dismissed L-1A Case: Travel Agency

U.S. Department of 3Iomeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Room. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
YentiryJng data dektwl te 
prrrept clearly unw- 
-dpwsodgrkr3 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 03 23 1 50484 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: &j~ 2 6 1005 
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 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
./%, 
" / *T&J 
Robe;&a;n, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 23 1 50484 
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 is a new office operating as a travel agency. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its general 
manager and filed a petition to classify the beneficiary as an L1-A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee 
pursuant to section IOl(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 
1 101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner claims that it is a subsidiary of Mary Bless Natures Park, a company located 
in Compostela Valley Province, the Phlippines. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner has not established that (1) there existed a 
qualifying relationship between the petitioner and the foreign entity at the time the petition was filed; (2) 
sufficient physical premises to house the new office had been secured at the time the petition was filed; or that 
(3) the U.S. entity would support a primarily managerial or executive position within one year of approval of 
the petition. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion, and 
forwarded it to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the director erred by failing to 
closely examine the evidence of record and by applying a stricter and incorrect standard of law for a "new 
office" as defined in 8 C.F.R. 4 214.2(1)(3). Counsel submits a detailed brief in support of the appeal. 
To establish L-l eligibility, the petitioner must meet the criteria outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L). Specifically, within three years 
preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, 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. 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. 9 214.2(1)(3) states in part 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 posltion that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior education, 
training, and employment qualifies himher to perform the intended services in the United 
States; however, the work in the United States need not be the same work which the alien 
performed abroad. 
WAC 03 23 1 50484 
Page 3 
Moreover, pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3)(~), 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 involved executive or managerial authority over the new operation; 
and 
(C) The intended United States operation, within one year of the approval of the petition, will 
support an executive or managerial position as defined in paragraphs (l)(l)(ii)(B) or (C) of 
this section, supported by information regarding: 
(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 first issue in this proceeding is whether a qualifying relationship exists between the beneficiary's foreign 
employer and the U.S. organization. 
The pertinent regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii) define the term "qualifying organization" and related 
terms as follows: 
(G) Qualifiing 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; 
(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 lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Act. 
WAC 03 23 1 50484 
Page 4 
(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) Af$liate means 
(1) 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. 
On the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, the petitioner indicated that the U.S. entity is a 
subsidiary of the foreign entity. The petitioner did not describe the stock ownership and managerial control 
of each company on Form 1-129, but stated only that one or both is a "family controlled corporation." Aside 
from a letter from the foreign entity stating that the U.S. entity is 100% owned by the foreign entity, the 
petitioner did not submit with the Form 1-129 any supplemental documentation relating to the stock 
ownership and managerial control of the companies. 
On October 10, 2003, the director issued a request for further evidence. Among other things, the director 
requested evidence to establish that the foreign and U.S. entities have a qualifying relationship, including (1) 
proof of the purchase of the U.S. entity's stock by the foreign entity, (2) copies of the U.S. entity's stock 
certificates and stock ledger, and (3) a copy of the U.S. entity's Notice of Transaction Pursuant to , 
Corporations Code Section 25 102(f). 
In response, the petitioner submitted copies of the stock certificates and stock ledger of the U.S. entity,.which 
show that the foreign entity was issued 75,000 shares of the U.S. entity on December 3, 2003, and that there 
are two other shareholders, owning 15,000 and 10,000 shares of the U.S. entity, respectively. 
In his February 16, 2004 decision denying the petition, the director noted that while the petition was filed on 
August 7, 2003, the evidence of record indicates that the qualifying relationship between the U.S and foreign 
entities was not established until December 3, 2003, when 75,000 shares of the U.S. entity were issued to the 
foreign entity. As such, the petitioner has failed to establish that the qualifying relationship between the two 
entities existed at the time of the filing of the petition. 
