dismissed L-1A Case: Truck Stop

identifying data deletd to 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
File: WAC 07 264 50288 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: AU6 0 1 2008 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(15)(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. 
&' 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 07 264 50288 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (MO) on appeal. The MO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimrnigrant visa petition seeking to extend the employment of its president as an L- 
1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws 
of the State of Washington and allegedly operates a truck stop. The beneficiary was 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 MO for review. On appeal, counsel to the petitioner asserts that the director 
erred, that the beneficiary's duties are primarily those of a manager, and that the petitioner supervises a 
subordinate supervisor. Counsel also submitted a description of the beneficiary's proposed duties in the 
United States, which includes a breakdown of the amount of time he will allegedly devote to each of his 
ascribed duties. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one 
continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States. In addition, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his 
or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) 
 Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the 
alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) 
 Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 
(iii) 
 Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
(iv) 
 Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies hidher to perform the intended 
WAC 07 264 50288 
Page 3 
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. 5 214.2(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; 
I 
(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 
managerial 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. 3 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 
(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 
WAC 07 264 50288 
Page 4 
duties unless the employees supervised are professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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-malung; and 
(iv) 
 receives only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
The petitioner does not clarify in the initial petition whether the beneficiary will primarily perform managerial 
duties under section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, or primarily executive duties under section 101(a)(44)(B) of 
the Act, and counsel on appeal appears to restrict the beneficiary to the managerial classification. A petitioner 
may not claim that a beneficiary will be employed as a hybrid "executive/manager" and rely on partial 
sections of the two statutory definitions. Given the lack of clarity, the AAO will assume that the petitioner is 
claiming that the beneficiary will be employed as either a manager or an executive and will consider both 
classifications. 
The petitioner describes the beneficiary's proposed duties as general manager of the truck stop in a letter dated 
September 10,2007 as follows: 
As General Manager, [the beneficiary] has established the rules and policies of [the 
petitioner], is responsible for representing [the petitioner], oversees major negotiations, and 
determines which products will be sold. Additionally, he directs all marketing activities, 
executes contracts including for the purchase of large quantities of gasoline, diesel fuel, and 
grocery products, and oversees quality control. He checks and directs inventories, confirms 
the schedules for the lower employees, oversees all banking operations, and directs the 
overall day[-]to[-]day operation of the [truck stop] primarily through the resident Manager. 
In unusual circumstances, such as an emergency or illness of an employee, [the beneficiary] 
may also do very limited work activities of a regular worker, such as attend the cash register 
if necessary. 
The petitioner also submitted an organizational chart for the United States operation. The chart shows the 
beneficiary at the top of the organization directly supervising a "manager" who, in turn, is shown supervising 
five subordinate truck stop workers. 
On September 22, 2007, the director requested additional evidence. The director requested, inter alia, a 
des,cription of the duties of the beneficiary's proposed subordinate employees, copies of the petitioner's 
quarterly wage reports, and evidence that the beneficiary will supervise and control the work of supervisory, 
WAC 07 264 50288 
Page 5 
managerial, or professional employees, or will manage an essential function of the organization. 
In response, the petitioner submitted quarterly wage reports which indicate that, in the quarter immediately 
preceding the filing of the petition, the petitioner employed, at most, five workers. The petitioner also 
submitted a payroll summary for the third quarter of 2007 which indicates that it regularly employed 
approximately six workers during this time period, including the purported "manager." Moreover, the 
petitioner further described the duties and role of the subordinate "Store Manager" as follows: 
Management of the store. 
Supervising lower employees. 
Training new employees. 
Hiring and firing of lower employees. 
Determining and ordering grocery inventory for sale by the truck stop. 
Scheduling and controlling diesel and gasoline supplies. 
Ordering vehicle supplies, oil, etc. 
Creating daily settlements. 
Preparing daily, weekly, and monthly reports. 
Preparing all checks for payment of bills for the truck stop. 
Preparing deposits for the bank for truck stop sale proceeds. 
Filling-in to perform lower employee duties during times when regular employees are 
not available. 
