dismissed L-1A Case: Hotel And Resort Industry

U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm.3000
Washington, DC 20529
PUBLICCOpy
u.S. Citizenshi R
and Immigratfon
Services
File: SRC 05 14251833 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date:
I
MAR 06 ZOG7
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
Petition: Petition fora Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration
I
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C § 1101(a)(l5)(L)
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been Iretumed to
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office ..
.------~ ~,
Roberrr?'\Viemann, Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
SRC 05 14251833
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the
. I
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103 .3(a)(2)(v)(A).
The petitioner claims to be engaged in the hotel and resort industry. It seeks to employ the beneficiary as its
group sales manager , and it has petitioned to class ify the beneficiary as an L -lA nonimmigrant intracompany
transferee pursuant to sect ion 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), i ~ U.S .c. §
1101(a)(15)(L). The d irector denied the petition after determining that the beneficiary would not be
employed in the United 'States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity.
The Form I-290B that was submitted for the record was signed by the beneficiary, not by an authorized
representative of the petitioner. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) regulations 'specifically prohibit
a beneficiary of a visa petition , or a representative acting on a beneficiary's behalf , from filing apetition; the
I·
beneficiary of a visa petition is not a recognized party in a proceeding. 8 C .F.R. § 103.2(a)(3) . As the
I
beneficiary is not a recognized party , the beneficiary is not authorized to file an appeal. ~ C.F.R. §
103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B).
As the appeal was not properly filed, it will be rejected. 8 C.F.R. § 103J(a)(2)(v)(A)(1).
Even if the appeal were properly filed, it would have been summarily dismissed. On appeal, the [beneficiary
indicated on Form I-290B that she would submit a brief and/or additional evidence to address the director 's
denial within 30 days. Although the beneficiary submitted a brief statement on the Form I-290B ,:it failed to
adequately address the director 's conclusions. In this brief statement , the beneficiary states "USCIS did not
apply case law correctly ." The beneficiary 's general objection on Form I-290B, without specifically
identifying any errors on the part of the director, is simply insufficient to overcome the well-founded and
logical conclusions the director reached based on the evidence submitted prior to adjudication. Going on
. record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof
in these proceedings. Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972).
On the Notice of Appeal received on January 18, 2006 , the beneficiary clearly indicates that she would send a
brief with the necessary evidence to the AAO within thirty days. According to 8 C.F.R. § 103 .3(a)(2)(i), the
petitioner "shall file the complete appeal including any supporting brief with the office where the anfavorable
decision was made with in 30 days after service of the decision ," which in the case at hand would .be no later
than January 21, 2006 . To date there is no indication or evidence that the beneficiary ever submitted a brief
and/or evidence in support of the appeal with the Service or with the AAO. 1 As stated above, absent a clear
statement , brief and/or evidence to the contrary , the beneficiary does not identify , specifically , any erroneous
conclusion of law or statement of fact. Hence, the appeal would have been summarily dismissed 'pursuant to
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) in the event that it had been properly filed.
I On January 4, 2006 , the AAO sent a fax to counsel of reco rd in this matter. The fax
.advised counsel that no evidence or brief had been received in this matter and requested that counsel submit a
copy of the brief and/or additional evidence, if in fact such evidence had been submitted, within fi ~e business
days. As of the date of this decision, the AAO has received no response from counselor the benefibiary.
,. ~
SRC 05 14251833
Page 3
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(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.
The beneficiary was not authorized to file the appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(A)(l). As a result,
the appeal will be rejected. If the appeal had been properly filed, however, it would have been summarily
dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) for the reasons set forth above.
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.