dismissed L-1A Case: Construction Materials Delivery

~den-g data ddcctd to 
p~vent dearly unwammtm~ 
iogdn of wrsonal privact 
pUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: SRC 05 004 5 1678 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 0 6 2M)6 
Petition: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 101 (a)(15)(L) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
v-&-V 
- Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 05 004 5 1678 
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 of its general manager 
as an L- 1 A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws 
of the State of Florida and is allegedly en a ed in the business of delivering construction materials. The 
petitioner claims that it is the subsidiary of e located in Peru. The beneficiary was initially 
granted a one-year period of stay to open a new office in the United States, and the petitioner now seeks to 
extend the beneficiary's stay. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that (1) the beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; or (2) there is a qualifying 
relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary's foreign employer. 
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, the petitioner explains the following in a letter dated 
April 28,2005 appended to the Form I-290B: 
In reference to point number one regarding that we did not show truck drivers in the 
organizational chart, we considered just to include the managerial positions. We have 
trucks [sic] drivers in our company but this [sic] people works [sic] as self employed for 
this reason they are not included in the quarterly report forms. 
In reference to point number two you have to take in consideration that that [the 
beneficiary] received his notice of action six [sic] almost six months after that the visa 
was approved, he has been directing the company for less than 1 year, and [i]n this short 
time he has demonstrated his managerial capacity to conduct the company in the better 
way to obtain the company's goals. 
In reference to point number three we made a mistake with the stock certificate that we 
sent with our petition. Regarding the IRS form 1120 we did precisely instruction [sic] to 
our accountant to [sic] about the percentage owns [sic] by the foreign company, in this 
case they are doing and [sic] amendment to correct its mistake. 
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. 
SRC 05 004 5 1678 
Page 3 
The 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. 
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. While the petitioner attempted to explain 
why its record was insufficient, it failed to provide any additional evidence for the AAO to consider or to 
identify any errors by the director in this proceeding. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). Consequently, the appeal will be 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. 3 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.