dismissed L-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw-teb 
invasion of peftonal pri~ 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: EAC 02 147 50214 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)( 1 5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 101 (a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF BENEFICIARY: 
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 
EAC 02 147 50214 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
petitioner appealed this denial to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The AAO will dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to extend the employment of the beneficiary in the 
position of applications software analystlprogrammer as an L-1B nonimmigrant intracompany transferee with 
specialized knowledge pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner describes its business as being an "information technology consulting 
firm." The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary for a period of three years. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a capacity involving specialized knowledge. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner has satisfied the criteria for establishing that 
the beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
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. tj 214.2(1)(3) further 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 
services in the United States; however, the work in the United States need not be the 
same work which the alien performed abroad. 
EAC 02 147 50214 
Page 3 
Section 2 14(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 184(c)(2)(B), provides: 
For purposes of section 101(a)(15)(L), an alien is considered to be serving in a capacity 
involving specialized knowledge with respect to a company if the alien has a special 
knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets or has an 
advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of the company. 
Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D) defines "specialized knowledge" as: 
[Slpecial knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning organization's product, 
service, research, equipment, techniques, management or other interests and its application in 
international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise in the organization's 
processes and procedures. 
The primary issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has established that the beneficiary will be 
employed in a capacity involving specialized knowledge. 8 C.F.R. 4 2 14.2(1)(3)(ii). 
The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary has specialized knowledge of the petitioning organization's SEI- 
CMM Level 5 assessed software development and maintenance process as it pertains to the design and 
development of software application systems across business applications and technology domains for clients. 
Generally, the SEI-CMM Level 5 assessed software development and maintenance process is described as a 
set of processes, procedures, or methodologies used by the petitioning organization in providing software 
project services to its clients. 
The petitioner described the beneficiary's proposed duties in the letter dated March 22,2002 as follows: 
Work with Onsite and Offshore resources to customize [the petitioning organization's] 
internally developed, standard, SEI-CMM Assessed (Level 5) software development and 
maintenance process to meet project operational requirements 
Conduct Software Configuration Management activities as per SCM Plan established by the 
Project Leader 
Perform changes to all configurable items as per [the petitioning organization's] Change 
Control Procedure, which is established by the Project Leader 
Ensure that all enhancement development, maintenance, testing, implementation, support, 
application integration, etc. activities are done as per guidelines established in [the petitioning 
organization's] Q uality [sic] Management System 
Ensure that all work done meets project operational process requirements and Software 
Project Plan as established by the Project Leader using Project Planning Guidelines, Project 
Plan Template, Software Development Life Cycle Models document, Guidelines for Software 
EAC 02 147 50214 
Page 4 
Estimation, quality manual, etc., which are all available via [the petitioning organization's] 
PAL, BAL, IPMS, etc. web-based systems 
Participate in Final Inspections, which are conducted before software work items are released 
to client 
Prepare specifications for offshore development 
Upload specifications for offshore development 
Provide technical guidance to onsite and offshore resources as required 
Participate in Defects Prevention Activities: Peer Reviews, Causal Analyses Sessions, 
Inspections, etc., as per IPMS, DP checklist, guidelines for software product quality, project 
plan template, etc., of work product produced onsite and offshore 
Participate in Quantitative Process Management as per QPM established by the Project 
Leader 
Participate in fortnightly Defects Prevention meetings, as well as on a need basis as required 
As may be required, participate with team to develop software process improvements for 
areas of concern 
Finally, the petitioner described the beneficiary's purported training regimen and the ubiquity of the 
beneficiary's knowledge across the petition's organization in the letter dated March 22,2002 as follows: 
[The beneficiary] participated in [the petitioning organization's] In-House Training Program 
where he was exposed to and acquired highly specialized knowledge of the company's 
internally developed, SEI-CMM assessed (Level 5) software development process. He is one 
organization] to have received training in the company's SEI-CMM Level 5 software 
development and maintenance process. [The petitioning ornanization'sl internally developed, 
standard, SEI-CMM Level 5 software development and maintenance process, which is based 
on Carne~ie Mellon Software Engineering Institute's Capability Maturity Model for software, 
is neither widely known nor implemented in the international software industry. 
On April 28, 2002, the director requested additional evidence. 
