dismissed L-1A Case: Woodworking Machine Tool Industry

U.S. Dcpartment of Homcland Sccurity 
20 Mass Avc. N.W.. Rm. A3042. 
Washit~gton. DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: SRC 04 103 51791 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: W(-j \ 3~s 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Petition: Petition for a  oni immigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and ~ationalit~ Act, 8 U;S.C. 9 1 101 (a)(15)(1,) 
. . 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is thc dccision of the Adm~nistrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that orig~nally declded your case, Any further inqu~ry must be made to that office. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 04 103 5 1791 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The matter 
1s now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dism~ss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to,extend the employment of its president as an L-IA 
nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section IOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U:S.C. 4 1 lOl(a)(lS)(L). The petitioner is a limited liability company organized in the State 
of North Carolina that is engaged in repair and su ort services in the woodworking machine tool industry. 
The petitioner claims that it is the subsidiary of- located in Halifax. United Kingdom The 
beneficiary was initially grantid 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 would be 
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Counsel for the petitioner subse'quently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion 
and forwarded the appeal to the @ofor review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner claims the beneficiary 
is in fact engaged in managerial activities for the petitioner. Counsel further asserts that the director failed to 
take into account the U.S. company's independent contractors and to consider the "reasonable needs" of the 
company. In support of these a&ertions, the petitioner submits additional evidence. 
To establish eligibility for the L-l -nonimmigrant visi classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section IOl(a)(lS)(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 IJnited 
States. In addition, the beneficiary must seek to enterthe 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. 4 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petit~on filed on Form 1-129 shall be 
accompanied by: 
(i) Evidence that'thc petitioner and the organization which employed or will employ the 
alien are qualifying.organizations as defined in paragraph (I)(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 
SRC 04 103 51791 
Page 3 
education, training, and employment qualifies himhe; 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. ( 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 foreis 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 (I)( I)(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 managerial or executive 
capacity; and 
(E) , Evidence of the financial status of the United States operation. 
At Issue m the present matter is whether the beneficiary would be employed by the Unlted States entrty in a 
pr~marily managerial or executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(A), defines the term "managerial capactty" as an 
assignment wtthin an organtzation in which the employee primarily: 
(1) manages the organization, or a department, subdivis~on, function, or component of 
the organmition; 
(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 ticommend 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 
SRC 04 103 5179l1 
Page 4 
Il 
(iv) exercises discretion over the day to day operations of the activity or function for 
wdich 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 
d4es unless the employees supervised are professional. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1101(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" as an 
assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily: 
(i) dlrects the management of the organization or a major component or functlon of the 
organization; 
11 
(ii) establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; 
(iii) exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision making; and 
I1 
(IV) receives only general superv~sion or direct~on from h~gher level executives. the board 
of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
In a letter dated ~et!ruar~ 23,2004 submitted wrth the initla1 petlt~on, the petitloner descr~bed the beneficiary's 
job duties as follows. 
[The benefic~aryl's prlmary respons~bll~t~es are: 
To run ,on a day-to-day basis. all business operations. This will comprise such work a; is 
necessafy to perform service and retrofits of equipment as required by our customers and 
to support them as necessary. to ensure a long and fruitful relationship, thus promoting 
ongoing business. The company will recruit an engineer or engineer intern to train and 
providetechnical services later this year; 
To oversee the financial basis of the company and maintain it in a profitable state. 
I1 Develop and implement plans'grow [sic] the company and at all times to maintain it as a 
leader i: its field, respected and held in high esteem amongst customers and compqitors 
alike. 1 
dversee sales operations that are currently handled by Davis-Taylor-Forster Company 
(Machine Tools) on a project basis. 
To act id a sales capacity as and when necessary to secure profitable contracts. 
