dismissed L-1A Case: Electronics

U.S. Dcparlment of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rn1. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
~w"%M d ~~ U.S. Citizenship 
PI-rnK&C cwx 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: J()N 0 1 2)05 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1 10 1 (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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
a 
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 states that it is an importer, exporter, distributor, and reseller of electronic products. It seeks to 
employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its President and General Manager, pursuant to 
section lOl(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(L). The 
director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will be 
employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
On the Form I-290B appeal, counsel refers the AAO to attached materials. Counsel submits a brief that is 
almost entirely a verbatim recitation of the petitioner's letter of February 16, 2004 submitted with the initial 
petition. The single new paragraph discusses the beneficiary's prior employment in H-1B status, which was 
not a ground for denial in the director's decision. Counsel resubmits numerous documents that were 
previously provided with the initial petition. The only new documents that pertain to the beneficiary's 
employment capacity, namely the beneficiary's resume and "Work Reference Letter," relate to his 
employment abroad. Thus, these documents do not serve to refute the director's finding that the beneficiary 
will not be employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. Accordingly, 
counsel provided no new evidence or assertions to address the director's grounds for denial. 
To establish eligibility under section 101(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. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(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 counsel has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in 
this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving elig~bility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.