dismissed L-1A Case: Cargo Business

identifiing data deleted to 
prevcfit ciearIy unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 08 029 51602 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER ~ateh)OV 0 3 20Q8 
IN RE: 
 Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 101 (a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
, @ Robert P. Wiemann, C ief 
/ Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 08 029 51602 
I 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to classify the beneficiary as an L-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 1 0 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, Florida corporation, states that it is engaged in international in the 
cargo business. It claims to be a subsidiary of Efrinsa Customs Agents, S.A., located in Peru. The petitioner 
seeks to employ the beneficiary as the general executive/manager of its new office in the United States for a 
period of one year. 
The director denied the petition on January 14, 2008, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish: (1) that 
the beneficiary has been employed by the foreign entity in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; and 
(2) that the beneficiary would be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive 
capacity, or that the petitioner would support such a position within one year of commencing operations. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal on February 15,2008. The director declined to treat the appeal as 
a motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. The petitioner indicated on the Form I-290B, 
Notice of Appeal or Motion, that it would submit a brief and additional documents to the AAO within 30 
days. The petitioner did not identify a basis for the appeal on Form I-290B. 
As no additional evidence has been incorporated into the record, the AAO contacted the petitioner by 
facsimile on August 18, 2008 to request that petitioner acknowledge whether the brief andlor evidence were 
timely submitted, and to afford the petitioner an opportunity to re-submit the documents. As of the date of this 
decision, the petitioner has not responded to the AAO's inquiry. Accordingly, the record will be considered 
complete. 
To establish eligibility under section 10 l(a)(15)(L) of the Act, the petitioner must meet certain criteria. 
Specifically, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, a 
firm, corporation, or other legal entity, or an affiliate or subsidiary thereof, must have employed the 
beneficiary for one continuous year. Furthermore, the beneficiary must seek to enter the United States 
temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof 
in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, 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. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. The 
petitioner has not identified any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the director, 
nor has it submitted any evidence on appeal to overcome the director's grounds for denial of the petition. 
, EAC 08 029 51602 
Page 3 
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. Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.