dismissed L-1A Case: Automotive

identiqring data deleted 6 
preven: :,! :I -'; !~jikq;rmt.ed 
invasion of personal privaqy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: EAC 04 11 8 52 194 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: 
Date: 
 MAP 2 3 , i)ob 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 10 1(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED 
COURTESY COPY TO: 
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. 
bert P. Wiemann, ector 
# 
b 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 04 118 52194 
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 seeking to extend the employment of its president as an L-1A 
nonimmigrant intracompany pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a Delaware corporation that claims to be "actively 
of a business" in the automotive industry. The petitioner claims to be a subsidiary of 
, located in Nairobi, Kenya. The petitioner has employed the beneficiary in L-1A status 
since November 2001 and now seeks to extend his status for an additional two years. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had not established: (1) that the beneficiary 
would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity; or (2) that the petitioner was doing business in the 
United States. 
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 the Form I-290B, the petitioner indicates that a brief and/or 
additional evidence will be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. The appeal was filed on February 22, 
2005. As of this date, the record does not contain a supplemental brief or evidence. Therefore, the record will 
be considered complete. 
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. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(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. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. The record 
reveals that the U.S. company, which was established in 2001, had not commenced doing business as of 
March 12, 2004 when the instant petition was filed. In response to the director's request for evidence to 
document the company's business activities, the beneficiary's duties, and the financial status of the company, 
petitioner's counsel indicated that the petitioner "is actively negotiating the purchase of a business. Until the 
business is acquired, full documentation will not be available." The petitioner must establish eligibility at the 
time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. 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. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978). 
EAC 04 118 52194 
Page 3 
Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of 
fact in support of the appeal, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. 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. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.