dismissed L-1A Case: Electronics Manufacturing

PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
MAIL STOP 2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Imigration 
FILE: 
 WAC 08 0 1 1 5 1654 
 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
 Date:~ov 0 3 2008 
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. 5 1101(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. 
wH Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
hdrninistrative Appeals OEce 
- WAC 08 011 51654 
Page 2 
I) 
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 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. $ 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a California corporation, states that it is engaged in electronics 
manufacturing. The beneficiary is currently in the United States in L-1 status pursuant to a Blanket L petition 
filed by Intel Corporation. The petitioner seeks to amend and extend the beneficiary's status so that it can 
employ him as an electronics engineer for a three-year period. 
The director denied the petition on April 7, 2008 on two independent and alternative grounds. Specifically, 
the director determined that the petitioner had failed to establish: (1) that the petitioner has a qualifying 
relationship with the beneficiary's foreign employer; and (2) that the beneficiary possesses at least one 
continuous year of full-time employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition. In denying the petition, the director noted that the petitioner expressly 
stated that it is not affiliated with any foreign company and that it "is not and has never been involved with 
Intel financially, technical [sic] or in any way." 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal on May 1, 2008. The director declined to treat the appeal as a 
motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that it was advised 
by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) office in Sacramento that an L-1 visa was one 
option available for hiring the beneficiary, but concedes that "the advice to use the L1 transfer will not work." 
The petitioner expresses its need for the beneficiary's services and highlights the beneficiary's professional 
qualifications for the offered position. 
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. 
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. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. The 
petitioner has conceded that the beneficiary is not qualified for L-1 classification and has not identified any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact to overcome the well-founded conclusions the director 
WAC 08 01 1 51654 
Page 3 
k 
reached based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, the appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
Although the appeal will be dismissed, the petitioner may file a new visa petition on behalf of the beneficiary, 
with the required supporting evidence, in a more appropriate nonimmigrant visa classification. 
The petitioner has not submitted any evidence on appeal to overcome the director's multiple grounds for 
denial of the petition. Therefore, the petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the reasons stated by 
the director, 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. 5 1361. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an 
erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in support of the appeal, the petitioner has not sustained 
that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.