dismissed L-1A Case: Wireless Retail

mwng data deletdU, 
t &arlj3 un- 
pIoveo 
~ofprrsondpmacr 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: EAC 08 129 50283 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: El3 0 5 2010 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for the 
specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a 
Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 days of the 
decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 08 129 50283 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)( 15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 9 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a Texas corporation established in March 2008, intends to engage in 
the retail sale of wireless products and services. The petitioner claims that it is an affiliate of - 
located in Vapi, India. 
 The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as the president and chief executive 
officer of its new office in the United States for a one-year period. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be 
employed by the U.S. entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity within one year. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director 
placed undue emphasis on the size of the petitioning company in determining whether the beneficiary would 
be employed in a managerial or executive capacity within one year. Counsel submits a brief in support of the 
appeal. 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one 
continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States. In addition, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his 
or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial, executive, or 
specialized knowledge capacity. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) 
 Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the 
alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph (l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) 
 Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or specialized 
knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the services to be performed. 
(iii) 
 Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full time employment 
abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years preceding the filing of 
the petition. 
(iv) 
 Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position that was 
managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the alien's prior 
education, training, and employment qualifies himher to perform the intended 
EAC 08 129 50283 
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. fj 214.2(1)(3)(~) further provides that if the petition indicates that the beneficiary is 
coming to the United States as a manager or executive to open or to be employed in a new office 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 of managerial authority over the new 
operation; and 
(C) 
 The intended United States operation, within one year of the approval of the petition, 
will support an executive or managerial position as defined in paragraphs (l)(l)(ii)(B) 
or (C) of this section, supported by information regarding: 
(I) The proposed nature of the office describing the scope of the entity, its 
organizational structure, and its financial goals; 
(2) The size of the United States investment and the financial ability of the foreign 
entity to remunerate the beneficiary and to commence doing business in the 
United States; and 
(3) The organizational structure of the foreign entity. 
The sole issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary would be 
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity within one year. 
Section 10 l(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1 10 l(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, 
EAC 08 129 50283 
Page 4 
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 c,apacity 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. § 1 101(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; 
(ii) 
 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. 
The one-year "new office" provision is an accommodation for newly established enterprises, provided for by 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulation, that allows for a more lenient treatment of 
managers or executives that are entering the United States to open a new office. When a new business is first 
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 low-level activities not normally 
performed by employees at the executive or managerial level and that often the full range of managerial 
responsibility cannot be performed in that first year. In an accommodation that is more lenient than the strict 
language of the statute, the "new office" regulations allow a newly established petitioner one year to develop 
to a point that it can support the employment of an alien in a primarily managerial or executive position. 
Accordingly, if a petitioner indicates that a beneficiary is coming to the United States to open a "new office," 
it must show that it is prepared to commence doing business immediately upon approval so that it will support 
a manager or executive within the one-year timeframe. 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. See generally, 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(1)(3)(~). The petitioner must describe the nature of 
its business, its proposed organizational structure and financial goals, and submit evidence to show that it has 
the financial ability to remunerate the beneficiary and commence doing business in the United States. Id. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, on April 1, 2008. In a letter dated 
March 28,2008, the petitioner described the beneficiary's proposed duties as president and CEO as follows: 
EAC 08 129 50283 
Page 5 
[The beneficiary] will have overall executive responsibility for developing, organizing, and 
establishing the purchase, sale and marketing of merchandise for sale in the U.S. market. His 
other duties will include: (i) identifying, recruiting, and building a management team and 
staff with background and experience in the U.S. retail market; (ii) negotiating and 
supervising the drafting of purchase agreements; (iii) marketing products to consumers 
according to [the foreign entity's] guidelines; (iv) overseeing the legal and financial due 
diligence process and resolving any related issues; (v) developing trade and consumer market 
strategies based on guidelines formulated by [the foreign entity]; (vi) developing and 
implementing plans to ensure [the petitioner's] profitable operation; and (vii) negotiating 
prices and sales terms, developing pricing policies and advertising techniques. 
