dismissed L-1A Case: Diversified Holdings

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearly unwarr~ted
invasionof personalpnvacy
pUBLICCOPY
U"S" Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.s.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
h-,
File: WAC 04 223 51717 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date:
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)(15)(L)
IN 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.
d.··· ""> .
<, ~.:=, ::.::" ...: ·.~~ ~~;·i:= ·
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
WAC 04223 51717
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director, California 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 managing
director as an L-IA nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section lOl(a)(15)(L) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of California and is allegedly a diversified holdings company.'
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; (2) the beneficiary's
employment in the United States will be temporary; or (3) there is a qualifying relationship between the
petitioner and the 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, counsel to the petitioner explains the following in
the Form 1-290B:
1. USCIS erred in finding that beneficiary is a major stockholder.
2. USCIS erred in finding that beneficiary's employment will not be temporary.
3. USeIS erred in finding that beneficiary's duties are not those of an executive.
4. USCIS erred in finding that a qualifying relationship does not exist.
Counsel further states that a brief or evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. As of this
date, the AAO has received nothing further and the record will be considered complete?
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.
lIt should be noted that, according to California state corporate records, the petitioner's corporate status in
California has been "dissolved." Therefore, as the petitioner has voluntarily elected to wind-up its operations
and has completely dissolved its business as a corporation, the company no longer exists and can no longer be
considered a legal entity in the United States. Therefore, as this clearly and unequivocally renders the
petitioner ineligible for the classification sought, the issues raised on appeal are moot.
20n September 19, 2006, the AAO sent a fax to counsel. The fax advised counsel that no evidence or brief
had ever been received in this matter and requested that counsel submit a copy of the brief and/or additional
evidence, if in fact such evidence had been submitted, within five business days. As of the date of this
decision, the AAO has received no response from counselor the petitioner.
WAC 04 223 51717
Page 3
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition.
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. § l03.3(a)(I)(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. 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. § 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden.
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.