dismissed L-1A Case: Confectionery

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass, N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
WCpWrL Ce.. , . - .*c'?&r U. S. Citizenship 
fna-dprrplP6r~ and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: SRC-03-13 1-52472 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUC'TIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. -411 documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
L-51 
I R ert . Wiemann, Director 
/ Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC-03-13 1-52472 
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 operates as a bakery an I confectionery. It seeks to extend its authorization to 
employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United Sta es as its Manager - Confectionery Division, pursuant to 
section 101 (a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration and Natic nality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L). The 
director denied the petition concluding that the pt titioner did not establish that the beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a primarily manager a1 or executive capacity. 
On the Form I-290B appeal, counsel for the petitioner states that "[tlhe decision of the United States 
Citizenship and Immigration Services is erroneous and based upon incorrect understanding of the facts in this 
case and must be set aside for the following reasons." Counsel then lists previously stated facts. Counsel 
does not directly address the points discussed in the director's denial, or identify specifically any erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. The AAO notes that the facts listed on Form I-290B are 
consistent with the director's decision, and thus do not point to an "incorrect understanding of the facts" held 
by the director. It is further noted that, while counsel indicated on Form I-290B he would be submitting a 
brief andlor additional evidence within 30 days of filing the appeal, as of the date of this decision, the AAO 
has received no further documentation or correspondence from counsel or the petitioner. 
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. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
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 the petitioner 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.