dismissed L-1A Case: Food Processing

i$entifuing data deleted to 
prevent deady unwarranted 
invd of pmonal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC-04-1 79-52478 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 1 7 2007 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. !j 1 101 (a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
,$obert Lp- P. Wiemann, 
6 
dministrative Appeals Office 
WAC-04-1 79-52478 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonirnrnigrant 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 food processing and manufacturing. 
 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. § 1 101(a)(15)(L). The 
director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner had not established the beneficiary would be 
employed primarily in a managerial or executive position. 
Petitioner subsequently appealed. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded the 
appeal to the AAO for review. 
Although petitioner has submitted a letter, it failed to address the director's conclusions or identify with any 
specificity an erroneous application of law or statement of fact by the director. The petitioner did not 
significantly alter its assertions in the two page brief, or offer any additional evidence in support of its 
eligibility. In the letter the petitioner restates portions of the Act and various sections of Title 8 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, and claims that the beneficiary is employed primarily in a managerial or executive 
capacity. 
However, the director did a thorough analysis and specifically discussed inconsistencies and lack of 
persuasive evidence in the record. The petitioner's general objections to the denial of the petition, without 
specifically identifying any errors on the part of the director, 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). 
To establish eligibility under section 10 1 (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. 
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. 
WAC-04-1 79-52478 
Page 3 
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. 5 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.