 The director requested, inter alia, the 
following: evidence establishing that the beneficiary's knowledge is uncommon, noteworthy, or distinguished 
by some unusual quaIity and is not generally known by practitioners in the beneficiary's field of endeavor; 
evidence establishing that the beneficiary's advanced level of knowledge distinguishes him from those with 
only elementary or basic knowledge; and evidence establishing that the beneficiary's knowledge cannot be 
easily transferred or taught to another individual. 
EAC 02 147 50214 
Page 5 
In response, the petitioner submitted a letter dated June 10, 2002 in which it describes the beneficiary's 
training regimen as follows: 
[The beneficiary] has undergone training in such Key Process Areas of [the petitioning 
organization's] SEI-CMM Level 5 software development and maintenance process as: 
Defects Prevention (Software Reviews, Inspections, and Walkthoughs) 
Peer Reviews 
Software Quality Management Procedures 
Software Project Planning and Oversight 
Requirements Management 
Software Product Engineering 
Software Metrics and Measurement 
Software Maintenance Management 
Software Configuration Management 
Software Testing 
Software Process Improvement and Assessment 
Software Estimation 
Software Quality Assurance 
Inter-group Coordination 
Quantitative Process Management 
[The beneficiary] has also received training in [the petitioning organization's] software 
development and maintenance tools including IPMS, PAL, and BAL, Quality and Knowledge 
Management Systems that facilitate the customization, implementation, and management of 
the company's SEI-CMM Level 5 software development and maintenance. 
[The beneficiary's] knowledge is different from that ordinarily encountered in the field by 
virtue of the fact that he has been specifically trained in the processes and procedures that 
[the petitioning organization] wishes to be employed in each of its projects, consistent with its 
SEI-CMM Level 5 quality assurance methodologies. Moreover, in his tenure with [the 
petitioning organization], he has three years of practical, advanced, highly specialized, 
practical knowledge of [the petitioning organization's] SEI-CMM Level 5 software 
development and maintenance process as it is specifically customized to meet the quality and 
operational requirements of assignments [sic] software assignments for clients in the 
international marketplace. [The beneficiary] has also acquired considerable knowledge of 
[the petitioning organization's] onsite-offshore software development process, which utilizes 
high-speed satellite data links, as well as voice and video communications that allow onsite 
and offshore project teams to work together to provide [the third party client] with high 
quality, timely, and cost-effective software services. Having worked on projects involving 
the enhancement, maintenance, and support of [the third party client's project] for the past 
year, he also gained substantial knowledge of the programming environment, networking 
environment, batch environment, transaction processing environment, operating system 
EAC 02 147 50214 
Page 6 
environment, and database environment within which these particular systems are developed. 
[The beneficiary] has also acquired, through his onsite project experience, substantive 
knowledge of [the petitioning organization's] SEI-CMM Level 5 software development and 
maintenance process as it is specifically customized to meet the operational and quality 
requirements of assignments involving the enhancement, maintenance, and support of [the 
third party client's project]. 
The petitioner also further described the beneficiary's proposed duties in the United States as follows: 
The following is a detailed description of the [bleneficiary's duties on this assignment: 
Utilize [the petitioning organization's] IPMS, PAL, BAL (Quality and Knowledge 
management Systems) to customize the company's internally developed, SEI-CMM assessed 
(level 5) software development and maintenance process to meet project operational process 
requirements 
Use Project Planning Guidelines, Project Plan Template, Software Development Life Cycle 
Models document, Guidelines for Software Estimation, etc. (all available in IPMS, PAL, 
BAL) to develop Software Project Plan 
Establish Software Project Tracking and Oversight as per outlines in [the petitioning 
organization's] Quality Manual 
Track and review software accomplishments and results against documented estimates and 
adjust plans based on actual accomplishments and results 
Implement and Coordinate Software Configuration Management (SCM) activities as outlined 
in [the petitioning organization's] Quality Manual 
Ensure that changes to all configurable items are done as per [the petitioning organization's] 
Change Control Procedure 
Establish and Monitor Software Quality Assurance (SQA) Plan as per guidelines in [the 
petitioning organization's] Quality Manual 
Conduct Final Inspections to ensure compliance with the project's SQA plan 
Ensure that all project resources fully understand the project's quality goals 
Prepare specifications for offshore development 
Identify and allocate work for offshore development 
EAC 02 147 50214 
Page 7 
Provide technical guidance to offshore resources as required 
Review Defect Prevention activities fortnightly 
Review and Monitor Defects Prevention activities: 
 Peer Reviews, Code Walkthroughs, 
Casual Analyses Sessions, Inspections, etc. as per IPMS, DP Checklist, guidelines for 
software product quality, project plan template, etc., of work product produced onsite and 
offshore 
Ensure that software work products are handed over to client within established parameters 
On August 13, 2002, the director denied the petition. The director concluded that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary will be employed in a capacity involving specialized knowledge. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner has satisfied the criteria for establishing that 
the beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
Upon review, the petitioner's assertions are not persuasive in demonstrating that the beneficiary will be 
employed in a position involving specialized knowledge as defined at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D) or that the 
beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge. Beyond the decision of the director, the record is also not 
persuasive in establishing that the beneficiary was employed abroad in a capacity involving specialized 
knowledge for the requisite one-year period. 