I1 
In order to &hieve the above goals, [the beneficiary] will perform the following duties and 
accept the following responsibilities: 
Sales - 1 
Analyze and decide whether terms of potentlal contracts meet the company's needs 
Implement strateg~es for obta~ning new customers 
V~sit potentla1 customers and assess thelr requirements 
11 
SRC04 103 51791 
Page 5 
~i Generate quotations that outline the proposed worwservices to be offered and cost 
Ensure, efficient customer support 
Com~anv Organization 
Serve as final decision maker on company finances with the aid of an accountant 
~ssessthe cost effectiveness of services provided 
Efficiently manage the contracts acquired and match to resources available 
Assess'and appoint potential subcon'tractors for work outside the company's current 
resources 
. ~es~odsible for hiringlfiring 
EnsureIiinvoices are sent and payments are received on time 
Make decisions on future investment and employment requirements 
. . 
Contracts (1 
Deal with the purchasing of equipment required for a contract 
Process deliveries of parts required 
1 .. Ensure correct items ordered for specific contracts are supplied 
Trace progress and cost of each contract to ensure costs incurred are within budget 
I1 Report the progress of the contract with the customer 
Complete work outlined in a contract 
11 Respond to repairlservice calls by a customer, assess the fault and if possible.correct 
the fault or advise on replacement parts or suggest a course of action. 
I1 On March 12,2004, the director requested additional evidence. Specifically, the director requested (I) co 
of the petitioner's State Employer's Quarterly Tax Returns for 2003; (2) evidence of the current lease for /I United Sates entity;(3) evidence of the current staffing level in the United States, including position titles 
duties of all employees and the educational background of the professionals that are employed; and (4 
description of the d"ties of the beneficiary for the past year, indicating the percent of time helshe has sl 
performing each duty. 
. iJ 
Responding to the director's request, the petitioner indicated in its letter dated April 4. 2004 that it has 
employees, the beneficiary and the beneficiary's wife, who serves as a general administr, 
and project engineei. The petitioner also stated in that letter that 75% of the company's sales is handled 
another company on a commission-based arrangement, although the petitioner did not submit any documc 
evidencing that arra/igement. In addition, the petitioner stated that there was need for an additional engir 
or engineer intern and 'that in the long term, the company intends to hire a new employee every eight 
months to two years!  he petitioner further described the beneficiary's duties as follows: 
Oflice [Mlanagement: 12% of [tlime 
~nal~ze'l~ast pro~ects/contracts to ensure current pncing strategy 1s used and to ensure 
future quotation pncing favors a profitable status. 
Analyze Lornpany accounts and make decisions on any major equipment purchases. 
Decide on new company operating procedures as rcqulred. 
SRC04 10351791 
Page 6 
1 
supedise subcontractors to satisfy customer expectations. 
Dec~de the hiring and firing of employees, payroll amounts and authority employee 
subcon,pactors [sic]. 
~nsurethe overall operations of the company are cost effective and efficient. 
I 
81 
Sales ~oorhination: 21% of time 
Coordinate with the sales organization in Virginia to ensure correct representation and 
promoiion of [the petitioner] and that competitive pricing is maintained. 
. Visit to potential customers 'to' better understand requirements and offer additional 
supervision of the sales staff of the Virginia sales organization. 
Create price quotes outlining the major products and the assignment of vendors to be 
used. 
Ensure' that the finish[ed] price quotation document is correct and relates to the 
customer's requirements.and within the projected cost. 
Make dkcisions on the payment terms of the quotations to optimize company cash flow. 
Negotiate with customers regarding pricing of new or submitted quotes. 
1, 
'I Project Direction: 67% of time 
Coordinate with subcontractors regarding project schedule and additional requirement I 
and recommendations. 
' Ensure that the project is kept within budget, that work is done on.time 'and'within the I1 terms agreed in the contract. 
Oversee any work that is to be done by the subcontractors or by the custonier's personnel. 
Direct $gh-level stages of a project, regarding overall installation, software structuring 
and compilations that require [a] high degree of expertise and knowledge. 
