dismissed L-1A Case: Consulting

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W. Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
,& '1 
R 4 *d4, 
p &+ &fP 
+*T&%x p 
FILE: SRC 03 093 50599 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: APR 2 2m5 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Woi'ker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
1 Ths 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. 
1 Robert P. Wiemann, ~iredor 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 03 093 50599 
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 is a company providing consulting services. It seeks to employ the beneficiary temporarily in 
the United States as its general manager. The director denied the petition based on the conclusion that (1) the 
petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity; (2) 
a qualifying relationshp existed between the U.S. petitioner and a foreign entity; and (3) the petitioner had 
not established that the foreign entity has been doing business as required by the regulations. 
On appeal, the petitioner indicated on Form I-290B that it would submit a brief and/or additional evidence to 
address the director's denial within 30 days. Although the petitioner submitted a brief statement on the Form 
I-290B, it failed to adequately address the director's conclusions. In this brief statement, the petitioner states 
that it has "enough evidence" to show that the foreign entity had been doing business for the previous year, 
and that it also had evidence to show that the beneficiary's duties were managerial ones. The petitioner states 
that it would submit that evidence within thirty days. The petitioner's general objections on the Form I-290B, 
without specifically identifying any errors on the part of the director, are simply insufficient to overcome the 
well-founded and logical conclusions the director reached based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner. 
Although the petitioner asserts that it believes the beneficiary's duties are managerial and that the foreign 
parent has been doing business, 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). 
On the Notice of Appeal received on April 26, 2004, the petitioner clearly indicates that it would send a brief 
with the necessary evidence [to the AAO] within thirty days. According to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(i), the 
petitioner "shall file the complete appeal including any supporting brief with the office where the unfavorable 
decision was made within 30 days after service of the decision," which in the case at hand would be no later 
than Wednesday, May 26,2004. While the petitioner may request that it be granted additional time to submit 
an appeal, no such request was made in this case. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(vii). Even if additional time to 
submit a brief in support of the appeal had been requested and approved, to date there is no indication or 
evidence that the petitioner ever submitted a brief andlor evidence in support of the appeal with the Service 
Center or with the AAO. As stated above, absent a clear statement, brief and/or evidence to the contrary, the 
petitioner does not identify, specifically, and erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact. Hence, the 
appeal must be summarily dismissed. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
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. 
Contrary to the petitioner's assertions, the facts of the case do not speak for themselves, particularly in light of 
the director's detailed list of reasons for denying the petition. Rather, the record shows a number of 
deficiencies, including the petitioner's failure to submit translated evidence establishing that a qualifying 
relationship exists between the petitioner and a foreign entity. Failure to submit requested evidence that 
precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(14). In the 
SRC 03 093 50599 
Page 3 
instant case, the petitioner fails to acknowledge or address the director's reasons for the denial. Accordingly, 
the appeal will 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. 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.