dismissed L-1A Case: Event Planning And Catering

U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
FILE: EAC 03 130 50758 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 20 2007
INRE: 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)(l5)(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.
~~~rRobert P. Wiemann, Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
EAC 03 130 50758
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 is an event planning and catering company. It seeks to extend its authorization to
employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its director. The director denied the petition based
on the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that it had been doing business for the previous year as
required by the regulations. In addition, the director found that the beneficiary, as the petitioner's sole
employee, was primarily performing non-qualifying as opposed to managerial or executive duties and
therefore was not eligible for the L-IA classification sought.
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner indicated on Form 1-290B that he would submit a brief and/or additional
evidence to address the director's denial within 30 days. Although counsel submitted a brief statement on the
Form 1-290B, it failed to adequately address the director's conclusions. In this brief statement, counsel claims
that the petitioner submitted sufficient evidence of the viability of the U.S. entity and the foreign entity's
financial support of the petitioner, and that it employed independent contractors to assist the beneficiary in the
start-up phase of the business. Counsel concludes by stating that due to a delay in receiving a change of
status, the beneficiary had only six months to commence operations and thus was not afforded sufficient time
to establish the new office.
The director, however, did a thorough analysis and specifically discussed the documentary evidence
submitted in the record, and counsel's general objections on the Form 1-290B, without specifically identifying
any errors on the part of the director, are 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 November 17, 2003, counsel clearly indicates that it 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 November 17, 2003. 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 May 29, 2007, the AAO sent a fax to counsel. The fax advised counsel that no evidence or brief had 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. As of the date of
this decision, no brief or response from counsel has been received. Accordingly, the record will be
considered complete.
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 in support of the appeal.
Hence, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v).
EAC 03 130 50758
Page 3
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 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.
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. Therefore, the appeal will be summarily dismissed.
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.