dismissed L-1A Case: Dental Products

hdm--W 
F~WY 
indm of personal p*~ 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 03 220 50323 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 0 9 2005 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonirnrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON 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. 
&&+ 
Ro ert P. Wiemann, Director 
Ad 'nistrative Appeals Office 
L-Y 
WAC 03 220 50323 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California 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 petitioner filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a Delaware corporation that is engaged in the manufacture and 
distribution of dental restoration products. The petitioner claims that it is the parent company of Prodent 
Inc. located in Makati City, Philippines. The petitioner seeks to employ the 
.:u beneficiary as its business development manager for a three-year period. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. Specifically, the director noted 
that it appeared the beneficiary would be performing sales and marketing, purchasing and distribution 
administration rather than performing primarily managerial or executive duties. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner does not object to the denial of the petition, nor does he specify any 
erroneous conclusions of law or statements of fact on the part of the director. Instead, he asserts that the 
director based his decision to deny the petition "on inaccurate and incorrect information inadvertently 
provided" by petitioner's former counsel in a letter dated November 20, 2003, which was submitted in 
response to the director's October 1 I, 2003 request for evidence. 
Specifically, counsel states: 
Evidently, the Service considered the previous counsel's letter dated November 20, 2003 in 
reaching its decision. Unfortunately, that letter was made available to the petitioner only 
when it received the Service's decision. Thusly, it was just recently learned by the petitioner 
that the proffered position was highly misrepresented and an inaccurate description of its 
duties was provided to the Service. Apparently, the prior counsel prepared and submitted a 
response to the Service without consulting with the petitioner or clarifying details of the 
position. Had the petitioner known that certain crucial information were misinterpreted to the 
Service, it would have acted swiftly to correct whatever deficiencies are found. 
In support of the appeal, counsel submits an affidavit executed by the petitioner's vice president of operations, 
stating that he disagrees with contents of former counsel's November 20, 2003 letter, and that he was never 
consulted by former counsel in regard to the complete list of duties of the business development manager 
position offered to the beneficiary. The petitioner further states: 
[The] position is of managerial capacity and as such, [the 
beneficiary] will be required to supervise several staff members including marketing, qualify 
control, shippinglreceiving and networWIT support. More specifically, because of [the 
beneficiary's] business management background, she will be required to partake in a wide 
array of responsibilities to be carried out on our behalf. This will include over-seeing the 
entire daily business operation where she will insure that proper authority limits and internal 
WAC 03 220 50323 
Page 3 
control/procedures are observed; rendering all personnel-related decisions subject to 
executive review, including hiring, firing, endorsing disciplinary measures and all 
promotional-related aspects; reviewing all reports pertaining to this company's day-to-day 
activity; and other related tasks affecting the over-all viability as to our related activities[.] 
It is noted for the record that any appeal or motion based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel 
requires: (I) that the claim be supported by an affidavit of the allegedly aggrieved respondent setting forth in 
detail the agreement that was entered into with counsel with respect to the actions to be taken and what 
representations counsel did or did not make to the respondent in this regard, (2) that counsel whose integrity 
or competence is being impugned be informed of the allegations leveled against him and be given an 
opportunity to respond, and (3) that the appeal or motion reflect whether a complaint has been filed with 
appropriate disciplinary authorities with respect to any violation of counsel's ethical or legal responsibilities, 
and if not, why not. Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), affd, 857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988). 
Although counsel claims that that the petitioner's previous counsel misrepresented critical information in 
response to the director's request for evidence, counsel has not satisfied the three requirements set forth 
above. 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L), 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. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
The director issued a request for evidence on October 11, 2003, in part instructing the petitioner to submit a 
comprehensive description of the beneficiary's duties; the percentage of time spent on each duty; and a 
description of the types of non-managerial functions for which the beneficiary will be responsible. Former 
counsel for the petitioner submitted a response dated November 20, 2003, which included a very detailed 
description of the beneficiary's duties. The petitioner now claims that this description was wholly inaccurate 
and a "severe misrepresentation" of the duties to be performed by the beneficiary; however, on review, it 
appears to merely expand upon the initial job description included in the petitioner's own letter of July 7, 
2003. Yet, the petitioner now wishes the AAO to disregard its former counsel's letter of November 20, 2003, 
and instead consider the job description included in the petitioner's affidavit, as quoted above, which bears 
little resemblance to the job description submitted by the petitioner in support of the initial petition. 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). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition 
conform to CIS requirements. See Matter of lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Cornm. 1998). 
WAC 03 220 50323 
Page 4 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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 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. 5 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.