dismissed L-1A Case: Travel And Tourism

/ 
d bt.8 deld tc! 
prevent clearly unwarrmt~~ 
ir)~r~c4n~ of PO~CO~Q~ ~~VRCV 
YIJBLlC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: EAC 03 183 5 1356 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: ,a!$ 2006 
IN RE: 
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1101(a)(15)(L) 
IN BEYALF 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. 
I Robert P. Wiemann,  kct tor 
b 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 03 183 51356 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimrnigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seelung to extend the employment of its general manager as an 
L- 1 A nonimrnigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. tj 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of 
New York that is engaged in the travel and tourism business. The petitioner claims that it is the subsidiary of 
Shanghai Shihua International Travel Service located in Shanghai, China. The beneficiary was initially 
granted a one-year period of stay to open a new office in the United States and the petitioner now seeks to 
extend the beneficiary's stay. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
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 for the petitioner asserts that the director's 
decision was based upon a limited review of the evidence submitted in support of the petition, and that the 
petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary will serve in a primarily managerial 
or executive capacity. In support of this assertion, the petitioner submits additional evidence. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 1 0 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifjrlng organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifylng 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. tj 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 qualifylng 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 qualifjrlng 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 
EAC 03 183 5 1356 
Page 3 
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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $2 14.2(1)(14)(ii) also provides that a visa petition, which involved the opening of a 
new office, may be extended by filing a new Form 1-129, accompanied by the following: 
(A) Evidence that the United States and foreign entities are still qualifying organizations 
as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section; 
(B) Evidence that the United States entity has been doing business as defined in 
paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(H) of this section for the previous year; 
(C) A statement of the duties performed by the beneficiary for the previous year and the 
duties the beneficiary will perform under the extended petition; 
(D) A statement describing the staffing of the new operation, including the number of 
employees and types of positions held accompanied by evidence of wages paid to 
employees when the beneficiary will be employed in a management or executive 
capacity; and 
(E) Evidence of the financial status of the United States operation. 
The primary issue in the present matter is whether the beneficiary will be employed by the United States 
entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 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 
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 
EAC 03 183 5 1356 
Page 4 
(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. 8 1 10 1 (a)(#)(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 the initial petition, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary would "direct and supervise company operations in 
the United States subsidiary including standards for the work and general guidelines for assignment, which are 
transmitted to each employee." In a May 13, 2003 letter appended to the petition, the petitioner provided the 
following job description: 
[The beneficiary] will continue to fill the position of General Manager of the U.S. operation. His 
responsibilities include: Direct and supervise operations of the U.S. company; Exercise wide 
discretion on day to day operations and establish policies and goals; Direct, supervise and coordinate 
activities concerned by other professionals and managers of budget, sales, services, clients as well as 
expanding markets in the United States; Confer with parent company to plan and coordinate business 
objectives and cooperation between the two offices. 
[The beneficiary's] duties in addition to those not already noted include: Manager and direct local 
staff supervisory personnel in merchandising travel services; Review staff recommendation of new 
hires of employees; Review sales of company carrier transportation of tickets, packaged or 
specialized tours; oversee work schedules for employees and review training plans of employees in 
advising customers on current traveling conditions and planning customer travel; Prepare reports to 
the parent company on a regular basis of the financial results and strategic plans for the establishment 
of additional offices in New York metropolitan and other major U.S. cities. 
The petitioner indicated on Form 1-129 that it employed five individuals at the time the petition was filed. 
The petitioner also submitted its IRS Form 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return and Form NYS-45, 
Quarterly Combined Withholding, Wage Reporting and Unemployment Insurance Return, for the first quarter 
of 2003 and last quarter of 2002. These documents show that the petitioner had two payroll employees, 
EAC 03 183 5 1356 
Page 5 
including the beneficiary. The petitioner also submitted copies of two Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, 
issued in 2002, and its 2003 Form W-3, Transmittal of Wage and Tax Statements. 
