dismissed L-1A Case: Furniture Import/Retail

~ded&hg data Weted (o 
pmdcarly lhmmmm& 
;nva&mofw~~ 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 03 263 52436 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: m)V 2 'J IN5 
PETITION: petition for a Nonirnrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 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. 
L 
/ &A- 
&& P. Wiernann, D~rector 
Administratwe Appeals Office 
WAC 03 263 52436 
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 filed this nonimmigrant petition seeking to employ the beneficiary as an L-IA nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee 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 petitioner is a corporation organized in the State of Nevada that is engaged in 
. the import, wholesale and retail of patio furniture. The petitioner claims that it is the subsidiary of - 
.vliuiiysia) Sdn. Bhd., located in Shal Alam, Malaysia. The petitioner requests that the beneficiary be 
granted a three-year period of stay to serve as its director of financial operations. 
The director denied the petition on November 13, 2003, concluding that the petitioner did not establish that 
the petitioner and the beneficiary's foreign employer are qualifying organizations as defined by 8 C.F.R. 3 
2 14.2(1)(1)(ii)(G). 
On appeal, counsel stated on Form I-290B that the director's conclusion that there is no evidence of a 
qualifying relationship "has no basis whatsoever and is totally belied by the overwhelming evidence 
submitted herein. Petitioner will show and prove this satisfactorily on appeal." Counsel indicated that he 
would send a brief to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) within 30 days. The appeal was received by 
the Califomia Service Center on November 21, 2003. Counsel submitted a brief to the AAO on September 8, 
2004. 
In the brief, counsel fails to address the issue of the petitioner's qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. 
Instead, counsel merely asserts that the denial of the petition has caused the petitioner significant financial 
hardship. In addition, counsel explains in great detail the specialized knowledge qualifications of the 
beneficiary and refers to the denial of the beneficiary's request for L-1B status. However, the petitioner 
clearly represented in the initial petition that the beneficiary was being offered employment in a managerial 
capacity under section 10 1 (a)(44)(A) of the Act and accordingly requested that she be granted L- I A status. 
Furthermore, the sole basis for denial of the petition cited by the director was the petitioner's failure to 
provide evidence that it has a qualifying relationship with the foreign entity. Consequently, counsel's 
arguments on appeal have no relevance to the actual petition or to the director's decision. The only supporting 
documentation submitted on appeal is a product brochure containing photographs and prices of the 
petitioner's products. 
Counsel's objections to the denial of the petition on completely different grounds than those actually 
identified by the director, and 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. 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- 
Sanclzez, 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 Soffici, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Cornrn. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972)). 
WAC 03 263 52436 
Page 3 
Contrary to counsel's assertions that the director's finding "has no basis whatsoever," the record shows too 
many inconsistencies and insufficient documentary evidence to support a finding that there is a qualifying 
relationship between the U.S. and foreign entities. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any 
inconsistencies in 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. 
To establish L-1 eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L), the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary, within three years preceding 
the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad in a qualifying 
managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving specialized knowledge, for one continuous year 
by a qualifying organization and seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render his 
or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that is managerial, 
executive, or involves specialized knowledge. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(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. 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.