dismissed L-1A Case: Import And Export

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Imrnigratior~ 
FILE: EAC 03 116 5 1483 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
<- 
* <+I -- -3 --..-- - - G 
Robert P. Wlemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 03 116 51483 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont 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 sumrr~arily 
dismissed. 
The petitioner states that it is in the import and export business. It seeks to extend the employment of the 
beneficiary as its vice president and director pursuant to 9 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(15)(L). The director denied the petition based on the conclusior~ that 
the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary had been and would continue to be employedl in a 
primarily managerial or executive capacity. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner indicated on Form I-290B that he needed additional time to submit a 
brief and/or evidence to the [AAO] and requested a 30 day extension. Although counsel submitted a brief 
statement on the Fonn I-290B, it failed to adequately address the director's conclusions. In this brief 
statement, counsel states "[tlhe decision in this case, dated August 11, 2003, is arbitrary, capricious and 
unreasonable. We shall send a brief to the AAO within 30 days." 
Counsel'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 Sofjci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 16.5 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft ofCalfornilr, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
On the Notice of Appeal received on August 30,2003, the petitioner clearly indicates that it would send a 
brief with the necessary evidence [to the AAO] within thirty days. However, 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 conclusion of law or statement of fact. 
Hence, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. See 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Regulations at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.3(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. 
I On June 28,2005, the AAO sent a fax to counsel. The fax advised counsel that no evidence or brief had 
ever been received in this matter and requested that counsel submit a copy of the brief andlor 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 counsel or the petitioner. 
EAC 03 116 51483 
Page 3 
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. $ 1361. Inasmuch as counsel 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.