dismissed L-1A Case: Finance

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 03 248 52885 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 0 6 2005 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 lOl(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. 
Ro ert P. Wiemann irector 
1' Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 248 52885 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonirnmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service Center. The 
matter is now before the AAO on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner was established in 2003 and claims to be an international investment intermediary and hybrid 
merchant banking and financial advisory group. According to the information contained in the petition, the 
petitioner is claiming to be a branch office of Impact Capital Partners, Ltd., located in the United Kingdom. 
The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States in a managerial or executive 
capacity, namely as a partner. The director denied the petition stating that the evidence provided by the 
petitioner did not establish that a qualifying relationship existed between the U.S. and foreign entities. 
On appeal, counsel indicated that he would submit a brief or evidence to the AAO within 30 days. The notice 
of appeal is dated January 28, 2004. To date, the AAO has not received any additional evidence. Therefore, 
the record is considered complete. 
Counsel merely states in the notice of appeal that the director abused her discretion in denying the petition by 
applying incorrect standards of law and by ignoring the plain meaning of the terms used in support of the 
petition. While counsel contends that the director's incorrect application of the law resulted in an incorrect 
denial, the decision contains sufficient evidence that the director properly reviewed the record and denied the 
petition using correct standards of law. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(l)(v) states in part: 
Summary dismissal. 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. 
As counsel for the petitioner has failed to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement 
of fact for the appeal, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought rests solely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.