dismissed L-1A Case: Bakery Machines

U.S. Department of Nomelaad Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20525) 
d;lirtli:fhwed&3 U.S. Citizenship 
~nw-d and Immigration 
tRI*ion of pers~nal.~~~ Services 
File: 
IN RE: 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U,S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals OfEce in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any furfher inquiry must be made to that office. 
dministrative Appeals Office 
SRC 05 163 51791 
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 seeking to extend the employment of its president and general 
manager as an L- 1 A nonimrnigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(l 5)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1 101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a Florida corporation, 
states that it is engaged in the import and distribution of bakery machines. The petitioner claims to be an 
affiliate of Insumos Industria'les Mare C.A., Iocated in Maracay, Venezuela. The beneficiary was initially 
granted a one-year period of stay in L-1A status in order to open a new office in the United States and the 
petitioner now seeks to extend her stay for two additional years. 
The director denied the petition on August 13,2005, concluding that the petitioner had not established that the 
beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal on September 2,2005. The director declined to treat the appeal as 
a motion and forwarded the appeal to the A40 for review. On appeal, the petitioner submits the following 
statement on Form I-290B, and indicates that no separate brief or evidence will be submitted in support of the 
appeal: 
Ths company has just started business. USA is a very difficult market, that is why this 
company requested for me. This company needs all my experience in this kind of business. 
We'll be contracting employees steadily in the future as it grows. Although I'm doing more 
tasks besides managing and directing, I'll contract many other employees in the near future. 
Please, review the Business Plan already included in my file. You can also check [the 
petitioner's] web site. 
To establish eligibility under section 10 1 (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 
fm, 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. 3 103.3(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 
petitioner's general objections to the denial of the petition, without specifically identifying any em on the 
part of the director, are simply insufficient to overcome the weH-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 rneet~ng the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 
SRC0516951791 
Page 3 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm, 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. I90 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). 
As noted by the director, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary was performing 
primarily managerial or executive duties at the end of the US. company's first year of operations. The 
petitioner provided only a vague outline of the duties performed by the beneficiary, which failed to convey 
any understanding of the actual duties she perfoms on a day-to-day basis and was insuficient to establish 
that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. For example, in response to 
the director's request for a detailed position description, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary would 
"represent the corporation in all activities," "administrate and manage the businesses and operation," 
"establish general guidelines," "manage the organization," "comply with the legal obligation of the 
corporation," and "identify new opportunities for business." Reciting the beneficiary's vague job 
responsibilities or broadly-cast business objectives is not sufficient; the regulations require a detailed 
description of the beneficiary's daily job duties. The petitioner has failed to provide any detail or explanation 
of the beneficiary's activities in the course of his daily routine. The actual duties themselves will reveal the 
true nature of the employment. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1 103, 1 108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afld, 
905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
The director also properly considered the staffing levels of the petitioning organization in determining 
whether the beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity under the 
extended petition. Pursuant to section 10 1(a)(44)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 10 1 (a)(M)(C), if staffing levels 
are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial or executive capacity, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must take into account the reasonable needs of the 
organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of the organization. In the present 
matter, however, the regulations provide strict evidentiary requirements for the extension of a "new office" 
petition and require USCIS to examine the organizational structure and staffmg levels of the petitioner. See 8 
C.F.R. § 2 14.2(1)(14)(ii)@). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows the "new office" operation 
one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. There is 
no provision in USCIS regulations that aIlows for an extension of this one-year period. If the business does 
ot have sufficient staffing after one year to relieve the beneficiary from primarily perfoming operational and 
inistrative tasks, the petitioner is ineligible by regulation for an extension. 
At the end of the first year of operations, the petitioner employed the beneficiary as president and genera1 
manager, and a sales representative whose stated salary is consistent with part-time employment. Based on the 
totality of the evidence submitted, the director properly concluded that the beneficiary would be required to 
perform many nonqualifymg duties associated with operating the business on a day-to-day basis in order for 
the company to remain operational, In the instant matter, the petitioner has not reached the point that it can 
employ the beneficiary in a predominantly managerial or executive position. 
On appeal, the petitioner concedes that the beneficiary is "doing more tasks besides managing and directing," 
and does not specifically refute the director's determination. Instead, the petitioner requests that the company's 
hiring plans and anticipated future staffing levels be taken into consideration. However, 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. Maner of 
SRC 05 169 51791 
Page 4 
Michedin Tire Corp., 27 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978). Even though the enterprise is in a preliminary 
stage of organizational development, the petitioner is not relieved from meeting the statutory requirement to 
establish that the beneficiary was performing prrmarily managerial or executive duties as of the date of filing. 
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. $ 1341. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify 
specifically an erroneous concIusion of law or a statement of fact in support of 
 appeal, the petitioner has 
not sustained that burden. 
ORDER. The appeal is summarily dismissed.