dismissed L-1A Case: Computer Parts Manufacturing

PUBLIC COpy
U.S. Department ofllomeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
File: EAC 07 074 52390 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: OCTO 2, 2061
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) ofthe Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(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.
obert P. Wiemann, Chief
ministrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
EAC 07 074 52390
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont 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 filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-IA 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, a Delaware corporation, is described as a computer parts
manufacturer and supplier. It states that it is a subsidiary of ~., located in Taiwan. The
petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as its project manager~od.
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary had at least
one continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years
preceding the filing of the petition. The director observed that the beneficiary commenced employment with
the foreign entity on December 1, 2005, but was admitted to the United States as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor
on September 6, 2006, remaining in the United States until the instant request for a change of status and
extension of stay was filed on January 19, 2007. The director further noted that, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §
214.2(1)(1)(ii)(A), periods of stay in the United States for business or pleasure are not interruptive of the one
year of continuous employment abroad, but such periods shall not be counted toward fulfillment of that
requirement.
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that "the denial of
the petition was due to a mistake on the beneficiary's resume." Counsel asserts that the beneficiary has been
employed by the foreign entity since December 2004, not since December 2005, as indicated on the initial
petition and supporting documents. Counsel submits a letter from the petitioner's controller, who
also states that a mistake on the beneficiary's resume "led to a confusion during the initial application
process." _states that the beneficiary has been employed by the foreign entity since December 1,
2004.
To establish eligibility for the L-I nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one
continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United
States. In addition, 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.
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.
EAC 07 074 52390
Page 3
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. Counsel has
not identified an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact on the part of the director, and does not
indicate that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence presented. Counsel essentially seeks to amend
the petition on appeal in order to revise the beneficiary's employment dates with the foreign entity. Counsel's
request to amend the petition on appeal is not properly before the AAO. The regulations at 8 C.F.R.
§ 214.2(l)(7)(i)(C) state:
The petitioner shall file an amended petition, with fee, at the service center where the
original petition was filed to reflect changes in approved relationships, additional
qualifying organizations under a blanket petition, change in capacity of employment (i.e.
from a specialized knowledge position to a managerial position), or any information
which would affect the beneficiary's eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act.
Further, the AAO notes that the evidence submitted on appeal is insufficient to establish the beneficiary's
dates of employment with the foreign entity. While the petitioner and counsel point to a mistake on the
beneficiary's resume as the reason for the denial of the petition, the AAO notes that the petition and
supporting documents included four separate documents indicating that the beneficiary commenced
employment with the foreign entity in December 2005, including a letter from counsel, the L Classification
Supplement to Form 1-129, the beneficiary's resume, and a letter dated January 9, 2007, signed by the
petitioner's controller,_ who presumably reviewed the letter before signing it. The beneficiary's
resume and the letters submitted in support of the petition indicate that the beneficiary was employed by an
unrelated foreign company, , from June 2003 until December 2005, and this discrepancy has
not been addressed.
In light of the above, the petitione's and counsel's assertions that the beneficiary commenced employment
with the foreign entity on December 1, 2004 are not persuasive, absent corroborating documentary evidence
such as the beneficiary's payroll records for a twelve-month period between December 1, 2004 and December
1, 2005. 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 ofHo, 19 I&N Dec.
582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). The petitioner has not submitted evidence on appeal to overcome the director's
decision.
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 support of the appeal, the petitioner has
not sustained that burden.
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.