dismissed L-1A Case: Home Shopping

~d-mng data de1etod:b 
pmnt clearly unw- 
!nv.sion of permmi p- 
U.S. Depnrtrnent nf Homeland Security 
20 Mass Ave.. N.W.. Room ,13032 
Washington, UC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PlrnLIC COPY 
FILE: WAC 04 077 53382 Office: CALIFORN~A SERV~CE CENTER Date:sEP 3 fi 20~ 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(I.) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 IOl(a)(IS)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PEI'ITIONER: 
SELF-REDRESENTED 
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. 
/@y;- 
Robcrt P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeais Off~cc 
WAC 04 077 53382 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The ~ireLtor, California Service Center, denied the petition for a nonimmigrant visa. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Ofice (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner states that it is a corporation organized in the State of California, which engages in the homc 
shopping business. It seeks to extend its authorization to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United 
States as its chief executive officer, pursuant to section IOl(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(lS)(L). 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary would 
be employed primarily in an executive or managerial capacity in the United States. The director found the 
record indicates that a preponderance of the beneficiary's duties will be directly providing the services of the 
U.S. company. In addition, the director does not find the evidence persuasive in establishing that the 
beneficiary will be managing a subordinate staff of professional, managerial or supervisory personnel who 
would relieve her from performing non-qualifling duties. l'he director also concluded that the petitioner has 
not established that it is engaged in the regular, systematic and continuous provision of goods andlor services 
by a qualified organization. 
On the Form I-290B appeal, the petitioner states: 
We regret about your decision regarding to the application for L-l status of[ 
as a Chief Executive Officer of our subsidiary in [the]C 
subsidiary, - is an active enterprise, which 
commercial transactions and hiring some em~lovees in rthel U.S.A. as of vear 2004. It is a 
new[ly] established subsidiary of (also known as-) in 
Seoul, Korea. It is a small of potential capability (sic]. We 
established our subsidiary. in Lor Angeles, and it is because that we believe 
the subsidiary will contribute our company's growth [sic]. As a result, our subsidiary will 
absolutely create much more hiring U.S. employees [sic]. Accordingly, it will givc a lot of 
benefit for both of our company and U.S.A. economy. 
The petitioner also submits on appeal a brief statement, which comments generally on the difficulty and time 
involved in establishing a subsidiary, adding that the U.S. company did not commeilce Substantial activity 
until April 2003 and'is growing gradually. The petitioner also states that while efforts have been made to 
recruit U.S. workers, it has been difficult to find qualified workers given the company's Korean language 
requirement. The petitioner submitted no other brief or evidence on appeal. 
To establish elig~bility under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act, the petitioner must meet certain criteria. 
Spectfically, 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 samc employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof 
in a managerial, executive, or speciaiized knowledge capacity. 
WAC 04 077 53382 
Page 3 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's decision and aff~ms the denial of the petition. The AAO 
also notes that while the petitioner sought to give some explanation on appeal for its failure to meet the 
regulatory requirements applicable to this petition, the petitioner has not identified any error in law or fact in 
the director's decision. The 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. 
lnastnucll 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 proccedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.