The petitioner further indicated that the beneficiary's time would be allocated as follows: 
Management Decisions 40% 
Company Representation 15% 
Financial Decisions 10% 
Supervision of day-to-day company functions 10% 
Business Negotiations 15% 
Organizational Development of Company 10% 
The petitioner stated on Form 1-129 that it intends to hire six to eight employees. The petitioner provided a 
proposed organizational chart indicating that the beneficiary would supervise a vice president and general 
manager, who in turn would supervise a sales and marketing manager, a retail manager, and an accountant. 
The next tier of employees depicted on the chart includes a purchase agent, an assistant manager, and a 
bookkeeper. Finally, according to the organizational chart, the assistant retail manager would supervise 
cashiers. The petitioner provided brief position descriptions for each of the proposed positions. The AAO 
notes that the "retail manager" position description indicates that this employee will "oversee operation of 
food store and gas sales," while the cashier would also be responsible to "stock and reorder food." However, 
the petitioner did not indicate that it intends to operate a food store or gas station. 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. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
The petitioner submitted a lease agreement indicating that the petitioner signed a month-to-month lease for 
100 square feet of space within a dollar store, to be used for the sale of cellular phone accessories. The 
petitioner also provided a two-page business plan, which indicates that the company intends to develop a 
chain of retail locations in Texas. The petitioner indicates that the business will employ six U.S. workers, and 
will pay $7,500 in salaries per month. 
The petitioner did not submit evidence of the size of the investment in the U.S. company, evidence of the 
organizational structure of the foreign entity, or any recent financial documentation for the foreign entity. See 
generally 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(1)(3)(~). 
EAC 08 129 50283 
Page 6 
The director issued a request for evidence (WE) on May 5, 2008, in which he advised the petitioner that 
additional evidence would be necessary to establish how the new company will grow to be of sufficient size 
to support a managerial or executive position within one year. The director requested a description of the 
proposed staff of the new office anticipated to be hired within one year, including the number of employees, 
their job titles and duties, and proposed salaries. The director also requested evidence to establish the size of 
the U.S. investment and the financial ability of the foreign organization to commence doing business in the 
United States, as well as evidence of the petitioner's current bank balance and evidence of any funds 
transferred to the U.S. company to fund the start-up operations. 
Counsel for the petitioner submitted a letter dated July 30, 2008 in response to the director's RFE. Counsel 
emphasized that eligibility for the L-1 visa classification is not limited to large U.S. companies or to 
beneficiaries with extensive supervisory responsibilities. Counsel referenced the regulations governing new 
office petitions and stated that the petitioner need only establish that it has secured sufficient physical 
premises for the office, that the beneficiary was employed in a qualifying capacity with a qualifying entity 
overseas for at least one year, and that the start-up company will support an executive or managerial capacity 
within one year of the petition's approval. Counsel stated that "if a petitioner was recently formed, and 
specialized in an industry where it is common to have small infrastructures. . . it is unrealistic for the 
petitioner to attempt to use the beneficiary as a 'veritable' manager as defined in INA §101(a)(44)(C)." 
Counsel stated: 
[The beneficiary] serves as the President and CEO of our U.S. subsidiary . . . and continues to 
establish our U.S. operations. He is responsible for all our planning, expansion, banking, 
budgeting and marketing. In addition, he hires and trains other managers and employees and 
is in chare of increasing the sales of the company. He is employed at the highest executive 
level and has complete authority to establish goals and policies and exercises discretionary 
decision-making authority based upon policies and procedures developed by shareholders. 
[The beneficiary] assumes sole responsibility of all discretionary actions taken by the U.S. 
entity to ensure its profitable operation. 
[The beneficiary] will supervise other professional and managerial employees, establishes 
goals and policies for the U.S. investment, and exercises wide latitude in discretionary 
decision-making under the direction of directors and shareholders of the Parent Company. 
Beneficiary's duties are clearly "Executive or Managerial" in nature. . . . 
Counsel emphasized that pursuant to section 101(a)(44)(C), the petitioner's reasonable needs must be 
considered in conjunction with the company's purpose and stage of development. Counsel further stated that 
the petitioner "is engaged in marketing, and retail distribution of gas, automotive, and household products 
under the business name and discount retail store under business name' Counsel 
indicated that the petitioner has two employees and anticipates hiring six additional staff within the first year 
of operations. The petitioner re-submitted the position descriptions previously provided for the beneficiary 
and other proposed employees, as well as the same proposed organizational chart. Counsel clarified that the 
employees listed on the chart would be hired within one year. 
