dismissed L-1A Case: Apparel Wholesale

Jrsl -,+ .d 
i&r.ti ej ;i:a data r~,,oL 
 tO 
py?,m~t c ! cz.ri y un:vomtcd 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 08 008 53617 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: Nw '0 3 rmtj 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10l(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1101(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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
* 
EAC 08 008 53617 
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 appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seehng to employ the beneficiary as its president 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. 4 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a Georgia corporation that claims to be engaged in 
the wholesale of apparel. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its president for an initial period 
of three years. 
In a decision dated January 23, 2008, the director denied the petition after concluding that the petitioner failed 
to adequately provide the evidence and information requested in the previously issued request for additional 
evidence/information. Specifically, the director found that the petitioner failed to provide the following: 1) a 
comprehensive business plan with specific dates for actions the petitioner plans to take over a two-year period 
starting from the date the petition was filed; 2) the requested quarterly wage report for the third quarter of 
2007 establishing the number of employees during the time of filing; 3) evidence that the petitioner would be 
able to relieve the beneficiary from having to primarily perform non-qualifying tasks within one year of its 
operation; 4) descriptions of the job duties to be performed by the petitioner's employees as well as each 
person's salary or wage; and 5) sufficient photographs of the petitioner's business. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner urges the AAO to reconsider the director's decision, claiming that all 
relevant regulatory requirements were met. Counsel also argued that the denial was in line with other suspect 
denials where the countries of origin were the suspected basis for the adverse decisions. However, the AAO 
finds no grounds for counsel's baseless assertions, particularly in light of the specific nature of the director's 
adverse findings in the present matter. Additionally, despite counsel's indication on Form I-290B that a brief 
and/or additional information would be submitted within 30 days in support of the appeal, there is no 
evidence that any supplemental material has been submitted to this date. It is noted that on September 25, 
2008, the AAO faxed counsel a notice allowing an additional five days in which to provide a brief and/or any 
information if the petitioner had previously submitted such information. The AAO clearly stated that this 
was not meant to allow the petitioner additional time in which to provide new information that had not been 
previously submitted. Rather, this was merely an attempt to allow the petitioner to provide information that 
may have been submitted and gotten detached from the record of proceeding. In response, counsel indicated 
that no brief was filed in support of the appeal. Accordingly, the record will be considered complete as 
currently constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, 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 eligbility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1361. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identi@ 
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. 
EAC 08 008 53617 
Page 3 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.