dismissed L-1A

dismissed L-1A Case: Food Supply

📅 Date unknown 👤 Company 📂 Food Supply

Decision Summary

The director initially denied the petition for failing to establish a qualifying relationship with a foreign entity. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the counsel failed to identify any specific erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the appeal, despite being given multiple opportunities to provide a brief or evidence.

Criteria Discussed

Qualifying Relationship Managerial Capacity

Sign up free to download the original PDF

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. 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

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.