dismissed L-1A Case: Business

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass, N.W. Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
y FILE: SRC 02 272 50694 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 0 2 2006 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 101(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 
SRC 02 272 50694 
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 a motion to reopen and/or reconsider. The 
motion will be granted. The previous decision of the AAO will be affirmed. 
The petitioner seeks to extend its authorization to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its 
president. The director determined that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary would be employed 
in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
Counsel submitted a Form I-290B appeal in this matter on May 19, 2004, and indicated that he would forward a 
brief and/or additional evidence to the AAO within 30 days. On June 29, 2004, the appeal was summarily 
dismissed after review of the file showed that no brief or additional documentation had ever been received in this 
matter. 
The matter is now again before the AAO in the form of a motion to reopen. In this motion, counsel for the 
petitioner asserts that the petitioner did in fact file a brief within the 30-day time period allotted by the regulations. 
Specifically, counsel indicates that a brief dated June 17, 2003 was actually submitted to the AAO via Federal 
Express on June 17, 2003. In support of this assertion, counsel provides a copy of a brief, a cover letter dated 
June 17,2003, and a supporting affidavit attesting to this claim sworn by him in the presence of a notary public. 
While the accompanying affidavit supports the motion to reopen in this matter, the fact remains that there is no 
documentary evidence that the petitioner's appeal brief was in fact filed with the AAO. Counsel clearly contends 
that the brief was mailed via Federal Express. The most acceptable form of documentary evidence to support 
counsel's claim would be the mailing receipt or tracking number showing the date and time this document was 
actually delivered to the AAO. Since it is a standard procedure of Federal Express to provide a tracking number 
and record of delivery, the fact that such documentation is not submitted raises questions with regard to the 
validity of counsel's claim. The non-existence or other unavailability of required evidence creates a 
presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(2)(i). Furthermore, without documentary evidence to 
support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); 
Matter of laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 
1980). 
Finally, even if a brief were timely submitted in this matter, the copy of the June 17,2003 cover letter provided by 
counsel indicates that the brief was sent to the Texas Service Center and not to the AAO. Thus, contrary to the 
claims of counsel and the instructions on the I-290B, the evidence submitted on motion clearly indicates that the 
brief was not submitted to the AAO. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1361. 
The petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.