dismissed L-1A Case: Computer Hardware

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionof personalprivacy
u.s.Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts. Ave, N.W., Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.s.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date:File:
PUBLIC COpy
WAC 03 225 54932
"'-..Y/"..)".''.••...•....' .•..:.. '''''.:}',:\.•.. .' .
" .'. ' ,
;"'.-. ._,~.,'!',
JUL 262007
INRE: 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. § 1101(a)(15)(L)
IN 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.
~P. wierrrann,72
~ministrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
WAC 03 225 54932
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center.
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be
summarily dismissed.
The petitioner seeks to extend the employment of its general manager as a nonimmigrant intracompany
transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(15)(L) . The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California and
claims to be engaged in the business of importing and distributing computer hardware. The beneficiary
was initially granted a one-year period of stay to open a new office in the United States, and the petitioner
now seeks to extend the beneficiary's stay. The director denied the petition on September 25, 2003,
finding that the beneficiary would not be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive
capacity.
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner indicated on Form 1-290B 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 1-290B , it failed to adequately address the director's conclusions. In this brief
statement , counsel states, "Evidence will be presented on appeal that the beneficiary is functioning as a
'manager ' and therefore the petition/extension of stay executed in his behalf by [the petitioner] to
continue to classify him as [an] L-l A nonimmigrant should have been granted."
The director, however, did a thorough analysis and specifically discussed the basis for the denial in the
decision. Furthermore, the director restated the petitioner's description of the beneficiary's duties and
pointedly discussed the petitioner's organizational chart and inconsistencies between the chart and the
actual wage reports, which created questions regarding the number of persons the petitioner actually
employed. Counsel's general objections on the Form 1-290B, 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. Going on record without
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm . 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)).
On the Notice of Appeal received on October 28, 2003 , the petitioner clearly indicates that it would send
a brief with the necessary evidence to the AAO within thirty days. According to 8 C.F.R. §
103.3(a)(2)(i), the petitioner "shall file the complete appeal including any supporting brief with the office
where the unfavorable decision was made within 30 days after service of the decision ," which in the case
at hand would be no later than Monday , October 27, 2003. While the petitioner may request that it be
granted additional time to submit an appeal, no such request was made in this case. See 8 C.F .R. §
103.3(a)(2)(vii). To date there is no indication or evidence that the petitioner ever submitted a brief
and/or evidence in support of the appeal with the Service Center or with the AAO. 1 As stated above,
IOn June 19 ,2007, 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
WAC 03 225 54932
Page 3
absent a clear statement, brief and/or evidence to the contrary, the petrtioner does not identify,
specifically, an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in support of the appeal. 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.
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 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.
evidence, if in fact such evidence had been submitted, within five business days. A fax from counsel,
received on June 20, 2007, confirmed that no brief or evidence had been filed in support of the appeal.