dismissed L-1A Case: Healthcare

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass, Rm. A3042,425 I Street, N.W. 
Washington; DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: SRC 04 022 52173 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 6 71105 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 1 0 1 (a)(] 5)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
dministrative Appeals Office 
SRG 04 022 52173 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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 states that it is a nursing home located in Essex, England. It seeks to extend its authorization to 
employ the benefici n the United States as the president of its United States branch,- 
located in Kissimmee, Florida, pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). The beneficiary was initially granted a 
one-year period of stay to open a new office in the United States and the petitioner now seeks to extend the 
beneficiary's stay. 
The director denied the petition based on the following conclusions: 1) the petitioner does not meet the 
definition of a qualifying organization; 2) the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary would be 
employed in the United States by a qualifying organization; and (3) the petitioner has failed to establish that 
the U.S. company is generating sufficient revenue within one year of the initial approval to support an 
executive/managerial level position. 
On the Form I-290B appeal, counsel simply asserts that the reasons for the appeal "[wlill be stated in brief to 
be forwarded." Counsel further indicates that a brief or evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 
days. The appeal was filed on April 28, 2004. As of this date, the AAO has received nothing further and the 
record will be considered 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. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition. Moreover, 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(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 counsel 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.