dismissed L-1A Case: Handicrafts

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm A3042 
& .*;l' n.3' Washington, DC 20529 
-&b c =. 19"I$yf+3 "a;H$l$l 
~~'f) dp~m privacy @ U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
.,,, ,,,s Services 
mt~CUri 
FILE: WAC-04-03 1-50288 Office: CALIFORNIA 'I) SERVICE CENTER Date: 22-2805 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant 'to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the ~dministrative 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. 
8obert P. Wiemann, Dire qw 
"e 
ministrative Appeals Office 
WAC-04-03 1-50288 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimrnigrant 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 an importer and distributor of handicrafts. It seeks to employ the beneficiary 
temporarily in the United States as a Marketing Director, 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 petition 
concluding that the petitioner did not establish that: (I) the beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity in the United States; and (2) the beneficiary was employed in a primarily managerial or 
executive capacity abroad. 
On Form I-290B, counsel for the petitioner stated the following: 
The WAC erred in determining that the beneficiary will not be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity [and] therefore was not eligible for an extension on L-1 status. The WAC 
misinterprets the category "manager of a function" of a company. The WAC'S determination 
is an error in law. Furthermore, The WAC erroneously determines that the beneficiary's 
duties and responsibilities in the capacity of Marketing Director did not qualify as a "manager 
of a function." Therefore, the WAC'S decision should be reversed and the petitioner's request 
for an extension of [the] beneficiary's L-1 status should be granted. Furthermore, The WAC 
erred in determining that the beneficiary was not employed in an executive or managerial 
capacity abroad, whereas this issue had been previously adjudicated and WAS determined 
when the initial petition was filed that the beneficiary's position abroad was indeed in an 
executive or managerial capacity. 
While counsel asserts that the director's overall conclusions are erroneous, counsel does not address the 
director's actual analysis in the denial. Counsel fails to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or 
a statement of fact in this proceeding. Further, while counsel indicated on Form I-290B she would be 
submitting a brief andlor additional evidence within 30 days of filing the appeal, as of the date of this 
decision, the AAO has received no further documentation or correspondence from counsel or the petitioner. 
To establish eligibility under section lOl(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. 
Counsel references the fact that CIS previously approved an L-1 petition by the petitioner on behalf of the 
beneficiary. Counsel suggests that, as the director previously determined that the beneficiary was employed 
abroad in a primarily managerial or executive capacity, that issue should not be readjudicated in this 
proceeding. The AAO notes that the director is not required to approve applications or petitions where 
WAC-04-03 1-50288 
Page 3 
eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, 
e.g. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593,597 (Cornrn. 1988). 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(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 the petitioner 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. !j 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.