dismissed L-1A Case: Construction/Building Material

ickmtitYingdatadeletedto
prevemclearlyunwarrarrced
iawalionofpersonal,.privK\
U..S..Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
PUBLICCOpy
File: SRC 05 146 50051 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: Ofe 052006
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(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.
<~;;? ~
Robert'PiWiemann, Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
SRC 05 146 50051
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 filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to extend the employment or' its executive
director as an L-IA nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section lOl(a)(15)(L) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), SU.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Florida and is allegedly engaged in the construction/building material
business. The petitioner claims a qualifying relationship with Prefabricados Marcotulli C.A. of Venezuela.
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that .the beneficiary will be
employed in a primarily executive capacity.
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 to the petitioner stated the following in the
Form I-290B: "Denial of L-l petition was in error as Petitioner qualifies as an 'executive." Counsel further
indicated that a brief and/or evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. As of this date, the
AAO has received nothing further and the record will be considered complete.'
To establish eligibility under section lOl(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. § l03.3(a)(1)(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.
IOn October23, 2006, the AAO sent a fax to counsel. 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 and/or additional
evidence, if in fact such evidence had been submitted, within five business days. On October 24, 2006, the
petitioner responded by fax and confirmed that it did not file a brief or evidence in support of the appeal as
indicated on the Form 1-290B.
SRC 05 146 50051
Page 3
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden.
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.