dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Export

U.S. Department of Hornelan& Security 
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Room. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
+%+ 
3., 
3 9, 
FILE: SRC 03 165 52609 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL 0 5 n]05 
TN RE: Petitioner: 
Benefici 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section lOl(a)(lS)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 I 10 1 (a)(l5)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the .Administrative Appeals Ofice 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. 
<.' 
J 
, . ' 
Robert P. Wiernann, Dlrector 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 03 165 52609 
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 export and import business. It seeks to extend its authorization 
to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its president, pursuant to section lOl(a)(15)(L) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1101(a)(15)(L). 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary 
would be employed in a primarily managerial or executive capacity in the United States. 
On the Form I-290B appeal, the petitioner simply asserts: 
[The beneficiary] is engaged not only in managing & directing the two locations, but also 
have successfully searched the market and arranged machinery & finance for our new 
proposed bottling plant, which ultimately lead us to start export business. PLEASE REFER 
THE ATTACHED DETAIL and reconsider your decision as your approval will enable lthe 
beneficiary] to execute the project which in the final states. We are much confident that the 
progress on this project will fulfil your all requirements in six to eight months. [sic] 
The petitioner indicates in a letter accompanying the Form I-290R that at the time it responded to the 
director's request for further evidence, the petitioner was unable to provide the details for its proposed water 
treatment and bottling plant project, which is almost in its final stages. The petitioner also indicates that the 
beneficiary recently completed the market research, feasibility study, and financial arrangements for the 
project. The petitioner submits w-ith the Form I-290B documents relating to the market research, feasibility 
study, cost projections and real estate survey for the project. 
To establish eligibility under section lOl(a)(IS)(L) of the Act, the petitioner must meet certain criteria. 
Specifically, within three years preceding the beneficiary's appIication 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. 
The AAO notes that on January 29, 2004, the director requested further evidence from the petitioner, 
including a statement of the exact nature of the petitioner's business and what type of items it imports and 
exports, and documentary evidence in support of the petitioner's answer. In response to that part of the 
director's request, the petitioner states: 
[The U.S. entity] is basically engaged in wholesaling imported items. Our recent focus has 
been on [the] import of terry towels, wash[cloths], kitchen towels, bandanas, marble 
handicrafts and frames (wooden and metallic) from Pakistan. 
and dollar stores. These operate under the dba of- 
sic]. These provide a channel to sell directly to end users. 
SRC 03 165 52609 
Page 3 
The petitioner made no mention in that response, or for that matter, anywhere else in the record, of its water 
treatment and bottling plant project, or the beneficiary's roIe in such a project. On appeal, a petitioner cannot 
offer a new position to the beneficiary, or materially change a position's title, its level of authority within the 
organizational hierarchy, or the associated job responsibilities. The petitioner must establish that the position 
offered to the beneficiary when the petition was filed merits classification as a managerial or executive 
position. Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg. Comm. 1978). A petitioner may not 
make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to the requirements of 
the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS). See Mutter of Izurnrni, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. 
Comm. 1998). 
Moreover, where a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. See Matter of Soriuno, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
533 (BIA 1988). Thus, even assuming that the above described project was already in progress, with the 
beneficiary's involvement, at the time the petition was filed, the pebtioner should have submitted the 
documents relating to the project in response to the director's request for evidence if it had wanted the 
evidence to be considered. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO need not and does not consider the 
sufficiency of the evidence submitted on appeal. 
Finally, the AAO notes that the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.3(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 the petitioner has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or 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. 8 1361. The petitioner has not met this burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.