dismissed L-1A Case: Amusement Machines

~aenafving data dekW to 
fnv&oni of wrsonal P~VWC~ 
PlTRLlG COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: SRC 02 137 50105 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
 Date'JUL 2 7 2006 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficia 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (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. 
CJftobert P. Wiemann, Chief 
I 
Administrative Appeals Office 
.- SRC 02 137 50105 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seelung to extend the employment of its engineering 
manager as an L-1 A nonimrnigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation 
organized under the laws of the State of Florida and is engaged in the import, service and lease of 
amusement machines. The petitioner claims that it is the affiliate o located in 
Sao Paulo, Brazil. The beneficiary was initially granted a one-year period of stay to open a new office in 
the United States and the petitioner now seeks to extend the beneficiary's stay. 
The director denied the petition concluding that (1) the petitioner did not establish that a qualifying 
relationship still existed between the United States employer and foreign entity; (2) the petitioner did not 
establish that the beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive 
capacity, and (3) the petitioner did not establish that the United States company or the foreign company 
was doing business. In addition, the director found that the petitioner's failure to submit any of the 
requested evidence, thereby precluding a material line of inquiry, is grounds for denying the petition. 
On appeal, the petitioner fails to address the director's conclusions. Lnstead, the petitioner's counsel 
asserts the following: 
We did not present all of the requested information such as the tax returns, staffing level, 
etc. because the company was in the process of deciding to wind up the business and 
have the beneficiary return to Brazil. Accordingly we presented a letter from the foreign 
affiliate requesting an extension - only until January 15, 2003 - to give the beneficiary 
time to wind up the business and to allow the company in Brazil time to obtain a re- 
import license from Brazilian customs so that the machinery which has been imported 
from the company in Brazil to the U.S. affiliate could be returned to Brazil. 
On appeal, counsel also requested a short extension to allow the beneficiary's daughter to finish the 
semester in school. The appeal included a company brochure and pictures of the machines in the 
warehouse which need to be returned to Brazil. 
Despite these concerns, based on the minimal documentation in the record, it cannot be determined that 
the petitioner has established that the beneficiary will be in a position of managerial or executive capacity, 
that the United States entity and the entity in Brazil continue to have a qualifying relationship, and that 
the U.S. entity and foreign entity are doing business. Going on record without supporting 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)). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows the intended United States operation one year within 
the date of approval of the petition to establish the new office. Furthermore, at the time the petitioner 
seeks an extension of the new office petition, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(14)(ii)(B) requires the 
SRC 02 137 50105 
Page 3 
petitioner to demonstrate that it has been doing business for the previous year. The term "doing business" 
is defined in the regulations as "the regular, systematic, and continuous provision of goods and/or services 
by a qualifying organization and does not include the mere presence of an agent or office of the qualifying 
organization in the United States and abroad." 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(1)(l)(ii). There is no provision in CIS 
regulations that allows for an extension of this one-year period. If the business is not sufficiently 
operational after one year, the petitioner is ineligible by regulation for an extension. In the instant matter, 
the petitioner has not reached the point that it can employ the beneficiary in a predominantly managerial 
or executive position. 
The petitioner has not established that it is eligible for an extension of the initial one-year "new office" 
validity period. As previously noted, the regulation at 8 C.F:R. $ 214.2(1)(14)(ii) provides strict 
evidentiary requirements that the petitioner must satisfy prior to the approval of this extension petition. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not satisfied any of the enumerated evidentiary requirements. The 
petitioner has not submitted evidence that the United States and foreign entities are still qualifying 
organizations as defined in 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(I)(l)(ii)(G). The petitioner has not submitted evidence that 
the United States entity has been doing business for the previous year as defined in 8 C.F.R. 3 
214.2(1)(l)(ii)(H). The petitioner has not submitted a detailed statement of the duties performed by the 
beneficiary for the previous year and the duties the beneficiary will perform under the extended petltion 
so that the AAO can determine whether the beneficiary is employed in a primarily managerial or 
executive capacity. The petitioner has not submitted a statement describing the staffing of the new 
operation. Finally, the petitioner has not submitted evidence of the financial status of the United States 
operation. For all of these reasons, the petition may not be approved and the appeal will be dismissed. 
In addition, the regulation states that the petitioner shall submit additional evidence as the director, in his 
or her discretion, may deem necessary. The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further 
information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of the time the 
petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. $§ 103.2(b)(8) and (12). The failure to submit requested evidence that 
precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. See 8 C.F.R. 3 
103,2(b)(14). The director sent a request for evidence on June 8, 2002 and the petitioner subsequently 
submitted a response that failed to include any of the requested materials. 
The petitioner's request for an extension in order to wind up the company does not specifically identify 
any errors on the part of the director or provide new evidence to support that the petitioner qualifies for an 
L-1 extension on behalf of the beneficiary. The appeal is simply insufficient to overcome the well- 
founded and logical conclusions the director reached based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner. 
Going on record without supporting 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. 
To establish eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, the petitioner must meet certain criteria. 
Specifically, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States, a firm, corporation, or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof, must have employed 
the beneficiary for one continuous year. Furthermore, 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. 
SRC 02 137 50105 
Page 4 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, in pertinent part: 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the 
party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact for the appeal. 
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. 5 1361. Inasmuch as counsel has failed to identify 
specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the petitioner has not 
sustained that burden. Therefore, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.