dismissed L-1A Case: Business

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W.. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
DATE: APR 0 6 2Cll OFFICE: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER FILE: EAC 09 236 51419 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the ofice that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquily that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
V~erly Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 09 236 51419 
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 AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner is a New Jersey corporation that filed a nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to continue the 
employment of its executive manager for an additional two years as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany 
transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the lmmigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
5 I l Ol(a)(l S)(L). 
The director denied the petition based on two adverse findings: 1) the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity; and 2) the record 
lacks evidence to establish that the petitioner was doing business at the time of filing the petition. 
On appeal, counsel challenges the director's findings, asserting that the director ignored relevant evidence 
establishing that the petitioner is a viable business entity and that the beneficiary's proposed employment 
would be in a managerial or executive capacity, involving primarily managerial job duties. Counsel also 
checked off the box in the Form 1-2908 indicating that an appellate brief or additional information would be 
provided in support of the appeal. To date, however, approximately sixteen months since the appeal was 
filed, U.S. Citizenship and lmmigration Services has received no supplemental information in support of the 
appeal. Therefore, the AAO will consider the record complete as presently constituted. 
To establish L-l eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the lmmigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L), the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary, within three years preceding 
the beneficiq's application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving specialized knowledge, for one continuous year 
by a qualifying organization and seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render his 
or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial, 
executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103,3(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