dismissed L-1A Case: Automotive Sales

MATTER OF P-C-A-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 27, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a car dealership, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its chief operating 
officer of international sales under the L-1 A nonimmigrant classification for intracompany 
transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § 
1101(a)(15)(L). The L-lA classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including its 
affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to work 
temporarily in an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition on three alternate grounds, concluding 
that the Petitioner did not establish that: (1) the Beneficiary has been employed abroad by a 
qualifying organization for one continuous year of full-time employment within the three years 
preceding the application for admission to the United States; (2) the Beneficiary has been employed 
abroad in a position that was managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge; and (3) the 
Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive,capacity in the United States. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. Upon de novo review, we will summarily dismiss the appeal 
pursuant to 8 C.P.R.§ 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
On September 12, 2016, the Petitioner submitted a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, to 
appeal the denial of the underlying petition. The Director declined to treat the appeal as a motion 
and forwarded the appeal to our office for review. The Petitioner does not submit any statement in 
support of the appeal. The Petitioner marked Box l(b) at Part 3 of the Form I-290B to indicate that a 
brief and/or additional evidence will be submitted to our office within 30 calendar days of filing the 
appeal. The record indicates that the Petitioner has not submitted a supplemental brief or evidence 
and we now consider the record complete as presently constituted. 
The regulations at 8 C.P.R.§ 103.3(a)(l)(v) s~ates, 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. 
Matter of P-C-A-S-
In the instant matter, the Petitioner has not specifically identified an erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact on the part of the Director as a basis for the appeal. In fact, the Petitioner has not 
submitted any statement or evidence in support of the appeal. The Director's decision includes a 
discussion of the significant evidentiary deficiencies present in the record. The Petitioner has not 
specifically objected to the Director's findings and has not submitted a statement on appeal to 
address or overcome these noted deficiencies. 
As the Petitioner has not identified an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the 
Director's decision as a basis for the appeal, the appeal will be summarily dismissed in accordance 
with 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Cite as Matter of P-C-A-S-, ID# 163452 (AAO Oct. 27, 2016) 
2