dismissed L-1A Case: Computer Hardware And Software

::r
identity"ing ~I , ···· " ... .
, l!~ l & .:l~ l l;; l C(j to
prev~nt clearly unwarranted
mvaslonofperSonalpriv~'y
PuBLICCOpy
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusett s Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000
Washington, DC 20529
U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
FILE: WAC 0504851277 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAR 01 2007
INRE: Petitioner :
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) oftheImmigration
and National ity Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1101(a)(l5)(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 . Anyfurther inquiry must be made to that office.
c~ ·
Robert P. Wiemann , Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
WAC 05 048 51277
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 rejected
pursuantto 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A).
The petitioner states that it is engaged in the development, manufacturing, and sale of computer hardware and
software. It seeks to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its chief executive officer as
an L-1A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (the Act), 8.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The director issued a nine-page decision which denied the
petition for the following reasons:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The petitioner failed to show that-it is a recognized legal entity distinct from
its ownership such that it may sponsor intracompany transferees through a
qualifying corporate relationship;
The petitioner failed to establish that a qualifying relationship existed
between the U.S. entity and a foreign organization;
The beneficiary did not have one year of continuous full-time employment
abroad within the three years preceding the filing of the petition; and
The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a
managerial or executive capacity.
.The Form I-290B that was submitted for the record was signed by the beneficiary, not by an authorized
representative of the petitioner.' Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) regulations specifically prohibit
a beneficiary of a visa petition; or a representative acting on a beneficiary's behalf, from filing a petition; the
beneficiary of a visa petition is not a recognized party in a proceeding. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(3). As the
beneficiary is not a recognized party, the b,eneficiary is not authorized to file an appeal. 8 C.F.R. §
103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B).
In the alternative, the AAO would have been required to summarily dismiss the appeal had it been properly
filed by the petitioner in this matter. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v). On appeal, the beneficiary indicated on
Form I-290B that "[t]he 'L' visa is needed for the operating and growth of the corporation in the United
States." He also submits an undated letter of support in which he clearly identifies himself as the beneficiary
in the present matter. The letter provides a general overview of the foreign entity and the growth potential of
the U.S. entity, and includes broad statements regarding the beneficiary's claimed executive capacity and the
foreign entity's status as a sole proprietorship. The beneficiary, however, fails to adequately address the
director's conclusions. The beneficiary's general statements on appeal, 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. The director performed
1 Although the record indicates that the beneficiary is the petitioner's chief executive officer, there is no
indication that the appeal is filed on behalf of the petitioner. The Form I-290B and supporting documentation
are signed in his personal capacity, and the: letter of support submitted on appeal is prepared on personal
stationery, not company letterhead ..
WAC 05 048 51277
Page 3
an extremely thorough analysis of all evidence submitted and cited specific examples of deficiencies in the
evidence to support his decision. In addition, the director pointedly discussed the inconsistencies among the
evidence with regard to the requirements of the regulations. The beneficiary's general comments, 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 of record.
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. .
As stated above, absent a clear statement, brief and/or evidence to the contrary, the beneficiary does not
identify, specifically, any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact. 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 beneficiary has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion
of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the AAO would have been required to summarily dismiss the
appeal had it been properly filed by the petitioner in this matter. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v).
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.