Ensure that the projects are completed to the company's high quality standards and to 'I customer satisfaction. 
The petltloner subditted its State Employer's Quarterly Tax and Wage Reports for the last two quarters of 
2003, whlch 1st as the only employee who was pald wages dunng those two quarters. The 
petltloner dld not submit any separate job description for although the pet~tioner's bus~ness 
plan states that she would "handle the general adm~nlstrat~ve aspects, asslst in sales and marketlng, and work 
on office based tasks concerning contracts." 
I/ 
On April 26, 2004,pthe director denied the petition. The director determined that the petitioner did not i establish that the tieneficiary would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive 
capacity. Specifically, the director observed that with only one other employee, the beneficiary's primary 
assignment cannot be to supervise a subordinate staff of professional, managerial, or supervisory personnel. 
(1 
The director also noted that the regulations defining qualifyingorganizations specifically exclude the mere 
presence of an agent or office of the organization. 
I1 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director's denial fails to take into account the "reasonable needs" of the 
organization in I~ght of ~ts stage of development. Counsel also contends that the drrector d~d not consider the 
SRC 04 103 51791 
Page 7 
"independent contractors/companies whom the beneticiary slpervises in order to manage the sales function of 
the business." Counsel claims that there is no basis in fact for a determination that the petitioner has merely 
established an agent or office in the United States. Finally, counsel ;epeated the description and 
apportionment of the beneficiary's duties that were set forth in the petitioner's response to the request for 
further evidence, asserting that based on that description, the beneficiary is in fact primarily engaged in 
managerial activities for the petitioner. 
At the outset,( the AAO notes. the director's determination that "with only one other employee, the 
beneficiary's prima? assignment cannot be to supervtse a subordinate staff .of professional, managerial, or 
supervisory personnel." Section IOl(a)(44)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1 101(a#44)(A)(ii), defines the term 
"managerial capacity" as- an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily "supervises 
and controls .the work of other supervisory, prafessional, or managerial employees," among other things. , 
However, the use of the plural "employees" in t&t context ippears to be a matter of grammatical accordance 
in referring to more than one type of employees rather than a requirement that more than one employee of any 
of the listed categories be supervised or controlled by the beneficiary. Therefore, as it is possible that a 
beneficiary with only one subordinate professional employee could qualify as a managerial employee under 
the Act, the director's statement in that respect must be withdrawn. 
Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, counsel's assertions on appeal are not persuasive. The definitions of 
executive and mana' gerial capacity have two parts. First, the petitioner must show that -the benekciary 
performs the high level responsibilities that are'specified in the definitions. Second, the petitioner must prove 
that the beneficiary primarily performs these specified responsibilities and does not spend a majority of his or 
her time on day-to-day functions. Cha~npion World,.lr~c. v. INS, 940F.2d 1533 (Table), 1991 WL 144470 (9th 
Cir. July 30, 1991). 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. fj 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner's 
description of the j,db 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 AAO notes that there are significant differences between the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's 
job duties provided with the initial petition and that given in response to the director's request for further 
evidence. The initial job description appears to indicate that.the beneficiary.is directly.involved in much of 
the company's sales' activities. having responsibility for tasks such as "analyzing [the] terms of potential 
contracts," "visiting potential customers and assess their requirements," "generating quotations that outline the 
proposed worWservices to be offered and cost," and "ensuring efficient customer support." In response to the 
director's request for further evidence, however, the petitioner renamed the category of the beneficiary's sales- 
related duties as "sales ckrdination" and included tasks such as coordination and supervision of the staff of 
the organi~ation to which the petitioner claims to have subcontracted the company's sales function. Similarly, 
the in~tial job descriptibn included a category entitled ~'dontracts,'~ which enumerated tasks involving the 
direct servicing of the company's 'conhacts, such as "deal with the purchasing of equipment required for a 
contract," "process,deliveries of parts required," "ensure correct items ordered for specific contracts are 
supplied," "trace progress and cost of each contract to ensure costs incurred. are within budget," "report the 
progress of the contract'with. the customer," "complete work outlined' in a contract," and "respond to 
repairlscrvice calls by a customer, assess the fault and if possible correct the fault or advise on replacement 
SRC 04 103 517911 
Page 8 
parts or suggest a course of action." The job description submitted later, on the other hand, showed that the 
beneficiary spend; 67% of his time on "project direction: including contract-related tasks such as 
"coordinat[ing] with subcontractors regarding project schedule." "ensur[ing] that the project is kept within 
budget, that work 1s done on time and within the terms agreed in the contract," "oversee[ing] any work that is 
to be done by the subcontractors or by the customer's personnel," "directring] high-level stages of a project," 
and "ensur[ing] that .the projects are completed to thk company's high quality standards and to customer, 
satisfaction." In short, While the initial description indicated that the beneficiary was involved in directly 
providing the company's services, the second iteration of the beneficiary's job duties has the beneficiary 
managing and coordinating the work done in the petitioher's operation. 