On July 17,2003, the director requested additional evidence to establish that the beneficiary will be employed 
in a primarily managerial or executive capacity under the extended petition. Specifically, the director 
requested that the petitioner submit: (1) an organizational chart for the United States entity indicating where 
the beneficiary will assume his role in a managerial capacity; and (2) a complete position description for and 
educational credentials of all of the beneficiary's subordinates in the United States, including a breakdown of 
the number of hours devoted to the employee's job duties on a weekly basis. The director specifically noted 
that the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary will hnction at a senior level within an 
organizational hierarchy, as well as substantiate that the beneficiary will be managing a subordinate staff of 
professional, managerial or supervisory personnel who will relieve him from performing non-qualifying 
duties, if appropriate. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a letter dated July 3 1, 2003, which provided the following expanded job 
description for the beneficiary: 
[Dlirects and supervises operations of the U.S. company; exercises wide discretion on day to 
day operations and establish policies and goals; directs, supervises and coordinates activities 
carried out by other professionals and managers of budget, sales, services, clients as well as 
expanding markets in the United States. [The beneficiary] is responsible for devising 
strategies and formulates policies to ensure that the goals and objectives of the company are 
met. 
[Mlanage and direct local supervisory managers and professionals, such as the tour guide 
supervisor, computer professional including the CPA. The personnel in these areas, plus the 
merchandising travel services duties are approximately 25 hours per week. He also reviews 
staff recommendation of new hires of employees 5 hours; Review sales of company carrier 
transportation of tickets, packaged or specialized tours 5 hours; oversee work schedules for 
employees and review training plans of employees in advising customers on current traveling 
conditions and planning customer travel for 10 hours; Prepare reports to the parent company 
on a regular basis on the financial results and strategrc plans for establishment of additional 
offices in the New York metropolitan and other major cities in the U.S. for 5 hours. 
In response to the request for evidence, the petitioner claimed to employ seven employees, including five 
local staff and two overseas sales representatives based in China. According to the petitioner, the United 
States-based office staff includes the beneficiary, a full-time operations manager and a full-time "tour agent 
and tour guide supervisor." The petitioner also indicated that it employs two tour guides who work flexible 
hours, and two sales people who work in Shanghai and are paid by the parent company. The petitioner 
provided evidence that the two tour guides and one of the overseas sales representatives have a bachelor's 
EAC 03 183 51356 
Page 6 
degree or higher. The petitioner also provided an organizational chart which includes the above-referenced 
employees, as well as an accountant who is identified as an independent contractor. 
On August 18, 2003, the director denied the petition. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established that the beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity under the 
extended petition. The director specifically noted that none of the beneficiary's subordinates can be 
considered managers or professionals, and further noted that the petitioner does not appear to require the 
services of a bona fide manager or executive. The director concluded that the beneficiary would be primarily 
engaged in the non-managerial, day-to-day operations of the company. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director placed undue emphasis on the size of the 
petitioner's operations, and states that sufficient evidence was submitted to establish that the beneficiary is 
employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. Counsel further contends that the director 
inappropriately dismissed the job duties and qualifications of the beneficiary's subordinates, and asserts that 
the beneficiary qualifies for the benefit sought because he supervises and controls the work of other 
supervisory, professional and managerial employees. 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are not persuasive. When examining the executive or managerial capacity 
of the beneficiary, the AAO will look first to the petitioner's description of the job duties. See 8 C.F.R. 
5 214.2(1)(3)(). The petitioner's description of the job duties must clearly describe the duties to be 
performed by the beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are either in an executive or managerial 
capacity. Id. The petitioner does not clarify whether the beneficiary is claiming to be primarily engaged in 
managerial duties under section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, or primarily executive duties under section 
101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. A portion of the beneficiary's job description paraphrases the statutory definition of 
"executive capacity," yet the petitioner claims that the beneficiary qualifies for the benefit sought based on his 
supervision of managerial, supervisory and professional employees, which is a characteristic of a managerial 
employee. A beneficiary may not claim to be employed as a hybrid "executive/manager" and rely on partial 
sections of the two statutory definitions. A petitioner must establish that a beneficiary meets each of the four 
criteria set forth in the statutory definition for executive and the statutory definition for manager if it is 
representing the beneficiary is both an executive and a manager. 
Further, rather than providing a specific description of the beneficiary's duties, the petitioner generally 
paraphrased the statutory definition of executive capacity. See section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 
1 101(a)(44)(B). For example, the petitioner indicates that the beneficiary "exercises wide discretion on day to 
day operations," "establishes policies and goals," and "directs and supervises operations of the U.S. 
company." However, conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's employment capacity are not 
sufficient to meet the petitioner's burden of proof. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations 
does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff', 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 
(S.D.N.Y.). 