Finally, the petitioner further described the beneficiary's duties as follows: 
As General Manager, [the beneficiary has] established the rules and policies of [the 
petitioner], represent[s] [the petitioner], oversee[s] major negotiations, and determine[s] 
which products will be sold. Additionally, [the beneficiary] direct[s] all marketing activities, 
execute[s] contracts including for the purchase of large quantities of gasoline, diesel fuel, and 
grocery products, and oversee[s] quality control. [The beneficiary] check[s] and direct[s] 
inventories, confirm[s] the schedules for the lower employees, oversee[s] all banking 
operations, and direct[s] the overall day[-]to[-]day operation of [the truck stop] primarily 
through the [store manager]. [The beneficiary] exercise[s] unrestricted discretion in all 
decision-making, including the hiring and firng of the Store Manager and of other employees 
and other personnel matters. 
In L-1A status, [the beneficiary] normally travel[s] from [his] home in Canada to [the truck 
stop] approximately three times per week, for part of a work day each time. [The 
beneficiary] meet[s] with the Store Manager, and review[s] work schedules and the overall 
operation of the business. As General Manager, [the beneficiary] direct[s] the Store 
Manager, and operate[s] and conduct[s] Fs] management activities primarily through [the 
Store Manager]. [The beneficiary] oversee[s] financial matters, and sign[s] all checks which 
have been prepared by the Store Manager for payment of bills. Because [the beneficiary] 
split[s] [his] management duties between the management of the affiliated business in Canada 
and the business in the United States, it is essential that the Store Manager have responsibility 
WAC 07 264 50288 
Page 6 
on a day-to-day basis to manage the truck stop since [the beneficiary is] working most of the 
time in Canada. 
On October 19, 2007, the director denied the petition. The director concluded that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary will be employed primarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary's duties are primarily those of a manager. In support, counsel 
submits a description of the beneficiary's proposed duties in the United States, which includes a breakdown of 
the amount of time he will allegedly devote to each of his ascribed duties. In the description, the petitioner 
claims that the beneficiary will devote 60% of his time to "review[ing] the work of the Manager and 
direct[ing] the Manager." The beneficiary will allegedly devote the rest of his time to performing other tasks 
such as negotiating, contracting, marketing and advertising, and banking. 
Upon review, counsel's assertions are not persuasive. 
Title 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(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 Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (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. Future hiring 
and business expansion plans may not be considered. A visa petition may not be approved based on 
speculation of future eligibility. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Cornm. 1971). In the instant matter, it has not been established that 
the United States operation will employ the beneficiary in a primarily managerial or executive position. 
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)(ii). The petitioner's job description 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. A petitioner cannot claim that some of the duties of the position entail 
executive responsibilities, while other duties are managerial. As explained above, a petitioner may not claim 
that a beneficiary will be employed as a hybrid "executive/manager" and rely on partial sections of the two 
statutory definitions. 
In this matter, the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's job duties fails to establish that the beneficiary 
will act in a "managerial" or "executive" capacity. In support of the petition, the petitioner has submitted a 
vague and non-specific job description which fails to sufficiently describe what the beneficiary will do on a 
day-to-day basis. For example, the petitioner states that the beneficiary will devote most of his time to 
"review[ing] the work of the Manager and direct[ing] the Manager." The petitioner claims that the 
beneficiary "checks and directs inventories, confirms the schedules for the lower employees, oversees all 
banking operations, and directs the overall day[-]to[-]day operation of the [truck stop] primarily through the 
resident Manager." Finally, the petitioner claims that the beneficiary will "sign all checks which have been 
prepared by the Store Manager for payment of bills." However, the petitioner does not explain what, exactly, 
the beneficiary will do on a day-to-day basis to "direct" the manager or to check, confirm, and oversee 
inventory, scheduling, and banking. The fact that the petitioner has given the beneficiary a managerial or 
WAC 07 264 50288 
Page 7 
executive title and has prepared a vague job description which includes inflated job duties does not establish 
that the beneficiary will actually perform managerial or executive duties. Specifics are clearly an important 
indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are 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), afd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 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 Calgornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). 
