dismissed L-1A Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 18722812 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for L-lA Manager or Executive 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEP . 20, 2021 
The Petitioner, describing itself as a company engaged in business consulting, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as a project manager of its new office I under the L-lA nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C. § l 101(a)(15)(L). 
The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition concluding the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity. Further, the Director 
determined the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity within one year of an approval of the petition . The matter is now before us on 
appeal. 
On the Form I-290B , Notice of Appeal or Motion, the Petitioner marked Box l .c. in Part 2, indicating 
it was filing an appeal and that "no supplemental brief and/or additional evidence will be submitted." 
Accordingly, the record will be considered complete as presently constituted. The Petitioner stated 
the following in part 7 of the Form I-290B : 
It is absolutely wrong to state that the description of the beneficiary'[s] duties has been 
vague as it has been not only fully and carefully d[ e ]tailed but evidenced by supported 
documentation in the file such as employee contract termination, meetings of BOD 
[board of director] minutes, financial documents all signed by the beneficiary as an 
executive. 
Upon review, we will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, in pertinent part: 
1 The term "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one year. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(F). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation no more than 
one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
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. 
The Petitioner only submitted a generic statement on the Form I-290B stating that the Director was 
"absolutely wrong" to conclude that the Beneficiary's duties were vague. The Petitioner farther 
pointed to foreign employer documentation on the record, including employee contract terminations, 
board minutes, and other "financial documents" signed by him. The Petitioner has not clearly 
articulated whether it is contesting the Director's conclusion with respect to the Beneficiary's foreign 
employment in a managerial or executive capacity or his proposed U.S. employment in such a capacity 
within one year. For instance, the Director concluded that the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. duties were 
vague and that they did not appear consistent with its projected scope of operations. The Director 
farther determined the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish that the Beneficiary would be primarily 
relieved from performing non-qualifying operational duties related to its consulting business within 
one year. However, the Petitioner's assertions on appeal do not specifically articulate why these 
conclusions by the Director with respect to the Beneficiary's proposed U.S. employment were in error. 
Because this identified basis for denial is dispositive of the appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve the Petitioner's apparent assertions regarding whether the Beneficiary was employed abroad 
in a managerial or executive capacity. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and 
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results 
they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not submitted a sufficient statement on appeal clearly addressing all the 
Director's bases for denial and why they were in error. Therefore, consistent with 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l)(v), we will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
2