In examining the specialized knowledge capacity of the beneficiary, the AAO will look to the petitioner's 
description of the job duties. 
 See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3). 
 The petitioner must submit a detailed job 
description of the services to be performed sufficient to establish specialized knowledge. In this matter, the 
petitioner fails to establish that this position requires an employee with specialized knowledge or that the 
beneficiary has been employed in a specialized knowledge capacity for the requisite one-year period abroad. 
The petitioner also fails to establish that the beneficiary's knowledge is specialized. 
Although the petitioner repeatedly asserts that the beneficiary's proposed position in the United States 
requires specialized knowledge, that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, and that the beneficiary 
has been employed abroad in a position involving specialized knowledge, the petitioner has not adequately 
articulated any basis to support this claim. The petitioner has failed to identify any special or advanced body 
of knowledge which would distinguish the beneficiary's role from that of other similarly experienced 
software workers employed by the petitioning organization or in the industry at large. Going on record 
without documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a 
beneficiary's duties involve specialized knowledge; otherwise, meeting the definitions would simply be a 
matter of reiterating the regulations. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), 
aff'd, 905, F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
EAC 02 147 50214 
Page 8 
The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge of the petitioning organization's 
SEI-CMM Level 5 assessed software development and maintenance process as it pertains to the design and 
development of software application systems across business applications and technology domains for clients. 
The petitioner asserts that this knowledge "is neither widely known nor implemented in the international 
software industry" and that the beneficiary is "one of only some 9,500 of a total of 19,000 IT professionals" 
employed by the petitioning organization to receive the training which imparted this purported specialized 
knowledge. However, despite these assertions, the record does not establish how, exactly, the SEI-CMM 
Level 5 assessed software development and maintenance process is so materially different from similar 
software development and maintenance processes that a similarly experienced and educated software 
professional could not perform the duties of the position. 
Overall, the record does not establish that the beneficiary's knowledge is substantially different from the 
knowledge possessed by software professionals generally throughout the industry or by other employees of 
the petitioning organization. The assertion that the beneficiary and a select group of workers possess a very 
specific set of skills related to the SEI-CMM Level 5 assessed software development and maintenance 
process does not by itself establish that the beneficiary's knowledge is indeed uncommon or noteworthy. 
First, the mere claim that almost half of the petitioning organization's similarly employer workers possesses 
the same purported "specialized knowledge" undermines counsel's claim that this knowledge is uncommon, 
noteworthy, or distinguished by some unusual quality and is not generally known by practitioners in the 
beneficiary's field of endeavor. To the contrary, it is quite apparent that the beneficiary's knowledge is both 
common and generally known by a large number of similarly employed workers. 
Second, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's knowledge would be difficult to impart to 
another similarly educated worker without suffering significant economic inconvenience. All employees can 
be said to possess unique and unparalleled skill sets to some degree; however, a unique skill set that can be 
imparted to another similarly experienced and educated employee without significant economic 
inconvenience is not "specialized knowledge." Moreover, the proprietary or unique qualities of the 
petitioner's process do not establish that any knowledge of this process is "specialized." Rather, the petitioner 
must establish that qualities of the unique or proprietary process require this employee to have knowledge 
beyond what is common in the industry. This has not been established in this matter. The fact that other 
professionals may not have very specific, proprietary knowledge regarding the petitioner's process is not 
relevant to these proceedings if this knowledge gap could be closed by the petitioner by simply revealing the 
information to a newly hired, similarly educated or experienced employee. 