Likewise, the record is not persuasive in establishing that the beneficiary will primarily perform qualifying 
duties in his operation of a six-employee, single-location truck stop. As noted above, the petitioner asserts 
that the beneficiary will "manage" the petitioner's business operations through a subordinate manager. The 
petitioner also claims that the beneficiary will devote 60% of his time to "review[ing] the work of the 
Manager and direct[ing] the Manager." However, the petitioner also claims that the beneficiary will perform 
non-qualifying operational and administrative tasks such as contracting, negotiating, and working with a third 
party on the operation's advertising and marketing activities. In view of the above, it is not credible that the 
beneficiary will devote a majority of his time to performing qualifying managerial duties in his purported 
supervision of a single subordinate supervisor of the truck stop. Not only is the record vague regarding what, 
exactly, the beneficiary will do in overseeing this "manager," it is not credible that the supervision of a single 
supervisor in the context of a single-location, six-employee truck stop would consume so much of the 
beneficiary's time given the many other non-qualifymg tasks ascribed to him. Accordingly, it has not been 
established that the beneficiary will be "primarily" employed as a manager or an executive. To the contrary, 
it appears more likely than not that the beneficiary will primarily perform non-qualifying first-line 
supervisory, administrative, or operational tasks in his administration of the truck stop. An employee who 
"primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be 
"primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act 
(requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or executive duties); see also Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). A managerial employee must have 
authority over day-to-day operations beyond the level normally vested in a first-line supervisor, unless the 
supervised employees are professionals. 10 l(a)(44)(A)(iv) of the Act; see also Matter of Church Scientology 
International, 19 I&N Dec. at 604. 
The petitioner has also failed to establish that the beneficiary will supervise and control the work of other 
supervisory, managerial, or professional employees, or will manage an essential function of the organization. 
As asserted in the organizational chart, the beneficiary will directly supervise a "manager" who, in turn, will 
supervise the other truck stop workers. However, the record is not persuasive in establishing that this worker 
is a bona fide supervisory or managerial employee. An employee will not be considered to be a supervisor 
simply because of a job title, because he or she is arbitrarily placed in a position superior to other employees 
on an organizational chart, or because he or she supervises daily work activities and assignments. In this 
matter, the record is not persuasive in establishing that the petitioner has an organizational complexity 
requiring the employment of an employee who primarily performs "managerial" duties through the 
supervision of a subordinate tier of managers or supervisors. As noted above, the organization is a single- 
location, six-employee truck stop. Accordingly, it appears that the "manager" is more likely than not 
primarily performing non-qualifying administrative or operational tasks along with the other truck stop 
workers, and the beneficiary is, at most, acting primarily as a first-line supervisor of non-professional 
WAC 07 264 50288 
Page 8 
workers. See generally Family, Inc. v. US. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 469 F.3d 1313 (9~ Cir. 
2006). Therefore, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be employed primarily in a 
managerial capacity.' 
Similarly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will act in an "executive" capacity. The 
statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position within a complex 
organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the organization, and that person's 
authority to direct the organization. Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act. Under the statute, a beneficiary must 
have the ability to "direct the management" and "establish the goals and policies" of that organization. 
Inherent to the definition, the organization must have a subordinate level of employees for the beneficiary to 
direct, and the beneficiary must primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization rather than 
the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. An individual will not be deemed an executive under the statute 
simply because they have an executive title or because they "direct" the enterprise as the owner or sole 
managerial employee. The beneficiary must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision making" 
and receive only "general supervision or direction fiom higher level executives, the board of directors, or 
stockholders of the organization." Id. For the same reasons indicated above, the petitioner has failed to 
establish that the beneficiary will act primarily in an executive capacity. The job description provided for the 
beneficiary is too vague such that the AAO cannot deduce with any certainty what the beneficiary will do on 
a day-to-day basis. Moreover, as explained above, it appears instead that the beneficiary will be primarily 
employed as a first-line supervisor and will perform the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide a 
service. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be employed primarily in an 
executive capacity. 
In reviewing the relevance of the number of employees a petitioner has, federal courts have generally agreed 
that CIS "may properly consider an organization's small size as one factor in assessing whether its operations 
1 
While the petitioner has not argued that the beneficiary will manage an essential function of the organization, 
the record nevertheless would not support this position even if taken. The term "function manager" applies 
generally when a beneficiary does not supervise or control the work of a subordinate staff but instead is 
primarily responsible for managing an "essential function" within the organization. See section 
101(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act. The term "essential function" is not defined by statute or regulation. If a 
petitioner claims that the beneficiary is managng an essential function, the petitioner must furnish a written 
job offer that clearly describes the duties to be performed in managing the essential function, i.e., identify the 
function with specificity, articulate the essential nature of the function, and establish the proportion of the 
beneficiary's daily duties attributed to managing the essential function. See 8 C.F.R. 
