dismissed L-1A Case: Cargo And Storage

ids~flfiing data deleted b 
prevent clearly unwarmnd 
invasion of personal prim 
PuBLlC COPY 
U.S. Department oPHomeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 06 172 52964 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: MI6 27 2W8 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 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. 
Ad& {dd- 
xobert P. Wiernann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 06 172 52964 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimrnigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner states that it is engaged in the cargo and storage business. 
 It seeks to extend the 
employment of the beneficiary as its administrative services manager pursuant to section 101 (a)(l5)(L) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(L). The U.S. petitioner, a 
corporation organized in the Commonwealth of Virginia, claims to be the subsidiary of -1 
, located in Lima, Peru. The petitioner seeks to extend the beneficiary's stay in the 
United States for an additional year. 
The director found the initial evidence submitted with the petition to be insufficient to warrant approval. 
Consequently, a request for evidence was issued on September 12, 2006. In that request, the director 
noted that the petitioner had failed to sufficiently describe the beneficiary's duties, thus rendering it 
impossible to conclude that the beneficiary would be employed in a qualifying capacity. Consequently, 
the director requested additional evidence pertaining to the beneficiary's position, as well as a 
comprehensive statement regarding the staffing of the U.S. operation. The director also requested 
evidence to demonstrate that the petitioner and the foreign entity maintained a qualifying relationship, as 
well as evidence that the petitioner was doing business as required by the regulations. 
In a response dated December 7, 2006, the petitioner addressed the director's requests. The petitioner 
submitted a brief description of the beneficiary's duties, and submitted an organizational chart showing 
that the beneficiary would oversee a secretary as well as an employee in logistics and an employee in 
accounting. Although it provided a Form W-4, Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate, for 
the petitioner's alleged secretary, no additional payroll records or other documentation was 
provided as proof that she and the other two employees had commenced working for the petitioner. The 
petitioner further claimed that it was in the process of recruiting truck drivers, and submitted a copy of an 
advertisement which provided the details of the open positions. 
Regarding the issues of whether a qualifying relationship exists and whether the petitioner is in fact doing 
business, counsel for the petitioner referred to Exhibits 5, 6, 7 8, and 9. Specifically, counsel claimed that 
these exhibits show the ownership of both the US and foreign entities, and also demonstrate that both 
companies are doing business as required. It is noted that upon review of the response, there are no such 
exhibits. 
On May 18, 2007, the director denied the petition. The director found that based upon review of the 
evidence in the record, the petitioner had failed to establish that the beneficiary will be employed in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity. Moreover, the director noted that the petitioner had failed to 
submit documentary evidence of the continued qualifying relationship between the petitioner and the 
foreign entity, and likewise failed to submit evidence that the petitioner was doing business. 
EAC 06 172 52964 
Page 3 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner indicated on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, that he 
would submit a brief and/or additional evidence to address the director's denial within 30 days. Although 
counsel submitted a brief statement on the Form I-290B, it failed to adequately address the director's 
conclusions. In this brief statement, counsel states: 
The beneficiary was applying for extension of an L-1 as an administrative manager. The 
denial was based on the petitioner's failure to show that he was an executive. The 
decision is not consistent with the evidence. The evidence shows that the beneficiary was 
discharging the duties of an administrative manager engaged in establishing the 
company's U.S. operations. 
The director did a thorough analysis and specifically discussed the deficiencies in the evidence in his 
decision. Counsel's general objections on the Form I-290B, without specifically identifying any errors on 
the part of the director, are simply insufficient to overcome the well-founded and logical conclusions the 
director reached based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner. The director outlined the deficiencies 
in the petitioner's evidence and specifically noted that the overview of the company's staffing, in light of 
the claim that it is a cargo business, did not support a finding that the beneficiary would be engaged 
primarily in qualifying managerial or executive duties. 
Moreover, despite the director's specific requests for additional evidence pertaining to the qualifying 
relationship of the entities as well as evidence that the petitioner was doing business as required, the 
director noted that the petitioner failed to submit evidence in support of these requirements. Failure to 
submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the 
petition. 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(14). Although it is noted that both the petitioner and counsel claim that the 
requirements for both of these elements have been met, these claims are not corroborated by any 
documentation. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes 
of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 
1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
The AAO notes that on Form I-290B, counsel failed to address the issues of qualifying relationship and 
doing business, and provided a very brief statement addressing the director's findings with regard to the 
beneficiary's qualifications as a manager or executive. On August 1, 2008, the AAO sent a fax to 
counsel. The fax advised counsel that no evidence or brief had been received in this matter and requested 
that counsel submit a copy of the brief and/or additional evidence, if in fact such evidence had been 
submitted, within five business days. As of the date of this decision, the AAO has received no response 
from counsel or the petitioner. As stated above, absent a clear statement, brief and/or evidence to the 
contrary, the petitioner does not identify, specifically, any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact on the part of the director. Hence, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. See 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 4 103,3(a)(l)(v) state, in pertinent part: 
EAC 06 172 52964 
Page 4 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the 
party concerned fails to identie 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 counsel 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.