The purpose of the:request,for evidence is to elicit furth'er information that clarifies whether eligibility for the 
benefit sought has been established. 8 C.F.R. 4 103,2(b)(8). When responding to a request for evidence, a 
petitioner cannot o'ffer a new position to the beneficiary, or materially change a position's title, its level of 
authority within the organizational hierarchy, or its associated job responsibilities. The petitioner must 
establish that the eosition offered to the beneficiary when the petition was filed merits classification as a 
managerial or executive position. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg. Comm. 1978). 
If significant changes are made to the initial request for approval, the petitioner must file a new petition rather 
than seek approvallof a petition that is not supported by the facts in the record. The information provided by 
the petitioner in its response to the director's request for further evidence did not 'clarify or provide more 
specificity to the original duties of the position, but rather added new duties of a different nature to the job 
description, Therefore, the analysis of this criterion will be based on the job description for the beneficiary 
submitted.with the initial petition. 
I 
As previously noted,'the initial job description described the beneficiary as directly performing the company's 
sales activities and :contract servicing, in effect tasks necessary ;o provide the company's service 
or product. While the petitioner did not provide any time breakdown for these tasks in the initial job 
description, these tasks appear to comprise the'majority of the beneficiary's responsibilities in that job 
description. An employee who primarily performs the' tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide 
services is not cobsidered to be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. Matter of Church 
Scienfo/ogq, ~nternational, 19 I&N Dec. 593,604 (Comm. 1988). 
Moreover, the petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that there are other employees who would relieve 
the beneficiary of th,e non-qualifying day-to-day tasks o( the company such that he could be considered to be 
primarily functioning in an executive or.manageriat capacity. The record does indicate that there is one other 
employee on the cohpany's payroll. However, as noted, earlier, the only description of her duties on record 
stated that she would "handle the general administrative! aspects, assist in sales and marketing, and work on 
office based tasks concerning contracts. That characterization of her job is vague and fails to account for how 
she would adequately relieve the beneficiary of the numerous non-qualifying tasks set forth in his job 
description. In addition, the petitioner stated in its ~ebruaj 23, 2004 letter, and also in response to the 
director's request fok further evidence. that it has subc6ntracted its sales function to !- 
Company, a machin= tool company based in Richmond, Virginia, which handles approximately three-quarters 
of the petitioner's sales. The petitioner submitted with the initial what it described as "representative 
copies" of commission and fees invoices from I dated February 2003 through December 
SRC 04 103 51791 
Page 9 
2003. However, upon revlew, these lnvolces do not identify w~th any degree of spec~ficlty the services the 
subcontractor supposedly prov~ded for or on behalf of the petltloner. Aslde from these Invoices, the petlhoner 
has submttted no other evtdence docurnentmg its purported arrangement wlth nor has 
the petitioner explained how the servlces of the subcontractor obvlate the need for the beneficlary to prlmarlly 
conduct the petltloner's busmess. Wlthout sufficient documentary evldence to support ~ts statements, the 
petltloner does not meet tts burden of proof in these proceed~ngs. Mutter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158. 165 
(Comm. 1998). 
