dismissed L-1A Case: Electrical Equipment Manufacturing

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE : SRC 04 1 08 5 1 833 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: ((6 0.8 2005 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
ON 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. 
'2-+ kobert P. Wiemann, Dire 
IJ 
drninistrative Appeals office 
SRC 04 108 51833 
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 petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. tj 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a Texas corporation that is engaged in the design and 
manufacture of custom electrical control equipment. The petitioner claims that it is the parent company of the 
beneficiary's foreign employer, Hatchmex S.A. de C.V., located in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. The petitioner 
seeks to employ the beneficiary as its manager of product development for a seven-year period. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish: (1) that the beneficiary was 
employed in a managerial or executive capacity with the foreign entity; or (2) that there is a qualifying 
relationship between the petitioner and the foreign entity. Specifically, the director found no evidence to 
establish that the foreign entity is currently doing business. 
On appeal, the petitioner's president submits a two-page letter in which he describes the beneficiary's 
proposed duties for the United States entity, explains the parent-subsidiary relationship between the petitioner 
and the foreign entity, and notes: "During 2003 the activities of the subsidiary became dormant due to 
economic conditions." The petitioner indicates that the U.S. company intends to complete product design 
work previously undertaken by its Mexican subsidiary. 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. $ 1 10 l(a)(lS)(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. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not object to the denial of the petition, nor does it specify any erroneous 
conclusion of law or statements of fact on the part of the director. Instead, the majority of the petitioner's 
July 19, 2004 letter on appeal is devoted to describing the duties the beneficiary is to perform in a managerial 
or executive capacity with the United States entity, an issue that was not discussed in the director's June 21, 
2004 decision. The petitioner does not address the director's finding that the beneficiary had not been 
employed by the foreign entity in a qualifying capacity, beyond stating: "proof of this . . . position was 
previously provided on April 23,2004." The petitioner refers to its response to the director's March 22,2004 
request for evidence, in which the director had requested a definitive statement regarding the beneficiary's 
foreign employment, including in part a list of all of the beneficiary's duties and the percentage of time spent 
in each duty, and job titles and descriptions for all of the beneficiary's subordinates. In response, the 
petitioner had submitted: (1) the beneficiary's resume, listing his job titles and dates of employment with the 
foreign entity since 1973; and (2) an untranslated organizational chart for the foreign entity dated May 2000. 
Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the 
SRC 04 108 5 1833 
Page 3 
petition. 8 C.F.R. ?j 103.2@)(14). The director correctly determined that there is insufficient evidence to 
establish that the beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity with the foreign entity as 
required by 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(3)(iv). 
With respect to the director's findings that the petitioner had not established that the foreign entity was doing 
business, the petitioner concedes that its foreign subsidiary became "dormant" in 2003, and indicates that its 
business activities are being transferred to the United States. Consequently, it cannot be concluded that the 
.@ r 
petitioner is a qualifying organization doing business in the United States and at least one forelgn country, or 
that it has a qualifying relationship with a foreign entity. See 8 C.F.R. 9 2 14.2(1)(l)(ii)(G). 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. ?j 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. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. 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. tj 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.