EAC 08 129 50283 
Page 7 
The petitioner re-submitted its lease for 100 square feet of space in a retail store known as '- 
The petitioner also provided a second lease for "500 square feet inside SDS food mart,"- 
station/convenience store. According to the terms of the new lease, the petitioner "shall use and occupy the 
premises for cell phone accessories." The petitioner provided photographs of the storefront of 
I-' 
and a convenience store storefront. The petitioner also provided a photograph of cellular 
phone accessories. 
Finally, the petitioner provided evidence that the petitioner opened a bank account in June 2008 and had a 
balance of approximately $30,000 at the end of July 2008. 
The director denied the petition on January 6, 2009. In denying the petition, the director observed that the 
petitioner's business operations would involve selling wireless products at two small retail spaces. The 
director found insufficient evidence to establish that the petitioner would require the beneficiary to perform 
primarily managerial or executive duties within one year of commencing business. 
On appeal, counsel reiterates the beneficiary's previously provided position description and arguments made 
in response to the director's request for evidence. Counsel states that the petitioner "is established for the 
express purpose of marketing, retail and distribution of automotive, gas, and wireless products through retail 
locations," and emphasizes that the beneficiary "will supervise other professionals who run day-to-day 
operations of the retail business." Counsel states that the petitioner anticipates that it will employ eight full 
time workers and achieve revenues of $1.5 million during the first year in operation. 
Counsel concludes that, based on the evidence submitted, it is "very clear" that the beneficiary will supervise 
other professional and managerial employees, establish goals and policies for the U.S. investment, and 
exercise wide latitude in discretionary decision-making. 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence, and for the reasons discussed herein, the petitioner has not 
established that the beneficiary will be employed by the United States entity in a managerial or executive 
capacity within one year. 
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. tj 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 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. Beyond the required description of the job duties, USCIS 
reviews the totality of the record when examining the claimed managerial or executive capacity of a 
beneficiary, including the petitioner's proposed organizational structure, the duties of the beneficiary's 
proposed subordinate employees, the petitioner's timeline for hiring additional staff, the presence of other 
employees to relieve the beneficiary from performing operational duties at the end of the first year of 
operations, the nature of the petitioner's business, and any other factors that will contribute to a complete 
understanding of a beneficiary's actual duties and role in a business. The petitioner's 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. See generally, 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(~). 
EAC 08 129 50283 
Page 8 
In the instant matter, counsel and the petitioner have repeatedly described the beneficiary's proposed position 
in very broad terms, noting his "complete authority to establish goals and policies," his "discretionary 
decision-making authority," and his "overall responsibility of planning and developing the U.S. investment." 
These duties merely paraphrase the statutory definition of executive capacity. See section 101 (a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. Conclusory assertions regarding the beneficiary's employment capacity are not sufficient. 
 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. 1 103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
Similarly, although the petitioner provided a breakdown of how the beneficiary's time would be allocated 
among his various responsibilities, this description was even more vague, indicating that the beneficiary 
would devote his time to "management decision," "company representation," "financial decisions," "business 
negotiations," "organizational development," and "supervision of day-to-day operations." The AAO cannot 
accept an ambiguous position description and speculate as to the related managerial or executive duties to be 
performed. 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. at 1 108. 
The petitioner also addresses the beneficiary's responsibility for "developing, organizing, and establishing the 
purchase, sale, and marketing of merchandise" and notes that the beneficiary will be involved in negotiating 
and supervising the drafting of purchase agreements, "marketing products to consumers," "developing trade 
and market strategies," negotiating prices and sales terms, overseeing financial issues, and "developing 
pricing policies and advertising techniques." The petitioner's description does not clearly identify the 
managerial or executive duties to be performed with respect to the purchase, marketing, sales, finance, and 
advertising functions of the proposed retail operations. Reciting the beneficiary's vague job responsibilities or 
broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the regulations require a detailed description of the 
beneficiary's daily job duties. The petitioner has failed to provide any detail or explanation of the 
beneficiary's activities in the course of his daily routine. The actual duties themselves will reveal the true 
nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108. 
