dismissed L-1A Case: Food Import/Distribution

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: EAC 04 132 54267 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: SEp 2 1 zm 
IN F&: 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. 3 1 101(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. 
krninistrative Appeals Office 
EAC 04 132 54267 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition for a nonirnmigrant 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 engaged in import and distribution of Indian snacks. It seeks to extend the 
beneficiary's employment in the United State as its vice president, 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 
concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the proposed position with the United States entity is 
managerial or executive in nature. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On the Form I-290B appeal, counsel asserts: 
Petitioner contends that L-1 application to extend should have been approved based upon 
evidence submitted. Based upon the attached evidence, Petitioner respectfully requests that 
the extension be granted. 
Counsel does not submit a brief in support of the appeal. The petitioner, through counsel, submits copies of 
all documents previously entered into the record. 
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. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. The 
director's April 26, 2004 decision includes a thorough analysis of the evidence presented with the initial 
petition and in response to an April 5, 2004 request for evidence, and specifically discussed the deficiencies 
and inconsistencies among the documents and information submitted. Counsel's general objection to the 
denial of the petition, without specifically identifying any errors on the part of the director, is simply 
insufficient to overcome the well-founded and logical conclusions the director reached based on the evidence 
submitted by the petitioner. The assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 
I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter Of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 
17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm. 1998)(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). 
Contrary to counsel's assertions, the evidence previously submitted does not establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility for the benefit sought, particularly in light of the director's detailed list of reasons for denying the 
petition. Rather, the record shows a number of inconsistencies with respect to the petitioner's staffing levels 
and the actual job duties of its employees. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in 
EAC 04 132 54267 
Page 3 
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, counsel fails to acknowledge, much less 
resolve, the inconsistencies discussed in the denial. 
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. 
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. 3 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.