dismissed
L-1A
dismissed L-1A Case: Food Import/Export
Decision Summary
The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner's counsel failed to identify a specific erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the original denial. Counsel submitted a one-sentence reason for the appeal and did not provide a brief or additional evidence, even after being contacted by the AAO.
Criteria Discussed
Qualifying Relationship Managerial Capacity One-Year Prior Employment
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
U.S. De~artment of Homeland Security 20 Massachusetts Ave . N W . Rm A3042 Washtngton. DC 20529 U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services PUBLIC COPY FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL 1 2 Zm PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1 10 l(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. obert P. Wiemann, Director Administrative Appeals Office Page 2 DISCUSSION: The Director, California 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 operates as an importer and exporter, as well as an oriental food supplier. It seeks to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its Manager - Purchase Department, pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the lmmigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that it has a qualifying relationship with a foreign entity. On Form I-290B, as reason for the appeal counsel simply asserts: "That there is a relationship between the two companies." Counsel indicated that he would be sending a brief and/or evidence to the AAO within 30 days. The appeal was filed on December 8,2003. As of June 8,2005, 19 months after the date of filing, the AAO had received no further correspondence from counsel or the petitioner. On June 8,2005, the AAO sent notification to counsel by facsimile that no further materials had been received in connection with the appeal, and affording counsel five business days to respond before a decision is rendered. On June 1 1,2005, counsel responded by facsimile to the AAO, stating that his office was unable to identify the present matter with only a case number, and requesting that the AAO provide the names of the petitioner and beneficiary. On June 21, 2005, the AAO sent the names of the petitioner and beneficiary to counsel by facsimile. As of the date of this decision, the AAO has received no further evidence or correspondence from counsel or the petitioner. Thus, counsel's statement on appeal is limited to the broad sentence on Form I-290B as quoted above. Counsel fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 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. Regulations at 8 C.F.R. fj 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 counsel has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.
Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial
MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.
Avoid This in My Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.