dismissed L-1A Case: Hardware And Software Development

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 04 129 52848 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: ,A,., T 2duh 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(l5)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 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. 
,6 Robert P. Wie 
D 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 129 52848 
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, an Australian corporation, seeks to transfer the beneficiary temporarily to the United States to 
be employed as the chief executive officer of its United States subsidiary, pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner and its subsidiary, a 
Colorado corporation, claim to be engaged in hardware and software development and sales. The director 
denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a 
managerial or executive capacity. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On the Form I-290B Notice of Appeal, counsel for the petitioner 
asserts: 
We respectfully request that you reconsider this application as a "new office" and grant the 
petitioner a one year initial period of stay. While you correctly note that the U.S. company 
was incorporated in 2002, it has not been acting as an independent entity, and all financial 
functions have been performed by the parent company, which prevented the submission of 
any United States payroll or tax forms. The U.S. Company was waiting to commence 
operations independently until the arrival of the beneficiary so that the beneficiary could 
supervise and manage operations. We intend to submit additional evidence that the 
beneficiary supervises a subordinate staff who will relieve him of performing non-qualifying 
duties, by submitting Form 1099's or other payroll evidence that the employees are in fact 
employed by the U.S. Company, thus meeting the burden of proof set forth in the Director's 
explanation for the denial. 
Counsel indicated on Form I-290B that she would submit a brief or evidence to the AAO within 30 days. As 
no additional evidence has been incorporated into the record, the AAO contacted counsel by facsimile on 
November 14,2005 to request that counsel acknowledge whether the brief and/or evidence were subsequently 
submitted, and, if applicable, to afford counsel an opportunity to re-submit the documents. Counsel replied 
on November 16, 2005, indicating that she did not file a brief or evidence in support of this appeal. 
Accordingly, the record is now complete. 
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. 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(a)(l)(v) state, in pertinent part: 
WAC 04 129 52848 
Page 3 
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. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. Rather than 
specifically identifying any erroneous conclusion of law or statements of fact on appeal, counsel requests that 
the petition be reconsidered as a "new office" petition pursuant to the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 9 214.2(1)(3)(~). 
On the L Classification Supplement to Form 1-129, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary is not coming 
to the United States to open a new office. Furthermore, the petitioner did not submit the required supporting 
evidence for a new office petition. Counsel's request to amend the petition on appeal is not properly before the 
AAO, and counsel's request that the petitioner be considered a "new office" as defined at 8 C.F.R. 
5 214,2(l)(ii)(F) will not be granted. If the petitioner now believes that it meets the definition of a "new 
office" for purposes of this visa classification, the petitioner must file a new petition, with appropriate 
supporting documentation, rather than seek approval of a petition that is not supported by the facts in the 
record. 
Counsel also claimed that the petitioner wouId be able to provide Forms 1099 or other documentary evidence 
to substantiate the petitioner's claim that the United States entity had four employees at the time the petition 
was filed. As noted above, this evidence has not been submitted. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craji of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Furthermore, the director previously requested that the petitioner 
provide evidence of wages paid the U.S. entity's employees and the petitioner failed to submit documentary 
evidence in response. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be 
grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(14). The petitioner has not submitted any evidence on 
appeal to overcome the director's conclusion that the beneficiary would not be employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity in the United States. 
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. 9 1361. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify 
specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in support of the appeal, the petitioner has 
not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.