dismissed L-1A Case: Computer Software

~den$lifying data deletea ao 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland SecuriQ 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC-04-007-5001 5 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL 1 7 2006 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 IOl(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals OEce 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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC-04-007-5001 5 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Offlce (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner states that it is computer software business. It seeks to employ the beneficiary temporarily in 
the United States as its manager, pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition based on the following independent 
conclusions: 1) the petitioner had not established that a qualifjrlng relationship with a foreign entity existed; 
and 2) that substantial capital had been invested such that the business could establish itself and commence 
doing business. 
On the Form I-290B appeal, counsel simply asserts that the documents in the record were not considered and 
that it had established eligibility. Counsel further states that a brief or evidence would be submitted to the 
AAO within 30 days. The appeal was filed on June 7,2004. As of this date, the AAO has received nothing 
further and the record will be considered complete.' 
To establish eligibility under section 10 1 (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. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. Although 
counsel for the petitioner asserted on the 1-290 that the record was not considered, this argument has no basis 
in fact. The record was only lightly documented by the petitioner, and the petitioner failed to respond to a 
number of requests in a 10 page request for evidence issued by the director. Failure to submit requested 
evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 9 
103.2(b)(14). The few documents that were submitted fall substantially short of demonstrating eligibility. 
Thus, counsel's arguments are not persuasive. 
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. 
On December 14, 2005, the AAO sent a fax to counsel for the petitioner. The fax advised counsel that no 
evidence or brief had ever been received in this matter and requested that counsel submit a copy of the brief 
andlor additional evidence, if in fact such evidence had been submitted, within five business days. Counsel's 
response to this fax failed to provide a copy of a previously submitted brief or evidence and simply stated that 
it could not provide this documentation because the beneficiary had requested the file from their office six 
months ago. Absent evidence that a brief or evidence had ever been submitted on appeal, the AAO must 
consider the record as complete. 
WAC-04-007-50015 
Page 3 
Inasmuch as counsel has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in 
this proce~eding, 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. 
 136 1. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is swnmarily dismissed.