dismissed L-1A Case: Consultancy

PUBtIC COPY 
I 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: SRC 03 190 54099 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: JUL 0 7 2006 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
ON 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. 
R ert P. Wiemann, 
M 
j~dministrative ~~~eals Office 
SRC 03 190 54099 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimrnigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
the consultancy business. Accordingly, in June 2003, the U.S. entity petitioned Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) to classifjr the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant intracompany transferee (L-1 A) 
pursuant to section lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 4 
1101(a)(15)(L), as an executive or manager for two years. The petitioner seeks to employ the 
beneficiary's services as a new employee and as the U.S. entity's genera1 management president. The 
director denied the petition based on the conclusion that that the beneficiary has not been employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
Although the petitioner has submitted a brief, the brief fails to adequately address the director's 
conclusions. In the brief, the 
 rther consideration due-to the fact that he enclosed "a 
joint venture agreement with 
 Florida and three Americans regarding an American 
property with an estimated value of $75 million." In addition, the appeal clarifies what the petitioner 
believes to be two misunderstanding made b the dire t r in the decision. The petitioner stated that it was 
the Chairman of the Washington Post, Mr. who personally wrote the beneficiary a hand- 
written note, and that he "wrote very kind words of compliments that I am sure he gives out only 
sparingly to those whom he is highly impressed with." The appeal also stated that the beneficiary writes a 
newspaper column every other Saturday rather then "occasionally." On appeal, the petitioner requests 
further consideration due to the comments made b 
 the Washington Post chairman and "one of 
America's greatest businessman, Mrd 
Moreover, the petitioner explained on appeal that "the revelation of any contracts I had entered into and 
may potentially enter into with any American parties puts my company at a serious disadvantage that may 
even be fatal to the well-being of my company. My business is heavily dependent on privacy and 
confidentiality." Despite these concerns, based on the minimal documentation in the record, it cannot be 
determined that the petitioner has established that the beneficiary will be in a position of managerial or 
executive capacity. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). 
The director's decision states that the evidence submitted does not establish that the beneficiary will hold 
a position of managerial or executive capacity in the United States. In addition, the director suggests that 
the petitioner has not established the burden required to establish the eligibility for the benefits sought. 
The director found that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary will be performing duties 
which primarily require him to plan, organize, direct and control the organization's major functions by 
working through other managerial or professional employees in the United States. The petitioner's 
general objections to the denial of the petition, without specifically identifying any errors on the part of 
the director or providing new evidence to support that the beneficiary is in a position of managerial 
capacity, are simply insufficient to overcome the well-founded and logical conclusions the director 
reached based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190. 
SRC 03 190 54099 
Page 3 
Contrary to the petitioner's assertions that the beneficiary is eligible for the benefit sought due to the fact 
that two successful businessmen complimented him, particularly in light of the director's detailed reason 
for denying the petition, the facts in this case do not meet the burden in evidencing that the beneficiary 
will be in a position of managerial or executive capacity. Rather, the record shows that the beneficiary 
will be engaged in running the business since it does not appear that there are any other full-time 
employees to perform the daily activities of the business. Thus, it appears that the beneficiary will be 
providing the services of the business rather than directing such activities. 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 of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
In the instant case, petitioner fails to resolve the concerns discussed in the denial. 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, the petitioner must demonstrate that 
the beneficiary, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States, has been employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity 
involving specialized knowledge, for one continuous year by a qualifying organization and seeks to enter 
the United States temporarily in order to continue to render his or her services to the same employer or a 
subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
knowledge. 
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. 
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. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify 
specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the petitioner has not 
sustained that burden. Therefore, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.