dismissed L-1A Case: Business Management

ider,ti6Iilg deleted to 
pyev~nc ~~!~~r'y g;;:;.iranred 
iravi~sion of l;crso;:al privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
FILE: 
 EAC 07 262 5 1970 
 OFFICE: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: 0 CT o 2 2008 
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. 8 1101(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. 
%fczfjP- &J 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 07 262 5 1970 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimrnigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (MO) on appeal. The MO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary in the position of president 
to continue the beneficiary's employment in the United States as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany 
transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
tj 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition based on the determination that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the beneficiary's proposed position in the United States would be within a qualifying managerial 
or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner stated that a brief and/or additional information would be submitted 
within 30 days in support of the appeal. On September 3,2008, the AAO reviewed the record of proceeding 
and found that no additional evidence or information had been submitted since the appeal was filed on April 
21, 2008. Accordingly, the AAO faxed the petitioner a notice allowing an additional five days in which to 
provide a brief and/or any information ifthe petitioner had previously submitted such information. The MO 
clearly stated that this was not meant to allow the petitioner additional time in which to provide new 
information that had not been previously submitted. Rather, this was merely an attempt to allow the 
petitioner to provide information that may have been submitted and gotten detached from the record of 
proceeding. To date, however, counsel has not responded to the AAO's facsimile. Accordingly, the record 
will be considered complete as currently constituted. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v) states, 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 the petitioner 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.