988
Page 6
Finally, counsel submits various job postings and other materials acquired from the Internet in support of his
claim that the proposed subordinate positions are professional or supervisory jobs.
On May 7, 2007, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the
United States operation will support an executive or managerial position within one year.
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner has established that the beneficiary will perform qualifying
duties within one year of petition approval.
Upon review, the petitioner's assertions are not persuasive.
When a new business is established and commences operations, the regulations recognize that a designated
manager or executive responsible for setting up operations will be engaged in a variety of activities not
normally performed by employees at the executive or managerial level and that often the full range of
managerial responsibility cannot be performed. In order to qualify for L-I nonimmigrant classification during
the first year of operations, the regulations require the petitioner to disclose the business plans and the size of
the United States investment, and thereby establish that the proposed enterprise will support an executive or
managerial position within one year of the approval of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(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.
As contemplated by the regulations, a comprehensive business plan should contain, at a mInImum, a
description of the business, its products and/or services, and its objectives. See Matter of Ho, 22 I&N Dec.
206, 213 (Assoc. Comm. 1998). Although the precedent relates to the regulatory requirements for the alien
entrepreneur immigrant visa classification, Matter of Ho is instructive as to the contents of an acceptable
business plan:
The plan should contain a market analysis, including the names of competing businesses and
their relative strengths and weaknesses, a comparison of the competition's products and
pricing structures, and a description of the target market/prospective customers of the new
commercial enterprise. The plan should list the required permits and licenses obtained. If
applicable, it should describe the manufacturing or production process, the materials required,
and the supply sources. The plan should detail any contracts executed for the supply of
materials and/or the distribution of products. It should discuss the marketing strategy of the
business, including pricing, advertising, and servicing. The plan should set forth the
business's organizational structure and its personnel's experience. It should explain the
business's staffing requirements and contain a timetable for hiring, as well as job descriptions
for all positions. It should contain sales, cost, and income projections and detail the bases
therefor. Most importantly, the business plan must be credible.
Id.
EAC 07 007 52988
Page 7
For several reasons, the petitioner in this matter has failed to establish that the United States operation will
succeed and rapidly expand as it moves away from the developmental stage to full operations, where there
would be an actual need for a manager or executive who will primarily perform qualifying duties. The
petitioner has failed to specifically describe the beneficiary's proposed duties after the petitioner's first year in
operation; has failed to establish that the beneficiary will be relieved of the need to perform the non­
qualifying tasks inherent to the operation of the business by a subordinate staff within the petitioner's first
year in operation; has failed to establish that a sufficient investment has been made in the United States
operation; and has failed to sufficiently describe the nature, scope, organizational structure, and financial
goals of the new office. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(v)(C).
As a threshold issue, it is noted that the record in this matter is devoid of evidence addressing the proposed
business of the United States operation, the beneficiary's present and future duties, the petitioner's proposed
organizational structure, and the duties of the claimed subordinate employees. The only materials addressing
these matters are two letters written and signed by the petitioner's attorney. The petitioner did not even sign
the Form 1-129. The record does not contain any evidence supporting counsel's claims pertaining to the
petitioner's proposed business, staffing, or organization. Without documentary evidence to support the claim,
the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of
counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of
Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980).
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm.
1972). For this reason alone, the petitioner has failed to establish that the United States operation will support
an executive or managerial position within one year, and the petition will be denied for this reason.
Regardless, even considering counsel's unsupported claims, the record is not persuasive in establishing that
the United States operation will support an executive of managerial position within one year. First, as
correctly noted by the director, the job descriptions for both the beneficiary and her subordinate workers fail
to credibly establish that the beneficiary will be performing primarily "managerial" or "executive" duties after
the petitioner's first year in operation. When examining the proposed executive or managerial capacity of the
beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the petitioner's description of the proposed job duties. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 214.2(l)(3)(ii). The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly describe the duties that will be
performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties will be either in an executive or managerial
capacity. Id.