Although the beneficiary is not requlred to supemse personnel, slnce the petitloner clalms that hls dut~es 
lnvolve supervising employees, the petitloner must establish that the beneficiary's subordlnate employees are 
supervisory, profess~onal, or manager~al See $ lOl(a)(44)(A)(u) of the Act. The petltloner has faded to do 
so In thls case. In evaluating whether the beneficla6 manages professional employees, the AAO must 
evaluate whether the subordinate posit~ons requrre a baccalaureate degree as a mlnlmum for entry into the 
field of endeavor. Sect~on 101 (a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 1 (a)(32), states that "[tlhe term profession 
shall Include but not be llm~ted to architects, engmeers, lawyers, physlclans, surgeons, and teachers In 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academ~es, or semmarles." The term "profess~on" contemplates 
knowledge or leammg, not merely skill, of an advanced type In a glven field gamed by a prolonged course of 
spec~allzed Instruction and study of at least baccalaureate level, whlch 1s a realist~c prerequlslte to entry ~nto 
the partlcular field of endeavor. Matter of Sea, 19 I&N Dec. 8 17 (Comm. 1988); Mutter of L~ng, 13 I&N 
Dec. 35 (R.C. 1968); Matter of Shin, 11 I&N Dec. 686 (D.D. 1966). Therefore, the AAO must focus on the 
level of education required by the posrtlon, rather than the degree held by subordlnate employees. The 
possession of a bachelor's degree by a subordinate employee does not automatically lead to the conclus~on 
that an employee 1s employed in a profess~onal capac~ty as that term IS defined above. In the Instant case, 
whlle the pet~t~oner ~ndtcated that ~ts only other employee, a "general admlnrstrator and project engmeer," 
possesses an advanced degree, the petitloner has not establ~shed that an advanced degree is actually necessary 
for that employee's work. Nor has the petlt~oner shown that the employee In question supervises subordlnate 
staff members or manages a clearly defined department or function of the petltloner, such that she could be 
class~fied as a manager or superulsor. Thus, the pet~tioner has not shown that the beneficlary supervlscs 
subordlnate employees who are supervisory, profess~onal, or manager~al, as requ~red by sectlon 
I0 l(a)(44)(A)(11) of the Act. 
Counsel correctly observes that a company's size alone, without taking into account.the reasonable needs of 
the organization, tnab not be the determining factor in deitying a visa to a rnulti"ationa1 manager or executive. 
See $ IOl(a)(44)(C) 'of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1101(a)(44)(C). However, it is appropriate for the Citizenship and- 
Immigration service; (CIS) to consider the size of the peditioning company in conjunction with other relevant 
factors, such as a company's small personnel size, the ibsence of employees who would perform the non- 
I managerial or non-executivc operations of the company, or a "shell company" that does not conduct business 
in a regular and continuous manner. See, e.g. ~~stronicsl~or~. v. INS,. 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). 
, . I he size of a compa'ny may be especial'ly relevant when CIS notes discrepancies in the record and fails to 
believe that the facts asserted are true. Id. 
In add~tlon, the regulat~ons prov~de stnct evldent~ary requ~rements for the extension of a "new office" petltlon. 
as 1s the case hcrc, and requlre CIS to examlne thc organizational structure and staffing levels of the 
petltloner. See 8 C;F.R. 3 214.2(1)(14)(11)(D). The pet~tloner indicates that ~t plans to htre add~tlonal 
SRC 04 103 51791 
Page 10 i 
employees in thelfuture. However, the petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the 
nonimmigrant visa pet~tion. A visa petition may not be approved at a future date .after the petitioner or 
beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. at 248. 
