dismissed L-1A Case: Consulting

IdentifYingdatadeletedto
preventcI~r'~' unwammted
!nVl'lS;on,,)1 iX'f':onal rJriv(iC'.
PUBLICCOpy
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.s.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
File: SRC 06 114 50982 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 1 02007
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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.
R~~
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
SRC 06 11450982
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 pet ition seeking to employ the beneficiary as its general manager
as an L-IA nonimmigrant intracompany transferee to open a new office in the United States pursuant to
section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a)(l5)(L). The
petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida and is allegedly a consulting
business.
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish (I) that it has secured
sufficient physical premises to house the new office; or (2) that the intended United States operation, within
one year of the approval of the petition, will support an executive or managerial position because the
petitioner failed to establish that an investment had been made in the operation . Specifically, the director
determined that, because the lease and bank documents submitted by the petitioner concern activity
commencing after the filing of the petition, the petitioner failed to establish that physical premises had been
secured and an investment had been made prior to the filing of the petition.
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 in a statement attached to the
Form I-290B that it was unable to transfer money prior to the filing of the petition because it was "waiting to
have all the [c ]orporation documents done and the lease agreement signed" and because "it is a very
complicated process to transfer money from [the c]ompany in Brazil." The petitioner also explained that
"there was a delay in the rental process" because it did not have certain "financial documents" available and
because it had difficulty finding available space in the des ired area of Orlando, Florida.
To establish eligibility under section 101(a)(l5)(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. § 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 conclus ion of law or a statement of
fact in this proceeding , the appeal must be summarily dismissed . While the petitioner gave explanations for
its failure to secure sufficient physical premises and to establish that an investment had been made in the
SRC 06 114 50982
Page 3
United States operation , it nevertheless failed to identify an erroneous legal conclusion or factual statement in
the director's decision for the AAO to consider on appeal. Consequently , the appeal must be dismissed.
That being said, the AAO notes that, upon review, the director's decision was appropriate.
The regulation at 8 C .F.R. § 214.2(l)(3Xv) states that if the petition indicates that the beneficiary is coming to
the United States as a manager or executive to open or to be employed in a new office, the petitioner shall
submit evidence that:
(A) Sufficient physical premises to house the new office have been
secured;
(B) The beneficiary has been employed for one continuous year in the
three year period preced ing the filing of the petition in an executive
or managerial capacity and that the proposed employment involved
executive or managerial authority over the new operation ; and
(C) The intended United States operation, within one year of the
approval of the petition , will support an executive or managerial
position as defined in paragraphs (l)(1)(ii)(B) or (C) of this section,
supported by information regarding:
(1) The proposed nature of the office describing the scope of the
entity, its organizational structure , and its financial goals ;
(2) The size of the United States investment and the fmancial
ability of the foreign entity to remunerate the beneficiary and
to commence doing business in the United States; and
(3) The organizational structure of the foreign entity.
As indicated above, the petitioner failed to submit evidence that it had secured sufficient physical premises to
house the new office , or that that an investment had been made in the operation , prior to the filing of the
petition on February 27, 2006 . 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(l)(3)(v)(A) and (C)(2) . While the petitioner submitted a
lease both dated and commencing June 15,2006 , and evidence that wire transfers were made to the petitioner
commencing in April 2006, this evidence is not relevant to the petition. The petitioner must establish
eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. A visa petition may not be approved at a future
date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire
Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978).
In the absence of required evidence, the petition may not be approved . Going on record without supporting
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings.
Matter of SojJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14
SRC 06 114 50982
Page 4
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). The non-existence or other unavailability of required evidence creates a
presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i).
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish (1) that it has secured sufficient physical premises to house
the new office ; or (2) that the intended United States operation , within one year of the approval of the
petition, will support an executive or managerial position due to the petitioner's failure to establish that an
investment had been made in the operation, and the petition may not be approved for these reasons.
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. § 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden.
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.