dismissed L-1A Case: Clothing Wholesale

U.S. Department of Homeland SEfurity 
20 Mass, N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
RBLIC COl'Y @ U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
q&,- 81*1 &&$M? 'n %aHD ,& Services 
FE6 07 zoos 
FILE: WAC-02-136-50869 Off~ce: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
PETITION: Petition for a ~onimmi~rant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § I 10 1 (a)( I S)(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. 
J ~Lbert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Oflice 
WAC-02-1 36-50869 
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 clothing importer and wholesaler. It seeks to employ the beneficiary 
temporarily in the United States as its President, pursuant to section IOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition concluding that the 
petitioner did not establish that: (1) the beneficiary was employed abroad in a primarily managerial or 
executive capacity; (2) the petitioner has a qualifying relationship with a foreign entity; and (3) the petitioner 
can support the beneficiary in a primarily executive or managerial position. 
On the Form I-290B appeal, counsel for the petitioner states that "[tlhe record contains evidence to establish 
that the Parent Company in Venezuela is 100% owner of the U.S. Subsidiary. Beneficiary has been working 
in an executive capacity for the Parent Company in Venezuela based on the described job duties and the 
evidence regarding the business activities that have been performed under the supervision and direction of the 
Beneficiary." Counsel does not identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in 
this proceeding. Counsel further states that a brief or evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 
days. The appeal was filed on June 28, 2002. As of this date, the AAO has received no further 
documentation or correspondence from counsel or the petitioner, and the record will be considered complete. 
To establish eligibility under section lOl(a)(lS)(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. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 4 103.3(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. 
Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of 
fact in this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
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. 3 I36 1. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismi~sed.