WAC 03 23 1 50484 
Page 5 
On appeal, the petitioner concedes that payment was not made, and the shares were not actually acquired, by 
the foreign entity until four months after the petition was filed. However, the petitioner asserts that the idea 
of opening a U.S. business originated with the foreign entity, who subsequently took all the preparatory steps 
to establish the U.S. entity. The petitioner further asserts that at the time the petition was filed, there was a 
pledge, later sealed by an agreement, by the foreign entity to buy the 75,000 shares of the U.S. entity. The 
petitioner contends that the director's denial of the petition is based "on a mere technicality" and is "against 
the American spirit of encouraging small foreign investors to come and invest in the United States." 
The petition's assertions on appeal are not persuasive. First, pursuant to the regulation and case law, 
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 Sieinens Medical Systems, Inc., 
19 I&N Dec. 362 (BIA 1986); Matter of Hughes, 18 I&N Dec. 289 (Comm. 1982). In the context of this visa 
petition, ownership refers to the direct or indirect legal right of possession of the assets of an entity with full 
power and authority to control; control means the direct or indirect legal right and authority to direct the 
establishment, management, and operations of an entity. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N 
Dec. at 595. In the absence of any evidence of ownership and control at the time the petition was filed, the 
fact that the foreign entity initiated and completed the necessary steps to establish the U.S. entity is not 
sufficient to establish that a qualifying relationship existed between the two entities at that time. Second, 
contrary to the petitioner's claim, the record does not appear to contain any evidence of a pledge or agreement 
to purchase shares between the two entities. 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 (Cornm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Call;fornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972)). Finally, even assuming that such a pledge or agreement exists, the foreign entity did not pay for, and 
therefore did not actually own, its shares in the U.S. company until nearly four months after the petition was 
filed. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. A visa 
petition may not be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new 
set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978). That the foreign and U.S. 
entities have a qualifying relationship at the tirne the petition was filed is one of the primary regulatory 
requirements for L-1A classification and not "a mere technicality," as the petitioner posited. See 8 C.F.R. $5 
214.2(1)(3) and 214.2(1)(l)(ii). 
Moreover, the AAO notes that there are material discrepancies in the record regarding the share ownership of 
the U.S. entity that the petitioner has failed to address in this proceeding. As the director noted, the U.S. 
entity's articles of incorporation indicate that the company is authorized to issue 75,000 shares. In addition, 
the foreign entity had indicated in its letter submitted with the Form 1-129 that it owns 100% of the U.S. 
entity's shares. However, the stock certificates and ledgers indicate that the U.S. entity has 100,000 shares 
issued and outstanding, and the foreign entity holds only 75,000 shares, or 75% of those shares. The 
petitioner has neither acknowledged or explained these inconsistencies. 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). Doubt cast on any 
aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the 
remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Id. 
WAC 03 23 1 50484 
Page 6 
In light of the foregoing, the AAO concurs with the director's conclusion that the petitioner has failed to 
demonstrate that a qualifying relationship exists between the U.S. and foreign entities at the time the petition 
was filed, as required by the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(i). 
The second issue in this matter is whether the petitioner has established that sufficient physical premises to 
house the new office had been secured at the time the petition was filed, as required by the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A). 
On the Form 1-129 and supplemental material submitted at that time, the petitioner stated its address as 3520 
Long Beach Blvd., Suite 203, Long Beach, CA, 90807. The petitioner stated on the cover letter 
accompanying the Form 1-129 that it was submitting a "Commercial Lease-entered into by and between 
Virlen Home Management [sic] to show that sufficient physical premises have been secured." However, the 
AAO finds no such document in the record. 