In this matter, counsel has provided a vague and nonspecific description of the beneficiary's duties that fails
to demonstrate what the beneficiary will do on a day-to-day basis. For example, counsel states that the
beneficiary will establish and implement policies, goals, objectives, and procedures; will oversee "activities
directly related to providing services," and will acquire "new clients and business relationships." However,
counsel did not specifically define these policies, goals, objectives, and procedures. Counsel also failed to
describe with any specificity its "services" or "activities" or to identify any proposed business relationships or
clients. The fact that counsel has given the beneficiary a managerial title and has prepared a vague job
description which includes inflated duties does not establish that the beneficiary will actually perform
managerial duties after the first year in operation. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a
EAC 07 007 52988
Page 8
beneficiary's duties will be primarily executive or managerial in nature; otherwise meeting the definitions
would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Once again, going on record without supporting
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings.
Matter of Treasure Craft ofCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190.
Likewise, the record is not persuasive in establishing that the beneficiary will be, after the first year, relieved
of the need to "primarily" perform the non-qualifying tasks inherent to her duties and to the operation of the
business in general or that she will supervise and control the work of other supervisory, managerial, or
professional employees, or will manage an essential function of the organization. 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;
see also Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). A managerial or
executive employee must have authority over day-to-day operations beyond the level normally vested in a
first-line supervisor. See 101(a)(44) of the Act; see also Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N
Dec. at 604.
In this matter, the petitioner failed to submit any evidence addressing this issue even though the director
specifically requested such evidence in the November 29, 2006 Request for Evidence. Failure to submit
requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(l4). While counsel claims that the petitioner will hire at least 16 employees and contractors,
including four subordinate mangers, during its first year in business, these claims are entirely unsubstantiated
by evidence. The record does not include a business plan, marketing strategy, or projected financial data, and
fails to specifically identify a single product, service, or business relationship related to its proposed
Ecuadorian tourism business. Counsel's unsubstantiated claims that the newly formed business entity will
adopt a complex organizational structure and hire 16 or more workers does not establish that the United States
operation will truly grow and mature into an active business organization which will reasonably require the
services of an employee who will primarily perform managerial or executive duties. Rather, the petitioner
must clearly define the scope and nature of a United States operation and establish that it has, and will
continue to have, the financial ability to support the establishment and growth of the business. As noted
above, the record is devoid of any such evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner has failed to establish that the
United States operation, vaguely described as an Ecuadorian tourism company, will reasonably need the
services of a subordinate tier of managers, supervisors, or professionals. Again, boldly stating that the
beneficiary will supervise a subordinate tier of managers, supervisors, and professionals is not sufficient in
the absence of evidence that the petitioner's business will require a complex organizational structure and
evidence that the petitioner is, or will be, able to employ such a workforce. 2
2It is further noted that counsel's description of the proposed subordinate workers fails to establish that any of
the workers will truly be a "professional." In evaluating whether the beneficiary manages professional
employees, the AAO must evaluate whether the subordinate positions require a baccalaureate degree as a
minimum for entry into the field of endeavor. Section 101(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(32), states
that "[t]he term profession shall include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians,
surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." The term
EAC 07 007 52988
Page 9
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will be primarily employed In a
managerial or executive capacity within one year, and the petition may not be approved for that reason.
Second, the petitioner failed to establish that the United States operation will support an executive or
managerial position within one year because it failed to establish that a sufficient investment was made in the
enterprise. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(v)(C)(2). In this matter, the petitioner submitted bank documents
indicating that $2,553.00 was transferred by the foreign entity to the petitioner on or about October 6, 2006.
However, these funds appear to be entirely inadequate to support the establishment of the United States
operation. According to the "commercial lease agreement" submitted with the petition, the petitioner's yearly
rent alone is $3,000.00. It is not credible that the petitioner will be able to both establish and grow the United
States operation to the point that it will employ the beneficiary in a position which is primarily executive or
managerial on such a meager investment. In the absence of evidence that the petitioner's business will
immediately begin generating substantial revenue, the petitioner has failed to establish that this small
investment will be sufficient to establish and support the United States operation, and the petition may not be
approved for this additional reason.