Thus, while several of the duties generally described by the petitioner would generally fall under the 
definitions of managerial or executive capacity, the lack of specificity raises questions as to the beneficiary's 
actual proposed responsibilities. Overall, the position description alone is insufficient to establish that the 
beneficiary's duties would be primarily in a managerial or executive capacity, particularly in the case of a new 
office petition where much is dependent on such factors such as the petitioner's business and hiring plans and 
evidence that the business will grow sufficiently to support the beneficiary in the intended managerial or 
executive capacity. The petitioner has the burden to establish that the U.S. company would realistically 
develop to the point where it would require the beneficiary to perform duties that are primarily managerial or 
executive in nature within one year. Accordingly, the totality of the record must be considered in analyzing 
whether the proposed duties are plausible considering the petitioner's anticipated staffing levels and stage of 
development within a one-year period. 
EAC 08 129 50283 
Page 9 
Upon review, the supporting evidence does not provide a clear explanation of the nature of the petitioner's 
business or its proposed hiring plan. At the time of filing, the petitioner indicated that it would be engaged in 
the retail sale of wireless devices and accessories. According to the lease signed at that time, the petitioner 
had secured 100 square feet of retail space for this purpose. The petitioner initially indicated on Form 1-129 
that it intended to hire six to eight workers. However, the organizational chart submitted suggests a total of 
nine or more employees will be hired, including a total of five managers (the beneficiary, the vice president 
and general manager, the sales and marketing manager, the retail manager, and an assistant manager.) In a 
smaller company, there is a significant difference between a staff of six employees and a staff of nine 
employees in terms of the impact it has on the beneficiary's ability to remove himself from involvement in the 
day-to-day operations of the business. 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). 
Given the discrepancy, the AAO will not accept the organizational chart alone as evidence of the petitioner's 
likely staffing levels at the end of one year of operations. Furthermore, the petitioner's stated need for five or 
more managers and as few as three or four lower-level employees is not entirely plausible given the nature of 
the petitioner's business. Finally, the AAO notes that the minimal information provided in the petitioner's 
business plan indicates that the company anticipates paying $7,500 in salaries per month. The beneficiary's 
proposed monthly salary is $3,000. The petitioner did not indicate how $4,500 would be sufficient to pay the 
eight additional full-time employees depicted on the petitioner's proposed organizational chart. Although the 
director requested information regarding the salaries and wages to be paid to each employee hired during the 
first year, the petitioner declined to provide this information. Failure to submit requested evidence that 
precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(14). 
In response to the request for evidence, the petitioner further obfuscated the true nature of the proposed 
business by claiming that the petitioner would operate both a dollar store and a gas station and convenience 
store. Notwithstanding this significant change in proposed business activities, the petitioner re-submitted the 
exact same proposed organizational chart and business plan provided at the time of filing. Furthermore, a 
review of the lease agreements submitted indicates that the petitioner will not in fact operate a dollar store or a 
gas station/convenience store, but rather, will allegedly sell wireless products from designated spaces within 
stores operated by other individuals or companies. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may 
undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). The photographs submitted do not clearly show the 
interiors of the stores or the retail space that has been allocated to the petitioning company, or otherwise show 
how the petitioner's wireless accessories business is being incorporated into the existing dollar store or 
convenience store. 
The AAO's analysis of this issue is severely restricted by the petitioner's failure to submit an adequate 
business plan. While a business plan is not explicitly required in the regulations, counsel has specifically 
acknowledged that a detailed business plan is typically provided to establish that a new office will support a 
managerial or executive position within one year. As contemplated by the regulations, a comprehensive 
business plan should contain, at a minimum, a description of the business, its products and/or services, and its 
EAC 08 129 50283 
Page 10 
objectives. See Matter of Ho, 22 I&N Dec. 206,213 (Assoc. Comm. 1998). Although the precedent relates to 
the regulatory requirements for the alien entrepreneur immigrant visa classification, Matter of Ho is 
instructive as to the contents of an acceptable business plan: 
The plan should contain a market analysis, including the names of competing businesses and 
their relative strengths and weaknesses, a comparison of the competition's products and 
pricing structures, and a description of the target marketlprospective customers of the new 
commercial enterprise. The plan should list the required permits and licenses obtained. If 
applicable, it should describe the manufacturing or production process, the materials required, 
and the supply sources. The plan should detail any contracts executed for the supply of 
materials and/or the distribution of products. It should discuss the marketing strategy of the 
business, including pricing, advertising, and servicing. The plan should set forth the 
business's organizational structure and its personnel's experience. It should explain the 
business's staffing requirements and contain a timetable for hiring, as well as job descriptions 
for all positions. It should contain sales, cost, and income projections and detail the bases 
therefore. Most importantly, the business plan must be credible. 
