dismissed L-1A Case: Education

identifying data deleted:0
preventc/.;:p,rlyunwarr-aucu
invasionof personal pi'!'ja~:,
PUBLICC-Opy
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave . N.W. Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
91'
OCT 1 fl 2007
FILE: EAC 06 183 51367 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date:
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(l5)(L) of the
Immigrat ion and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1101(a)(l5)(L)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
SELF-REPRESENTED
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.
! !a: ~i~~obert P. £~m, Cbief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscls.gov
EAC 0618351367
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont 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 states that it a language school. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant
intracompany transferee pursuant to § 101(a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c.
1l01(a)(l5)(L) in the capacity of director. The director denied the petition based on the conclusion that
the petitioner failed to establish that the foreign entity continued to do business abroad as required by the
regulations.
On appeal, former counsel for the petitioner indicated on Form I-290B that he would submit a brief
and/or additional evidence to address the director's denial within thirty days. Although counsel submitted
an explanatory statement on Form I-290B, he failed to address the director's conclusions. In this brief
statement, counsel stated:
THE PETITIONER WILL PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THE FOREIGN ENTITY HAS
BEEN AND IS PRESENTLY ENGAGED IN THE REGULAR SYSTEMATIC AND
CONTINUOUS PROVISION OF GOOD[S] AND SERVICES.
Counsel's general statement on Form I-290B did not address or specifically identify any errors on the part
of the director, and is 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 Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)).
On the Notice of Appeal received on March 21,2007, former counsel for the petitioner clearly indicated
that he would send a brief with the necessary evidence to the AAO within thirty days. According to 8
C.F.R. § 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 Monday March 26, 2007. Although the petitioner requested
additional time to submit its arguments on appeal, to date there is no indication or evidence that the
petitioner ever submitted a brief and/or evidence in support of the appeal with the Service or with the
AAO.
On September 18, 2007, 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 originally
submitted brief and/or additional evidence, if in fact such evidence had been submitted, within five
business days. On September 20,2007, the AAO received a fax from counsel's office, in which counsel
affirmed that no brief had been submitted within the allotted time period and stated that the office no
longer represented the petitioner or the beneficiary.
EAC 06 183 51367
Page 3
As stated above, absent a timely filed clear statement, brief and/or evidence to the contrary, the petitioner
does not identify, specifically, an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact. Hence, the appeal
must be summarily dismissed. See 8 c.P.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v).
Regulations at 8 c.P.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(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. § 1361. Inasmuch as counsel 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.
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.