dismissed L-1A Case: Business

PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave, N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20536 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: SRC.03 105 52994 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG 0 1 70% 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonirnrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1(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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 03 105 52994 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center, and is now before 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to extend the employment of its president 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. $j 
1101(a)(15)(L). The director determined that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary had 
been and would continue to be employed in a capacity that was primarily managerial or executive in nature, as 
required under 8 C.F.R.9 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
On appeal, counsel states on the Form I-290B that: 
The officer erred in determining that the beneficiary was not functioning in a managerial 
capacity. 
Counsel further indicates that he was submitting a separate brief andlor evidence in support of the appeal. 
Upon review, however, the only documentation contained in the record is the Form I-290B, a cover letter fi-om 
counsel, and a copy of the director's decision dated February 3,2004. No additional brief, supporting evidence, 
or separate letters or arguments have been submitted in support of the appeal. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned fails to 
identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. The filing by an attorney 
of an appeal that is summarily dismissed under this section may constitute frivolous behavior as defined in 
8 C.F.R. §292.3(a)(15). 
Counsel here has not addressed the reasons stated for the denial and has not provided any additional evidence. 
Although counsel states that the denial was "erroneous," he fails to specifically address the conclusions set forth 
in the director's decision, nor does he specifically identify an erroneous conclusion of law or fact made by the 
director in the decision rendered on February 3,2004. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.