dismissed L-1A Case: Healthcare Products

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass, N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: SRC-03-162-50693 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonirnrnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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-03-162-50693 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition for a nonirnmigrant visa. The matter 
is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
The petitioner states that it operates as a distributor of Japanese personal healthcare products. It seeks to 
extend its authorization to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its CEO, 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 the bpneficiary will be 
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
With the Form I-290B appeal, the petitioner submits a statement further discussing the beneficiary's eligibility 
for L-1A classification. Specifically, the petitioner provides that "I agree with you, for the time being, the 
current majority of my efforts are spent in the 'non-executive' day to day operations of my business." The 
petitioner discusses the nature of its business, then states "[wlithin 2-3 years, as my business in Florida starts 
to grow and flourish, I anticipate acting less and less in the day-to-day business building operations (seeking 
customers and independent business associates) and more and more in a managerial and executive capacity 
(managing, directing and helping to establish the goals and objectives of my newly created organization of 
independent business associates.)" The petitioner did not assert that the director's denial was based on any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact. The petitioner indicated on Form I-290B that it would 
submit additional evidence within 30 days. However, as of the date of the date of this decision, the AAO has 
received no further documentation or correspondence from the petitioner. 
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. § 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. 5 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.