In the director's October 10, 2003 request for further evidence, the petitioner was asked to provide 
photographs and a complete copy of the U.S. entity's lease, indicating the total square footage (including all 
office, production and warehouse spaces) and signed by both lessor and lessee, to establish that physical 
premises have been secured pursuant to regulatory requirements. In response, the petitioner submitted a 
number of photographs and a lease for office space at 412 Ellis St., Suite 102-A, Long Beach, CA 90805, for 
a five-year period commencing on December 1,2003.' 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that when the petition was filed, the petitioner had established a temporary 
clearing office at 3520 Long Beach Blvd. As proof that its business premises were at that address, the 
petitioner referred to a citation from the City of Long Beach for its violation of a city ordinance relating to the 
operation of a business without proper business license, addressed to the petitioner at the 3520 Long Beach 
Blvd. address. The petitioner further indicated that the Ellis Street address is now its permanent office. 
The director determined that the petitioner has not established that sufficient physical premises to house the 
new office had been secured at the time the petition was filed because the lease submitted by the petitioner 
was signed four months after the filing of the petition. 
The petitioner's assertions here are not persuasive. Although the petitioner claims that it had a "temporary 
clearing office" at 3520 Long Beach Blvd. at the time the petition was filed, the petitioner did not provide a 
lease or a description of those premises, or any other evidence that those premises constitute "sufficient 
physical premises to house the new office." As noted earlier, going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. The AAO notes that the petitioner did provide a lease for the premises 
it now occupies at 412 Ellis Street. However, as the director observed, that lease was not signed until 
I The AAO notes that although the lease states that it is made and entered into on December 1, 2003, the 
handwritten signature date appears to be a later date in December 2003. It is also noted that the petitioner's 
letter in response to the director's request for further evidence indicates that the petitioner is in Suite 103, and 
the petitioner's appeal letter shows its address as Suite 102-E, rather than Suite 102-A at the Ellis Street 
address as indicated in the lease. 
WAC 03 23 1 50484 
Page 7 
December 2003, four months after the petition was.filed. Again, a visa petition may not be approved at a 
future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin 
Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248. Accordingly, the AAO concurs with the director's conclusion that the 
petitioner has failed to establish that sufficient physical premises to house the new office have been secured at 
the time the petition was filed. 
The final issue in this proceeding is whether the U.S. entity would support a primarily managerial or 
executive position within one year of approval of the petition. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) requires that a petition for a beneficiary who is coming to the 
United States as a manager or executive to open or be employed in a new office in the United States include 
evidence that: 
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 (I)(l)(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 
Additionally, section 101 (a)(#)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 101(a)(44)(A), provides: 
The term "managerial capacity" means 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 withn the organization, or a department or 
subdivision of the organization; 
(iii) Has the authority to hire and fire or recommend those as well as other personnel actions 
(such as promotion and leave authorization) if another employee or other employees are 
directly supervised; if no other employee is directly supervised, functions at a senior 
level with 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 
WAC 03 23 1 50484 
Page 8 
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. 9 1101(a)(44)(B), provides: 
The term "executive capacity" means 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 a letter accompanying the Form 1-129, the "proprietress" of the foreign entity provided the following 
description of the beneficiary's proposed duties in the United States: 
[The beneficiary's] position is a key managerial one for the new office, because it will be his 
[sic] responsibility to organize and start the new business. This position requires him [sic] to: 
(1) Hire and train initially three employees. Since [the beneficiary] will be coming to the 
U.S. to start up the new business, there are no employees as of now. However, it is 
anticipated that there will be at least 3 of these individuals to be employed (either a U.S 
citizen or permanent resident) within the first year of operation and who will eventually run 
the business after [the beneficiary] completes her assignment. 
She will exercise a wide latitude [sic] in decision making in the day to day operations of the 
business. She must spend a majority of his [sic] time coordinating the various responsibilities 
and managing her staff. Strong managerial and organizational skills are needed for the 
important functions performed by the Manager of the new business in the U.S. [The 
beneficiary] will report directly to the [proprietress of the foreign entity] for approval of 
major plans. 