EAC 03 183 5 1356 
Page 7 
The more detailed description of the beneficiary's typical work week, provided in response to the request for 
evidence, reveals that he spends the majority of his time, forty hours per week, involved in personnel matters, 
including managing the company's employees, reviewing recommendations regarding new hires, overseeing 
work schedules for employees, and reviewing training plans. Although the beneficiary is not required to 
supervise personnel, if it is claimed that his duties involve supervising employees, the petitioner must 
establish that the subordinate employees are supervisory, professional, or managerial. See section 
10 1 (a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner has not substantiated its claim that the beneficiary manages a staff of 
professional, supervisory or managerial employees. It is noted that two of the petitioner's employees, the 
"operations manager" and "tour guide supervisor" have managerial or supervisory job titles. However, there 
is no evidence on record to establish that the petitioner actually employs the individual identified as the "tour 
guide supervisor" on a direct or indirect basis. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(D) requires the 
petitioner to submit a statement regarding the staffing of the United States operation and evidence of wages 
paid to all employees during the previous year. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972)). Furthermore, the job description provided for this position, which the petitioner claims is held by the 
beneficiary's spouse, includes primarily operational and clerical duties, rather than supervisory duties. 
Finally, the AAO notes that the individual identified as the "tour guide supervisor7' in the petitioner's 
response to the request for evidence is identified as the company's secretary on the Form 1-907 submitted 
with the petition. 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). 
Similarly, the petitioner has not established that the "operations manager" is performing managerial or 
supervisory job duties. Many of the duties listed for this position are exactly the same as those listed for the 
beneficiary, so the AAO cannot determine who actually "oversees the day-to-day activities" of the company 
and the lower-level employees. The petitioner claims that the "operations manager" assigns and supervises the 
"tour guide supervisor," who has not been established as an actual employee, as well as the work of the 
accountant, an independent contractor. However, the organizational chart indicates that the beneficiary 
directly supervises the accountant. In addition, the petitioner has submitted no evidence to establish that it 
actually employs the China-based sales staff, nor evidence that the operations manager actually supervises the 
two tour guides who work for the petitioner as independent contractors. Again, going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Finally, the petitioner indicates that the operations 
manager serves in a dual role as a ticket agent, which requires her to perform operational duties including air 
ticket sales, contacting airlines, receiving phone calls, and assisting customers with making reservations of 
tickets, hotels and transportation rentals. Based on the limited information provided, the AAO cannot 
conclude that the "operations manager" serves in a supervisory or managerial capacity. 
EAC 03 183 51356 
Page 8 
In addition to providing individual job descriptions for its claimed employees, the petitioner provided a 
description of the weekly duties performed by its "office staff," which includes the beneficiary, the operations 
manager, and the claimed tour guide supervisor. All of the duties listed are routine operational duties, 
including sales calls, making travel arrangements, printing tickets, collecting payments from customers, and 
providing customers with information and brochures. The petitioner did not indicate how these non- 
managerial, non-supervisory duties are divided among its small office staff. If the beneficiary is participating 
in these types of non-qualifjmg duties, it should be noted that an employee who primarily performs the tasks 
necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). The 
petitioner may not create artificial tiers of employees to suggest that an organization is sufficiently complex to 
support an executive or manager; instead the petitioner must substantiate that the duties of a beneficiary's 
subordinates correspond to their placement in an organization's structural hierarchy. In this case, the 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary manages supervisory or managerial personnel. 