Third, the petitioner failed to establish that the United States operation will support an executive or
managerial position within one year because the petitioner has failed to sufficiently describe the nature, scope,
and financial goals of the new office. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(v)(C)(l). As explained above, counsel vaguely
describes the petitioner's proposed business as an Ecuadorian tourism enterprise. However, the petitioner
failed to submit a "business plan" which specifically describes the petitioner's proposed products, services,
customers, or competitors. The petitioner also fails to make any projections regarding revenue, income,
expenses, or financial goals. The record does not contain any independent analysis, contracts, business
contacts, or purchase orders. Absent a detailed, credible description of the petitioner's proposed United States
business operation addressing the petitioner's proposed product, marketing plan, customers, and
income/expense projections, it is impossible to determine whether the proposed enterprise will succeed and
rapidly expand as it moves away from the developmental stage to full operations, where there would be an
actual need for a manager or executive who will primarily perform qualifying duties.
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the United States operation will support an executive or
managerial position within one year as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(v)(C), and the petition may not be
approved for the above reasons.
"profession" contemplates knowledge or learning, not merely skill, of an advanced type in a given field
gained by a prolonged course of specialized instruction and study of at least baccalaureate level, which is a
realistic prerequisite to entry into the particular field of endeavor. Matter of Sea, 19 I&N Dec. 817 (Comm.
1988); Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (R.C. 1968); Matter of Shin, 11 I&N Dec. 686 (D.D. 1966).
Therefore, the AAO must focus on the level of education required by the position, rather than the degree held
by subordinate employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee does not
automatically lead to the conclusion that an employee will be employed in a professional capacity as that term
is defined above. In the instant case, the petitioner has not, in fact, established that a bachelor's degree is
actually necessary to perform the work of any of the proposed subordinate employees.
EAC 07007 52988
Page 10
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has failed to establish that it has secured sufficient physical
premises to house the new office. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(v)(A).
In support of the petition, co "commercial lease agreement" between the petitioner
and a business entity called " describing the petitioner's purported lease of '_
.'a Pompano Beach, Florida. The initial term of the lease is from Septem~
2006 until September 26, 2007. However, the lease fails to specifically describe the size or location of_
•••and the record is devoid of evidence describing the spatial needs of its proposed United States operation.
Absent evidence addressing both the size and character of the leased premises and a description of the
premises needs of the proposed United States operation, which predicts the employment of at least 16 people
within one year, it is impossible for Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) to discern whether the
secured premises will sufficiently permit the proposed enterprise to succeed and rapidly expand as it moves
away from the developmental stage to full operations.
Furthermore, it is noted that the leased premises, "~located at
Pompano Beach, Florida. According to the record,_is also the beneficiary's lIcurrent
U.S. address" listed in the Form 1-129, the address of the petitioner's counsel, and the address of the
petitioner's incorporator and registered agent, Tax House Corporation. In view of these connections, it is
simply not credible that the petitioner is or will be truly doing business a or that the
"commercial lease agreement" is a bona fide business lease for space at this location. The evidence is not
credible and will not be given any weight in this proceeding. If CIS fails to believe that a fact stated in the
petition is true, CIS may reject that fact. Section 204(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b); see also Anetekhai v.
I.NS., 876 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir.1989); Lu-Ann Bakery Shop, Inc. v. Nelson, 705 F. Supp. 7, 10
(D.D.C.1988); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7,15 (D.D.C. 2001).
Accordingly, as the petitioner has failed to establish that it has secured sufficient physical premises to house
the new office, the petition may not be approved for this additional reason.
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary has been
employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity with the foreign entity for one year within the
preceding three years. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(v)(B). The petitioner failed to specifically describe the
beneficiary's job duties abroad. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties
were primarily executive or managerial in nature; otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter
of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, aff'd, 905 F.2d 41.
Furthermore, the petitioner failed to describe the duties of the beneficiary's purported subordinates abroad.
Absent detailed descriptions of the duties of both the beneficiary and her purported subordinates, it is
impossible for CIS to discern whether the beneficiary was "primarily" engaged in performing managerial or
executive duties abroad. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act; see also Matter ofChurch Scientology
International, 19 I&N Dec. at 604.
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has been employed in a primarily
managerial or executive capacity for one continuous year in the three years preceding the filing of the petition
as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(v)(B), and the petition may not be approved for this reason.
EAC 07 007 52988
Page 11
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dar v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989) (noting that the AAO reviews
appeals on a de novo basis).
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and
alternative basis for denial. When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can
succeed on a challenge only if it is shown that the AAO abused its discretion with respect to all of the AAO's
enumerated grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc., 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043.
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the
appeal will be dismissed.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.