In his October 10, 2003 request for further evidence, the director requested the following evidence to 
demonstrate that the beneficiary will be employed in an executive or managerial capacity within one year of 
the approval of the petition: (1) the U.S. entity's organizational chart showing the beneficiary's position and 
other positions within 12 months of operation; (2) a detailed description of the proposed number of employees 
and types of positions needed within that time period; (3) the projected wages per hour for each position; and 
(4) a time table to fill the projected positions. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a hiring plan, which indicates that in addition to the beneficiary, the U.S. 
entity's staff would include the following positions: (1) a marketing manager, who would be "responsible for 
WAC 03 23 1 50484 
Page 9 
the management and ticketing and booking of passengers;" (2) a sales manager, who would be "in charge of 
[the] scheduling of departing passenger of international and domestic flights;" (3) a tour guide manager, who 
would "take care of incoming passengers of [sic] their scheduled reservation;" and (4) a transportation 
manager, who would "take care of assisting and transporting of incoming and outgoing passengers to their 
destination." The petitioner listed the names of the individuals to be hired for these positions and indicated, in 
each instance, that hiring would be "upon approval of Ll visa." 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a copy of the beneficiary's job offer/contract of employment, which states 
that the beneficiary will: 
be responsible for the overall operation of the U.S. entity 
have the final say in the hiring and firing of employees 
supervise directly the marketing manager, ticketing manager, sales manager, and tour guide manager 
gather and analyze data of existing service/contractual agreements with current clients, vendors, and 
suppliers 
conduct surveys of market policies in other outlying areas 
be responsible for the preparation and management of the annual operating and capital budgets 
be primarily responsible for the hiring, training and firing of personnel 
prepare and submit an annual performance report to the board of directors 
be responsible for maintaining a safe work site in accordance with state and federal safety regulations 
In denying the petition, the director observed that the job descriptions for the beneficiary's anticipated 
subordinates are vague and general and do not indicate that those employees would be performing managerial 
or professional duties. As such, the director concluded, the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary 
would manage supervisory, professional, or managerial employees who would relieve her from performing 
the services of the U.S. entity. The director therefore determined that the record does not demonstrate that the 
beneficiary would be perfoxming primarily managerial or executive duties, and the petitioner has not 
established that the U.S. entity would support an executive or managerial position within a year's time, as 
required by the regulations. 
On appeal, the petitioner contends that it was clearly documented that the beneficiary will be performing 
exclusively managerial/executive functions for the petitioner. The petitioner asserts that the four prospective 
subordinate employees are professional, managerial or supervisory employees who "will manage and handle 
the day-to-day affairs of their respective departments and make direct contacts with the bottom tier 
employees." The petitioner further asserts that the beneficiary will not provide day-to-day services to the 
clients but instead "will [be responsible for] the overall management and administration of the business and 
coordinate the various needs and activities of the component departments." The petitioner claims that the 
hiring plan is sufficient, and sufficiently specific, to establish the managerial duties of the beneficiary. 
Upon review of the record, the AAO concurs with the director's conclusion on this issue. The record does not 
establish that the intended United States operation, within one year of the approval of the petition, would 
support an executive or managerial position occupied by the beneficiary, as required by the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. $ 2 14.2(1)(3)(v)(C). 
WAC 03 23 1 50484 
Page 10 
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. 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, organizational structure, and 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. 8 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C). This evidence should demonstrate a realistic 
expectation that the enterprise will succeed and rapidly expand as it moves away from the developmental 
stage to full operations, where there would be an actual need for a manager or executive who will primarily 
perform qualifying duties. 