Furthermore, while the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary received training which imparted the claimed 
specialized knowledge to him, the record is devoid of evidence addressing the length or substance of this 
training. The petitioner only submitted a list of topics covered by the purported training which, apparently, is 
provided in whole or in part to thousands of similarly employed workers. Absent detailed information 
addressing the length and substance of the training and its availability to the petitioning organization's 
workforce, it is impossible to conclude that the purported specialized knowledge would be significantly 
economically inconvenient to impart to similar workers. Once again, going on record without documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 
22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190). 
EAC 02 147 50214 
Page 9 
Finally, and for the same reasons articulated above, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary 
has specialized knowledge or that he was employed abroad in a capacity involving specialized knowledge. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petition will be denied for these additional reasons. 8 C.F.R. 8 
2 14.2(1)(3)(iv). 
The AAO does not dispute the possibility that the beneficiary is a skilled and experienced employee who has 
been, and would be, a valuable asset to the petitioner. However, it is appropriate for the AAO to look beyond 
the stated job duties and consider the importance of the beneficiary's knowledge of the business's product or 
service, management operations, or decision-making process. Matter of Colley, 18 I&N Dec. 117, 120 
(Comm. 1981) (citing Matter of Raulin, 13 I&N Dec. 61 8(R.C. 1970) and Matter of LeBlanc, 13 I&N Dec. 
816 (R.C. 1971)). As stated by the Commissioner in Matter of Penner, when considering whether the 
beneficiaries possessed specialized knowledge, "the LeBlanc and Raulin decisions did not find that the 
occupations inherently qualified the beneficiaries for the classifications sought." 18 I&N Dec. at 52. Rather, 
the beneficiaries were considered to have unusual duties, skills, or knowledge beyond that of a skilled worker. 
Id. The Commissioner also provided the following clarification: 
A distinction can be made between a person whose skills and knowledge enable him or her to 
produce a product through physical or skilled labor and the person who is employed primarily 
for his ability to carry out a key process or function which is important or essential to the 
business firm's operation. 
Id. at 53. 
It should be noted that the statutory definition of specialized knowledge requires the AAO to make 
comparisons in order to determine what constitutes specialized knowledge. The term "specialized knowledge" 
is not an absolute concept and cannot be clearly defined. As observed in 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, 
"[slimply put, specialized knowledge is a relative . . . idea which cannot have a plain meaning." 745 F. Supp. 
9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990). The Congressional record specifically states that the L-1 category was intended for "key 
personnel." See generally, H.R. REP. NO. 91-85 1, 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2750. The term "key personnel" 
denotes a position within the petitioning company that is "of crucial importance." Webster's I1 New College 
Dictionary 605 (Houghton Mifflin Co. 2001). In general, all employees can reasonably be considered 
"important" to a petitioner's enterprise. If an employee did not contribute to the overall economic success of 
an enterprise, there would be no rational economic reason to employ that person. An employee of "crucial 
importance" or "key personnel" must rise above the level of the petitioner's average employee. Accordingly, 
based on the definition of "specialized knowledge" and the congressional record related to that term, the AAO 
must make comparisons not only between the claimed specialized knowledge employee and the general labor 
market, but also between the employee and the remainder of the petitioner's workforce. While it may be 
correct to say that the beneficiary in the instant case is a highly skilled and productive employee, this fact 
alone is not enough to bring the beneficiary to the level of "key personnel." 
