dismissed L-1A Case: Fashion Accessories

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 03 032 52945 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
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: 
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. 
Robert P.'~iemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 03 032 52945 
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 filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to extend the employment of its sales manager as an 
L-1 A nonimmigrant intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. Q: 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of 
New Jersey that is engaged in the design, manufacture and import of leather belts, handbags, custoln jewelry 
and other fashion accessories. The petitioner claims that it is the subsidiary of Core Creations located in 
Seoul, Korea. The beneficiary was initially granted a one-year period of stay to open a new office in the 
United States and the petitioner now seeks to extend the beneficiary's stay. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief presented as a motion to reopen and reconsider. In the brief, counsel does 
not object to the denial of the petition, nor does she specify any erroneous conclusions of law or statements of 
fact on the part of the director. Instead, she asserts that the petitioner's previous counsel failed to adequately 
address all of the concerns the director addressed in his request for additional evidence issued on November 
19, 2002, and herein submits the information previously requested. Counsel states that previous counsel's 
response to the request for evidence did not exhibit the "highly managerial and supervisory nature" of the 
beneficiary's position. Counsel asserts that an appropriate response to the original request, submitted with the 
corresponding documentation, will overcome the defects found by the director. 
It is noted for the record that any appeal or motion based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel 
requires: (1) that the claim be supported by an affidavit of the allegedly aggrieved respondent setting forth in 
detail the agreement that was entered into with counsel with respect to the actions to be taken and what 
representations counsel did or did not make to the respondent in this regard, (2) that counsel whose integrity 
or competence is being impugned be informed of the allegations leveled against him and be given an 
opportunity to respond, and (3) that the appeal or motion reflect whether a complaint has been filed with 
appropriate disciplinary authorities with respect to any violation of counsel's ethical or legal responsibilities, 
and if not, why not. Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), afd, 857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988). 
Although counsel claims that that the petitioner's previous counsel failed to submit critical infor~nation in 
response to the director's request for evidence, counsel has not satisfied the three requirements set forth 
above. 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 9 1101(a)(15)(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. 
EAC 03 032 52945 
Page 3 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. 
The director issued a request for evidence on November 19, 2002, in part instructing the petitioner to submit a 
comprehensive description of the beneficiary's duties and indicate how the beneficiary's duties have been and 
will be managerial or executive in nature. While the petitioner submitted a response received on February 4, 
2003, the petitioner did not provide a comprehensive description of managerial or executive duties to be 
performed by the beneficiary. Yet, the petitioner now submits such evidence on appeal. 
The regulation states that the petitioner shall submit additional evidence as the director, in his or her 
discretion, may deem necessary. The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further information that 
clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of the time the petition is filed. See 
8 C.F.R. 5s 103.2(b)(8) and (12). The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a materval line of 
inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(14). 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. See Matter of Soriatzo, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 
(BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be considered, it should have submitted 
the documents in response to the director's request for evidence. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO need 
not and does not consider the sufficiency of the evidence submitted on appeal. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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. 
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. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.