dismissed L-1A Case: Freight Forwarding

U.S. Department of Homelal~d Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Rm. A3402 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigratioil 
Services 
- . 09PO~r- 
,ssioD 
FILE: FEB 9.32065 
SRC 03 185 5 1574 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 03 185 5 1574 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director treated the appeal as a motion to reopen and rcconsider 
and affirmed her previous decision to deny the petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner states that it operates a freight forwarding business. It seeks to extend its authorization to 
employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its executive pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the p12tition on 
August 25, 2003, determining that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary would pri~narily be 
performing managerial or executive duties. 
On October 1, 2003, the petitioner submitted an appeal. On the Form I-290B, counsel stated "The BCIS has 
abused its discretion in denying this L-1A extension." No accompanying brief or evidence was submitted. 
The Director, Texas Service Center, treated the appeal as a motion to reopen or reconsider and affirmed her 
previous decision on November 3, 2003. The AAO notes that a reviewing official is required to promptly 
forward an appeal and the record of proceeding to the AAO when favorable action is not warranted. See 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(iv). Therefore, the director erred in treating the appeal as a motion in order to issue an 
unfavorable decision. Had the appeal been properly forwarded to the AAO, it would have been rejected as 
untimely filed under 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(l). 
On December 1, 2003, counsel filed a second appeal. On the Form I-290B, counsel simply asserts: "We wish 
to appeal this case, not a motion to reopen." Counsel indicates that he is not submitting a separate brief or 
evidence. 
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. 5 103.3(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 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.