Whether the beneficiary will be a managerial or executive employee turns on whether the petitioner has 
sustained its burden of proving that her duties would be primarily managerial or executive. See sections 
101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act. While the petitioner claims that the beneficiary would be performing 
managerial tasks, the petitioner also indicates that the beneficiary's duties include "gather[ing] and analyz[ing] 
data of existing service/contractual agreements with current clients, vendors, and suppliers, "conduct[ing] 
surveys of market policies in other outlying areas," being "responsible for the preparation and management of 
the annual operating and capital budgets," and "prepar[ing] . . . an annual performance report to the board of 
directors." These financial, marketing, and contract negotiation tasks are essentially tasks necessary to 
provide a service or product that are not considered managerial or executive in nature. The petitioner fails to 
document what proportion of the beneficiary's duties would be managerial functions and what proportion 
would be non-managerial. 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 
Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). Additionally, the record does not 
demonstrate that the beneficiary would be relieved from performing non-qualifying functions within the 
requisite one year of approval of the petition. The petitioner listed four other employees who would be hired 
upon the approval of the present petition. However, it does not appear from their job descriptions that any of 
these employees would relieve the beneficiary of her non-qualifying duties, nor is there any indication in the 
record that other employees would be hired after the initial year. As such, the AAO cannot conclude that the 
U.S. entity's operation, within one year of the approval of the petition, would support a position in which the 
beneficiary would function in aprirnarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner also claims on appeal that the beneficiary would be functioning in a primarily managerial 
capacity because she would be supervising professional, managerial or supervisory employees. The record 
does not support this claim. Although the beneficiary is not required to supervise personnel, if it is claimed 
that her duties involve supervising employees, the petitioner must establish that the subordinate employees 
are supervisory, professional, or managerial. See 5 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. Based on the job 
descriptions of the beneficiary's prospective subordinates, the petitioner has not established that the positions 
to be occupied by these employees require an advanced degree, such that they could be classified as 
professionals. The petitioner also has not shown that any of these employees would be supervising 
subordinate staff members or managing a clearly defined department or function of the petitioner, such that 
they could be classified as managers or supervisors. Thus, the petitioner has not shown that the beneficiary 
would be supervising subordinate employees who are supervisory, professional, or managerial, and therefore 
would be acting in a managerial capacity in accordance with section 101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
WAC 03 23 1 50484 
Page 11 
Moreover, the record also contains insufficient information regarding the size of the United States investment 
and the foreign entity's financial ability to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business in the 
United States, as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(2). The petitioner submitted no 
financial records of the company other than certifications of bank deposits to the account of Robert C. Espina, 
the president/proprietor of the foreign entity, with no evidence that such funds were designated for the 
account of either of the business entities. In addition, the AAO notes that some of the bank deposits are in the 
currency of the Philippines rather than in U.S. dollars. CJ: 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The AAO cannot 
determine the financial status of the foreign entity given these insufficient records. 
The AAO notes that the director also requested evidence to establish the viability of the U.S. entity, including 
(1) the projected total investment in the U.S. entity within 12 months of the opening of the new office, 
including a timetable for the transfer of funds; (2) a detailed description of all start-up costs; and (3) a 
projected income statement for the first four quarters, including at minimum sales, purchases, gross profit, 
operating expenses, income from operations, federal income tax, franchise tax, and net income. In response, 
the petitioner submitted a brief document relating to the company's business plan and financial data, in which 
the petitioner disclosed that the start up cost of the U.S. business is about U.S.$10,000, that the foreign entity 
has transferred a total of U.S.$3,455 to the U.S. entity's bank account, and that the foreign entity would 
transfer more money to the U.S. entity upon approval of the petition. The petitioner also stated that a gross 
income of $500,000 is projected for the first year of operations. However, the petitioner failed to provide any 
of the details requested, such as a timetable for the transfer of funds, details of the start-up costs, or a 
breakdown of the projected income of the company by quarter. As noted earlier, going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Moreover, 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)(14). In light 
of these deficiencies in the record, the AAO cannot determine the size of the United States investment, or the 
foreign entity's financial ability to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business in the United 
States as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(2). 
Based on the foregoing, the AAO also concurs with the director's conclusion that the record does not 
demonstrate that within one year of approval of the petition, the beneficiary would be employed by the U.S. 
entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial.2 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 director's decision will be affirmed and the petition will be denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge 
only if she shows that the AAO abused its discretion with respect to all of the AAO's enumerated grounds. 
See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 
683 (9th Cir. 2003).