dismissed L-1A Case: Computer Gaming

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Room A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: SRC 04 053 50581 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: jasr 9 3 ~9: 
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. 5 1 101 (a)(l5)(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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 04 053 50581 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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 engaged in the business of computer gaming sales and repair. It seeks to extend 
its authorization to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its president and general 
manager, pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
5 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner has failed to establish that 
the beneficiary would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
On the Form I-290B appeal, counsel states as reasons for the appeal: 
The Center Director erred in failing to approve the L-1A Petition for following reasons: 
ill be employed at an Executive or Manager level at - 
2. For such other reasons as shall be set forth in the evidence submitted. 
Counsel also submits a brief on appeal. In the brief, counsel does not state any other reason for the appeal. 
Instead, counsel restates portions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) and repeats the description 
of the beneficiary's position fi-om the letter of support that the petitioner submitted with the petition. Counsel 
does not address any of the director's findings, or identify specifically any erroneous conclusions of law or 
statements of facts made in the director's decision. 
To establish eligibility under section 101(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. 
The 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. 
Inasmuch as counsel 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. 5 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.