dismissed L-1A Case: Civil Engineering

"{yin data de\eteQtoidentl g ..1 Uf\v;'7ltrr~nted
pr6ventc~ear y ". ~ privacyinvasionofperson .
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
FILE:
INRE:
WAC 05 17351449
Petitioner:
Beneficia
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: FEB 0 12007
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
SELF-REPRESENTED
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 .
..c--.. :...•: .... _.•• ~~--~.
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
WAC 05 17351449
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director, California 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 states that it is a civil engineering company. It seeks to employ the beneficiary temporarily in
the United States as its company director as an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to
section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(L). The
director denied the petition based on the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary
has been employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity.
On appeal, the petitioner indicated on Form 1-290B that it would submit a brief and/or additional evidence to
address the director's denial within 60 days. A letter from the petitioner dated January 16, 2006 was
subsequently submitted; however, it failed to adequately address the director's conclusions. Specifically, the
petitioner fails to identify any errors on the part of the director. Instead, the petitioner provides general
statements regarding a proposed acquisition in the United States, a commercial loan approval, and a
breakdown of the beneficiary's typical workweek. The petitioner fails to address or acknowledge the basis
for the director's denial; namely, that the beneficiary was not employed abroad in a primarily managerial or
executive capacity as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(iv). The petitioner's comments, therefore, are simply
insufficient to overcome the well-founded and logical conclusions the director reached based on the evidence
submitted. 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. Hence, the appeal must be summarily
dismissed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v).
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 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.
Moreover, it should be noted for the record that in addition to the reason issued by the director in the denial,
the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the petitioner and the organization which will employ the alien are
qualifying organizations as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(3)(i). The first problem is that there are several
unresolved inconsistencies in the record with regard to the actual petitioner in this matter. The Form 1-129,
originally filed on May 31, 2005, indicates that the etitioner is The foreign entity
is identified as tough not addressed
by the director, evidence contained in the record indicates that the U.S. entity which would employ the
beneficiary is actually ., a California Corporation.
While a letter of support submitted w.ith the petition indicates that the benefic~dering his
services to , of which the beneficiary is a 20% shareholder, _ is not the
petitioner in these proceedings. It would appear, upon initial review of Form 1-129, that the intended U.S.
employer is an individual, ' and no definitive evidence to clarify this issue has been
presented. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent
objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the
petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec.
582,591-92 (BIA 1988). For this additional reason, the petition may not be approved.
WAC 05 173 51449
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. § 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.