dismissed L-1A Case: Furniture Retail

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massacliusetts Ax. N.W.. Knl A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
 dm data ddeied to 
p-r4arly ~nw- 
'n-o(~erswalm 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services . 
mEIc COPY 
FILE: WAC 03 263 52436 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: ((OV 2 9 20()5 
IN RE: Pet~tloner: 
Benefic~ary : 
PETITION: ~etitlon for a Nonimrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(L) of the Immlgratlon 
and Natlonallty Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 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 retimed to 
, .. the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 263 52436 
Page 2 
'DISCUSSION: The Director, Califhia 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-1A nonimmigrant 
intracompany transferee pursuant to 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 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 = 
located in m Malaysia. The petitioner requests that the beneficiary be 
f stay to serve as its director of financial operations. 
The dlrector denled the petitlon on November 13, 2003, conclud~ng that the petltloner did not establish that 
the petitioner and the beneficiary's forelgn employer are quahfylng organizations as defined by 8 C.F.R. $ 
2 14.2(1)(1)(11)(G). . 
On appeal, counsel stated on Form I-290B that the director's conclusion that there 1s no evldence of a 
qual~fylng relat~onshlp "has no basis whatsoever and IS totally belled by the ovenvhelmtng evldence 
submitted hereln Petltloner will show and prove this satlsfactonly on appeal " Counsel lnd~cated that hc 
would send a bnef to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) wlthln 30 days. The appeal was received by 
the California Service Center on November 21, 2003. Counsel submitted a brlef to the AAO on September 8, 
2004. 
In the bnef, counsel falls to address the Issue of the petitloner's qualifying relatlonsh~p wlth the foreign entlty. 
Instead, counsel merely asserts that the denlal of the petlt~on has caused the petltloner s~gnlficant financial 
hardship. In addit~on, counsel explalns In great detail the specialized knowledge quallficat~ons of the 
beneficlary and refers to the denial of the beneficiary's request for L-1B status. However, the pet~t~oner 
clearly represented in the Initial petitlon that the beneficlary was being offered employment m a managerlal 
capaclty under sectlon 10 1 (a)(44)(A) of the Act and accordingly requested that she be granted L-1A status 
Furthermore, the sole bass for denial of the pet~t~on clted by the director was the petlt~oncr's fallure to 
provide evldence that ~t has a qualrfylng relationship with the forelgn entlty. Consequently, counsel's 
arguments on appeal have no relevance to the actual petltion or to the director's declwon. The only supportlng 
documentation subm~tted on appeal IS a product brochure contaming photographs and prlces of the 
petitloner's products 
Counsel's objections to the denial of the petitlon on completely different grounds than those actually 
~dent~fied by the dlrector, and wlthout specifically ldentify~ng any errors on the part of the dlrector, are slmply 
msuffic~ent to overcome the well-founded and loglcal conclusions the dlrector reached based on the ev~dence 
submitted by the petltloner. The assertions of counsel do not constitute evldence. Mutter of Oburyhena, 19 
I&N Dec. 533. 534 (BIA 1988); Matter Of Lazrreatzo, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983), Mutter of RCIINZT~Z- 
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Ciolng on record without supportlng documentary evldence IS 
not sufficient for purposes of meetlng the burden of proof In these proceedings Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (clt~ng Matter of Treastrre Craft of Cnllfowi~a, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Conlm 
1972)). 
WAC 03 263 52436 
Page 3 
Contrary to counsel's assertions that the director's find~ng "has no basis whatsoever," the record shows too 
many inconslstencles and insufficient documentary evldence to support a find~ng that there 1s a qualifying 
relatlonsh~p between the U.S. and forelgn entitles. 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 subm~ts competent objective evidence polnting 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 ~nconsistencles discussed In the denial. 
To establish L-l eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 4 1101(a)(15)(L), the petitioner must demonstrate that the benefic~ary, within three years preceding 
the beneficiary's application for admiss~on into the United States, has been employed abroad In a qualifying 
managerlal or executive capaclty, or in a capaclty involving specialized &owledge, for one continuous year 
by a quahfying organization and seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render his 
or her servlces to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a capacity that 1s managerial, 
executive, or ~nvolves specialized knowledge. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. !j 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, In pertinent part: 
An officer to whom an appeal 1s taken shall summar~ly dlsmiss any appeal when the party 
concerned falls to ldentlfy specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact for the appeal. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of provlng ellglbil~ty for the benefit sought remains entirely wlth the 
pet~tioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. Inasmuch as counsel has failed to Identify specifically an 
erroneous,conclusion of law or a statement of fact m this proceeding, the petitioner has not sustained that 
burden. Therefore, the appeal wlll be summanly dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily d~sm~ssed.