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. 9 1101(a)(32), states that "[tlhe termprofession 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 "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. 8 17 (Comm. 1988); Matter of Ling, 13 I&N Dec. 35 (R.C. 1968); 
Matter of Shin, 1 1 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 a subordinate employee. The possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee does not 
automatically lead to the conclusion that an employee is 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, for example, to perform the duties of a tour guide or an operations managedticket agent, 
who are among the beneficiary's subordinates. Counsel asserts on appeal that the petitioner's accountant 
should be considered a professional employee. However, the petitioner has provided no description of the 
accountant's duties, and no any evidence of payments made to the accountant. While it is evident that an 
outside accounting firm prepared tax documents for the petitioner, there is insufficient evidence to 
substantiate counsel's claim that an accountant is working under the beneficiary's supervision as a 
professional employee of the petitioning company. Again, going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 
22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
On appeal, counsel claims that the director erroneously placed undue emphasis on the size of the petitioning 
company. Pursuant to section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1101(a)(44)(C), if staffing levels are used 
as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial or executive capacity, CIS must take 
into account the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development 
of the organization. In the present matter, however, the regulations provide strict evidentiary requirements for 
EAC 03 183 51356 
Page 9 
the extension of a "new office" petition and require CIS to examine the organizational structure and staffing 
levels of the petitioner. See 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(D). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) 
allows the "new office" operation one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive 
or managerial position. There is no provision in CIS regulations that allows for an extension of this one-year 
period. If the business does not have sufficient staffing after one year to relieve the beneficiary from 
primarily performing operational and administrative tasks, the petitioner is ineligible by regulation for an 
extension. 
At the time of filing, the petitioner was a two-year-old travel and tourism services company that claimed to 
have a gross annual income of $442,455. The petitioner has established that the firm employed the 
beneficiary as president, an operations managerlticket agent, and two tour guides. Based on the petitioner's 
representations, it does not appear that all of the non-qualifying sales, marketing, customer service and 
administrative functions of the petitioning company might plausibly be performed by a single office 
employee. Rather it appears that the beneficiary would necessarily be involved in performing many of the 
day-to-day non-qualifying tasks required to keep the business operational. Based on the current record, the 
AAO is unable to determine whether the claimed managerial duties constitute the majority of the beneficiary's 
duties, or whether the beneficiary primarily performs non-managerial administrative or operational duties. 
The petitioner's description of the beneficiary's job duties does not establish what proportion of the 
beneficiary's duties is managerial in nature, and what proportion is actually non-managerial. See Republic of 
Transkei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1991). 
Regardless, the reasonable needs of the petitioner serve only as a factor in evaluating the lack of staff in the 
context of reviewing the claimed managerial or executive duties. The petitioner must still establish that the 
beneficiary is to be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity, pursuant to 
sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) or the Act. As discussed above, the petitioner has not established this 
essential element of eligibility. 
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 111 range of 
managerial responsibility cannot be performed. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows the 
intended United States operation one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive 
or managerial position. In order to qualify for an extension of L-1 nonimmigrant classification under a 
petition involving a new office, the petitioner must demonstrate through evidence, such as a description of 
both the beneficiary's duties and the staff of the organization, that the beneficiary will be employed in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The fact that an individual manages a small business does not necessarily establish eligibility for classification as 
an intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity within the meaning of section 101 (a)(44) of the 
Act. The record does not establish that a majority of the beneficiary's duties have been or will be primarily 
directing the management of the organization. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary will be 
primarily supervising a subordinate staff of professional, managerial, or supmsory personnel who relieve him 
from performing non-qualifjmg duties. The petitioner has not demonstrated that it has reached a level of 
EAC 03 183 51356 
Page 10 
organizational complexity wherein the hiringlfiring of personnel, discretionary decision-malung, and setting 
company goals and policies constitute significant components of the duties performed on a day-to-day basis. Nor 
does the record demonstrate that the beneficiary primarily manages an essential function of the organization or 
that he operates at a senior level within an organizational herarchy. Based on the evidence hished, it cannot be 
found that the beneficiary has been or will be employed primarily in a qualifying managerial or executive 
capacity. For this reason, the petition may not be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has not established that it is eligible for an extension of the 
initial one-year "new office" validity period. As previously noted, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(14)(ii) 
provides strict evidentiary requirements that the petitioner must satisfy prior to the approval of this extension 
petition. Upon review, the petitioner has not satisfied all of the enumerated evidentiary requirements. The 
petitioner has not submitted evidence that the United States and foreign entities are still qualifying 
organizations as defined in 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(G). In fact, the petitioner provided no evidence that the 
foreign company is still a qualifying entity doing business in China, nor evidence of the current ownership 
and control of each entity. The petitioner has not submitted evidence that the United States entity has been 
doing business for the previous year as defined in 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(H). Finally, the petitioner has 
not submitted sufficient evidence of the financial status of the United States operation. For all of these 
reasons, the petition may not be approved and the appeal will be dismissed. 
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 Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
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. 9 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.