Id. 
In this matter, the totality of the evidence submitted provides very little evidence regarding the number of 
employees to be hired, the timeline for hiring employees, the financial position of the U.S. company and the 
foreign entity, the petitioner's anticipated start-up costs and financial objectives for the first year of 
operations, and the physical premises secured by the U.S. company. The AAO notes that the petitioner's 
submission of a vague job description for the beneficiary, a proposed organizational chart, a vague two-page 
business plan, a lease for 100 square feet of retail space, and evidence that the company has approximately 
$30,000 in the bank falls significantly short of establishing that the company will be able to support a 
primarily managerial or executive position within a twelve-month period. The regulations require the 
petitioner to present a credible picture of where the company will stand in exactly one year, and to provide 
sufficient supporting evidence in support of its claim that the company will grow to a point where it can 
support a managerial or executive position within one year. 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. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). 
The AAO does not doubt that the beneficiary will have the appropriate level of authority over the petitioner's 
business as its president and sole shareholder. However, the definitions of executive and managerial capacity 
each have two separate parts. First, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary performs the high-level 
responsibilities that are specified in the definitions. Second, the petitioner must show that the beneficiary 
primarily performs these specified responsibilities and does not spend a majority of his time on day-to-day 
functions. Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th Cir. July 30, 1991). 
Here, the vague job description provided for the beneficiary, considered in light of the petitioner's undefined 
business and hiring plans for the first year of operations, prohibits an affirmative determination that the 
petitioner could realistically support a managerial or executive position within one year. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
EAC 08 129 50283 
Page 11 
Beyond the decision of the director, the record does not establish that the petitioner had secured sufficient 
physical premises to house the new office, as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(3)(v)(A), as of the date the 
petition was filed. The petitioner has not described its anticipated space requirements for its chain of wireless 
accessories retail stores. While the petitioner has submitted two lease agreements for a total of 600 square 
feet of space within a dollar store and a convenience store, the petitioner did not provide the requested 
photographs of the secured space and it cannot be determined that the two landlords have allocated portions of 
their business to accommodate the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner claims that it will employ a 
president (the beneficiary), a vice president, a sales and marketing manager, a purchase agent, an accountant, 
and a bookkeeper, employees who would not be directly involved in the retail sales aspects of the petitioner's 
business. The petitioner has not provided evidence that it has secured any office space to accommodate these 
employees. Based on the insufficiency of the information furnished, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner 
had secured sufficient space to house the new office as of the date the petition was filed. For this additional 
reason, the petition may not be approved. 
Another deficiency not discussed by the director is the lack of evidence of the size of the United States 
investment, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence that the 
company had approximately $30,000 in its bank account as of July 2008. However, the petitioner has not 
identified the capitalization requirements of its proposed business. The petitioner indicates that it intends to 
operate a chain of retail stores, but has not identified the amount of funds needed to commence doing business 
in the United States, including funds to purchase or lease real property, purchase office equipment and 
inventory, obtain licenses and insurance, pay salaries and wages, and pay other start up costs associated with 
the intended U.S. operations. 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. 
158, 165. For this additional reason, the petition cannot be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the 
AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003). The AAO's de novo authority has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g. Dor 
v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternative basis for the decision. When the AAO denies a petition on multiple alternative 
grounds, a plaintiff can succeed on a challenge only if it is shown that the AAO abused its discretion with 
respect to all of the AAO's enumerated grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 
2d at 1043. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 136 1. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.