Moreoverithe regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows the "new office" operation one year wlth~n the 
date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. There is no provision in CIS I 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 opt3ational and administrative 
tasks, the petitioner is ineligible by regulation for an extekion. As discussed above, the in this 
matter has not dernbnstrated that it has reached~e point that it can employ the beneficiary in a predominantly 
managerial or execGtive positidn. 
In light of the fdregoing, the AAO concurs with the director's conclusion that the petltloner has not 
suffic~ently established that the beneficiary would be employed m a primarily managerla1 or executive 
capacity in the u.s.'entlty, as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(3). , 
Beyond the decisioh of the director, the record contains insufficient evidence to establish that the overseas 
entity employed tge beneficiary in a primarily managerial or executive capacity for the requisite period 
preceding the filing' of the petition, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(1)(3)(iii). In the Form 1-129 and its letter 
dated February 23,2004, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary has been employed by the foreign entity 
since 1985, first as :an electrical panel builder, and then as a project director from 1993 until his deployment 
with the U.S. entity! The petitioner also submitted the beneficiary's curriculum vitae, in. which the beneficiary 
stated that as.project director in the foreign entity, he "oversaw all projects handled by the allocated engineers 
along side still hanldling [his] oh projects. Attended weekly production meetings. Contributed to many 
decisions in. the hire [sic] of personal and the running of [the foreign entity]. ~ttend[ed] yearly Board 
meetings regarding 'bnancial decisions and future investments." The petitioner provided no other description 
of the beneficiary's duties or his position within the.foreign entity. Without a more detailed description of his 
duties and his subordinate staff, if any, the AAO cannot determine whether the beneficiary in fact was 
employed by the foreign entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity for the requisite period, 
preceding the filingjof the petition, as required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). For this 
additional reason, th'k petition may not be approved. 
I 
In addition, althougG not addressed by the director, another issue to be examined is whether the petitioner has 
established that the beneficiary's services in the United States are for a temporary period. The regulation at 8 
C.F.R. Sj 214.2(1)(3)(vii) states that if the beneficiary is an owner or major stockholder of the company, the 
petition must be accompanied by evidence that the beneficiary's services are to be used for a temporary period 
and that the beneficiary will be transferred to an assignment abroad upon the completion of the 'temporary 
services in the united States. In this matter, the record shows that the beneficiary has a 49% ownership 
interest in the U.S. entity. The record contains no evidence to support a conclusion that the beneficiary's 
services are to be used temporarily or that he will be transferred to an assignment abroad upon completion of 
the position in the dJnited States. In the absence of persuasive evidence, it cannot be concluded that the 
beneficiary's services in the'united States aie for a temporary period, as required by the regulations. For this 
additional reason, the petition may not be approved. 
SRC 04 103 51791 
Page 11 
Moreover, the AAO notes that the regulation.at 8 C.F.R. 4 214,2(1)(14)(ii)(B) requires that a petition for 
extension of L-l status which involved the opening of a new office must be accompanied by, among other 
things, "[elvidence that the United States entity has been doing business as defined in paragraph (I)(l)(ii)(H) 
of this section for the previous year." The AAO also notes that this petition for extension was filed less than a 
'week before the beneficiary's one-year period in L-1 status expired, yet on the Form I-290B, counsel stated 
that "[alt the time of filing the extension, the petitioner has been active for less than 10 months." 'Thus, by 
counsel's own admission, the petitioner has failed to show that it was doing business for the previous year as 
required by the regulations. For this additional reason, the petition may not 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), 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). When the AAO denies a petition on multiple altcative grounds, a plaintiff can 
succeed on a challenge only if she shows that the AAO abused it discretion with respect to all of the AAO's 
enumerated grounds. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. Ur~ited States, 229 F. Supp: 2d at 1043. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial.. '1n 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. 4 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. Accordingly, the director's decision will be affirmed and the petition will be denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.