Moreover, in Matter of Penner, the Commissioner discussed the legislative intent behind the creation of the 
specialized knowledge category. 18 I&N Dec. 49 (Comm. 1982). The decision noted that the 1970 House 
Report, H.R. REP. NO. 91-851, stated that the number of admissions under the L-1 classification "will not be 
EAC 02 147 50214 
Page 10 
large" and that "[tlhe class of persons eligible for such nonimmigrant visas is narrowly drawn and will be 
carefully regulated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service." Id. at 5 1. The decision further noted that 
the House Report was silent on the subject of specialized knowledge, but that during the course of the sub- 
committee hearings on the bill, the Chairman specifically questioned witnesses on the level of skill necessary 
to qualify under the proposed "L" category. In response to the Chairman's questions, various witnesses 
responded that they understood the legislation would allow "high-level people," "experts," individuals with 
"unique" skills, and that it would not include "lower categories" of workers or "skilled craft workers." Matter 
of Penner, 18 I&N at 50 (citing H.R. Subcomm. No. 1 of the Jud. Comm., Immigration Act of 1970: Hearings 
on H.R. 445,9lSt Cong. 210,218,223,240,248 (November 12, 1969)). 
Reviewing the Congressional record, the Commissioner concluded in Matter of Penner that an expansive 
reading of the specialized knowledge provision, such that it would include skilled workers and technicians, is 
not warranted. The Commissioner emphasized that the specialized knowledge worker classification was not 
intended for "all employees with any level of specialized knowledge." Matter of Penner, 18 I&N Dec. at 53. 
Or, as noted in Matter of Colley, "[m]ost employees today are specialists and have been trained and given 
specialized knowledge. However, in view of the House Report, it can not be concluded that all employees 
with specialized knowledge or performing highly technical duties are eligible for classification as 
intracompany transferees." 18 I&N Dec. at 1 19. According to Matter of Penner, "[sluch a conclusion would 
permit extremely large numbers of persons to qualify for the 'L-1 ' visa" rather than the "key personnel" that 
Congress specifically intended. 18 I&N Dec. at 53; see also 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, 745 F. Supp. at 
15 (concluding that Congress did not intend for the specialized knowledge capacity to extend to all employees 
with specialized knowledge, but rather to "key personnel" and "executives.") 
A 1994 Immigration and Naturalization Service (now Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)) 
memorandum written by the then Acting Executive Associate Commissioner also directs CIS to compare the 
beneficiary's knowledge to the general United States labor market and the petitioner's workforce in order to 
distinguish between specialized and general knowledge. The Executive Associate Commissioner notes in the 
memorandum that "officers adjudicating petitions involving specialized knowledge must ensure that the 
knowledge possessed by the beneficiary is not general knowledge held commonly throughout the industry but 
that it is truly specialized." Memorandum from James A. Puleo, Acting Executive Associate Commissioner, 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, Interpretation of Specialized Knowledge, CO 214L-P (March 9, 
1994). A comparison of the beneficiary's knowledge to the knowledge possessed by others in the field is 
therefore necessary in order to determine the level of the beneficiary's skills and knowledge and to ascertain 
whether the beneficiary's knowledge is advanced. In other words, absent an outside group to which to 
compare the beneficiary's knowledge, CIS would not be able to "ensure that the knowledge possessed by the 
beneficiary is truly specialized." Id. The analysis for specialized knowledge therefore requires a test of the 
knowledge possessed by the United States labor market, but does not consider whether workers are available 
in the United States to perform the beneficiary's job duties. 
As explained above, the record does not distinguish the beneficiary's knowledge as more advanced than the 
knowledge possessed by other people employed by the petitioning organization or by software professionals 
employed elsewhere. As the petitioner has failed to document any materially unique qualities to the 
beneficiary's knowledge, the petitioner's claims are not persuasive in establishing that the beneficiary, while 
EAC 02 147 50214 
Page 11 
perhaps highly skilled, would be a "key" employee. There is no indication that the beneficiary has any 
knowledge that exceeds that of any other similarly experienced professional or that he has received special 
training in the company's methodologies or processes which would separate him from other professionals 
employed with the foreign entity or elsewhere. It is simply not reasonable to classify this employee as a key 
employee of crucial importance to the organization. 
The legislative history of the term "specialized knowledge" provides ample support for a restrictive 
interpretation of the term. In the present matter, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary 
should be considered a member of the "narrowly drawn" class of individuals possessing specialized 
knowledge. See 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General, 745 F. Supp. at 16. Based on the evidence presented, it is 
concluded that the beneficiary will not be employed in the United States, and was not employed abroad, in a 
capacity involving specialized knowledge. For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989) (noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
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, 8 U.S.C. tj 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.