dismissed L-1A Case: Import And Export

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: SRC 06 012 51026 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (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. 
Ro ert P. Wiemann 
&-Lice 
SRC 06 012 51026 
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 engaged in the import and export business. 
 It seeks to extend the 
employment of the beneficiary as its executive manager pursuant to 5 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition based on the conclusion 
that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary will be employed in a primarily managerial or 
executive capacity in the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner indicated on Form I-290B that it would submit a brief and/or additional evidence 
to address the director's denial within thirty days. Although the petitioner submitted a brief statement on 
the Form I-290B, it failed to adequately address the director's conclusions. In this brief statement, the 
petitioner states "I am appealing this decision because I believe it has not been fair. The INS office has 
determine[d] this decision based on only a definition and did not even [look] at the documents attached 
concerning the capacity of the beneficiary. . . . Please check on this matter through the appeal." 
The director, however, provided a detailed analysis and cited the deficiencies in the evidence in the course 
of the denial. Specifically, the director noted that the initial evidence was deemed insufficient, and that 
the petitioner's response to the request for evidence indicated that the petitioner employed only one other 
person in addition to the beneficiary. The director further noted that the description of duties provided in 
response to the director's request for additional information was consistent with the initial description that 
had previously been deemed insufficient. Finally, the director cited the applicable regulation and 
regulatory definitions pertaining to the requested classification, and concluded that the evidence of record 
failed to satisfy these requirements. The petitioner's general objection on the 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 by the 
petitioner. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Cornm. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
On the Notice of Appeal received on May 30, 2006, the petitioner clearly indicates that it would send a 
brief with the necessary evidence to the AAO within thirty days. While the petitioner may request that it 
be granted additional time to submit an appeal, no such request was made in this case. See 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.3(a)(2)(vii). Even if additional time to submit a brief in support of the appeal had been requested and 
approved, to date there is no indication or evidence that the petitioner ever submitted a brief and/or 
evidence in support of the appeal with the Service or with the AAO.' As stated above, absent a clear 
statement, brief andlor evidence to the contrary, the petitioner does not identify, specifically, an erroneous 
1 
On March 1,2007, the AAO sent a fax to the petitioner. The fax advised the petitioner that no evidence 
or brief had been received in this matter and requested that the petitioner submit a copy of the brief and/or 
additional evidence, if in fact such evidence had been submitted, within five business days. As of the date 
of this decision, the AAO has received no response from the petitioner. 
SRC 06 012 51026 
Page 3 
conclusion of law or statement of fact. Hence, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. See 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.3(a)(l)(v). 
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. 
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. 3 1361. Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to identify 
specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the petitioner has not 
sustained that burden. Therefore, the appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is summarily dismissed.