dismissed L-1A Case: Import/Export

i U i S ~DC"'artffienf 6 f: Ho ffi e hil1 d S e'dl' ri ,.",' ~~ , p'w ' ,'" .' " " . .". ., c!Y
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3000
.' Washington; DC 20529 .
identifying datadeletedto
preventdearlyunwarranted
.jDvasiOJ)ofpersOnalprivlq
:PUBLICcoer : "
File: SRC06 001 50069
,.
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date:
r»,~J
.MAR 06 .'?f1Q7
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
Petition: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to ' Section 101(a)(15)(L) ofthe-Immigration
arid Nationality Act, 8.U.S.c.§ lI01(a)(l5)(L)
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:' .
'..
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been re'turned to
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office .
._~
Robe~~em;~~:Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
SRC 06 001.50069
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 AAO will summarily dismiss the
/appeal.
The petitioner filed this nonimmigrant visa petition seeking to extend the employment of its sales and
marketing manager as an L-lA nonimmigrant intracompan~ transferee pursuant to section lOl(a)(15)(L) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner is a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Florida and is allegedly an import/export business. The beneficiary
was initially granted a one-year period of stay to open a new office in the United States, and the petitioner
now seeks to extend the beneficiary's stay.
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner did not establish that (1) the beneficiary will be
employed in the United States in a primarily managerial or executive capacity; or (2) the petitioner had been
doing business during its first year in operation;
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and
forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, the petitioner submitted a brief and additional
evidence. However, the petitioner does not identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact
made by the director.
To establish eligibility under' section ' lOl(a)(15)(L} of the Act, the petitioner must meet certain criteria.
Specifically, 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 same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof
in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity.
. ,
Upon review,the AAO concurs with the director's decision and affirms the denial of the petition.
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.
Inasmuch as counsel has failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion oflaw or a statement offact in
this proceeding, the appeal must be summarily dismissed. While counsel attempts to restate its case on appeal
and to provide additional organizational, financial, and business documentation for consideration, additional
evidence cannot be submitted on appeal where, .as here, a petitioner was on notice of a deficiency in the
evidence and was given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency. The AAO will not accept evidence
offered for the first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec, 533 '(BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be
considered, it should have submitted the documents in response to the director's Request for Evidence. Id.
SRC 06 001 50069
Page 3
Under the circumstances, the AAO need not and does not consider the sufficiency of the evidence submitted
on appeal. -:
While the AAO recognizes that the petitioner filed both the initial petition and the response to the Request for
Evidence pro se, and that counsel has implied that this lack of representation contributed to the petitioner's
inability to carry its burden inthese proceedings, this failure does not permit counsel to now inappropriately
supplement the record on appeal, especially when counsel has failed to identify any errors of fact or law made
by the director in her decision. Moreover, an error made by the petitioner in failing to carry its burden is not a
valid basis for an appeal. Consequently, the appeal will be dismissed.
, In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the
petitioner. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. §1361. The petitioner has not met this burden.
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed.