dismissed L-1A Case: Exports And Imports

data delcteu k~ 
pment dvsrly unwarranted 
bvmba dped privacy 
p'mmc COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Serurity 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: SRC 03 236 5 1378 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: ,I1 11 0 7 2006 
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)(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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRCO32365 1378 
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 states that it is an "Exports and Imports, Retail, Services" business. It seeks to extend its 
authorization to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its General Manager, pursuant 
to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The director denied the petition based on the conclusion that that the beneficiary has not been employed 
in a managerial or executive capacity. 
Although the petitioner has submitted a brief, the brief fails to adequately address the director's 
conclusions. In the brief, the petitioner requests further consideration due to the fact that the U.S. 
company did not start operations until the end of the third quarter of 2003, and the U.S. company has been 
unable to find employees who qualify for the subordinate positions. On appeal, the petitioner asserts the 
following: 
We understand that it has taken longer than expected to hire the required staff due to 
specific job requirements. [The beneficiary] has been in the process of interviewing 
potential employees, and unfortunately unable to find employees with Job Description.. . . 
He has been advised to fill the vacancies of two full-time employees by Mid March under 
any circumstances, and to mobilize all possible means to fulfill the requirement so he 
could concentrate on his actual job functions, i.e Sales, Marketing and Overall 
Managerial functions. 
The director's decision states that the evidence submitted shows that the U.S. company consists of one 
full-time employee, the beneficiary. The decision states, "It is clear that Mr. running all phases 
of the business from supplies to the cash register.. . . The U.S. company has been in business now for over 
one year but still does not have a subordinate staff of professional, managerial or supervisory personnel to 
relieve the beneficiary from performing non-qualifying duties." 
The petitioner's general objections to the denial of the petition, without specifically identifying any errors 
on the part of the director or providing new evidence to support that the beneficiary is in a position of 
managerial capacity, 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 Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). 
Moreover, although the petitioner on appeal states that the beneficiary "has been advised to fill the 
vacancies of two full-time employees by Mid March under any circumstances," the petitioner must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing. A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the 
petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 
I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978). 
Contrary to the Petitioner's assertions, the facts of the case do not speak for themselves, particularly in 
light of the director's detailed reason for denying the petition. Rather, the record shows that the 
beneficiary will be engaged in running the business since it does not appear that there are any other full- 
time employees to perform the daily activities of the business. Thus, it appears that the beneficiary will 
SRCO32365 1378 
Page 3 
be providing the services of the business rather than directing such activities. It is incumbent upon the 
petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to 
explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
In the instant case, petitioner fails to resolve the concerns discussed in the denial. 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Act, 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. 
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.