dismissed L-1A Case: Business Management

Wfjring data &let@ to 
pmrmt cldy un-ted 
invasion of personal p~v~f 
PUBLIC COPV 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Oflce ofAdrninistrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: OFFICE: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 AUG 0 6 2010 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: - 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L) 
IN 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 office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry 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 I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $585. 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, 

Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center. It 
then came before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. On June 3,2010, this office provided 
the petitioner with notice of adverse information in the record and afforded the petitioner an opportunity to 
provide evidence that might overcome this information. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary in the position of president 
to open a new office in the United States as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to 
section 10 l(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(L). 
The director denied the petition based on the finding that the petitioner failed to establish that it would employ 
the beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) ("On appeal from 
or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in making the initial decision 
except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also, Janka v. US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 
1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, 
e.g. Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 200 I), afd, 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
On June 3, 2010, this office notified the petitioner that during the process of reviewing the record of proceeding, 
the AAO conducted a search of the State of California corporate records and business registrations and found that 
the petitioner filed a certificate of dissolution on August 16, 2007, thereby indicating that the petitioner's 
corporate existence has been dissolved. 
This office allowed the petitioner 30 days in which to provide evidence refute the adverse evidence and establish 
that the petitioner remains in operation as a viable business or was in operation during the pendency of the 
petition and appeal. More than 30 days have passed and the petitioner has failed to respond to this office's request 
for a certificate of good standing or other proof that the petitioner remains in operation as a viable business or was 
in operation from the priority date onward. Thus, the appeal will be dismissed as abandoned. 
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. $ 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.