 214.2(1)(3)(ii). In 
addition, the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's daily duties must demonstrate that the beneficiary 
manages the function rather than performs the duties related to the function. In this matter, the petitioner has 
not provided evidence that the beneficiary will manage an essential function. The petitioner's vague job 
description fails to document that the beneficiary's duties will be primarily managerial. Also, as explained 
above, the record indicates that the beneficiary will primarily be a first-line supervisor of non-professional 
employees or will perform non-qualifymg tasks. Absent a clear and credible breakdown of the time spent by 
the beneficiary performing his duties, the AAO cannot determine what proportion of his duties will be 
managerial, nor can it deduce whether the beneficiary will primarily perform the duties of a function manager. 
See IKEA US, Inc. v. US. Dept. ofJustice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22,24 (D.D.C. 1999). 
WAC 07 264 50288 
Page 9 
are substantial enough to support a manager." Family, Inc. v. US. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 469 
F.3d at 13 16 (citing with approval Republic of Transkei v. INS, 923 F.2d 175, 178 (D.C. Cir. 199 1)); Fedin 
Bros. Co. v. Sava, 905 F.2d 41,42 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam); Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 
2d 25, 29 (D.D.C. 2003). Furthermore, it is appropriate for CIS to consider the size of the petitioning 
company in conjunction with other relevant factors, such as a company's small personnel size, the absence of 
employees who would perform the non-managerial or non-executive operations of the company, or a "shell 
company" that does not conduct business in a regular and continuous manner. See, e.g. Systronics Corp. v. 
INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7,15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary will primarily perform managerial or 
executive duties, and the petition may not be approved for that reason. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary was employed abroad 
for at least one continuous year in a position that was managerial or executive in nature. 8 C.F.R. $9 
2 14.2(1)(3)(iii) and (iv). 
The petitioner described the beneficiary's job duties abroad as an operator of a banquet hall in British 
Columbia in a letter dated September 10,2007 as follows: 
[The beneficiary] has established the goals and policies of [the foreign employer], has been 
responsible for representing the company, has overseen all major negotiations, has overseen 
the design and construction of the facility, has determined which services and products will 
be offered, and has exercised unrestricted discretion in all decision-making regarding the 
operation of the company and the Banquet Hall. 
[The beneficiary] directs entertainment marketing, enters contracts for shows and artists 
arranged for the Banquet Hall, manages parties through lower managers, oversees inventories 
and quality control, directs advanced bookings, controls scheduling of workers, and directs all 
aspects of the Banquet Hall business. He has the unfettered discretion to direct all personnel 
matters, including hiring and firing of employees. 
The petitioner also submitted a document titled "organizational chart" which indicates that the beneficiary 
supervised, directly or indirectly, three "managers," one "supervisor," approximately nine "full-time workers," 
and approximately 30 part-time workers. However, the petitioner did not specifically describe the duties of 
any of these subordinate managers, supervisors, or workers. 
Upon review, the record is not persuasive in establishing that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity. First, the petitioner's vague job description failed to specifically 
describe what the beneficiary did on a day-to-day basis 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, afd, 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 his 
purported subordinates, it is impossible for CIS to discern whether the beneficiary was "primarily" engaged in 
WAC 07 264 50288 
Page 10 
performing managerial or executive duties abroad. See sections 101(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act; see also 
Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. at 604. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a primarily 
managerial or executive capacity for one continuous year in the three years preceding the filing of the 
petition, and the petition may not be approved for this reason. 
The previous approval of an L-1A petition does not preclude CIS from denying an extension based on a 
reassessment of the petitioner's qualifications. Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556,2004 WL 
1240482 (5th Cir. 2004). Despite any number of previously approved petitions, CIS does not have any 
authority to confer an immigration benefit when the petitioner fails to meet its burden of proof in a subsequent 
petition. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1361. 
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), afld, 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). 
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. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.